I really do. Go Moby! I still say in what twisted world would ever think it right to ask for or award such an egrigious amount of money from a private, otherwise law abiding, citizen who profited 0 from the infringement.
Ars ran a story today that was great. Talking about how such a huge sum is getting noticed by not only artists but lawyers, politicians, and lobbying groups. So there is a good chance that some steam against the RIAA could be put into motion. If it is anything like the backlash of The Pirate Bay than this could actually be for good!
But if there ever were a lawyer, or set of lawyers who would likely relish the idea of going before the supreme court to discuss the constitutional merit of damages you would think "Kiwi" and Nesson would be the likely two. If I were this lady I would just settle and be done with it, but if there really is a case to be had these are the lawyers that I would expect to be drooling over the chance.
As far as the case is concerned I don't know how anyone could possibly with a straight face ask for this much money when the original product costs 99 cents and she profited 0 from sharing. I also don't know how anyone could award such damages given what I just said and sleep at night. They really have NO concept of reality. Regardless of what you think about this issue the reward does NOT fit the crime. This is like the RIAA saying that this sole lady deserves to pay for every download the world over. Fair? Absolutely not.
Congress will ignore it. The *IAA's will ignore it. I plan on reading the entire study, but this comes out just as the *IAA's are pushing ever harder in foreign countries for more draconian laws. Someone should be flaunting a study like this around just as loudly as all the false numbers and studies. I sickens me to watch and yet I can't look away :-).
You are still getting hung on the "Christian" label. Alright so the guy is a Christian, but he is still in the music biz. It is like saying punk rock bands can only talk to punk rock bands. Forget the label just realize that they are music creators. When Mike talks about Trent he doesn't have to identify what style of music NIN is everytime...do you get hung up on that? Than it should be no different here with "Christian" music. The message is the same whether he is Christian, R&B, Funk, Punk, Freak Folk, you name it. And if Mike doesn't have to declare such information for any of the other labels than he certainly doesn't have to declare it here.
I wondered if the fact that he is a Christian artist would get in the way. Even if everything you say is true, that Christian artists have always lived by a different set of rules that still doesn't diminish his point. He still has to build his market, and he still has to earn his living. So his points are still valid and can be applied across markets. Ashton Kutcher isn't in the music biz, but that doesn't mean that his example or insights about twitter couldn't be applied to a music band. And Trent Reznor's model could easily apply to movies, comedians, whatever. They are all in a different biz with different rules, but the principles can be applied to each.
But even so Groves, Christian as he may be, is still in the music biz. HIs variation on the music biz is no different than the vast ranging indie or sub-pop groups out there. They all appeal to a different set of people with a different set of rules or a different set of ideals, but they are all in the same biz. Don't let "Christian" get in the way of a real message.
Here you make a good point. His story shouldn't be different and shouldn't be unique, but for some reason people don't get it. So it needs constant repetition and validation by many sources and artists to get the point across.
Tweetdeck is my app of choice for twitter. Especially once they added FB integration. It helps out so much. I hadn't noticed how much memory it eats up, but that is because I already have 4GB. But that probably explains the slowness I have once I break out the VMs and such :-)
You are right that the phone looks awesome. In fact, I want one, but it won't ever happen if they keep the phone locked up on Sprint. My dislike and distrust of Sprint goes deeper than any hardware love. I think there are plenty of other people who agree, though I must say I like their recent commercials.
Anyway if you are right that Verizon and ATT are coming out with models soon than yes this will be an awesome phone!
If the ramifications weren't so serious and if those people didn't take it seriously this would be absolutely laughable. I couldn't have gotten away with research like that in high school much less college and I would be kicked out of school in Grad school. How can such a gross overstatement go unchecked for so long. The worst part about this is that no one will pay attention or change their opinion about this. Sad, truly sad indeed.
I do actually look at other people's follow count. Not because it matters to me. I actually look more at the disparity between followed and following particularly if I am looking for network building as apposed to just soaking in the content. So the person who is following 1 person, but has 5,000 followers better have some damn good content for me to follow. I also try to follow people back if they follow me, but again if that number is to disparaging than I may not knowing that they followed me just so I would follow them and that they may even unfollow me in short order.
In the end my number of followers doesn't matter that much to me, but I do look at it from time to time.
So I only take one med, but I have long thought that if I ever did see a commercial that could "help" me out, I probably wouldn't jump off the couch to go get a prescription anyway. Even if this scandal hadn't have happened you know that there are always unintended or unforeseen complications once something hits the mass population. The most extreme case is with all the birth defects of the 50's and such, but even more recently there have been medications pulled after coming to market for various reasons. So for me I like the conservative approach. I would rather know that the medication is relatively and proportionally safe with interactions and side effects well known.
This presumes that you have a camcorder. So rather than likely having everything you need within your computer they want you to go out and buy a camcorder just so you don't circumvent drm? Actually isn't this technically circumventing? Besides that they get all up and arms about camcorders in any other situation this is a double standard. How absurd!
So when I was in grad school (music major) I was taking a composition class. A friend of mine was in the class with me. He decided to play his composition for me. When he first started playing I immediately liked it, well he played to an abrupt stop simply because he hadn't dictated the rest of it. When he stopped I finished the phrase for him. He yelled out, "How did you know?" Then it hit me that it was a song we both knew. I played him the recording and he had dictated it almost exactly verbatim.
Now of course this was absolutely plagiarism, but it was quite unintended. He of course changed his tune, but I think this illustrates something. His subconscious assimilated that tune and out it came. Until I pointed out the original he had no idea that he was literal plagiarizing the tune. But this is pretty much how all composition work. It might be a fragment of a melody or a chord progression, but usually it is not an asserted effort to plagiarize, but rather a natural subconscious happening. I can't tell you the number of times I start humming what I think is going to be a lovely new melody to suddenly break out in the song with which it was inspired.
Reading the response makes me happy. That is so good and so true. Since flash isn't enabled on the iPhone it might be hard to get at some objectionable content, but who is Apple to say what I may or may not find objectionable. I think the best solution to this whole ordeal is to allow a parental control or something. That way Apple can filter at the parents request and the rest of us don't need to be mothered.
I couldn't agree more. When I read the original quote about Google feeling entitled I about screamed at my monitor (yes in the office) about how absurd and backward that is. I am glad you focused on it because truly anyone looking at this would know it is the legacy players that feel entitled. That is really what this whole battle is about.
I love how she boils down "Outrageous" to two forms and pornography is one of them. Seems to me, of course this is unsubstantiated, that some of the biggest internet phenomena which generate traffic are neither pornography nor extreme opinions. But maybe that is just me.
"The column goes on to say that the way to generate traffic to an Internet site is to make it as outrageous as possible. "Outrageous" on the Internet usually comes in one of two forms: 1) pornography or 2) wildly unsubstantiated, extreme opinions."
So back in the day when it was run by Gawker I used to read it all the time. We would go off on a company for doing something bad, but if a company actually rectified the situation (take the final step mentioned above) it would be all the rage. You could see in the comments everyone would change and think it was cool. Since it happens so little when a company did it peoples ideas of that company immediately changed (unless the company was deemed so immoral that there was no hope anyway for it).
So I see that strategy working and makes sense. People feel wronged...whether that is right or wrong isn't the issue...what is the issue is that it needs to be fixed.