Assuming the letter came with an indemnification clause that states that the payment waives any further action by the copyright holder, this might be a good thing. I would consider sending $10 to avoid the possibility of receiving one of the $1500/$2500 letters (like the ones going to some people that downloaded the Hurt Locker).
The net profits (those generated via the interNet using "approved" means) are smaller than the gross profits (those earned by the studio). Since the actors are paid on net profits, they will never make residuals. ;)
But seriously, it's easy for a studio to increase it's cost by greasing the hands of MPAA (and it's past employees that later go on to become judges dealing with copyright cases), lobbyists and politicians. I mean really, which is "better" for the industry, paying the actors or making sure the status quo is maintained?
About the only part of the app in question that in ANY way reflects on Star Trek other than the name would be the sound the darn thing makes....
It doesn't scan your body for broken bones, it doesn't sniff for airborne particles of poison, it doesn't... well... really anything the tricorder on Star Trek was supposed to do. But it is a cool app that SOUNDS like the tricorder. Must be copyright infringement (sounds like fair use to me). ;)
Sorry, no winner.... "transit in the middle" IS paid by Netflix as part of their service with their provider. I would imagine the vast majority of their ISP's monthly change goes to pay upstream costs. Just because they don't pay it DIRECTLY, doesn't mean they aren't paying it!!!
I wonder what percentage of people that spout the pro-copyright "pay the artist" spiel ever made a mix tape?
Come to think of it, I actually wonder how many times I actually PAID for "Hotel California"... I know it was on at least 3 different albums I had, and a couple of versions on tape (and a couple of mix tapes I recorded off the air BEFORE I could afford to buy the albums). Hmmm...
Now the real question.... I wonder how much of the money I actually paid for those albums actually made it to the artist (both the song writer AND the singer) vs the production company....
I'm not saying that copying is RIGHT or should be legal, I'm just saying that people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.
The point you seem to be missing is that Netflix rent it's "driveway" monthly and part of that driveway rental goes to the "highway" provider monthly. Nothing is free!
What actually happens is Netflix pays an ISP for service, the ISP pays for a bigger pipe from a backbone provider (what you are calling a "highway"). My ISP also pays for a backbone provider for a big chunk of monthly bandwidth and then provides a small slice of that to me.
Basically, the highway is already being paid for by BOTH parties (a percentage of both Netfix and my monthly service)...
So, where EXACTLY is the free ride, I don't see it?
Of course we have to keep in mind that the current providers of Internet are not likely to be the providers in 20 years.... Think about it, AOL (for those that don't know, used to be an ISP of sorts) capped bandwidth in the early '90s. Who would consider them an ISP today?
If service providers don't keep up with technology, some newer more agile company will (Google fiber maybe).
I'm an amateur photographer and I'm not a lawyer but I still have a theory....
Assuming you have:
100 professional photographers
100 identical studios
100 professional models
Every photographer takes 100 photos of each model
You will see TONS of "almost identical" photographs. Part of the reason for this is that models tend to have "routines". Each model will have her own, but many routines will be very similar. While it's most likely, that "similar" pics will come from the same model, it's still very likely that models with similar body styles will be more likely to have similar routines and result in similar pics.
And yes, the sign of a good photographer is to get the model to do what YOU want for your picture, however many of the best photos are just catching the right combination of pose, expression, etc. And if one photographer thinks it's "good", you can bet he wouldn't be the only one to see it and shoot it.
100 degrees Celsius equals boiling point of water (fact) and the temp in Boston is approaching 100 degrees Fahrenheit (also fact) it does NOT follow that thetemperature in Boston is approaching the boiling point of water --- HUGE FAIL!
Well technically at least, I'm sure 100 degrees Fahrenheit may be A boiling point for something (or someone), it's not THE boiling point they are talking about. ;)
Not only does "accidental death" sound better than "murder", it's also a TOTALLY DIFFERENT LEGAL CHARGE with totally different penalties. Kind of like "copyright infringement" is LEGALLY different than "theft". ;)
Really? Using a computer damages it? I thought that was what they were made for. ;)
I did read charge 4 again just to make sure, but I don't see anywhere in there where there was any claim that he "damaged their COMPUTERS".
There was a "disruption of service" because he was using their servers at 100% which is what I think they are referring to as "damage" (basically degrading there network response time). More like a DOS attack than physical damage.
I'm sure the value will be "calculated" the way the RIAA calculates value; it will be the potential lost revenue had the downloaded data been released. The article mentions that they charge for many of the items if you aren't downloading from a "paying" institution.
Document ABC costs $1 per download, and "potentially" 300 people wouldn't download it if a free version existed. Multiply $300 * 4.1 million and you have over $12 million dollars of "infringement". ;)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Government Controlled Freedom of Speach
My reply was to the comment:
"Give one example of something that you could do on the internet in (say) the UK that is against US law but where you would be safe from US prosecution and we might believe you."
Which I think I did. However, both my reply and Mike's original message should have met this requirement. The point Mike was making was that the court in the UK already has precedent that what this guy did was LEGAL in the UK. So why should he expect to be prosecuted in the US for something he did LEGALLY in the UK just because it's on the internet? If I can find an Amsterdam business that sells pot over the internet, should that business be busted because it's illegal to sell pot in the US?
And yes, I understand that these aren't EXACTLY the same issue, but the point is that they are equivalent. If the US can have the UK arrest one of it's citizens for doing something in the UK that is legal, why can't the DEA shut down the Amsterdam pot shop? It's Pandora's box...