At least for me, they have linking disabled on Whitehouse.gov. It is obvious that the author of the petition tried to put the link in, but it is only text, not an active link. (i.e. you have to cut and paste, you can't just click on it).
I just finished looking at the link that they posted in the middle of the petition. It is certainly worth a look. You have to cut and paste it, because it is not an active link on the site.
I'm confused, where did I use Mac?
They shouldn't have to prove that their IP address was spoofed or anything else. It should be the responsibility of the person accusing them to prove that it wasn't. While there should be no fingerprints left on their hard drive if a forensics team looked, there should be a lot more required than an IP address to give the forensics team the right to look.
I was going to point out he had the wrong author, but would never have come up with anything as amusing as that.
Good work for someone sitting on a horse backwards.
In all fairness this is the same argument that the RIAA is making in their amicus brief on the Righthaven mess.
While I like the ruling in Righthaven v Hoehn, and don't like the original ruling in this matter, the argument on why the ruling shouldn't be made are the same.
I agree that he sounds like a confident lawyer. Still all of the "if you go far it you just waste your clients money" is followed by the offer of that says more or less "your client can get everything they want by simply paying the Righthaven Judgement". I don't take exception with him trying to get paid, but since the Righthaven judgement was almost entirely attorney fees, it will go to him and not his client.
The next to the last paragraph is the entire purpose of the letter. He offers that his client will stipulate to the appeal if the RIAA will pay the judgement (which was more or less all legal fees) for Righthaven. While I would hate to see the loss of the Fair Use ruling, it looks like Marc is trying to make sure he gets paid one way or the other.
Tootsie Roll was going to let it slide until they heard of the plans by Footzie Roll to offer the new Footzie Roll Pop which was a pair of the slippers covered by a hard candy shell.
(Please do not ask for my sources on this Hot News item)
If you view things as threaded instead of flat you would see my comment you quoted was in response to an Anonymous Coward's claim that Mike was making the post only to justify ripping off artists.
I know I should just ignore this, but could you please explain how being opposed to ripping off artists means you are in favor of and justifying ripping off music.
I could actually see the insurance company being on the hook for any punitive damages, but not for royalties actually owed.
Please accept my apology for the lack of citation. I just assumed that someone making comments about this would have possible gone to the original article and read it.
So citation. CNNMoney article used Equilar Data. That data shows Dauman made rounded:
Base Salary 2.6 M
Cash Bonus 11.2 M
Stock Granted 41.8 M
Options Granted 28.6 M
GAAP says stock and options are valued at the time of granting, not at the time in the case of an option that they are exercised, and not at the time in the case of stock that it is sold.
Hence he received 84.4 M in value at the time that he received it. It is not other years options being cashed now with the stock price high. It isn't something that was worth on 50 M when he received it, but then grew. The man received 84.4 M in salary.
The cash handed to him was down. However the increase was not from stock that he already owned, it was from new stock and options give to him in 2010. That is still an increase in salary.
To make it simple: Increase in value of stock already owned is Capital gains not salary.
Value of new stock and options given this year is salary.
I know nothing about "aggregators", but according to "Uniform Motion" when they did their breakdown of what they made per method of selling (see their blog on their website or there was an article about it here as well), they get 70% of the sales on iTunes but have to pay 35 euro a year to keep it on iTunes, so they have to sell about 6 copies of an album each year before they start making money.
There is no mention of another 30% going to someone else.
So what are all those e-mails I get about "New Music Tuesday" from Apple if not promotion.
It is a shame to see Townsend on this rant considering much of The Who's early exposure and therefore success was from Pirate Radio.
It is obvious that Righthaven thinks that they are judgement proof. I hope the jerks behind it find out that they were wrong.
I think the basic concept is actually "owned" by the first hobo to ever use a refrigerator box as a home.
Re: Re: Re:
The copyrights involved in the suits are not the only IP involved. Righthaven also supposedly has some amazing software that allows it to find infringing work for it to then sue over.