Oh and if any of you Canadian slashdotters read this, check out Dr. Michael Geist's website and help prevent this sort of shit happening in Canada. The amount of lobbying by the industry is insane, and really needs some opposition.
12% of the [UK] population share.
Here's some further evidence from Canada, taken from this Angus Reid poll (PDF), released March 12, 2009
45% of Canadians think that using BitTorrent to download free music files is "just something regular internet users should be able to do". 27% think they are doing something they shouldn't, but it's not a big deal. 25% think it's something they shouldn't be doing, and technology should be developed to stop it. Only 3% think it should be criminal and punishable.
We're appealing to the principle of wide reflective equilibrium: if your ethical theory contradicts its very purpose, it's not a good theory. Since the vast majority of the population (in Canada at least, Sweden is probably similar), disagree with this type of law, passing laws to prohibit this sort of behaviour will lead to both anger and guilt. It will encourage conflict between those who have met the law, and those who have not, leading to resentment. This contradicts the purpose of the law to make society harmonious and peaceful. Less stringent laws might actually encourage less filesharing.
From reading the Economist, I've the impression that clean coal isn't actually that great. Check out these two articles:
Despite all this enthusiasm, however, there is not a single big power plant using CCS anywhere in the world. Utilities refuse to build any, since the technology is expensive and unproven. Advocates insist that the price will come down with time and experience, but it is hard to say by how much, or who should bear the extra cost in the meantime. Green pressure groups worry that captured carbon will eventually leak. In short, the world's leaders are counting on a fix for climate change that is at best uncertain and at worst unworkable.
Aside, the WSJ isn't really giving us any new information, is it? Obama was advocating CCS during the election, so is it really surprising that his secretary is now advocating it?
If someone pretends to be you, and misrepresents themself as you for the purpose of defaming you. This is the kind of misrepresentation that can amount to fraud.
I'm pretty sure that defamation is only covered under tort law, and isn't actually a criminal offense where the police would need to get involved. Fraud on the other hand is a criminal offense, but I don't see any evidence from the warrant that would support a charge of fraud. The warrant states that he is being charged with "Obtaining computer services by fraud", though it refers to an incorrect section. Note however that this law says "the words "commercial computer service" shall mean the use of computers, computer systems, computer programs or computer networks, or the access to or copying of the data, where such use, access or copying is offered by the proprietor or operator of the computer, system, program, network or data to others on a subscription or other basis for monetary consideration." Signing up for a social networking site under a fake name wouldn't qualify, in my layman's opinion. Going on for two pages about how it was likely that the defendent created the profile/website is, in my opinion, irrelevant.
The defendent is being charged with "Unauthorized access to computer systems". This could be the "altering grades" thing, but the case for this seems pretty weak prima facie. The only evidence presented is the testimony of the guy's roommate, i.e. the person that was "outed" by the fake website. There's one line in the warrant about how this roomate saw the defendent change grades. The roommate appears to be heavily biased against the defendent, and I'm not convinced we should take his word over the defendent's. Now, I'd be slightly more convinced if the officer had obtained some evidence from the university system that grades HAD been changed.
The U.S. government spent over $20billion in farm subsidies in 2005. By your definition, that would be considered a "bailout".
I know many slashdot readers are liberterians and oppose any non-basic public expenditure, but can we please resist the temptation to redefine "bailout" to mean all forms of public expenditure?
Oh man, I should stop to think for like 2 seconds... you don't mean Los Angeles, you mean Louisiana. Sorry, I'm Canadian and not used to state abbreviations.
...with the exception of LA which uses Napoleonic code to this day
I think you're incorrect about that. It's common law, but it has codified many of it's laws. To quote wikipedia:
California's legal system is based on common law. Like all U.S. states except Louisiana, California has a reception statute providing for the "reception" of English law. California Civil Code Section 22.2 is as follows: "The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State."
All statutes, regulations, and ordinances are theoretically subject to judicial review. They can be overturned by any state court of record as unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution, and can also be declared unconstitutional under the federal Constitution by a federal court.
Notwithstanding California's status as a common law jurisdiction, it has codified the law in the manner of the civil law jurisdictions. Moreover, California substantive law includes some significant civil law features, such as a system of community property in the context of marital property.
Hitler ain't gonna be able to just invade half of Europe. Those days are over.
Why? Possessing nukes only prevent a nuclear attack, not an attack conventional troops. You don't want your last resort to be your first response. You only use nukes to defend yourself... how can you defend yourself by committing suicide?
Check out this amazing Yes Prime Minister clip.
What you're saying sounds reasonable, but there's another angle to this specific case: it appears that the stock-art website is slandering the original artist, in addition to claiming copyright infringement. I'd definitely sue for loss of reputation.
Here's an AP article, which is a little more reputable than a blog.
And here's some commentaries that zdnet rounded up.
http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/internet/0,39020774,39390853,00.htm
I agree, it's not the authors that hate file-sharing. Essentially, file-sharing is advertising for the authors, "paid for" by the music labels. Muscians in general make most of their money from performances and concerts. I read somewhere that only 4 out of the top 50 top-revenue-earning-artists made more money from selling cds than from performing.
For some proof, there's a similar artist coalition in Canada called "the Canadian Music Creators Coalition"
Until now, a group of multinational record labels has done most of the talking about what Canadian artists need out of copyright. Record companies and music publishers are not our enemies, but let's be clear: lobbyists for major labels are looking out for their shareholders, and seldom speak for Canadian artists. Legislative proposals that would facilitate lawsuits against our fans or increase the labels' control over the enjoyment of music are made not in our names, but on behalf of the labels' foreign parent companies.
- CMCC
Here are some of their interesting press releases:
Montreal, January 30, 2007 - Nielsen SoundScan numbers released January 17th show that Canada's digital download market grew more than any major market in 2006. This exciting news has the Canadian Music Creators Coalition asking: 'Why are the record labels still pushing for ways to sue Canadian music fans?'
- link
And I'll throw one last link in:
And then in 2008, Canada again outperforms U.S. in digital sales, and Industry Canada commissions a study which shows a positive correlation between file sharing and music purchasing. CMCC argues against anti-circumvention legislation. link Michael Geist
Unfortunately, even if everyone stopping pirating today, legislation will still get worse and worse. The fact that pirating is possible at all still gives enough incentive to special interest groups like the RIAA (and Sweden's equivalent) to continue lobbying. In fact, it will be even easier for them, since the only thing holding back the politicians is the fact that there are at least some people fighting back.
Despite what we wish in our hearts, politicians never look out for "the common good". You have to give them an incentive to look out for your interests, and if you don't, they will cater to whoever does the most to get them re-elected. Since we can't match industry's campaign money, all we can do is try to organize as many people as possible to make things politically unacceptable. Don't roll over, fight back damnit.
Yeah, that's one of my "other reasons that doesn't create shareholder value" that I mentioned in my earlier post. Technically, in addition to what you mentioned, buybacks also decrease the dillution to other shareholders. If the buyback is only being used to prevent dilution, then essentially it's the cost of a management compensation scheme.
Also note that they had planned to repurchase up to $40 million worth of shares but it looks like instead they're opting to acquire SGI. What that means to you day traders and quant fund managers, who knows?
Well, I'm not an expert, but I've taken some finance and valuation courses. In general, stock buybacks are a way of returning cash back to investors, i.e., it's kinda like a really huge dividend. There's a couple reasons for doing this: (1) the managers think that the company is worth more than what the market values it at, or (2) the company doesn't have any available projects where it can invest the $40million. In the first case, they buy back the shares now at a cheap price, and then issue more later at a higher price. In the second case, they say "Well we're not doing anything useful with the money, you shareholders go spend it yourselves". There's other reasons for buybacks, but they're questionable as to whether they actually produce value for shareholders.
Going back to March 30, the company was only valued at $120million. It had $170 million in cash on hand, and no debt. I think it's pretty obvious that the company thought their company was worth more the market was valuing it at, i.e. it's stock was cheap, so they wanted to buy back their shares. Offhand, holding a huge amount of cash isn't very useful, since it's not a return-producing asset. Some for liquidity, yes, but not a huge amount. It's probably a good thing that they're spending it in some way.
Looking at the SGI deal, it's pretty obvious that Rackable thinks that their $25million investment is going to produce value than a stock-repurchase. They're acquiring all of SGI's assets, and they're not going to have to take on all their debt. Without looking at all the numbers, it sounds like a decent plan.
Final note, I don't follow this stock, my analysis isn't rigorous at all, and anything I say should hardly be taken as a fact. I'm just a random dude on the internet, and I'm not giving you investment advice.
> 3) and are NOT exercising Fair Use
I am excercising Fair Use which _I_ defined.
"Committing a crime"
I dont consider it to be a crime
I won't state my personal opinion, but philosophers such as Rawls would argue that by being part of society you don't have the right to do "whatever you want". You have implicitly agreed to a social contract and if the rest of society thinks that it is a crime, then what you personally consider it to be doesn't matter.
Of course, there are other philosophers who don't agree with social contract theory. I'm not sure they'd stand behind you though.
If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.
