The problem is figuring out how to craft a law demanding that. What does it mean to be "relevant" to a bill's stated purpose? For that matter, how does one define the "stated purpose" of a bill?
The obvious answer is, whoever wrote and introduced the bill gets to decide which amendments are relevant.
If a bad bill is introduced and the submitter stonewalls any amendments to improve it then it'll just get voted down.
/greger
It is easy to show that adding a term like phi^4 to the energy density, the latter reaches its minimum for a field phi != 0.
And suddenly vacuum isn't empty any more. Why is that? What is the motivation for adding that phi^4 term out of nowhere?
/greger
What the sensationalist headline and summary forgot to mention is that RedHat is paying a whopping $99 to Microsoft.
What is more worrisome and more headline worthy is that Microsoft has now become the de facto gatekeeper of your computer BIOS. Without their signature you operating system will not run.
/greger
But if they remove the SIM there is plenty of room for a microSD slot in it's place.
A "software SIM" on the SD card would be a win for consumers. It'll never happen though, since not having a SD and price gouging additional models with more internal flash is all the vogue right now.
/greger
What you say is only true only if the artists where directly involved in writing the song and lyrics, if they just performed it, no copyright for them.
The only thing we know from the video is that they preformed, who wrote the song any lyrics we don't know. We do know that Megaupload claims they signed contracts with everyone involved and own the rights. If the artists signed mutually exclusive contracts with both Universal and Megaupload, then again this is a contract dispute.
-greger
This isnt difficult; if the request is bogus as Kim claims so vehemently, all he has to do is counter-file a claim under the DMCA. At that point, if the video truly is infringing, it is on Kim to defend and take the heat, not Youtube.
They did dispute the takedown, see https://torrentfreak.com/universal-censors-megaupload-song-gets-branded-a-rogue-label-111210/
Now when I check a few YouTube links the message have changed to a terms of use violation instead, convenient for UMG's spin control, eh?
More likely, hes full of crap, and the artists signed agreements with UMG that means they really do hold the copyright(s).
Nice try, but the artists in the video don't get any copyright in the video, the guy holding the camera does. The only thing the artists can contract away to Universal is a promise not to appear in a video production not sanctioned by Universal. If they did it anyway, it's a contractual dispute between Universal and the artists, not a copyright issue.
/greger
The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky