Do you not understand what the word "inalienable" means?

Assuming that it was a standard sampling royalty contract, then no, whoever holds the copyright to Collins's song can do with it what they please, via physical or electronic media.

... And I and a lot of other non-idiots will be glad to take advantage of people in the dystopian future who believe hunks of metal have intrinsic value in a barter economy.

A) how often do you make those trips?
B) Would you not agree that people whose relatives live more like 100-200 miles away visit them more often than you do yours because they are closer?

C'mon, man, don't extrapolate your anecdotal evidence into data.

You are the "With some rare exception" the GP is talking about. Can't you recognize that?

"(or something)." Nice trolling.

Really? For me, getting just the single service Internet was at laest $20 cheaper, even with all the ridiculous lock-in specials Comcast offers. Which saved me enough for a Netflix account, which with all the TV on Hulu is all I really need for entertainment.

Or even better, by this logic someone else witnessing the crime wouldn't be allowed because the actual act of committing the crime is a form of self-incrimination if someone observes you doing it without your permission.

Really? Condescending to Slashdot readers by assuming they haven't read 1984?

That's like asking Albert Einstein if he was aware of this so-called "atom" business.

Do you think games without DLC aren't functioning games?

Witness the original TECMO Bowl, which had rights with the NFLPA to use Walter Payton, Marcus Allen, Dan Marino, Lawrence Taylor's names, etc. but had to make up team names for them ("Cleveland Dragons" all the way!)

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong.

Umm ... have you played an EA NCAA football game? They clearly use the exact players from the collegiate teams to make up their rosters (even the backups) - they get their hometowns right, their listed heights and weight, their skin color, even their hairstyles, and of course, their jersey numbers and positions. Then they name them "#15" instead of Tim Tebow and don't pay him anything for the privilege.

The chief issue here is whether or not it is legal for the NCAA (a non-profit organization presumably there to look out for the interests of its amateur athletes) to license out amateur players' images to video game companies.

Or more importantly why players aren't allowed to opt out of having their image recreated for the game if they so choose.

There are arguments for both sides, but don't demean Mr. Keller's arguments by calling this a nuisance suit.

(Score:3, Interesting)

I guess "random statement about planned pregnancies that makes no sense when you read it twice" is the same as "interesting" these days? Kind of like the beardy guy smelling like underpass spouting not-real-Bible-quotes at me. "Yes, yes, very interesting ... please let go of my sweater. No, no more crazy, I am full, thanks."

First off: Coke and Pepsi own most fruit juice brands, too.

Secondly: Do you think giving your money to Anheuser-Busch, Guinness, or Ernest Gallo is some big improvement over Coke and Pepsi?

New boss, meet the old boss.

Does "without concern" over the final cost also include a lack of concern for being hounded by collection agencies and driven into bankruptcy for failure to pay? Good luck buying a car to drive you to the ER next time!

Does "receive full treatment" mean waiting 12 hours and then dying in the ER lobby waiting for attention? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/02/national/main4227468.shtml)

Do you go to the ER for cervical cancer screenings? No? So you arrive there with advanced treatment, they offer you no hope, and you go home to die, for want of some affordable-on-insurance preventive visits?

Are there both cheaper and more humane ways of getting health care? Holy fuck are there ever, my friend.

Um what, indeed.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/103213_taxstudy08.shtml

Sales taxes are regressive because there is a minimum amount of consumption everyone must do to live, and it affects a higher percentage of a poor person's income than a rich person's.

Consider: a person making $1000 a month who pays $100 in sales tax on groceries, clothes, and other living necessities versus a person making $8000 a month buying the same groceries and clothes.