FreeflyChile

In which case he'd probably be arrested for theft. I wonder if they could nail him for theft twice, since; A-He'd be shoplifting B-He'd already been paid for the recording since the record store would have bought it from the distributor. I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, but in case you aren't, I doubt it - he'd be arrested for stealing the actual CD - regardless of whose music it is.

That depends on what his record deal says regarding the songs Metallica sings. Depending on what rights the band themselves retained, he may still be a copyright owner and thus, downloading the song would not have been illegal.

Millionaires (successful people) are rarely stupid, particularly as compared to the average skydiver. Not only that, but I haven't heard of a single case of Metallica not wanting someone to skydive.

I see what you're saying. I agree that the powers-that-be haven't made interpreting or seeking permission easy. I think that one thing people do in this subject is seeing 'personal' (in terms of personal vs commercial) as "I'm not making money off of it" whereas my understanding of it is that it's a combination of that and "lost opportunity for the copyright holder to make money". So if you make a video for you and your friends to watch, and you include a song that you own on CD, mp3, whatever (that you legally bought), then the argument could be made that maybe one of your friends DOESN'T own the song and you're providing something for free that they'd otherwise have to pay for (whether or not they'd actually do it is irrelevant). If you do that in the privacy of your own home, then it's really blurry as to whether you'd get into any trouble - it's been a while since i've studied this stuff closely. From what DSE is saying (as I understand it - and i'll defer to him since he's involved with this stuff far more than i am), this use would still be OK. Bring that video to the DZ and show it, that's less clear. Bring that video to the DZ and show it on "Year End Video Day", where the DZ advertises year end videos, free beer and pizza - getting murkier (and probably in trouble). Bring the video to the DZ, show it to prospective students to entice them to make a skydive - now you're treading on thin ice. Ultimately, i think it's about control, and the fact that as technology develops it becomes harder and harder to maintain that control - so the rules have to remain as cut and dried as possible and as applicable to all as possible.

Not to split points too finely, but actually, I think that they do. If any of the record companies want to distribute MP3s that expire after a certain amount of time, they can do so. Granted, now we're getting into the contracts aspect of it (what it is that is bought, bargained for, etc), but if you bought a music file that came with a specific duration, hacking it so that it became perpetual would likely get you in trouble. It's sort of the same example that you used w/r/t books or CDs - it's implied that you have the right to enjoy the work as long as your copy lasts. Though the length can be 1 day or 50 years, when it runs out (i.e. the book or CD is destroyed), you have to get a new one. Music files sold like this would just have the duration explicitly stated. Now that I think about it, I don't remember what the outcome is of having a CD that you copy for personal use and having the copy outlast the original.... I don't remember if in my classes it was covered (it's been a while since i've thought about copyrights) and i don't recall any case law to that effect. My instinct is that as long as the duration aspect of it was't bargained for, the copy outlasting the original is OK, whereas getting around the duration limits gets you in trouble, but I admit I'm not sure about this. Also, I am in agreement that the copyright period is too long. I think that the rights should extend beyond the life of the author, but should only be about 20 or so years (arbitrary number that seems fair in my head). One other thing (trying to remember all the things I wanted to comment on

The loss is the RIGHT to do whatever you want with it. There are artists (and presumably, copyright holders that may not be the original artist) that have an interest in tightly controlling their exposure and the use of their work. For example, if a musician is inspired to write a song because they are a rape survivor, and to them that song is deeply personal, they may have an interest in keeping you from using that song in a skydiving video. Sure, they don't lose money over your using it, but they lose the right to how their song gets used, and the context in which people see it.

I understand that people WANT to be able to use music they buy in whatever form they want (such as syncing videos with music), but why do people think that the fact that copyright law prevents it is unfair? Looking at it from the copyright holder's perspective: creating an original work often involves: 1) expressing ones feelings/desires/inspirations in a very specific way, where the work is an embodiment of an inspiration that the author chose to express in that way because it is what has meaning to them 2) expenses - sometimes small, but sometimes very large (I can't imagine that recording a 'real album' is very cheap, and films can cost hundreds of millions to make 3) substantial sacrifice by those involved - can be a part of 1 or 2, but sometimes just getting your work to see the light of day can be the culmination of years of sacrifice and development I agree that sometimes the record companys (OK, often) are bullies to both the artists and the consumer with respect to this, but removing the protection they have to make money essentially removes part of the incentive to be a record company to begin with. Nowadays, it's not as important as there are so many avenues to release music (youtube, etc), but the 'record deal' is still the goal of many aspiring musicians. Further, having the DZ sync copyrighted music to a tandem video adds value to the video that was not there before the music was added - why should the DZ enjoy the benefits of this music that was developed, produced, recorded and distributed by others without compensating anyone? THAT does not seem fair to me. I know that the actual monetary damage done by syncing copyrighted music to a tandem video without permission is very very small...but a lot of times this is a slippery slope thing - where do you draw the line? I'd argue it's much easier to say "no one can do it" rather than have a scale or limit - because then you REALLY don't know if you're doing something wrong. Do I think it's right that a grandma can get sued because her granddaughter used Napster? No. But I think that in the argument of the creator of the work (or the person who paid the creator of the work for the right to use the work) vs. the general public, I don't think that it's CLEARLY the general public that should be able to do whatever they want with copyrighted works as long as it's "not very big". If this was allowed, it'd really take away from the value of creating these works. Just my opinion.

Amen! College AND the pros has me excited! The Jay Cutler era in Chicago begins! Exclamation points galore!!!!! (now, the true choice - NCAA 10 or Madden 10...)

Largely concur. DPRK is dealing with a fomenting succession crisis. Domestic politics of the elite, which in this case is the military elite and the Kim family [in addition to the sons, there's a half-brother and uncle that are political players], are dominant. (China doesn't seem to want a monarchy either.) Neither domestic actors could be seen as being "soft" on the US, and at the same time the two reporters were not strategically significant. The DPRK gets a 'fly out of its hair' as well. An added result of this is that, at least for the moment, the rumors of Kim's declining health will be put to rest. How so? I.e., I don't understand how you got to that conclusion. /Marg Well, my thinking is that if Clinton was allowed to see him and he was publicly seen with Clinton, after months of speculation about his health - it could be a way for them to show that, in fact, Kim is not as ill as the rumors indicated. If i remember correctly, the fact that Kim Jong Il was not seen publicly for a while was leading to rumors that he was knocking on death's door. Having him meet a former US president (who I would imagine was going to report his close-up impressions of the NK leader when he returned) would be a way to show that in fact he's not as bad as the outside world speculated. I would think that if he was truly in bad health, they wouldn't have made such theatrics about it.

HAL and Ledger's Joker - already mentioned and two of my absolute favorites. The other one that I love is the T-1000 in T2.

Largely concur. DPRK is dealing with a fomenting succession crisis. Domestic politics of the elite, which in this case is the military elite and the Kim family [in addition to the sons, there's a half-brother and uncle that are political players], are dominant. (China doesn't seem to want a monarchy either.) Neither domestic actors could be seen as being "soft" on the US, and at the same time the two reporters were not strategically significant. The DPRK gets a 'fly out of its hair' as well. /Marg An added result of this is that, at least for the moment, the rumors of Kim's declining health will be put to rest.

Whether I like it or not depends on motivation. Right now I voted option "C" because it's about being professional. Doesn't mean I like it though. When I am working for someone/something I like, working hard is one of the best, most rewarding feelings in the world.

Source: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/police.deadly.force.2.1105766.html Is the risk to the innocent public from police gunfire, and the risk of mistakes, worth the effort to stop fleeing felons? The other fun part of this will be the number of felony charges brought up on people that normally wouldn't apply to retroactively justify a cop shooting at the suspect.

Agreed... the first time an innocent bystander catches a stray bullet, there will be hell to pay.

Possibly, but I have doubts that such a law simply forcing all private-sector doctors and medical facilities to accept government insurance would be Constitutional. (For example, private-sector doctors currently are not required to accept Medicaid .) And I don't think the federal government could threaten to yank doctors' licenses, either, since licensing is a state function, not a federal one. But sometimes the federal government, unable to control certain state functions directly, exerts its will over states via the back door, such as by threatening to cut off federal funds to states unless the states comply with federal policy - (example, cutting off a state's federal highway money if it opts out of a 55 mph speed limit). So, conceivably, the Congress could give the states an ultimatum: either make acceptance of govt insurance a condition of holding a medical license in that state, or be penalized with the loss of some kind of federal funding. Federal court, here we come! WASHINGTON, D.C. - Members of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation today sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking justification and clarification for a letter the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent to Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson threatening Oklahoma with a loss of federal funding if the state passed a constitutional amendment making English the official language of the state. The original DOJ letter, characterized by delegation members as dubiously timed at the peak of legislative debate, advises the state that "implementation of this [English-only] amendment may conflict with Oklahoma's obligations to protect the civil rights of limited English proficient (LEP) persons." Dated April 14, 2009 from Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, the DOJ letter states, "As you know, recipients of federal financial assistance must comply with various civil rights statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin." The letter continues, "State agencies and other entities in Oklahoma that receive federal financial assistance thus would be precluded by federal law from abiding by an English-only requirement where it conflicts with their obligations under Title VI." The Oklahoma Congressional Delegation's letter to Holder points out that several other states have passed similar legislation and asks if they too have been "accused by the Department of Justice to be in violation with Title VI, or formally threatened with funding termination." The delegation letter asks for an explanation for what prompted the DOJ to write the state of Oklahoma on this issue and seeks explanation for what funds would be eliminated should Oklahomans pass the English only amendment. Besides, its not like the federal government has any problem not following the constitution. They haven't for over 100 years! I thought everyone in Oklahoma was a limited English person!

140 characters can be IP - there are trademarks that are much shorter than that!

Looks that way. Not saying that anyone WOULD - just that it's possible. Hard drives crash as well. My point is that if you lose the music, you can't go to the content provider and say "give me a new one for free because I lost my old one" - some providers may allow you to do it, but that's their choice. Actually, you can get a design patent, but you can also get a copyright on the design (as well as a trademark) - but I was referring to the internal workings of the Zippo as making a copy of it - that would be a patent issue. I also despise iTunes because of the limitations on the use of the media and how difficult it makes it to do even simple things with it. I have a MS Zune and the stuff in that didn't let me upload the digital copy of the Dark Knight that comes with the BD version into it. So I know what you're getting at and agree completely.

Amen to that! Also, at the risk of sounding greedy, I don't think I see myself in the situation where someone offers me a job and shows me the compensation and I say 'no, you're paying me too much, please, pay me less'.

Nobody says they should haven't done anything. All they needed to do is to stop distribution; deleting content from user-owned devices is not a thing to do. Same with eBay - they could be considered the same model distribution, making available third-party content from their web site and charging this 3rd party a fee. However when they learn someone sells counterfeit goods, they terminate the listing/suspend the account, and nobody expects them to take items back from all the buyers. I really hope a class action lawsuit will be brought, and Amazon will have to pay for that. I disagree. Before if you buy a book, music or video you were pretty much sure that you will be able to read, listen or watch it forever. This has changed; for some (I'd say crappy) content providers this is not the case anymore, and basically you will only have access to the content you bought until the providers is in the business. Which is perfectly fine with the content providers, but not fine with me. Same as concept of "license to read" is very alien to most book lovers. Did you read

I was specifically thinking of the arrival of the PC and it's impact on our lives. When you look at it a secretary typing out your notes did not get any "ownership" - neither did the paper manufacturers or typewriter manufacturer. However as we have moved over to digital formats we have chosen to "encode" our idea's and property in file formats that are explicitly owned by someone else. The fundamental problem is that the general public (lawmakers) do not understand what software is, and therefore accepted practice amongst software vendors in their licensing models has allowed them far more "rights" than traditional products. For example Ford do not simply assign you a license to drive one of their cars while they retain ownership! I think digital media (in its many forms) is unique in this respect. In your example, you'd own the copyright to the notes typed by your secretary OR the ones you wrote in a word processor. MS grants you a license to use MS Word, meaning you can't reproduce it illegally - but they don't own what you CREATE with that program. In your car example, the more appropriate analogy is that Ford sells you the car, which you own, but they don't sell you the car design - so you can't go out and build your own without running into intellectual property issues. The reason that it's such an issue with books, music, etc vs something like a car is that the car itself has a value (though the trademarks and patents associated with the car are worth far MORE than a single car) but when you buy a music file - the content of the file has much greater value than the file itself, or the book you buy at the bookstore - the content of the book is what makes it valuable, not the paper it's printed on.

Concur on the irony. You've identified a potential with huge implications. Throughout human history, folks have tried to change the record or alter it to reflect what they want/their intentions. The question, imo, is there something inherent in electronic data that makes that easier to do and harder to detect. How does one validate/verify what was the "original"? For example, how about the implications for electronic voting and fraud? /Marg I think the biggest safeguard against this scenario is probably the sheer amount of people that have access to information in one form or another through the internet - SOMEONE will find out that this is being done.

The way I would put it would be that there are some adults whose brains are hard-wired to believe in the supernatural, and some whose are not. The former are inclined to eventually have religious beliefs, even if they'd been raised in non-religious households; while the latter are inclined to eventually consider themselves to be atheists, even if they'd been raised in religious households. Which explains your point: I suggest it might be even simpler than this - I think that people try to look at their world in a way that makes the most sense to them and provides the most amount of understanding to them (not understanding in the sense of knowing the truth, but understanding in that they interpret the world around them in a way they can comprehend) and for some that means being extremely religious and/or faith-driven, for others it means looking at things from a very scientific perspective, and for others it can be a combination of the two.

Your question was limited to lawyers and judges, made no mention of juries, so I was just answering the question.

Jury trials. Quick question - what practical purpose does this hypothesis/idea/theory that you're discussing serve? Not trying to be a jerk - I am genuinely curious.

From a hopeful point of view, the lottery has infinitely better odds. From a cynical point of view, religion is one hell of a good motivator for a nice, long, bloody war. My point was not whether or not religion is a good or bad thing. My point is that religion has its uses = not useless.