georgerussia

I watched him a few times in a gym, and he's just a different kind of the same crap. No real respect to different opinions as well. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I wonder whether you consider the first thing worse than the second one; do you? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I'm not even try to refute what you said (how reputable are the sources you're using, and are you sure they aren't politically biased?) because at the end what you're saying means "New Zealand warming", and this is quite different from "Global warming". I believe it's quite easy to find a few hundred glaciers which do lose mass. Therefore I'd like to see the percentage numbers. Are 90% of glaciers losing their mass, or 1%? I bet you would also agree this is significant. I follow those theories which are based on facts, and try to ignore those which do not. A bunch of Christians have been already predicted this world will end in a matter of years, which makes global warming quite irrelevant - who cares about glaciers when the God is going to build a perfect world for those who are saved anyway? You do understand that all the quotes you have so far are coming from a single source, which doesn't really look unbiased; don't you? Yes there are. For example, one of those theories says that men who have sex with other men, or people who engage in premarital sexual acts, indeed have negative impact over our survival as well. Being a reasonable person I cannot accept any of those. The problem I see here is that if you ask me just to accept your beliefs combined with a few established facts, you're no different than Christians who want to ban abortion because it would "make the world better". Of course, if you ONLY consider the "killing unborn babies" scenario, it will indeed make the world better. However if you look just a little further, like what gonna happen to those unwanted babies once they're born - it's quite obvious that the problem is not that simple, and cannot be solved by simply banning abortion, no matter how Jesus crowd wants you to. This is true. The problem here is that you cannot stop large cities growing further. They make themselves a magnet for high-paid jobs, so at the end you have a lot of people commuting there at the morning, and commuting out at the evening. This means the requirements for the resources are much higher in those areas, and creates imbalance in any public transportation system. As an example, do you know total density population of China? Now compare it to the Southern part of China , and you'll see where the problem is. This is an interesting phenomenon. In short, it is based on a simple thing - if you're the one taking a leak in your backyard bush, it might be ok for your local environment. If there are 20 people doing so - probably not. The problem is that population does not spread evenly, because of some reasons. I assume you're talking about raw numbers, as using multipliers makes no sense (like 2x growth in Luxembourg population to ~500K in 2009). Then a ~200M population growth in U.S. between 1909-2009 is not that significant comparing to China population growth of 670M since just 1949. So if you're looking to lower the environment impact, you really might be looking in a wrong direction. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

First it's not clear whether there is a global problem. A couple of glaciers melting does not indicate global problem. All glaciers melting - would be. Second, it's not clear how much pollution contributes to the problem. Is it 1% or 90%? Makes a huge difference, as if it's only one percent, curbing pollution would help as much as trying to fight the fire with a teaspoon of water. I lived in a few cities which had "high speed electric trains start hauling people to work and between cities faster and more comfortably than sitting in gridlock". Most of them had pollution levels much worse than Bay Area which has no such trains. In my opinion shift to public transportation will lead to increased population density, which generally increases the pollution. The cost is also important factor - I do not know any commercially viable city-scope mass transit system, which wouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers. Same thing has been repeated for at least 100 years. I've read it first while studying the First World War when acid gases were used on large squares. Second World War added mass bombing and destroyed forests as well as using explosives on much higher scale. It has been worse. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Were you in Armenia? Where/when, and how long? People do not necessary have the same beliefs in Yerevan and, for example, Megri. Generally nobody I met in Armenia or know here believes in such thing. It's a myth and a source of good jokes, not really different from "Armenian Radio". BTW, do you know which country the Mount Ararat is located in? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I have only seen approx. ten different talk shows, and all of them were exactly like this. Can't understand why the people ever watch this crap. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, it's a typical religion issue - a religious person believes that others should be happy to suffer or even die because of their beliefs. Not really different from those who bombs buildings or burns witches. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

At least this one seems to be a real believer in God - unlike a lot of others, who claim they believe in Jesus but refer to mortal, mistake-making and imperfect human beings instead of perfect and omnipotent/omniscient Jesus when they got sick. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Just a few comments: The decision is not final yet; a very interesting question which is about to decide is whether the statutory damage award violates due process. If you follow the changed defense strategy, seems like the goal was to get such a verdict and to challenge it based on too high statutory damages. It depends on what you consider "worth". So far all they did is heavily alienated general public (i.e. consumers!) towards RIAA - it's very hard now to find a person who would have any sympathy to them. This increases a chance of changing the existing legislation (which is now way too far to RIAA side). Despite the hundred thousand dollar verdicts, none of defendants will ever pay it. They'll just file for bankruptcy, so even from financial side all those cases are clear loss for RIAA. And the battle is still going. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I've actually provided a very relevant example with a paperback book. If you do not agree, could you please explain why? Yes, the property could be taken from you, but there is a legal procedure which has to be followed BEFORE the property is taken. Your analogy would be correct if the court ordered Amazon to destroy the bootlegged copies on customer devices. So if a pawn shop owner from your example learned that the goods he sold were stolen, and he broke into the buyers' houses and stole the goods back, you would really consider this situation normal? Also please understand that we do not know yet whether the book in question was really added to the Amazon bookstore illegally. So far we only hear Amazon version, and I see no reason to trust them completely. No, they're guilty in illegally distributing copyrighted work. But - surprise! - even after they remove it from user devices, they are STILL guilty of illegally distributing copyrighted work! They might lower the actual damages, but RIAA etc usually sue for statutory damages, so the actual damages are irrelevant, and the penalty is still there. And again you're bringing yet another irrelevant example. Do you see that it completely excludes Amazon from the picture, while in fact the key topic we discuss is Amazon action? Not all of them, unfortunately. I've got personal impression that the longer the copyright becomes, the more produced crap we see, which is only there to benefit an artist, and not the society as a whole. And one of the reasons the copyright law was invented is for society benefits. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Nobody says by buying the book they own copyright. In fact a paperback book comes with the same "license to read". However, as it was said before multiple times, the fact the bookstore sold the bootlegged copy of a book does not give them permission to illegally break in your book storage and remove it. It does not matter whether the book is digital or paperback. Too early, I would say. The issue in that trial is not whether Tenenbaum violated copyright law - it is whether statutory damages provided by it are reasonable punishment, or "cruel and unusual". A couple more 1M verdicts for downloading of 20 songs 0.99 each, and it's very likely the Congress amends the law, or Supreme Court struck down statutory damages as "cruel and unusual". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So class-action lawsuit against Amazon is started. And while I typically dislike class action lawsuits, hopefully this one will teach Amazon and other content provider a valuable lesson: It is important to set a precedent, Edelson said, as "technology companies increasingly feel that because they have the ability to access people's personal property, they have the right to do so" even though that is "100 per cent contrary to the laws of this country." I can't agree more. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Fixed it for you. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, the site owner is not liable unless they received DMCA takedown notice, and failed to follow the procedure established by law. http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID125 * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It is definitely plagiarism. However it's not necessary copyright violation. It depends on a lot of things. Of course. Most trademarks are much smaller; slogans like "Got milk?" could also be trademarked. Interesting article. I'd add that enforcement of non-commercial copyright violation is generally pretty useless, and leads to public outrage and following consequences (like J. Tannenbaum trial, where Prof. Nelson is arguing that "statutory damages" defined in U.S. Copyright Act are "cruel and unusual punishment", because the fines are much disproportional comparing to what the content worth). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Hey Tom, you'll be called a heartless person in a second. Just think what will happen to those 40 million people who just cannot think for themselves, or accept any responsibility for their actions? Obviously they're all uneducated and poor because their grand-grand-father was a slave, their grandma was unable to find a job being a female, and they did not have Nintendo Wii during their childhood which would nowadays qualify as child abuse. Don't you think of children, kitties and Jesus? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The question was different - if your finances are already in a bad shape because someone in your family spends money on something you do not consider worthy, what do you do to balance the budget? Spend more money on something YOU consider worthy, or try to cut the spending? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, he probably used a more polite word, like "crap". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There is basically nothing which could be done to protect the content completely. Even a pretty advanced Blue-Ray content encryption system was broken pretty fast, and it is not even that popular yet. Sure it requires a lot of skill and experience, but once it is done, usually a software is written and uploaded to some server in Europe which rightfully ignores DMCA takedown requests. At this moment the labels gather together, invent a new encryption scheme, and everything goes on the next round. What I am trying to say that in attempt to fix it they overstepped their boundaries. For example, if I sell you an illegal copy of Windows and get sued for that, no court would forgive me or reduce the penalties if I "correct" the violation by breaking into your house and stealing this illegal CD. In fact I believe it would be an added, separate offense. Look on the quoted example. I do not know why would one buy a car if the car manufacture could take it away any time they wish. I wouldn't buy a cell phone if the operator could take my phone away if they want to. This is not buying, this is basically renting. Why? So how does it related to Amazon removing legally purchased content from the user machines? I fail to see any connections here. Agree. We're already at the point when by downloading a game from torrent a person would be in BETTER position than the one who actually bought it, as the downloaded game has all those anti-piracy features removed, and does not stupid things like requiring Internet connection to prove you're a legitimate owner exactly at the time when you don't have it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So you're talking about the case when the country requires a person who obtained citizenship of another country to renounce his former citizenship. This is actually pretty typical in Europe, and even in ex-USSR, however the question is the enforcement. For example, I'm citizen of Ukraine, which has the citizenship laws saying that basically once you get another citizenship, you're losing Ukrainian citizenship. However when you look on enforcement, things looks different. Here's my dialog with the Consulate a year ago when I renewed my passport: Me: So if I get U.S. citizenship, I'll lose Ukrainian citizenship, correct? Consul: Yes, this is what the law says - you lose the citizenship. Me: But how exactly it works? I mean, the USCIS or Department of State does not notify you about immigration status changes, nor they require me to do so. Even Ukrainian law does not require me to do so. Also the law says any changes in citizenship must be signed by President, right? Consul: Well, the way it works that if you want to renounce your Ukrainian citizenship, you need to personally appear in the Embassy (i.e. fly to Washington, D.C.), fill a few forms, and pay a $500 fee. They will send the papers to the Presidential Citizenship Commission, which assembles twice a year. In a few years they will approve it, and once the President personally signs the paper, you're set free. Me: So what if I do not want to show up in D.C., fill forms, pay $500 and so on - what's then? Consul: Then nobody gonna give shit about it. Me: But there is the law which says I "lose" it automatically, how about that? Consul: C'mon man, you lived here for too long, is it the first stupid law you've seen nobody gives shit about? Me: O_o_o So here's where they found the loophole: since Ukraine does not recognize multiple citizenships, it ignores all your other citizenships if you have the Ukrainian one, and assumes you only have one citizenship. And since all other citizenships are ignored, you will never be considered having another citizenship, and therefore won't lose it. This legal stuff is really funny! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I agree, and I generally do not buy DRM products for my personal consumption. Those two I got as gifts. iPhone is also a different case from Wii. It is not free (in terms of "free speech, not free beer"), this is true, but it's not DRM device either. Once jailbroken, you could do pretty much everything with it, and as long as you stay out of iTunes (which in my opinion everyone should do - buy music on www.mp3sparks.com as it's non-DRM and very cheap), it's good enough to me. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, for those content providers who do not want to provide you with a copy for the cost of physical copy + shipping, there is even better alternative. You could go to thepiratebay, and download a copy from there. You already paid for this content, and there is no need to pay twice. I meant exact replication, and this comparison meant to address DSE's tangible/non-tangible question, as a way to show that there is no real difference in term of copyright law. Of course creating just another lighter would not violate copyright, and most likely not violate any patents as well. Same is writing your own song. However if you copy a song written by someone else, or copy a design done by someone else, it is the same copyright - even though the first thing is non-tangible and the second is. The only significant difference is that it is much easier to a layman to make a copy of a song than a copy of Zippo, but this doesn't mean the song is less or more protected by the copyright law. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Here's Amazon Kindle: License Agreement and Terms of Use. It is short enough (comparing for example to Microsoft Windows agreement most people accepted without even scrolling through), so I suggest looking through. I cannot find any place which would explicitly give Amazon permission to remove anything from the device. Even more, it says the following: Use of Digital Content. Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon. As you see, it explicitly says that you have right to keep a permanent copy of the purchased content. Then why anyone would purchase such a book, if you can get it from the library for free on similar (actually even better) terms? This is not correct. You can rip CDs to your computer into a lossless format like FLAC, and make a new CD as soon as yours wears out. This is especially useful with kids CDs and DVDs, as they do not treat those very well. Same with tapes, and whatever. I'm not really familiar with this aspect, but in my opinion design is covered by copyright law, not by patent law. You can get patent on innovation, but not for a creative work which is design. My point is that their LA doesn't say that. Or disable this feature. For example, iPhone has such a feature in its AppStore. Nintendo Wii has it. That's why I do not use iTunes at all (in fact I removed it completely from my iPhone), and my Wii is not connected to Internet (and if I decide to connect it, I will firewall Nintendo sites). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This of course should include illegal aliens, correct? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

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