seertaak

35 ms·

271.
by seertaak 16y ago
Ok, I get the argument that, on a personal level, divorce destroys your savings . But as far as capital goes, divorce destroys as much of it as marriage creates, namely none. And besides, when I get married, it will be forever ;)
272.
by seertaak 16y ago
> Among his list of things to do on his journey was to find “Onoda, a panda, and the Abominable Snowman”. Genius!
273.
by seertaak 16y ago
> expressive cough she mistook "defiantly" for "definitely".
274.
by seertaak 16y ago
> Remember music has been around long before there were ways to "monetize" it. No halfway sane person will pursue music fulltime if he cannot earn a living off it. This is true and has been true throughout history. Where there previousl
275.
by seertaak 16y ago
> Jackasses making veiled threats and TV networks obliging the jackasses by censorship. Yeah, well : it's all fun and games until someone gets knifed on the street, as happened to Theo Van Gogh. I'm sure the guy who did that was a jack
276.
by seertaak 17y ago
Ah, but musicians got screwed by Apple, too! (I might add that the record label bogeyman is clearly in no danger of disappearing from the collective consciousness of Hacker News.) Here's the thing: Apple is a platform company, and in essenc
277.
by seertaak 17y ago
Spoken with the conviction of someone with no content to sell except hot air.
278.
by seertaak 17y ago
> Non-sequitur. Eh? I'm positing why you might think a system which has worked for centuries should suddenly be obsolete. You're the one who made the claim, so why don't you enlighten me? > Prove it instead of saying it is. Stop b
279.
by seertaak 17y ago
> Even so, I don't really care either way if a copyright-free world cause less books to appear, or more books to appears. If I want more books, I either download them or buy them. I see no reason to fret over what is ultimately a busine
280.
by seertaak 17y ago
> I doubt Google was buying content. It bought the ability to communicate to an established audience. An audience that was established, by YouTube founders own admission (did you read the article?), via the illegal content hosted ther
281.
by seertaak 17y ago
> In general, copyright protections are government-granted monopolies. All property rights secured by anything other than private physical force are 'government granted'. Can I hear some outrage over the government granted monopoly th
282.
by seertaak 17y ago
Great -- so here he we are in the 21st century, with the wonderful new empowering technology that is the internet, and you're saying that as far as art is concerned, we should go back to the seventeenth century. Reality check: you can't fin
283.
by seertaak 17y ago
> People should only have the right to earn one's profits in voluntary exchange. > The free market will not work without artists starving on the street, or taking a part time job to support their art career. It's almost comical that
284.
by seertaak 17y ago
I'm a musician (and ex-hacker), whence I've been following this case with some interest. I take issue with your statement that 'copyright law doesn't work'. It doesn't work precisely because of a^sh%les like Messrs. Hurley and Chen, who eac
285.
by seertaak 17y ago
Home-taping, however, is mentioned; a comparison only slightly less egregious.
286.
by seertaak 17y ago
Shameless plug: if you do head to thesixtyone, please do check out my music! http://old.thesixtyone.com/#/martindifeo/ Also at www.myspace.com/martindifeo Thanks!
287.
by seertaak 17y ago
> So it comes down to this: If everyone is able to convince me that their product is a necessity, then I'll end up acquiring all of those products, but only some of them will be paid for. Wait, you're saying 'only some of them will be p
288.
by seertaak 17y ago
Ok, so now repeat after me: murder is not good or bad . Murder simply is ; a natural outcome given human preferences. I'm obviously being flippant: being a 'natural outcome given human preferences' does not render piracy immune from judge
289.
by seertaak 17y ago
> Arbitrage traders automatically eliminate the market inefficiencies which they exploit. True enough, although, having worked in a stat arb hedge fund for four years, let me assure you that the process is far from automatic ;) > In
290.
BBC: UK file-sharers to be 'cut off' (news.bbc.co.uk)
2 points by seertaak 17y ago|0 comments
291.
by seertaak 17y ago
> It's irrelevant what they valued it at: no evidence means no damages. Period. ... > That's a problem under recent due process / punitive damages jurisprudence. Per the Campbell case, you cannot have punitive damages that grossly e
292.
by seertaak 17y ago
Your argument is just plain silly. Since the plaintiffs didn't have to "prove" the amount of damages due to unauthorized distribution, you unilaterally and rather brazenly set the figure at zero. You then use the figure used during a separa
293.
by seertaak 17y ago
> The record companies did indeed prove unauthorized use of the songs by Tenenbaum, and thus the approximately $0.99. a) "and thus" is a deduction that you form yourself. At no point did the plaintiffs assert this to be their figure for
294.
by seertaak 17y ago
Very much enjoyed listening to this. Graham's enthusiasm is palpable and infectious, and his knowledge of the subfield is clearly second to none.
295.
by seertaak 17y ago
> Fact is, at trial, the only actual damages proven was the unauthorized personal use of a $0.99 song. Wrong, as I've pointed out to you numerous times. Defence did not have any expert testimony on damages (this was indeed one of big bl
296.
by seertaak 17y ago
> the plaintiff proved only $0.99 in actual damages per song from Tenenbaum's use and apparently The plaintiff didn't "prove" "$0.99 in actual damages per song", or any other figure, for that matter. It was in fact the defence that brou
297.
by seertaak 17y ago
> At trial, the defendants only proved $0.99 actual damages for each song. I suspect you mean the plaintiffs. In any case, it really doesn't matter; the damages in this case are not separable into punitive and compensatory parts . You
298.
by seertaak 17y ago
> At that point, they didn't need to prove anything at all other than "infringement," which would include his own use of the music and of his making them available to others, regardless of how much infringement there really was. Your lo
299.
by seertaak 17y ago
> your distinction isn't relevant, because the record company elected statutory damages, thereby eliminating the need to prove an actual damages from "sharing." a) The plaintiff is not a "record company", it is: SONY BMG Music Entertain
300.
by seertaak 17y ago
Really? Care to provide anything in the way of evidence or justification for this emotively-charged comment? Or does it simply reflect your own wishful thinking? For every pg and Pirate Bay fanboy screaming at the top of their lungs about h

More ›