"Well, I don't know. I seem to still have my identity, whereas you seem to have lost several thousands of pounds. In light of that, I'm not sure why you think it was my identity that was stolen instead of your money."
I never thought of it this way either but having been a victim of ID theft I can attest the attitude of banks and credit card companies regarding 'your' problem.
In my case someone used my ID to apply for credit cards then subsequently a large loan ($15k). Once I got copies of the applications so I could prove I didn't actually take out a loan here's what I found on the application:
1. My middle name was misspelled
2. My employment history was completely wrong. It listed current and former employers I never worked for
3. Telephone number was invalid
4. Street address physically did not exist
5. Personal references and contact information were fictitious
6. Drivers license presented as ID had a different DOB, no picture and was issued from a state that differed from the bogus address on the application
I pointed out to the 'fraud' investigator that even the most rudimentary attempt at verification of the information on the application should have raised red flags. He stated it wasn't their job to verify every bit of information on an application. He also stated that even though the application had fraudulent information that didn't prove that I wasn't the one who submitted the bogus application. The conversation degenerated from there.
In the end I was able to clear up my credit but it was an eye opener to realize that companies handing out money regard you as the primary victim of a crime and that you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
The 'Music Royalty Fee' on satellite radio sounds eerily similar to the 'fees' cellular companies tack on their rate plans. There have been numerous consumer complaints over the practice of advertising low rates plans then tacking on official sounding 'fees' to disguise the real cost of the services.
The 'Music Royalty Fee' is simply a business expense Sirius incurs as a part of its business. Adding this as some separate 'fee' rather than including it a part of the overall rate plan is misleading consumers. It is the same thing adding an 'Audit Fee' to cover the business cost of an outside audit of a business' financial statements. It is a business expense like any other and the cost should be included in the base plan rate (or eaten by Sirus).
Bingo. If you have talent you will have fans. Cultivate your fans (known everywhere else as customers) and you will get paid.
US GDP is about $14 trillion dollars. If the true 'damage' of sharing is song is $80k then sharing 175 million songs would equal to the GDP of the entire US. I'm willing to bet a helluva lot more then 175 million songs are shared across the US so if $80k as song is the actual damages why aren't we bankrupt from all these economic losses?
"...so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense [or] obviously unreasonable."
Really? A judgement is made that she cannot possibly ever pay (short of winning the lottery) is not wholly disproportional or obviously unreasonable? Since when is bankrupting a person for life not considered unreasonable?
The chances of finishing a movie in one sitting is inversely proportional to the number of children you have
"if you read the small print in the copyright notice, expressly prohibits renting it out"
And yet another example of corporations abusing copyright to reserve rights they do not have. You buy the DVD, it is yours to watch, give away, sell or RENT. It is your property to do with as you please. What copyright prohibits is playing a DVD in a public performance.
This ruling is good news, assuming it withstands an appeal. Copyright maximalists assume any use of copyrighted material is infringement but conveniently ignore the context of use. The courts are clearly stating context matters.
No, I posted this to Techdirt's story submittion page. Nothing was stolen because I don't own any of the content.
Many of those posting comments criticizing Mike should instead direct those at me. I wrote it, not Mike. The purpose of this post isn't to bait AP but to highlight how the AP is attempting to stretch copyright to far beyond the intent of the law. You cannot write an article that is mainly a restatement of public information (facts) then claim copyright forbids anyone from rewriting those facts.
The purpose of this post was to point out how media (not just the AP) is abusing (or at least attempting to abuse) copyright to limit competition and to assert ownership over material they to which they have no legal claim.
I called the Houston Chronicle and they stated the charge is really possession 'illegally bootlegged albums'. The issue isn't that the CD's are 'unlabled' but the fact he was running a bootlegging operation.
Or relay chat that has been around since the 70's
Welcome to the patents of today. You don't actually have to invent anything, just describe the idea. I think the single greatest mistake the PTO ever made was to dispense with the requirement to provide a working model of an 'invention'. Most of these concept patents would fail outright simply because the 'inventor' couldn't actually build/code what they describe. And if they did actually build/code the 'invention' the prior art and unique/non-obvious analysis would be much easier to assess.
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt as well. Before we judge let's see if we can get her
- list of jobs she has applied
- offers were made (if any)
Also, let's find out how many of her fellow graduates have had a similar experience. Did any of her fellow graduates with the same degree and GPA get a job or has her entire graduating class ended up in the unemployment line?
There is a perception among many college graduates that a degree and decent grades automatically means a good job and a decent salary. It doesn't. Period. A degree simply demonstrates the individual's ability to learn the material and complete the program. It gives you an advantage when applying to jobs in your field of study over those applicants who lack credentials. That it. A degree is a single line item on your resume. The rest is up to you.
Did you forget the primary means of income for musicians (even recording artists today)? They are called concerts.
The more I hear about 'new business models' for musicians the more I'm reminded of a very old business model: patronage. Throughout much of history artists (painters, composers, sculpters, etc.) were supported by patrons who commissioned the artist's work. Some of the greatest works of Western art (think Sistine Chapel) were created at the behest of a rich patron. The unique aspect of the patonage model is the patron commissioned the artist to create something out of a true appreciation for art itself. There wasn't any real intention to take financial advantage by reselling the work. Patrons paid for art for the art's sake alone.
Amanda Palmer's efforts to connect with fans is a sort of crowd-sourcing patronage model. These 'fans' are really just patrons of the art Amanda Palmer creates. Rather than find one patron to support your art you find 50 or 100 or more. Like the rich patrons of history the fans aren't interested in profiting from the artist they support; they simply appreciate the art itself. It will be interesting to see if the patronage model supplants the commercial profit model for music.
Amanda, any plans to come to Houston?
Good for ESPN. That's an appropriate response to the NY Post's decision to post pics from this video.
I can write down your license plate number whether you like it or not. This information by law must be publicly displayed. The LP is there for express purpose of enabling the public to identify the registered owner of a vehicle. It is public information. With a little money and effort I can get the first and last name, address, registration and expiration date, make and model of vehicle, VIN number, title number, lien holder name.
I agree the town is being paranoid but at the same time you have no expectation of privacy when you are in public areas. Paranoid and weird, but it isn't a privacy violation.
Even so, it Michael Jackson's invention a unique and non-obvious to those trained in the art? Seems like his invention is nothing more than a minor tweak on an age old stage technique.