Well given that the law states "Publications which do not contain a substantial amount of news are not newspapers", if the UK government were to apply the proper classification to the Daily Mail and the Sun, the country could be out of its fiscal hole overnight.
I could, for example, say "I suspect (ie, my opinion is) my neighbor runs a meth lab in his basement". That's free speech, but it could result in a SWAT team kicking his door in at 5am and shooting his dog (note, I wouldn't do this, because SWAT teams have a history of getting the address wrong). My right to free speech clashes with his right to be secure in his property. Which is more important?
Regarding the right to put movies up criticizing religions, I have no issue as long as they are fact or opinion, but not when they're deliberate attacks disguised as history. Suppose someone made a movie purporting to tell the story of how a conference of Talmudic Jews wrote the Protocols of Zion. Does anyone think that would have stayed on YouTube more than ten minutes? Would anyone criticize the decision to take it down?
The person who posted the movie in question knew exactly what he was doing and what the reaction would be. It was done with the deliberate intention of poking a dangerous hornet's nest, and now we will all get stung. His right to free speech has infringed my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By all means defend him, but you and he both should be willing to go to Cairo, Tripoli or wherever, stand in the street and defend it in person.
Average Joe, what are these "rights" of which you speak?
On the one hand, you say that if a consumer won't pay the price (whatever it is) to enjoy content, it's wrong because he has no right to it.
On the other, you imply that if a content provider won't pay the price (public domain after a limited time) to enjoy his monopoly, he still has the right to the monopoly.
Such a flexible interpretation of "rights". Such a strange sense of morality.
The ostensible idea behind the current visa program was to encourage educated immigration. The real purpose was always to suppress wages. Alan Greenspan said so in plain language in his memoir. I don't have a copy of the actual quote with me at the moment, but in essence he wrote that rewards are going disproportionally to the skilled, that the US education system has failed to create enough skilled Americans, the gap between the skilled and unskilled was too large, so we needed to vastly increase immigration of skilled people - I can quote the last phrase from memory - "thus driving down their wages".
Why, very well, thank you. It's one of the few industries left in the country that still makes money. It supports many police departments, their equipment suppliers and the prison industry, not to mention thousands of pawnbrokers and the stores you use to replace the stuff stolen from you. And although we can't be told - national security, know what I mean - over the past 35 years or so it probably saved the taxpayers hundreds of billions in funding for CIA black operations.
Re: Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off
We'll never get the Republican party back until they dump the religious party. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time when they co-opted it for the 1980 election, but its influence has grown like a cancer and one day, trust me, it will kill the host. It's practically strangled it already.
And let's get one thing straight. The religious party is not against abortion, or contraception, or gay marriage. The religious party is against SEX - the political issues are just the expression of that position. Unfortunately it's not a good platform to campaign on, because sex is still quite popular with most of the electorate.
..why do we have the kerfuffle about whether or not content in your browser cache (or cdn server, etc) constitutes a copy?
A good question. The answer is, it rests on case law, a decision in Mai Systems Corp v Peak Computers (9th Circuit 1993).
From Wikipedia: The court determined that a copy of a program made from a hard drive into RAM for purpose of executing the program was, in fact, a copy under the Copyright Act. The judges utilized the criteria set forth by 17 U.S.C. § 101, which states 'A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.'
Based on this decision, the doctrine that any RAM copy of anything was subject to copyright was written into the DMCA in 1996.
CraigF, I don't disagree with you, but who exactly will listen? The current president is just building on the policies of unaccountable executive power that were claimed by the last one, and I have no confidence that if we change parties, the next will not double down on it again. As for Congress, don't make me laugh.
"If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it." - Mark Twain
Sometimes you do! Take a bow, Manning Publications (programming books). Each physical book has a card in it with a code to download a .pub or .pdf version, and the only "DRM" on them is having your name printed as a footer on each page.
That's all very well, but police officers get training and experience on the job with actual, you know, offenders. Given an actual airline terrorist count of approximately 0.25 per year, none having boarded at a US airport since 2001, none of these TSA goons has ever seen a bona-fide terrorist to be trained on. They have, in fact, no useful function to perform at all. They need to be fired and the TSA disbanded - don't go inventing jobs for them.
I've had enough of this. If I bought it, I own it, and the author's and publisher's First Sale rights are exhausted. I'll lend it or sell it as it pleases me. That is all.
"I know it seems far fetched but Android could be the new Microsoft if they are clever about this..."
Not arguing with your sentiment, but Android is not an operating system - it's an application interface running on Ubuntu Linux, to which it owes all its compatibility and power. Not a lot of people seem to know that. To me, it looks a lot like the very earliest days of computing when nearly all the popular applications were written in BASIC and executed by the BASIC interpreter, but then as people got more familiar with programming they moved to native code. So presently, everything's written in Java and executed by the Android interpreter, but eventually the best stuff will be in native code running on Linux. This is the big threat to Microsoft - not Android itself, but that millions of people are unknowingly running Linux, and one day they'll find out.
Let's see if I understand. For a nominal fee, I can allow a bunch of people who have a contract with the RIAA to examine and catalog everything I have on my hard disk, in exchange for which they'll let me listen to music that I already own.
That's like paying a representative of a gang of notorious housebreakers to come into your home, copy your keys and catalog your valuables, and in exchange they let you watch your own television.
I was going to make the same point, but you beat me to it. If you weren't born there or married to someone who was, you have to be a multi-millionaire to be allowed to live there. Very nice place to live, though, if you can afford it, and no doubt even better if you can live there in total secrecy.
Very unlikely this was a real NFL action. It's much more likely it was a political operation, given that Karl Rove was on Fox News Monday bloviating about how this was an Obama campaign video disguised as a commercial.
So what should the penalty be for a bogus bogus copyright claim and DMCA claim?
That buffer copies are subject to copyright was a wholly novel idea that was first introduced in the US case of MAI Systems v. Peak Computers, 9th circuit 1993. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc.
MAI Systems maliciously sued one of their former service engineers for leaving to work for a competitor, and convinced the court that in order to fire up a computer to run diagnostics it had to load the operating system, and when a competitor did so it was making an unauthorized copy. Congress subsequently amended the law to remove this interpretation, within narrow limits, but the wider copyright implications were left untouched. It was taken up by a US government working group on intellectual property headed by Bruce Lehman, the Patent Commissioner and former copyright lobbyist, and staffed by numerous other former copyright lobbyists, who thought the Mai decision was an excellent idea that should have wider application. The Lehman group's report was issued in 1994 and although it was rejected at the time, this opinion obviously has nine lives.
"But the owners of the intellectual property need to be compensated."
Oh no they don't. The creators of intellectual property may deserve to be compensated. We actually have an arrangement for that. You can have the proceeds for a limited time, and then we get it in the public domain.
Since nothing you create will enter the public domain during my or my children's lifetimes, I feel no obligation to keep my side of the bargain and compensate you.
On the post: The Return Of Dumb Ideas: A Broadband Tax To Save Failing Newspapers
Re: Some facts which may or may not be relevant
On the post: YouTube Restricts Access To Anti-Islam Movie Trailer In Egypt And Libya
Re:
I could, for example, say "I suspect (ie, my opinion is) my neighbor runs a meth lab in his basement". That's free speech, but it could result in a SWAT team kicking his door in at 5am and shooting his dog (note, I wouldn't do this, because SWAT teams have a history of getting the address wrong). My right to free speech clashes with his right to be secure in his property. Which is more important?
Regarding the right to put movies up criticizing religions, I have no issue as long as they are fact or opinion, but not when they're deliberate attacks disguised as history. Suppose someone made a movie purporting to tell the story of how a conference of Talmudic Jews wrote the Protocols of Zion. Does anyone think that would have stayed on YouTube more than ten minutes? Would anyone criticize the decision to take it down?
The person who posted the movie in question knew exactly what he was doing and what the reaction would be. It was done with the deliberate intention of poking a dangerous hornet's nest, and now we will all get stung. His right to free speech has infringed my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By all means defend him, but you and he both should be willing to go to Cairo, Tripoli or wherever, stand in the street and defend it in person.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the one hand, you say that if a consumer won't pay the price (whatever it is) to enjoy content, it's wrong because he has no right to it.
On the other, you imply that if a content provider won't pay the price (public domain after a limited time) to enjoy his monopoly, he still has the right to the monopoly.
Such a flexible interpretation of "rights". Such a strange sense of morality.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Facebook's CFO Should Be Fired For Getting An Awesome Deal?
Re: Hilarious.
On the post: Made In America: Foreign Entrepreneurs Who Will Compete Against Us
Re: Foreign entrepreneurs
On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language... But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn
Re:
Why, very well, thank you. It's one of the few industries left in the country that still makes money. It supports many police departments, their equipment suppliers and the prison industry, not to mention thousands of pawnbrokers and the stores you use to replace the stuff stolen from you. And although we can't be told - national security, know what I mean - over the past 35 years or so it probably saved the taxpayers hundreds of billions in funding for CIA black operations.
On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language... But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn
Re: Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off
And let's get one thing straight. The religious party is not against abortion, or contraception, or gay marriage. The religious party is against SEX - the political issues are just the expression of that position. Unfortunately it's not a good platform to campaign on, because sex is still quite popular with most of the electorate.
On the post: Authors Guild Continues To Battle The Present; Attacks Another Legal Service As 'Infringing'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A good question. The answer is, it rests on case law, a decision in Mai Systems Corp v Peak Computers (9th Circuit 1993).
From Wikipedia:
The court determined that a copy of a program made from a hard drive into RAM for purpose of executing the program was, in fact, a copy under the Copyright Act. The judges utilized the criteria set forth by 17 U.S.C. § 101, which states 'A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.'
Based on this decision, the doctrine that any RAM copy of anything was subject to copyright was written into the DMCA in 1996.
On the post: DailyDirt: In The Year 2525...
Re:
More likely, when someone digs them up in the future they'll be used to found a new religion.
On the post: US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost
Re: Re: The difference now
"If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it." - Mark Twain
On the post: Hachette Tells Authors And Tor To Use DRM Because It Is Awesome Or Something
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: TSA Racial Profiling May Hide Larger Constitutional Problem
Re:
On the post: TSA Racial Profiling May Hide Larger Constitutional Problem
Penalty of purgery...
On the post: Legit Ebook Lending Site Taken Down By An Angry Twitmob Of Writers [UPDATED]
On the post: Game Developers Concerned About A Potentially Closed Windows 8
Re: Re: Android?
Not arguing with your sentiment, but Android is not an operating system - it's an application interface running on Ubuntu Linux, to which it owes all its compatibility and power. Not a lot of people seem to know that. To me, it looks a lot like the very earliest days of computing when nearly all the popular applications were written in BASIC and executed by the BASIC interpreter, but then as people got more familiar with programming they moved to native code. So presently, everything's written in Java and executed by the Android interpreter, but eventually the best stuff will be in native code running on Linux. This is the big threat to Microsoft - not Android itself, but that millions of people are unknowingly running Linux, and one day they'll find out.
On the post: Amazon Reverses Course, Signs Licenses With Music Labels To Allow File Matching
That's like paying a representative of a gang of notorious housebreakers to come into your home, copy your keys and catalog your valuables, and in exchange they let you watch your own television.
On the post: Does Guernsey Really Want To Become Famous -- And Ostracized -- For Introducing Image Rights?
Re: Re:
On the post: The NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial
Re:
So what should the penalty be for a bogus bogus copyright claim and DMCA claim?
On the post: The Real Goal Of Regulating Buffer Copies? So Hollywood Can Put A Tollbooth On Innovation
Re: Eh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc.
MAI Systems maliciously sued one of their former service engineers for leaving to work for a competitor, and convinced the court that in order to fire up a computer to run diagnostics it had to load the operating system, and when a competitor did so it was making an unauthorized copy. Congress subsequently amended the law to remove this interpretation, within narrow limits, but the wider copyright implications were left untouched. It was taken up by a US government working group on intellectual property headed by Bruce Lehman, the Patent Commissioner and former copyright lobbyist, and staffed by numerous other former copyright lobbyists, who thought the Mai decision was an excellent idea that should have wider application. The Lehman group's report was issued in 1994 and although it was rejected at the time, this opinion obviously has nine lives.
On the post: Staunch SOPA Supporter, Marsha Blackburn, Says It's Time To Scrap SOPA
Re:
Oh no they don't. The creators of intellectual property may deserve to be compensated. We actually have an arrangement for that. You can have the proceeds for a limited time, and then we get it in the public domain.
Since nothing you create will enter the public domain during my or my children's lifetimes, I feel no obligation to keep my side of the bargain and compensate you.
Next >>