If only we detained all apologists for assholery, right?
It was never portrayed as "random harassment". Exactly the opposite. Sorry he isn't the most sympathetic victim for you. But being a British citizen, they are free to serve a proper warrant on him at any time. (Or intercept all his shit like they are probably doing anyway.) It's not like he is some faceless entity in the wind.
This is nothing but expensive security theater, a waste of everyone's time, an invasion, a stripping of rights, an annoyance, and significant inconvenience to everyone who travels (or no longer does). It's not about defending this one guy (oh look Techdirt is sticking up for criminals again). The point is that it is wrong. It's wrong regardless of who it catches. Unreasonable laws, powers, and methods are not justified by catching someone occasionally and annoying people whose views are wrong or unlikable, along with everyone else.
Never mind the British government, and the US, and friends, are just as much terrorists as the groups this guy apparently chooses to be an apologist for. The Telegraph article also, while maybe technically correct, glibly dismisses the the ambient bigotry, and the special government targeting Muslims face. So there is about zero moral high ground here. But that is wholly irrelevant to the unconscionable dumpster fire that is "border security".
They aren't lumped into the article, they are lumped into the bill. And in no way should they be protected classes. They are only there anyway to make giving cops more leeway seem like a good idea, and probably assuage the "hey what about us" contingent of those professions. It won't give them any "protection" anyway.
You will notice there is nothing said about the behavior of EMTs, firemen, etc. The idea and the bill are simply wrong regardless of who it is meant to "protect".
There is something, in fact, to be said about hate crime enhancements period, as they seem to be more tools of abuse and not necessarily for adding penalties against those who are way more likely to re-offend due to bigoted hate issues. Not that our penal system is much geared to rehabilitation or any such thing, so the only option is to keep a convict longer or try to kill them.
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
Insults are irrelevant and have no substance with respect to copyright or defamation. You don't make a good argument about either, but you sure have a problem with insults and seem to think it should be an arrestable and life-destroying offense.
Also, you seem to think the truth about ethically questionable people who make outrageous statements is an insult. Strange you seem to have no issue with the garbage they spew, though.
It is the basis of a lot of software that dominates, without which we would not have that software. (And to be fair, some of that was released open source without drawing on previously existing source code.) It's not an unworthy nit to pick, but the point is protection of the open source ecosystem, which is a backbone for metric craptons of the computational world.
Android is weird since it is very much tied to vendor hardware and implementation, making it a lot less free on the user end. Usage restrictions against user-modified code sort of round that out. But people wanted the appliances they were promised desktops were, and now they have them in devices without much freedom or a general purpose OS.
It's a form of trolling to play ignorant of things or to deny real things are real. Neither of those are opinions, btw, nor are opinions equal to facts when one is used as an argument against the other.
(There are many forms of trolling, but persistence in the face of notification is a key element and i won't claim to have seen that for myself. So i wouldn't 1) claim you are trolling, nor 2) claim this is the framework that was in use. Could have been a mere insult.
But to the point: Actual damages != "I _claim_ this cost/lost me _x_ amount of money." (In this case, there is money involved also, the cost of the licensing denied.) But if you don't need a trip to the ER, a severe punch to the face is not actual damage? Excessively loud neighbors at all hours? Restricting your freedom in the name of some claim of security? These are damages, just like not reciprocating code while making money off the original source you modified is. But then, companies making money from other people's labor with little to no appropriate compensation is nothing new.
If it isn't almost entirely about someone big thinking they are owed money, then it is not worth it. Protecting completely unsubstantial things like the rights of the open source ecosystem are beneath notice. Just like protecting the environmental ecosystem is merely a trollish way to interfere with large companies with lots of money from making more.
Re: Re: Should never generalize "license" to allow commercial entities! Giving products away to public is good, but corporations will always keep secrets.
Yes, there is no reciprocal clause in the BSD license, which is freely available. That covers both the current derivatives of the BSD userland and also the Mack kernel from which XNU was derived (long ago). And Apple bought Next so no licensing issue there, and they still host the source for some version of XNU/Darwin as open source.
And "a few changes" makes a derivative work. The license is in effect from the time you take the code, regardless whether and how you modify it after.
If AC has a problem with complicating copyright, and licensing being unenforceable for people without money, i don't know what your problem with the Techdirt community is other than the flaming strawman they erect about how "we all hate copyright [full stop]". We hate bad and unnecessary copyright rules ridiculously extended for ludicrous terms simply for the people who already have money. Yes, there are a few destroy-copyright people, but they have the same traction as destroy-regulation people.
Or maybe the problem simply is people without major financial resources. Screw the poor and middle class has always been a popular concept with some.
As for Artifex, they have been perfectly fine since forever. Someone not licensing their code is straight up textbook infringement, and they are enforcing the license. Maybe AC is the one who hates copyright...
Re: Techdirt defends site it admits infringes copyright. At what point are you going to quit sticking up for criminals?
I would only add to the responses here that techdirt in no way was sticking up for infringers.
Every time one of you wants to use the argument that "we" are all "pirates", or that techdirt defends criminals, it tends to trash any potentially valid points you might have.
That used to be a major thing IT, both hardware and software. (Particularly in the era of mini v micro wars, and early days of the PC.) I don't know how often it has come and gone as a practice, but it was rampant once upon a time.
The other sad thing with DLC is that some devs seem to release half a game and expect you to buy the rest in installments. Never mind releasing things in a pre-beta and broken state then fixing it (or not) later. (Well, that is like a lot of software and very much like one major OS.)
Maybe this is a good time for an ISDS case against the US government. Smack them with a large hammer, and at the same time show how dangerous ISDS can be, even if used for good.
This is, "light touch" regulation by any definition. To a fault.
"Light touch" in the sense of someone breathes a mile away and the kid in the back of the car starts screaming, "He's touching me, he's touching meeee!"
The other funny thing was that peering was never an issue and largely free until providers with consumer ISP divisions started playing their little games.
And then another tier 1 provider was allowed to be eaten by an ISP. That's growth and progress, right?
Clarification: The about collection program. They still have the same internet firehose as always.
But anything running interference against them is good. A little bit here, a little bit there. If they have big enough internal problems that we hear about it, something is way off.
I wonder what the general French public thinks about three year moratoria on releasing films outside theaters. One could easily says the "experience" is "passionately defended" in the US as well. By certain interested parties. (Also, that is a weird defense, for an experience.)
Any of these projects, not to mention all the court and legislative time spent on these issues, and the costs to rightsholder's front groups seeking to "stop piracy", must far exceed in dollar amounts the total of any infringement ever (including money made by actual pirating for profit operations). Completely ignoring, of course, that infringement largely costs nothing to the infringed to begin with, not even theoretical potential sales.
On the post: British Human Rights Activist Faces Prison For Refusing To Hand Over Passwords At UK Border
Re: Re:
It was never portrayed as "random harassment". Exactly the opposite. Sorry he isn't the most sympathetic victim for you. But being a British citizen, they are free to serve a proper warrant on him at any time. (Or intercept all his shit like they are probably doing anyway.) It's not like he is some faceless entity in the wind.
This is nothing but expensive security theater, a waste of everyone's time, an invasion, a stripping of rights, an annoyance, and significant inconvenience to everyone who travels (or no longer does). It's not about defending this one guy (oh look Techdirt is sticking up for criminals again). The point is that it is wrong. It's wrong regardless of who it catches. Unreasonable laws, powers, and methods are not justified by catching someone occasionally and annoying people whose views are wrong or unlikable, along with everyone else.
Never mind the British government, and the US, and friends, are just as much terrorists as the groups this guy apparently chooses to be an apologist for. The Telegraph article also, while maybe technically correct, glibly dismisses the the ambient bigotry, and the special government targeting Muslims face. So there is about zero moral high ground here. But that is wholly irrelevant to the unconscionable dumpster fire that is "border security".
On the post: NY Senate Passes Bill That Would Add Cops And Firemen To List Of Protected Classes Under State's Hate Crime Law
Re: Wait, firemen?
You will notice there is nothing said about the behavior of EMTs, firemen, etc. The idea and the bill are simply wrong regardless of who it is meant to "protect".
There is something, in fact, to be said about hate crime enhancements period, as they seem to be more tools of abuse and not necessarily for adding penalties against those who are way more likely to re-offend due to bigoted hate issues. Not that our penal system is much geared to rehabilitation or any such thing, so the only option is to keep a convict longer or try to kill them.
On the post: Makers Of Payday 2 Donating DLC Profits To Help 2 YouTubers Fight Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
On the post: Makers Of Payday 2 Donating DLC Profits To Help 2 YouTubers Fight Copyright Lawsuit
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
Also, you seem to think the truth about ethically questionable people who make outrageous statements is an insult. Strange you seem to have no issue with the garbage they spew, though.
On the post: US Court Upholds Enforceability Of GNU GPL As Both A License And A Contract
Re:
Android is weird since it is very much tied to vendor hardware and implementation, making it a lot less free on the user end. Usage restrictions against user-modified code sort of round that out. But people wanted the appliances they were promised desktops were, and now they have them in devices without much freedom or a general purpose OS.
On the post: US Court Upholds Enforceability Of GNU GPL As Both A License And A Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(There are many forms of trolling, but persistence in the face of notification is a key element and i won't claim to have seen that for myself. So i wouldn't 1) claim you are trolling, nor 2) claim this is the framework that was in use. Could have been a mere insult.
But to the point: Actual damages != "I _claim_ this cost/lost me _x_ amount of money." (In this case, there is money involved also, the cost of the licensing denied.) But if you don't need a trip to the ER, a severe punch to the face is not actual damage? Excessively loud neighbors at all hours? Restricting your freedom in the name of some claim of security? These are damages, just like not reciprocating code while making money off the original source you modified is. But then, companies making money from other people's labor with little to no appropriate compensation is nothing new.
On the post: US Court Upholds Enforceability Of GNU GPL As Both A License And A Contract
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Court Upholds Enforceability Of GNU GPL As Both A License And A Contract
Re: Re: Should never generalize "license" to allow commercial entities! Giving products away to public is good, but corporations will always keep secrets.
And "a few changes" makes a derivative work. The license is in effect from the time you take the code, regardless whether and how you modify it after.
If AC has a problem with complicating copyright, and licensing being unenforceable for people without money, i don't know what your problem with the Techdirt community is other than the flaming strawman they erect about how "we all hate copyright [full stop]". We hate bad and unnecessary copyright rules ridiculously extended for ludicrous terms simply for the people who already have money. Yes, there are a few destroy-copyright people, but they have the same traction as destroy-regulation people.
Or maybe the problem simply is people without major financial resources. Screw the poor and middle class has always been a popular concept with some.
As for Artifex, they have been perfectly fine since forever. Someone not licensing their code is straight up textbook infringement, and they are enforcing the license. Maybe AC is the one who hates copyright...
On the post: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public, Votes To Begin Dismantling Net Neutrality
Re:
On the post: US & EU Not Banning Laptops On Planes... Yet
On the post: Texas Court Orders Sports Streaming Sites To Be Blocked In Anticipation Of Piracy
Re: Techdirt defends site it admits infringes copyright. At what point are you going to quit sticking up for criminals?
Every time one of you wants to use the argument that "we" are all "pirates", or that techdirt defends criminals, it tends to trash any potentially valid points you might have.
On the post: Nier Automata Modder Includes Piracy Checks In Mod, Causing An Uproar, But Should It?
Re: Re: Re: Troll Alert!
On the post: Nier Automata Modder Includes Piracy Checks In Mod, Causing An Uproar, But Should It?
On the post: Nier Automata Modder Includes Piracy Checks In Mod, Causing An Uproar, But Should It?
Re: DLC derail
The other sad thing with DLC is that some devs seem to release half a game and expect you to buy the rest in installments. Never mind releasing things in a pre-beta and broken state then fixing it (or not) later. (Well, that is like a lot of software and very much like one major OS.)
On the post: Microsoft Is PISSED OFF At The NSA Over WannaCry Attack
On the post: Cable Industry's Own Survey Shows Majority Support Net Neutrality Rules
This is, "light touch" regulation by any definition. To a fault.
"Light touch" in the sense of someone breathes a mile away and the kid in the back of the car starts screaming, "He's touching me, he's touching meeee!"
Also, lolwth? https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/864209710639177728
On the post: Cable Industry's Own Survey Shows Majority Support Net Neutrality Rules
Re: Re: Lack of understanding
And then another tier 1 provider was allowed to be eaten by an ISP. That's growth and progress, right?
On the post: Latest FISA Court Order Details Why NSA Didn't Get Any 702 Requests Approved Last Year
Re: "The end result"
Clarification: The about collection program. They still have the same internet firehose as always.
But anything running interference against them is good. A little bit here, a little bit there. If they have big enough internal problems that we hear about it, something is way off.
On the post: French Theater Owners Freak Out; Get Netflix Booted From Cannes Film Festival
I wonder what the general French public thinks about three year moratoria on releasing films outside theaters. One could easily says the "experience" is "passionately defended" in the US as well. By certain interested parties. (Also, that is a weird defense, for an experience.)
On the post: Hollywood Helps China Set Up National Surveillance And Censorship System To Tackle Copyright Infringement
Next >>