I should think that spelling out the exceptions and exemptions is better.
It depends on how those exemptions are spelled out. In actual practice, in this country right now, the exceptions aren't in the law, but the courts have a reasonably clear set of principles to apply.
What concerns me about Manne's exceptions, more properly the exceptions being created by big content, is that the exceptions will be preclusive. Such as, in geometry: Anything square is exempt but never anything rectangular (squares are rectangles, so the exemption for squares is meaningless in this construction).
E.g., pretend rules that rule against everything and pretend exceptions that except nothing.
I don't see the argument as one between big content, trying to protect their interests in content, and everyone else trying to protect their interest in free speech.
It looks more to me like big content is trying to establish rules that will make it the official only source for content; that will bar all competitive content sources. Elimination of competition is nothing new, and big companies of any flavor hate it (whatever they might say in Congress about free markets).
"May" implies (to a reasonable person who understands what the word means) that it could happen under certain specific, hopefully extraordinary, circumstances. It's used by lawyers to cover their client's butt.
More properly, the word is the "permissive" form of "may"..."we are allowed". Since this is an "agreement" between "you" and the "chain" as defined by the chain, allowing itself to perform the act, the permissive form in this usage is best expressed as "we reserve the right to". As in:
We reserve the right to disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, or may be required to disclose it during the discovery process in litigation, pursuant to a court order, or in compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule or ordinance.
"the confidential informant's report that the defendant 'keeps his door locked and admits only people whom he knows,' 4) the fact that the defendant sold drugs to the informant only after arrangements were made by telephone,"
The spoke in the tires of the argument is the report by the confidential informant. No matter how we try to beat the "no justification" argument, the presence of that report, and that, evidently, the defendant sold drugs to the informant (a sale was arranged after all).
It is a validly controversial whether or not the warrant should have been no-knock; but there seems to me to be no disputable issue at all about whether there was probable cause for a warrant.
No doubt there are other sites that have had periodic tables forever. Couldn't we get about 20 of them to sue her for infringement? Maybe that would get the message across.
If the university is instituted by the state, and funded by the state, it is the state. If that were not so, then we would have no rights at all. Every aspect of government that we deal with--every agency--is instituted and funded by the state.
Take the state police, as a gross example. Under the theory you propose, even though the police were instituted by and funded by the government, they would not "actually be a part of the government" and so would not have to respect your rights.
"Liberal," to many conservatives, is like in meaning to "Pandora's box": the cause of all the world's problems. Whether it's taxes, regulation, or a violation of rights, it is the fault of liberals; because conservatives cannot do wrong.
So, according to Verizon, the majority of users won't even come close to using "unlimited"* data. So they've just argued that unlimited data plans will not cause network overload.
It's not a matter of whether they will or won't use unlimited or too much data. It's a pure marketing scheme, which starts with Verizon selling you X data for $50/month.
Next year, they'll come out with a 2X plan. Now, you never used X in the first place, mostly because the link speed is too snail-like for you to use all your limit. But you'd like to get a faster link and the only way to do that is to buy the 2X plan--which is $66/month.
And the year after that, 3X, for $87/month; and the then the year after that, 4X for $115/month. Notice that you're still using the same data, but over a three year period, your monthly outlay has increased by 130%...a 33% increase every year.
There's nothing more precious to a company like Verizon than being able to jack up your monthly payments by 33% a year. But the marketers don't know how to do that if the customers have unlimited plans; the company can't "double" unlimited. Imagine hearing this ad: "Verizon is giving you an even more unlimited plan..."
I think I've seen this story somewhere. Let's see, where there were many keys...hmmm....and one secret one...hmmm...
Oh, right, Lord of the Rings:
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone, Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die, One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne, In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie, One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. —The Lord of the Rings, Epigraph
And it worked out so well back then, too, those multiple keys...oops, I mean, rings.
$@$ #@&& it! What %@#&!$@ good is it to put a competitor out of business, only to have some @$$%@# bring it back?! We put Naugles down, and now we got it as a %@#&!$@ competitor again!!
What is this %@#&!$@ country coming to that the $@$ #@&&@# USPTO won't keep the %@#&!$@ competitors off our backs!?
The primary aim of the PreCheck program is to "reward" citizens for giving up their First and Fourth Amendment Rights. This guy's thing might be explosives and murder but, hey, he gave up his Rights. A contract is a contract.
This is nothing but censorship piled on censorship. The whole investigation was to discourage publication of things the government didn't like. Now they're censoring that the investigation ever occurred
The next stage is going back and burning all those inconvenient books and newspapers.
"...by virtue of the following exemptions..." There is nothing virtuous about these. The proper word would be tortuous.
On the post: Waze, LA Cops Bury The Hatchet, Figure Out A Way To Cooperatively Help People
Nothing grea$e$ wheel$ like a clo$e partner$hip
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re:
It depends on how those exemptions are spelled out. In actual practice, in this country right now, the exceptions aren't in the law, but the courts have a reasonably clear set of principles to apply.
What concerns me about Manne's exceptions, more properly the exceptions being created by big content, is that the exceptions will be preclusive. Such as, in geometry: Anything square is exempt but never anything rectangular (squares are rectangles, so the exemption for squares is meaningless in this construction).
E.g., pretend rules that rule against everything and pretend exceptions that except nothing.
I don't see the argument as one between big content, trying to protect their interests in content, and everyone else trying to protect their interest in free speech.
It looks more to me like big content is trying to establish rules that will make it the official only source for content; that will bar all competitive content sources. Elimination of competition is nothing new, and big companies of any flavor hate it (whatever they might say in Congress about free markets).
On the post: Motel Decides It Should Just Start Faxing All Guest Info To Local Police Every Night
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: privacy policy
More properly, the word is the "permissive" form of "may"..."we are allowed". Since this is an "agreement" between "you" and the "chain" as defined by the chain, allowing itself to perform the act, the permissive form in this usage is best expressed as "we reserve the right to". As in:
On the post: A Residence With Locking Doors And A Working Toilet Is All That's Needed To Justify A No-Knock Warrant
Confidential informant changes everything
The spoke in the tires of the argument is the report by the confidential informant. No matter how we try to beat the "no justification" argument, the presence of that report, and that, evidently, the defendant sold drugs to the informant (a sale was arranged after all).
It is a validly controversial whether or not the warrant should have been no-knock; but there seems to me to be no disputable issue at all about whether there was probable cause for a warrant.
On the post: Designer Still Pursuing Bogus Takedown Of Periodic Table Of HTML Elements; Has No Idea How Copyright Works
Other sites
On the post: Report: 'Nearly Every' FBI Forensics Expert Gave Flawed Testimony In 'Almost All Trials' Over A 20-Year Period
"What's that? These were people? No, they were thugs, guilty of crimes.
"What do you mean, 'biased'? Listen: in the FBI, that's as objective as we get!"
On the post: Student Sues College After Campus Cops Demand He Get A Free Speech 'Permit' Before Handing Out Fliers
Re:
Take the state police, as a gross example. Under the theory you propose, even though the police were instituted by and funded by the government, they would not "actually be a part of the government" and so would not have to respect your rights.
On the post: Student Sues College After Campus Cops Demand He Get A Free Speech 'Permit' Before Handing Out Fliers
Re: You keep using that word.
On the post: DailyDirt: Problems With Peer Reviewed Publications
On the post: Verizon: Nobody Really Wants Unlimited Data Plans, And Those Who Do Should Ignore Such Silly 'Gut Feelings'
Re: Self-cancelling argument
It's not a matter of whether they will or won't use unlimited or too much data. It's a pure marketing scheme, which starts with Verizon selling you X data for $50/month.
Next year, they'll come out with a 2X plan. Now, you never used X in the first place, mostly because the link speed is too snail-like for you to use all your limit. But you'd like to get a faster link and the only way to do that is to buy the 2X plan--which is $66/month.
And the year after that, 3X, for $87/month; and the then the year after that, 4X for $115/month. Notice that you're still using the same data, but over a three year period, your monthly outlay has increased by 130%...a 33% increase every year.
There's nothing more precious to a company like Verizon than being able to jack up your monthly payments by 33% a year. But the marketers don't know how to do that if the customers have unlimited plans; the company can't "double" unlimited. Imagine hearing this ad: "Verizon is giving you an even more unlimited plan..."
On the post: White House Floats Idea Of Crypto Backdoor... If The Key Is Broken Into Multiple Pieces
It's just on the tip of my tongue
Oh, right, Lord of the Rings:
And it worked out so well back then, too, those multiple keys...oops, I mean, rings.
On the post: Anonymous Targeting CloudFlare Seems To Go Against Anonymous' History
Scary thought
On the post: Hecklers Try To Veto University Screening Of 'American Sniper;' May Find Themselves Watching 'Paddington Bear' Instead
They wanted censorship -- here's my vote.
Because either one is the right age range.
On the post: Del Taco Says Its 'Secret Menu' From Bought-Out Brand Protects Its Mark From Abandonment; Judge Disagrees
Someone is angry!
What is this %@#&!$@ country coming to that the $@$ #@&&@# USPTO won't keep the %@#&!$@ competitors off our backs!?
On the post: Congressional Rep. John Carter Discovers Encryption; Worries It May One Day Be Used On Computers To Protect Your Data
End of civilizaiton
On the post: TSA Waves Convicted Murderer With Explosives Experience Through Its PreCheck Lane
He gave up his rights
On the post: California Legislators Pushing Warrant Requirement For All Access To Electronic Information, Including That Obtained By Stingrays
Whatever will the cops do?
On the post: FBI Quietly Removes Recommendation To Encrypt Your Phone... As FBI Director Warns How Encryption Will Lead To Tears
On the post: UK Police Can't Confirm Or Deny Investigation Of Journalists It Publicly Confirmed In 2013
Tortuous Censorship
The next stage is going back and burning all those inconvenient books and newspapers.
"...by virtue of the following exemptions..." There is nothing virtuous about these. The proper word would be tortuous.
Tortuous censorship.
On the post: Cisco Shipping Hardware To Bogus Addresses To Throw Off NSA Intercept-And-Implant Efforts
NSA opinion of this development
Next >>