Don't you know, Mike, that there's absolutely nothing more important than copyright, patent and trademark protections? We have to give up anything and everything to protect those rights - the environment, free speech, the basic ability to communicate freely - or else corporate civilization as we know it will DIE!
There's only 2 things that can harm companies:
1) Lib'ruls
2) allowing any potential threat to c/p/t to be handled with less than extreme force.
Pfft Covid19 - how stupid is that judge, doesn't he know corporations don't get that kind of sick (just like they can't be arrested or jailed for criminal activity)
Er, why didn't they try good faith and/or qualified immunity.
I mean, are they entirely sure there's not been a prior case where a drug unit (not just 'an officer', but a coordinated unit) took cocaine (not just 'drugs', but specifically cocaine) and attempted to sell it?
Because i really don' think there's been a specific case 'on point' that the courts have ruled on, and thus the officers can't be aware that it's against the law. Come on Timmy, you can't go falling down the well of "expecting the cops to follow laws without specific detailed instructions that something is against the law' - Especially not when Lassie is actually a police sniffer dog and just alerts based on handler cues and not actual incidents.
ok, since it works that way with everything else (according to cops), lets increase punishments.
Planting evidence is now a capital crime. It is, after all, possession of a controlled substance, contempt of the courts, perjury, false arrest, kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon (in most states, committing a crime while having a weapon on you counts, and you know the cops will at least 'indicate' to the gun)
Assisting or covering up planting of evidence is 'accessory after the fact', and is also a capital offense (as with other cases, like armed robbery)
Refusing to investigate/prosecute when a prima facie case is demonstrated (as here) - Life with no possibility of parole.
And any and all pay/bonuses received since the date of the offense in all 3 cases are proceeds from crime and will undergo civil asset forfeiture.
Or they can continue as they are for the next few years, until the next 'ferguson moment', when I'm pretty sure people are just not going to take it any more, and will just descend on the cops house in question, and string him up by the nearest tree.
...and to be honest, they'll be morally right in doing so. When the law enforcement has no respect for the law, then the public can have no respect for the law, or those that enforce it; the only way to fix that to to bring the enforcement in line with the law, and if they won't do it themselves, then it'll have to be imposed from outside, via the citizenry.
"she asked for and was given immunity and could have invoked her fifth amendment rights if necessary"
WRONG.
The 5th amendment right is protection from self-incrimination.
With blanket immunity granted by the prosecutor, there is no longer the possibility of self-incrimination, and thus the 5th amendment no longer applies.
If manning had not negotiated a blanket immunity deal, then yes, the 5th was an option. When you refuse to testify when there's zero risk, then your only argument can only be that you want to help someone get away with a crime by making it more difficult to prosecute them.
Incorrect.
She was found guilty of contempt of court.
The sentence is a day in jail (upto 30-45 depending on the specifics, but in this case it was daily) and each day that manning refused to abide by the courts legal request, it was a new case. Manning could end things any time by testifying (it's a coercive punishment, to avoid an omerta-like situation that obstructs the ability of the justice system to work)
my wife did tech support for DirecTV. I'm not saying their training was comprehensive, but she had orbit charts for all their satellites as part of the initial 3 week training.
AT&T bought them and they laid them ALL off, straight away, outsourced to the phillipines.
You can bet they never even told those people how many sats they were using, let alone orbital info.
"Of course, there may be a larger point that Baker is getting at here, and he just failed to explain it well."
That's not a good thing either. Basically, 'explaining things well' is the OTHER half of his job description.
If he's not reporting the facts, and he's not explaining things well, then WHY is he employed as a journalist, when he can't manage either of the basic requirements of that job.
In fact, the very last story in Mike's favourite tag, is a piece he wrote exactly 52 weeks ago, where he talks about another computer generated work, and says it doesn't get copyright protection.
Few years back someone tried to do the same thing with images, called Qentis. It didn't work. What's more, it can't work.
It's Mike's favourite case that tells us that - as the work is computer generated, it's not by a human hand, and thus initially ineligible for copyright to start with.
That does lead to another potential prong of attack, and that's saying that since it's not copyrighted, it's public domain (it is) and so anything based off that is a derivative work, unless they show independent creation.
Likewise, they've maybe committed 2 million (guessing!) instances of infringement, unless they can likewise show independent development (which they can).
So it's a stunt that's good for a few headlines, but won't actually change the law, or anything else at all really.
Correct. You ask "do you have this information" - that is basic journalism.
And if they say 'ok, you need to go and do this this and this', that is not saying what they need to fill in the story, that's giving them instructions and directing their actions.
there's a difference between 'cover your arse' and 'and you're taking precautions'; and 'do this, and this and this to avoid detection and make investigations hard for you'.
What part of report the story, don't become part of it aren't you aware of?
If you start giving them instructions, you're attempting to steer the story, not report it.
checks and sign-ins, run by embassy staff, eh? I didnt realise they were physically incapable of using a pseudonym, or just not writing stuff down, and it's TOTALLY unheard of for a representative of a [potentially] a high level government official to have meetings on the down-low.
And that company isn't being prosecuted, it's being investigated.
On the post: Judge To Art Licensing Agency: No, Your Stupid Unicorn Is Not More Important Than COVID-19 Right Now, Shut Up
HOW DARE YOU!
Don't you know, Mike, that there's absolutely nothing more important than copyright, patent and trademark protections? We have to give up anything and everything to protect those rights - the environment, free speech, the basic ability to communicate freely - or else corporate civilization as we know it will DIE!
There's only 2 things that can harm companies:
1) Lib'ruls
2) allowing any potential threat to c/p/t to be handled with less than extreme force.
Pfft Covid19 - how stupid is that judge, doesn't he know corporations don't get that kind of sick (just like they can't be arrested or jailed for criminal activity)
On the post: Nintendo Gets 'Dreams' Mario Taken Down Because Of Course It Did
Look, game about dreams can't impact nintendo's dream - of controlling everything to do with Mario.
Having less that total control would be a nightmare for them.
On the post: Another Baltimore Cop Facing Criminal Charges, This Time For Stealing 3 Kilos Of Coke From A Drug Bust
Er, why didn't they try good faith and/or qualified immunity.
I mean, are they entirely sure there's not been a prior case where a drug unit (not just 'an officer', but a coordinated unit) took cocaine (not just 'drugs', but specifically cocaine) and attempted to sell it?
Because i really don' think there's been a specific case 'on point' that the courts have ruled on, and thus the officers can't be aware that it's against the law. Come on Timmy, you can't go falling down the well of "expecting the cops to follow laws without specific detailed instructions that something is against the law' - Especially not when Lassie is actually a police sniffer dog and just alerts based on handler cues and not actual incidents.
On the post: FBI Says It Will Only Accept Snail Mail FOIA Requests Until Further Notice, Due To Coronavirus Concerns
The FBI - Never letting an opportunity to show their contempt for the US and its ideals go to waste, by squandering a national emergency.
On the post: Twitter Suspended Cory Doctorow For Putting Trolls On A List Called 'Colossal Assholes'
I sometimes wonder what lists I'm on....
On the post: Body Camera Once Again Catches An NYPD Officer Planting Drugs In Someone's Car
ok, since it works that way with everything else (according to cops), lets increase punishments.
Planting evidence is now a capital crime. It is, after all, possession of a controlled substance, contempt of the courts, perjury, false arrest, kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon (in most states, committing a crime while having a weapon on you counts, and you know the cops will at least 'indicate' to the gun)
Assisting or covering up planting of evidence is 'accessory after the fact', and is also a capital offense (as with other cases, like armed robbery)
Refusing to investigate/prosecute when a prima facie case is demonstrated (as here) - Life with no possibility of parole.
And any and all pay/bonuses received since the date of the offense in all 3 cases are proceeds from crime and will undergo civil asset forfeiture.
Or they can continue as they are for the next few years, until the next 'ferguson moment', when I'm pretty sure people are just not going to take it any more, and will just descend on the cops house in question, and string him up by the nearest tree.
...and to be honest, they'll be morally right in doing so. When the law enforcement has no respect for the law, then the public can have no respect for the law, or those that enforce it; the only way to fix that to to bring the enforcement in line with the law, and if they won't do it themselves, then it'll have to be imposed from outside, via the citizenry.
On the post: Court Orders Chelsea Manning Released From Jail One Day After Suicide Attempt: Testimony 'No Longer Needed'
Re: Re: How can anyone side with the DOJ here?
"she asked for and was given immunity and could have invoked her fifth amendment rights if necessary"
WRONG.
The 5th amendment right is protection from self-incrimination.
With blanket immunity granted by the prosecutor, there is no longer the possibility of self-incrimination, and thus the 5th amendment no longer applies.
If manning had not negotiated a blanket immunity deal, then yes, the 5th was an option. When you refuse to testify when there's zero risk, then your only argument can only be that you want to help someone get away with a crime by making it more difficult to prosecute them.
Manning doesn't look so good in that light, eh?
On the post: Court Orders Chelsea Manning Released From Jail One Day After Suicide Attempt: Testimony 'No Longer Needed'
Re: Re: How can anyone side with the DOJ here?
Incorrect.
She was found guilty of contempt of court.
The sentence is a day in jail (upto 30-45 depending on the specifics, but in this case it was daily) and each day that manning refused to abide by the courts legal request, it was a new case. Manning could end things any time by testifying (it's a coercive punishment, to avoid an omerta-like situation that obstructs the ability of the justice system to work)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Woohoo!
It's taken me 7 years, but I finally got a comment on the sunday post!
On the post: AT&T Can't Get Out Of Its Own Way As It Tries To 'Disrupt' Traditional TV
my wife did tech support for DirecTV. I'm not saying their training was comprehensive, but she had orbit charts for all their satellites as part of the initial 3 week training.
AT&T bought them and they laid them ALL off, straight away, outsourced to the phillipines.
You can bet they never even told those people how many sats they were using, let alone orbital info.
On the post: NY Times Political Reporter Believes Telling Right From Wrong Is Beyond His Job Description; He's Wrong
"Of course, there may be a larger point that Baker is getting at here, and he just failed to explain it well."
That's not a good thing either. Basically, 'explaining things well' is the OTHER half of his job description.
If he's not reporting the facts, and he's not explaining things well, then WHY is he employed as a journalist, when he can't manage either of the basic requirements of that job.
On the post: The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time?
"The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time?"
hahahahahahahha
No.
A more perfect example of Betteridge you could not find.
On the post: Attempt To Put Every Musical Melody Into The Public Domain Demonstrates Craziness Of Modern Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Been tried before, won't work
no
On the post: Attempt To Put Every Musical Melody Into The Public Domain Demonstrates Craziness Of Modern Copyright
Re: Been tried before, won't work
In fact, the very last story in Mike's favourite tag, is a piece he wrote exactly 52 weeks ago, where he talks about another computer generated work, and says it doesn't get copyright protection.
On the post: Attempt To Put Every Musical Melody Into The Public Domain Demonstrates Craziness Of Modern Copyright
Been tried before, won't work
Few years back someone tried to do the same thing with images, called Qentis. It didn't work. What's more, it can't work.
It's Mike's favourite case that tells us that - as the work is computer generated, it's not by a human hand, and thus initially ineligible for copyright to start with.
That does lead to another potential prong of attack, and that's saying that since it's not copyrighted, it's public domain (it is) and so anything based off that is a derivative work, unless they show independent creation.
Likewise, they've maybe committed 2 million (guessing!) instances of infringement, unless they can likewise show independent development (which they can).
So it's a stunt that's good for a few headlines, but won't actually change the law, or anything else at all really.
On the post: Letter To Judge Details Vault 7 Leaker's Post-Incarceration Leaking
Re: Re:
this "far more people" used in the same way as when referring to the "trump inauguration"
On the post: The Similarities Between The US's Case Against Julian Assange And Brazil's Against Glenn Greenwald Are Uncanny
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct. You ask "do you have this information" - that is basic journalism.
And if they say 'ok, you need to go and do this this and this', that is not saying what they need to fill in the story, that's giving them instructions and directing their actions.
This is not hard to grasp.
On the post: The Similarities Between The US's Case Against Julian Assange And Brazil's Against Glenn Greenwald Are Uncanny
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it was so 'basic common sense', why hadn't they done it already?
Any time you start telling them what to do, you're not a journalist, you're a director, instructing your actors to get hte performance you want.
On the post: The Similarities Between The US's Case Against Julian Assange And Brazil's Against Glenn Greenwald Are Uncanny
Re: Re:
there's a difference between 'cover your arse' and 'and you're taking precautions'; and 'do this, and this and this to avoid detection and make investigations hard for you'.
What part of report the story, don't become part of it aren't you aware of?
If you start giving them instructions, you're attempting to steer the story, not report it.
On the post: The Similarities Between The US's Case Against Julian Assange And Brazil's Against Glenn Greenwald Are Uncanny
Re: Re: K Tetch
checks and sign-ins, run by embassy staff, eh? I didnt realise they were physically incapable of using a pseudonym, or just not writing stuff down, and it's TOTALLY unheard of for a representative of a [potentially] a high level government official to have meetings on the down-low.
And that company isn't being prosecuted, it's being investigated.
YOUR agenda is the one showing.
Next >>