You sound like you have spent quite some time studying pedestrian legal codes. Your speculative conversation is a sham and you are clearly an ambulatory terrorist.
If I work really, really hard to reduce my tax burden (take all my applicable deductions, keep track of receipts, pay a tax preparer, etc.), I guess that means I must be infringing, er, I mean dodging taxes.
Pretty clear the "manifestly unjust" element is just for show
They didn't use their "out" because they don't want to be accountable for any judgment whatsoever. Regardless of the clarity of this specific situation, I'm certain that they fear letting anyone off of the hook lest they have to let everyone off the hook since we all know that 95% of the cases will fall squarely in the grey area and require subjective analysis.
But that also means they have to jettison any idea of fairness or justice because once you are "accused" you are effectively guilty. What a travesty.
Well, but you need to follow a consistent line of logic yourself. All you did was point out a reason why the nobel nominator has a faulty premise for nominating. You've done nothing to prove or support an assertion of treason vs whistle-blowing, which inconveniently for you is the basis of this post.
I feel what you're saying, I really do. But sadly, it is exactly your reaction that causes people to act in this manner. If you are in a position of responsibility and use ANY judgment whatsoever to bend policy, pause, reflect, or generally behave like a human, and something goes wrong YOU are hung out to dry.
People in positions of responsibility can no longer rely on their organizations to back them if they use good judgment even when that judgment is mistaken.
Using judgment MUST come with the latitude of making mistakes and not having those mistakes expose you to massive liability, firing, or worse.
Yeah, the "it doesn't matter if it's more so..." is just baloney. The point completely missed here is that there is no way of knowing if a) it's a positive factor, b) a negative factor, or c) a completely unrelated factor, completely biased opinions notwithstanding.
And as happens so often, the AC completely ignores any positive or broader effect from the actions of the paper. "I don't like my 'legally-requestable' information from being publicized, so it must put me at risk and anything else positive or negative is irrelevant!"
More so than your zip code? or what they can see in the window?
I think you need to spend some time understanding how burglary comes about--and using information like this is not even remotely close. Not to mention that there are so many other factors involved, it's ludicrous to speculate on the degree of risk increase/decrease as a result of this revelation.
Also by your logic, being the subject of a newspaper article (regardless of the validity) that revealed anything about your belongings would be equally irresponsible.
Do you really not understand how those are two different things? Your lawn is not a public space and placing the sign would require trespassing.
Saying they are the same thing completely ignores any context around the information requested (legally). And please don't say that context doesn't matter, because that would be an insurmountable level of willful ignorance.
Why bother reading the site then? Seems to me if the content is worthless, the audience will leave.
If you're standing around asking, why isn't anyone leaving because I think this content is worthless, then... shouldn't you be questioning your fundamental assumption?
Re: Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
Ummm... except he clearly isn't an expert in the area:
Transfer of any copyright needs to be "in writing and signed by the owner of the rights" (17 USC §204). It can not be accomplished as a "term of entry". (quoted from earlier)
No one said they aren't getting something of value. Rigid perspectives like yours are part of the problem. You see significant change almost never happens overnight. If you spent even an ounce of time studying business you'd realize that what I said is the primary reason why any organization (AOL is a great example) continues to do what they always have as the environment changes around them.
In hindsight, their folly is easy to see, but when it is happening, it is almost impossible to recognize the slight decrease in the value equation year after year.
But hey, hold tight to those hardened perspectives, I'm sure they'll serve you well. It couldn't possibly be that there are others out there that might have something to teach you.
On the post: Aereo Wins Again: Appeals Court Says Its System Is Not Infringing
Re: Re: This is not unlike tax law
On the post: Aereo Wins Again: Appeals Court Says Its System Is Not Infringing
This is not unlike tax law
On the post: Lawyer Suggests That Prenda Law May Have Only 'Released' Movies It Sued Over As A Honeypot For Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Comment all in the tag:
On the post: Kiwi Three Strikes Tribunal Fines Soldier Who Was Serving In Afghanistan When Infringement Happened
Pretty clear the "manifestly unjust" element is just for show
But that also means they have to jettison any idea of fairness or justice because once you are "accused" you are effectively guilty. What a travesty.
On the post: Supreme Court Gets It Right In Kirtsaeng: You Can Resell Things You Bought Abroad Without Infringing
Re: Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
On the post: Innovators Break Stuff, Including The Rules: How Gates, Jobs & Zuckerberg Could Have Been Targeted Like Aaron Swartz
Re:
On the post: Bradley Manning Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize As People Begin Realizing How Damaging His Case Is To A Free Press
Re:
But don't let that spoil your thinking.
On the post: Hollywood Accounting Strikes Again: Universal Sued For Screwing Over Its Own Sister Company
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Misheard Will Smith Lyrics Results In Arrest Of Student And District-Wide Lockdown
Re: Lawsuit!!
People in positions of responsibility can no longer rely on their organizations to back them if they use good judgment even when that judgment is mistaken.
Using judgment MUST come with the latitude of making mistakes and not having those mistakes expose you to massive liability, firing, or worse.
We can't have it both ways.
On the post: North Carolina Newspaper With No Backbone Apologizes For Its Request For Public Records
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
And as happens so often, the AC completely ignores any positive or broader effect from the actions of the paper. "I don't like my 'legally-requestable' information from being publicized, so it must put me at risk and anything else positive or negative is irrelevant!"
On the post: North Carolina Newspaper With No Backbone Apologizes For Its Request For Public Records
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
More so than your zip code? or what they can see in the window?
I think you need to spend some time understanding how burglary comes about--and using information like this is not even remotely close. Not to mention that there are so many other factors involved, it's ludicrous to speculate on the degree of risk increase/decrease as a result of this revelation.
Also by your logic, being the subject of a newspaper article (regardless of the validity) that revealed anything about your belongings would be equally irresponsible.
On the post: North Carolina Newspaper With No Backbone Apologizes For Its Request For Public Records
Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
Saying they are the same thing completely ignores any context around the information requested (legally). And please don't say that context doesn't matter, because that would be an insurmountable level of willful ignorance.
On the post: Why Does The Entertainment Industry Insist That It Can Veto Any Innovation It Doesn't Like?
Re: In other news: it's been a slow day today.
If you're standing around asking, why isn't anyone leaving because I think this content is worthless, then... shouldn't you be questioning your fundamental assumption?
On the post: Why Does The Entertainment Industry Insist That It Can Veto Any Innovation It Doesn't Like?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NASCAR Abuses DMCA To Try To Delete Fan Videos Of Daytona Crash
Re: Re: Re: Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
On the post: Journalists Have No Obligation To Cover A Story About You The Way You Want Them To Cover It
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Journalists Have No Obligation To Cover A Story About You The Way You Want Them To Cover It
Re:
On the post: NASCAR Abuses DMCA To Try To Delete Fan Videos Of Daytona Crash
Re: Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
Transfer of any copyright needs to be "in writing and signed by the owner of the rights" (17 USC §204). It can not be accomplished as a "term of entry". (quoted from earlier)
On the post: Python Trademark At Risk In Europe: Python Software Foundation Appeals For Help
Re:
On the post: MIT Should Make All Its Research Open Access In Honor Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In hindsight, their folly is easy to see, but when it is happening, it is almost impossible to recognize the slight decrease in the value equation year after year.
But hey, hold tight to those hardened perspectives, I'm sure they'll serve you well. It couldn't possibly be that there are others out there that might have something to teach you.
Next >>