I think it bears pointing out that Moore and Clement had differing viewpoints on copyright reform. Then they received a directive from the Prime Minister.
Moore got his way on copyright, Clement got very quiet about his perspective and began towing the party line and all of a sudden, Clement's riding is virtually swimming in government money.
Apparently, lobbying fairies (and leprechauns) come from the magical land of the Prime Minister's Office where the king's word is law and money grows on trees (which grow beside fake lakes).
I'm afraid it's you who doesn't get it. I will attempt to simply for you: there are 3 (three) times with which we are concerned.
Time A: The 1st photo is taken. The light as been red for 24.9 seconds.
Time B: 0.1 seconds later - the light turns green. There is no photograph of this.
Time C: "about two seconds" after the first photo was taken. This is when the second photo was taken showing the car in the intersection.
Ginsberg used math to show that in the 0.1 seconds between Time A and Time B he could not have travelled far enough to enter the intersection and therefore didn't run the red; by the time he DID enter the intersection, the light had changed.
My point was that while Ginsberg's math is correct, he also implicitly admits that he was approaching the red light at 15mph. Given the distance to the intersection in the photo, that implies that he had no intention of stopping for the red and was attempting to time his entry into the intersection to coincide with the light changing. That practice may not be explicitly illegal but it is generally unsafe and could have resulted in a dangerous driving charge which, in light of Ginsberg's own math might have stuck.
I hope that clarifies my point and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear in my earlier comments.
Hmmm. Comment field doesn't seem to like "less than" signs. Carrying on...
Since 1 mile = 5280 feet and 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600s
and since he traveled [less than] 2.5 feet in 0.1s: 2.5'/0.1s = 25ft/s. 25ft/s x 3600s = 90000 ft/h. 90000ft / 5280 = 17.05mph. The same math says that at 15mph the actual distance travelled in 0.1s is 2.2 feet which is consistent with both the statement and the camera data.
Therefore, he had to be in motion travelling ~15mph at the time the first photo was recorded.
Hi Mike.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I didn't read it incorrectly. To clarify my observation, the math and the statement from Ginsberg prove he was traveling at 15mph in photo #1.
In one-tenth of a second, Ginsberg calculated he traveled less than 2 1/2 feet
That's "traveled" not "could have traveled" (and remember, this is an attorney defending himself in court, not an off-hand remark so I believe such minutia is relevant).
Since 1 mile = 5280 feet and 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600s
and since he traveled
While he didn't break the law, he was being unsafe. If his car was still going 15 mph that close to the intersection while the light was red, he was probably trying to time the light and succeeded. Nevertheless, it's not a good practice even though he did not, technically, run the red.
The police might have had more luck tearing up the ticket voluntarily and charging him with unsafe driving (if that's an offence where he is).
Well, here in Canada our system (which pretty much matches the UK's on which it's based) requires that once a bill is passed by both houses, it requires royal assent. This is given by the Governor General (the Queen's proxy) and as a matter of tradition, it is a rubber stamp. But technicaly I suppose she *could* withhold royal assent and therefore I assume the Queen could too. Probably one-in-a-million (or worse) odds that it happens, but other that about the only option is to elect new MPs who run on the promise to repeal the law after the fact.
Re: Levy isn't to compensate for "unauthorized" downloading
"When I interview the Canadian Private Copying Collective, they make it very clear that in their view the levy they collect doesn't allow users to engage in "unauthorized downloading." The levy is actually to compensate artists for legal private copying - for example, from a CD to a hard drive, or onto another burned CD. The theory here is that when you buy a song on a CD, you don't have the rights to copy it elsewhere." - Brian Jackson
Of course they say/write/publicize that position. For context, here is an excerpt from the CPCC's own "about" page at www.cpcc.ca:
"Established in 1999, CPCC is an umbrella organization that represents songwriters, recording artists, music publishers and record companies."
Translation of the Hon. Minister's comments:
"I think it's totally nonsensical. We cannot capitulate to entertainment industry demands and U.S. pressure to impose DMCA-style copyright laws and, at the same time, have this NDP plan to expand fair dealing in such a broad and consumer-friendly way." - Industry Minister Tony Clement (translated from the original Conservative double-speak by Anshar).
Thankfully, our Industry Minister is a complete idiot and not fooling anyone.
I can think of at least one other way they could capitalize on their videos without removing them from YouTube. They could make smaller videos that are still good and useful enough to go viral and make those available on YouTube while offering significantly expanded versions for sale.
Could James be saying what his father (and presumeably those around him) wants to hear? Just thinking that would be best way for him to ensure he gets the top job at News Corp.
I would add that part of the problem with the copyright consultation we had up here in Canada is that it was widely expected to be ignored. It was viewed by many as an excuse by a government that had already tried (and failed) to pass stronger copyright laws to try again claiming that what they propose is what Canadians asked for.
Make no mistake, I and many people I know sent in submissions in the hopes that the government would have to sit up and take notice. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen.
This provision is all about the threat of legal proceedings. If this goes through wouldn't it just encourage people to send the notification of infringement (which specifically does not constitute a threat), and then proceed to sue without any further warning?
Drawn a Venn diagram has associated a piece of data with multiple categories. Whoever approved that patent in the first place should be cast into a cave and never allowed to use technology again.
That seems very reasonable. But what about the general question? Should anonymous commenters be identified for the purpose of keeping them off of a jury?
I'm not quite clear about what stage this prosocution is at and therefore if this reason applies in this case but this story did make me wonder one thing: Could a case be made for identifying commenters during jury selection to ensure none of them are selected? I'm sure the question could come up during the selection process, but nothing would prevent the person from lying about it. Anyhow, just a thought.
The fact that the Prime Minister didn't eat the wafer is offensive to devout Catholics and pretty unremarkable to most others. Had it been left at that, this wouldn't even be a story. But the Prime Minister's Office issued a statement (in spite of the video) saying that he did indeed eat the wafer and to think otherwise is absurd. That turned it into a story about the government issuing a statement to avoid embarrassment that was immediately and conclusively shown to be a lie. All they had to do issue a quick apology to Catholics and the 'story' would have died then and there.
Now, the issue about the copyright claim being made by Radio-Canada rather than CPAC is an interesting one. This is purely conjecture on my part but I'm wondering if the *version* of the clip that was taken down might have come from Radio-Canada. The difference between that clip and the one linked above is that the now-missing clip showed the PM pocketing the wafer in slow motion with his hand circled and highlighted. Still, it seems like a clear case of fair-dealing to me. Nevertheless, Radio-Canada is part of the CBC which has been at odds with the current government which in turn controls most of CBC's funding as a public broadcaster. Food for thought.
1. The warrantless issue is for providers to hand over personal information upon request. This has many Canadians worried (and rightly so). It was panned by the Canadian media immediately with only a few exceptions from Conservative-friendly news outlets.
2. The surviellance equipment requirement is a little bit less worrisome. Law enforcement already requires a warrant to tap real-time communications online just as they do for telephone communications. The problem is that they lack the means to execute those warrants. In addition, the government is prepared to subsidize the purchase of the equipment to help offset the cost.
Over all, this is very troubling legislation and given it's initial reception, it is not expected to pass in it's present form.
On the post: Canadian Heritage Minister Says That Those In Favor Of Balanced Copyright Are 'Radical Extremists'
Re:
I think it bears pointing out that Moore and Clement had differing viewpoints on copyright reform. Then they received a directive from the Prime Minister.
Moore got his way on copyright, Clement got very quiet about his perspective and began towing the party line and all of a sudden, Clement's riding is virtually swimming in government money.
Apparently, lobbying fairies (and leprechauns) come from the magical land of the Prime Minister's Office where the king's word is law and money grows on trees (which grow beside fake lakes).
On the post: Dear Rupert: Before Putting Up A Paywall, It Helps To Have Your Staff Check The HTML
Re: Re: noscript
On the post: Attorney Decodes Numbers On Redlight Camera Photo To Prove That The Light Was Green
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Looks like
Time A: The 1st photo is taken. The light as been red for 24.9 seconds.
Time B: 0.1 seconds later - the light turns green. There is no photograph of this.
Time C: "about two seconds" after the first photo was taken. This is when the second photo was taken showing the car in the intersection.
Ginsberg used math to show that in the 0.1 seconds between Time A and Time B he could not have travelled far enough to enter the intersection and therefore didn't run the red; by the time he DID enter the intersection, the light had changed.
My point was that while Ginsberg's math is correct, he also implicitly admits that he was approaching the red light at 15mph. Given the distance to the intersection in the photo, that implies that he had no intention of stopping for the red and was attempting to time his entry into the intersection to coincide with the light changing. That practice may not be explicitly illegal but it is generally unsafe and could have resulted in a dangerous driving charge which, in light of Ginsberg's own math might have stuck.
I hope that clarifies my point and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear in my earlier comments.
On the post: Attorney Decodes Numbers On Redlight Camera Photo To Prove That The Light Was Green
Re: Re: Re: Looks like����¯�¿�½������¢������¯������¿������½��
Since 1 mile = 5280 feet and 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600s and since he traveled [less than] 2.5 feet in 0.1s: 2.5'/0.1s = 25ft/s. 25ft/s x 3600s = 90000 ft/h. 90000ft / 5280 = 17.05mph. The same math says that at 15mph the actual distance travelled in 0.1s is 2.2 feet which is consistent with both the statement and the camera data.
Therefore, he had to be in motion travelling ~15mph at the time the first photo was recorded.
On the post: Attorney Decodes Numbers On Redlight Camera Photo To Prove That The Light Was Green
Re: Re: Looks like�
On the post: Attorney Decodes Numbers On Redlight Camera Photo To Prove That The Light Was Green
Looks like…
The police might have had more luck tearing up the ticket voluntarily and charging him with unsafe driving (if that's an offence where he is).
On the post: As Expected Digital Economy Bill To Be Rushed Through With No Debate
Re:
On the post: Angus Proposes iPod Tax... Balanced With Greater Fair Dealing Protections
Re: Levy isn't to compensate for "unauthorized" downloading
Of course they say/write/publicize that position. For context, here is an excerpt from the CPCC's own "about" page at www.cpcc.ca:
"Established in 1999, CPCC is an umbrella organization that represents songwriters, recording artists, music publishers and record companies."
Draw your own conclusions.
On the post: Angus Proposes iPod Tax... Balanced With Greater Fair Dealing Protections
Re:
"I think it's totally nonsensical. We cannot capitulate to entertainment industry demands and U.S. pressure to impose DMCA-style copyright laws and, at the same time, have this NDP plan to expand fair dealing in such a broad and consumer-friendly way." - Industry Minister Tony Clement (translated from the original Conservative double-speak by Anshar).
Thankfully, our Industry Minister is a complete idiot and not fooling anyone.
On the post: Viral Video Producers Want To Charge You To Embed Their Videos
On the post: James Murdoch Is Very, Very Confused About Copyright Infringement (And So Is His Dad, Rupert)
Just To Play Devil's Advocate…
On the post: Asking Citizens What They Want Out Of Copyright Law Is Really Just A 'Tactic To Confuse'?
Public Consultation
I agree with what Laurel L. Russwurm just wrote.
I would add that part of the problem with the copyright consultation we had up here in Canada is that it was widely expected to be ignored. It was viewed by many as an excuse by a government that had already tried (and failed) to pass stronger copyright laws to try again claiming that what they propose is what Canadians asked for.
Make no mistake, I and many people I know sent in submissions in the hopes that the government would have to sit up and take notice. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen.
On the post: Lord Lucas Wants UK Digital Economy Bill To Include Remedy For Bogus Copyright Threats
I Think I See a Hole...
On the post: Facebook Ordered (Again) To Turn Over Source Code
Anyone Who Has Ever...
On the post: Lawyers For Guy Charged In Death Of 4 Year Old, Demanding IDs Of 300 Newspaper Commenters
Re: Re: Just Curious
On the post: Lawyers For Guy Charged In Death Of 4 Year Old, Demanding IDs Of 300 Newspaper Commenters
Just Curious
On the post: Is It A Crime To Watch The Naked Erin Andrews Video? No, But It Makes You A Total Jerk
Any minute now...
On the post: YouTube Takedown Again Being Used To Try To Block Newsworthy Content
That's only half of it...
Now, the issue about the copyright claim being made by Radio-Canada rather than CPAC is an interesting one. This is purely conjecture on my part but I'm wondering if the *version* of the clip that was taken down might have come from Radio-Canada. The difference between that clip and the one linked above is that the now-missing clip showed the PM pocketing the wafer in slow motion with his hand circled and highlighted. Still, it seems like a clear case of fair-dealing to me. Nevertheless, Radio-Canada is part of the CBC which has been at odds with the current government which in turn controls most of CBC's funding as a public broadcaster. Food for thought.
On the post: According To WSJ, Google Not Just A 'Thief' But A 'Digital Vampire'
Digital Vampire...
On the post: Canadian Politicians Want To Pass Internet Snooping Legislation
It's worth pointing out...
that there are two seperate issues here.
1. The warrantless issue is for providers to hand over personal information upon request. This has many Canadians worried (and rightly so). It was panned by the Canadian media immediately with only a few exceptions from Conservative-friendly news outlets.
2. The surviellance equipment requirement is a little bit less worrisome. Law enforcement already requires a warrant to tap real-time communications online just as they do for telephone communications. The problem is that they lack the means to execute those warrants. In addition, the government is prepared to subsidize the purchase of the equipment to help offset the cost.
Over all, this is very troubling legislation and given it's initial reception, it is not expected to pass in it's present form.
Next >>