Except that you've fallen for the fallacy that intellectual property laws deal with property rights. "Intellectual property" has nothing to do with property. Putting it into the name doesn't magically make it so. It's literally only saying that no one else can do the exact same thing that you did. Which is also why it is in fact contrary to a functioning society. Thus making it a great argument against intellectual property.
So what? Nothing in the article or the judges ruling ever says this idea only applies to court costs. They're talking about any fees levied by the government against a citizen for any reason.
The last paragraph also doesn't say anything about the "indigent" or whether they should have to pay fines or fees. I'm not sure what paragraph you might actually be referring to, but the whole point of this ruling was that taking away their privilege to drive is not an effective or reasonable punishment for not paying a government fee. That doesn't mean some punishment can't be used. Only that this one isn't reasonable because it unjustly punishes poorer people over wealthier ones.
Except that no one in the article ever said that Ketamine should never be used by EMS personnel. Your argument is a strawman.
Go read the article again and the links provided as proof of what is being presented and then come back and explain this is being used in SITUATIONS that it absolutely should never be used in and under the direction of individuals who have absolutely no training or authority to direct its use.
Considering they provided evidence to prove that what they said is in fact true and all you've given is your own opinion while actively pretending they said something they never did, I find their statements far more credible than yours.
How the heck is a video/picture recording considered protected speech, but an audio recording isn't? These ridiculous laws trying to pretend there's some significant difference between the two need to die. The only thing they're ever used for is to protect bad behavior.
Another side to this problem is that many of these streamers are using the music in such a way that they'd have a strong case for fair use. But Twitch doesn't care to provide any possibility for that since it would likely cost them to defend it. Part of me seriously just wants all Copyright holders to get what they dream they want. Just so we can all watch the world implode as the freedom to create new things ceases to exist.
Re: Your notion of Public Forums is not consistent except with YOU!
Public schools are 1. built by the government 2. managed by the government and 3. funded by the government.
The fact that it is not a governing BODY does not separate it from being a government ENTITY. Any activity run by it constitutes a public forum in the legal sense and therefore the first amendment absolutely applies.
It's that kind of thinking that produced legalese. The fruitless attempt to make something that is inherently unclear somehow become clear. Language is not clear. People are always going to misunderstand what you say. You can't blame the speaker purely based on that metric. It's an impossible standard to ever keep. The real problem here isn't even the fact that they misunderstood him, although I find the direction they chose extreme. It is how they chose to react once they got the chance to talk to him.
The fact that human language is incredibly vague and ridiculously easy to misinterpret is not a fault of the person speaking.
There's nothing wrong with the grammar in that statement. Your (and the school administrations) choice to interpret it in the absolute worst way you can possibly think of is the only problem here.
He didn't miss it, he pointed out that the judges got that math backwards.
They decided that a disc without a license is the same value as one with a license, and that value must be $300. So to your point they failed to understand what actually has value here.
Wrong. The people he gave the discs to ALREADY OWN THEIR OWN COPY OF THE SOFTWARE. Therefore it is blatantly permitted copying and cannot be ruled as infringement.
And to be blunt, they were official discs. The software on them was an exact copy of MS's official software provided in the exact same way MS provides it: for free to anyone that wants to download it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How do we deal with a machine kills a human?
Your "opinion" was just as much a claim as the person you're attacking.
To quote: "Because I'm sure the single death related to an AI driver is far outweighed by the human caused deaths, even after adjusting for driving time"
The fact that you also did not offer up any data to back your opinion still leaves it just as much a "claim" as his was.
So at what point do you consider it to be "developed"?
There's no such thing as perfect technology, so that can't be the standard. It's already better then humans in normal driving conditions, so what exactly are you looking for?
Technology is always developing. The cars you drive every day on your public streets are developing technology. You're imagining that there's some finish line that simply doesn't exist.
IF we were talking about a neutral law enforcement force being present, perhaps you'd be right. If you read the entire article you'd hopefully have noted that the true issue here is the presence of a clearly NON-NEUTRAL force.
There's a good reason federal forces are not allowed at polling places. Their presence is not neutral and absolutely represents a threat. If you cannot see that then I suggest you go study sociology and psychology a little more. They don't have to DO anything to affect people's decisions at the polls.
Re: "Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption." --- Nope, it's to "secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right", and set up way that's done.
"Available for license at tiny fraction of production cost IS fair use"
If I had to license it, I had to get your permission. Fair use is copying WITHOUT your permission, therefore your example cannot be fair use.
Re: "Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption." --- Nope, it's to "secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right", and set up way that's done.
You need to go take some classes in reading comprehension. You're quoting the METHOD and then claiming it's the PURPOSE. In other words, you've quite literally put the cart before the horse.
"TO promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, BY securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I'm lost on why anyone is bothering to respond to you after this insane statement.
Copyright INFRINGEMENT is not theft. Trying to compare the two only demonstrates just how poorly you understand what copyright law is supposed to be doing and what it isn't.
This is why fair use DOES allow anyone to copy something you spent 2 million bucks on without your permission or paying you a dime under the right circumstances and for the right reasons. Because the law recognizes that you AREN'T stealing anything from anyone, even when you're copying doesn't fall under fair use.
This is a common misunderstanding of the Constitution. As another commenter pointed out judges have made it clear in the past that this is not true, but I'd like to give some understanding as to why.
The whole point of the Constitution when it was written was to address how people should be treated, period. We only have power to enforce it's principals within our borders, but we should be abiding according to those principals at all times regardless of who we are engaging with or where.
Yes US citizens do have more protection than non-citizens, but it does still afford protection to everyone regardless.
" for anyone of first nation blood since this was their land before we stole it"
I get what you're going for, but this is a classic basic fallacy. All one has to do is take it one step further: who'd they steal this country from?
If we followed this kind of logic then everyone would be able to claim citizenship in multiple countries around the world. Trying to pretend that ONLY one group ever invaded anyone ever or that one group is entirely in the wrong making another entire in the right is just ridiculous. History does not bear your perception out.
On the post: AFP Sues Photographer Whose Photographs It Used Without Permission
Re: Re:
"Intellectual property" has nothing to do with property. Putting it into the name doesn't magically make it so. It's literally only saying that no one else can do the exact same thing that you did. Which is also why it is in fact contrary to a functioning society. Thus making it a great argument against intellectual property.
On the post: Federal Court Says Taking People's Drivers Licenses Away For Failure To Pay Court Fees Is Unconstitutional
Re: Not clear on how far-reaching
So what? Nothing in the article or the judges ruling ever says this idea only applies to court costs. They're talking about any fees levied by the government against a citizen for any reason.
The last paragraph also doesn't say anything about the "indigent" or whether they should have to pay fines or fees. I'm not sure what paragraph you might actually be referring to, but the whole point of this ruling was that taking away their privilege to drive is not an effective or reasonable punishment for not paying a government fee. That doesn't mean some punishment can't be used. Only that this one isn't reasonable because it unjustly punishes poorer people over wealthier ones.
On the post: Cops Are Telling Paramedics To Inject Arrestees With Ketamine. Worse, EMS Crews Are Actually Doing It.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
Go read the article again and the links provided as proof of what is being presented and then come back and explain this is being used in SITUATIONS that it absolutely should never be used in and under the direction of individuals who have absolutely no training or authority to direct its use.
On the post: Cops Are Telling Paramedics To Inject Arrestees With Ketamine. Worse, EMS Crews Are Actually Doing It.
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Illinois Prosecutor Brings Felony Eavesdropping Charges Against 13-Year-Old Who Recorded His Conversation With School Administrators
Stupid laws
On the post: IFPI Nuking Twitch Streamers Accounts For Playing Background Music
Part of me seriously just wants all Copyright holders to get what they dream they want. Just so we can all watch the world implode as the freedom to create new things ceases to exist.
On the post: High School Student's Speech About Campus Sexual Assault Gets Widespread Attention After School Cuts Her Mic
Re: Your notion of Public Forums is not consistent except with YOU!
The fact that it is not a governing BODY does not separate it from being a government ENTITY. Any activity run by it constitutes a public forum in the legal sense and therefore the first amendment absolutely applies.
On the post: School Can't Take A Joke; Turns Student Over To Cops For Listing The School For Sale On Craigslist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not surprising
Language is not clear. People are always going to misunderstand what you say. You can't blame the speaker purely based on that metric. It's an impossible standard to ever keep.
The real problem here isn't even the fact that they misunderstood him, although I find the direction they chose extreme. It is how they chose to react once they got the chance to talk to him.
On the post: School Can't Take A Joke; Turns Student Over To Cops For Listing The School For Sale On Craigslist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not surprising
There's nothing wrong with the grammar in that statement. Your (and the school administrations) choice to interpret it in the absolute worst way you can possibly think of is the only problem here.
On the post: How Microsoft Convinced Clueless Judges To Send A Man To Jail For Copying Software It Gives Out For Free
Re:
They decided that a disc without a license is the same value as one with a license, and that value must be $300. So to your point they failed to understand what actually has value here.
On the post: How Microsoft Convinced Clueless Judges To Send A Man To Jail For Copying Software It Gives Out For Free
Re: Re:
Wrong. The people he gave the discs to ALREADY OWN THEIR OWN COPY OF THE SOFTWARE. Therefore it is blatantly permitted copying and cannot be ruled as infringement.
And to be blunt, they were official discs. The software on them was an exact copy of MS's official software provided in the exact same way MS provides it: for free to anyone that wants to download it.
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How do we deal with a machine kills a human?
To quote: "Because I'm sure the single death related to an AI driver is far outweighed by the human caused deaths, even after adjusting for driving time"
The fact that you also did not offer up any data to back your opinion still leaves it just as much a "claim" as his was.
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re: Re: Re:
There's no such thing as perfect technology, so that can't be the standard. It's already better then humans in normal driving conditions, so what exactly are you looking for?
Technology is always developing. The cars you drive every day on your public streets are developing technology. You're imagining that there's some finish line that simply doesn't exist.
On the post: Trump's Lawyer's Lawyer Threatens Defamation Over Claims Stormy Daniels Did Not Make
Re: Re: Re: what pisses leftists off most...
So if you don't think we're dumber then you, what part of the word "primitive" do you not understand?
On the post: Trump Administration Wants To Start Sending Secret Service Agents To Polling Stations
Re: Get back to tech stuff
There's a good reason federal forces are not allowed at polling places. Their presence is not neutral and absolutely represents a threat. If you cannot see that then I suggest you go study sociology and psychology a little more. They don't have to DO anything to affect people's decisions at the polls.
On the post: MPAA Opposes Several Filmmaker Associations Request For Expanded Circumvention Exemptions
Re: "Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption." --- Nope, it's to "secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right", and set up way that's done.
If I had to license it, I had to get your permission. Fair use is copying WITHOUT your permission, therefore your example cannot be fair use.
On the post: MPAA Opposes Several Filmmaker Associations Request For Expanded Circumvention Exemptions
Re: "Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption." --- Nope, it's to "secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right", and set up way that's done.
"TO promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, BY securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
On the post: MPAA Opposes Several Filmmaker Associations Request For Expanded Circumvention Exemptions
Re: Re: Too bad
Copyright INFRINGEMENT is not theft. Trying to compare the two only demonstrates just how poorly you understand what copyright law is supposed to be doing and what it isn't.
This is why fair use DOES allow anyone to copy something you spent 2 million bucks on without your permission or paying you a dime under the right circumstances and for the right reasons. Because the law recognizes that you AREN'T stealing anything from anyone, even when you're copying doesn't fall under fair use.
On the post: Activist Sues ICE For Its Unconstitutional Targeting Of Immigrants' First Amendment-Protected Activities
Re: Re:
The whole point of the Constitution when it was written was to address how people should be treated, period. We only have power to enforce it's principals within our borders, but we should be abiding according to those principals at all times regardless of who we are engaging with or where.
Yes US citizens do have more protection than non-citizens, but it does still afford protection to everyone regardless.
On the post: Activist Sues ICE For Its Unconstitutional Targeting Of Immigrants' First Amendment-Protected Activities
Re: Living here illegally is an illegal act
I get what you're going for, but this is a classic basic fallacy. All one has to do is take it one step further: who'd they steal this country from?
If we followed this kind of logic then everyone would be able to claim citizenship in multiple countries around the world. Trying to pretend that ONLY one group ever invaded anyone ever or that one group is entirely in the wrong making another entire in the right is just ridiculous. History does not bear your perception out.
Next >>