That's funny, because that article shows that what you're implying isn't true at all.
He paid for the crime, assuming the article is actually true. So he's NOT a criminal anymore and cannot be punished or treated as if he is. This would explain why the JUDGE evaluating this case wouldn't bring this issue up.
Go back and read the article again, you clearly missed a lot the first time through. What the judge called unconstitutional had NOTHING to do with their deporting him. It had to do with how they treated him as they did that. You should also go do some basic research into what it means to hold a green card. A person can be in the United States LEGALLY without being a citizen. Your assumptions are all wrong here.
You're free to use clips from any of those sources just fine. As long as you weren't the one who broke the DRM you are almost certainly covered by fair use.
I definitely agree, but I think the DMCA's bar is actually and sadly high compared to some of the issues the article hinted at.
At least with the DMCA you're allowed to fight it. Some countries have decided that if you try to fight it you're instantly liable even on the weak standard of whether the content was true or not.
Drugs being found does not make the "hunch" accurate. The clean van with two passengers has nothing whatsoever to do with drugs being in the vehicle. That's a ridiculous assertion to make.
Letting criminals off when cops commit criminal acts is not a bad trend. It's a necessary defense against violation of our basic constitutionally defined rights. We accept that in order to enjoy freedom some criminals will be allowed to go free.
Please point to where the court actually made an effort to find out if there was any truth at all in the accusations. So far it just looks like you're claiming courts should just declare all defendants in all civil suits guilty because someone said they did something wrong, which even if you think is ok I think most of the rest of us consider absurd.
It makes perfect sense, you just don't want to accept it.
Making the access providers responsible would be like making the city responsible for someone using its streets to transport drugs. The drugs are never kept on the streets or anywhere that the city has access to, yet we're claiming they should be able to tell that there were drugs in that car? That's the line of reasoning that makes no sense.
The repeat infringement policy has never been applied to access providers in the past, so what makes you say there's no doubt it should apply to them? It applies to those actually hosting (or holding onto) the infringing material. Trying to apply it to anyone else is just looking for a cheap/easy way to get around having to punish those who actually did something wrong.
While I understand why those who choose to be atheists really really really don't want to believe that it is a belief, that doesn't make it what you're describing.
Atheism is not a lack of religious belief. It is the belief that there is no God or other similar being. Trying to twist that into being a "lack of religious belief" is disingenuous at best. You have chosen to take up a belief on a religious subject. That by definition is a religious belief.
Lack of religious belief would be someone that just doesn't have an opinion or belief either way. Atheism distinctly does not fit that description.
You're welcome to fight this battle on only one small front. If you read more than just this one article you'd know that you basically have no chance of winning on that front since ISP's have long since written their own state laws to stop you, but go ahead anyway.
The rest of us choose to fight this fight on every front we can. We're absolutely for your idea no matter how much you want to pretend to yourself that we're not. We're just also for the other methods our system has provided to protect against monopolist control over necessary communications networks.
Any positions outrageousness is purely a matter of opinion. Not clearly stating that you are being sarcastic perfectly legitimately leaves reasonable people wondering if you are really that hateful/whatever extreme opinion you've chosen to express.
It is not their fault for not seeing what you didn't make clear. That is entirely on you.
Re: This is the reason for the March through the institutions
No one said that we like what these platforms are doing. That's not the point at all.
The problem always comes down to the fact that in order for ANYONE ANYWHERE to have any chance at having the freedom to speak, we must allow all private parties to enjoy both the freedom to speak and the freedom to choose whether or not to listen. In that world, these platforms cannot maintain their dominance if they stop listening to speech that most people consider important. If most people do not consider your speech important that certainly entails its own problems, but also means that the platform choosing to reject your speech really doesn't change anything.
It also means that you can still get your speech out there no matter what any other private parties say. You cannot censor one party without censoring all parties. The freedom to speak is very much an all or nothing rule: you either have it or you don't.
You might want to read the rest of the article before posting. Their use is pretty blatantly fair use, and fair use of something without their permission is not disrespecting their copyright. Suing someone when they use your copyright fairly is.
I agree, but that's my entire point. By doing this they're creating more ways the safe can be compromised. And these new ways can be done without physical access to the safe. That makes this doubly insane to even consider doing.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to ever make a gun safe able to connect to any kind of device, anywhere for any reason. If you can't get to the safe to open it, what possible reason could you have to open it? If connections like this could be perfectly secured then I suppose some might like the "convenience", but I can't even see an argument behind that. Again, the only point of opening the safe is to GET the gun. The fact that you can't perfectly secure applications just kills this idea before it even gets started. It's bad enough that many modern gun safes have put fingerprint readers on them for "convenience" despite those being one of the easiest security features to break on the planet. We don't need and should never want more ways for someone else to be able to hack open access our firearms.
Unfortunately you've made the false assumption that you represent the general public. I can assure you that you do not come even close to that.
I've never been to any con anywhere mainly because I don't have the money for entry, though I live very close to SLC. At no point in my life have I ever thought that the many different comic cons I've heard of were in any way associated with each other.
That honestly seems like a really silly assumption. Why would two events in locations hundreds or sometimes thousands of miles away from each other be in any way associated with each other just because they use a similar descriptive term in their name?
If we were talking about something like "McDonald's" or even "Burger King", something that was clearly a NAME and not a DESCRIPTION, I could understand making that connection. Even not understanding where the con part of comic con came from, it's clearly a description of WHAT the event is, not WHO is putting it on.
So a video of a Democrat talking about how much success the Democratic party has had in her state....what exactly do you find surprising or even noteworthy about that?
He obviously doesn't understand magic. I mean how many times have we watched magic blocks busted wide open by those smart enough to trick the magic or even just strong enough to blast their way through it?
I get what you're saying, but that simply isn't going to work. The internet has become essential to most people for a reason: it works far better than other options do.
We can't go back and make the internet non-essential again. That would basically be the same as trying to go back to a time when phones or electricity weren't considered essential. It's simply not going to happen.
Our best hope at this point is that as these horrible changes roll out over the country, lots of people wake up to the issue and Congress or the Courts are finally forced to put the reasonable oversight back into place by a backlash on the order of what happened with SOPA and PIPA.
While paranoia will certainly keep you safe, I personally have no interest in living closed off from everyone else just because there are bad people out there. The problem with all of these devices is not that they cannot be secured, it's that these companies don't care to try. It is possible, but it takes a lot of careful effort and that costs $$$. Until people in general learn enough to stay away from their stuff without proof that they've made that effort, no one will care to do it.
Also, comparing your "smart phone" to IoT objects is a bit misleading. Your smart phone is a portable computer, not just a small appliance looking to hook up to the internet. They have in general proven to be far more secure than IoT devices have ever tried to be. In large part because they work in a very different ecosystem to what these smaller devices have to deal with.
On the post: Activist Sues ICE For Its Unconstitutional Targeting Of Immigrants' First Amendment-Protected Activities
Re: Re: Re: Bit one sided
He paid for the crime, assuming the article is actually true. So he's NOT a criminal anymore and cannot be punished or treated as if he is. This would explain why the JUDGE evaluating this case wouldn't bring this issue up.
On the post: Activist Sues ICE For Its Unconstitutional Targeting Of Immigrants' First Amendment-Protected Activities
Re:
What the judge called unconstitutional had NOTHING to do with their deporting him. It had to do with how they treated him as they did that.
You should also go do some basic research into what it means to hold a green card. A person can be in the United States LEGALLY without being a citizen. Your assumptions are all wrong here.
On the post: Director Of Thor: Ragnarok Pirated Clips For His Sizzle Reel
Re: Arrest all of 'em
On the post: Why (Allegedly) Defamatory Content On WordPress.com Doesn't Come Down Without A Court Order
Re:
At least with the DMCA you're allowed to fight it. Some countries have decided that if you try to fight it you're instantly liable even on the weak standard of whether the content was true or not.
On the post: Court Shuts Down Trooper's Attempt To Portray New-ish Minivans With Imperfect Drivers As Justification For A Traffic Stop
Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Letting criminals off when cops commit criminal acts is not a bad trend. It's a necessary defense against violation of our basic constitutionally defined rights. We accept that in order to enjoy freedom some criminals will be allowed to go free.
On the post: Appeals Court Makes A Mess Of Copyright Law Concerning ISPs And Safe Harbors
Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Makes A Mess Of Copyright Law Concerning ISPs And Safe Harbors
Re:
Making the access providers responsible would be like making the city responsible for someone using its streets to transport drugs. The drugs are never kept on the streets or anywhere that the city has access to, yet we're claiming they should be able to tell that there were drugs in that car? That's the line of reasoning that makes no sense.
The repeat infringement policy has never been applied to access providers in the past, so what makes you say there's no doubt it should apply to them? It applies to those actually hosting (or holding onto) the infringing material. Trying to apply it to anyone else is just looking for a cheap/easy way to get around having to punish those who actually did something wrong.
On the post: Virginia Politicians Looks To Tax Speech In The Form Of Porn In The Name Of Stemming Human Trafficking
Re: Re: Re:
Atheism is not a lack of religious belief. It is the belief that there is no God or other similar being. Trying to twist that into being a "lack of religious belief" is disingenuous at best. You have chosen to take up a belief on a religious subject. That by definition is a religious belief.
Lack of religious belief would be someone that just doesn't have an opinion or belief either way. Atheism distinctly does not fit that description.
On the post: Uphill Effort To Reverse Net Neutrality Repeal Has The Early Votes
Re:
The rest of us choose to fight this fight on every front we can. We're absolutely for your idea no matter how much you want to pretend to yourself that we're not. We're just also for the other methods our system has provided to protect against monopolist control over necessary communications networks.
On the post: Minnesota Prosecutor Hits Teen With Child Porn Charges For Taking Explicit Photos Of Herself
Re: Re: Re: Re: Scarlet Letter
It is not their fault for not seeing what you didn't make clear. That is entirely on you.
On the post: Would-Be Congressman Wants A Law Forcing Social Media Platforms To Keep All His Alt-Right Buddies Online
Re: This is the reason for the March through the institutions
The problem always comes down to the fact that in order for ANYONE ANYWHERE to have any chance at having the freedom to speak, we must allow all private parties to enjoy both the freedom to speak and the freedom to choose whether or not to listen. In that world, these platforms cannot maintain their dominance if they stop listening to speech that most people consider important. If most people do not consider your speech important that certainly entails its own problems, but also means that the platform choosing to reject your speech really doesn't change anything.
It also means that you can still get your speech out there no matter what any other private parties say. You cannot censor one party without censoring all parties. The freedom to speak is very much an all or nothing rule: you either have it or you don't.
On the post: This Whole Mess With Ajit Pai, The Harlem Shake And Copyright Is Bad And Everyone's Wrong.
Re:
On the post: Smart Handgun Safe Not Smart Enough Not To Let Basically Anyone Break Into It
Re: Re: It isn't
On the post: Smart Handgun Safe Not Smart Enough Not To Let Basically Anyone Break Into It
It isn't
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to ever make a gun safe able to connect to any kind of device, anywhere for any reason. If you can't get to the safe to open it, what possible reason could you have to open it?
If connections like this could be perfectly secured then I suppose some might like the "convenience", but I can't even see an argument behind that. Again, the only point of opening the safe is to GET the gun.
The fact that you can't perfectly secure applications just kills this idea before it even gets started. It's bad enough that many modern gun safes have put fingerprint readers on them for "convenience" despite those being one of the easiest security features to break on the planet. We don't need and should never want more ways for someone else to be able to hack open access our firearms.
On the post: SLCC Rankles Judge With Social Media Posts As A Jury Prepares To Rule
Re:
I've never been to any con anywhere mainly because I don't have the money for entry, though I live very close to SLC. At no point in my life have I ever thought that the many different comic cons I've heard of were in any way associated with each other.
That honestly seems like a really silly assumption. Why would two events in locations hundreds or sometimes thousands of miles away from each other be in any way associated with each other just because they use a similar descriptive term in their name?
If we were talking about something like "McDonald's" or even "Burger King", something that was clearly a NAME and not a DESCRIPTION, I could understand making that connection. Even not understanding where the con part of comic con came from, it's clearly a description of WHAT the event is, not WHO is putting it on.
On the post: The Strange Fight Over Who Should Take John Conyers Spot Atop The Judiciary Committee
Re: Just Wow!
On the post: German Government Official Wants Backdoors In Every Device Connected To The Internet
Re:
On the post: German Government Official Wants Backdoors In Every Device Connected To The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Spelling error
Magic locks are the worst.
On the post: Ajit Pai Doesn't Want You Talking About Court Ruling That Undermines His Bogus Claim That The FTC Will Protect Consumers
Re: Re:
We can't go back and make the internet non-essential again. That would basically be the same as trying to go back to a time when phones or electricity weren't considered essential. It's simply not going to happen.
Our best hope at this point is that as these horrible changes roll out over the country, lots of people wake up to the issue and Congress or the Courts are finally forced to put the reasonable oversight back into place by a backlash on the order of what happened with SOPA and PIPA.
On the post: Vulnerability Found In Amazon Key, Again Showing How Dumber Tech Is Often The Smarter Option
Re: And this is why...
The problem with all of these devices is not that they cannot be secured, it's that these companies don't care to try. It is possible, but it takes a lot of careful effort and that costs $$$. Until people in general learn enough to stay away from their stuff without proof that they've made that effort, no one will care to do it.
Also, comparing your "smart phone" to IoT objects is a bit misleading. Your smart phone is a portable computer, not just a small appliance looking to hook up to the internet. They have in general proven to be far more secure than IoT devices have ever tried to be. In large part because they work in a very different ecosystem to what these smaller devices have to deal with.
Next >>