Inpiration doesn't have to be authorized. Are you seriously saying that it should be?
They stole her idea and Gawker is celebrating this and facilitating further theft!
You can't steal an idea.
She should get some of the publishing proceeds for that book.
No...no she should not. There is no ethical or legal foundation for that assertion. The game developer saw a piece of art that prompted a revelation about the relationship between a famous poem and the structure of a computer game. The game developer didn't use the actual expression of that picture. It was merely the trigger for an idea. The book based on the game is even further removed from the original picture.
What's hypocritical is that they're advocating jail time and criminal charges, while using a witness who did the EXACT SAME THING and was completely unpunished.
How do you know they didn't charge the witness? How do you know that his testifying isn't part of a plea bargain as a result of said charges? How do you know they won't charge him after they prove modding is illegal?
OK, maybe based on the literal definition of hypocracy, the prosecution is being hypocritical, but then so is any other case of a criminal getting a deal for testifying for the prosecution. Again, if you're trying to prove something is illegal, especially something as technical (to most people) as modding, then you need someone to explain it who has some credibility. I personally don't think that modding an Xbox is or should be illegal, but using this witness seems like a reasonable tactic given the prosecution's goals.
I don't see how this is hypocritical. Unless the witness just recently graduated college, then modding Xboxes is something he used to do, not something he is currently doing. In this particular case, the witness probably didn't realize he was doing something wrong; he probably just got a job and started spending his time doing other stuff. But regardless of why he stopped, he did stop.
Besides, since when is not being a hypocrite a criterion for being a witness? Whether the witness should also be charged with breaking the law for modding Xboxes is irrelevent to the question of whether the defendent broke the law by modding Xboxes. It may not look good, but who else are you going to get as an expert witness on modding Xboxes other than someone who's actually done it?
I find it funny that on one hand, the US government is downplaying the impact of the leaks and on the other calling for the head of Julian Assange. So, which is it? Are the "friendships" with other countries really strong enough to weather some embarrasements or is the damage so great from Julian's "espionage" that he should be tried for treason? You can't have it both ways.
On a related note, I saw some cable commentary show talking about Wikileaks and for ten minutes they were trying to decide of Assange was left or right. It apparently never entered their mind that someone could support the idea of government transparecy outside of the context of the binary view of "conservative" or "liberal".
In my opinion, no government has an inherent right to privacy. Privacy is for the individual, not to bureaucratic organizations that naturally tend towards corruption and self-serving goals. Yes, there are some cases where a government has to keep things secret, but the default should be transparancy, not secrecy. Moreover, even when the bureaucrats and politicians honestly believe there is a legitimate, non-self-serving need for secrecy, I believe in a vast number of cases, the public would disagree. I'd hazard a guess that much of what governments do in secret, they shouldn't be doing in the first place.
Just search millimeter wave underwear bomber or backscatter underwear bomber and you shouldn't have a problem finding tons of sources.
How easilly I can find results that seem to match what Mike referenced is besides the point. One of the strengths of Mike's writing is the inclusion of relevant links. In this case he did not include what I thought was a very important reference link. That's why I asked.
Bull. That's the way a conspiracy is initially undone
I think that if you took any recent historic event and put your conspiracy hat on, you could come up with all kinds of "loose ends". If the Hindenberg disaster happened today, it would only be a matter of days before someone came out saying that it was an inside job.
The truth is that reality is messy. Even undispused facts don't always line up. I would agree that small inconsistancies can often lead to an underlying truth. But small inconsistancies, even several small inconsistancies, no not a conspiracy make. My point is that you have to weigh the relatively small amount of inconsistancies against the vast amount of consistancies.
there's already been a great deal made of this
There's been "a great deal" made of the conspiracy theory that men didn't land on the moon, but that's doesn't mean you're not a quack of you believe that.
If you call Jim Marrs an easilly-disproved quack
I don't know who that is. Has he explained how an inherently incompetent government could keep something like this a secret?
So let me get this straight, you want minimal invasiveness, but more efficacy?
While TechDirt definately has discussed the efficacy of the new security techniques, this isn't the point of this post. What the linked article is saying is that, irrespective of the efficacy, the techniques are unconstitutional. Your exclusive focus on the efficacy appears to indicate that you're OK with throwing out the constitution as long as you personally don't mind the results.
You don't exactly need extensive research to note that the "underwear bomber" flew into the US from a foreign country
The way I interpreted the text I quoted is that the underwear bomber would not have been caught in the hypothetical scenario where he went through the Rapiscan scanner. Clearing up this kind of confusion is one of the reasons I was interested in seeing the details of this research.
The better, unanswered question is why at least 3 of the hijackers (w/o the common names, mind you) have names matching those that received military training on US soil....
The problem is that you can't look at one or even several unanswered questions with no context. You have to look at any anomolies in the description of events in terms of the overall scenario. Specifically, could a conspiracy this big really have been kept secret? In other words, could a government that collectively couldn't poor piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel pull of planning 9/11 without anyone -- but a few easilly-disproved quacks -- finding out?
Well, there's the fact that several of the supposed hijackers were found alive in the weeks and months following 9/11.
You've misunderstood my question. I was not asking for an explanation of why you thought the accepted version of events was not true. I was asking why you thought that what the US government specifically has said about 9/11 is different from the accepted version. In other words, your choice of wording -- "gov't version" -- is an apparent attempt to indicate that what the government has said about 9/11 is different than what most rational people think.
Also...citation needed. My guess is that any "evidence" you can provide to support this idea has already been debunked several times.
new research shows that last year's underwear bomber would not have been caught with these machines
Mike, can you provide a citation for this research? I think it's important because I believe the majority of the people who "aren't too bothered by the searches" are not too bothered because they believe that the underwear bomber would have been caught using the "enhanced" techniques. I've read some TD posts which explain why the TSA's measures are security theatre, but I don't recall this point being brought up before.
(On a side note, it's sad how many times the knee jerk reaction by government to some misfortune is to pass some new legislation that wouldn't have prevented the misfortune in the first place.)
No one here has *any* evidence for the gov't version of 9/11 except what the gov't *says* about it.
I know I shouldn't but, I can't resist...
What exactly is the "gov't version of 9/11"? Because as far as I know, what the government has said about 9/11 is consistant with the statement of thousands of eyewitnesses, what millions saw on live TV, and the analysis of hundreds, if not thousands, of experts. So, please explain how what the US government has said about 9/11 is different from what all but a few consipiracy theorists believe.
I want to know the numbers of people that actually flew compared to the last few years.
I found it amusing that right after a cable news story on the "failure" of the national opt-out day was a story about how the traffic on the highways was very high. So, no one in the newsroom thought that the two stories were possibly related? Would it be too much to ask that they would have cited some stats on the traffic as compared to last year? Call it bias or just good old fashioned incompetance; in either case, it's just terrible reporting.
If I were to write a 1500 word article about you, (with or without your permission) What is the word count that would be 'Morally OK' for you to repost on your own site?
In general, somewhere in the range of less than 1500 words.
What if it is an article not about you but about a cause that you strongly support. If a newspaper posted 4 paragraph blurb about an evil dognapper that was busted in your town, would it be morally wrong in your view to post all 4 paragraphs and a link to the newspaper on your favorite dogbreed forum?
It's all quite subjective of course, but in general, I'd say that the smaller the original content, the greater leeway there should be with fair use. Sure, you can have a brilliant thought condensed down into a single sentence, but from a practical standpoint it's hard to quote a snippet of a quote. ("Brevity is...wit"?)
Where I think it becomes much less subjective is when you copy the entire work of someone else's where that work is non-trivial. What is non-trivial? More than four paragraphs? Well, I know it when I see it. Again, that's why there aren't subjective rules on what is fair use.
I do not think morals are the best measure.
I was just giving my opinion on what I thought was morally right.
Are any (none, all) of those cases moral? Are any of those cases fair use? Are they all?
Your example is a perfect one to demonstrate why you can't have completely objective rules in the determination of what is fair use. In your example, I think the intent it obvious, critique. So, I personally don't see a problem with it. I don't know if this is the right legal word, but the added comments and disection make it transformative. It's not wholey a new work, but it's a new work none the less.
social mores alone are good enough to prevent someone from copying full articles like this; there's really no need for copyright law to step in here in full force.
Agreed, however...if somehow I had a choice as to what story would get widespread attention, it would be one where a newspaper threatened to sue some blogger for using 17 words in a valid critique of an article and not one where a site copied the entire article from a newspaper and got away with it because of a fair use defense.
I admit that I don't know all of the legal issues, but on the face of it, it seems morally wrong to copy an entire article and repost it on your own site, no matter if you're a for- or not-for-profit organization. The example given in the "using the entirety of a work" link -- basically thumbnail images of Grateful Dead posters used in a book -- I believe is materially different than copying an article verbatim. Even if copying an entire article is legal, it would be a bad example to a layperson on how big media are abusing copyright law.
On the post: Gawker Sued For Copyright Infringement For Showing Image That Inspired EA's Dante's Inferno
Re:
Inpiration doesn't have to be authorized. Are you seriously saying that it should be?
They stole her idea and Gawker is celebrating this and facilitating further theft!
You can't steal an idea.
She should get some of the publishing proceeds for that book.
No...no she should not. There is no ethical or legal foundation for that assertion. The game developer saw a piece of art that prompted a revelation about the relationship between a famous poem and the structure of a computer game. The game developer didn't use the actual expression of that picture. It was merely the trigger for an idea. The book based on the game is even further removed from the original picture.
On the post: New Judicial Hero: Philip Gutierrez Goes Ballistic On Ridiculous Gov't Prosecutors During Xbox Modding Trial
Re: Re: Re:
How do you know they didn't charge the witness? How do you know that his testifying isn't part of a plea bargain as a result of said charges? How do you know they won't charge him after they prove modding is illegal?
OK, maybe based on the literal definition of hypocracy, the prosecution is being hypocritical, but then so is any other case of a criminal getting a deal for testifying for the prosecution. Again, if you're trying to prove something is illegal, especially something as technical (to most people) as modding, then you need someone to explain it who has some credibility. I personally don't think that modding an Xbox is or should be illegal, but using this witness seems like a reasonable tactic given the prosecution's goals.
On the post: New Judicial Hero: Philip Gutierrez Goes Ballistic On Ridiculous Gov't Prosecutors During Xbox Modding Trial
Re:
I don't see how this is hypocritical. Unless the witness just recently graduated college, then modding Xboxes is something he used to do, not something he is currently doing. In this particular case, the witness probably didn't realize he was doing something wrong; he probably just got a job and started spending his time doing other stuff. But regardless of why he stopped, he did stop.
Besides, since when is not being a hypocrite a criterion for being a witness? Whether the witness should also be charged with breaking the law for modding Xboxes is irrelevent to the question of whether the defendent broke the law by modding Xboxes. It may not look good, but who else are you going to get as an expert witness on modding Xboxes other than someone who's actually done it?
On the post: Why The Wikileaks Document Release Is Key To A Functioning Democracy
Re: Re: Re: You can't have it both ways
I think this is why they don't like bloggers either. The unwashed masses shouldn't interfere with big media's rightful control of information.
On the post: Why The Wikileaks Document Release Is Key To A Functioning Democracy
You can't have it both ways
On a related note, I saw some cable commentary show talking about Wikileaks and for ten minutes they were trying to decide of Assange was left or right. It apparently never entered their mind that someone could support the idea of government transparecy outside of the context of the binary view of "conservative" or "liberal".
On the post: Why The Wikileaks Document Release Is Key To A Functioning Democracy
The government does not have a right to privacy
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Citation needed
How easilly I can find results that seem to match what Mike referenced is besides the point. One of the strengths of Mike's writing is the inclusion of relevant links. In this case he did not include what I thought was a very important reference link. That's why I asked.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.
I think that if you took any recent historic event and put your conspiracy hat on, you could come up with all kinds of "loose ends". If the Hindenberg disaster happened today, it would only be a matter of days before someone came out saying that it was an inside job.
The truth is that reality is messy. Even undispused facts don't always line up. I would agree that small inconsistancies can often lead to an underlying truth. But small inconsistancies, even several small inconsistancies, no not a conspiracy make. My point is that you have to weigh the relatively small amount of inconsistancies against the vast amount of consistancies.
there's already been a great deal made of this
There's been "a great deal" made of the conspiracy theory that men didn't land on the moon, but that's doesn't mean you're not a quack of you believe that.
If you call Jim Marrs an easilly-disproved quack
I don't know who that is. Has he explained how an inherently incompetent government could keep something like this a secret?
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Stop whining!
While TechDirt definately has discussed the efficacy of the new security techniques, this isn't the point of this post. What the linked article is saying is that, irrespective of the efficacy, the techniques are unconstitutional. Your exclusive focus on the efficacy appears to indicate that you're OK with throwing out the constitution as long as you personally don't mind the results.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Citation needed
The way I interpreted the text I quoted is that the underwear bomber would not have been caught in the hypothetical scenario where he went through the Rapiscan scanner. Clearing up this kind of confusion is one of the reasons I was interested in seeing the details of this research.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.
The problem is that you can't look at one or even several unanswered questions with no context. You have to look at any anomolies in the description of events in terms of the overall scenario. Specifically, could a conspiracy this big really have been kept secret? In other words, could a government that collectively couldn't poor piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel pull of planning 9/11 without anyone -- but a few easilly-disproved quacks -- finding out?
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.
You've misunderstood my question. I was not asking for an explanation of why you thought the accepted version of events was not true. I was asking why you thought that what the US government specifically has said about 9/11 is different from the accepted version. In other words, your choice of wording -- "gov't version" -- is an apparent attempt to indicate that what the government has said about 9/11 is different than what most rational people think.
Also...citation needed. My guess is that any "evidence" you can provide to support this idea has already been debunked several times.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Citation needed
Mike, can you provide a citation for this research? I think it's important because I believe the majority of the people who "aren't too bothered by the searches" are not too bothered because they believe that the underwear bomber would have been caught using the "enhanced" techniques. I've read some TD posts which explain why the TSA's measures are security theatre, but I don't recall this point being brought up before.
(On a side note, it's sad how many times the knee jerk reaction by government to some misfortune is to pass some new legislation that wouldn't have prevented the misfortune in the first place.)
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Tertiary, legalistic reasoning won't help.
I know I shouldn't but, I can't resist...
What exactly is the "gov't version of 9/11"? Because as far as I know, what the government has said about 9/11 is consistant with the statement of thousands of eyewitnesses, what millions saw on live TV, and the analysis of hundreds, if not thousands, of experts. So, please explain how what the US government has said about 9/11 is different from what all but a few consipiracy theorists believe.
On the post: Just Because 'National Opt-Out Day' Didn't Do Much, Does It Mean People Don't Care About TSA Searches?
Re: Did opt out day fail?
I found it amusing that right after a cable news story on the "failure" of the national opt-out day was a story about how the traffic on the highways was very high. So, no one in the newsroom thought that the two stories were possibly related? Would it be too much to ask that they would have cited some stats on the traffic as compared to last year? Call it bias or just good old fashioned incompetance; in either case, it's just terrible reporting.
On the post: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped
- Edward R. Murrow
On the post: Judge Asks Righthaven To Explain Why Reposting Isn't Fair Use... Even When Defendant Didn't Claim Fair Use
Re: Re: Bad example
In general, somewhere in the range of less than 1500 words.
What if it is an article not about you but about a cause that you strongly support. If a newspaper posted 4 paragraph blurb about an evil dognapper that was busted in your town, would it be morally wrong in your view to post all 4 paragraphs and a link to the newspaper on your favorite dogbreed forum?
It's all quite subjective of course, but in general, I'd say that the smaller the original content, the greater leeway there should be with fair use. Sure, you can have a brilliant thought condensed down into a single sentence, but from a practical standpoint it's hard to quote a snippet of a quote. ("Brevity is...wit"?)
Where I think it becomes much less subjective is when you copy the entire work of someone else's where that work is non-trivial. What is non-trivial? More than four paragraphs? Well, I know it when I see it. Again, that's why there aren't subjective rules on what is fair use.
I do not think morals are the best measure.
I was just giving my opinion on what I thought was morally right.
On the post: Judge Asks Righthaven To Explain Why Reposting Isn't Fair Use... Even When Defendant Didn't Claim Fair Use
Re: Re: Bad example
Your example is a perfect one to demonstrate why you can't have completely objective rules in the determination of what is fair use. In your example, I think the intent it obvious, critique. So, I personally don't see a problem with it. I don't know if this is the right legal word, but the added comments and disection make it transformative. It's not wholey a new work, but it's a new work none the less.
On the post: Judge Asks Righthaven To Explain Why Reposting Isn't Fair Use... Even When Defendant Didn't Claim Fair Use
Re: Re: Bad example
Agreed, however...if somehow I had a choice as to what story would get widespread attention, it would be one where a newspaper threatened to sue some blogger for using 17 words in a valid critique of an article and not one where a site copied the entire article from a newspaper and got away with it because of a fair use defense.
On the post: Judge Asks Righthaven To Explain Why Reposting Isn't Fair Use... Even When Defendant Didn't Claim Fair Use
Bad example
Next >>