The answer to the question, "Did my local/state police officers do things that were illegal at the time they happened?" should never be "You don't have a right to know."
Re: "written four months before the law...became law"
Even if they do, it might not matter.
Since she's in violation of a "cyberlibel" law, depending on the mental gymnastics you use, every time a new person looks at your website is a "new publication."
Is your publication date the day you clicked 'post,' or when the "new copy" is generated by the server when someone follows a link? It's obvious that printing a new batch of libelous books is actionable, but some idiots argue that you're "printing" a new copy every time your server responds to a data transfer request.
If a judge is ignorant enough, or bought well enough, then they can decide that ex-post-facto laws don't even apply. You've been continuously "printing" the material since you uploaded it.
That's ignoring, of course, that the "libelous" content the reporter was arrested for was: A - factual; B - obtained from believable sources (court documents); and C - taken from government intelligence reports. In a sane country, none of those qualify as libel.
It would seem to me that publicly funded research should fall under the umbrella of "work-for-hire," at least. And how could "legitimate commercial interest" be weighted in favor of a company or university when they didn't pay for the research?
Since we're striking a "balance" here coughbullshitcough, the public's "legitimate commercial interest" FAR outweighs any private organization's.
And all that's ignoring the fact that most internet is still in the range of 60-70 Mbps. If you believed the standard, 4g is 5 times faster than premium cable internet, let alone what most people have. And they're talking about "5g" like any cellular customer has ever had speeds greater than 20 Mbps.
People are still affected by that impression. Yes, that does mean that the customers in question are somewhat technologically illiterate, but that's kinda beside the point.
The advertising was designed in such a way as to imply very strongly, without saying it outright, that the "g" was referring to speed, instead of what "g"eneration's standard was being used.
4g peak download speed: 1000 Megabit/s, or 1 gigabit/s max.
Surely, it must have been accidental.
I'm sure you're aware of all this, just putting it out there for the Google-impaired portion of the readers.
I don't see how there wasn't a sweetener of some kind. I don't care if you see the whole situation with glasses so rose-colored that your eyes bleed, basic math says that, exclusivity or no, removing your product from a platform loses money.
There are people who will buy the game no matter where it's sold. There are people who hate Steam and will buy anything as long long as it's a competitor's. There are also people who only care about how cheap the game is (sensible, but not my cup of tea).
Then there's the other 50% of the market: people who DON'T follow game news, people who DON'T have the time to look up new stuff and sort through shit for diamonds, and people who only find out about new games by getting "now available" notices from the download platforms they already have.
That's a lot of potential market-share lost. If they did it without some sort of cash incentive, Deep Silver will likely go belly-up soon. That sort of stupidity is often fatal to a business.
I have GOG, because I found out about it in college (when it was Good Old Games, and not nearly so compatible) when I had free time. I have Origin because it forced itself down my throat when I installed one of the Assassin's Creed games. I have the Bethesda Launcher because it malwared it's way onto my system when I updated Fallout 4. I don't have the time or desire to install another launcher.
My point being, DNA evidence, which should only be used to strengthen a case, is instead being used by prosecutors as primary evidence, and cases built from there. Actual detective work has been discarded in favor of the new gimmick. And juries, indoctrinated by prime time crime shows, eat it up, the "science" overruling all manner of testimony, video, and sometimes the prosecutions' own statements.
Wasn't there a suspected serial killer that kept having DNA show up in previously unrelated cases from multiple jurisdictions? FBI thought they had a psycho worse than Gacy, Dahmer, and Manson all in one person.
Turned out it was a less-than-careful lab tech, who was contaminating all of his samples.
Now, what if it was DNA from a second-hand jacket? Poor John Brown, convicted serial killer, only guilty of donating to Goodwill.
Re: Re: Subject: Reading Glasses that aren't rose colored
I question your data. Those who go to the library are readers and readers buy WAY MORE BOOKS than people who don't go to the library.
That's why I have used my library card so much that my library gave me a VIP card that waives all fines as long as the book is returned undamaged. It's also why I have no less than (10) 7'h x 1'd x 3'w bookcases stuffed full of books to the point of shelves being 2 books deep, with more books piled on top of those. All told, my library, only about 30% of which were purchased second hand, has probably cost more than $15 grand. In addition to reading, I must admit I am also a bibliophile.
Anecdotal evidence, I know. But, to a lesser extent, the same holds true of most everyone I know. Those who patronize the library have at least one bookcase. Those who don't, also don't have bookcases. Exceptions exist, of course, but are vanishingly few. Readers like to read, and that means they like books.
Just because you slap a warning on something, doesn't mean it's actually legally binding.
"No music when you stream" most likely has all the legal backing as the sign on a grocery cart, "This store takes no responsibility for any damage to your property."
Might have teeth, but it will take a literal court case to decide for sure. Fair use is still fair use, even if they super swear, till i die, stick a thousand needles in my eye.
...The DMCA is Congress enforcing it's right to create or destroy copyright as an American legal concept if it chooses?
Odd. I thought the DMCA was a tool for copyright holders to dispute the legality of their work being used by websites. And a tool for such websites to dispute the validity of such claims. And a tool to protect websites from being sued for the actions of users not employed by them. I mean, it's an example of Congress using their power to create or destroy copyright, not enforcing it. After all, that's not their job, that's the job of the Executive Branch.
To own the music, you just need a recording device and access to a legal broadcasted/streamed version.
It's that simple. It's been that simple, and completely legal, since personal recording devices have been feasible. It took many hours in quite a few courts to drive that point home to the studios, that media that I can legally access in my own home is legal to keep a copy of.
That's why anti-circumvention laws were seen as such a betrayal - it was walking back long established law. Just because someone put an extra program on a DVD, or a particular subroutine on a webpage, it was suddenly illegal do do something that is otherwise legal.
We're not talking people copying and then redistributing media.
This is about people, in their own home, with their own equipment, being told that they're criminals for keeping copies of media that they are consuming legally.
That's bullshit. The price was paid when I listened to the ad. The effective price of that piece of media was whatever they got paid to insert 30 seconds of nonsense before their bit started.
This has been hashed out in courts before, even in Australia.
The only reason this is different is because, technically, if you turn your head and squint hard enough, someone else is making your recording for you. Even though the consumer sees no difference between these websites and a Kinkos, or a library copy machine.
Though lately, publishers have been lobbying to get rid of those, too.
I guess we're setting aside that the stream is authorized. This is not pirated media, not a cd from a shady stall at a flea market, not a camcorded copy of a movie still in theaters.
IT.
IS.
AUTHORIZED.
The only thing even slightly similar to "siphoning gas from the delivery truck" would be using a third-party stream-rip site instead of just cranking up the downloader of your choice.
The truck is legit. The trip is legit. The full load makes it to the intended destination.
The customer just expects to still be able to use the fuel when the truck is back at headquarters.
Why, a telegram, from my dear old Aunt out West, just yesterday said that auto-mo-biles have been used to rob banks and commit murders!
Why, polish my monocle! Such things are inexcusable! Australia had better get off their duffs and start shutting down the sellers of such vile technology, or we will write a strongly worded letter to the editor of the Daily Rag!
On the post: Utter Bullshit: Reporter Maria Ressa Arrested Over Bogus Charges For Her Critical Reporting
Re: Re:
The answer to the question, "Did my local/state police officers do things that were illegal at the time they happened?" should never be "You don't have a right to know."
On the post: Utter Bullshit: Reporter Maria Ressa Arrested Over Bogus Charges For Her Critical Reporting
Re: "written four months before the law...became law"
Even if they do, it might not matter.
Since she's in violation of a "cyberlibel" law, depending on the mental gymnastics you use, every time a new person looks at your website is a "new publication."
Is your publication date the day you clicked 'post,' or when the "new copy" is generated by the server when someone follows a link? It's obvious that printing a new batch of libelous books is actionable, but some idiots argue that you're "printing" a new copy every time your server responds to a data transfer request.
If a judge is ignorant enough, or bought well enough, then they can decide that ex-post-facto laws don't even apply. You've been continuously "printing" the material since you uploaded it.
That's ignoring, of course, that the "libelous" content the reporter was arrested for was: A - factual; B - obtained from believable sources (court documents); and C - taken from government intelligence reports. In a sane country, none of those qualify as libel.
On the post: EU's New 'Open By Default' Rules For Data Generated By Public Funding Subverted At The Last Minute
Re: Public funding, Public ownership
It would seem to me that publicly funded research should fall under the umbrella of "work-for-hire," at least. And how could "legitimate commercial interest" be weighted in favor of a company or university when they didn't pay for the research?
Since we're striking a "balance" here coughbullshitcough, the public's "legitimate commercial interest" FAR outweighs any private organization's.
On the post: Sprint Sues AT&T Over Its Fake 5G, Says AT&T's Tricking Consumers
Re: Re:
And all that's ignoring the fact that most internet is still in the range of 60-70 Mbps. If you believed the standard, 4g is 5 times faster than premium cable internet, let alone what most people have. And they're talking about "5g" like any cellular customer has ever had speeds greater than 20 Mbps.
On the post: Sprint Sues AT&T Over Its Fake 5G, Says AT&T's Tricking Consumers
Re:
People are still affected by that impression. Yes, that does mean that the customers in question are somewhat technologically illiterate, but that's kinda beside the point.
The advertising was designed in such a way as to imply very strongly, without saying it outright, that the "g" was referring to speed, instead of what "g"eneration's standard was being used.
4g peak download speed: 1000 Megabit/s, or 1 gigabit/s max.
Surely, it must have been accidental.
I'm sure you're aware of all this, just putting it out there for the Google-impaired portion of the readers.
On the post: After No-Knock Raid Goes Horribly Wrong, Police Union Boss Steps Up To Threaten PD's Critics
Re: Texas is a home defense state
Yeah, but who's going to charge them? The homeowners are dead, they won't be pressing charges.
I'm from Houston, the DA (Kim Ogg) is very friendly to the police, she won't be charging them.
I doubt the feds would get involved.
I agree that there could be a case, but the only people with an interest in an investigation are - interestingly enough - dead, dead, dead.
On the post: Steam Responds To Epic's Competition By Weaponizing The Steam Community
Re: Article Quality
I don't see how there wasn't a sweetener of some kind. I don't care if you see the whole situation with glasses so rose-colored that your eyes bleed, basic math says that, exclusivity or no, removing your product from a platform loses money.
There are people who will buy the game no matter where it's sold. There are people who hate Steam and will buy anything as long long as it's a competitor's. There are also people who only care about how cheap the game is (sensible, but not my cup of tea).
Then there's the other 50% of the market: people who DON'T follow game news, people who DON'T have the time to look up new stuff and sort through shit for diamonds, and people who only find out about new games by getting "now available" notices from the download platforms they already have.
That's a lot of potential market-share lost. If they did it without some sort of cash incentive, Deep Silver will likely go belly-up soon. That sort of stupidity is often fatal to a business.
I have GOG, because I found out about it in college (when it was Good Old Games, and not nearly so compatible) when I had free time. I have Origin because it forced itself down my throat when I installed one of the Assassin's Creed games. I have the Bethesda Launcher because it malwared it's way onto my system when I updated Fallout 4. I don't have the time or desire to install another launcher.
On the post: DNA-Matching Company Decides To Open Its Doors To The FBI Without Bothering To Inform Its Users
Re: Re: Re: what's the downside?
My point being, DNA evidence, which should only be used to strengthen a case, is instead being used by prosecutors as primary evidence, and cases built from there. Actual detective work has been discarded in favor of the new gimmick. And juries, indoctrinated by prime time crime shows, eat it up, the "science" overruling all manner of testimony, video, and sometimes the prosecutions' own statements.
On the post: DNA-Matching Company Decides To Open Its Doors To The FBI Without Bothering To Inform Its Users
Re: Re: what's the downside?
Wasn't there a suspected serial killer that kept having DNA show up in previously unrelated cases from multiple jurisdictions? FBI thought they had a psycho worse than Gacy, Dahmer, and Manson all in one person.
Turned out it was a less-than-careful lab tech, who was contaminating all of his samples.
Now, what if it was DNA from a second-hand jacket? Poor John Brown, convicted serial killer, only guilty of donating to Goodwill.
On the post: Authors Guild Attacks Libraries For Lending Digital Books
Re: Re:
Buy my book to learn how to be a millionaire!
Page 1: Sell books telling people how to become a millionaire.
All further pages are blank.
On the post: Authors Guild Attacks Libraries For Lending Digital Books
Re: Re: Subject: Reading Glasses that aren't rose colored
I question your data. Those who go to the library are readers and readers buy WAY MORE BOOKS than people who don't go to the library.
That's why I have used my library card so much that my library gave me a VIP card that waives all fines as long as the book is returned undamaged. It's also why I have no less than (10) 7'h x 1'd x 3'w bookcases stuffed full of books to the point of shelves being 2 books deep, with more books piled on top of those. All told, my library, only about 30% of which were purchased second hand, has probably cost more than $15 grand. In addition to reading, I must admit I am also a bibliophile.
Anecdotal evidence, I know. But, to a lesser extent, the same holds true of most everyone I know. Those who patronize the library have at least one bookcase. Those who don't, also don't have bookcases. Exceptions exist, of course, but are vanishingly few. Readers like to read, and that means they like books.
On the post: Disney Goes All Disney On The Kingdom Hearts 3 Title Screen Over Streaming
Just like a grocery store...
Just because you slap a warning on something, doesn't mean it's actually legally binding.
"No music when you stream" most likely has all the legal backing as the sign on a grocery cart, "This store takes no responsibility for any damage to your property."
Might have teeth, but it will take a literal court case to decide for sure. Fair use is still fair use, even if they super swear, till i die, stick a thousand needles in my eye.
On the post: Developer DMCAs Steam For Hosting Its Own Game To Wrest Control Back From Rogue Publisher
Re: Why TWO middle-men in this day and age?
...The DMCA is Congress enforcing it's right to create or destroy copyright as an American legal concept if it chooses?
Odd. I thought the DMCA was a tool for copyright holders to dispute the legality of their work being used by websites. And a tool for such websites to dispute the validity of such claims. And a tool to protect websites from being sued for the actions of users not employed by them. I mean, it's an example of Congress using their power to create or destroy copyright, not enforcing it. After all, that's not their job, that's the job of the Executive Branch.
...Are you sure you're not making shit up again?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just to be clear, That's the whole history of the world before 1978.
It's only been 40 years, but what a mess such a seemingly simple change has made of it all.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Therefore it's public domain. Just as it was in the whole history of the world before automatic copyright.
On the post: Music Groups Waste No Time Using Australia's New Copyright Law To Shut Down Stream Ripping Sites
Re: Re: Re:
No, no, no, no.
To own the music, you just need a recording device and access to a legal broadcasted/streamed version.
It's that simple. It's been that simple, and completely legal, since personal recording devices have been feasible. It took many hours in quite a few courts to drive that point home to the studios, that media that I can legally access in my own home is legal to keep a copy of.
That's why anti-circumvention laws were seen as such a betrayal - it was walking back long established law. Just because someone put an extra program on a DVD, or a particular subroutine on a webpage, it was suddenly illegal do do something that is otherwise legal.
We're not talking people copying and then redistributing media.
This is about people, in their own home, with their own equipment, being told that they're criminals for keeping copies of media that they are consuming legally.
That's bullshit. The price was paid when I listened to the ad. The effective price of that piece of media was whatever they got paid to insert 30 seconds of nonsense before their bit started.
This has been hashed out in courts before, even in Australia.
The only reason this is different is because, technically, if you turn your head and squint hard enough, someone else is making your recording for you. Even though the consumer sees no difference between these websites and a Kinkos, or a library copy machine.
Though lately, publishers have been lobbying to get rid of those, too.
On the post: Music Groups Waste No Time Using Australia's New Copyright Law To Shut Down Stream Ripping Sites
Re: Re:
I guess we're setting aside that the stream is authorized. This is not pirated media, not a cd from a shady stall at a flea market, not a camcorded copy of a movie still in theaters.
IT. IS. AUTHORIZED.
The only thing even slightly similar to "siphoning gas from the delivery truck" would be using a third-party stream-rip site instead of just cranking up the downloader of your choice.
The truck is legit. The trip is legit. The full load makes it to the intended destination.
The customer just expects to still be able to use the fuel when the truck is back at headquarters.
On the post: Music Groups Waste No Time Using Australia's New Copyright Law To Shut Down Stream Ripping Sites
Re: Re: I'm confused...
If hearing it again means I have to pay for it, I'm so boned.
I've had Gnarls Barkley's Crazy running around in my head for a couple of days now...
On the post: Music Groups Waste No Time Using Australia's New Copyright Law To Shut Down Stream Ripping Sites
I'm confused...
On the post: Music Groups Waste No Time Using Australia's New Copyright Law To Shut Down Stream Ripping Sites
Re: Applying that logic to other fields...
Ah-ah-ah! You're behind the times, good sir!
Why, a telegram, from my dear old Aunt out West, just yesterday said that auto-mo-biles have been used to rob banks and commit murders!
Why, polish my monocle! Such things are inexcusable! Australia had better get off their duffs and start shutting down the sellers of such vile technology, or we will write a strongly worded letter to the editor of the Daily Rag!
Next >>