I'm not so sure. Yes, accessing your own network cannot be considered "unauthorized access" - but accessing the iHeart (or other streaming provider) service from outside of the authorized geographic region, whether via your own network or via any other means, might be.
See if this logic holds together.
In order to access the streaming service, you connect to a computer system outside of your network, run by the service's provider.
Accessing that computer system without authorization would be a CFAA violation.
That service itself, by the terms of the license under which it is permitted to distribute its content, is only authorized to provide that content to destinations within a certain geographic region.
Therefore, that service prohibits access to its computer system from outside of that region.
Therefore, access to that system from that region is not authorized.
Therefore, by bypassing the restrictions which prevent access to that service from outside of that region, you are accessing that computer system without authorization.
Therefore, by that same action, you are violating the CFAA.
If you don't bypass the restrictions, and pay full price, you have a certain amount of money left afterwards.
If you do bypass the restrictions, and pay a lower price, you have a larger amount of money left afterwards.
I'm fairly sure that there is existing precedent which would hold that that difference in how much money you have left qualifies as "financial gain", and that therefore bypassing restrictions in order to be able to pay the lower price qualifies as doing so for financial gain.
Notably, however, the term was used before that point (but still after the election, IIRC) by Hillary Clinton, in reference to some of the material circulating about the political race, and I think as a partial explanation for why she wound up losing.
I've long suspected that Trump saw that, picked it up, (mis)used it in that famous press conference (targeting Jim Acosta, I think it was?), and things snowballed from there.
In the term "fake news", the word "news" is not short for "news media". It refers to (some subset of) the actual stories and reporting which the news media provides.
CNN is not news. CNN is part of the news media; in particular, it is a news organization, and also a cable TV network. None of those things are news itself.
Since CNN is not news, CNN cannot possibly be "fake news".
You could argue that what CNN reports is "fake news", but CNN itself is not and cannot be "fake news", because the thing called "CNN" is not an instance of the category called "news".
That's not something specific to CNN, mind you; exactly the same things are true of Fox News.
Donald Trump has been perverting the language by misusing the word "news" in this context ever since his first (public) use of the phrase "fake news", and it's well past time people stopped letting that pass without comment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The California Teachers Association
No - I think that was a jab at your use of "illegal" as a noun. Such uses are usually short for "illegal person", which is a baseless and dangerous concept.
To say that something is illegal is to say that the law requires that that thing not exist.
The only way for a person not to exist is for that person to die.
Unless you're actually advocating for the death penalty for cases of illegal immigration (in which case you're an extreme outlier, or at least I hope so), what you probably actually want to have not exist is - not the person who immigrated illegally - but the person's presence in this country.
The presence is illegal. (And can be destroyed by expelling the person from the country.)
Re: Re: Re: Four of the most depressing words in the English language
It took me a few seconds, but I managed to parse it as "His [i.e., Obama's] comment about 'Those jobs are gone forever' [is one of the things Obama said that have now turned out to be false, and so can be considered lies]", or something like that. (The typo of "Hit" for "His" makes it more confusing than it would otherwise be.)
Which jobs exactly are being referred to, or in what context this comment is purported to have occurred, I don't know.
Re: Re: One of those times when being right is cold comfort
My understanding of the "oldest profession" reference has always been as being to the idea of women (or, more likely, originally their pre-human ancestors; whether the term "woman" can apply to something not human is a question I don't try to address here) offering sex in exchange for the resources they need to survive and/or support their children - "take care of me and I'll have sex with you". I.e, that the quote was intended as a sardonic commentary on the implicit transactional nature of (some types of) marriage.
That particular type of transaction probably far predates even the invention of bartering of physical goods, much less the invention of money, much less the profession of money-changer.
It also predates the invention of language, much less the professions of shaman, priest, storyteller, et cetera.
Where the profession of "pimp" falls in that timeline I'm not sure; it almost certainly postdates the first "take care of me and I'll have sex with you" transaction, but there are too many other variables for me to pin it down beyond that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since someone invoked open source
I think I can see the argument being made.
If I'm correct, it would be something like: "Americans made it, so it belongs to America. If those Americans let non-Americans have it without America (possibly in the person of those Americans) receiving appropriate payment, such as by placing it under a free-software license, then those Americans have helped the non-Americans steal it from America."
I haven't quite figured out how to put the underlying assumption which would make these conclusions follow logically into words, however - which, given some of the things I've managed to do that with in the past, is probably an indication of just how far into the direction of insanity that assumption is.
In most cases, from my understanding: because the cable companies' license agreements with the rightsholders for the content say that those rightsholders are not allowed to make that content available for streaming to someone who doesn't have a cable subscription. (Presumably, the cable companies are paying enough for the license that this at least seems to be advantageous for the rightsholders.)
Assuming the cable companies don't hold those rights themselves directly, anyway.
IIRC, the same principle applies to e.g. HBO: they won't let you stream from their Website if you don't have an HBO subscription via a cable provider. That's not just "basic cable", it's "specific premium cable channel".
Someone keeps asking that question, even though the answer has been explained multiple times in the past - at least once, and I think at least twice, by me.
If I keep seeing that question about the same repeated comments, I'm going to start flagging the question itself as being trolling, just as the comment to which it is a response is.
Without necessarily adopting the position being argued: because Fox News is a one-way channel, from a relative handful of speakers (who have no way to hear their listeners) to many listeners (who cannot speak and be heard), whereas Twitter is a mass communications platform, from many speakers (who can also listen) to many listeners (who can also speak).
There are really three entities involved: the speaker(s), the editor / moderator / what-have-you, and the listener(s).
In the case of Fox News, the speaker(s) are employed by and under the authority of - and may in some cases be the same as - the editor / moderator / et cetera. Thus, to a certain extent, the speech of the former may be treated as the speech of the latter - to that same extent, the latter has just as much right to control that speech as if the latter were speaking directly.
In the case of Twitter, the overwhelming majority of the speakers have no connection to the editors / moderators / etc., except in making use of the platform which they moderate. Thus, the speech of the former is in no way the speech of the latter[1], and the latter does not thereby acquire any particular right to control that speech. (Although such a right might arise by other channels; for example, the decision to not carry that speech would itself be an act of speech, with everything that implies.)
[1] (There may be room to argue about "failure to condemn constitutes condoning as acceptable, which is a minor form of endorsement", with the idea that the endorsement - much like the decision not to carry - constitutes its own separate act of speech. I would be surprised if there weren't fairly well-established legal precedent on that subject, but aside from a few things regarding Section 230 - which is relatively recent, in legal terms - it's outside my scope of expertise.)
...is there a law, statute, or court ruling that designates the central square of the village, through which people pass on a daily basis, as "the public square"?
I didn't think that designating a public square was the business of the law; I thought the laws relating to the public square were more about recognizing what society and the public already treats as being the public square, in something akin to that historical village-square sense, and ensuring that it is dealt with appropriately.
Indeed, if the government attempted to pass a law defining X as being the public square (even for the purpose of expanding the public square), I would probably be inclined to view that as government overreach - as something that extends beyond what it is the government's proper power to do. Based on my current assessment of my own feelings on the subject (and this is an acknowledgement that this is biased), the public square should be defined entirely by some combination of the behavior, practices, and expectations of the public itself; it should at most be recognized by the government, not defined thereby. (Though I do acknowledge that such recognition would almost certainly take the form either of law or of court ruling.)
(A probably-tangential thought: if being privately owned completely precludes a place from qualifying as the public square, what would apply in the case of "company towns" - such as are alleged to have existed at some point(s?) in history - where the primary-if-not-sole employer owns all the land, all the buildings, and all the local businesses? Would there be no public square in which the people of those towns - who can't afford to leave for any meaningful period, if at all, because of the very economics involved in those towns to begin with - can engage in free speech, et cetera?)
My concern is that "genuinely misunderstood the argument, and rephrased it in order to convey that (misunderstood) idea of what the argument is" might in some cases not be distinguishable - to either a third party, or the interlocutor - from "understood the argument, and disingenuously attempted to misrepresent that argument". Asking for clarification doesn't help if the other person doesn't understand what isn't clear, and often enough, the best way to convey that is to rephrase in exactly the way I'm talking about.
Yes, being careful about how the rephrasing is phrased (which is a good idea, and arguably necessary, regardless) might help avoid that lack of distinguishability, but I don't think it would necessarily do so in all cases.
I can't think of a time when I've wanted to use the rephrasing-for-clarity-and-mutual-understanding tactic in a discussion with you (and that's probably a compliment to your own ability to express things clearly - or at least an indication of how much alike we think), but I could easily see myself deciding to refrain from engaging in such a discussion at all, on the basis that the risk of getting mired in sincere accusations of otherwording vs. sincere misunderstanding is not worth the potential benefit.
Although I do think that some things which would seem to fit the definition of otherwording you seem to be using can sometimes be helpful. I not infrequently find it helpful to rephrase the other person's argument in my own words, in an attempt to make sure I've understood it correctly and/or convey to the other person what I (mis?)understood it as (in hopes of reaching a better mutual understanding); even if I end up disagreeing with that argument, I think it's better to do so with confidence that I understand what it was.
I do tend to express such rephrasings slightly differently from what I've seen you react to as otherwording ("So if I'm understanding you correctly,", that sort of thing), but not always, and I'm not at all certain that the way I'd say it wouldn't trip your otherwording sensors.
I would add one more conditional on there - not only can they not legally prevent you from speaking by other channels [1], they also cannot practically prevent you from doing so.
If they could do (and were doing) the latter, you'd have a hard time convincing me that that would not still be a violation of the freedom of speech, although I readily grant that it would not be a violation of the First Amendment.
[1] I'm parsing "legally" here as "with the force of law", not "without violating the law". I.e., not that it would be illegal for them to prevent you from doing this, but merely that an attempt by them to prevent you from doing it would not be backed by government enforcement. If there are laws which would in fact make such prevention an illegal act on their part, I'm not being able to think of what those laws are.
I really want to dismiss this claim as specious on the basis of the fact that the only people who use "Democrat" as an adjective seriously (outside of contexts like "Democrat [so-and-so's name]") are kneejerk right-wingers.
Unfortunately, that fact seems to be becoming increasingly obsolete and inaccurate these days...
You might want to be careful with you phrase that. Although on a few moments' consideration I see why there's enough of a difference to warrant distinguishing the two, my immediate reaction to that argument stated that way was to think of your own recurring remarks about otherwording - and not everyone is going to bother taking those few moments' consideration.
On the post: EU 'Protecting Consumers' By Forcing Them To Pay More For Android?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not so sure. Yes, accessing your own network cannot be considered "unauthorized access" - but accessing the iHeart (or other streaming provider) service from outside of the authorized geographic region, whether via your own network or via any other means, might be.
See if this logic holds together.
In order to access the streaming service, you connect to a computer system outside of your network, run by the service's provider.
Accessing that computer system without authorization would be a CFAA violation.
That service itself, by the terms of the license under which it is permitted to distribute its content, is only authorized to provide that content to destinations within a certain geographic region.
Therefore, that service prohibits access to its computer system from outside of that region.
Therefore, access to that system from that region is not authorized.
Therefore, by bypassing the restrictions which prevent access to that service from outside of that region, you are accessing that computer system without authorization.
On the post: EU 'Protecting Consumers' By Forcing Them To Pay More For Android?
Re: Re: Re:
If you don't bypass the restrictions, and pay full price, you have a certain amount of money left afterwards.
If you do bypass the restrictions, and pay a lower price, you have a larger amount of money left afterwards.
I'm fairly sure that there is existing precedent which would hold that that difference in how much money you have left qualifies as "financial gain", and that therefore bypassing restrictions in order to be able to pay the lower price qualifies as doing so for financial gain.
On the post: Breitbart Snowflakes Threaten To Sue People Who Have Asked Advertisers To Stop Advertising On Breitbart
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Notably, however, the term was used before that point (but still after the election, IIRC) by Hillary Clinton, in reference to some of the material circulating about the political race, and I think as a partial explanation for why she wound up losing.
I've long suspected that Trump saw that, picked it up, (mis)used it in that famous press conference (targeting Jim Acosta, I think it was?), and things snowballed from there.
On the post: UK Government Screws Head On Straight, Bans Use Of Term 'Fake News' By Gov't Officials
Re: Re:
Language peeve:
In the term "fake news", the word "news" is not short for "news media". It refers to (some subset of) the actual stories and reporting which the news media provides.
CNN is not news. CNN is part of the news media; in particular, it is a news organization, and also a cable TV network. None of those things are news itself.
Since CNN is not news, CNN cannot possibly be "fake news".
You could argue that what CNN reports is "fake news", but CNN itself is not and cannot be "fake news", because the thing called "CNN" is not an instance of the category called "news".
That's not something specific to CNN, mind you; exactly the same things are true of Fox News.
Donald Trump has been perverting the language by misusing the word "news" in this context ever since his first (public) use of the phrase "fake news", and it's well past time people stopped letting that pass without comment.
On the post: Texas Teens Can't Graduate High School Until They've Been Told How To Behave Around Cops
Re: Re: Re: Re: The California Teachers Association
To say that something is illegal is to say that the law requires that that thing not exist.
The only way for a person not to exist is for that person to die.
Unless you're actually advocating for the death penalty for cases of illegal immigration (in which case you're an extreme outlier, or at least I hope so), what you probably actually want to have not exist is - not the person who immigrated illegally - but the person's presence in this country.
The presence is illegal. (And can be destroyed by expelling the person from the country.)
The person is not.
On the post: City Council Seized, Crushed Resident's Legally-Parked BMW While He Was In The Hospital
Re: Re: Re: Four of the most depressing words in the English language
Which jobs exactly are being referred to, or in what context this comment is purported to have occurred, I don't know.
On the post: Texas Teens Can't Graduate High School Until They've Been Told How To Behave Around Cops
Re: Respect
"Everyone deserves courtesy by default, until they demonstrate by their actions that they don't deserve it.
"No one deserves respect by default, until they demonstrate by their actions that they do deserve it."
On the post: Another Report Shows That FOSTA Increased (Not Decreased) Sex Trafficking; Where Is The Outrage?
Re: Re: One of those times when being right is cold comfort
That particular type of transaction probably far predates even the invention of bartering of physical goods, much less the invention of money, much less the profession of money-changer.
It also predates the invention of language, much less the professions of shaman, priest, storyteller, et cetera.
Where the profession of "pimp" falls in that timeline I'm not sure; it almost certainly postdates the first "take care of me and I'll have sex with you" transaction, but there are too many other variables for me to pin it down beyond that.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since someone invoked open source
If I'm correct, it would be something like: "Americans made it, so it belongs to America. If those Americans let non-Americans have it without America (possibly in the person of those Americans) receiving appropriate payment, such as by placing it under a free-software license, then those Americans have helped the non-Americans steal it from America."
I haven't quite figured out how to put the underlying assumption which would make these conclusions follow logically into words, however - which, given some of the things I've managed to do that with in the past, is probably an indication of just how far into the direction of insanity that assumption is.
On the post: Streaming Exclusives Will Drive Users Back To Piracy And The Industry Is Largely Oblivious
Re: Re: Re:
Assuming the cable companies don't hold those rights themselves directly, anyway.
IIRC, the same principle applies to e.g. HBO: they won't let you stream from their Website if you don't have an HBO subscription via a cable provider. That's not just "basic cable", it's "specific premium cable channel".
On the post: Mississippi Law Enforcement Performed $200,000 Worth Of Illegal Forfeitures Because It 'Didn't Realize' Law Had Changed
Re: Re:
If I keep seeing that question about the same repeated comments, I'm going to start flagging the question itself as being trolling, just as the comment to which it is a response is.
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case That Could Possibly (But Not Really) Impact Social Media Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re:
Without necessarily adopting the position being argued: because Fox News is a one-way channel, from a relative handful of speakers (who have no way to hear their listeners) to many listeners (who cannot speak and be heard), whereas Twitter is a mass communications platform, from many speakers (who can also listen) to many listeners (who can also speak).
There are really three entities involved: the speaker(s), the editor / moderator / what-have-you, and the listener(s).
In the case of Fox News, the speaker(s) are employed by and under the authority of - and may in some cases be the same as - the editor / moderator / et cetera. Thus, to a certain extent, the speech of the former may be treated as the speech of the latter - to that same extent, the latter has just as much right to control that speech as if the latter were speaking directly.
In the case of Twitter, the overwhelming majority of the speakers have no connection to the editors / moderators / etc., except in making use of the platform which they moderate. Thus, the speech of the former is in no way the speech of the latter[1], and the latter does not thereby acquire any particular right to control that speech. (Although such a right might arise by other channels; for example, the decision to not carry that speech would itself be an act of speech, with everything that implies.)
[1] (There may be room to argue about "failure to condemn constitutes condoning as acceptable, which is a minor form of endorsement", with the idea that the endorsement - much like the decision not to carry - constitutes its own separate act of speech. I would be surprised if there weren't fairly well-established legal precedent on that subject, but aside from a few things regarding Section 230 - which is relatively recent, in legal terms - it's outside my scope of expertise.)
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case That Could Possibly (But Not Really) Impact Social Media Content Moderation
Re:
...is there a law, statute, or court ruling that designates the central square of the village, through which people pass on a daily basis, as "the public square"?
I didn't think that designating a public square was the business of the law; I thought the laws relating to the public square were more about recognizing what society and the public already treats as being the public square, in something akin to that historical village-square sense, and ensuring that it is dealt with appropriately.
Indeed, if the government attempted to pass a law defining X as being the public square (even for the purpose of expanding the public square), I would probably be inclined to view that as government overreach - as something that extends beyond what it is the government's proper power to do. Based on my current assessment of my own feelings on the subject (and this is an acknowledgement that this is biased), the public square should be defined entirely by some combination of the behavior, practices, and expectations of the public itself; it should at most be recognized by the government, not defined thereby. (Though I do acknowledge that such recognition would almost certainly take the form either of law or of court ruling.)
(A probably-tangential thought: if being privately owned completely precludes a place from qualifying as the public square, what would apply in the case of "company towns" - such as are alleged to have existed at some point(s?) in history - where the primary-if-not-sole employer owns all the land, all the buildings, and all the local businesses? Would there be no public square in which the people of those towns - who can't afford to leave for any meaningful period, if at all, because of the very economics involved in those towns to begin with - can engage in free speech, et cetera?)
On the post: NY's AG Is Trying To Tie Major ISPs To Those Bogus Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re: Re: typo
"You know, I think sometimes we ought to realize the difficult and often dangerous work involved in tracking down violent criminals like myself, and I'd just like them to know that their fine work is at least appreciated by me."
On the post: DOJ, Trump Decide The Federal Government Needs To Give Chicago The Police Department It Doesn't Want
Re:
Yes, being careful about how the rephrasing is phrased (which is a good idea, and arguably necessary, regardless) might help avoid that lack of distinguishability, but I don't think it would necessarily do so in all cases.
I can't think of a time when I've wanted to use the rephrasing-for-clarity-and-mutual-understanding tactic in a discussion with you (and that's probably a compliment to your own ability to express things clearly - or at least an indication of how much alike we think), but I could easily see myself deciding to refrain from engaging in such a discussion at all, on the basis that the risk of getting mired in sincere accusations of otherwording vs. sincere misunderstanding is not worth the potential benefit.
On the post: DOJ, Trump Decide The Federal Government Needs To Give Chicago The Police Department It Doesn't Want
Re: Re: Re:
I do tend to express such rephrasings slightly differently from what I've seen you react to as otherwording ("So if I'm understanding you correctly,", that sort of thing), but not always, and I'm not at all certain that the way I'd say it wouldn't trip your otherwording sensors.
On the post: The Good Censor Document Shows Google Struggling With The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re: Re:
I would add one more conditional on there - not only can they not legally prevent you from speaking by other channels [1], they also cannot practically prevent you from doing so.
If they could do (and were doing) the latter, you'd have a hard time convincing me that that would not still be a violation of the freedom of speech, although I readily grant that it would not be a violation of the First Amendment.
[1] I'm parsing "legally" here as "with the force of law", not "without violating the law". I.e., not that it would be illegal for them to prevent you from doing this, but merely that an attempt by them to prevent you from doing it would not be backed by government enforcement. If there are laws which would in fact make such prevention an illegal act on their part, I'm not being able to think of what those laws are.
On the post: The Good Censor Document Shows Google Struggling With The Challenges Of Content Moderation
Re:
I really want to dismiss this claim as specious on the basis of the fact that the only people who use "Democrat" as an adjective seriously (outside of contexts like "Democrat [so-and-so's name]") are kneejerk right-wingers.
Unfortunately, that fact seems to be becoming increasingly obsolete and inaccurate these days...
On the post: Massachusetts Supreme Court Looking To Define Where The Fifth Amendment Ends And Compelled Decryption Begins
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DOJ, Trump Decide The Federal Government Needs To Give Chicago The Police Department It Doesn't Want
Re:
Next >>