How can something only "may" contain violations, when filing a copyright notice can only lawfully be done (without committing perjury) if you actually have knowledge that it does contain a violation?
Or use a car analogy. Most people understand cars.
An API is like the bolts that connect a steering wheel to the steering column. Oracle is claiming that because they used a different size and shape of bolts than anyone else, it would violate their copyrights for anyone to use anything but their steering wheels or steering wheels they have approved in their cars, even if non-approved steering wheels will fit.
If a criminal goes out and mugs someone, and the victim manages to fight back, the mugger is not allowed to claim self defense if he injures his victim in the struggle. He's certainly not allowed to kill his victim and claim self defense.
But here we have cops who are dressed like regular citizens, who illegally entered and didn't bother to identify themselves and then tried to kill their victim.
A court evaluates a self defense plea on the basis of what the defender knew or reasonably thought they knew at that moment. Mr Betton had no way of knowing the home invasion was perpetrated by police, and if he had shot and killed them all it would have been a lawful act of self defense. But those police knew they were illegally entering, they knew they had disguised their status as police, and they opened fire anyway.
What those cops did wasn't self defense, any more than a mugger shooting his victim would be defending himself.
Most people get the meaning of the old story completely wrong.
Yes, Goliath was HUGE for his time (though he'd be short by modern standards). Yes, he was heavily armed and armored, and very skilled with his weapons. But he was heavy infantry, and he issued his famous challenge to other heavy infantrymen.
As soon as David took up the challenge, Goliath was a dead man walking, and he had to know that. But Goliath was more afraid of being seen to back down than death, so he walked to his death knowing he was about to die.
The reason for this is that muscle-powered weaponry has something of a rock-paper-scissors relationship. Infantry beats cavalry, cavalry beats ranged, ranged beats infantry. David was a slinger, which is a highly mobile, unarmored ranged combatant.
Goliath would be unable to catch David in a chase, could only even attempt to attack if David let him. And David's weapon was lethal to Goliath at more than ten times the length of Goliath's spear.
The Constitution prohibits general warrants, as they were one of the worst legal abuses of power in the pre-Revolution USA. I can't imagine that a warrantless search that exceeds the breadth and scope of a general warrant could possibly be more legal than the already-prohibited general warrant.
If you were correct, then a town or city would be able to ignore county laws. For that matter, a neighborhood within a city would be able to hold a vote and ignore city laws. A household could unanimously vote that city laws don't apply to their house.
While it might be a fun idea to contemplate that you could get your wife, children and dog to all agree that none of your household owes any taxes to the city, county, state or nation, it's not likely to end well if you actually tried it.
Imagine what would happen if someone were to stand up in the middle of a town meeting -- or the gallery overlooking the Senate -- and start shouting an advertisement for genital enlargement.
They would be escorted out and not allowed back in so long as they insisted on shouting their ads. AOC absolutely could do the same with her social media accounts.
It's not immigration people in charge of copyright enforcement though. It's customs people in charge of keeping illegal goods out of the country -- which is exactly what they're supposed to do, among several other things.
Re: Re: The phrase you're looking for is 'double standards'
Yeah, but there are certain circumstances where you can serve the public good and destroy public property in the process. I'm not aware of any case where a non-cop did so and was not made to pay for it at the minimum. Most did some prison time too.
Both companies operate chip factories located in China, both ship parts from other places to China for assembly. Apple does too. Depending on how the ban is phrased, this might make it illegal for anyone to receive federal money unless they're running Linux.
Remember, Taiwan is considered part of China by the PRC and the PRC won't do business with any country that disagrees.
It's worse than just a facial recognition database
In order to ensure that not just the person at the computer is of age but everyone in the room is, the computer will have to be equipped with a webcam, and that webcam must be sufficiently wide-angle to see the entire room. Further, it must be constantly scanning while the porn is being viewed.
Bets on whether those cameras will come with working off buttons, and whether they might just 'accidentally' keep scanning the room for anything illegal even when porn isn't being viewed?
ICE didn't even bother to look in the proper place?
I wonder how the government would react if a company or individual used that excuse? "Oh, I'm sorry, I can't comply with your subpoena because I can't find any documents that are responsive to it."
Heads would roll. But because the feds did it, nobody gets in any trouble.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Re: Re:
How can something only "may" contain violations, when filing a copyright notice can only lawfully be done (without committing perjury) if you actually have knowledge that it does contain a violation?
On the post: Big News: Supreme Court To Hear Google v. Oracle Case About API And Copyright
Re:
Or use a car analogy. Most people understand cars.
An API is like the bolts that connect a steering wheel to the steering column. Oracle is claiming that because they used a different size and shape of bolts than anyone else, it would violate their copyrights for anyone to use anything but their steering wheels or steering wheels they have approved in their cars, even if non-approved steering wheels will fit.
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Qualified Immunity To Cop Who Argued Citizens Have No Right To Defend Themselves Against Armed Intruders
A mugger can't claim self defense
If a criminal goes out and mugs someone, and the victim manages to fight back, the mugger is not allowed to claim self defense if he injures his victim in the struggle. He's certainly not allowed to kill his victim and claim self defense.
But here we have cops who are dressed like regular citizens, who illegally entered and didn't bother to identify themselves and then tried to kill their victim.
A court evaluates a self defense plea on the basis of what the defender knew or reasonably thought they knew at that moment. Mr Betton had no way of knowing the home invasion was perpetrated by police, and if he had shot and killed them all it would have been a lawful act of self defense. But those police knew they were illegally entering, they knew they had disguised their status as police, and they opened fire anyway.
What those cops did wasn't self defense, any more than a mugger shooting his victim would be defending himself.
On the post: Elsevier Gets Sci-Hub And LibGen Blocked In Austria, Thereby Promoting The Use Of VPNs And Tor In The Country
It's really not David versus Goliath
Most people get the meaning of the old story completely wrong.
Yes, Goliath was HUGE for his time (though he'd be short by modern standards). Yes, he was heavily armed and armored, and very skilled with his weapons. But he was heavy infantry, and he issued his famous challenge to other heavy infantrymen.
As soon as David took up the challenge, Goliath was a dead man walking, and he had to know that. But Goliath was more afraid of being seen to back down than death, so he walked to his death knowing he was about to die.
The reason for this is that muscle-powered weaponry has something of a rock-paper-scissors relationship. Infantry beats cavalry, cavalry beats ranged, ranged beats infantry. David was a slinger, which is a highly mobile, unarmored ranged combatant.
Goliath would be unable to catch David in a chase, could only even attempt to attack if David let him. And David's weapon was lethal to Goliath at more than ten times the length of Goliath's spear.
That outcome was never in doubt.
On the post: Federal Court Says ICE, CBP's Suspicionless Searches Of Electronic Devices Is Unconstitutional
General Warrants
The Constitution prohibits general warrants, as they were one of the worst legal abuses of power in the pre-Revolution USA. I can't imagine that a warrantless search that exceeds the breadth and scope of a general warrant could possibly be more legal than the already-prohibited general warrant.
On the post: Federal Court Says Man Arrested For 'Criminally Defaming' Cops Can Continue Suing To Block The Law From Being Enforced
Re: Depends on the point of view you're using
Given the way this law is being used, a prosecutor could be prosecuted by a cop for putting that cop on a Brady List.
Bets on how fast the prosecutor's office gets rid of the law if that ever happens?
On the post: CEO Of Security Company Behind Unorthodox Penetration Tests Wants To Know Why His Employees Are Still Being Criminally Charged
Re: Re: Re: Re: The court case
If you were correct, then a town or city would be able to ignore county laws. For that matter, a neighborhood within a city would be able to hold a vote and ignore city laws. A household could unanimously vote that city laws don't apply to their house.
While it might be a fun idea to contemplate that you could get your wife, children and dog to all agree that none of your household owes any taxes to the city, county, state or nation, it's not likely to end well if you actually tried it.
On the post: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Apologizes And Unblocks Critic Who Sued Her
Commercial speech
Imagine what would happen if someone were to stand up in the middle of a town meeting -- or the gallery overlooking the Senate -- and start shouting an advertisement for genital enlargement.
They would be escorted out and not allowed back in so long as they insisted on shouting their ads. AOC absolutely could do the same with her social media accounts.
On the post: Report Suggests Rampant Negligence In Uber Self Driving Car Fatality
Re:
Computers are extremely good at following orders. Humans are extremely bad at giving orders to computers.
On the post: ACLU Sues DOJ Over Facial Recognition Documents
Re:
And since you can't know how many are false negatives, the accuracy rate could be worse than 99.9% and you'd never know.
On the post: Boston PD Is Helping ICE Track Down The City's Least Dangerous Immigrants
Re: Re: Remember the whole Kim Dotcom thing?
It's not immigration people in charge of copyright enforcement though. It's customs people in charge of keeping illegal goods out of the country -- which is exactly what they're supposed to do, among several other things.
On the post: US Government Threatening To Kill Free Trade With South Africa After Hollywood Complained It Was Adopting American Fair Use Principles
Re:
If having fair use laws warrants inclusion on the Special 301 list, why is the USA not on it?
On the post: Appeals Court Says It's OK For Cops To Destroy Someone Else's House To Apprehend A Criminal Suspect
Re: Re: The phrase you're looking for is 'double standards'
Yeah, but there are certain circumstances where you can serve the public good and destroy public property in the process. I'm not aware of any case where a non-cop did so and was not made to pay for it at the minimum. Most did some prison time too.
On the post: FCC Freaks Out About Huawei, But Ignores The Internet Of Broken Things
Intel and AMD have a problem here
Both companies operate chip factories located in China, both ship parts from other places to China for assembly. Apple does too. Depending on how the ban is phrased, this might make it illegal for anyone to receive federal money unless they're running Linux.
Remember, Taiwan is considered part of China by the PRC and the PRC won't do business with any country that disagrees.
On the post: Retrospective: As Sony Clearly Wins This Generation's Console Wars, Let's Recall How It All Began
Re: Features are over rated
Hey, it works for the government, why not the corporations?
Selling you things you used to have for free is a cynical definition of licensing laws, after all.
On the post: Australia's Idiotic War On Porn Returns, This Time Using Facial Recognition
Re: Re: It's worse than just a facial recognition database
Bets on whether it will soon be a criminal offense in Australia to not have a working webcam?
On the post: Australia's Idiotic War On Porn Returns, This Time Using Facial Recognition
It's worse than just a facial recognition database
In order to ensure that not just the person at the computer is of age but everyone in the room is, the computer will have to be equipped with a webcam, and that webcam must be sufficiently wide-angle to see the entire room. Further, it must be constantly scanning while the porn is being viewed.
Bets on whether those cameras will come with working off buttons, and whether they might just 'accidentally' keep scanning the room for anything illegal even when porn isn't being viewed?
On the post: Cops: People In Their Own Homes Are In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time Whenever A Cop Enters Unlawfully
Re: Re: Re:
What does British common law have to do with US common law, besides a shared ancestry? US common law is what matters here.
It always amuses me though, that Sov.Cits routinely reject court case law, even though case law and common law are synonymous -- and always have been.
On the post: Our FOIA Lawsuit Gets Results: ICE Admits It Didn't Really Seize A Million 'Copyright Infringing' Domains
ICE didn't even bother to look in the proper place?
I wonder how the government would react if a company or individual used that excuse? "Oh, I'm sorry, I can't comply with your subpoena because I can't find any documents that are responsive to it."
Heads would roll. But because the feds did it, nobody gets in any trouble.
On the post: Senators Wyden And Paul Put A Hold On Dangerous CASE Act; Will Propose Alternative
Voluntary?
What about CASE is voluntary? The definition of voluntary in use here seems to be flipped on its head -- involuntary to the defendant!
Next >>