just as a devils advocate, how is that different than having a public domain painting and taking a photograph of it?
I would have copyright on the 'photograph' of the painting wouldn't I? It's obviously a different thing than claiming copyright on the data contained in the photograph, but it still exists as a separate and distinct thing.
Scanning a physical book into an image is basically taking a picture of it.
Not trolling, truly asking about the finer points of this type of scenario.
My question is isn't this illegal? While me may not have technically 'hacked' to send the impersonation email, it certainly wasn't with permission which is about all the Fed's care about when prosecuting these things...
"If you are an industry dealing with the government, would it not be good to hire people with government experience to head up that area?"
Good for you? Perhaps. Good for the taxpayers? Not nearly as likely.
It's called 'conflict of interest' for a reason. There needs to be a moratorium or waiting period when any government employee can go work for the private sector on which they have had influence.
It's a slippery slope to be sure, but we're seeing it slide in the other direction badly based on the above charts.
This is the same show that blatantly caved to pressure from the credit card companies when proposing a show about how insecure the new 'RFID' cards really were.
I think it was Adam who at a public forum somewhere was talking to the audience describing the hilarity of how the show got shut down.
Their bosses perp-walked him out the very next day to completely retract what he said because, you know, you can't show people just how insecure the new system is...
So, for ethics and standards I wouldn't expect too much.
Don't need studies, basic logic says they're blowing smoke.
ISP claim: 1% of users are using too much bandwidth
ISP Solution: Set limits that affect 80% of users
Real world cure: Set limit just below that which the 1% are using that is causing the problem. You only affect the problem people.
Or, you know, actually market and sell what you can reasonably supply rather than unlimited data for 25Mb+ down for everybody that WILL overload your networks when people actually use that much.
And just as soon theft actually happens people will be up in arms. Shame there has been no 'theft' at all in file sharing.
But you knew that right?
Just because something *can* be used illegally doesn't make that service illegal. Guns should be illegal by your definition. Cars too. Phones. Banks. Baseball bats. Take your pick. Everything can be used for good and bad.
Trying to stop the intent of use by banning the tool works marginally at best in the physical world. In the digital world of the internet it simply doesn't work at all.
You can ban a book and burn all copies of it in your country. What happens when anyone can read any copy anywhere in the world? And an infinite number of copies can be made at zero cost? You simply can't ban that. You can try, but you'll never win against that scale of reproduction, no matter how 'right' you are.
I would suggest that maybe the Grokster decision was perhaps only tangentially related to the increase of file sharing.
Much the same way that Clinton's balancing of the budget was tangentially related to the soaring DotCom economy.
Clinton may have balanced the budget (with help from GOP obstruction) but the economy was growing enough that most anyone would have been able to balance it with that much increased tax revenue coming in. (I'm quite liberal so this isn't a bash at Clinton :) )
The file sharing was only increasing because people liked it, not because of the reaction to Grokster. It may have jump started people moving to more and varied sources, but the trend was already there and likely would have happened whether or not Grokster got shut down.
Re: Re: Re: I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.
Yep, same here. I take pride in that Sen. Webb of Virgina announced he wasn't running for re-election a month or so after I told him that.
Of course, that means we may end up with George 'Macaca' Allen in his place...
wheee.
But you are correct, we need to start voting people out on principles so that their replacements start adhering to principles instead of campaign contributions.
The 'filibuster' as currently implemented is not good. The 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington' filibuster is a good thing.
When someone finsd something so obnoxious that they are willing to stand up and shut down the Senate over it, they should have that ability...provided they are standing on the floor and talking non-stop. Nothing else gets done until that issue is resolved.
Unfortunately the Senate has changed the rules so that things can run in 'parallel tracks' so that while a filibuster is being conducted, other business can be taken care of. It makes it toothless.
The filibuster is a good idea, but it needs to 'hurt' to use it. You need to be the poster child for holding up the Senate while you are doing it.
Instead you have Harry Reid being completely ineffective as leader by simply not holding votes if the GOP merely threaten to filibuster.
To that end, the filibuster doesn't even exist in the original Senate rules. It only came into existence basically by accident when they removed a procedure from the rules in the early 1800s ("to move the previous question").
People should be allow to gum up the works. However, there shouldn't be ways to 'ease' the pain of that gumming up of the works. And of course, ways for the majority to override that stand so progress can be made once enough people agree.
It gives power to the individual Senator, but not unlimited power.
On the post: Lamar Smith Caught Infringing On Photographer's Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lamar Smith Caught Infringing On Photographer's Copyright
Re: Re: Re:
Talk about shoddy work!
On the post: Lamar Smith Caught Infringing On Photographer's Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: a*hole trying to hide the dirt now. robots.txt archive block just went live
It's like a magazine deciding take the old copy you have and say you can't look at it any longer :(
On the post: The Great Digitization Or The Great Betrayal?
Re: Let me see if I have this right
I would have copyright on the 'photograph' of the painting wouldn't I? It's obviously a different thing than claiming copyright on the data contained in the photograph, but it still exists as a separate and distinct thing.
Scanning a physical book into an image is basically taking a picture of it.
Not trolling, truly asking about the finer points of this type of scenario.
On the post: The Latest Entrant In 'How Not To Do Marketing' In An Online World: Ocean Marketing Fail
Re: Identity theft, too!
My question is isn't this illegal? While me may not have technically 'hacked' to send the impersonation email, it certainly wasn't with permission which is about all the Fed's care about when prosecuting these things...
On the post: GoDaddy Says It Doesn't Support PIPA Either, As Domains Keep Transferring Away
Re: Re:
On the post: Mapping Out The Revolving Door Between Gov't And Big Business In Venn Diagrams
Re: No Republicans?
On the post: Mapping Out The Revolving Door Between Gov't And Big Business In Venn Diagrams
Re:
Good for you? Perhaps. Good for the taxpayers? Not nearly as likely.
It's called 'conflict of interest' for a reason. There needs to be a moratorium or waiting period when any government employee can go work for the private sector on which they have had influence.
It's a slippery slope to be sure, but we're seeing it slide in the other direction badly based on the above charts.
On the post: Poll Suggests Americans Of All Ages, Political Positions, Locations... All Hate SOPA
Re: A Thought
On the post: 96% of Congressmen Agree: Bad Legislation Is Easier To Craft In Secret
Re:
On the post: 96% of Congressmen Agree: Bad Legislation Is Easier To Craft In Secret
Re: Re: Re: Freedom
I'm sorry, that was just a temporary marketing promotion...
Unlike the former, the McRib will be back :(
On the post: Universal Music Issues Questionable Takedown On Megaupload Video That Featured Their Artists [Updated]
Re:
Your 'Justice' is served sir.
On the post: Mythbusters Crew Accidentally Fire Cannonball Through Suburban Neighborhood... Quickly Start Deleting Tweets Of The Evidence
Re:
I think it was Adam who at a public forum somewhere was talking to the audience describing the hilarity of how the show got shut down.
Their bosses perp-walked him out the very next day to completely retract what he said because, you know, you can't show people just how insecure the new system is...
So, for ethics and standards I wouldn't expect too much.
On the post: New Report Debunks The 'Bandwidth Hog' Myth
Re: Brown Sugar
I just got a $10 credit for calling Verizon's FiOS bullsh!t onto the carpet.
This stuff gets logged and come renewal time, they have to answer for it.
On the post: New Report Debunks The 'Bandwidth Hog' Myth
Re:
ISP claim: 1% of users are using too much bandwidth
ISP Solution: Set limits that affect 80% of users
Real world cure: Set limit just below that which the 1% are using that is causing the problem. You only affect the problem people.
Or, you know, actually market and sell what you can reasonably supply rather than unlimited data for 25Mb+ down for everybody that WILL overload your networks when people actually use that much.
On the post: Why The Supreme Court's 'Grokster' Decision Led To More, Not Less, P2P Filesharing
Re: Wrong conclusion about legal loopholes.
And just as soon theft actually happens people will be up in arms. Shame there has been no 'theft' at all in file sharing.
But you knew that right?
Just because something *can* be used illegally doesn't make that service illegal. Guns should be illegal by your definition. Cars too. Phones. Banks. Baseball bats. Take your pick. Everything can be used for good and bad.
Trying to stop the intent of use by banning the tool works marginally at best in the physical world. In the digital world of the internet it simply doesn't work at all.
You can ban a book and burn all copies of it in your country. What happens when anyone can read any copy anywhere in the world? And an infinite number of copies can be made at zero cost? You simply can't ban that. You can try, but you'll never win against that scale of reproduction, no matter how 'right' you are.
On the post: Why The Supreme Court's 'Grokster' Decision Led To More, Not Less, P2P Filesharing
Much the same way that Clinton's balancing of the budget was tangentially related to the soaring DotCom economy.
Clinton may have balanced the budget (with help from GOP obstruction) but the economy was growing enough that most anyone would have been able to balance it with that much increased tax revenue coming in. (I'm quite liberal so this isn't a bash at Clinton :) )
The file sharing was only increasing because people liked it, not because of the reaction to Grokster. It may have jump started people moving to more and varied sources, but the trend was already there and likely would have happened whether or not Grokster got shut down.
On the post: Senator Wyden Promises To Read Out The Names Of Those Who Oppose PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.
Of course, that means we may end up with George 'Macaca' Allen in his place...
wheee.
But you are correct, we need to start voting people out on principles so that their replacements start adhering to principles instead of campaign contributions.
On the post: Senator Wyden Promises To Read Out The Names Of Those Who Oppose PROTECT IP
Re: The Filibuster: Good or Bad
When someone finsd something so obnoxious that they are willing to stand up and shut down the Senate over it, they should have that ability...provided they are standing on the floor and talking non-stop. Nothing else gets done until that issue is resolved.
Unfortunately the Senate has changed the rules so that things can run in 'parallel tracks' so that while a filibuster is being conducted, other business can be taken care of. It makes it toothless.
The filibuster is a good idea, but it needs to 'hurt' to use it. You need to be the poster child for holding up the Senate while you are doing it.
Instead you have Harry Reid being completely ineffective as leader by simply not holding votes if the GOP merely threaten to filibuster.
To that end, the filibuster doesn't even exist in the original Senate rules. It only came into existence basically by accident when they removed a procedure from the rules in the early 1800s ("to move the previous question").
People should be allow to gum up the works. However, there shouldn't be ways to 'ease' the pain of that gumming up of the works. And of course, ways for the majority to override that stand so progress can be made once enough people agree.
It gives power to the individual Senator, but not unlimited power.
On the post: Why Does The Government Fear Free Speech?
Next >>