actually since I highlighted and wrote in margins (sometimes doodling..but thats another story) and I know nearly all other Law students have, are, and will always do this then this becomes an interesting legal conundrum..
Does the act of highlighting and annotating then create a transformative work? Have I by the sweat of my brow slogging through the boredom that is property law contributed to creating a new and wondrous work from my usage of this 'licensed' (what a load of twaddle) physical thing?
I think she is misinterpreting this other Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám's
Ah love! could you and I with Him conspire To grasp this sorry scheme of Things entire Would we not shatter it to bits - and then Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire
Re-moulding doesn't mean Deleting and rewriting!
PS: amazed someone else actually knows of Omar's works! awesome
Actually thats bullshit, and not just bullshit but totally unmitigated uneducated idiotic bullshit!
Those licenses are and cannot be revoked other than by the actual licensee and NOT by his estate for the purpose of desecration (what other word is there) to remove fully and with malice all history of the persons absolute existence and ideas on content that is absolutely not contextual to the action at hand.
In fact his actual descendants (children) would have an absolute case against there mother (even now) for removing there fathers thoughts and actual online being and therefore denying them the absolute right to know whom he was.
This doesn't stop specific information from being removed, but that specificity has to be weighed against the absolute human right to be immortalized by your thoughts and actions no matter what those thoughts/actions are. For the mother to even attempt this malicious and ego driven action means she has major psychological issues and gives reasonable suspicion that the children might be at risk of psychological or other abuse. The triggers are all there.
She isn't just desecrating the memory of their father, she is removing him from ever existing in the first place in all ways shapes and form.
Yes like all torts (and most laws actually) defamation is a reactive not proactive response that tries to restrict and recompense for that damage. It's the psychological fear of having to pay damages that stops most people from defaming anyone they see. *This is the point of most laws in the first place*
I think I know what your trying to say and its mainly about who controls what is seen, who sees it etc. Though you are already stating that its coming its going to be (like iPhones etc) ubiquitous (EVERYWHERE) so when anyone can do it, anyone can be filmed by it, all actions are monitored and broadcast and available for anyone to browse, search, whatever at leisure (though just because its available doesn't mean it will be seen) where is the problem since the control and authority is everywhere.
When EVERYONE is able to do something and transparency is full and open, believe me human civilisation and the human psyche will get over it and carry on as it always has until the next big FUD problem comes along and makes everyone think OMG what will we do.
At a social level not being obnoxious, not being dressed innapropriately, not picking your nose & eating it, and a whole other list of social graces are expected.
Doesn't mean they are legally nor ethically correct though. Which was the whole point of the article. Mike was showing how humans are just Fearful of anything new, and will always try to stop what they don't understand because of the [insert some moral/religious/whatever reason here].
You stating anonimity proves this point specifically.
David Brin once wrote a book on privacy v. openness called the transparent Society . Luckily chapter one is available online [ http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety1.html ] it talks about the two extremes of transparency vs big brother privacy. I know which world I'd rather live in, and its the one where google glass and others like it gives everyone transparency and no one entity controls everything.
Oh and what's with the counseling points??? As far as I know Counseling sessions are closed private meetings, are not advertised who is attending when, and are in normal nondescript offices (or medical centers) where the videoing of clients is already disallowed due to already in place laws or due to it being private property
As for if people make widely outrageous allegations about someone attending a place that might have a councellor and who might specifically deal with your scenarios are setting themselves up for defamation actions.
As for the 'sexy shop' or political meeting so what.. anyone who is in a position where attending them might be of concern (for stupidity reasons normally seen only in the USA) has already got a problem with private investigators looking for this anyway who use highly non visible cameras anyway.
I'll give you the point about oppressive regimes, though the article implied it was about Democratic countries.
awwww are you all uptight because what you say, do or act like in a PUBLIC place might be shown to ANYONE publicly.
poor diddums.. Tell you what, my advice to you is Stay indoors encased in bubble wrap and let the more mature, reasonable and non butthurt humans live outside.
Oh and I do believe my AIWA Walkman equivalent in the 1980's actually recorded too
Though seeing as though you clean everything (or have been led to believe you do) does this mean you have been intentionally removing nefarious inculpatory evidence that may have been used to show that you have looked for "dwarf BDSM" & even "furry ponies"? :o
Q: When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station? Mr. Brooks: Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.
Reminds me of one of teh transcripts from a brilliant book called "Disorder in the Courts" (if you have anything remotely to do with the legal profession Read it you will not stop laughing
:o
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing? WITNESS: No.. ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor? WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
On the post: Publisher 'DRMs' Physical Legal Textbook About 'Property,' Undermines Property And First Sale Concepts
Re: Re: Recent Law School Grad (Dec. 2012)
actually since I highlighted and wrote in margins (sometimes doodling..but thats another story) and I know nearly all other Law students have, are, and will always do this then this becomes an interesting legal conundrum..
Does the act of highlighting and annotating then create a transformative work? Have I by the sweat of my brow slogging through the boredom that is property law contributed to creating a new and wondrous work from my usage of this 'licensed' (what a load of twaddle) physical thing?
On the post: Court Tells Ex-Wife Of Husband Who Killed Himself To Use Copyright To Delete Anything He Ever Wrote Online
Re:
Re-moulding doesn't mean Deleting and rewriting!
PS: amazed someone else actually knows of Omar's works! awesome
On the post: Court Tells Ex-Wife Of Husband Who Killed Himself To Use Copyright To Delete Anything He Ever Wrote Online
Re:
Those licenses are and cannot be revoked other than by the actual licensee and NOT by his estate for the purpose of desecration (what other word is there) to remove fully and with malice all history of the persons absolute existence and ideas on content that is absolutely not contextual to the action at hand.
In fact his actual descendants (children) would have an absolute case against there mother (even now) for removing there fathers thoughts and actual online being and therefore denying them the absolute right to know whom he was.
This doesn't stop specific information from being removed, but that specificity has to be weighed against the absolute human right to be immortalized by your thoughts and actions no matter what those thoughts/actions are. For the mother to even attempt this malicious and ego driven action means she has major psychological issues and gives reasonable suspicion that the children might be at risk of psychological or other abuse. The triggers are all there.
She isn't just desecrating the memory of their father, she is removing him from ever existing in the first place in all ways shapes and form.
On the post: Dutch Student Sued By Kanye West Over Coinye Rejects Kanye's Settlement Offers; Prepares Countersuit
On the post: Second Apple v. Samsung Patent Trial Ends With A Partial Victory For Apple, But Far From What It Wanted
Re:
You see she does have rounded corners
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
I think I know what your trying to say and its mainly about who controls what is seen, who sees it etc. Though you are already stating that its coming its going to be (like iPhones etc) ubiquitous (EVERYWHERE) so when anyone can do it, anyone can be filmed by it, all actions are monitored and broadcast and available for anyone to browse, search, whatever at leisure (though just because its available doesn't mean it will be seen) where is the problem since the control and authority is everywhere.
When EVERYONE is able to do something and transparency is full and open, believe me human civilisation and the human psyche will get over it and carry on as it always has until the next big FUD problem comes along and makes everyone think OMG what will we do.
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
Re: Re: CCTV
Doesn't mean they are legally nor ethically correct though. Which was the whole point of the article.
Mike was showing how humans are just Fearful of anything new, and will always try to stop what they don't understand because of the [insert some moral/religious/whatever reason here].
You stating anonimity proves this point specifically.
David Brin once wrote a book on privacy v. openness called the transparent Society . Luckily chapter one is available online [ http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety1.html ] it talks about the two extremes of transparency vs big brother privacy. I know which world I'd rather live in, and its the one where google glass and others like it gives everyone transparency and no one entity controls everything.
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
Re:
As for if people make widely outrageous allegations about someone attending a place that might have a councellor and who might specifically deal with your scenarios are setting themselves up for defamation actions.
As for the 'sexy shop' or political meeting so what.. anyone who is in a position where attending them might be of concern (for stupidity reasons normally seen only in the USA) has already got a problem with private investigators looking for this anyway who use highly non visible cameras anyway.
I'll give you the point about oppressive regimes, though the article implied it was about Democratic countries.
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
CCTV
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
Re:
poor diddums.. Tell you what, my advice to you is Stay indoors encased in bubble wrap and let the more mature, reasonable and non butthurt humans live outside.
Oh and I do believe my AIWA Walkman equivalent in the 1980's actually recorded too
On the post: German Government Blocks Ed Snowden From Testifying Before Parliament So As Not To Upset The US
Re: At least now we know what it takes.
you are confusing US-German relations with German-US relations.
On the post: The Supreme Court's Real Technology Problem: It Thinks Carrying 2 Phones Means You're A Drug Dealer
Though then again maybe they couldn't charge me under double jeopardy. LOL
On the post: Censorious Parent Calls Cops On Teen Giving Away Books In A Local Park
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Curriculum choices.
Though seeing as though you clean everything (or have been led to believe you do) does this mean you have been intentionally removing nefarious inculpatory evidence that may have been used to show that you have looked for "dwarf BDSM" & even "furry ponies"? :o
On the post: Brilliant Reporting: NYT Recreates Wacky Deposition Over Definition Of A Photocopier
Re: Re: Disorder in the court?
http://www.tealdragon.net/humor/lists/courts.htm
My favourite in them is #11
Q: When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?
Mr. Brooks: Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.
On the post: Brilliant Reporting: NYT Recreates Wacky Deposition Over Definition Of A Photocopier
Re:
To Be or not to BE. IS the question
On the post: Brilliant Reporting: NYT Recreates Wacky Deposition Over Definition Of A Photocopier
Re: Disorder in the court?
Though the other one I have is quite well worth it as well
Disorderly Conduct: Excerpts from Actual Cases
Though looking just then at Amazon.. I had to purchase this (2nd hand) Guilty by Reason of Stupidity AWESOMENESS! ;)
On the post: Brilliant Reporting: NYT Recreates Wacky Deposition Over Definition Of A Photocopier
:o
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No..
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
On the post: Brilliant Reporting: NYT Recreates Wacky Deposition Over Definition Of A Photocopier
Re: Re:
it's not PhotoCopy it's photoThievery!
/sarc (for those trolls who can't tell the difference)
On the post: Student-Targeting Data Harvester inBloom Closes Shop, CEO Blames Parents For Their 'Misdirected Criticism'
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha..
Looks at the worldwide privacy laws and security protocols that would NEVER EVER allow this outside of the USA
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Next >>