Copyright isn't currently written to help the artist, nor is it written to give artists incentives to work. It may have started out that way, but over the years it has been corrupted to support the legacy industries against independents. When copyright can be used to block the sale of original works by the artist themselves as a hammer to force them to sell through the industry, or used as a pre-emptive strike to silence critics or enforce the industries' propaganda, it is no longer about the artist. Even the length of copyright is anti-artist (since no artist will care 30 seconds after they are dead how long their copyright still exists for.)
Termination rights shouldn't be written into the law, as with any other contract, they should be terminated when one party or the other decides to cancel the contract. If one party to the contract fails to live up to their end of the bargain, then the other party should be allowed to back out of the contract. What should be written into the law is the exceptions to the rule...no contract should ever be allowed to take away rights of either party, nor should it place any unreasonable or unconscionable requirement or restriction on either party (like the one-sided ones the RIAA/MPAA currently use, or ones that prevent one party from cancelling the contract without significant penalty if the other side decides to buy the contract and then fails to sell the work or puts it into a vault and makes it "disappear" because they don't like it.)
A "terrorist" is simply someone who uses the tactic of terrorism and not someone who holds a particular ideology.
I agree with the correct definition of terrorist (one who uses acts of terror to gain power or push their agenda,) but when has certain members of Congress/NSA/Executive Branch/Media organizations limited themselves to correct definitions and/or facts to describe actions of others?
When the acts of political discourse and/or disagreements are called acts of terrorism (as the word communist was often used, and is still used, to define the same actors,) we've slipped all the way down the well and are looking up from the bottom. It becomes a derogatory term, like all others, to be used to define those we don't like irrespective of the original definition. I actually heard a member of the media say as much about Mr. Snowden this morning when reporting on this for a conservative news radio channel (that I listen to solely for traffic and weather, honestly.) I believe those were AC/That One Guy's points.
In pretty much every case it depends entirely on which side you're looking at it from.
The sad part is that for much of the history of the US, the forefathers were considered the good guys. The side we are on hasn't changed, leaving question of which side those in power are coming from?
(Which, funnily enough, all the founding fathers of the US would be considered these days)
And sadly, to the English, they were pretty much considered that back then. There was an awful long period of time before the start of open hostilities in Lexington and North Bridge in 1775 where the whole lot could have ended up rounded up and executed as enemies of the crown.
Re: Smallpox and Rinderpest would like to have a word with you...
Bingo...OP needs to play a game of Pandemic... the anti-vaxors seem to be proving Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, since diseases like Measles and Rubella seem to be on the comeback, affecting their kids more and more (and sadly, taking out babies who are too young to be vaccinated in the process.)
If they want to be idiots, I wish they would do it to themselves and leave their kids and the babies who can't be vaccinated out of it.
Good comedians use their wits to call out all sorts of bad behavior by jabbing at the hypocrisy, hubris, and absurdity in it all. They're like modern day prophets.
True that.
Of course, you know it is humor, which makes it an easier pill to swallow. Some people see the humor and hopefully move on, using it as constructive criticism. The question is whether the criticism is accepted and used to learn better when it comes from humor or from fire-and-brimstone. The old carrot vs. stick argument. I think it works better, but only when the humor is taken to heart.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work, and I fear the higher you go in politics, the less likely it works.
The major American 'news' networks have completely abdicated their role as a check against government abuses.
Hence the reason I get most of my 'news' from the Daily Show/Colbert Report (on Hulu.) Figure if I am watching Entertainment anyway, I might as well have a good time and I might actually learn more.
Rick Ledgett: He would work on the computer with a hood that covered the computer screen and covered his head and shoulders, so that he could work and his girlfriend couldn't see what he was doing.
John Miller: That's pretty strange, sitting at your computer kind of covered by a sheet over your head and the screen?
Man, Snowden should totally patent that shit. I know of at least a few people who would buy it for their husbands/wives this Christmas so they can continue working on their computer without keeping their significant others awake. Figure out some way to make it fully immersive (sound, video, etc.,) without having that stuff broadcast to folks who are sleeping in the house and that could be a good niche product worth some serious money.
Usually I just keep the computer out of the bedroom, but there is a TV in there and there are some times I wish I had this type of system for the TV too.
They should be required to provide copper or fiber, but at least one of the technologies needs to be available. Fiber is a very suitable replacement for copper, has much lower maintenance costs, and is more or less future-proof.
Which is crazy expensive, but I have no realistic alternative.
Agree. I have alternatives, but they aren't any better or are far, far worse. I'd love to get local channels without having to pay $34.99 to get the bundled channels (which seems ridiculous since I can buy a whole house digital antenna for less than one month of buying theirs.) It is either Cox, GSM/CDMA, or 1.5 mbps ADSL here.
I technically subscribe to the basic Comcast package too, because my internet service really is cheaper that that way. I think it's how Comcast plumps up their cable TV subscriber numbers.
I wish Cox had a similar system. Cox's basic package, with local channels, is $34.99 a month (a price I paid when I initially cut the cable.) Cable internet, unbundled, is $73.99 a month, but ~$65 a month if you bundle it with phone and basic cable (it is more if you skip the phone.) Doing the math, $34.99+$25(phone)+$65 > $73.99, which meant I dropped the extra $80 and paid the extra ~$15 a month.
I am not sure what the linked court document had with this case, or even if the linked document's "Kevin Bollaert" is the the same person as the one here. This is reference for a Federal case, and the Revenge Porn case has been filed in the State court (San Diego Superior Court to be exact.)
Giving handouts to corporations only makes them dependent, we would be doing them a favor by putting an end to it.
Funny to see that turned around...
What ever happened to free market capitalism?
It went out the window when the Government decided to offer monopoly rents to Verizon in order to exclusively provide land-line services in the area (which they aren't providing.) If anyone could play, Verizon would be packing up their gear and a better, more flexible company (or companies) would be earning the big bucks Verizon gave up.
The problem, however, would mean that everyone would have to run their own cables. As much as I love free-market capitalism, I think the best possible way is for the government to own the infrastructure, and open it to all competitors, instead of locking in on one and living off of its franchise taxes. The government should do what the citizens demand and the corporations are incapable of doing, and infrastructure is one thing that corporations are incapable of doing correctly. Think of all the money we could have saved if government didn't just hand the phone industry a blank check, and instead put that money into the infrastructure.
Oh FSM, my sarcasm meter just exploded! Can't tell if I should hit report or funny... It seems like funny, but the link is a crappy conspiracy theory website so it might just be batshit insane. Go with my instincts on this one?
You're right. "Remaining after being forbidden" in a public place isn't another term for trespassing it's another term for loitering. You can't trespass on public property. She had every right to go there. If she didn't leave after they asked her to, that is a completely different charge.
Usually trespass and loiter laws have more to do with the intent to commit another crime than by themselves. I remember a Deputy DA telling me once that an arrest of a person just for sitting at a bus stop all day when they had no intention of doing anything else was a lousy reason to arrest them for loitering. Of course, if the guy was panhandling or assaulting people, then that would be a good reason, but just sitting there wasn't. Usually, unless the cop has a good reason to do otherwise, they just tell the person who is loitering to move on, maybe do some sort of field interview if necessary, and then go back into service.
Of course, this is the same Deputy DA that got hassled for taking pictures on a public sidewalk. Pricks exist everywhere, I am afraid.
I am far more familiar with CA laws, but I am troubled by them using a law akin to Trespass (it sure sounds like the definition of Loitering/Commercial Trespass) on a person on public property with a legitimate reason for being there.
Unless there is a posted "Restricted Area" sign in the lobby of the police station (doubtful), or it is associated with school or college property that the person has no legitimate reason being at, or in, in front of or near a public bathroom (for the purposes of lewd conduct,) public property (as opposed to property that is private but opened to the public,) should be the one place that it isn't illegal to loiter.
Otherwise those who take trips to the park for a picnic better start watching themselves.
Last I checked, paper books are still vastly popular. I'm a voracious e-reader myself, but I still prefer the physical book. The only reason I rarely get one these days is I simply don't have the room to store them.
I tend to be exactly the opposite. I prefer e-books. But there is one place in the world where having a paper book is preferred to e-books. Less chance of a paper book getting wet and electrocuting you, and in some cases, for a particularly bad book, you can use its pages to clean up after yourself.
Though I tend to read a lot of magazines in this place instead.
On the post: Hidden Within The TPP: The RIAA's Secret Plan To Screw Musicians Out Of Their Rights
Is anyone surprised by this?
Termination rights shouldn't be written into the law, as with any other contract, they should be terminated when one party or the other decides to cancel the contract. If one party to the contract fails to live up to their end of the bargain, then the other party should be allowed to back out of the contract. What should be written into the law is the exceptions to the rule...no contract should ever be allowed to take away rights of either party, nor should it place any unreasonable or unconscionable requirement or restriction on either party (like the one-sided ones the RIAA/MPAA currently use, or ones that prevent one party from cancelling the contract without significant penalty if the other side decides to buy the contract and then fails to sell the work or puts it into a vault and makes it "disappear" because they don't like it.)
On the post: Ed Snowden Sends Open Letter To Brazil... Which The Press Blatantly Misrepresents
Re: Re: Re:
I agree with the correct definition of terrorist (one who uses acts of terror to gain power or push their agenda,) but when has certain members of Congress/NSA/Executive Branch/Media organizations limited themselves to correct definitions and/or facts to describe actions of others?
When the acts of political discourse and/or disagreements are called acts of terrorism (as the word communist was often used, and is still used, to define the same actors,) we've slipped all the way down the well and are looking up from the bottom. It becomes a derogatory term, like all others, to be used to define those we don't like irrespective of the original definition. I actually heard a member of the media say as much about Mr. Snowden this morning when reporting on this for a conservative news radio channel (that I listen to solely for traffic and weather, honestly.) I believe those were AC/That One Guy's points.
On the post: Ed Snowden Sends Open Letter To Brazil... Which The Press Blatantly Misrepresents
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The sad part is that for much of the history of the US, the forefathers were considered the good guys. The side we are on hasn't changed, leaving question of which side those in power are coming from?
On the post: Ed Snowden Sends Open Letter To Brazil... Which The Press Blatantly Misrepresents
Re: Re:
And sadly, to the English, they were pretty much considered that back then. There was an awful long period of time before the start of open hostilities in Lexington and North Bridge in 1775 where the whole lot could have ended up rounded up and executed as enemies of the crown.
On the post: DailyDirt: Tis The Season To Catch The Flu
Re: Smallpox and Rinderpest would like to have a word with you...
If they want to be idiots, I wish they would do it to themselves and leave their kids and the babies who can't be vaccinated out of it.
OP might also want to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies and http://antiantivax.flurf.net/.
On the post: CBS Airs NSA Propaganda Informercial Masquerading As 'Hard Hitting' 60 Minutes Journalism By Reporter With Massive Conflict Of Interest
Re: Re:
Vidiot posted it below (above in Flattened mode.)
On the post: CBS Airs NSA Propaganda Informercial Masquerading As 'Hard Hitting' 60 Minutes Journalism By Reporter With Massive Conflict Of Interest
Re: Re: Re: It needs to be said
True that.
Of course, you know it is humor, which makes it an easier pill to swallow. Some people see the humor and hopefully move on, using it as constructive criticism. The question is whether the criticism is accepted and used to learn better when it comes from humor or from fire-and-brimstone. The old carrot vs. stick argument. I think it works better, but only when the humor is taken to heart.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work, and I fear the higher you go in politics, the less likely it works.
On the post: CBS Airs NSA Propaganda Informercial Masquerading As 'Hard Hitting' 60 Minutes Journalism By Reporter With Massive Conflict Of Interest
Re: It needs to be said
Hence the reason I get most of my 'news' from the Daily Show/Colbert Report (on Hulu.) Figure if I am watching Entertainment anyway, I might as well have a good time and I might actually learn more.
On the post: CBS Airs NSA Propaganda Informercial Masquerading As 'Hard Hitting' 60 Minutes Journalism By Reporter With Massive Conflict Of Interest
John Miller: That's pretty strange, sitting at your computer kind of covered by a sheet over your head and the screen?
Man, Snowden should totally patent that shit. I know of at least a few people who would buy it for their husbands/wives this Christmas so they can continue working on their computer without keeping their significant others awake. Figure out some way to make it fully immersive (sound, video, etc.,) without having that stuff broadcast to folks who are sleeping in the house and that could be a good niche product worth some serious money.
Usually I just keep the computer out of the bedroom, but there is a TV in there and there are some times I wish I had this type of system for the TV too.
On the post: Public Service Commission Orders Verizon To Cough Up Cost Data On Its New York Copper Lines
Re: Verizon
They should be allowed to provide copper or fiber, and then be required to allow CLECs access to whatever they provide for a reasonable rate (subsidized cost plus a little profit.) Right now, they want to kill off their competition by using fiber (which isn't available to CLECs,) instead of copper (which is.)
Thanks to BentFranklin for this link (I was not aware of it before.)
On the post: CEO Of 21st Century Fox Thinks People Aren't Really Asking For A La Carte TV Channels
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agree. I have alternatives, but they aren't any better or are far, far worse. I'd love to get local channels without having to pay $34.99 to get the bundled channels (which seems ridiculous since I can buy a whole house digital antenna for less than one month of buying theirs.) It is either Cox, GSM/CDMA, or 1.5 mbps ADSL here.
On the post: CEO Of 21st Century Fox Thinks People Aren't Really Asking For A La Carte TV Channels
Re: Re:
I wish Cox had a similar system. Cox's basic package, with local channels, is $34.99 a month (a price I paid when I initially cut the cable.) Cable internet, unbundled, is $73.99 a month, but ~$65 a month if you bundle it with phone and basic cable (it is more if you skip the phone.) Doing the math, $34.99+$25(phone)+$65 > $73.99, which meant I dropped the extra $80 and paid the extra ~$15 a month.
On the post: YouTube Fails In Explaining Flood Of Takedowns For Let's Play Videos
Re: Re:
Probably the same way they got DMCA passed in the first place. Plenty of Benjamins, Hookers, and Blow.
On the post: Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
Linked Court Document?
I believe the document you want is https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/Complaint_3.pdf
On the post: Public Service Commission Orders Verizon To Cough Up Cost Data On Its New York Copper Lines
Re: Re:
Funny to see that turned around...
What ever happened to free market capitalism?
It went out the window when the Government decided to offer monopoly rents to Verizon in order to exclusively provide land-line services in the area (which they aren't providing.) If anyone could play, Verizon would be packing up their gear and a better, more flexible company (or companies) would be earning the big bucks Verizon gave up.
The problem, however, would mean that everyone would have to run their own cables. As much as I love free-market capitalism, I think the best possible way is for the government to own the infrastructure, and open it to all competitors, instead of locking in on one and living off of its franchise taxes. The government should do what the citizens demand and the corporations are incapable of doing, and infrastructure is one thing that corporations are incapable of doing correctly. Think of all the money we could have saved if government didn't just hand the phone industry a blank check, and instead put that money into the infrastructure.
On the post: Scammy Company Trying To Get Writers For Major Sites To Engage In Pay-To-Link Arrangements
Re: Re: The Gorgle
Oh FSM, my sarcasm meter just exploded! Can't tell if I should hit report or funny... It seems like funny, but the link is a crappy conspiracy theory website so it might just be batshit insane. Go with my instincts on this one?
On the post: Police Who Seized Woman's Phone As 'Evidence' Of Bogus Crime Now Complaining About Criticism
Re: Re: WTF...
Usually trespass and loiter laws have more to do with the intent to commit another crime than by themselves. I remember a Deputy DA telling me once that an arrest of a person just for sitting at a bus stop all day when they had no intention of doing anything else was a lousy reason to arrest them for loitering. Of course, if the guy was panhandling or assaulting people, then that would be a good reason, but just sitting there wasn't. Usually, unless the cop has a good reason to do otherwise, they just tell the person who is loitering to move on, maybe do some sort of field interview if necessary, and then go back into service.
Of course, this is the same Deputy DA that got hassled for taking pictures on a public sidewalk. Pricks exist everywhere, I am afraid.
On the post: Police Who Seized Woman's Phone As 'Evidence' Of Bogus Crime Now Complaining About Criticism
Re:
The MPAA and RIAA must be thrilled! No listening to music or watching movies unless they are from inside the office!
It may make things interesting if someone wants to drop off video evidence of a crime.
On the post: Police Who Seized Woman's Phone As 'Evidence' Of Bogus Crime Now Complaining About Criticism
WTF...
Unless there is a posted "Restricted Area" sign in the lobby of the police station (doubtful), or it is associated with school or college property that the person has no legitimate reason being at, or in, in front of or near a public bathroom (for the purposes of lewd conduct,) public property (as opposed to property that is private but opened to the public,) should be the one place that it isn't illegal to loiter.
Otherwise those who take trips to the park for a picnic better start watching themselves.
On the post: Norway To Digitize All Norwegian Books, Allowing Domestic IP Addresses To Read All Of Them, Irrespective Of Copyright Status
Re: Re:
I tend to be exactly the opposite. I prefer e-books. But there is one place in the world where having a paper book is preferred to e-books. Less chance of a paper book getting wet and electrocuting you, and in some cases, for a particularly bad book, you can use its pages to clean up after yourself.
Though I tend to read a lot of magazines in this place instead.
Next >>