The event is being both sponsored and hosted graciously by Google -- which shouldn't come as a surprise, given how much effort the company is putting into trying to help the journalism business succeed (that Atlantic article is a fantastic read).
Not really, because pirated books would become widely available, and college students don't tend to have moral issues avoiding being ripped off by textbooks.
I'm not saying it's nothing to be concerned about. My guess is that it will pass, but after removal of "embarrass" from the list.
I agree that that's not much better. After all, embarrassing someone can be considered a form of emotional distress, and it would still be a free speech problem. But it will be a problem in line with what all the other states have (I agree with you, stupidly) passed.
Fortunately, I'm pretty sure we can assume the law won't pass in this form.
One thing that tends to bother me is the assurance of selective enforcement. You know, "Don't worry, it'll only be used against [...]." All of these broadly-worded laws seem to fall into that bucket.
I think the amount people will pay will be more influenced by the amount other people pay than the specific list price. If everyone else is paying 20% above suggested price, you'll feel like a jerk if you pay below the suggested price.
I don't think that's accurate. We're not fans of retroactively changing copyright, which is what termination rights did (along with the associated extensions).
The reason the story is interesting isn't that we think one side is right. It's just extremely amusing to see the tables turned.
That seems to be used less often lately. A quick control-f of the main page shows the stories there have no "draconian" at all. The only right now is the never-ending poll.
Yes, you make sense this time. For future reference, though, the capitalized words make it harder to read, rather than strongly emphasized. Consider bold or italic instead.
A major problem with the responsibility of visiting a posted link (other than the obvious logistical problems) is that, if a user posts a link to illegal-to-view content, visiting the link can make you a criminal.
If it will negatively affect us, it's a problem and should be dealt with. It doesn't matter whether it's caused by us or nature. What does matter is how we combat it if it's harmful. If a climate change were bad enough to extinct us I hope we would fight to save ourselves, regardless of the cause.
I'm not sure that's true of all paths to teaching. There are decent post-graduate programs for talented people in industry to have a mid-life crisis and convert to teaching. Your "bottom third" probably only applies to people who go to teaching straight out of college.
I can't say I disagree with you about administrators, though.
On the post: Judge In US Copyright Group Case Seems Skeptical Of Lumping All Those Lawsuits Into One
Re:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0093051/
On the post: Watching A Newspaper Go From A Print Mindset To A Digital Mindset
Re: Re: Re:
The event is being both sponsored and hosted graciously by Google -- which shouldn't come as a surprise, given how much effort the company is putting into trying to help the journalism business succeed (that Atlantic article is a fantastic read).
On the post: Pentagon: If You Don't Let The US Gov't Spy On Your Network, You Place American Lives At Risk
Re:
http://boingboing.net/2008/08/05/lawrence-lessig-on-t.html
On the post: Students Overwhelmingly Don't Like Kindle As A Textbook Replacement Option
Re: Re:
On the post: Patents Now Getting In The Way Of Important Brain Research
Re:
On the post: Attorney Decodes Numbers On Redlight Camera Photo To Prove That The Light Was Green
Re: You know what this means....
Huh? I'm confused.
On the post: Louisiana Wants To Put You In Jail If You Embarrass Anyone Under 17 Years Old Online
Re: Re: Proposed laws
I agree that that's not much better. After all, embarrassing someone can be considered a form of emotional distress, and it would still be a free speech problem. But it will be a problem in line with what all the other states have (I agree with you, stupidly) passed.
On the post: Louisiana Wants To Put You In Jail If You Embarrass Anyone Under 17 Years Old Online
Proposed laws
One thing that tends to bother me is the assurance of selective enforcement. You know, "Don't worry, it'll only be used against [...]." All of these broadly-worded laws seem to fall into that bucket.
On the post: Pakistani Court Orders All Of Facebook To Be Blocked Over Page It Doesn't Like
Typo?
On the post: Panera Bread Testing The 'Pay What You Want' Model
Peer pressure
On the post: Warner Bros. So Distraught Over Losing Superman Rights, It Personally Sues The Lawyer Who Won
Re: Re: Question
The reason the story is interesting isn't that we think one side is right. It's just extremely amusing to see the tables turned.
On the post: Police Say Facebook Is Liable In Man's Death, Because He Was At A Flashmob Organized On Facebook
Re: Wasn't there an amendment or something?
On the post: Subway Claims Trademark On 'Footlong' Threatens Hotdog Seller Who's Been Selling Footlongs For Decades
Embedded document
On the post: Can We Make A Power Hour Drinking Game Around Ridiculous Trademark Disputes?
Re:
On the post: Google Wants Court To Say That Links To Music Files Don't Mean Google Is Infringing Copyrights
Re: TWICE in canada
A major problem with the responsibility of visiting a posted link (other than the obvious logistical problems) is that, if a user posts a link to illegal-to-view content, visiting the link can make you a criminal.
On the post: Middle School Principal Tells Parents To Ban Facebook And Spy On Text Messages
Re:
On the post: How Not To Handle A Parody Video: Threatening Legal Action
Re: Re: Well, and...
On the post: Bill Would Extend DMCA-Style Takedowns To 'Personal Info'
Re: copyright facts?
On the post: Bill Would Extend DMCA-Style Takedowns To 'Personal Info'
Re: Has a use...
Why's that? You gave the information away. It's not yours anymore.
On the post: Laptop Spy Scandal Administrator Just "Loved" Violating Students' Fourth Amendment Rights
Re:
I can't say I disagree with you about administrators, though.
Next >>