The problem is, and it's not exactly constitutional, is that we haven't really left the feudal era in the employment context, where employers are viewed as lords and employees peasants (almost property).
The employee/employer relationship is much closer to the feudal system than it is to consenting adults entering a mutually beneficial business arrangement.
"Hopefully long enough such that Wikileaks can recoup its operational costs... and continue practicing the free speech ideals that the U.S. is merely preaching."
The U.S. government only protects free speech that doesn't bother them, such as racist speech and homophobic speech. That's when the 1st amendment really shines. But don't even think about saying anything that might be embarrassing to a U.S. official.
"which was just a very small portion, which is why the federal judge had argued it was protected by fair use"
Fair use implies Hulk Hogan made a copyright claim, but how can that be if he didn't know he was being filmed. He most definitely can't be the copyright owner then? Unless filmer sold rights to him, in which case does that mean Hulk published it knowingly to web?
Well we wouldn't want to modify the agreements made between artists and the public after the fact.
Oh wait, that's exactly what every copyright maximalist wants, so long as it's retroactively improving their side of the deal and not the other way around.
Whatever. Every time someone gets mad because politicians only give canned responses, and then when they are real everyone gets mad, "Gasp you can't say that!"
He got into it with a jerk. We've all been there. Give the guy a break.
“No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [copyright law].”
I never actually read the law, but based on that reading doesn't that exclude the circumvention of technological measures which aren't effective? (i.e. all DRM?)
I'm not going to give you my Facebook password and here is why you still want to hire me.
When people interact with me and message me in social media, there is an implicit trust to keep their information confidential.
Similarly, when employees leave your company, certainly there is information you expect them to keep confidential.
If I were willing to give you this information, that would tell you that I am willing to betray the trust of others in my attempts to get a new job. The fact that I am willing to risk this job opportunity here shows that I can be trusted whereas the other candidates who comply are likely to violate your trust in the future if properly incentivized.
That is why you want to hire me."
Unfortunately, this sort of policy specifically selects for employees that, if pressed, will betray these companies in the future.
On second thoughts, copyright needs a use it or lose it clause. I know this is not an original idea (if such a thing exists) but this would be a great example of a situation where it would be useful.
I really want to have a court examine whether or not it is legal for your average citizen to conduct themselves in the same way police do without the warrant. Isn't the warrant supposed to be the special permission police get to essentially break the law? If they don't need a warrant, can I not do the same thing?
On the post: Mainstream Press Waking Up To DOJ's Massive Overreaction To Minor Computer Hacks
Re: Re: How?
On the post: IL Follows Suit: Employers Right To Ask For Social Media Passwords Codified Into Law
Re: Re:
The employee/employer relationship is much closer to the feudal system than it is to consenting adults entering a mutually beneficial business arrangement.
On the post: IL Follows Suit: Employers Right To Ask For Social Media Passwords Codified Into Law
Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
The U.S. government only protects free speech that doesn't bother them, such as racist speech and homophobic speech. That's when the 1st amendment really shines. But don't even think about saying anything that might be embarrassing to a U.S. official.
On the post: Gawker Defies Judge, Refuses To Take Down Post About Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Despite Court Order
Fair use implies Hulk Hogan made a copyright claim, but how can that be if he didn't know he was being filmed. He most definitely can't be the copyright owner then? Unless filmer sold rights to him, in which case does that mean Hulk published it knowingly to web?
On the post: Grooveshark Loses Latest Round In Court, In A Ruling That Could Gut The DMCA's Safe Harbors
Oh wait, that's exactly what every copyright maximalist wants, so long as it's retroactively improving their side of the deal and not the other way around.
On the post: How Not To Email Constituents: The Brian Nieves Story
He got into it with a jerk. We've all been there. Give the guy a break.
On the post: IRS Says It Will Change Its Policy On Looking At Emails Without A Warrant... At Some Point
On the post: Congress Quickly And Quietly Rolls Back Insider Trading Rules For Itself
On the post: Sorry, Having IMDB Accurately List Your Age Doesn't Entitle You To A Million Dollars
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
I never actually read the law, but based on that reading doesn't that exclude the circumvention of technological measures which aren't effective? (i.e. all DRM?)
On the post: Proposed WA Bill Would Allow Employers To Request Facebook Passwords
Re: Re: Employment at will
"Dear Prospective Employer,
I'm not going to give you my Facebook password and here is why you still want to hire me.
When people interact with me and message me in social media, there is an implicit trust to keep their information confidential.
Similarly, when employees leave your company, certainly there is information you expect them to keep confidential.
If I were willing to give you this information, that would tell you that I am willing to betray the trust of others in my attempts to get a new job. The fact that I am willing to risk this job opportunity here shows that I can be trusted whereas the other candidates who comply are likely to violate your trust in the future if properly incentivized.
That is why you want to hire me."
Unfortunately, this sort of policy specifically selects for employees that, if pressed, will betray these companies in the future.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re:
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re:
But what I don't get is why they are worried? Who is going to enforce the copyright once they are bankrupt?
On the post: Indian Supreme Court Rejects Trivial 'Evergreening' Of Pharma Patents
On the post: 'Internet Lawyer' Charles Carreon Has A New Best Friend And He's An SEO Expert Who Hates Anonymous Critics
On the post: Internet Under Attack: World's Largest DDoS Attack Almost Broke The Internet
On the post: DOJ Misled Judges For Years About How It Was Using Stingray Devices To Spy On People
On the post: Dumb Policy: Store Charges $5 Just To Look At Goods, To Keep People From Looking And Then Buying Online
Re:
On the post: The Arab Street Responds To Fear Of Memes By Producing Tons Of Meme Videos
Re: Copyright: more important than revolutions?
You saw it here first, folks!
Next >>