Re: Re: Rhetorical questions, german politician style
"The controlling mechanism of democracy, for better or worse, is scrutiny by the masses" True enough. Now explain to me why are the "masses" not allowed to "scrutiny"? How can we pretend we're a democracy when the only point that actually makes a democracy had been removed?
I tell you, McCain, developers and cryptographers will try to make your golden key and even deliver it on a unicorn riding a rainbow... after you manage to pass and enforce as law stating that ISIS can only use US-approved communication and encryption solutions.
We should go back to the original purpose of copyright in the Constitution: to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Which means that whatever work you hold the copyright of, particularly now in the internet age, must be made available to all (but obviously not necessarily for free) one way or another.
If you try to discriminate your public or downright decline to spread the work, you should lose the copyright. And if you are simply not able to, for example because you never cared enough to keep a sample to copy from, then you also loser the copyright.
Basically, nobody should have a legal way to block the spread of a work, so such blocking should only occur when one is trying to spread the work himself. (Please note that, in this legal frame, an unfair price - but constant across all markets - would not be considered blocking. It would only be a stupid way to do business.)
That would not be an answer to all the problems of copyright, but it would at the very least address the availability issue.
Nice point by point analysis. Although I would conclude that point 3 is instead slightly in favor of fair use (based on "necessary"), point 4 is definitely the conclusive factor here.
That is a wrong statement: it's not copyright law that forbids taking photos of Mona Lisa. It's the museum's rules. That's not law, and the excuse is not copyright but "the flash will damage the painting". Of course that's not the real reason (which is selling expensive - but licensed - photos from the souvenir shop), but there is no copyright enforcement at play here.
First, one of the supporters of the bill tried to bs her way out by stating that she's not trying to "prohibit" anything, but to create "permission" to link to sites. That's such an obvious lie that it reminds me of the comparison with data caps in US: being "friendly" is not helping someone back on his feet... after you first punched him to the ground.
Second, Berger doesn't even seem to listen to herself speak... "and links that lead to copyright-protected works on their publishing site are precisely what allows Google to create any added value whatsoever". Yes, Google creates value. That's the whole point: Google creates value for the public, the original site owner... and Google himself. What's the problem there?
Third, there is already a way to authorize or deny permission to Google. It's called robots.txt. Funny enough, most sites already explicitly allow Google. And most other implicitly do the same. What need is there for a law as long as most respectable crawlers respect the instructions there?
Finally, most people used to pay to get advertisement. And most sites are currently paying to optimize their SEO. Being on Google is valuable, and everyone should be glad that Google is doing it (mostly) for free. Funny how some country don't understand the basics of economy here.
Not that Google doesn't have some abusive behaviors, but that is definitely not something I'd bother criticizing them about.
What a joke. First, T-Mo is in business for its own sake, not that of its customers. Second, what in the paper suggests that they should "favor their competitors"? Lastly, if binge on is bit am actual violation of net neutrality, nothing is.
If you never want to be waken up to net neutrality issues, then just go back to sleep and live in your happy little dream world.
The problem of that Rothenberg guy is that he mistakes censorship (prohibiting someone from speaking) from personal filtering (deciding for oneself not to listen to someone else).
If I decide to block his ads, that's not censorship. If I use someone's tool to that effect, that's still not censorship, even if the tool provider is making a profit out of it.
And for the record, what he did - one-sided cancellation of someone's registration to the convention without any reason other than not liking that someone's opinions - is not censorship either. It's petty and it's exactly what he complains about, but it's not censorship.
To sum it up, "free speech" is not the right to force others to listen.
Well, you can consider them as aiding terrorists (there is a declared "War on Terror" out there, wherever that "Terror" country is) by 1. maintaining a climate of fear and terror in the country and 2. undermining our values of democracy and freedom as per the terrorists' will.
I'm sarcastic there, but I sometimes don't feel it's that much on an exaggeration.
PS Also, that's another case where I think the judges reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. I don't know enough about the law, particularly UK law, to decide if that's all the judges could do with the current law or if they lacked conviction for a stronger ruling.
- first is how we are still not equal. In this case, journalists have a privileged "freedom of speech" that most people can't pretend to.
- but most importantly, it's once again a case of the law enforcement playing Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." You don't need to kill or even threaten people. Now an acceptable definition of terrorism in UK is "you know a guy who knows a guy who knows something." (With the vague excuse that this "something" might put an undefined "someone" in danger.)
When people in power stop changing the meaning of the Law, maybe people will respect it - and them - a little more.
I can agree with a few of the comments here on one single basis: in general, not knowing the law doesn't mean you don't benefit from it. (Or can't be condemned based on it.)
However, granting "human rights" (including copyrights) to animals is a step I wouldn't make, for several reasons.
The very first one, which is the core of the other reasons, is that "the Law" is a whole. If animals are to benefit from it, they should comply to the whole. If they "want" copyrights (or if anyone wants copyrights to apply to them), we'll have to start suing animals for murder, theft, etc. (Heck, in that situation the monkey could have been sued if he broke or stole the camera. Would that also make sense?) Not to mention taxes. (Unless we make specific tax exemption rules for "animal persons". At the same time, we'll have to stop slaughtering them for food or experimentations. (And I doubt all PETA members are vegan.) I can understand the concept of "animal cruelty" being a crime (I even subscribe to it), but even this concept does NOT consider the animal as a "person".
Second, we'll have to decide where to draw the line, if any. If apes and/or monkeys are ok to consider as "persons", what about other animals? Dolphins? Dogs and cats? Rats? Elephants? What about insects? Spiders? Plants even? (They might not be mobile, but they are definitely living organisms.)
I'll finish with a third point (we could discuss it for hours otherwise): even assuming "animal as persons" in law, how would we apply this in practice? For domestic animals, I can imagine the base idea. Wild animals are a whole other matter: they don't recognize borders, so which national law would apply? The one they happen to be in at the time they are "caught" for a "crime" or "victimized" or "create a copyright work"? Or would they be given an arbitrary "citizenship"? How about legal representation? Is it "first come, first served" for any lawyer/organisation who wants the case? Would they get "public defenders" in case nobody shows up to its defense?
Some people mentioned that children have rights despite not fully understanding the law, but that's mostly on the assumption that they'll grow up into understanding it and accept it. Even so, they only benefit limited rights as they don't have full personal autonomy and responsibility. (Although that is also quite a broken assumption given that the average adult barely understand enough to avoid most legal problems...) Animals can't be assumed to eventually understand and complying with the law.
So, simply put, this makes no sense until animals prove they can integrate to human society as full "persons". If that happens, we'll amend the law to include whatever animal reached that point into the legal definition of a "person".
For now, let's just stop this farce, and have the judge laugh this case out of court. Please.
You just misunderstood his oath. He never said he will "enforce" the Constitution. He said he would protect it. I assume he placed a copy of the text in a safe and moved on to other tasks. Like not taking responsibility for anything that happens around him.
Re: Re: Re: Re: There is one factor being overlooked.
"The Central Bank is informed and believes and therefore alleges that on any given day, ..." I hope the Venezuela government has better proofs and facts than "the Central Bank believes..." If not, they can claim that DT reports wrong exchange rates, but their "claim" is not a "fact" by itself.
Then again, copyright monopolists have claimed billions of damages without actually proving them, and that worked well for them. No reason the Venezuela shouldn't try it.
As I see it, you first considered that trademark restricts free speech, so no trademark is not a restriction on free speech. That's a valid position if you oppose the concept of trademark in its entirety.
Then you decided that, in the framework of trademark law, not granting a trademark is a restriction of free speech. Whether you oppose trademark in general or not is irrelevant: as long as we do have trademarks, it's not up to the government to decide what your brand name is. That's also a valid opinion in my eyes.
Nothing wrong in either stance. I think they're not even in contradiction.
On the post: First Report From Inside Germany's New TAFTA/TTIP Reading Room Reveals Text's Dirty Secret
Re: Re: Rhetorical questions, german politician style
True enough.
Now explain to me why are the "masses" not allowed to "scrutiny"?
How can we pretend we're a democracy when the only point that actually makes a democracy had been removed?
On the post: Senator John McCain Weighs In On 'Going Dark' Debate -- Insists That He Understands Cryptography Better Than Cryptographers
Your move now.
On the post: Ridiculous Copyright Fight Still Keeping The Only Video Of The First Super Bowl Locked Up
If you try to discriminate your public or downright decline to spread the work, you should lose the copyright. And if you are simply not able to, for example because you never cared enough to keep a sample to copy from, then you also loser the copyright.
Basically, nobody should have a legal way to block the spread of a work, so such blocking should only occur when one is trying to spread the work himself. (Please note that, in this legal frame, an unfair price - but constant across all markets - would not be considered blocking. It would only be a stupid way to do business.)
That would not be an answer to all the problems of copyright, but it would at the very least address the availability issue.
On the post: Take-Two Software Sued Over Copyright On NBA Players' Tattoos
Re: Re:
Although I would conclude that point 3 is instead slightly in favor of fair use (based on "necessary"), point 4 is definitely the conclusive factor here.
On the post: French Politicians Pushing To Ban Linking To Any Website Without Permission
On the post: French Politicians Pushing To Ban Linking To Any Website Without Permission
First, one of the supporters of the bill tried to bs her way out by stating that she's not trying to "prohibit" anything, but to create "permission" to link to sites.
That's such an obvious lie that it reminds me of the comparison with data caps in US: being "friendly" is not helping someone back on his feet... after you first punched him to the ground.
Second, Berger doesn't even seem to listen to herself speak... "and links that lead to copyright-protected works on their publishing site are precisely what allows Google to create any added value whatsoever". Yes, Google creates value. That's the whole point: Google creates value for the public, the original site owner... and Google himself. What's the problem there?
Third, there is already a way to authorize or deny permission to Google. It's called robots.txt. Funny enough, most sites already explicitly allow Google. And most other implicitly do the same. What need is there for a law as long as most respectable crawlers respect the instructions there?
Finally, most people used to pay to get advertisement. And most sites are currently paying to optimize their SEO. Being on Google is valuable, and everyone should be glad that Google is doing it (mostly) for free. Funny how some country don't understand the basics of economy here.
Not that Google doesn't have some abusive behaviors, but that is definitely not something I'd bother criticizing them about.
On the post: New Report To FCC Details How Binge On Violates Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Optimization, throttling... po-tay-to, po-tah-to
On the post: New Report To FCC Details How Binge On Violates Net Neutrality
Re: Optimization, throttling... po-tay-to, po-tah-to
First, T-Mo is in business for its own sake, not that of its customers.
Second, what in the paper suggests that they should "favor their competitors"?
Lastly, if binge on is bit am actual violation of net neutrality, nothing is.
If you never want to be waken up to net neutrality issues, then just go back to sleep and live in your happy little dream world.
On the post: Criminal Defendants Sue State Of Utah For Blowing Off The Sixth Amendment
On the post: If You Use An Adblocker You Hate Free Speech, Says Internet Ads Guy
http://www.xkcd.com/1357/
On the post: If You Use An Adblocker You Hate Free Speech, Says Internet Ads Guy
If I decide to block his ads, that's not censorship.
If I use someone's tool to that effect, that's still not censorship, even if the tool provider is making a profit out of it.
And for the record, what he did - one-sided cancellation of someone's registration to the convention without any reason other than not liking that someone's opinions - is not censorship either. It's petty and it's exactly what he complains about, but it's not censorship.
To sum it up, "free speech" is not the right to force others to listen.
On the post: 'More Realistic' Modelling Of TPP's Effects Predicts 450,000 US Jobs Lost, Contraction Of Economy
I'm sarcastic there, but I sometimes don't feel it's that much on an exaggeration.
On the post: UK Appeals Court Says UK Terrorism Act's Detention Clause Violates Press Freedoms
Also, that's another case where I think the judges reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.
I don't know enough about the law, particularly UK law, to decide if that's all the judges could do with the current law or if they lacked conviction for a stronger ruling.
On the post: UK Appeals Court Says UK Terrorism Act's Detention Clause Violates Press Freedoms
- first is how we are still not equal. In this case, journalists have a privileged "freedom of speech" that most people can't pretend to.
- but most importantly, it's once again a case of the law enforcement playing Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." You don't need to kill or even threaten people. Now an acceptable definition of terrorism in UK is "you know a guy who knows a guy who knows something." (With the vague excuse that this "something" might put an undefined "someone" in danger.)
When people in power stop changing the meaning of the Law, maybe people will respect it - and them - a little more.
On the post: God v. Copyright: Mike Huckabee Invokes Religion In Copyright Suit
On the post: Judge In Nutty PETA Monkey Copyright Trial Skeptical Of PETA's Argument, But Let's Them Try Again
However, granting "human rights" (including copyrights) to animals is a step I wouldn't make, for several reasons.
The very first one, which is the core of the other reasons, is that "the Law" is a whole. If animals are to benefit from it, they should comply to the whole. If they "want" copyrights (or if anyone wants copyrights to apply to them), we'll have to start suing animals for murder, theft, etc. (Heck, in that situation the monkey could have been sued if he broke or stole the camera. Would that also make sense?) Not to mention taxes. (Unless we make specific tax exemption rules for "animal persons".
At the same time, we'll have to stop slaughtering them for food or experimentations. (And I doubt all PETA members are vegan.)
I can understand the concept of "animal cruelty" being a crime (I even subscribe to it), but even this concept does NOT consider the animal as a "person".
Second, we'll have to decide where to draw the line, if any. If apes and/or monkeys are ok to consider as "persons", what about other animals? Dolphins? Dogs and cats? Rats? Elephants? What about insects? Spiders? Plants even? (They might not be mobile, but they are definitely living organisms.)
I'll finish with a third point (we could discuss it for hours otherwise): even assuming "animal as persons" in law, how would we apply this in practice?
For domestic animals, I can imagine the base idea.
Wild animals are a whole other matter: they don't recognize borders, so which national law would apply? The one they happen to be in at the time they are "caught" for a "crime" or "victimized" or "create a copyright work"? Or would they be given an arbitrary "citizenship"? How about legal representation? Is it "first come, first served" for any lawyer/organisation who wants the case? Would they get "public defenders" in case nobody shows up to its defense?
Some people mentioned that children have rights despite not fully understanding the law, but that's mostly on the assumption that they'll grow up into understanding it and accept it. Even so, they only benefit limited rights as they don't have full personal autonomy and responsibility. (Although that is also quite a broken assumption given that the average adult barely understand enough to avoid most legal problems...)
Animals can't be assumed to eventually understand and complying with the law.
So, simply put, this makes no sense until animals prove they can integrate to human society as full "persons". If that happens, we'll amend the law to include whatever animal reached that point into the legal definition of a "person".
For now, let's just stop this farce, and have the judge laugh this case out of court. Please.
On the post: NSA Never Stopped Intercepting Foreign Leaders' Communications, Swept Up Congress Members In Its Collection
Re: Defender of the Constitution?
He never said he will "enforce" the Constitution. He said he would protect it.
I assume he placed a copy of the text in a safe and moved on to other tasks. Like not taking responsibility for anything that happens around him.
On the post: TPP's Forgotten Danger: Stronger Trade Secrets Protection, With Criminal Penalties For Infringement
Re: Re: No worries
On the post: Venezuela Sues US Website Owners For 'Racketeering' And 'Cyberterrorism' To Try To Shut Them Up About Exchange Rates
Re: Re: Re: Re: There is one factor being overlooked.
I hope the Venezuela government has better proofs and facts than "the Central Bank believes..."
If not, they can claim that DT reports wrong exchange rates, but their "claim" is not a "fact" by itself.
Then again, copyright monopolists have claimed billions of damages without actually proving them, and that worked well for them. No reason the Venezuela shouldn't try it.
On the post: Appeals Court Says US Government Cannot Deny Trademarks For Being 'Disparaging'
Re: Re: Mental Dissonance
Then you decided that, in the framework of trademark law, not granting a trademark is a restriction of free speech. Whether you oppose trademark in general or not is irrelevant: as long as we do have trademarks, it's not up to the government to decide what your brand name is. That's also a valid opinion in my eyes.
Nothing wrong in either stance. I think they're not even in contradiction.
Next >>