Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography
One may also ask what is wrong with passing stuff onto to ones children and grandchildren. This is a very human thing to do and I don't see it as any different from passing on any other inheritance.
I said nothing about inheritance, but if you want to get into that:
1. If "intellectual property" is truly property, then it should remain property forever, and could thereby be passed down to future generations.
2. If it's not property, then then it shouldn't be granted in the first place and there would be nothing to pass down.
3. If instead, it's merely a utilitarian contrivance (of dubious value), then all bets are off and what matters is whether allowing IP to pass down to children provides more utility than not allowing it.
A meaningless phrase. Ideas are not property, and I have no responsibility to treat them as such. Those who would use violence to stop me from using my own private, tangible property are immoral and unethical.
However, self-entitled Americans should not call the kettle black. We roll over, not for foreign aggressors, but for domestic abrogation of our rights. Patriot Act, Protect IP, warrantless wiretaps, retroactive immunity, etc, etc. Hardly a peep from us patriots.
There are not enough "insightful" votes in the world for this.
Where did I say it wasn't a federal court? The first amendment has been incorporated against the states, therefore your assertion that we have no first amendment rights to record the police "because he's in Illinois" is wrong: we do have that right, and at least one federal court has upheld that the first amendment bars states from arresting people for openly recording the police.
Now, if the 7th circuit takes the case and if they rule the other way, that would be a circuit split (virtually guaranteeing that the supreme court will get involved), but until then, I'd say this statement of yours:
Is it a Constitutional right to record people? NO.
It takes true guts to turn down a plea bargain because you want to improve the system for the rest of us. Is there a place where we can donate to this guy?
Is it a Constitutional right to record people? NO.
You mean except for this first circuit court opinion saying that it is a constituional right to record the police? And by the by, the court also determines that it's such a strong right, that the police officers who arrested the guy for it should have known it was a right, and therefore will not get qualified immunity:
"The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.”…
The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.”"
So take your authoritarian, statist bullshit and cram it up your ass. Thanks!
On a site where people complain about rights being "trampled" all the time
Whose rights are being trampled, here? Assholes who don't want the public to know that they're assholes? Sorry, that isn't a right enumerated anywhere I can think of.
In fact, not allowing people to post DMCAs would be a violation of an actual right, namely the first amendment.
Umm, that is exactly what they are saying. We cannot accept a DMCA that is conditional on us no putting it on Chilling Effects,
Where did they say that? When they get a notice, they follow the DMCA by removing the offending content. If the notice also stipulates that they can't post it to ChillingEffects, they ignore that part and post it anyway, because that request has no force of law.
On the post: US Gov't Continues Indicting People For File Sharing; 5 Indicted For NinjaVideo
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re:
How many?
Also, how do you know said AC was a "loyal fan and devotee"? For all we know, it was you . . .
On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography
I said nothing about inheritance, but if you want to get into that:
1. If "intellectual property" is truly property, then it should remain property forever, and could thereby be passed down to future generations.
2. If it's not property, then then it shouldn't be granted in the first place and there would be nothing to pass down.
3. If instead, it's merely a utilitarian contrivance (of dubious value), then all bets are off and what matters is whether allowing IP to pass down to children provides more utility than not allowing it.
On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography
So they say, but protecting "derivative works" makes a lie out of this.
On the post: Apple Still Seems To Think That Only It Could Possibly Have An Apple Shaped Logo
Soooo
He really should have been here by now.
On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography
If ideas are property, then they should remain property forever. If not, then copyright shouldn't exist at all.
Anything else is not a product of any moral or philosophical system, but is instead a product of utilitarianism masquerading as a natural right.
On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography
A meaningless phrase. Ideas are not property, and I have no responsibility to treat them as such. Those who would use violence to stop me from using my own private, tangible property are immoral and unethical.
On the post: Congress Moves Forward With Useless Patent Reform That Won't Fix Any Real Problems
Re:
DAMNIT! How could I have never seen this before!
On the post: France: Copyright Is More Important Than Human Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are not enough "insightful" votes in the world for this.
On the post: If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?
Re: Get Real
So you're against force except when you're for it.
Gotcha.
On the post: DOOM No Longer Considered Harmful To Children In Germany, Allowed Into The Country
Re: Re: Hmmm
On the post: Man Facing 75 Years In Jail For Recording The Police; Illinois Assistant AG Says No Right To Record Police
Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the new nation
Really, Obama is just the next logical progression from the Bush presidency; he took everything Bush did and doubled-down on it.
On the post: Man Facing 75 Years In Jail For Recording The Police; Illinois Assistant AG Says No Right To Record Police
Re: Re: Re:
Now, if the 7th circuit takes the case and if they rule the other way, that would be a circuit split (virtually guaranteeing that the supreme court will get involved), but until then, I'd say this statement of yours:
Is it a Constitutional right to record people? NO.
Is complete crap.
On the post: Man Facing 75 Years In Jail For Recording The Police; Illinois Assistant AG Says No Right To Record Police
This Man is a Hero
On the post: Man Facing 75 Years In Jail For Recording The Police; Illinois Assistant AG Says No Right To Record Police
Re:
We have a caste system in the US, consisting of only two groups: Employees of the state and the peons who serve them.
On the post: Man Facing 75 Years In Jail For Recording The Police; Illinois Assistant AG Says No Right To Record Police
Re:
You mean except for this first circuit court opinion saying that it is a constituional right to record the police? And by the by, the court also determines that it's such a strong right, that the police officers who arrested the guy for it should have known it was a right, and therefore will not get qualified immunity:
"The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.”…
The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.”"
So take your authoritarian, statist bullshit and cram it up your ass. Thanks!
On the post: Gibson CEO: US Government Won't Even Tell Us What Law They Think We've Violated
Re:
On the post: Can Someone Block Google From Passing Along A DMCA To ChillingEffects?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
Whose rights are being trampled, here? Assholes who don't want the public to know that they're assholes? Sorry, that isn't a right enumerated anywhere I can think of.
In fact, not allowing people to post DMCAs would be a violation of an actual right, namely the first amendment.
On the post: The Insane Chain Of Sampling Rights: How A Folk Song Collector Became A 'Co-Author' On A Jay-Z Song
Re:
On the post: Can Someone Block Google From Passing Along A DMCA To ChillingEffects?
Re: Re: Re:
Where did they say that? When they get a notice, they follow the DMCA by removing the offending content. If the notice also stipulates that they can't post it to ChillingEffects, they ignore that part and post it anyway, because that request has no force of law.
Next >>