They were never going to reform voluntarily. Say what you want about Trump, but he's not president yet, he'll never be able to dictate to congress, and he came down on the right side of the issue.
could be acheived by giving words their real meaning? Methods aren't inventions. Obvious means not requiring much insight or inspiration. Independent invention should be evidence of obviousness. Making a tweak to an existing thing, even if useful, is not an invention. If it is useful, it will be adopted even without patent protection.
IP is not a positive good to be spread far and wide, it is a necessary evil to be applied where and when necessary.
I have no idea how to respond to an ISIS recruiter other than to report them.
In terms of comment threads and chat rooms, ignoring works best. Whatever you do, never take the bait. In any argument (whether with a troll or with someone posting in good faith), never forget you are not trying to convince the other person, you are trying to convince the 50 or 500 people silently reading. The winner is usually the person who doesn't seem crazy.
Some of those outrages are more outrageous than others, but the first one--there is legislation expressly forbidding this action, so why doesn't the doctrine of separation of powers tie the judge's hands?
Short of a finding of unconstitutionality (which wasn't at issue here), since when does the judiciary have the power to pick and choose the laws it will enforce?
It wouldn't surprise me if this turned out to be true. It's no secret that child porn chat rooms are populated mostly by police trying to entrap each other. I've heard prosecutors explain that line separating "artistic" from pornography and it boils down to little more than its porn if the prosecutor gets a woodie.
For so long as prosecutors are able to use high profile convictions as a spring board to a political career, for just that long will you see cases like this.
There should be a law that prosecutors can't run for public office until at least 5 years after leaving the attorney general's and district attorney's office.
We could call it the Giuliani rule, or the Giuliani-Christie rule, or the Giuliani-Christie-Harris rule. I'm sure there are other good names; those are just some that come to mind.
It's hard to see how CBS has any hope of an argument at all, no matter how they present it. If these works are in the public domain, then CBS is not harmed by their publication. No harm, no suit. Period.
That's roughly my view as well. If a character is in the public domain, then all incidental factors relating to that character should be unprotectable. The problem is "creative" is defined too broadly.
For instance, The Wizard of Oz. In the book the witch did not have a pointy hat, but in the movie she does. So the pointy hat is protected. In the book the slippers were silver, in the movie ruby red. It's insane that those details are protected. Yes, the ruby slippers have cultural resonance, but that too is an (entirely separate) reason not to protect them.
Protection should be limited to substantial creation, not minor details. Yes, I know the "substantial" is a minefield, but the courts decide questions like that all the time, and putting it in legislation would move the center of gravity to a more appropriate place.
Law enforcement has its opinions, but their interests have to fit into the greater context of what it means to be a free society. One of the things it means is that law enforcement's job is a little harder.
"Millions of illegal votes would require a conspiracy larger than all previous conspiracy theories combined."
Agreed that Trump does himself no favors when he wades into this scrum; however, this statement is obviously false. All that is required for millions of illegal voters to cast votes is a system that does not try very hard to stop them.
And guess what? We have such a system. We do virtually nothing to ensure all voters are legally entitled to vote. Your statement that the media would be all over it is a fantasy, you made it up. The president himself went on national television to encourage illegal voting. That's not private information, it took no sleuthing to find it, it's quite public and the media yawned.
I think that's Cushing's point. The Fake News scandal is itself fake, ginned up by the losers to avoid much needed soul searching. But Obama's stupid self-serving statements are not just the laughable whinging of a rejected president, they serves as fodder for authoritarian regimes wanting to suppress their own people.
I let this slide the first couple times it came up, but it keeps coming up. "And, as Ed Snowden himself pointed out, hiding such a hack would be quite difficult" ?
No, Edward Snowden pointed out that it could be made to be difficult. Which is not at all the same thing.
That was the first thing I thought of. While it was vital that Hillary not become president in the face of her crimes, for the good of the nation, she should now be pardoned. Fortunately, Obama is used to geting away with dishonesty and has no problem arguing out of both sides of his mouth.
Exactly, Barack Obama is a man of no real accomplishment who has spent his life accepting awards and honors he has not earned. He has never shown more than a pedestrian intellect and an education with gaps that are shocking. (How many states are in the US?)
On the post: Sheriff's Office Raids Home, Seizes All The Furniture, Ultimately Returns Everything But The Couch
Yeah, that's the problem. The APPEARANCE of impropriety.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
On the post: Utterly Tone Deaf To Cord Cutting, Cable Contract Feuds And Blackouts Skyrocket
On the post: Congressman Goodlatte Decides To Refill The Swamp By Gutting Congressional Ethics Office... But Drops It After Bad Publicity
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Carrying Trays On A Cart
how much patent reform
IP is not a positive good to be spread far and wide, it is a necessary evil to be applied where and when necessary.
On the post: Do You Have Examples Of Constructive Responses To Hateful/Abusive/Trollish Speech Online?
In terms of comment threads and chat rooms, ignoring works best. Whatever you do, never take the bait. In any argument (whether with a troll or with someone posting in good faith), never forget you are not trying to convince the other person, you are trying to convince the 50 or 500 people silently reading. The winner is usually the person who doesn't seem crazy.
On the post: Judge Says FBI's Child Porn Investigation Bordered On 'Outrageous,' Lets It Keep All Of Its Evidence
Short of a finding of unconstitutionality (which wasn't at issue here), since when does the judiciary have the power to pick and choose the laws it will enforce?
On the post: Judge Says FBI's Child Porn Investigation Bordered On 'Outrageous,' Lets It Keep All Of Its Evidence
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Tosses Charges Against Backpage Execs, Tells Kamala Harris To Take It Up With Congress
There should be a law that prosecutors can't run for public office until at least 5 years after leaving the attorney general's and district attorney's office.
We could call it the Giuliani rule, or the Giuliani-Christie rule, or the Giuliani-Christie-Harris rule. I'm sure there are other good names; those are just some that come to mind.
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: This Is A Really Bad Idea: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube & Microsoft Agree To Block 'Terrorist' Content
Re: Well the silver lining is...
That is one way to ensure they quickly back off this harebrained idea.
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re: Explaining the Public Domain
On the post: CBS Sues Public Domain For Existing
Re:
For instance, The Wizard of Oz. In the book the witch did not have a pointy hat, but in the movie she does. So the pointy hat is protected. In the book the slippers were silver, in the movie ruby red. It's insane that those details are protected. Yes, the ruby slippers have cultural resonance, but that too is an (entirely separate) reason not to protect them.
Protection should be limited to substantial creation, not minor details. Yes, I know the "substantial" is a minefield, but the courts decide questions like that all the time, and putting it in legislation would move the center of gravity to a more appropriate place.
On the post: Manhattan DA Cy Vance Wraps Up 2016 With Another Call For Gov't-Mandated Encryption Backdoors
Tough.
On the post: Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts
Agreed that Trump does himself no favors when he wades into this scrum; however, this statement is obviously false. All that is required for millions of illegal voters to cast votes is a system that does not try very hard to stop them.
And guess what? We have such a system. We do virtually nothing to ensure all voters are legally entitled to vote. Your statement that the media would be all over it is a fantasy, you made it up. The president himself went on national television to encourage illegal voting. That's not private information, it took no sleuthing to find it, it's quite public and the media yawned.
On the post: China Uses US Concern Over Fake News To Push For More Control Of The Internet
Re: Any news I disagree with is obviously fake!
On the post: After All That, E-Voting Experts Suggest Voting Machines May Have Been Hacked For Trump
No, Edward Snowden pointed out that it could be made to be difficult. Which is not at all the same thing.
On the post: President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong
Re: Hillary
On the post: Cold War Documents Show The FBI Thinks It Can Be The CIA -- And The US Military -- If Just Given The Chance
Re: Re: Re:
Barack Obama is Chauncey Gardner come to life.
On the post: Cold War Documents Show The FBI Thinks It Can Be The CIA -- And The US Military -- If Just Given The Chance
Re: Re:
Except that he did no such thing. He made a statement about Sarah Palin that was actually about Tina Fey. Please, try to keep up.
Next >>