I find it highly amusing that a pro copyright blog writer would effective commit plagiarism by not attributing to the source the origins of her quotes. Without saying whose words those are, she's effectively claiming them for herself.
I agree that the officers have rights as well, however we apparently disagree on a point. The officers, I feel, have all the rights/privileges of people when acting as people.
Where I feel that we disagree is that when the officers were acting as representatives of the State, then their actions should be in compliance with any applicable Sunshine laws, and thus it's not their actions that are being recorded, but the utterances and actions of the State as incorporated by the States acting agents. In this case the IA officers.
If the officers wanted their conversation to be private, they should not be acting in their official capacity. Otherwise their actions, carried out in the citizens name, should be accountable to the same.
Since Williams will not meet Lessig for a debate, and he printed false statements, sue him for Libel. Let Lessig the lawyer debate Williams in a court instead.
Mike, you shouldn't bring things like this up. If you don't keep facts like these buried, however will the powers that be effectively orchestrate the moral panic to its advantage. Why, following logic doesn't even give our police more power to invade citizens mistaken notions of privacy! Think of the potential law enforcement jobs you're killing!
So basically the IFPI is saying that only they are qualified to be a patron of musicians. This is like the really old model of artisianship, but with the labels as being the only ones who can finance art.
There's nothing that forces a company to take your money. Since access to the internet isn't a Right, ISPs could just refuse your custom. Unlike utilities or apartment owners that have to comply with non discrimination laws, an ISP could tell you to go pound sand, like a 7-11 refusing the custom of someone not wearing shoes, or trying to buy a stick of gum with a $100 bill.
I think getting a Collection Society to hound after those annoying car drivers blasting their music would be even more effective (and easier) than the bass seeking missile idea I've heard floated around.
Now if I could just keep those pesky kids off my lawn...
Right, just like device and content neutrality with respect to landline phones have lead to utter chaos. Providers should be dumb pipes except for signals that will physically harm the network infrastructure.
Just because the file is online doesn't give you express permission to download it.
Sorry, but wrong. If it's online and pubically accessible, you certainly have a right to download it. How else could a remote machine view the file except via downloading?
What you don't have the right to do legally is to upload that file to some other remote location. That's the issue. To think of it as a book or a movie under copyright. You're allowed to make a copy into your brian of the copyrighted material, but you're not allowed to export that copy for someone else to share.
The government can kill you (at least in the US) if it doesn't like you or what you do, and publicly give itself a pat on the back for doing so. Your boss hopefully can't.
If they really want to filter the big bad Internet to keep the kiddies safe, why then don't they just hire some people to physically be men-in-the-middle? Any web request from a filtered location goes first to some intermediary who would physically have to look at the page and either allow or deny the request. This would give them accountability for each request, as each allow/deny could be logged, and in the current economically tough times could get people off the unproductive dole and get them working on important things, like protecting the kiddies and showing the electorate that the politicians are doing something (wither or not it's a good idea).
Seems like it would be a perfect plan from a politician's viewpoint. Sure it would cost a lot, but it's government money, not real money.
If iiNet is responsible for what is coming out of their network, do the users of zombie boxes have a claim then for being allowed to be infected? And if so, then don't the rest of us also have a claim for the garbage those same boxes spew into the public tubes? Great, now the ISPs will only allow us to connect using virtual machines while wearing rubber suits in a sterile room. Great, now we've broken the internet...
If the scrapper is committing copyright infringement, then how is any web browser not guilty of the same? They both work in the same manner:
1) Get entire page
2) Parse for content (either automatically, or by a human reading the interesting parts and skipping things like ads)
3) ???
4) Profit
Plagiarism
Re: Re: Free press
Where I feel that we disagree is that when the officers were acting as representatives of the State, then their actions should be in compliance with any applicable Sunshine laws, and thus it's not their actions that are being recorded, but the utterances and actions of the State as incorporated by the States acting agents. In this case the IA officers.
If the officers wanted their conversation to be private, they should not be acting in their official capacity. Otherwise their actions, carried out in the citizens name, should be accountable to the same.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look Higher
The way one of my english teacher taught me to remember it was that you affect an effect
Re: Re: Re: Soo sad we have come to this
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You sir are my hero!
On a non-germane note, laughing meatloaf out of ones nostrils can be painful.
Libel
(untitled comment)
Re: This is it
Patrons
Re: Re: Re: Wont work
(untitled comment)
Now if I could just keep those pesky kids off my lawn...
Re:
Re:
Sorry, but wrong. If it's online and pubically accessible, you certainly have a right to download it. How else could a remote machine view the file except via downloading?
What you don't have the right to do legally is to upload that file to some other remote location. That's the issue. To think of it as a book or a movie under copyright. You're allowed to make a copy into your brian of the copyrighted material, but you're not allowed to export that copy for someone else to share.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Name calling.
Filtering
If they really want to filter the big bad Internet to keep the kiddies safe, why then don't they just hire some people to physically be men-in-the-middle? Any web request from a filtered location goes first to some intermediary who would physically have to look at the page and either allow or deny the request. This would give them accountability for each request, as each allow/deny could be logged, and in the current economically tough times could get people off the unproductive dole and get them working on important things, like protecting the kiddies and showing the electorate that the politicians are doing something (wither or not it's a good idea).
Seems like it would be a perfect plan from a politician's viewpoint. Sure it would cost a lot, but it's government money, not real money.
(untitled comment)
Re: Shakespeare would have been fine
Re:
(untitled comment)
1) Get entire page
2) Parse for content (either automatically, or by a human reading the interesting parts and skipping things like ads)
3) ???
4) Profit
More comments from CStrube >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by CStrube.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt