> Webster Tarpley told this joke: > > How many economists does it take to change a light bulb? Not yours, but fair use. With an automated copyright filter you would have been filtered.
> which ranks as the second-deadliest shooting ever at a U.S. public school, carried out by a lone gunman wielding a semiautomatic AR-15-style assault rifle.
Something's very wrong when you are able to be that specific in categorising a school shooting
It's because it's not stupid or political - Solar doesn't work at night and doesn't produce enough power during the evenings when everyone is home.
It's cheaper to switch off the solar than to go through and manage daily shutdown/startup cycles for Gas or Coal powerplants.
The solar power could be used to pump water uphill at times of excess and release it to produce power later, or in those places where there are better uses for water, to compress air instead.
No standing? Google was the plaintiff! Not a first amendment issue? Gag order. Copyright issue? It was a work for hire. The actress doesn't own the copyright, the film-maker does - at least until he decides to sell the film to someone else.
By arguing against the order, Google is saying that only the copyright owner has the right to order a takedown. Actors, actresses and artists that WORK FOR HIRE, have never had that power as they do not own the copyright.
So you are saying that people outside of the chain of command should have also be included in the lawsuit, just for supporting the spying? How would that work then?
I wonder how this jibes with the parliament/bus photo copyright fiasco?
IIRC, the original infringment was in using the original photo, but even after the photo was replaced with a newly taken photo, which was judged to still infringe due to the composition (different angle, but still grey image with a red bus).
This new judgement seems like the opposite of the photo judgement.
He further noted that the NSA is well aware that neither the Russians nor Chinese got access to the documents, meaning that when US officials are suggesting that he gave the docs to both (or that they got them from him) they're either ignorant or lying.
Or perhaps the oversight committee hasn't yet asked the right questions
A spokesman said: "He was referred to Sussex police by Border Force officials. He spoke with officers for around half an hour and was then free to continue his journey. We are satisfied that our actions were legitimate, justified and proportionate and were carried out in accordance with the act."
Dear spokesman for the Sussex Police, I think that you are a twat. I am satisfied that calling you a twat is legitimate, justified and proportionate and has been carried out in accordance with with all applicable speech laws within the UK and EU.
since it seems clear that the DOJ didn't use the most appropriate citations, twisted the citations it did use to mean more than they really do, and (most importantly) ignored much more relevant (and I mean that in the English sense, rather than the DOJ sense) citations and precedents
Well Duh! If they had used the correct citations and precedents then they wouldn't be secret any more!
(untitled comment)
Because there aren't any US businesses making money out of Tik Tok.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong
Re: Re: Google/Facebook
Re: Re: Just like print media. Why should "teh internets" be different?
>
> How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?
Not yours, but fair use. With an automated copyright filter you would have been filtered.
Re:
Something's very wrong when you are able to be that specific in categorising a school shooting
Re: Re: Last 21 digits of Pi
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Natural gas?
It's cheaper to switch off the solar than to go through and manage daily shutdown/startup cycles for Gas or Coal powerplants.
The solar power could be used to pump water uphill at times of excess and release it to produce power later, or in those places where there are better uses for water, to compress air instead.
Re: Cue the MPAA
Re: Re: Re: Re:
(The NSA of the) USA, Freedom (to) ACT (as we wish)
Re:
No standing? Google was the plaintiff!
Not a first amendment issue? Gag order.
Copyright issue? It was a work for hire. The actress doesn't own the copyright, the film-maker does - at least until he decides to sell the film to someone else.
By arguing against the order, Google is saying that only the copyright owner has the right to order a takedown. Actors, actresses and artists that WORK FOR HIRE, have never had that power as they do not own the copyright.
Re: Neo-GOP intellectual integrity = NIL
(untitled comment)
IIRC, the original infringment was in using the original photo, but even after the photo was replaced with a newly taken photo, which was judged to still infringe due to the composition (different angle, but still grey image with a red bus).
This new judgement seems like the opposite of the photo judgement.
Re:
I wonder if the Information Commissioner will be carrying out an investigation on that.
(untitled comment)
Or perhaps the oversight committee hasn't yet asked the right questions
(untitled comment)
Dear spokesman for the Sussex Police, I think that you are a twat. I am satisfied that calling you a twat is legitimate, justified and proportionate and has been carried out in accordance with with all applicable speech laws within the UK and EU.
Re:
But y'know what? They'd at least be able to stop telling lies that are revealed as lies the very next week.
Re: Re: no
That's -1 internets from you sir.
(untitled comment)
Well Duh! If they had used the correct citations and precedents then they wouldn't be secret any more!
More comments from Lurk-a-lot >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Lurk-a-lot.
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