Slashdot Mirror

Tell that to the people who were victims of bombings. This should be an interesting read, even though it is from 1997.
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/museumttu/disasters/us%20response%20files/SupportDocs/FBI%20reports/1997bombrep.pdf
2217 bombing incidents in one year.

You want the gun to be the problem.

What about cotton?

(from pg 214)
For 2005/06, the world’s leading cotton exporters (market share in parentheses) are the United States (48%),
Uzbekistan (13%), Australia (9%), India (6%), and Brazil (5%). The projection for cotton mill use in India was
discussed in the previous section and is not repeated here.

They could have tested captive breeding in much higher radiation levels, but of course they haven't.

They actually were talking of using this butterfly species to monitor background contamination (non-radiological) of the human environment as these butterflies have been studied and are very sensitive to environmental changes. They have already noticed that these butterflies are changing due to current levels of global warming as seen in Japan.

There was also a mention on BBC website of "surprised by magnitude of effects because insects were thought to being resilient to radiation". Clearly, that is indication of not understanding insects. Many insects are very susceptible individually to environmental changes and I am NOT surprised by effects of low changes in radiation on individuals. Insect *populations* are very resilient to environmental changes because,

  1. they generally breed quickly, having short lifespans, and
  2. there is so many of them

Insect *populations* are resilient to toxins (pesticides, pollution) and other environmental stressors (radiation, climate change) because they will quickly adapt to those stressors. The same with these butterflies.

I suspect that you could increase radiation in a large area to 1-2Sv/yr, amount that would kill people, but insects like these butterflies and other short lived creatures, like mice, would survive. They would take a terrible short term hit until they could adapt, but in the span of a few generations, they would thrive once more.

Very interesting read.

http://today.ttu.edu/2011/04/25-years-later-amazing-adaptation-in-chernobyl/

I don't know if the ancient Egyptians said this, but Plato definitely did.

A little background, the case of Sid & Marty Krofft Prod. v. McDonald's Corp. has to do with the Krofft brothers alleged claim that the character of the Hamburglar was based on the Krofft's character of Mayor H.R. Pufnstuf from their children's television show. They won the case because the preponderance of the evidence showed that their story concept was known to McDonald's via an ad agency attempting to secure a deal with McDonald's.

The court concluded that because no layperson would see a substantial distinction between the two characters, that infringement was substantial enough to merit damages under extrinsic and intrinsic factors.

A concise explanation of the court's decision can be read here: http://www.studentweb.law.ttu.edu/Cochran/Cases%20&%20Readings/Copyright-UNT/krofft.htm

Basically, the two important takeaways are that:

a) Like the OP, McDonald's did not deny that the characters of their McDonaldland were in fact based on the Krofft's show. The involvement of the ad agency soliciting concepts to be used by McDonald's without having ever compensated the Kroffts constituted part of the extrinsic, objective evidence that infringement had occurred.

b) Instead McDonald's attempted, and failed, the intrinsic test in their argument that the characters are too dissimilar. They decided that the McDonald's commercials captured the "total look and feel" and also noted that McDonald's attempt to dissect the case based on extrinsic factors reveals a failure of the intrinsic test:

"Pufnstuf" wears what can only be described as a yellow and green dragon suit with a blue cummerbund from which hangs a medal which says "mayor". "McCheese" wears a version of pink formal dress--"tails"--with knicker trousers. He has a typical diplomat's sash on which is written "mayor", the "M" consisting of the McDonald's trademark of an "M" made of golden arches."

So not only do defendants remove the characters from the setting, but dissect further to analyze the clothing, colors, features, and mannerisms of each character. We do not believe that the ordinary reasonable person, let alone a child, viewing these works will even notice that Pufnstuf is wearing a cummerbund while Mayor McCheese is wearing a diplomat's sash.

It is hard for Computer Science majors to find traditional semester-long study abroad opportunities. However, there are plenty of opportunities for slightly different things that let you be overseas AND learn more about CompSci.

This last summer, I participated in the International Summer School on Grid Computing (link to the '08 site). They do it in a different place every summer ('07 was Sweden, '08 was Hungary, I think '09 is France). It's short (2 weeks long), but it was still a great experience. Plus, OSG paid for all of the American students. I didn't have to ask my university (or myself) for a dime.

There are lots of other opportunities, too. Last year, PIRE started undergraduate research abroad (link for 2009). Fully paid, and you get a little stipend to help out.

Start searching for "intern abroad" or "research abroad" and you'll find many different opportunities. Most of them aren't a full semester and often fall in the summer (and rarely offer school credit), but you'll still get a great education and a chance to see great places.

What's going to be used for? Well, Prime number hunting, pi crunching, computing obscure mathematical constants 99.995% of the US hasn't heard of before....creating my own fractal Deep Field images...trying my hand at cracking RSA numbers with GGNFS.

to name a few

There is an "out" for small businesses that just play music as background. Under Section 110(5) of the Copyright Act, persons who play their radio or television in a public place are exempt from the BMI/ASCAP-type license requirement if the signals are received by a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, and they don't "retransmit" the signal elsewhere. So, if a business uses a small receiver and pair of speakers commonly used in a home to play FM music in a store that is not larger than a typical home, they can tell the BMI/ASCAP guy to shove off. Nice decision on point (also showing the way BMI thinks) in Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Claire's Boutiques, Inc., 949 F.2d 1482 (7th Cir. 1991), available online at http://www.studentweb.law.ttu.edu/cochran/cochran/ Cases%20&%20Readings/Copyright-UNT/Public%20Perfor m/claires.htm.

While IAAL, this message is not intended as legal advice - pay a lawyer for specific advice if you are deciding how to respond to a BMI/ASCAP threat!

And yes, the DNA of most animals in the area is pretty effed up, but surprisingly most of them appear healthy and reproduce normally.

One of the main studies that said that the DNA was effed up was later retracted. There's a very interesting article "Growing up with Chernobyl" (PDF) by Ronald K. Chesser and Robert J. Baker, that was published in the American Scientist (subscriber link). Baker is one of the scientists quoted in the featured article. In the "Growing up with Chernobyl, he says:

Soon after the paper was published, we acquired an automated sequencer that was more accurate than the manual methods used to sequence DNA. We had archived the tissues from all the animals used in our Nature study, so we decided to re-sequence the genes to compare the methods. To our horror, the automated sequencer failed to replicate the result we reported in Nature. The more accurate method failed to find an elevated mutation rate, even though we repeated the sequencing several times.

It looks like your trying to cast a class to it's base class without first defining a method.

http://www.faculty.english.ttu.edu/barker/4367/ima ges/ClippySuicide.jpg

When you say artists, I think you're talking about sculptors, architects and painters. Our english language has a word for people who make music: musicians

Ah, musicians are artists, specifically Performing Artists.

Oops, I forgot to include the Texas Tech link with the IP addresses.

I actually came across an extensive paper on this topic, Internet Gambling Regulation Present and Future: Technology Outpaces Legislation as the MMORPG Problem Emerges.

Eh? i have heard of thrid places before but never this howard schultz guy. i think the concept of third places it attributed to ray oldenburg. though the practice has been around a lot longer. video game related link

Microsoft Office with Clippy, of course!

http://www.faculty.english.ttu.edu/barker/4367/ima ges/ClippySuicide.jpg

Well, the animals are partying it up in the exclusion zone..

Yes, I realize that is what he meant. My point is that it simply isn't true. 30 years is a more realistic estimate, but even that is unrealistic. The actual risk is far less than 1% increase rate of premature death (mostly due to an additional 0.005% chance of thyroid cancer) which is itself far lower than many risks people take daily. Living with a smoker, for example, is more dangerous than living just outside the Chernobyl wildlife refuge.

This is much worse than a single person or family accidentally killing themselves.

Much worse for whom? Surely not for the single family. To the dead it really doesn't matter now, does it? And for the living, although there is a greater emotional impact to a hundred people dying of cause A in one event than there is for thousands dying of cause B in a thousand separate events, it isn't a very rational position to take.

The same goes for dangerous places. One big dangerous place is far better than a thousand small ones, if only because it is easier to avoid.

See the area around Chernobyl for an example.

Yes, by all means, do.

Then you see the problem: a "normal fire, not unlike accidents we commonly see in the fossil fuel industry" was enough to render a huge area of land permanently uninhabitable and ruin thousands of peoples' lives.

Except that the area wasn't made "permanently uninhabitable" (but even if it was, that isn't such a big deal when you consider that 80% of the Earth's surface is perminantly uninhabitable to the same or greater degree). At worst, it's not quite as safe as it was, and won't be for another 30 years or so.

And as for ruining people's lives, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the use of fossil fuels (or the use of tobacco, or wars over oil, or the manufacture of pesticides, or...). To cite one such number out of context is simply FUD. Nuclear, per kilowatt hour, is still safer than the alternatives, is more scalable, and has less environmental impact.

That is why so many people are uncomfortable with nuclear power, and seek a better alternative.

I agree that the beliefs you outlined are responsible for the widespread rejection of nuclear power. But that doesn't make the beliefs sound--reality isn't a democracy, and many people believing something doesn't make it true.

(btw, I think the public's mind blames hydrogen more than helium ;^))

Oops. Typo. Thanks.

I think that "nuclear or coal" is a false choice.

Agreed. I'm a fan of space-based solar myself, but that's a topic for another day. The main advantage of nuclear is that it is available now, and is the only technology we have that is far enough along to prevent world war three from erupting over control of the oil. Conservation, wind power, etc. just don't have the scope to prevent that deadly showdown.

--MarkusQ

You do that, and we'll see how well your literal interpretation of the first amendment holds up.

You're right, there are exceptions to the First Amendment. Some forms of speech are not protected by it. The Onion's satirical use of the Presidential seal, however, is quite protected.

Let me dispense with your irrelevant examples, one by one:

Oh, well in that case why don't you go into a theater and scream "FIRE!"

When you're done there, you can spread the word that Gerber baby food has been poisoned to kill off babies.

Then try going into an airport and joking about the "bomb" in your bag.

And let's not forget going into a crowded restaurant and screaming your political views at the top of your lungs.

And how about converting your home into a movie theater and showing the Lord of the Rings DVD you just bought for $3.00 a head!

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that shows why the Onion's satire should not be covered by the First Amendment. And because you'll probably claim that I haven't provided any evidence for my position, here's links to a few cases where satire was found to be protected by the First Amendment:

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corporation

Contrast this to events such as rolling dice, where (barring cheating) players don't have any predictable control over the results. Players will also feel like they're on a roll (no pun intended) when playing dice, but unlike basketball their mental confidence or lack thereof plays no part in the results of the next throw, and thus the streak is purely a statistical phenomenon.

But the entire point demonstrated by research into "hot hand" theory is that once you establish a player's baseline proficiency (e.g. historically has shown a 30% chance of making any given basket), you see exactly the same clustering behavior you see with any other random series, including dice rolls, wherein you divide all possible outcomes into two categories with 30% and 70% probabilities. There IS no contrast between the two. Players may "feel like" they're in some sort of "zone", but feelings are entirely subjective. Statistics are not.

This page has more information about this phenomenon, called the clustering illusion. Another manifestation is streak scoring in sports, a.k.a. the hot hand in basketball. Players are often though to be "on a roll" when in fact their larger scoring pattern fits a random distribution around a mean.

Individuals: Life of the author + 70 years ( 302(a))

Joint Works: Life of the last surviving author + 70 years ( 302(b))

Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works (where identity is not revealed) and Works Made for Hire: 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first ( 302(c))

Anonymous or Pseudonymous Works (where identity is revealed by filing): Life of the author + 70 years or life of the last surviving author +70 years ( 302(c))

Taken from here.

I don't understand why people are against this. They guy is/will_be running a business on his own land, with his own equipment, killing commonly hunted species (iirc the non-native Axis deer is a very common game animal there, and they tend to become a problem if not hunted (most of the large preditors, mountain lions or whatever, have already been killed off)).

I personally don't like to hunt, but I don't see why we should prohibit others from doing it, even in novel ways. As long as the hunters aren't causing serious shifts in the natural ecological landscape, destroying biodiversity of natural species, I dont' really have a problem with it.

When I saw Fisher my mind went immediately to Fisher-Price. Yes, completely different, but does anyone else remember that Fisher-Price actually made a video camera at one time? It was called the Pixlevision and recorded to audio cassettes! The quality was poor, but just poor enough to look really cool. As I recall, they didn't stay on the market long.

Having watched your constitution class and having kept up with your blog, I'm aware of where you stand on most issues. However, I don't believe you've taken a stand on copyrights and how you see them effecting technology and society. Do you view copyrights as an inherent right given to the person who created the work, or do you see it as a privilege given to those people by the government as a proxy for the people? Many people would say copyright has turned into a weapon for large corporations, established insitutions and people. The constitution grants a limited time protection for copyrights as you know, however the current terms being much greater than the author's life are hardly limited in the scope of insuring future creations by the author.

My question is, then, do you view the current copyright situation as constitutional and correct? If not, then what do you propose to change to weight the situation back towards the common person?

well... at a school I used to go to they got rid of some of their best CS/CIS/MIS teachers/profs by not keeping them happy. Those good teachers/profs went to places like TTU and elsewhere.

This was also exasperated by the people running the IT department (not the professors, but the management) who didnt know anything about running a network correctly. They fired two of the best people they had (even railroaded one just to save face). Ever since, their CS dept has gone downhill...

Write a parody of this whole thing and use the title Penguin.com.

You've never heard of exponential population growth, have you? Every 36 years, the world will have half as much space per person as we do now. In 72 years, a quarter. In two centuries, a 47th as much free space. In three centuries, one 322nd as much free space. In four centuries, 2200 times less space per person as we do now. Does the earth have enough space for that?

WRONG! They will NOT transfer to ANY other college or even most REAL Universities!

The only regional accreditation is with the Council for Higher Edication Accreditation. DeVry is accredited with the NCA of the CHEA as are these institutions. Most colleges will take credits from another college accredited by the same regional association.

Here's one example (hard to find because most schools do not list specific institutions): Texas Tech. If you select Texas, then DeVry and View all Courses, you'll find quite a list of credits that will transfer.

> Nope, they really turned red. They were mostly Scotch pine and they died more or less instantly when the cloud blew over (the aspen and birch trees are more resistant). It's the subject of some research - search for Chernobyl and "Red Forest" to find some. Not just how they turned red, but what happens now with tons of radioactive wood buried and decomposing into the groundwater.

Pictures of the Red Forest - trees vs. 60 Grays. Holy shit.

> Nope, they really turned red. They were mostly Scotch pine and they died more or less instantly when the cloud blew over (the aspen and birch trees are more resistant). It's the subject of some research - search for Chernobyl and "Red Forest" to find some. Not just how they turned red, but what happens now with tons of radioactive wood buried and decomposing into the groundwater.

Pictures of the Red Forest - trees vs. 60 Grays. Holy shit.

http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chernobyl/wildlifepreserve .htm"In reality, radioactivity at the level associated with the Chornobyl meltdown does have discernible, negative impacts on plant and animal life [4,5]. However, the benefit of excluding humans from this highly contaminated ecosystem appears to outweigh significantly any negative cost associated with Chornobyl radiation [8]."

Pictures of the Red Forest - trees vs. 60 Grays. Holy shit.

A quick google search for "Chernobyl DNA study -children -liquidators" pulls up a whole list of links:

Chernobyl and Genotoxicity

Chernobyl: Wildlife Followup

DNA Damage and Radiocesium In Channel Catfish From Chernobyl

A quick google search for "Chernobyl DNA study -children -liquidators" pulls up a whole list of links:

Chernobyl and Genotoxicity

Chernobyl: Wildlife Followup

DNA Damage and Radiocesium In Channel Catfish From Chernobyl

The text of the case is here.

This is already being done, at the moment not all states participating have made the data accessible. Here are a few that have.

Oklahome Mesonet

West Texas Mesonet

MesoWest

Note: The Texas Mesonets are particularly interesting during landfall of tropical cyclones!

In related news, essays produced by the Cybernetic Engines' consistantly score at or above an A on this software. Film at 11.

Clearly the reasoning behind this rule is to suppress dissent. I dont know whether this is about N. or S. Korea, but neither one would surprise me.

In North Korea, for example, everyone is required to have a picture of Kim Jong Il prominently displayed in their home. If an official comes to your house and finds the picture missing or displayed in a way which seems unsuitably reverent you can be arrested and jailed for up to two years.

(And what is it about dictators that they insist on splashing their ugly monkey-faces everywhere?

The policy of locking people up for their dissent is foolhardy, especially in a bankrupt country. Likewise, policies which suppress free expression prevent the free exchange and evolution of ideas. Considering that North Korea's best idea for helping their economy is to use nuclear weapons to extort help from the West, the region needs as much free exchange as it can get.

If this new law applied to South Korea it would seem to indicate a sea change in the political climate. Such a shift is not unprecedented in their history. People there still hold to the ideals of Confucianism which values the needs of the collective over the individual. Nevertheless South Koreans value freedom and the right of protest, so this law could not be upheld there for very long.

Here's a cool study about Political Protest in East Asia.

Texas Tech University (the folks that invented the 2x4 launcher for testing the strength of building siding and other fun games) and FEMI have put together a lot of Tornado survival info over the years.

Check out FEMA's website as well as Texas Tech's Wind Engineering site.

My next house will certainly have one of these.

Peter

There are several promising PHP frameworks in development.

Ports of Struts
PHP.MVC
Phrame

And ezPublish 3 which is primarily a CMS but can also be used as a general purpose framework.

IMHO for one of these to really take off (like Struts) is what professional PHP development needs.

Do you find this photograph to also be disturbing

I personally find this one to be horrifying. :-)

All it takes is for one jerk to wear a trenchcoat, and ruin it for the rest of it. Nevermind that it doesn't have much to do with the trenchcoat, but the fact that a murderer once wore a trenchcoat.

I sent this email to museumtour.com 2 days ago. Hopefully, this helps them out.

I have seen the ridiculous claims by SBC concerning your website and their patents. So, I thought i might attempt to be a little help in this situation and do a little online searching for previous art. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/1995S ep/0034.html As you can see, that email is from September of 1995, almost a full YEAR before that patent was filed. It appears that the patent SBC filed was on the very reason for the invention of frames in the first place!

In particular I would like to refer to the following in that September 1995 email: NAME="window_name" The NAME attribute is used to assign a name to a frame so it can be targeted by links in other documents (These are usually from other frames in the same document.) The NAME attribute is optional; by default all windows are unnamed. Therefore, a frame could remain static while referencing other frames with each click in the original frame.

Also, you might check out this url: http://www.focazio.com/web95/images/cnn.gif

This is a screenshot of cnn.com in 1995. I'm sure you'll notice the navigation icons at the top.

Also, there is this link: http://www.ac603.dial.pipex.com/webinov.htm#Intro

As you see, it's from December 1995 and SPECIFICALLY talks about using frames for navigation.

Fred Sotherland of C|Net gave an overview of how the C|Net television network is using the web to integrate TV with the Internet. He also gave some rules which they apply to make sure that pages are usable.

* *No page with more than 20k graphics * *All pages have 256 colour graphics * *Making use of Netscape 2.0 frames to put content and navigation side by side. * *Your only limitation is your Imagination (an the available bandwidth)

Again, this link is from November 1995: http://www.i-m.com/November-1-7-1995/0018.html

If you read that, you see the following: - If you have an image (a button bar for example) that is 80 pixels high and 400 pixels wide, DON'T make a Frame 80 x 400. As with everything else, allow a buffer. The scroll bars (or the blank space that makes them up) runs 20-25 pixels. In addition to that Netscape does appear to add a little more in the gutter area. An 80 x 400 image should be in a 110-120 x 430 frame at the least. - More of a good thing, isn't better. Having a fixed portion of the interface for the navigation bar is a good thing. However, having 4 frames isn't.

As you can see from that, not only does it mention a navigation bar, but it also mentions a BUTTON BAR..like what you have on your webpage. That is from the year BEFORE SBC's patent.

If there is any doubt to that, check this link: http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/1.1/guide.html The pictures are from Spring 1996 when the patent was filed, but they're using the features from Netscape 2.0.

http://semanticstudios.com/publications/web_archit ect/frames.html This is a PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT example of prior art. It is published 2 months before the patent application and describes websites with the EXACT features the patent was filed on.

One more, from netscape itself discussing netscape 2.0: http://wp.netscape.com/navigator/v2.0/frames.html

Netscape 2.0 was released in February of 1996, as you can see from this link: http://scout.wisc.edu/addserv/NH/96-02/96-02-05/00 31.html

That is all I have time for right now, I hope you fight this and don't give in. There is clearly prior art and it seems SBC just filed a patent on something that was already in heavy use at the time of the filing. Now, they want to harass small companies almost 7 years later. They don't go after the big companies because they know their claims are fraudulent. But, I think if you can show them YOU know beyond the shadow of a doubt that their claims are ridiculous, they might look elsewhere for a sitting duck.

Hare Krishna!

While the agreement allows program providers to prevent any recording of pay-per-view or video-on-demand programs, users of hard-disk-based recorders like TiVo would be allowed to record and then watch such a program up to 90 minutes later.

I'm no php man, but I hear that phrame is a struts clone for php.

Phrame

Um, why in the world would a songwriter get $0.08 for distribution of a song by US law ?!?

I can understand if the RIAA, or some guild or union has a rule or a bylaw to that effect. But that doesn't make sense to me for two reasons.

1) What reason would the Government of the United States of America have to get involved with something stupid like this. Not only paying songwriters, but setting a specific price by law? WTF? In 50 years when inflation makes that worth even less than it is now, will congress change the law to 20 cents?

2) Define a songwriter. If I write a stupid song about my trip to Walmart (let's call it Ode to Church Road), and then I perform it with my PC's mic, and share it via Gnutella. Does that make me a songwriter? If someone then downloads it, am I then automatically entitled to 8 cents? If I write a stupid song and then perform it, can I share the file loaded with keywords for porn and movies and other artists, so that unsuspecting people download it, and then rake in the money 8 cents at a time? Sure, by US law any time anyone writes a note on a napkin, that is automatically copyrighted, but that's a little different. That's just saying "you created this, so you own it". It's not saying "you created it, now someone got a copy you are owed $0.08."

This just doesn't make sense to me. You could be right, but can you provide any links or anything to back up this claim?

I did find a few links that say US law has a *CAP* on what a songwriter can charge in royalties of 8 cents per song. But that's not the same thing. That doesn't mean that a songwriter has to get paid at all. It just says that 8 cents is the most he or she can charge.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not defending copyright violation. If I rip my copy of Dr. Dre's The Chronic to MP3 and "share" it. Then that's illegal. Regardless of songwriter fees or not. Dre (or his record label at the time, or someone who is not me) owns the copyright on that album. I have received no licensee in writing, verbal, or implied to redistribute his works.

But, your example with the indy bands is flawed. Many indy bands write their own music. In which case, they don't have to charge anything for it. If they want to distribute it for free, they can do so, since the $0.08 figure is a maximum, not a minimum (unless you know something I don't, which I haven't completely discounted). What happens if My indy band (let's call them "Don't Throw Knives At Me", I like that name) wants to do a punk cover of The Unknown Stunt Man (theme to the TV show, The Fall Guy, written by David Somerville, Gail Jensen & Glen Larson and originally performed by Lee Majors)? Does my shitty indy band have to contact Somerville & company, or pay up to $0.08 for every song pressed? Well, as far as I can tell, yes. But my knowledge in this area it limited.

So where am I going with this rant? If someone breaks the law, you go after them. Simple. If Don't Throw Knives At Me records a punk cover of The Unknown Stuntman, we either owe the songwriter up to $0.08 per physical copy that gets distributed, or we have to work out a special deal with them. But if *I* write "Ode To Church Road", and perform it with Don't Throw Knives At Me, then I don't owe myself any money unless I say I do, which is stupid, because then I'd have to pay income tax on what I paid myself and I'd wind up loosing money ( :

As to how one verifies that I didn't unconsciously plagiarize another song, that's stupid too. In this case, the burden of proof is on any accuser. The artist doesn't have to prove that each and every work they ever write is original. That's like having to prove documentation to prove that something I'm selling on ebay isn't stolen. It may or may not be a good idea, but it's not required. It can't be unless someone makes an accusation. And even then, I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not?

One last tangent:

I find this 8 cent law interesting. Until I read your post and did some digging, I was not previously aware of it. What I find interesting it the fact that it only applies to physical media, yet it applies to MP3s and other digital file based media. I'm assuming this is because unlike a radio broadcast (to which this statute does not apply) when you share via MP3, a new, permanent copy is made. But how is this different from me tape recording the song off of the radio (which is legal, I believe because of time shifting rulings, please correct me if I'm wrong)? Does a songwriter technically have to get a royalty off of that too?

Again, I'm not 100% sure on any of these points, this is just how it appears to me, based on the information I was able to gather and my ability to interpret it. Any lawyers in the house with relevant experience care to chime in?

Sources:
Texas Tech University
House.gov

Phrame is a PHP version of Struts.

Some hasty Googling yields:

Historical Development of Copyright in Europe before 1886
IP Guide Background

Right now, we have to lay the foundations of this discussion to rest so we can get right to the point and avoid arguing things we agree on. If there are more pertinent references available to support your opinion, please post the links.

Not being allowed to reproduce the work in an archive doesn't limit speech about the work in any meaningful way

Oh, I disagree. It is critically important. For example, it would be impossible to do a parody without reproducing some, not necessarily all, of the work. But statutory fair use apparently makes it unnecessary to reach free speech Q's. As I mention below, I think it's nonetheless important to be mindful of the influence of free speech doctrine.

Value of the work -- what damages could the spammer seriously claim? This judgment affects the decision whether to take the threat seriously, whether to roll the dice telling them to go to hell, etc. Strategic stuff.

Doctrinal relationship of 1st A. and fair use -- I supposed that they were interrelated, and others have argued the same. Fair use is not in the Copyright Clause, it was read into it, originally by the judiciary. Congress later wrote it into the statute. I think fair use is clearly informed by 1st A. values, but of course the two are not interchangeable.

Here's more and more (note ditto.com cite). I haven't vetted these docs; use at your own risk (as if my approval would guarantee anything!). This area of law, with regard to the Internet, is not fully formed. I'm reminded of the deep-linking Q, too.

However, this is all far too abstract. A trial judge is going to want cites to statutes and precedent, not dreamy academic stuff. It's just useful to consider the underlying values to keep your arguments focused. Now that I've belatedly read the actual "C&D letter" I realize the writer is full of crap -- good enough for a dismissal IMHO. :)