Yes, if someone deliberately places a pamphlet on your car, you can claim it as yours. (It's also littering for them to have done that, but whatever.)
You do have to actually claim it, though, it's not automatically yours. You can refuse to claim it as yours and just move it to the trash or something. (Sorta moot WRT a pamphlet, but might be relevant if it was $10,000, and you didn't want to ever 'own' it because you'd have to pay income taxes on it. Yes, silly example, but whatever.)
All laws concerning lost (aka, dropped) or mislaid (aka, set down but you forget to pick it up) property have one overriding rules: They require the property to have been left accidentally.
Leaving something on purpose means it is, by definition, neither lost nor mislaid. There's really no way to argue that a GPS tracker was accidentally left attached to his car, as that was its entire purpose.
So unless it's part of the few specific exceptions in the law, like packages delivered to the wrong address, it's now abandoned property. Property that someone deliberately left on someone else's property.
You can basically treat abandoned property as your own. While some states do let the original owners demand it back within a certain amount of time, they have no recourse if it cannot be returned or is broken.
Deliberately placing and leaving something on someone else's property, beyond a few exceptions spelled out in law like automobiles or mis-delivery of packages, is clear intent to abandon, so he can do whatever he wants with it.
You only have to hold and give back stuff left accidentally. The tracker was not left accidentally, it was purposefully attached and left there. (That is, in fact, the entire point of it.)
It's no different than if you woke up tomorrow and someone had left an old sofa on your lawn. It's your sofa now.
Balls throw onto your property do not become yours, idiot. They are clearly lost property. You are required to hold them until someone asks for them, or until a certain amount of time passes, check state law.
However, that is unrelated to the issue here, which is that GPS trackers attached to things are neither 'lost' nor 'misplaced'. They have been clearly placed somewhere deliberately with the intent of them staying them after the person left. (It's not like they were just taking GPS readings and dropped their tracker, or set it down and forgot it.)
Deliberately placing and choosing to leave something on someone else's property is abandoning it. (And is also, strictly speaking, littering.)
Basically, the FBI, in demanding it back, is going to have to claim that it's 'mislaid property', which is when you set something down but fail to remember that and walk off. Like if you leave your purse at your table in restaurant. (As opposed to lost property, which is when you drop something and don't notice.)
Sadly for them, for it to 'mislaid', they cannot do it on purpose. Mislaying property requires you to accidentally leave it behind, and as their entire purpose of attaching it to the car was to leave it behind, no, it's not 'mislaid'.
It is, indeed, abandoned property. Leaving something deliberately and knowingly on someone else's property, where you knew it was the entire time (That's the entire point of a GPS tracker, you know where it is.) and made no effort to recover it, is clearly intent to abandon it.
If placing it 'on' a car is illegal, then the FBI needed a warrant to do it to him.
You can't really have it both ways. Either it's legal to attach things to cars, or it's not. If it's legal, anyone can do it. If it's not, then law enforcement needs a warrant....they can't just run around doing illegal things.
Or, alternately, he could have just set it in someone's car, which isn't illegal, or is at the most littering.
For some reason, under Clinton, conservatives used to think it would be FEMA. Despite the fact they have no weapons.
Now, of course, conservatives prefer to believe that Health and Human Services is going to be doing it, sending people to death panels. Again, despite the fact they have no weapons.
Or possibly it will be ACORN. Or whoever Beck's come up with this week as the big bad.
This despite the fact we've had law enforcement detain, without charges, American citizens. Despite the fact we've had the CIA participate in torture. Despite the fact we have dozens of private and lawless mercenaries under our employ who appear willing to do anything.
And all those people do have guns. These groups actually exist, and actually have detainment centers and actually have guns and stuff. They aren't imaginary FEMA camps or some sort of weird slippery slope created from requiring people buy health insurance. They are really actually real.
But those things are only used against 'bad guys'. And it's utterly impossible that the government could just call people bad guys. Why, that's insane. When the government starts rounding them up in their crazy paranoid fantasies, it always makes sure to never pretend they're the bad guys, and it would never use the actual real system that already exists, it has to make some new conspiracy-theory-invented system.
Are you arguing that we're at War with Iraq? Because, you know, we're not. We won that war. The war is over. Hell, we've even finished the occupation, technically.
Likewise, 'terrorists' does not appear to qualify as an actual 'enemy' for us to be at war with. Under the authority of that bill, we have invaded, and thus gone to war with, Afghanistan, but likewise that war is also over.
The US is at war with no countries right now. We have soldiers dying in various countries, but those are peacekeeper actions within allied nations, not 'war'.
You need to put a set minimum in there, so that they can't avoid the tax simply by not selling any copies. (Frankly, if you're deliberately not selling any copies, you shouldn't be allowed to keep the copyright at all.)
A good way to get around dodgy accounting on 'profits' (Which film studios and record companies, for two examples, lie about), would be to say 10% of profits or 1% of production costs, whichever is greater. You can't hide both production costs and profits at the same time.
Also, 20 years is probably too short. While I agree copyright is too long, I think going back to the original of around 30 years, and perhaps 10 years for free, would be reasonable.
In fact, thanks to the stupid Berne convention, we can't actually reduce copyrights less than what they currently are...but we can start taxing them at 90% or whatever after 30 years.
I'd be afraid it would mainly be used to try to discover information that had been excluded.
I think a lot of the problem is that information is _being_ excluded.
And I'm not entirely sure the problem with 'juries convicting too many people' is the juries. I'm actually convinced that the problem is we've made too many thing have jail times.
I.e,, the problem isn't people 'wrongly' convicted, although obviously that happens and should be reduced. The problem is people 'rightly' convicted for stuff that we shouldn't send them to jail for.
But, whatever. We're not going to get any changes either way, so it's sorta pointless to worry about.
That's why I included the whole 'jury can ask for information' thing.
And right now, half the reason a jury will 'convict so easily' is stupid jury selection process. Stop letting everyone exclude knowledgeable people from the jury, and it won't.
Yes, the encoder is very important. Use LAME, not some crappy one.
I tend to encode at 320 kbps, though, simply because I really don't care about the disk space that frickin audio files are taking. My entire music collection is 32 gigs and sits happily on a mostly empty NAS.;)
While you're right about almost all that, that people should fix that autistic first, and then correct, moderately priced speakers and amps...24 bit isn't any better than 16 bit.
Humans can only hear a 120db range safely in the first place, although that's misleading. 85 dB long term causes hearing loss...that's rock concert levels. A nearby jackhammer is 100 dB.
No one should be listening to music at over 85 dB in their house. The EPA doesn't want you constantly exposed to sound over 70, at which point they make your workplace give you earplugs. Most people watch TV at 60 dB.
At the defined difference that bit are 'apart', aka, the difference in sound volume when you add or remove a bit, 16 bit is a 96 dB range of volume.
24 bits reduces that difference between 'one bit apart' sounds, but no one's ever demonstrated people can actually tell the difference. People's ears are simply not sensitive enough to tell. In fact, 'dividing 96 db by 18-19 bits' is the hypothetical best hearing people can have, and very few have ever shown that, so at best we need 19 bit music.
But even that's silly. People shouldn't be listening to music at the 96 dB range anyway...they should have turned the volume down, which already reduces the difference between 'one bit apart' sounds.
Strangely, it's easy to do the math. Each extra bit is lets you divide the range twice as much, and each 10 dB is twice the volume. So a 16 bit range at 96 dB, reduced by 30 dB to 66 dB, cuts the range needed to be covered by an eighth, so gets three more bits in 'exactness', so is the equivalent of a 19 bit signal, which near is the theoretical max anyone can distinguish sounds.
Unless you're destroying your hearing because your music is turned up too loud, 24 bit won't do anything. (And if you are doing that, you will rapidly destroy your hearing enough that 24 bit still won't do anything.)
Yeah, he's entirely serious, and it's worth pointing out for those skimmed that he's talking about SATA cables on his NAS, not the actual device playing the sound.
If they were on the computer playing the sound, some sort of extremely silly argument could be made about interference in the DAC. It would be a very dumb argument, but it could exist.
But this is a frickin NAS in the other room. Over a network.
And, of course, when the audio was actually playing, because of how file sharing works, the client almost certainly copied the entire file across the network and put it in memory, at the very start of the song.
Americans have a right to publish and received published information over wifi based on our Constitutional rights to freedom of press. Public parks are always provided on a "No Warranty, No Guarantee, No Commitment, Use At Your Own Risk" basis.
Oh, wait. I think I misquoted you there.
No one has a fucking right to government provided public parks, you moron, just like no one has fucking right to government provided internet connection.
What they do have is a right that if such a thing is provided, it will be provided indiscriminately of their viewpoint.
The government does not have to provide a public park, but if it provides a public park, it cannot keep people from using it to say stuff the government does not like.
The government does not have to provide a public wifi, but if it provides a public wifi, it cannot keep people from using it to say stuff the government does not like.
Um, no. To do what they say they do, they must have a list of sites that were accessed previously and now can't be, (As opposed to have never been accessed) and that is by definition a blacklist.
They just add visited sites to it automatically, on a timer. (Which seems stupid, but whatever.)
They also, obviously, have a whitelist to stop that from happening, but plenty of things have blacklists and whitelists at the same time.
No, they're the fucking state government, which gives them less of a right to block sites.
Who even cares if one particular employer blocks one particular website?
If they were blocking it for employees, that would be one thing. They were blocking the site on the guest network for the capitol, which is intended for public use.
I actually think Usenet would work spectacularly well. Even on Craigslist, the server can see who read the post. Sure, it might be a large amount of people, but you actually get a list. Especially if they have to search for it. If you caught one terrorist before the trigger, you could try to catch others.
Yeah, seems impossible...but in theory, you could possibly figure it out.
With Usenet, you cannot. There are too many servers. There are too many leaf nodes hanging off other servers. There are too many groups that get downloaded in their entirety by way too many people.
It would be utterly impossible to even get a list of 10% of the IPs who might have read the post. It is the most decentralized communication medium in the world.
Pick a popular group, pick a dumb misspelling to make, like 'aonther' or something. Set the terrorists up with a Usenet client with some sort of search feature that alerts them for that. (Which is a local search, and hence can't be detected.)
When they get a hit, they have to read the post. The post is also required to have, let's say, another reference in it, and then either a go or no-go reference in it. Could even easily encode the time.
Then, all the signalers need is to make a vaguely relevant post with that stuff in it. Yes, that post is traceable, which is why it should be made from some public access point, but that's it. Even if you knew exactly where it was coming from and what it said in advance, you still couldn't find who was reading it.
If you were really really clever, you could require the terrorists actually read the group, and the signal is an utterly off-the-wall theory. To take my Lost group example, a theory that Kate is actually Locke's sex-changed father. That, and a different word in the post, mean 'go' or 'no-go'.
You are talking about right of attribution, not copyright. That's actually a seperate thing from copyright (But included as part of copyright law)...you can lose the copyright on something but have the right to claim authorship. (In fact, you also have the right to demand that your name is removed from something...I keep waiting to see William Shakespeare's heirs running around demanding his name get removed from bad performances of his plays.)
If you want to demand that living artists remain credited, even after their copyright is expired, no one has a problem with that at all. That's a fine law.
And no one's going to take your music away. You'll always be able to play it, no one can stop that.
However, at a certain point, you also don't get to stop other people from playing it.
Or, to put it another way, as an incentive for making it, society gives you the sole right to perform it (or allow others to do so) for a fixed amount of time. And that's it. Somehow, thanks to Disney, this 'fixed amount of time' has absurdly been extended to what could be 150 years, depending on how long someone lives.
Also, I'm pretty certain that most people who want to reduce copyright do not want it to 10 years. Usually people talk about 28 years, which is just long enough for something to enter the collective consciousness and people to grow up with it and start basing stuff of it.
I, personally, would like to see 14 years 'by default' without registration, and then, after the 14 years, people have to pay a $100 filing fee or whatever and actually register it, and get another 14 years. Which would result in the vast majority of 'copyrighted things', which is stuff people made and don't even realize is copyrighted or that they own falling out of copyright at that point.
Actually, I'd like to give everyone two years free, and then have a $5 fee or something for the first 14, but for some reason everyone hates that, despite the fact that 'automatic free copyright' is demonstrably bad for the public domain. No one means to copyright, for example, their posts on slashdot. I understand that mistakes caused by not adding a copyright notice resulted in stuff being public domained that people didn't want, so we'll give people two years or something to catch that.
But people really, at some point, needed to be forced to make some effort to actually claim some sort of copyright. At the very least so the copyright doesn't enter some sort of limbo because the company went bankrupt or someone died and the heirs don't know about it, as happened to a large amount of computer games from the 80s and 90s, and 1950 and 1960 movies sitting in vaults decomposing.
And maybe, after the 28 or 30 years, have another 14 years possible, with a fee of $10000, which can be used to help promising artists.
Indeed, that's how I feel. The current system means we, or at least the prosecution, has to carefully weed out crazy people, because one crazy person blows it up.
If instead we had 12 people but required just 10 to convinct, or, hell, added 6 more people, had 18 people, required 14 to convict, we'd probably end up a lot better.
And the _only_ people who should get weeded out are people with a demonstrable interest in the outcome of the trial, or who have actual other conflicts of interest.
We'd also end up a lot better if the jury could demand things end up in evidence or present questions to witnesses, especially as apparently we can't afford even moderately good public defenders anymore.
Right now, if the jury realizes something is wrong with the prosecutor's story, but the defense doesn't bring it up, the jury tends to act somewhat randomly. Something it clearly screws up the prosecution's case, and vote not guilty, whereas others think that if it was important the defense would mention it.
It would be very nice for the jury to be able to vote on a list of questions for the judge to ask witnesses. Of either side.
That actually seems the safest way to do it, if all your outbound mail servers are also inbound servers, which is probably 99% of the servers out there. (And if you're using something else, you're presumably skilled enough to know that.)
Granted, if you have backup MX servers, you're including servers in there that won't be sending mail...but as they're servers under your control, it seems unlikely they would be spamming.
Maybe he's annoyed because it will take another DNS lookup?
If so, that's silly. Mail servers often already do MX lookups for mail being delivered to them...mine requires incoming mail have a FROM domain that can be responded to, for example. (I.e., that it actually has a MX or A record pointing somewhere.) It doesn't require the connection be from that IP, just that it is an IP somewhere.
That's not only for spammers, but to catch people who've mistyped their own address...better to reject it back to them with a message saying their domain name doesn't exist then to get it here and then be unable to bounce it or reply to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, if someone deliberately places a pamphlet on your car, you can claim it as yours. (It's also littering for them to have done that, but whatever.)
You do have to actually claim it, though, it's not automatically yours. You can refuse to claim it as yours and just move it to the trash or something. (Sorta moot WRT a pamphlet, but might be relevant if it was $10,000, and you didn't want to ever 'own' it because you'd have to pay income taxes on it. Yes, silly example, but whatever.)
All laws concerning lost (aka, dropped) or mislaid (aka, set down but you forget to pick it up) property have one overriding rules: They require the property to have been left accidentally.
Leaving something on purpose means it is, by definition, neither lost nor mislaid. There's really no way to argue that a GPS tracker was accidentally left attached to his car, as that was its entire purpose.
So unless it's part of the few specific exceptions in the law, like packages delivered to the wrong address, it's now abandoned property. Property that someone deliberately left on someone else's property.
You can basically treat abandoned property as your own. While some states do let the original owners demand it back within a certain amount of time, they have no recourse if it cannot be returned or is broken.
Deliberately placing and leaving something on someone else's property, beyond a few exceptions spelled out in law like automobiles or mis-delivery of packages, is clear intent to abandon, so he can do whatever he wants with it.
You only have to hold and give back stuff left accidentally. The tracker was not left accidentally, it was purposefully attached and left there. (That is, in fact, the entire point of it.)
It's no different than if you woke up tomorrow and someone had left an old sofa on your lawn. It's your sofa now.
Balls throw onto your property do not become yours, idiot. They are clearly lost property. You are required to hold them until someone asks for them, or until a certain amount of time passes, check state law.
However, that is unrelated to the issue here, which is that GPS trackers attached to things are neither 'lost' nor 'misplaced'. They have been clearly placed somewhere deliberately with the intent of them staying them after the person left. (It's not like they were just taking GPS readings and dropped their tracker, or set it down and forgot it.)
Deliberately placing and choosing to leave something on someone else's property is abandoning it. (And is also, strictly speaking, littering.)
See here
Basically, the FBI, in demanding it back, is going to have to claim that it's 'mislaid property', which is when you set something down but fail to remember that and walk off. Like if you leave your purse at your table in restaurant. (As opposed to lost property, which is when you drop something and don't notice.)
Sadly for them, for it to 'mislaid', they cannot do it on purpose. Mislaying property requires you to accidentally leave it behind, and as their entire purpose of attaching it to the car was to leave it behind, no, it's not 'mislaid'.
It is, indeed, abandoned property. Leaving something deliberately and knowingly on someone else's property, where you knew it was the entire time (That's the entire point of a GPS tracker, you know where it is.) and made no effort to recover it, is clearly intent to abandon it.
If placing it 'on' a car is illegal, then the FBI needed a warrant to do it to him.
You can't really have it both ways. Either it's legal to attach things to cars, or it's not. If it's legal, anyone can do it. If it's not, then law enforcement needs a warrant....they can't just run around doing illegal things.
Or, alternately, he could have just set it in someone's car, which isn't illegal, or is at the most littering.
For some reason, under Clinton, conservatives used to think it would be FEMA. Despite the fact they have no weapons.
Now, of course, conservatives prefer to believe that Health and Human Services is going to be doing it, sending people to death panels. Again, despite the fact they have no weapons.
Or possibly it will be ACORN. Or whoever Beck's come up with this week as the big bad.
This despite the fact we've had law enforcement detain, without charges, American citizens. Despite the fact we've had the CIA participate in torture. Despite the fact we have dozens of private and lawless mercenaries under our employ who appear willing to do anything.
And all those people do have guns. These groups actually exist, and actually have detainment centers and actually have guns and stuff. They aren't imaginary FEMA camps or some sort of weird slippery slope created from requiring people buy health insurance. They are really actually real.
But those things are only used against 'bad guys'. And it's utterly impossible that the government could just call people bad guys. Why, that's insane. When the government starts rounding them up in their crazy paranoid fantasies, it always makes sure to never pretend they're the bad guys, and it would never use the actual real system that already exists, it has to make some new conspiracy-theory-invented system.
Are you arguing that we're at War with Iraq? Because, you know, we're not. We won that war. The war is over. Hell, we've even finished the occupation, technically.
Likewise, 'terrorists' does not appear to qualify as an actual 'enemy' for us to be at war with. Under the authority of that bill, we have invaded, and thus gone to war with, Afghanistan, but likewise that war is also over.
The US is at war with no countries right now. We have soldiers dying in various countries, but those are peacekeeper actions within allied nations, not 'war'.
You need to put a set minimum in there, so that they can't avoid the tax simply by not selling any copies. (Frankly, if you're deliberately not selling any copies, you shouldn't be allowed to keep the copyright at all.)
A good way to get around dodgy accounting on 'profits' (Which film studios and record companies, for two examples, lie about), would be to say 10% of profits or 1% of production costs, whichever is greater. You can't hide both production costs and profits at the same time.
Also, 20 years is probably too short. While I agree copyright is too long, I think going back to the original of around 30 years, and perhaps 10 years for free, would be reasonable.
In fact, thanks to the stupid Berne convention, we can't actually reduce copyrights less than what they currently are...but we can start taxing them at 90% or whatever after 30 years.
The Recycle Bin is actually _required_ to have a set max size. (Although you could have stupidly set it to 100%.)
Although it's somewhat confusing how it's handled...what you should specify is the amount of free space.
I'd be afraid it would mainly be used to try to discover information that had been excluded.
I think a lot of the problem is that information is _being_ excluded.
And I'm not entirely sure the problem with 'juries convicting too many people' is the juries. I'm actually convinced that the problem is we've made too many thing have jail times.
I.e,, the problem isn't people 'wrongly' convicted, although obviously that happens and should be reduced. The problem is people 'rightly' convicted for stuff that we shouldn't send them to jail for.
But, whatever. We're not going to get any changes either way, so it's sorta pointless to worry about.
That's why I included the whole 'jury can ask for information' thing.
And right now, half the reason a jury will 'convict so easily' is stupid jury selection process. Stop letting everyone exclude knowledgeable people from the jury, and it won't.
Yes, the encoder is very important. Use LAME, not some crappy one.
I tend to encode at 320 kbps, though, simply because I really don't care about the disk space that frickin audio files are taking. My entire music collection is 32 gigs and sits happily on a mostly empty NAS. ;)
autistic
Damn spell checker. You know what I meant.
While you're right about almost all that, that people should fix that autistic first, and then correct, moderately priced speakers and amps...24 bit isn't any better than 16 bit.
Humans can only hear a 120db range safely in the first place, although that's misleading. 85 dB long term causes hearing loss...that's rock concert levels. A nearby jackhammer is 100 dB.
No one should be listening to music at over 85 dB in their house. The EPA doesn't want you constantly exposed to sound over 70, at which point they make your workplace give you earplugs. Most people watch TV at 60 dB.
At the defined difference that bit are 'apart', aka, the difference in sound volume when you add or remove a bit, 16 bit is a 96 dB range of volume.
24 bits reduces that difference between 'one bit apart' sounds, but no one's ever demonstrated people can actually tell the difference. People's ears are simply not sensitive enough to tell. In fact, 'dividing 96 db by 18-19 bits' is the hypothetical best hearing people can have, and very few have ever shown that, so at best we need 19 bit music.
But even that's silly. People shouldn't be listening to music at the 96 dB range anyway...they should have turned the volume down, which already reduces the difference between 'one bit apart' sounds.
Strangely, it's easy to do the math. Each extra bit is lets you divide the range twice as much, and each 10 dB is twice the volume. So a 16 bit range at 96 dB, reduced by 30 dB to 66 dB, cuts the range needed to be covered by an eighth, so gets three more bits in 'exactness', so is the equivalent of a 19 bit signal, which near is the theoretical max anyone can distinguish sounds.
Unless you're destroying your hearing because your music is turned up too loud, 24 bit won't do anything. (And if you are doing that, you will rapidly destroy your hearing enough that 24 bit still won't do anything.)
Yeah, he's entirely serious, and it's worth pointing out for those skimmed that he's talking about SATA cables on his NAS, not the actual device playing the sound.
If they were on the computer playing the sound, some sort of extremely silly argument could be made about interference in the DAC. It would be a very dumb argument, but it could exist.
But this is a frickin NAS in the other room. Over a network.
And, of course, when the audio was actually playing, because of how file sharing works, the client almost certainly copied the entire file across the network and put it in memory, at the very start of the song.
Americans have a right to publish and received published information over wifi based on our Constitutional rights to freedom of press. Public parks are always provided on a "No Warranty, No Guarantee, No Commitment, Use At Your Own Risk" basis.
Oh, wait. I think I misquoted you there.
No one has a fucking right to government provided public parks, you moron, just like no one has fucking right to government provided internet connection.
What they do have is a right that if such a thing is provided, it will be provided indiscriminately of their viewpoint.
The government does not have to provide a public park, but if it provides a public park, it cannot keep people from using it to say stuff the government does not like.
The government does not have to provide a public wifi, but if it provides a public wifi, it cannot keep people from using it to say stuff the government does not like.
Yeah, if you don't like your political party not being allowed to protest in a free public park, you can ask for your money back.
Fuck off, troll.
Um, no. To do what they say they do, they must have a list of sites that were accessed previously and now can't be, (As opposed to have never been accessed) and that is by definition a blacklist.
They just add visited sites to it automatically, on a timer. (Which seems stupid, but whatever.)
They also, obviously, have a whitelist to stop that from happening, but plenty of things have blacklists and whitelists at the same time.
They're not your damn ISP.
No, they're the fucking state government, which gives them less of a right to block sites.
Who even cares if one particular employer blocks one particular website?
If they were blocking it for employees, that would be one thing. They were blocking the site on the guest network for the capitol, which is intended for public use.
Who could have foreseen such a problem in such modern and well-crafted software.
I actually think Usenet would work spectacularly well. Even on Craigslist, the server can see who read the post. Sure, it might be a large amount of people, but you actually get a list. Especially if they have to search for it. If you caught one terrorist before the trigger, you could try to catch others.
Yeah, seems impossible...but in theory, you could possibly figure it out.
With Usenet, you cannot. There are too many servers. There are too many leaf nodes hanging off other servers. There are too many groups that get downloaded in their entirety by way too many people.
It would be utterly impossible to even get a list of 10% of the IPs who might have read the post. It is the most decentralized communication medium in the world.
Pick a popular group, pick a dumb misspelling to make, like 'aonther' or something. Set the terrorists up with a Usenet client with some sort of search feature that alerts them for that. (Which is a local search, and hence can't be detected.)
When they get a hit, they have to read the post. The post is also required to have, let's say, another reference in it, and then either a go or no-go reference in it. Could even easily encode the time.
Then, all the signalers need is to make a vaguely relevant post with that stuff in it. Yes, that post is traceable, which is why it should be made from some public access point, but that's it. Even if you knew exactly where it was coming from and what it said in advance, you still couldn't find who was reading it.
If you were really really clever, you could require the terrorists actually read the group, and the signal is an utterly off-the-wall theory. To take my Lost group example, a theory that Kate is actually Locke's sex-changed father. That, and a different word in the post, mean 'go' or 'no-go'.
You are talking about right of attribution, not copyright. That's actually a seperate thing from copyright (But included as part of copyright law)...you can lose the copyright on something but have the right to claim authorship. (In fact, you also have the right to demand that your name is removed from something...I keep waiting to see William Shakespeare's heirs running around demanding his name get removed from bad performances of his plays.)
If you want to demand that living artists remain credited, even after their copyright is expired, no one has a problem with that at all. That's a fine law.
And no one's going to take your music away. You'll always be able to play it, no one can stop that.
However, at a certain point, you also don't get to stop other people from playing it.
Or, to put it another way, as an incentive for making it, society gives you the sole right to perform it (or allow others to do so) for a fixed amount of time. And that's it. Somehow, thanks to Disney, this 'fixed amount of time' has absurdly been extended to what could be 150 years, depending on how long someone lives.
Also, I'm pretty certain that most people who want to reduce copyright do not want it to 10 years. Usually people talk about 28 years, which is just long enough for something to enter the collective consciousness and people to grow up with it and start basing stuff of it.
I, personally, would like to see 14 years 'by default' without registration, and then, after the 14 years, people have to pay a $100 filing fee or whatever and actually register it, and get another 14 years. Which would result in the vast majority of 'copyrighted things', which is stuff people made and don't even realize is copyrighted or that they own falling out of copyright at that point.
Actually, I'd like to give everyone two years free, and then have a $5 fee or something for the first 14, but for some reason everyone hates that, despite the fact that 'automatic free copyright' is demonstrably bad for the public domain. No one means to copyright, for example, their posts on slashdot. I understand that mistakes caused by not adding a copyright notice resulted in stuff being public domained that people didn't want, so we'll give people two years or something to catch that.
But people really, at some point, needed to be forced to make some effort to actually claim some sort of copyright. At the very least so the copyright doesn't enter some sort of limbo because the company went bankrupt or someone died and the heirs don't know about it, as happened to a large amount of computer games from the 80s and 90s, and 1950 and 1960 movies sitting in vaults decomposing.
And maybe, after the 28 or 30 years, have another 14 years possible, with a fee of $10000, which can be used to help promising artists.
Indeed, that's how I feel. The current system means we, or at least the prosecution, has to carefully weed out crazy people, because one crazy person blows it up.
If instead we had 12 people but required just 10 to convinct, or, hell, added 6 more people, had 18 people, required 14 to convict, we'd probably end up a lot better.
And the _only_ people who should get weeded out are people with a demonstrable interest in the outcome of the trial, or who have actual other conflicts of interest.
We'd also end up a lot better if the jury could demand things end up in evidence or present questions to witnesses, especially as apparently we can't afford even moderately good public defenders anymore.
Right now, if the jury realizes something is wrong with the prosecutor's story, but the defense doesn't bring it up, the jury tends to act somewhat randomly. Something it clearly screws up the prosecution's case, and vote not guilty, whereas others think that if it was important the defense would mention it.
It would be very nice for the jury to be able to vote on a list of questions for the judge to ask witnesses. Of either side.
As am amateur musician, I would be pissed off if in my lifetime someone told me I no longer have the copyright to my own music.
You may think that, but it's stupid. There's no reason to let people have a copyright until they die.
Yeah, I'm a little baffled by that also.
That actually seems the safest way to do it, if all your outbound mail servers are also inbound servers, which is probably 99% of the servers out there. (And if you're using something else, you're presumably skilled enough to know that.)
Granted, if you have backup MX servers, you're including servers in there that won't be sending mail...but as they're servers under your control, it seems unlikely they would be spamming.
Maybe he's annoyed because it will take another DNS lookup?
If so, that's silly. Mail servers often already do MX lookups for mail being delivered to them...mine requires incoming mail have a FROM domain that can be responded to, for example. (I.e., that it actually has a MX or A record pointing somewhere.) It doesn't require the connection be from that IP, just that it is an IP somewhere.
That's not only for spammers, but to catch people who've mistyped their own address...better to reject it back to them with a message saying their domain name doesn't exist then to get it here and then be unable to bounce it or reply to it.