Your wording about the Concorde is really odd here. The purpose of the Concorde was supersonic passenger flight. It's downfall was all the bitch and moaning about sonic booms over populated areas.
Well... they could do what the New York Transit system did when encountered with the dilemma of some U.S. right wing f***heads buying bus and train advertising space and put up an ad right next to it saying "we don't agree with this but we need to accept this for free speech's sake". IMHO that is going farther than they have to go... but I guess that would help in the search for civility.
I am not sure we're going to have civility while we are in the middle of a culture war between different groups of right-wing assholes.
They'll use their freedom of speech to say that others shouldn't have it. Lovely!
This is idiotic. Again, I am not one of these "LOLZ! Look at the RELIGION OF PEACE" people around here, but this is where one says that if they don't like what was said that they should make their own video and refute it. Currently too man MAINSTREAM Muslims want my Internet to be censored to THEIR tastes. It needs to be a given a BIG FAT NO.
But what harm came to the copyright holder? At worst it was $0. It might be negative harm since someone might have seen it and went and bought a prince album. Maybe it could of used the YouTube model and provide a link to buy the music.
Sorry... it's asinine. It's using the copyright law as a sword instead of a shield. If you care about a tight interpretation of the Constitution it's pretty obvious that copyright is well beyond its stated intent. It's funny how strict constitutionalists change their tune when their corporate buddies are involved.
As it is often pointed out here, by clear case law corporations are supposed to get the most for their stockholders. They're basically mandated by caselaw to push the envelope. Therefore you can't trust corporations to do the right thing... ever. Any law that expects a corporation to work in good faith is flawed. The only way you can call them on it is to take them to court, then it turns out to be the usual "my lawyer is bigger than your lawyer" crap.
They shouldn't have the power to take something down on their own say so. It's a violation of both due process and free speech. But, heh, they can afford a better lawyer than I can. That's america.
Some opinions on copyright say that all non-commercial use ought to be legal. I am pretty close to this belief, but I think if I thought for a long time I could come up with a counterexample. It's a hard line to draw... like does self promotion = making money? Hard to say.
I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos. But this is way over the line. This asks for the ability to apply censorship rules to everyone. They should be bitch slapped and sent out of the room.
...but there isn't some corporate or security fearmonger asshole somewhere (who might be, in the current mindset, worth thousands of "normal" people) that said "OMG TERRISTS?!?"
It is an instant alienation for a certain percentage of people.
You should of heard this redneck wail in Lowes the other day when the customer service desk said he needed to call Lowes customer support about a refund problem. He didn't want to call no a-rabs.
The OP is right... the way outsourcing works it's virtually a P.R. stunt. You might as well hire McDonald's employees away (and give them no training) and keep the jobs in the country. The quality will be the same.
Don't go into a "strict constitutionalist" spiel. No one that claims to be one actually is one right now. Scalia is only one when it benefits his buddies.
I am sorry but I am incapable of optimism that this version of SCOTUS can do anything right.
I have no clue which way this can go. I believe that members of this court are highly compromised by their dealings in the corporate world and their personal holdings. If they weren't you wouldn't see stuff happening like Thomas making rulings that affect his previous employer.
The fact is the huge elephant in the room is corporate ties in each and every case. They vote along with that pro-corporate bias even if there isn't a meeting where someone tells the "you vote like this."
This is going to be a telling case. It will show the underbelly of this court.
Like every copyright case initiated by one of the big names, like the *AAs or big corporate publishing houses, this case is INTENSELY idiotic.
Google got the good end of this. Basically the corporate assholes can shoot themselves in the foot and pull their material... and lose money in the long run. Google can provide a free publicity service or you can take your ball and go home.
That's a bit unfair, don't you think? You're asking Edison to know the future here. He didn't have The Doctor to take him away in the TARDIS and show him what the consequences of pollution would be. They probably didn't think there would be any consequences and they probably had no idea how widespread the use of energy would be.
You can't take anything a news source like NYT, CNN, or any of groups take seriously.
Reporting about everything is bad these days, but it is especially true in tech. Reporters are some of the most arrogant people on the planet and they are *sure* that they know more than the techs do. They're to arrogant to let someone with real knowledge look over their work and say whether it makes any sense.
The fact that they would get a good percentage of it wrong comes to no surprise. CNN, for instance, has mentioned Linux on air maybe two times in the last decade. Meanwhile, they can't go two minutes without mentioning Apple.
Then there was the Fox news story last week that has the phrase "so-called patch" in it. Yeah... patches are so new and mysterious.
Yeah. This basically acclerates the process that's already started with H.R. drones. Getting hired is already about who can game the process the best and H.R. bozos try to use a strict set of rules to put people into boxes instead using simple human judgement. This just codifies it even further.
Slashdot Mirror
Your wording about the Concorde is really odd here. The purpose of the Concorde was supersonic passenger flight. It's downfall was all the bitch and moaning about sonic booms over populated areas.
I don't think I was writing about the left wing assholes in my post. I don't think this topic was about that. I might be wrong...
Well... they could do what the New York Transit system did when encountered with the dilemma of some U.S. right wing f***heads buying bus and train advertising space and put up an ad right next to it saying "we don't agree with this but we need to accept this for free speech's sake". IMHO that is going farther than they have to go... but I guess that would help in the search for civility.
I am not sure we're going to have civility while we are in the middle of a culture war between different groups of right-wing assholes.
They'll use their freedom of speech to say that others shouldn't have it. Lovely!
This is idiotic. Again, I am not one of these "LOLZ! Look at the RELIGION OF PEACE" people around here, but this is where one says that if they don't like what was said that they should make their own video and refute it. Currently too man MAINSTREAM Muslims want my Internet to be censored to THEIR tastes. It needs to be a given a BIG FAT NO.
But what harm came to the copyright holder? At worst it was $0. It might be negative harm since someone might have seen it and went and bought a prince album. Maybe it could of used the YouTube model and provide a link to buy the music.
Sorry... it's asinine. It's using the copyright law as a sword instead of a shield. If you care about a tight interpretation of the Constitution it's pretty obvious that copyright is well beyond its stated intent. It's funny how strict constitutionalists change their tune when their corporate buddies are involved.
As it is often pointed out here, by clear case law corporations are supposed to get the most for their stockholders. They're basically mandated by caselaw to push the envelope. Therefore you can't trust corporations to do the right thing... ever. Any law that expects a corporation to work in good faith is flawed. The only way you can call them on it is to take them to court, then it turns out to be the usual "my lawyer is bigger than your lawyer" crap.
They shouldn't have the power to take something down on their own say so. It's a violation of both due process and free speech. But, heh, they can afford a better lawyer than I can. That's america.
Some opinions on copyright say that all non-commercial use ought to be legal. I am pretty close to this belief, but I think if I thought for a long time I could come up with a counterexample. It's a hard line to draw... like does self promotion = making money? Hard to say.
I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos. But this is way over the line. This asks for the ability to apply censorship rules to everyone. They should be bitch slapped and sent out of the room.
...but there isn't some corporate or security fearmonger asshole somewhere (who might be, in the current mindset, worth thousands of "normal" people) that said "OMG TERRISTS?!?"
Please don't echo the Microsoft buffoonery of calling the GPL "viral".
If it's viral it's a virus you choose to contract.
I want more life, father.
It is an instant alienation for a certain percentage of people.
You should of heard this redneck wail in Lowes the other day when the customer service desk said he needed to call Lowes customer support about a refund problem. He didn't want to call no a-rabs.
Really... so what. That's part of doing business.
The OP is right... the way outsourcing works it's virtually a P.R. stunt. You might as well hire McDonald's employees away (and give them no training) and keep the jobs in the country. The quality will be the same.
Yeah. The fairy comes on your 18th birthday and you magically have common sense.
Except where I live, where apparently we have anti-fairy guns to protect the adults from the common sense fairies.
Don't go into a "strict constitutionalist" spiel. No one that claims to be one actually is one right now. Scalia is only one when it benefits his buddies.
I am sorry but I am incapable of optimism that this version of SCOTUS can do anything right.
I have no clue which way this can go. I believe that members of this court are highly compromised by their dealings in the corporate world and their personal holdings. If they weren't you wouldn't see stuff happening like Thomas making rulings that affect his previous employer.
The fact is the huge elephant in the room is corporate ties in each and every case. They vote along with that pro-corporate bias even if there isn't a meeting where someone tells the "you vote like this."
This is going to be a telling case. It will show the underbelly of this court.
you win the false choice fallacy of the day award.
No one said profit is evil. What was said that some things worth doing might not be profitable.
Like every copyright case initiated by one of the big names, like the *AAs or big corporate publishing houses, this case is INTENSELY idiotic.
Google got the good end of this. Basically the corporate assholes can shoot themselves in the foot and pull their material... and lose money in the long run. Google can provide a free publicity service or you can take your ball and go home.
What a difficult choice....
That's a bit unfair, don't you think? You're asking Edison to know the future here. He didn't have The Doctor to take him away in the TARDIS and show him what the consequences of pollution would be. They probably didn't think there would be any consequences and they probably had no idea how widespread the use of energy would be.
Energy use makes their buddies money.
It's that simple. Don't talk shit about "conspiracy theories" either because it's very straight forward and they're doing it in the open.
Except it draws attention from issues worth talking about.
You can't talk about corporate domination of congress when you're talking other bullshit like this.
You can't take anything a news source like NYT, CNN, or any of groups take seriously.
Reporting about everything is bad these days, but it is especially true in tech. Reporters are some of the most arrogant people on the planet and they are *sure* that they know more than the techs do. They're to arrogant to let someone with real knowledge look over their work and say whether it makes any sense.
The fact that they would get a good percentage of it wrong comes to no surprise. CNN, for instance, has mentioned Linux on air maybe two times in the last decade. Meanwhile, they can't go two minutes without mentioning Apple.
Then there was the Fox news story last week that has the phrase "so-called patch" in it. Yeah... patches are so new and mysterious.
CNN has no story on this.
It goes against their "wanking off to apple" policy.
Yeah. This basically acclerates the process that's already started with H.R. drones. Getting hired is already about who can game the process the best and H.R. bozos try to use a strict set of rules to put people into boxes instead using simple human judgement. This just codifies it even further.
The ideal corporate employee puts themselves last.
They want robots they can put in carbonite at night and not pay.