Yeah, after I posted that it occurred to me that it may be a quote or literary reference rather than late-night math. I once had friend try to tell me -- very poorly and at excruciating length -- all about The Hitchhiker's Guide, which completely killed any interest I may have otherwise had of ever thinking of it again, much less reading it. Unfortunately this can be something of a handicap here on slashdot!
Eaxctly. And as you said, who among that crowd would have been following Roppo anyway? Bieber, yes. Roppo, um no. It's hard to imagine that Roppo could have added anything at all to police efforts even had he fully and happily complied.
The whole thing is pretty unclear, and TFA just makes it worse:
Bieber’s Twitter account–presumably the one the cops wanted Roppo to use...
On what basis is Kafka/AllThingsD making this presumption? Nothing else I've seen "presumes" this.
In any case, it would seem very odd that Roppo would be in a position, having been arrested, to tweet "...the police have already arrested one person from my camp..."
As a more sensationalist/gossip-y paper, I certainly wouldn't put up any of my own money that they're right. But there's no reason to think they got it wrong.
The NY Daily News, says (according to police) you were right the first time (except they didn't specify the use of twitter):
James Roppo, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.
For clarifications sake, I don't know if this guy really did send the tweets after the crowd dispersed completely. Its something I heard on another site.
Actually, according NYDailyNews, you're right:
James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.
The guy continued to send out tweets that he was signing autographs after the giant crowd dispersed. He was being an asshole and a danger to public safety to satisfy his Internet ego.
Where did you read/hear this? I've read several articles/accounts of this, but I haven't seen anything that says the guy (Roppo) tried to incite the crowd or kept promoting the event after police had shut it down. (Seriously: I'm not saying you're wrong -- I just looking for your source).
Excellent point here. The whole thing is mere window dressing.
A supervisor is unlikely to know much more than the original officer. Thus it seems high likely that if the front-line officer thought something on your machine was "questionable," the supervisor will not know any better than him/her, and will authorize holding and/or copying your laptop.
The concept being that the content of the lectures you attended has an agreed upon finite value: You paid a semester's tuition for them.
No -- the "contract" was to pay someone to deliver a service, i.e. to teach. The "content" only has value (under law) as either: 1) some tangible expression (i.e. a work of some form of authorship); or 2) as a patent (for creating some new and useful thing or method) or trade secret.
Since #2 obviously does not apply here, the only consideration is copyright. As long as the student wasn't copying from some actual (tangible) expressive work created by the teacher, the notes belong to the student, who can do with them as he/she wishes.
If the "content" could be "devalued" as suggested, then merely sharing something you've learned (i.e. paid to learn) with someone (e.g. showing someone how to work a math problem, telling your mother what you learned in school today, etc.) would also be an "actionable" devaluation.
Under U.S. copyright law, she's the creator and you are acting under her direction so your writing is her work, fixed in a tangible form.
NO.
First: Copyright does NOT protect ideas, concepts, processes, etc. This is true regardless of the medium or form in which they're conveyed.
What copyright does protect, and only protects, is the actual expression. As the Copyright Act states: "[protected works are] original works of authorship in any tangible medium of expression..." [my emphasis].
If she wrote a textbook on economics, it would be protected. If she wrote a poem about economics, it would be covered by copyright. If she made a movie about economics and composed the soundtrack to it, they would be protected by copyright.
Second: "Acting under her direction" is meaningless and irrelevant. Unless the student copied her actual notes, her textbook (i.e. one that she wrote, not her copy of a text by someone else), her rap CD, or some other work of authorship, there was no copyright to violate.
IANAL, but it seems to that it would be a form of prior restraint (and therefore contrary to the 1st Amendment) for a law enforcement agency to declare that an image is illegal. They could charge someone for possession and/or transmission of it, but it seems to me that declaring something illegal like that at least requires a judicial determination.
Of course, I'm assuming the Constitution is still in effect.
Having browser.tabs.loadFolderAndReplace support restored would be nice, too.
This was the deal breaker for me, and the reason I reverted back to 2.x. On the surface it may seem a minor thing, but it broke the very way a lot (judging by the bug reports) of people browse.
But what really pissed me off was the way the devs so blithely failed (deliberately or not) to even try to understand all the vehement objections to their having removed an extant config option. Did they not read the heated forum threads and bug reports that prompted its creation in the first place?!
Glad to know there's now an add-on to fix it, but what they really need to do is *put it back*! Yeah I know they have to rewrite it, but if they hadn't just blown off all the concerns that led to it being added in the first place this wouldn't be the problem that is.
Second: Article II is not by any means the whole picture here. The President takes an oath to "preserve. protect, and defend the Constitution" -- i.e. the whole Constitution. And yeah, that includes those pesky little Bill of Rights amendments.
Oh good, another presidential wannabe whose copy of the Constitution apparently abruptly ends at Article II.
Dear Senator McCain,
Please obtain a new copy of the Constitution, and continue reading it all the way through Amendment XXVII.
Thank you,
The American People
One intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he had no evidence of activity by terrorist cells or widespread organized crime in virtual worlds. There have been numerous instances of fraud, harassment and other virtual crimes.
The next sentence is the real kicker though: Some computer users have used their avatars to destroy virtual buildings.
Dear God! Virtual buildings -- just destroyed in a puff of virtual smoke!! We have to put a stop to this madness! Send in the CIA/FBI/DHS!
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX), Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA), and Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Tom Feeney (R-FL), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Steve Chabot (R-OH), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Ric Keller (R-FL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), and Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced the "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property ("PRO IP") Act of 2007" to combat what they say is an increasing problem...
How I wish it was a single-party problem; at least the solution would be clear. The sad truth however is that legislators of all stripes are in on it. Even worse, so is the judiciary (including the Supreme Court, in decisions like this ), the branch "whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void" [The Federalist, No. 78 (A. Hamilton)].
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, after I posted that it occurred to me that it may be a quote or literary reference rather than late-night math. I once had friend try to tell me -- very poorly and at excruciating length -- all about The Hitchhiker's Guide, which completely killed any interest I may have otherwise had of ever thinking of it again, much less reading it. Unfortunately this can be something of a handicap here on slashdot!
I have a feeling you're going to want to take this one back ;)
YES. YES!! Good God -- FINALLY!!
See below -- maybe he used @IslandRecords ? It has one tweet on bieber.
# Wanna meet @JustinBieber?? Get the details now- http://bit.ly/4DRUmb
2:41 PM Nov 19th from TweetDeck
But that's all I've seen. What happens if someone delete tweets (I don't do twitter)? Does it leave a notice of deletion?
Eaxctly. And as you said, who among that crowd would have been following Roppo anyway? Bieber, yes. Roppo, um no. It's hard to imagine that Roppo could have added anything at all to police efforts even had he fully and happily complied.
Bieber’s Twitter account–presumably the one the cops wanted Roppo to use...
On what basis is Kafka/AllThingsD making this presumption? Nothing else I've seen "presumes" this.
In any case, it would seem very odd that Roppo would be in a position, having been arrested, to tweet "...the police have already arrested one person from my camp..."
As a more sensationalist/gossip-y paper, I certainly wouldn't put up any of my own money that they're right. But there's no reason to think they got it wrong.
James Roppo, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.
These are Justin Bieber's tweets, not James Roppo's (the label exec who was arrested)
For clarifications sake, I don't know if this guy really did send the tweets after the crowd dispersed completely. Its something I heard on another site.
Actually, according NYDailyNews, you're right:
James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.
Never mind; I read below.
The guy continued to send out tweets that he was signing autographs after the giant crowd dispersed. He was being an asshole and a danger to public safety to satisfy his Internet ego.
Where did you read/hear this? I've read several articles/accounts of this, but I haven't seen anything that says the guy (Roppo) tried to incite the crowd or kept promoting the event after police had shut it down. (Seriously: I'm not saying you're wrong -- I just looking for your source).
A supervisor is unlikely to know much more than the original officer. Thus it seems high likely that if the front-line officer thought something on your machine was "questionable," the supervisor will not know any better than him/her, and will authorize holding and/or copying your laptop.
The concept being that the content of the lectures you attended has an agreed upon finite value: You paid a semester's tuition for them.
No -- the "contract" was to pay someone to deliver a service, i.e. to teach. The "content" only has value (under law) as either: 1) some tangible expression (i.e. a work of some form of authorship); or 2) as a patent (for creating some new and useful thing or method) or trade secret.
Since #2 obviously does not apply here, the only consideration is copyright. As long as the student wasn't copying from some actual (tangible) expressive work created by the teacher, the notes belong to the student, who can do with them as he/she wishes.
If the "content" could be "devalued" as suggested, then merely sharing something you've learned (i.e. paid to learn) with someone (e.g. showing someone how to work a math problem, telling your mother what you learned in school today, etc.) would also be an "actionable" devaluation.
NO.
First: Copyright does NOT protect ideas, concepts, processes, etc. This is true regardless of the medium or form in which they're conveyed.
What copyright does protect, and only protects, is the actual expression. As the Copyright Act states: "[protected works are] original works of authorship in any tangible medium of expression..." [my emphasis].
If she wrote a textbook on economics, it would be protected. If she wrote a poem about economics, it would be covered by copyright. If she made a movie about economics and composed the soundtrack to it, they would be protected by copyright.
Second: "Acting under her direction" is meaningless and irrelevant. Unless the student copied her actual notes, her textbook (i.e. one that she wrote, not her copy of a text by someone else), her rap CD, or some other work of authorship, there was no copyright to violate.
I agree completely. A philosophy of science class should be a required part of every college's curriculum.
IANAL, but it seems to that it would be a form of prior restraint (and therefore contrary to the 1st Amendment) for a law enforcement agency to declare that an image is illegal. They could charge someone for possession and/or transmission of it, but it seems to me that declaring something illegal like that at least requires a judicial determination. Of course, I'm assuming the Constitution is still in effect.
Having browser.tabs.loadFolderAndReplace support restored would be nice, too.
This was the deal breaker for me, and the reason I reverted back to 2.x. On the surface it may seem a minor thing, but it broke the very way a lot (judging by the bug reports) of people browse.
But what really pissed me off was the way the devs so blithely failed (deliberately or not) to even try to understand all the vehement objections to their having removed an extant config option. Did they not read the heated forum threads and bug reports that prompted its creation in the first place?!
Glad to know there's now an add-on to fix it, but what they really need to do is *put it back*! Yeah I know they have to rewrite it, but if they hadn't just blown off all the concerns that led to it being added in the first place this wouldn't be the problem that is.
First: Uh, yes, we can.
Second: Article II is not by any means the whole picture here. The President takes an oath to "preserve. protect, and defend the Constitution" -- i.e. the whole Constitution. And yeah, that includes those pesky little Bill of Rights amendments.
Dear Senator McCain,
Please obtain a new copy of the Constitution, and continue reading it all the way through Amendment XXVII.
Thank you,
The American People
One intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he had no evidence of activity by terrorist cells or widespread organized crime in virtual worlds. There have been numerous instances of fraud, harassment and other virtual crimes.
The next sentence is the real kicker though:
Some computer users have used their avatars to destroy virtual buildings.
Dear God! Virtual buildings -- just destroyed in a puff of virtual smoke!! We have to put a stop to this madness! Send in the CIA/FBI/DHS!
From the House Judiciary Committee's report on the bill:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX), Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA), and Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Tom Feeney (R-FL), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Steve Chabot (R-OH), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Ric Keller (R-FL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), and Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced the "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property ("PRO IP") Act of 2007" to combat what they say is an increasing problem...
How I wish it was a single-party problem; at least the solution would be clear. The sad truth however is that legislators of all stripes are in on it. Even worse, so is the judiciary (including the Supreme Court, in decisions like this ), the branch "whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void" [The Federalist, No. 78 (A. Hamilton)].
Great! Just great! Now I'm going to have Edith and Archie stuck in my head all night long! but at least I'll be lovin' their new lyrics...
MTBF: 2 million hours.
Doesn't exactly address your concern, but should give us some idea.