Actually it's quite plausible that tech staff isn't allowed to do this. Maybe the district has a contract with Microsoft, or the school regulations prohibit changing a standard district-wide setup.
Many people install TVs and DVDs, as well as PCs in their cars now, with TFT screens. Should we also see screens banned?
In many, if not most, states it is already illegal to install a video screen, except for navigation devices, in such a manner that they can be seen by the driver with the vehicle in motion.
We only need ONE law against distracted or otherwise observed unsafe driving. Let people do what they want and if they don't take precautions to be safe about it *then* you can ticket them.
I don't know of any studies but I have observed that the nature of conversation using those push-to-talk devices is considerably different than that of cell phones. Particularly, people using PTT devices usually expect there to be longer gaps in the conversation rather than the immediate responses typical of cell phone conversations. PTT conversations also tend to be much less chatty. I suspect these differences mean that PTT conversations have lower cognitive load requirements and thus impact driving less.
People are different, conditions are different there is no one golden "rule" that is going to make any sense or be fairly applied to everyone or even most everyone.
I have read that alcoholics learn to function better than others with alcohol in their system. So, should alcoholics be allowed to drive drunk or should the same rule apply to all?
After phone use is made illegal in cars- what's next? GPS? Music? Food? Kids? Cold medication? Pets?
And I bet the cable companies/isp's would not like the idea of joe sixpack competing with them.
Exactly. And that's why the telcos and cable companies have gotten laws passed that make this illegal in most places. That's why nobody is doing things like this in most places, it's not that nobody ever thought of it.
So, when a gangster orders an execution only the one doing the ordering should be held responsible and not the actual gunman? I think most people would hold both responsible.
Because ISP's don't have "common carrier" status. Instead, they're protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which protects them from liability from the actions of their users while at the same time allowing them to censor whatever they want. They truly get to have their cake and eat it too.
The problem is you're seeing "government" is a single abstract entity. But government is made up of all those petty civil servants at the local council, policemen, judges and so on. Would you be happy to have a file with full details of your children sent to every policeman in your city?
Actually, the government includes all government employees. Even the people who pick up my garbage are part of the government. I still wouldn't want for them to have all my personal information though and often shred sensitive documents before throwing them away.
And saying I have nothing to hide from the government is also different from saying I have nothing to hide from you.
Would that be the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" (Abraham Lincoln speaking of democracies)? So you have no objections if "the people" know your bank account information, medical history, my cell phone calls, etc?
I understand your whole argument except the 'free software' implication. I don't see how paying for software, or getting it for free, has anything to do with one's ability to preserve privacy and political security.
You're confusing "free software" with freeware. Freeware is just software you don't have to pay for. "Free software" is software that gives you freedom. I think it should be called Freedomnware instead.
Someone other than the fan has the exclusive right to control performances and distribution of recordings.
And that someone in this case is the holder of the copyright on the song, which is Radiohead, not Prince.
You as a fan cannot seek copyright protection on a work that is not yours
And neither can Prince. The copyright belongs to Radiohead.
The fan is not permitted to prepare derivative works of the song (because it belongs to Radiohead),...
Not quite true. They can with the copyright holder's (i.e. Radiohead's) permission. Prince has nothing to say in that matter despite his claims to the contrary.
or the performance arrangement of Prince (because that belongs to Prince).
Only in a "fixed" form, not a performance.
Yes, it does. Without a recording crew present, the question of the performance would go back to whether the arrangement itself was fixed. Because there was such an authorized crew present for the purpose of preparing a recording of the performance, this question is irrelevant. Fans do not get to distribute recordings of that performance without permission, explicit or implicit.
You won't find any support for that theory in US copyright law.
RTFA. Prince's rendition was recorded in a fixed medium as authorized by Prince. That's the whole nature of this issue--unauthorized derivative recordings.
I did RTFA. He may have a copyright on that recording (depending on his license from Radiohead), but still not the recording made by the fan. The recording made by the fan was not derived from the recording made by Prince and so is not a derivative work of such.
If there hadn't been a professional recording crew with him, you'd be closer to having a point.
What kind of crew Prince had with him makes no difference in US copyright law.
The performance may include a derivative arrangement of the music and/or lyrics (and likely does, given the notably different styles of Prince and Radiohead), and that is a matter of copyright.
I suggest you read the US copyright laws until they sink in and note the requirement that a work be "fixed" in a physical medium to be copyrighted. If Prince published his own DVD of his performance, that would be in a fixed medium and he could have a copyright on that DVD. But the performance itself, regardless of original content, is not copyrightable.
Unless the performance has creative elements which stand on their own,
Still not. A work must be fixed in a tangible medium to be copyrighted under US law. Otherwise people could claim that everything they ever do or say is copyrighted and pretty soon people would be suing each other for walking down the street.
No, performance rights to a copyrighted work are covered, not the performance itself. There is no such thing under US law as a copyright on a performance.
There are plenty of SMS text messages sent/received by complete idiots that spend 99c per message. I am not attempting to troll here either. Those people are COMPLETE IDIOTS to spend that kind of money on a simple text message.
If they have no choice but to receive messages, how does that make them idiots?
Slashdot Mirror
Neither is Marxism.
Which is quite a bit different from "illegal".
In many, if not most, states it is already illegal to install a video screen, except for navigation devices, in such a manner that they can be seen by the driver with the vehicle in motion.
So, we should repeal the DUI laws?
I don't know of any studies but I have observed that the nature of conversation using those push-to-talk devices is considerably different than that of cell phones. Particularly, people using PTT devices usually expect there to be longer gaps in the conversation rather than the immediate responses typical of cell phone conversations. PTT conversations also tend to be much less chatty. I suspect these differences mean that PTT conversations have lower cognitive load requirements and thus impact driving less.
I have read that alcoholics learn to function better than others with alcohol in their system. So, should alcoholics be allowed to drive drunk or should the same rule apply to all?
Alcohol?
Many scientific studies have said otherwise. Where's yours?
Exactly. And that's why the telcos and cable companies have gotten laws passed that make this illegal in most places. That's why nobody is doing things like this in most places, it's not that nobody ever thought of it.
And who's watching the watchers?
So, when a gangster orders an execution only the one doing the ordering should be held responsible and not the actual gunman? I think most people would hold both responsible.
I presume you're referring to the FBI.