I have a friend who has been to every Giants home game for at least 20 years. After every game, he goes home and watches the game he recorded on TV. His take is that being at the game is a lot of fun, but the one thing you can't really do is tell what is happening with the game. He also says that the new stadiums are better, because they have giant TV screens showing the TV coverage.
That line does not mean what you think it does. It means that you can not complain to the FCC about interference with the device, not that the device must continue operating normally. That is as opposed to licensed spectrum, where you CAN complain to the FCC if you are interfered with.
FCC certification does not mean the devices should be able to cope. The line 'the device must accept any and all interference' means 'it is not the FCC's problem if this device operating in unlicensed spectrum is interfered with'.
Your example has absolutely nothing to do with the actual circumstances. Syria is accused of crimes against humanity. As a result, sanctions have been placed on Syria. The purpose of the sanctions is to make life difficult for the government of Syria. By ignoring the sanctions, you are making their life a little less difficult.
Why do some people enjoy spending all day cooking a nice meal when there are perfectly good restaurants nearby? Why go camping and sleep in a tent when there are hotels available? In each case, the answer is not just to have food, or just to have a place to sleep, or just to communicate, it is because the process of doing those things is something they enjoy.
Bullshit. If you steal a kiss, is a kiss missing? How about if you steal a peek? Steal away? Steal one's thunder? Steal a scene? Steal one's idea? The one unifying theme to all definitions of steal is 'without permission' or 'surreptitiously'. 'Missing afterwards' appears in no definition of steal.
In common english, 'stealing' is a valid word for copyright infringement. And if you are going to say it is not common english but a legal term, again bullshit. The legal term for what you are describing is larceny, or sometimes theft. Theft can mean either larceny OR stealing, they are not the same thing.
I see nothing in there that is even marginally better for either authors or readers. It is totally unworkable. Do you really think the general public is going to shell out money for an as-yet-unwritten book? What is the magic amount that must be raised? How much time can elapse to raise the magic amount? What about people who didn't pay? I guess since you are so anti-copyright even people who didn't pay would be allowed to have a copy. What incentive is there for anyone to pay anything under those circumstances? Why would an author encourage the copying of their book by people who didn't pay?
Furthermore, anyone who wants to try such a system is perfectly free to do it today. The fact that by far most authors don't choose such a method says volumes about what they think of such an idea.
And that is exactly what the pirates are: unauthorized publishers making unauthorized copies. And since no-one has as of yet offered a workable solution for your 'best' situation, we are stuck with something that is not the best, but is workable.
The point is that the 'drm is not about protecting content but business models' is stupid. There is no need to protect the content if it is not part of the business model.
The scarcity is works worth reading, not the number of copies of books. Copyright was created to help eliminate that scarcity. Authors who write for money (which no doubt includes many very respected and/or popular authors) will just find something else to do if they can't make money off their writings. And that will be a loss for all of us.
There are not zero recorded incidents. In July a report was issued documenting 75 instances. The congressional study was in 2000 - the number and varieties of devices has shot up since then.
The problem with relying on anecdotal evidence, which you are doing, is this. Right now, the rule is 'turn off all devices'. Most people do this. A few people will forget, and a few more think they're special and don't do it. On a flight with 200 people, maybe 5-10 devices are left on when they shouldn't be. Now, imagine the rule did not exist. On a flight with 200 people there could easily be 300 devices, between phones, tablets, laptops, games, music players, etc. Do you think your anecdotal evidence of 5-10 devices only causing 75 incidents will still hold true when there are 30 times as many devices active?
The point about GoGo being active is immaterial. The plane was tested and certified with that device active. That is not the same as saying the plane was tested and certified with all devices active.
What do they call an 'incident'? A crash? 10 seconds of Googling found a report of 75 incidents, including some where the malfunction stopped when the flight crew found devices that were on and had them turned off.
Also, there is a difference between a single, properly functioning device, and the many hundreds of devices that are likely to be found on a real flight. And those several hundred probably include at least a few devices which are not functioning properly.
When dealing with a life-safety issue, the proper course of action is 'irrefutably prove that a problem does not exist', not 'verifiable evidence that a problem does exist'. This would of course include testimony from the designers and manufacturers of the avionics as to exactly why there is not a problem, and what would happen if there were a problem. And no, a couple of TV guys who are not experts in avionics, electronics, or EMI doing some simple experiments and trying to gather anecdotal evidence is not irrefutable proof.
You seem to have a problem distinguishing between a transfer of property (purchase) and limited use of someone else's property. They are not the same. Ever. As for your specific examples:
A bullhorn is a physical object which is purchased. Except for design elements, which may be patented, etc, the maker has transferred the thing to you when you purchased it. It is yours. Do what you want with it.
A book publisher (actually, copyright law) can and does indeed tell you how you may read the book - you may not read it in a public performance, you may not make audio books of a reading, you can not create a script from it etc.
A restaurant has zero responsibility to provide meals to anyone. The only thing they may not do is refuse service based solely on some very limited criteria - race, color, religion, etc (things that a person can not or can not be expected to change). They can refuse service because you don't have a reservation, aren't dressed appropriately, are drunk and bothering other patrons, skipped out without paying last time, or damn near any other reason.
If you are going to make analogies, at least use comparable ones. Can a landlord restrict how many people live in an apartment (yes). Can a landlord say 'no commercial use of the space' (yes). Can an car leasing company limit the number of miles driven (yes). Can a newspaper decide who gets published and who doesn't (yes).
Of course, since the other party did not agree, and did not even have the opportunity to agree or disagree, that action is completely meaningless and is pretty much fraud.
You missed an option. Instead of going back and forth, either party can say 'this is my final offer, take it or leave it'. That is what the 'disagree' button is for. The EULA is their final offer. Take it or leave it.
Except it doesn't work that way in reality. The simple fact is that the ISPs don't WANT to compete with each other, because it is too costly to do so. On slashdot you hear a lot of whining about monopolies keeping competitors out, etc. Ever hear an ISP complain about that? In my area Verizon was making a lot of noise with FiOS. They sent out all kinds of advertising, got people to urge their local governments to allow them to offer service, etc. Then, when they actually got permission to deploy, they sent out letters saying 'on second thought, we can't make enough money competing against the local cable companies, so we are not going to deploy'.
No company (that wants to stay in business anyway) is going to invest the huge capital required to build a competing network if the only way they can get customers is compete on price. That is how the government-created monopolies got created in the first place: the choice is either monopoly service, or no service at all.
So that leaves the 'make them share the wires' option. Have you ever met anyone whose phone bill went down when they allowed you to pick your own provider (other than for a brief period of time when all kinds of fly-by-night outfits showed up offering low rates, before they went out of business)?
Also, note that in this case the assert did NOT tell them 'where the bad thing happened'. If it did, it would not be 'an as-yet unidentified network event'. The assert, in this case, is simply saying 'at some point in the past a bad thing happened, and I just figured that out now'.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as use of unlicensed bands go, yes. That is kind of the point of unlicensed operation.
I have a friend who has been to every Giants home game for at least 20 years. After every game, he goes home and watches the game he recorded on TV. His take is that being at the game is a lot of fun, but the one thing you can't really do is tell what is happening with the game. He also says that the new stadiums are better, because they have giant TV screens showing the TV coverage.
That line does not mean what you think it does. It means that you can not complain to the FCC about interference with the device, not that the device must continue operating normally. That is as opposed to licensed spectrum, where you CAN complain to the FCC if you are interfered with.
FCC certification does not mean the devices should be able to cope. The line 'the device must accept any and all interference' means 'it is not the FCC's problem if this device operating in unlicensed spectrum is interfered with'.
We are not talking about 'essential goods', we are talking about web hosting for the Syrian government.
Your example has absolutely nothing to do with the actual circumstances. Syria is accused of crimes against humanity. As a result, sanctions have been placed on Syria. The purpose of the sanctions is to make life difficult for the government of Syria. By ignoring the sanctions, you are making their life a little less difficult.
Why do some people enjoy spending all day cooking a nice meal when there are perfectly good restaurants nearby? Why go camping and sleep in a tent when there are hotels available? In each case, the answer is not just to have food, or just to have a place to sleep, or just to communicate, it is because the process of doing those things is something they enjoy.
Bullshit. If you steal a kiss, is a kiss missing? How about if you steal a peek? Steal away? Steal one's thunder? Steal a scene? Steal one's idea? The one unifying theme to all definitions of steal is 'without permission' or 'surreptitiously'. 'Missing afterwards' appears in no definition of steal.
In common english, 'stealing' is a valid word for copyright infringement. And if you are going to say it is not common english but a legal term, again bullshit. The legal term for what you are describing is larceny, or sometimes theft. Theft can mean either larceny OR stealing, they are not the same thing.
I see nothing in there that is even marginally better for either authors or readers. It is totally unworkable. Do you really think the general public is going to shell out money for an as-yet-unwritten book? What is the magic amount that must be raised? How much time can elapse to raise the magic amount? What about people who didn't pay? I guess since you are so anti-copyright even people who didn't pay would be allowed to have a copy. What incentive is there for anyone to pay anything under those circumstances? Why would an author encourage the copying of their book by people who didn't pay?
Furthermore, anyone who wants to try such a system is perfectly free to do it today. The fact that by far most authors don't choose such a method says volumes about what they think of such an idea.
And that is exactly what the pirates are: unauthorized publishers making unauthorized copies. And since no-one has as of yet offered a workable solution for your 'best' situation, we are stuck with something that is not the best, but is workable.
The point is that the 'drm is not about protecting content but business models' is stupid. There is no need to protect the content if it is not part of the business model.
The scarcity is works worth reading, not the number of copies of books. Copyright was created to help eliminate that scarcity. Authors who write for money (which no doubt includes many very respected and/or popular authors) will just find something else to do if they can't make money off their writings. And that will be a loss for all of us.
How do you separate 'selling content' from 'business model'? Content IS the business model.
All Kindles do that
There are not zero recorded incidents. In July a report was issued documenting 75 instances. The congressional study was in 2000 - the number and varieties of devices has shot up since then.
The problem with relying on anecdotal evidence, which you are doing, is this. Right now, the rule is 'turn off all devices'. Most people do this. A few people will forget, and a few more think they're special and don't do it. On a flight with 200 people, maybe 5-10 devices are left on when they shouldn't be. Now, imagine the rule did not exist. On a flight with 200 people there could easily be 300 devices, between phones, tablets, laptops, games, music players, etc. Do you think your anecdotal evidence of 5-10 devices only causing 75 incidents will still hold true when there are 30 times as many devices active?
The point about GoGo being active is immaterial. The plane was tested and certified with that device active. That is not the same as saying the plane was tested and certified with all devices active.
What do they call an 'incident'? A crash? 10 seconds of Googling found a report of 75 incidents, including some where the malfunction stopped when the flight crew found devices that were on and had them turned off.
Also, there is a difference between a single, properly functioning device, and the many hundreds of devices that are likely to be found on a real flight. And those several hundred probably include at least a few devices which are not functioning properly.
When dealing with a life-safety issue, the proper course of action is 'irrefutably prove that a problem does not exist', not 'verifiable evidence that a problem does exist'. This would of course include testimony from the designers and manufacturers of the avionics as to exactly why there is not a problem, and what would happen if there were a problem. And no, a couple of TV guys who are not experts in avionics, electronics, or EMI doing some simple experiments and trying to gather anecdotal evidence is not irrefutable proof.
Please point out which articles in the Constitution set forth those rights.
Those things do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
You seem to have a problem distinguishing between a transfer of property (purchase) and limited use of someone else's property. They are not the same. Ever. As for your specific examples:
A bullhorn is a physical object which is purchased. Except for design elements, which may be patented, etc, the maker has transferred the thing to you when you purchased it. It is yours. Do what you want with it.
A book publisher (actually, copyright law) can and does indeed tell you how you may read the book - you may not read it in a public performance, you may not make audio books of a reading, you can not create a script from it etc.
A restaurant has zero responsibility to provide meals to anyone. The only thing they may not do is refuse service based solely on some very limited criteria - race, color, religion, etc (things that a person can not or can not be expected to change). They can refuse service because you don't have a reservation, aren't dressed appropriately, are drunk and bothering other patrons, skipped out without paying last time, or damn near any other reason.
If you are going to make analogies, at least use comparable ones. Can a landlord restrict how many people live in an apartment (yes). Can a landlord say 'no commercial use of the space' (yes). Can an car leasing company limit the number of miles driven (yes). Can a newspaper decide who gets published and who doesn't (yes).
Of course, since the other party did not agree, and did not even have the opportunity to agree or disagree, that action is completely meaningless and is pretty much fraud.
Since they already have been upheld in court, you are wrong.
You missed an option. Instead of going back and forth, either party can say 'this is my final offer, take it or leave it'. That is what the 'disagree' button is for. The EULA is their final offer. Take it or leave it.
Reconsider what is 'an essential service', or reconsider what are 'disagreeable terms'.
Except it doesn't work that way in reality. The simple fact is that the ISPs don't WANT to compete with each other, because it is too costly to do so. On slashdot you hear a lot of whining about monopolies keeping competitors out, etc. Ever hear an ISP complain about that? In my area Verizon was making a lot of noise with FiOS. They sent out all kinds of advertising, got people to urge their local governments to allow them to offer service, etc. Then, when they actually got permission to deploy, they sent out letters saying 'on second thought, we can't make enough money competing against the local cable companies, so we are not going to deploy'.
No company (that wants to stay in business anyway) is going to invest the huge capital required to build a competing network if the only way they can get customers is compete on price. That is how the government-created monopolies got created in the first place: the choice is either monopoly service, or no service at all.
So that leaves the 'make them share the wires' option. Have you ever met anyone whose phone bill went down when they allowed you to pick your own provider (other than for a brief period of time when all kinds of fly-by-night outfits showed up offering low rates, before they went out of business)?
Look up 'dust bowl'
Also, note that in this case the assert did NOT tell them 'where the bad thing happened'. If it did, it would not be 'an as-yet unidentified network event'. The assert, in this case, is simply saying 'at some point in the past a bad thing happened, and I just figured that out now'.