Thing is there really should be some kind of "symbolic" security if you want to call it theft. If I connect to your webserver and try to guess the password, I have no problem with that being illegal no matter how easy the password. If I connect to your webserver and just download some documents which are up and available freely to the world that shouldn't be illegal even if you didn't *mean* to post them up.
There was a story a while back about some AU reporter who found documents up and available to the world on a government site with no authentication and they called it hacking because they hadn't intended him to have access.
Information is inherently different to physical things. If I walk into a classroom and see something interesting left written on the board I shouldn't be a thief for reading it even if the person who wrote it meant to delete it. If I pick the lock on the writers office and go through their files that's a different matter.
If I crack your wep key and break into your network that should absolutley be a crime. If on the other hand I simply connect to your open unsecured network that shouldn't be a crime.
When it comes to information : Failure to secure information in any way shape form should absolutely make accessing it legal since you're effectively publishing it. Failure to secure information *effectively* is a different matter, if you circumvent even weak protections you know dammn well you're doing it.
Picking the lock on a shop door and going in vs walking in the open door of a shop.
In practice the manager bitching about you not answering his emails within 30 seconds at 11 o clock at night is not the person who's decided to cut you off your remote email. The first will see it as your fault for not dealing with the problem somehow. The second will not be willing to hand over the new computer equipment and will think it's your fault for not leaning over and taking it from behind.
Absolutely true. Unfortunately when employers have been getting a free ride with employees paying for their own equipment in the past they start to expect it no matter how unreasonable.
So just to be safe you'd probably be safest to go all the way to the top of the food chain. Just to be safe and certain that the person in question has the authority required.
Of you can get stuck between a rock and a hard place where the company rules say you can't give your password to your superior, your superior want it and if you give it to them then you're handing out access credentials to unauthorized people(possibly illegal) or denying access(possibly illegal)
Shoving your head firmly up your own arse never convinced or educated anyone. Conduct yourself like a reasonable human being rather than a pompous dickhead and may get more people to listen to you.
Childish name calling adds absolutely zero weight to your arguments.
Personally I find it more worrying how passwords are gradually being considered to be like physical objects rather than what they really are- knowledge.
I think the difference between key(cryptographic) and key(physical) confuses people and muddies the issue in laymens minds.
The problem there is that you're unlinking the elements.
In the case of "Progress?" it's akin to considering the portrait and the text 2 seperate works. Since you're only commenting on the text "progress" and not on the portrait(a separate work) then the portrait couldn't be used in the parody.
It SHOULD be protected, I'm not arguing against that at all. I just think that if the case in TFA was extended then it wouldn't be.
If I wanted to parody a political ad which used a song and other pieces of art in the scene that would mean I essentially couldn't parody the ad without changing it so much as to be unrecognisable with a completely altered background music, completely altered background art etc etc to the point where the connection with what I want to parody is lost.
Spuns argument seems to be that THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS OF ANY KIND!!!!!!! (of course followed by a random insult to whoever he's talking to) He's such a joy to talk with.
Unfortunately shared culture and art are bound up intimately with politics. If I want a message to resonate with the voters then it must resonate with the art and culture which they are familiar with and of course then if you follow your approach of copyright being the most important right of all bar none then it puts politicians who are unpopular with artists at a tremendous disadvantage as their campaigns cannot be linked with popular art.
The whole vague fuzzy idea of fair use is there to try to deal with when the 2 come into conflict.
Say you're the president, I find a manuscript you wrote when you were younger talking about how Hitler had the right idea or why the KKK is great. You would own copyright on that. If we follow your undeviating view that copyright utterly trumps free speech I can never publish that document as it would violate your copyright. Of course you'd never grant me permission to publish it and destroy your career.
And such a situation would be an example of free speech vs copyright coming into conflict.
Of course I could just write about the document and never publish a line of it but that doesn't carry the tiniest fraction the weight of the original work nor the political impact.
From the summary: "a parody comments on the work itself; a satire uses the work to comment on something else"
"Progress?" says almost nothing about the original work. It doesn't comment on the art, only the person it promotes although it does almost completely copy the origional. It's all about the subject: Obama himself.
Wow, what stunning and clearly fantastic debating skills you have there. Strawman arguments of course are the best kind.
Ending every attempt at a point with an insult certainly adds real weight to your arguments.
Lets apply your same idiotic strawman to parody then. I could legally distribute Avatar by tacking on 'Avatar Suck!' at the end. Which is obviously not the case.
Please engage your brain before making remarks that, with a moment's thought, you would realise are nothing more than bile and logical fallacies.
and would not be protected because it's about the subject of the original rather than the original.
It certainly carries a very valid message.
That just strikes me as stifling since it effectively blocks the creation of satires which resonate with or which people associate with what you want to respond to.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is there really should be some kind of "symbolic" security if you want to call it theft.
If I connect to your webserver and try to guess the password, I have no problem with that being illegal no matter how easy the password.
If I connect to your webserver and just download some documents which are up and available freely to the world that shouldn't be illegal even if you didn't *mean* to post them up.
There was a story a while back about some AU reporter who found documents up and available to the world on a government site with no authentication and they called it hacking because they hadn't intended him to have access.
Information is inherently different to physical things.
If I walk into a classroom and see something interesting left written on the board I shouldn't be a thief for reading it even if the person who wrote it meant to delete it.
If I pick the lock on the writers office and go through their files that's a different matter.
If I crack your wep key and break into your network that should absolutley be a crime.
If on the other hand I simply connect to your open unsecured network that shouldn't be a crime.
When it comes to information :
Failure to secure information in any way shape form should absolutely make accessing it legal since you're effectively publishing it.
Failure to secure information *effectively* is a different matter, if you circumvent even weak protections you know dammn well you're doing it.
Picking the lock on a shop door and going in vs walking in the open door of a shop.
"how bout the constant attacks on DOD and DOE systems from china"
How about the constant attacks on everywhere from everywhere all the time.
"that they just might lose their minds if they lost it."
So that's where the canibles in all the post apoc movies come from. They're teenagers who lost access to facebook!
in theory absolutely true.
In practice the manager bitching about you not answering his emails within 30 seconds at 11 o clock at night is not the person who's decided to cut you off your remote email.
The first will see it as your fault for not dealing with the problem somehow.
The second will not be willing to hand over the new computer equipment and will think it's your fault for not leaning over and taking it from behind.
Absolutely true.
Unfortunately when employers have been getting a free ride with employees paying for their own equipment in the past they start to expect it no matter how unreasonable.
So just to be safe you'd probably be safest to go all the way to the top of the food chain.
Just to be safe and certain that the person in question has the authority required.
Of you can get stuck between a rock and a hard place where the company rules say you can't give your password to your superior, your superior want it and if you give it to them then you're handing out access credentials to unauthorized people(possibly illegal) or denying access(possibly illegal)
Some notable examples:
Forrest Gump
Babylon 5("if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits")
Return of the Jedi
Shoving your head firmly up your own arse never convinced or educated anyone.
Conduct yourself like a reasonable human being rather than a pompous dickhead and may get more people to listen to you.
Childish name calling adds absolutely zero weight to your arguments.
It's far easier to just arrest all the brown people.
Personally I find it more worrying how passwords are gradually being considered to be like physical objects rather than what they really are- knowledge.
I think the difference between key(cryptographic) and key(physical) confuses people and muddies the issue in laymens minds.
Isn't such a system insanely prone to failure?
One blip in the power supply and half the network is down and all the configs wiped.
sysadmins can be scarily dedicated to protecting the systems they're in charge of.
Which would explain quite a lot of it.
On the black market it's "don't trade this on our turf or we'll kill you"
or "Don't go buying from him or we'll kill you"
The more surprising part:
The guys selling crack on the street corner make slightly less per hour than the burger flippers at McDonalds.
Oh and they're far far far more likely to get killed on the job, their chances of death per year are a lot worse than soldiers serving in Iraq.
The problem there is that you're unlinking the elements.
In the case of "Progress?" it's akin to considering the portrait and the text 2 seperate works.
Since you're only commenting on the text "progress" and not on the portrait(a separate work) then the portrait couldn't be used in the parody.
It SHOULD be protected, I'm not arguing against that at all.
I just think that if the case in TFA was extended then it wouldn't be.
If I wanted to parody a political ad which used a song and other pieces of art in the scene that would mean I essentially couldn't parody the ad without changing it so much as to be unrecognisable with a completely altered background music, completely altered background art etc etc to the point where the connection with what I want to parody is lost.
Spuns argument seems to be that THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS OF ANY KIND!!!!!!!
(of course followed by a random insult to whoever he's talking to)
He's such a joy to talk with.
You mean I'd have to "use someone else's art" if only smaller chunks of it.
You just claimed that would never be necessary.
Unfortunately shared culture and art are bound up intimately with politics.
If I want a message to resonate with the voters then it must resonate with the art and culture which they are familiar with and of course then if you follow your approach of copyright being the most important right of all bar none then it puts politicians who are unpopular with artists at a tremendous disadvantage as their campaigns cannot be linked with popular art.
Isn't the GP in question my own post?
The whole vague fuzzy idea of fair use is there to try to deal with when the 2 come into conflict.
Say you're the president, I find a manuscript you wrote when you were younger talking about how Hitler had the right idea or why the KKK is great.
You would own copyright on that.
If we follow your undeviating view that copyright utterly trumps free speech I can never publish that document as it would violate your copyright.
Of course you'd never grant me permission to publish it and destroy your career.
And such a situation would be an example of free speech vs copyright coming into conflict.
Of course I could just write about the document and never publish a line of it but that doesn't carry the tiniest fraction the weight of the original work nor the political impact.
the argument is that you're profiting in the form of the song.
From the summary:
"a parody comments on the work itself; a satire uses the work to comment on something else"
"Progress?" says almost nothing about the original work. It doesn't comment on the art, only the person it promotes although it does almost completely copy the origional.
It's all about the subject: Obama himself.
Which would make it satire rather than parody.
Wow, what stunning and clearly fantastic debating skills you have there.
Strawman arguments of course are the best kind.
Ending every attempt at a point with an insult certainly adds real weight to your arguments.
Lets apply your same idiotic strawman to parody then.
I could legally distribute Avatar by tacking on 'Avatar Suck!' at the end.
Which is obviously not the case.
Please engage your brain before making remarks that, with a moment's thought, you would realise are nothing more than bile and logical fallacies.
True but you can't get the same impact.
The best example I could find are these 2:
http://mises.org/images4/ObamaProgress.jpg
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2008/05/340x_obama-progress-poster.jpg
Could the message be conveyed as simply and as clearly and achieve the same resonance otherwise?
this:
http://mises.org/images4/ObamaProgress.jpg
Which is certainly a derivative of this:
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2008/05/340x_obama-progress-poster.jpg
and would not be protected because it's about the subject of the original rather than the original.
It certainly carries a very valid message.
That just strikes me as stifling since it effectively blocks the creation of satires which resonate with or which people associate with what you want to respond to.