True, they don't need to do that, and they shouldn't be trying to get the user's permission to publish on their behalf. In the end, however, the users still did click through and agree to those terms.
I'd click cancel the instant that I saw that kind of required permission on any third party service that wanted to connect to my online social network.... as I said, if they are asking for a permission, then there's every reason to expect that they will use it somehow. If one doesn't know how they will use it, then they need to ask someone to find out.... or, just cross their fingers, and hope that they won't. Call me a hardass, but I don't have much sympathy for people who do the latter.
My objection is moral, because I perceive the respecting of copyright as the moral thing to do. I perceive it as such because the protections of copyright gives creators legal authority over copies of works that they would not otherwise have if they distributed their work at all. and this legal authority is what gives many of them incentive to publish in the first place, instead of censoring themselves, or limiting their audience to a select few.
The former and latter are imperative sentences, and not actually interjections. The middle one is name-calling and also not an interjection. "Fuck" and "Shit" by themselves can be interjections, however.
Exclamation points aren't what define interjections, by the way... this is a fairly common misconception.
The file that they have is an exact copy of the one that you uploaded... but that would be true even if you were the only uploader... since uploading does not send the receiver any physical media upon which the original copyrighted content might reside.
I'd hope you're right that it leads to some improvement. I fear, it won't, however, since as I said... so many stolen bikes have their identifying serials filed right off.
What I care about is the potential ramifications I can imagine as a consequence, if this is upheld. I can easily see it resulting in the complete dissolution of copyrightable open source, simply by labeling each individual transmission of the work a so-called "private production" or whatever is necessary to somehow make it inapplicable to being an infringement.
I'd suggest that the backup host isn't committing copyright infringement because they originally received the data that they are backing up for you *FROM* you.... while Aereo is receiving their data directly from the broadcaster. By supplying it directly to you, they are engaging in a rebroadcast practice that clearly defies the intent of copyright law, even if they might be arguing that the technicality of how it may be worded seems to permit this sort of activity.
When you are doing "private performances" for anyone among the general public who is interested in seeing them, the argument that the performance is still "private" becomes pretty tenuous. This is an absurd abuse of a technicality in how the law happens to be worded, and completely defies the intent behind it. I sincerely hope the supreme court slaps this one down.
It only makes it unsellable to people who would bother to check such a registry in the first place... which are the same people who wouldn't have bought a bike they couldn't check or were able to find that it was stolen in the first place. It doesn't harm the seller in the least.
It could be problematic if the supreme court agrees.... as a precedent, it could effectively spell the end of open source works that are still protected by copyright law... the argument being that if something is being made freely available and in the clear, anyone who can legally receive it is free to do whatever they want with it, including things that would otherwise be copyright infringement.
I somehow suspect that the kinds of people who may accidentally buy stolen goods aren't the sort who would think to check a registry first to see if the goods they wanted to buy were actually stolen... and those who would do it deliberately wouldn't care.
For what it's worth, most stolen bikes have their serial number filed right off anyways... so it's not possible to check them in the registry. Of course, one can just refuse outright to buy a bike that they can't read the serial number of, but I suspect that people who neglect to do this may fit into the above category of person anyways.
The former was a typo, not an indication that I don't know or don't care about grammar. Your latter objection is incorrect as well, as an interjection can stand alone in any sentence.
If you can do that, then that's fine... often with these types of things, it's an all-or-nothing deal.... if you don't give them permission for everything they've asked for, you can't connect your account to the site. My point is that there's just so many people don't even read what's right in front of their own faces when permission is being explicitly asked for, and then they are all shocked and upset when something they didn't expect actually happens...
I dunno... call me an unsympathetic boob, I guess... but I actually read that stuff.... sure, I can be fairly confident that they aren't asking for anything illegal (and would have legal remedy available to me if they were), but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't asking me for information or permissions I ordinarily would be uncomfortable with.
Fair point... but when the service is first connecting to your account on the social site, it does, at least in my experience, always tell you exactly what permissions are being asked for. If there's any that you're not happy with, then you probably shouldn't be giving permission in the first place. If you can, after the fact, go and adjust those permissions so that they only impact you personally, that' might be okay, but if the service tries to use your account as soon as you've connected to it, then there's not going to be any opportunity for you to adjust such settings before it's gone and done something you may not have really been comfortable with.
I don't ordinarily like taking the networks' side in matters, because I really hate television, but if Aereo is rebroadcasting the signal, the fact that it's OTA doesn't change anything... it's copyright infringement, plain and simple. Arguing that it isn't just because the signal is made freely available to anyone and broadcast in the clear is about on par with the argument that somebody can relicense GNU software however they like just because the source code is freely available for them to modify.
Just because you *can* do something, doesn't necessarily mean that you're necessarily in the clear to actually go and do it.
When you connect your social media account to somethiing, it's reasonable to expect that every permission that they describe they are requesting they are actually going to use. If you're not comfortable with this, then don't connect the account to the service. Period.
Even in that case, however, you only typically get points deducted from that test... or even at most, from your score for that particular class only. It may affect your overall GPA, but won't affect how much credit you have already received. It's my understanding in this story the latter is what would.happen.
Maybe I'm misreading the story, but as I understand it, people who do not do the work aren't just not receiving credit, they are actually having credit *deducted*. If that is correct, there is definitely something fundamentally wrong with this.
With the $2 conversion, it was done this way... but the above AC only referred to stopping the printing of $1 bills when they introduced a $1 coin, and the respondent who said that they did this in Canada did not mention anything about the $2 bills or coins,
Actually, where I live, in absence of any explicit contract, an employee *can* leave an employer without giving any notice, and without any real penalty, but quitting a job almost always will disqualify a person from collecting unemployment benefits. They are also, obviously, not entitled to any severance pay. All they are entitled to is payment for work done that they have not yet been paid for.
Of course, quitting on an employer without giving them any notice is certain to leave a fairly heavy black mark on your employment record, and you're almost certainly not going to be able to get any kind of positive reference from them. Further, many employers are not liable to want to hire somebody who does not give their current employer reasonable notice, since this would indicate that the would-be employee may be equally likely to abandon them without notice should something better come along.
And an employer here is perfectly welcome to fire you at any time... and for pretty much any reason, so long as it does not run afoul of human rights, although if you've been with the company for any reasonably long period of time, they are generally* (exception described below) required by law to give notice of severance and/or pay in lieu of notice. It's supposed to be an employer's job to figure out if an employee is genuinely well suited for the position during training and probation, and during the initial 3 months, no notice or severance pay is required if the employee is fired,
An employer is *not* required to give severance at all if the employee quits. It's also worth noting that getting fired will often delay, and sometimes prohibit completely, the collection of unemployment benefits. Quite often, when an employee is fired, he or she will be tasked with proving that they were not fired for reasons that were actually under their control. In particular if they were fired over a cause that they knew or reasonably ought to have known, under the circumstances, was liable to get them fired, then they can be denied such benefits (for example, being wilfully insubordinate to one's supervisors).
*It's my understanding that if the employee is not entitled to benefits on account of the cause for dismissal, then they are likewise not entitled to any notice or severance pay either, and this is, to my knowledge, the only exception to the above general rule regarding how much notice and/or severance pay an employee is entitled to.
Slashdot Mirror
True, they don't need to do that, and they shouldn't be trying to get the user's permission to publish on their behalf. In the end, however, the users still did click through and agree to those terms.
I'd click cancel the instant that I saw that kind of required permission on any third party service that wanted to connect to my online social network.... as I said, if they are asking for a permission, then there's every reason to expect that they will use it somehow. If one doesn't know how they will use it, then they need to ask someone to find out.... or, just cross their fingers, and hope that they won't. Call me a hardass, but I don't have much sympathy for people who do the latter.
My objection is moral, because I perceive the respecting of copyright as the moral thing to do. I perceive it as such because the protections of copyright gives creators legal authority over copies of works that they would not otherwise have if they distributed their work at all. and this legal authority is what gives many of them incentive to publish in the first place, instead of censoring themselves, or limiting their audience to a select few.
The former and latter are imperative sentences, and not actually interjections. The middle one is name-calling and also not an interjection. "Fuck" and "Shit" by themselves can be interjections, however.
Exclamation points aren't what define interjections, by the way... this is a fairly common misconception.
The file that they have is an exact copy of the one that you uploaded... but that would be true even if you were the only uploader... since uploading does not send the receiver any physical media upon which the original copyrighted content might reside.
I'd hope you're right that it leads to some improvement. I fear, it won't, however, since as I said... so many stolen bikes have their identifying serials filed right off.
What I care about is the potential ramifications I can imagine as a consequence, if this is upheld. I can easily see it resulting in the complete dissolution of copyrightable open source, simply by labeling each individual transmission of the work a so-called "private production" or whatever is necessary to somehow make it inapplicable to being an infringement.
I'd suggest that the backup host isn't committing copyright infringement because they originally received the data that they are backing up for you *FROM* you.... while Aereo is receiving their data directly from the broadcaster. By supplying it directly to you, they are engaging in a rebroadcast practice that clearly defies the intent of copyright law, even if they might be arguing that the technicality of how it may be worded seems to permit this sort of activity.
When you are doing "private performances" for anyone among the general public who is interested in seeing them, the argument that the performance is still "private" becomes pretty tenuous. This is an absurd abuse of a technicality in how the law happens to be worded, and completely defies the intent behind it. I sincerely hope the supreme court slaps this one down.
It only makes it unsellable to people who would bother to check such a registry in the first place... which are the same people who wouldn't have bought a bike they couldn't check or were able to find that it was stolen in the first place. It doesn't harm the seller in the least.
It could be problematic if the supreme court agrees.... as a precedent, it could effectively spell the end of open source works that are still protected by copyright law... the argument being that if something is being made freely available and in the clear, anyone who can legally receive it is free to do whatever they want with it, including things that would otherwise be copyright infringement.
I somehow suspect that the kinds of people who may accidentally buy stolen goods aren't the sort who would think to check a registry first to see if the goods they wanted to buy were actually stolen... and those who would do it deliberately wouldn't care.
For what it's worth, most stolen bikes have their serial number filed right off anyways... so it's not possible to check them in the registry. Of course, one can just refuse outright to buy a bike that they can't read the serial number of, but I suspect that people who neglect to do this may fit into the above category of person anyways.
Fail on both.
The former was a typo, not an indication that I don't know or don't care about grammar. Your latter objection is incorrect as well, as an interjection can stand alone in any sentence.
If you can do that, then that's fine... often with these types of things, it's an all-or-nothing deal.... if you don't give them permission for everything they've asked for, you can't connect your account to the site. My point is that there's just so many people don't even read what's right in front of their own faces when permission is being explicitly asked for, and then they are all shocked and upset when something they didn't expect actually happens...
I dunno... call me an unsympathetic boob, I guess... but I actually read that stuff.... sure, I can be fairly confident that they aren't asking for anything illegal (and would have legal remedy available to me if they were), but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't asking me for information or permissions I ordinarily would be uncomfortable with.
Fair point... but when the service is first connecting to your account on the social site, it does, at least in my experience, always tell you exactly what permissions are being asked for. If there's any that you're not happy with, then you probably shouldn't be giving permission in the first place. If you can, after the fact, go and adjust those permissions so that they only impact you personally, that' might be okay, but if the service tries to use your account as soon as you've connected to it, then there's not going to be any opportunity for you to adjust such settings before it's gone and done something you may not have really been comfortable with.
I'd argue that missing a brain is missing an effing whole lot more than just 30-40% of what makes us human.
I don't ordinarily like taking the networks' side in matters, because I really hate television, but if Aereo is rebroadcasting the signal, the fact that it's OTA doesn't change anything... it's copyright infringement, plain and simple. Arguing that it isn't just because the signal is made freely available to anyone and broadcast in the clear is about on par with the argument that somebody can relicense GNU software however they like just because the source code is freely available for them to modify.
Just because you *can* do something, doesn't necessarily mean that you're necessarily in the clear to actually go and do it.
When you connect your social media account to somethiing, it's reasonable to expect that every permission that they describe they are requesting they are actually going to use. If you're not comfortable with this, then don't connect the account to the service. Period.
Even in that case, however, you only typically get points deducted from that test... or even at most, from your score for that particular class only. It may affect your overall GPA, but won't affect how much credit you have already received. It's my understanding in this story the latter is what would.happen.
Maybe I'm misreading the story, but as I understand it, people who do not do the work aren't just not receiving credit, they are actually having credit *deducted*. If that is correct, there is definitely something fundamentally wrong with this.
.... between this and the Turing Halting Problem.
But to Snow White's credit, Ginnifer Goodwin is really really really cute.
Words.
Just words.
We're done here.
With the $2 conversion, it was done this way... but the above AC only referred to stopping the printing of $1 bills when they introduced a $1 coin, and the respondent who said that they did this in Canada did not mention anything about the $2 bills or coins,
Actually, where I live, in absence of any explicit contract, an employee *can* leave an employer without giving any notice, and without any real penalty, but quitting a job almost always will disqualify a person from collecting unemployment benefits. They are also, obviously, not entitled to any severance pay. All they are entitled to is payment for work done that they have not yet been paid for.
Of course, quitting on an employer without giving them any notice is certain to leave a fairly heavy black mark on your employment record, and you're almost certainly not going to be able to get any kind of positive reference from them. Further, many employers are not liable to want to hire somebody who does not give their current employer reasonable notice, since this would indicate that the would-be employee may be equally likely to abandon them without notice should something better come along.
Actually, I live in Canada.
And an employer here is perfectly welcome to fire you at any time... and for pretty much any reason, so long as it does not run afoul of human rights, although if you've been with the company for any reasonably long period of time, they are generally* (exception described below) required by law to give notice of severance and/or pay in lieu of notice. It's supposed to be an employer's job to figure out if an employee is genuinely well suited for the position during training and probation, and during the initial 3 months, no notice or severance pay is required if the employee is fired,
An employer is *not* required to give severance at all if the employee quits. It's also worth noting that getting fired will often delay, and sometimes prohibit completely, the collection of unemployment benefits. Quite often, when an employee is fired, he or she will be tasked with proving that they were not fired for reasons that were actually under their control. In particular if they were fired over a cause that they knew or reasonably ought to have known, under the circumstances, was liable to get them fired, then they can be denied such benefits (for example, being wilfully insubordinate to one's supervisors).
*It's my understanding that if the employee is not entitled to benefits on account of the cause for dismissal, then they are likewise not entitled to any notice or severance pay either, and this is, to my knowledge, the only exception to the above general rule regarding how much notice and/or severance pay an employee is entitled to.