The was the story about the Rubik's cube knockoff FFS along with a pile of others. Don't go after me just because you are not paying attention.
What are you even talking about? What do Rubik's cube knockoffs (FFS!) have to do with copyright? Do an actual google search before responding. If you're paying attention, you'll notice that it isn't a copyright issue. So I'm still left wondering what "copyright role" you're referring to.
putting them in a box with the rest of the stuff you're having shipped for your move
Which also has to get past the same sort of people at border controls - as should be obvious. Why do you think it doesn't?
I didn't say it doesn't, but (1) you're really getting far afield of the original inquiry, which was to do with being hassled/getting in trouble at the border; confiscation of boxes you've sent is a different issue; (2) you are aware that it's not as though border officials literally pore through every box that comes into the country, right?; and (3) bottom line is that they are more concerned with people bringing stuff here to sell than they are with people bringing stuff here for personal use. So yeah. If you bring an arsenal of copies with you, you might have to answer a few questions. But you're coming across as just looking for things to be afraid of.
The submitter said they were ripped for "digital media devices," which I took to mean not that s/he has a bunch of extra physical copies of the DVDs (why would you anyway?? If you already bought a legal copy, why double the physical space it takes up?), but, rather, that there are multiple digital copies on computers, tablets, etc. Anyone lugging "half a suitcase" of just about ANY one valuable thing should be prepared to be randomly screened and asked about it.
I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to with your reference to homeland security having a "copyright role." Here's the closest I could find linked from DHS's website.
Do you think I'd have trouble getting through a US airport with a couple of hundred DVDs with the names of TV shows scrawled on them in permanent pen?
I honestly couldn't say. You should probably be prepared to explain, I guess, if you wind up being randomly searched and they find them. But my more pressing question would be why the hell you would even bother with that many physical copies, and why you'd have them all on your person rather than putting them in a box with the rest of the stuff you're having shipped for your move.
In what English dialect is "Well perhaps" not a precursor to a suggestion??
It was a suggestion. However, it was not a suggestion that the statement itself was wrong (as you're implying), but merely a warning against assuming things that this single fact can't support on its own. Nothing in the post suggested that the previous commenter was incorrect.
I'm not going to bother continuing to try to explain to you why you should see his affirmative suggestion that the other commenter had applied an inaccurate analysis as an affirmative suggestion that the other commenter was incorrect. You either accept things are they are, or you don't. Go on then, continue denying facts.
And I've already explained that I made no personal attacks.
In what English dialect is "...you're letting your assumptions and biases cloud your openness to new facts." not a personal attack?
All of them that I'm familiar with. Do you not understand the difference between "this is what you're doing" and "this is what you are"?
Nice to meet you, pot. Name's kettle.
Howdy! I freely admit that I've been aggressive and somewhat rude in this encounter, but would defend myself by pointing out that I was mirroring the other person's style [see above] in order to illustrate to them how they were being perceived by other parties.
Two wrongs make a right in your world? "You started it"? Guess you're as entitled to an opinion as young-earth creationists are entitled to theirs...
(1) I was sarcasm-ing. I guess people need tags to recognize such things here. Noted.
(2) I didn't say the iPhone is a "game controller." I said it's a controller that plays games -- i.e., a controller for the Apple TV (which it is) that can ALSO play games (which it can). Again, this would have made more sense to someone who had caught the sarcasm without needing it explained.
Since I live in the UK, why would I know _anything_ about US copyright law? Seriously?
Simple reasoning would suffice here, given that pretty much the entire world consumes content produced by the US, and most of it does so legally pursuant to a variety of treaties and other agreements with the US government and US producers of content. Basically, if your country has generally friendly relations with US authorities vis-a-vis entertainment imports (and this, in turn, is pretty easy to figure out by simply paying attention to how sketchy -- or not -- your own government acts about imported content), then you can probably safely assume that your country's laws aren't stepping on too many rich American toes, which means they're probably not all that meaningfully different from American laws protecting IP. Basically, if it isn't too much trouble for you to pop into a store and buy a legitimate-looking copy of Star Wars, say, then it's probably a legal copy, and George Lucas is probably not pissed off about how you got it. Using simple common sense, you can probably figure out if George Lucas would be okay with his content getting easily distributed in a country that has radically different IP laws than his own.
Not to mention, these questions are CRAZY EASY to answer with a quick google search. Someone about to travel to the US, if he or she is ACTUALLY worried about IP laws, could try, you know, maybe just doing a couple quick searches before turning it into a belabored slashdot discussion.
And even if I did know about US copyright law, what makes you think the border goons in the USA do?
Why would I think that US customs agents would know what's legally considered contraband and what isn't? Are... are you serious?
Doesn't spy on you and send pics to the NSA of you naked walking from the shower to bathroom...
I hate it when people's concerns about government prying boil down to "oh noes they might see me naked." Civil liberties aren't about freeing yourself from anxiety that strangers might see your naughty bits. If that's your biggest concern in the world, I envy you. This puritanical modesty crap is such a distraction.
I don't think it's being compared on an equal basis, but probably on a fairly weighted basis. You can get an Xbox 360 with 4GB of storage for $199 (the Ouya has 8GB of storage, so the 250GB Xbox is a further-out comparison), and that machine can play absolutely any modern game disc with all the eye-popping graphics and bells and whistles that come with them, as well as any modern DVD, if you still watch movies using physical media (in addition to Xbox Live, if things like multiplayer functionality and Netflix/Hulu/HBO/ESPN tie-ins are important to you and you're willing to pay the extra fee -- even though it involves an annual fee, it's functionality and access to a broader spectrum of things and people that the Ouya doesn't have). Or you can save 100 bucks and get a console that is specifically advertised as having less of those things in exchange for access to a spectrum of indie games that early reviews indicate are organized in an incredibly bad and borderline-inaccessible manner. If you're already paying 100 bucks, honestly, you're probably less concerned about another 100 than you are about what kind of experience you're getting for your money.
I'm not saying "therefore Ouya is crap." I'm just pointing out that it's not an unreasonable comparison to be making.
To be fair, lately the US has been claiming that LAWs apply to everyone who is inside US borders. But RIGHTS apply only to citizens.
Remember: the NSA claims they're eavesdropping on everyone that isn't a US citizen. Because US citizens are protected by that, but non-citizens, supposedly, aren't.
Well, whether or not US citizens are still protected by the right to trial is a subject of some debate now, but I completely understand where you're coming from, and you're right that it's a messed-up way to go about things. That said, I was speaking less to actual problems with US law (and there are many) and more to this kind of knee-jerk reaction I take from the submitter of "I'm going to the US and they're completely cray there, ohmygod will I be arrested for doing something one hundred percent legal?" Because, while, yes, violations of liberty in clear violation of the law DO happen here (btw, let's not pretend the US is the only imperfect country in the world, k?), let's all just take a deep breath for a second. This isn't a third-world banana republic, okay? It just isn't. And it cheapens the many, many legitimate criticisms of the current state of American law when we fail to distinguish its deeply-flawed law enforcement from pure corrupted thuggery. I understand the value of rhetorical comparisons, but we're talking about someone from a frankly comparable nation coming to the US and worrying that he'll run into border troubles for doing something that is one hundred percent legal in both countries. This is just ludicrous. If we can't have a fair dialogue about legal issues without running the risk of this kind of melodrama, then we make ourselves into a bunch of ignorant whiners. As someone who wants to see massive changes in US law, I'm not okay with the loss of legitimacy attendant to this level of discourse.
So you might have a right to do something AS AN AMERICAN. But not as a non-american.
That's what they're claiming, not that i agree with any or all of this.
Right, and, again, there might be something to this concern, maybe, if we were talking about doing something actually illegal. But the poster did not describe anything even legally questionable. This is not a legal gray area. The conduct described is very clearly legal and acting worried about it communicates either ignorance of a not-terribly-arcane bit of the law or unjustified trepidation borne, I can only presume, of vaguely anti-American sentiment.
Oh, I don't. But when people take "I'm traveling to America" as a reason to flip out and start leaping to conclusions, that strikes me as coming from a place of illogic and fear, rather than reasoned and justifiable criticism of bad policy.
As an American who travels with some frequency, I'm more familiar than most with how onerous airport security has gotten, and my encounters with border control at numerous other countries have left me saddened at how poorly ours tends to measure up (in terms of politeness, common sense, etc.) Likewise, the US Copyright Act needs a massive overhaul, and the statutory penalties for relatively minor violations need to be completely re-worked, if not abolished -- the current copyright enforcement regime is abhorrent to anyone with a modicum of common decency.
All of that said, this anti-America stuff is getting seriously circlejerky. You're seriously worried about getting hassled for bringing personal-use copies of legally-acquired media into the US? Seriously?? Are you actually that ignorant about US copyright law (I suppose one could be forgiven, somewhat, for trusting anonymous internet-dwellers who would have you believe the police break down people's doors to search for stolen digital media and similar nonsense) or are you just flamebaiting?
You're far more likely to be pulled aside for being a dick to customs agents -- and if you are flamebaiting, I'd put your chances at about 50/50 there -- than for a random screening to see if you were trying to import contraband. And even then, even if they pulled you aside for enhanced screening and opened up your computer and held you for hours searching through everything you had in your possession, even then you would still have nothing to fear, assuming all of the digital media you're referring to are actually personal-use copies of legally-acquired media as you state. US and Australian copyright law aren't that different.
Seriously folks, the melodrama is getting out of hand.
He affirmatively suggested that the other commenter was incorrect.
This is simply false. The entire post consists of a quoted factoid and a sentence starting with "Well perhaps...".
In what English dialect is "Well perhaps" not a precursor to a suggestion??
...the difference between making affirmative arguments and pointing out poor ones.
That distinction is irrelevant to anything I wrote.
It may be irrelevant to what you subjectively intended to convey, but in that case, you need to work on doing a better job of expressing yourself and/or understanding other people.
I only pointed out that even if they had been wrong that wouldn't justify your personal attack on them.
And I've already explained that I made no personal attacks. You seem not to understand what a personal attack is.
I'll rephrase the ending of my previous post: It could be that your problems with other people don't arise from your gender or sexism, but simply because you come across as a jerk.
I was pointing out that it is WHY they are resistant that matters. That poster could have been resistant because they don't believe gender is a factor in performance at all and therefore anything that claims men are better than women or women are better than men has to have an underlying cause not related to gender. The poster would then automatically posit what that underlying cause might be.
Ah, see, here's where the disconnect is. There's no reason to posit a different underlying cause unless one already has independent beliefs about underlying causes. It's only "automatic" if the expressed basis conflicts with one's own already-internalized preconceived beliefs. That's what cognitive dissonance is. You make a mistake if you assume that I've adjudged the other commenter, I don't know, a "bad person" because of this. All I was doing was pointing out that this "automatic" reaction you refer to in your last sentence above isn't actually "automatic" unless you are resolving psychic discomfort.
The poster could well believe that beyond anything that directly biologically related to having a male or female reproductive system it is completely and automatically invalid to assume gender as a causation for a correlation. Therefore, it isn't correct to automatically assume the drive was sexism.
Again, that would be the proper presumption had no alternative been offered. Also, keep in mind that "sexism" isn't a belief someone holds that makes him or her a "bad" person. It's an aspect of culture that taints all of our beliefs to one extent or another, in ways that harm both men and women.
Your post explains that you believe gender can be causation beyond reproduction but your beliefs do not impact the poster's motivation or mine.
I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at here. Are you talking about the fact that I referenced having been raised in a sexist culture and having had my beliefs influenced by that? Do you think yourself immune to cultural forces? I've yet to meet a human being who is.
There is nothing in the content or either my post or the one you responded to that is sexist in and of itself. It is a logical fallacy to attack the hypothetical motivation of the poster rather than the content of their post.
Again, you are confused about what "sexism" means (and I never suggested that anyone had any particular "motivation," by the way). Sexism isn't about "motivation," and it's not about conscious thought. It's about a cultural backdrop that one either recognizes or does not. Conflating a description of the operation of the subconscious mind with an ad hominem attack is a derailing tactic.
You are letting emotion cloud your judgement.... I'm saying that because there are 21 words in your reply that are either in bold print or all caps and you began with "Cute. Nice try," which is clearly confrontational.
What does that mean, exactly? Do you believe that judgment and emotion are islands that exist apart from one another under ideal circumstances? Do you believe it is possible for humans to form beliefs about anything, or to exercise judgment, absent emotion? There's a lot of very interesting psychological research about emotion that might surprise you. Regardless, I don't particularly care whether or not you think I'm being emotional. Did you find yourself unable to understand what I was saying? If so, that's the problem, regardless of what you subjectively perceived my emotional state to be. I could just as easily deem your remark suggesting I take deep breaths as confrontational and/or condescending, but I don't see as that gets us anywhere. Focus on the topic of discussion rather than your purported concern for my emotional well-being. I already have people for the latter.
It is obvious you feel you've been discriminated against and are angry about it. That anger could well be justified and perfe
I've been following the SCO trial. There were, indeed, lawyers there who were acting properly as officers of the court. Nearly half of them
I don't know what you're specifically referring to by "SCO trial" nor do I see what point you're trying to make. Surely you don't mean to suggest that, because you side with one party to a lawsuit, therefore the lawyers representing the other side are acting "improperly." If you take such a black-and-white, closed-minded view of the world, it's not the judicial system that is the problem.
Lawyers file frivolous lawsuits all the time.
"All the time." Really. I assume you have evidence of this, as well as sufficiently-detailed facts about each of the cases in question such as to justify your characterization of them as "frivolous," yes? I can tell you from actual first-hand experience that people use the term "frivolous" far too liberally. Usually what people mean when they say "frivolous" is that they personally disagree with the plaintiff's characterization of the facts as they understand them, which they've every right to do, but an under-informed individual's perspective about someone else's case does not demonstrate that case frivolous. Kind of the whole point of civil litigation is to give every interested side an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in an effort to find the truth, or at least as close to it as it's possible to get.
It's true that this is at the behest of clients, but the lawyers aren't punished.
You're revealing your ignorance here. If a lawsuit is ACTUALLY frivolous, the lawyers themselves can be and indeed are often punished. Take a look at Rule 11 of the FRCP for just one example of rules holding lawyers responsible for actions they take on behalf of clients.
The forms of the laws are such that nobody can understand them, even when covering simple matters.
This is an exaggeration, both because for most laws it is most certainly not the case that "nobody" can understand them -- and in fact, it is often more likely the case that most people of reasonable education and intelligence can understand them with some time, work, and attention. It is certainly fair to say that many laws are more complicated than necessary, but it is hardly true of all laws.
Supreme court judges who blatantly misinterpret the clear wording of the constitution are an egregious example. (Mind you, I don't believe that the constitution as stated would work in current society, but the proper answer is to amend it, not to lie about what it says. The justification for the feds controlling everything on the grounds of interstate commerce, for example, is one particular example that's barely even controversial. It doesn't say that the feds have ANY right to control intrastate commerce. But that's not how the lawyers have read it.
And you're more qualified to interpret the constitution? You're touching on a disagreement about constitutional jurisprudence about which lawyers and judges disagree, often passionately. The short response is that you're entitled to have an opinion and to side with the lawyers and judges who take the quasi-textualist approach you seem to espouse here -- but you're no more qualified than anyone else (and, indeed, are actually most likely far less so) to adjudge everyone else to "blatantly misinterpret" the Constitution. Textual interpretation isn't mathematics. Unless you're god, you're in no position to decree your view of constitutional interpretation the only affirmatively "correct" one. Interpretation is rigorous, difficult work that relies on a lot of philosophical reflection. It simply isn't the kind of thing you can decree a clear "right" or "wrong" about as though it were pH paper or something. Anything in
the leadership is almost always a herd of attorneys.
Serious question: how do you define "leadership" in this context, and how is the fact that some lobbying organizations' leadership are attorneys really relevant to the discussion anyway? For example, how does it make sense to talk about a lobbying organization like the NRA as though it's just a bunch of lawyers? Or NARAL? Or the American Legion? Whether or not the current president of the board of any of these types of organizations may or may not be a lawyer is fairly irrelevant to those organizations' existence and purpose. It seems to me that you're struggling to distinguish being a lawyer, which means possessing a certain skill set and having a license from a particular licensing organization, from being a sort of person. Even though I'm a lawyer, I have far less in common with another lawyer who may be on the board of a lobbying organization I find abhorrent than I do with my non-lawyer systems engineer husband.
I completely agree, and I've experienced the blinding flash myself and immediately noted, at the time, how dangerously distracting it was. Fortunately, my city (Los Angeles) has since taken down all of the red light cameras because they were losing a lot of money on them. I sincerely hope the rest of the country catches on soon. These things are unconstitutional, dangerous, and a massive waste of taxpayer money.
Defend what system? You've given me a sad anecdote, which does not a "system" make. Doctors make mistakes, too; does that render the practice of medicine inherently suspect?
If the bar associations actually punished malicious and unscrupulous lawyers, then you MIGHT have a valid argument.
And how much familiarity do you have with the operation of bar associations and the extent to which they supposedly do or don't punish malicious or unscrupulous lawyers? For that matter, how do you know if someone is being malicious or unscrupulous? Should every profession have a governing board that punishes malice and lack of scruples for their own sake? Usually, for most people, punishment is limited to cases in which wrong acts cause damage.
Even so, when the laws are written by the lawyers to the benefit of the lawyers
Which laws are written by lawyers to the benefit of lawyers? Do you have specific examples? Don't rely on your assumptions just because, from your vantage point, you see only the benefits to lawyers and none of the obligations that those supposed benefits entail.
I'd be dubious, but when unscruplous lawyers are given a free pass, there's no validity to the argument at all.
Again: examples? How are "unscrupulous lawyers... given a free pass"? If you're speaking only of specific individuals, that's less a systemic problem as it pertains to lawyers generally and more as it pertains to powerful individuals regardless of profession.
It's kinda hard to make this statement since, at face value, it should be apparent that lawyers are defending the wrong party more than half the time.
Firstly, "wrong" and "right" aren't binaries like you seem to think. Secondly, even if they were, wouldn't it be exactly half? How on earth do you figure it's "more than half"? That's got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read, the more I think about it.
After all, when two people disagree either one is wrong or both are wrong.
Well that's just silly. You mean you've never in your life been in a situation in which a misunderstanding arose through the fault of neither party? Or where two people were upset about something for different reasons, both of which were valid? The world is not as simple as you're assuming it is in this sentence. Truth is not a binary, and, just as important, it's fundamentally unprovable in technical terms. The best we can do is attempt to find the most likely and/or reasonable explanation of or for something, but we can never find "truth." At least not in the current state of human consciousness and understanding.
And yes I know even criminals have rights, and if they didn't have a lawyers they'd be punished unfairly, which begs the question of why do we have a system that applies unfair punishments?
It raises the question, it doesn't "beg" it. And I just gave you the answer: because perfect knowledge is impossible for humanity in its current state of evolution. Imperfection and inefficiency in the justice system, therefore, are features, not bugs.
I understand your concerns but I still think the justice system is broken.
Then no, you don't understand my "concerns." You're allowed to think whatever you like about the justice system, but your comments make it quite clear that you don't understand it.
Not quite. It's true that any lobbying organization that's remotely effective will have a team of lawyers, but it's not as though lawyering as a profession is what leads people to become lobbyists -- which is the implication it seems you're going for here.
If you are lucky, if you win at the criminal level, you might be able to take the person to trial on a civil level and recoup some costs, but even that isn't very likely.
Which person? The prosecutor? Highly unlikely; it's very rare that you can establish that a prosecutor charged you with improper motives.
You're actually more likely to be able to recover fees in a civil case (good thing, too, since you're only entitled to a free attorney in the criminal context). If someone sued you without reasonable cause, you can frequently sue them right back for malicious prosecution/abuse of process. Now, this is hardly a guarantee, because there's a pretty high standard for these types of causes of action -- but if someone was acting in a truly unreasonable manner, it's absolutely an option.
Another horrible example of this is red-light tickets. I have been issued two in my life, and in both instances, the "evidence" (ie pictures / video) clearly shows that no violation occured. However, at $35 for a court hearing, plus two days of missing work (to go down to the court and plea not guilty, than for the actuall court date), then the amount of money I loose missing work, its easier just to pay the $75 ticket.
Its a broken system. It needs to be completely overhauled.
A lot of states have found the traffic cams unconstitutional. Small comfort for you if you've had to go to the effort of fighting tickets, but it's at least worth noting that the law does change and respond to reasonable arguments. I know it's very easy to see all courts and all judges generally as part of the messed-up system that unfairly favors moneyed interests, but it's a massive oversimplification and often outright inaccurate. The court system is actually the only one of the three branches of government in which an individual citizen can actually still go and make a huge impact (either on his or her own individual life or on many others) without needing to rely on another person finding it politically expedient to listen to him or her.
There is a defense. If you're bright, and a fast learner, you can represent yourself, and hopefully not cock it up. It will take even more of your time than hiring lawyers, but the expenses will be tiny. Naturally, judges, who all happen to be lawyers, take a dim view of this approach. It's a good thing the people passing the laws that lawyers live by aren't lawyers themselves!... Oh, wait!
Judges don't take a "dim view" so much as go out of their way to make sure pro pers understand what's going on. This does frequently involve advising them to get an attorney, but more often it involves giving them more chances than represented parties get to do things right. It's frankly tiresome for practicing attorneys on the other side, not because it means we can't trip them up but because it means slow going and higher fees for OUR OWN clients -- not to mention frequently having to respond to ridiculous arguments, and do so in a more meticulous and careful manner than we'd have to if it were an attorney on the other side. This is because no judge wants to deal with an accusation (made far too easily by people who don't understand the legal system) the he or she was unfair to a self-represented litigant. It's bad PR for the judiciary overall (and people are already far too willing to blame judges generally without understanding what their job actually is) and it could lead to reversals on appeal.
I know it's easy to hate lawyers because we're very expensive and, much of the time, you're only hiring a lawyer if something has gone wrong, or you're afraid of something going wrong. So there's already a negative association. But only a tiny fraction of lawyers are ACTUALLY unscrupulous. Views like the one expressed in your comment are under-informed and contribute to an overall toxic climate when it comes to legal work. Not to mention, it makes the judiciary an easy target for budget cuts, which, guess what, means that the only way to fund the judiciary is through increased filing costs, reduced services to the public, and the like. Guess who this helps? Hint: not the little guy who doesn't have the money to make up the difference himself.
So someone points out an obvious possibility of selection bias in a factoid that makes one sex appear to be better at something, in doing so implying that men and women might actually be equally good at it. And your response to this is to accuse them of sexism?
Wrong. He didn't point out selection bias. He affirmatively suggested that the other commenter was incorrect. And I didn't "accuse" anyone of sexism, which isn't an accusation anyway, by the way (sexism is an aspect of culture, not a thing someone does).
It's "as though a part of your brain was uncomfortable with" people pointing out that women might not actually be better than men at something.
Yawn. I already responded to another commenter who doesn't understand the difference between making affirmative arguments and pointing out poor ones. Try again.
But don't worry, a sudden fit of blind, irrational anger toward something that you didn't even bother to read properly is very human of you. Anyway, the next time you use anti-sexism as a cover for being a hate-filled narcissist, you might want to attack someone who actually expressed a sexist idea. Just a friendly suggestion.:)
Not sure what I did to you or said to ANYONE for you to accuse me of being a narcissist, but that's a cruel, unfair, and quite incorrect assessment. Do you know any actual narcissists? If you did, you might understand how baseless and ridiculous it is to accuse someone of narcissism simply because you disagree with them. I never accused anyone of anything, nor did I use abusive language, and now you're insulting me with words you don't even understand. Grow the fuck up and come back after you've learned how to have a grown-up disagreement with strangers.
Slashdot Mirror
The was the story about the Rubik's cube knockoff FFS along with a pile of others. Don't go after me just because you are not paying attention.
What are you even talking about? What do Rubik's cube knockoffs (FFS!) have to do with copyright? Do an actual google search before responding. If you're paying attention, you'll notice that it isn't a copyright issue. So I'm still left wondering what "copyright role" you're referring to.
Which also has to get past the same sort of people at border controls - as should be obvious. Why do you think it doesn't?
I didn't say it doesn't, but (1) you're really getting far afield of the original inquiry, which was to do with being hassled/getting in trouble at the border; confiscation of boxes you've sent is a different issue; (2) you are aware that it's not as though border officials literally pore through every box that comes into the country, right?; and (3) bottom line is that they are more concerned with people bringing stuff here to sell than they are with people bringing stuff here for personal use. So yeah. If you bring an arsenal of copies with you, you might have to answer a few questions. But you're coming across as just looking for things to be afraid of.
The submitter said they were ripped for "digital media devices," which I took to mean not that s/he has a bunch of extra physical copies of the DVDs (why would you anyway?? If you already bought a legal copy, why double the physical space it takes up?), but, rather, that there are multiple digital copies on computers, tablets, etc. Anyone lugging "half a suitcase" of just about ANY one valuable thing should be prepared to be randomly screened and asked about it.
I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to with your reference to homeland security having a "copyright role." Here's the closest I could find linked from DHS's website.
Do you think I'd have trouble getting through a US airport with a couple of hundred DVDs with the names of TV shows scrawled on them in permanent pen?
I honestly couldn't say. You should probably be prepared to explain, I guess, if you wind up being randomly searched and they find them. But my more pressing question would be why the hell you would even bother with that many physical copies, and why you'd have them all on your person rather than putting them in a box with the rest of the stuff you're having shipped for your move.
It was a suggestion. However, it was not a suggestion that the statement itself was wrong (as you're implying), but merely a warning against assuming things that this single fact can't support on its own. Nothing in the post suggested that the previous commenter was incorrect.
I'm not going to bother continuing to try to explain to you why you should see his affirmative suggestion that the other commenter had applied an inaccurate analysis as an affirmative suggestion that the other commenter was incorrect. You either accept things are they are, or you don't. Go on then, continue denying facts.
In what English dialect is "...you're letting your assumptions and biases cloud your openness to new facts." not a personal attack?
All of them that I'm familiar with. Do you not understand the difference between "this is what you're doing" and "this is what you are"?
Howdy! I freely admit that I've been aggressive and somewhat rude in this encounter, but would defend myself by pointing out that I was mirroring the other person's style [see above] in order to illustrate to them how they were being perceived by other parties.
Two wrongs make a right in your world? "You started it"? Guess you're as entitled to an opinion as young-earth creationists are entitled to theirs...
(2) I didn't say the iPhone is a "game controller." I said it's a controller that plays games -- i.e., a controller for the Apple TV (which it is) that can ALSO play games (which it can). Again, this would have made more sense to someone who had caught the sarcasm without needing it explained.
Since I live in the UK, why would I know _anything_ about US copyright law? Seriously?
Simple reasoning would suffice here, given that pretty much the entire world consumes content produced by the US, and most of it does so legally pursuant to a variety of treaties and other agreements with the US government and US producers of content. Basically, if your country has generally friendly relations with US authorities vis-a-vis entertainment imports (and this, in turn, is pretty easy to figure out by simply paying attention to how sketchy -- or not -- your own government acts about imported content), then you can probably safely assume that your country's laws aren't stepping on too many rich American toes, which means they're probably not all that meaningfully different from American laws protecting IP. Basically, if it isn't too much trouble for you to pop into a store and buy a legitimate-looking copy of Star Wars, say, then it's probably a legal copy, and George Lucas is probably not pissed off about how you got it. Using simple common sense, you can probably figure out if George Lucas would be okay with his content getting easily distributed in a country that has radically different IP laws than his own.
Not to mention, these questions are CRAZY EASY to answer with a quick google search. Someone about to travel to the US, if he or she is ACTUALLY worried about IP laws, could try, you know, maybe just doing a couple quick searches before turning it into a belabored slashdot discussion.
And even if I did know about US copyright law, what makes you think the border goons in the USA do?
Why would I think that US customs agents would know what's legally considered contraband and what isn't? Are... are you serious?
That's because you're already supposed to have a controller that plays games. Also known as an iPhone.
Doesn't spy on you and send pics to the NSA of you naked walking from the shower to bathroom...
I hate it when people's concerns about government prying boil down to "oh noes they might see me naked." Civil liberties aren't about freeing yourself from anxiety that strangers might see your naughty bits. If that's your biggest concern in the world, I envy you. This puritanical modesty crap is such a distraction.
I don't think it's being compared on an equal basis, but probably on a fairly weighted basis. You can get an Xbox 360 with 4GB of storage for $199 (the Ouya has 8GB of storage, so the 250GB Xbox is a further-out comparison), and that machine can play absolutely any modern game disc with all the eye-popping graphics and bells and whistles that come with them, as well as any modern DVD, if you still watch movies using physical media (in addition to Xbox Live, if things like multiplayer functionality and Netflix/Hulu/HBO/ESPN tie-ins are important to you and you're willing to pay the extra fee -- even though it involves an annual fee, it's functionality and access to a broader spectrum of things and people that the Ouya doesn't have). Or you can save 100 bucks and get a console that is specifically advertised as having less of those things in exchange for access to a spectrum of indie games that early reviews indicate are organized in an incredibly bad and borderline-inaccessible manner. If you're already paying 100 bucks, honestly, you're probably less concerned about another 100 than you are about what kind of experience you're getting for your money.
I'm not saying "therefore Ouya is crap." I'm just pointing out that it's not an unreasonable comparison to be making.
To be fair, lately the US has been claiming that LAWs apply to everyone who is inside US borders. But RIGHTS apply only to citizens. Remember: the NSA claims they're eavesdropping on everyone that isn't a US citizen. Because US citizens are protected by that, but non-citizens, supposedly, aren't.
Well, whether or not US citizens are still protected by the right to trial is a subject of some debate now, but I completely understand where you're coming from, and you're right that it's a messed-up way to go about things. That said, I was speaking less to actual problems with US law (and there are many) and more to this kind of knee-jerk reaction I take from the submitter of "I'm going to the US and they're completely cray there, ohmygod will I be arrested for doing something one hundred percent legal?" Because, while, yes, violations of liberty in clear violation of the law DO happen here (btw, let's not pretend the US is the only imperfect country in the world, k?), let's all just take a deep breath for a second. This isn't a third-world banana republic, okay? It just isn't. And it cheapens the many, many legitimate criticisms of the current state of American law when we fail to distinguish its deeply-flawed law enforcement from pure corrupted thuggery. I understand the value of rhetorical comparisons, but we're talking about someone from a frankly comparable nation coming to the US and worrying that he'll run into border troubles for doing something that is one hundred percent legal in both countries. This is just ludicrous. If we can't have a fair dialogue about legal issues without running the risk of this kind of melodrama, then we make ourselves into a bunch of ignorant whiners. As someone who wants to see massive changes in US law, I'm not okay with the loss of legitimacy attendant to this level of discourse.
So you might have a right to do something AS AN AMERICAN. But not as a non-american.
That's what they're claiming, not that i agree with any or all of this.
Right, and, again, there might be something to this concern, maybe, if we were talking about doing something actually illegal. But the poster did not describe anything even legally questionable. This is not a legal gray area. The conduct described is very clearly legal and acting worried about it communicates either ignorance of a not-terribly-arcane bit of the law or unjustified trepidation borne, I can only presume, of vaguely anti-American sentiment.
Oh, I don't. But when people take "I'm traveling to America" as a reason to flip out and start leaping to conclusions, that strikes me as coming from a place of illogic and fear, rather than reasoned and justifiable criticism of bad policy.
As an American who travels with some frequency, I'm more familiar than most with how onerous airport security has gotten, and my encounters with border control at numerous other countries have left me saddened at how poorly ours tends to measure up (in terms of politeness, common sense, etc.) Likewise, the US Copyright Act needs a massive overhaul, and the statutory penalties for relatively minor violations need to be completely re-worked, if not abolished -- the current copyright enforcement regime is abhorrent to anyone with a modicum of common decency.
All of that said, this anti-America stuff is getting seriously circlejerky. You're seriously worried about getting hassled for bringing personal-use copies of legally-acquired media into the US? Seriously?? Are you actually that ignorant about US copyright law (I suppose one could be forgiven, somewhat, for trusting anonymous internet-dwellers who would have you believe the police break down people's doors to search for stolen digital media and similar nonsense) or are you just flamebaiting?
You're far more likely to be pulled aside for being a dick to customs agents -- and if you are flamebaiting, I'd put your chances at about 50/50 there -- than for a random screening to see if you were trying to import contraband. And even then, even if they pulled you aside for enhanced screening and opened up your computer and held you for hours searching through everything you had in your possession, even then you would still have nothing to fear, assuming all of the digital media you're referring to are actually personal-use copies of legally-acquired media as you state. US and Australian copyright law aren't that different.
Seriously folks, the melodrama is getting out of hand.
This is simply false. The entire post consists of a quoted factoid and a sentence starting with "Well perhaps...".
In what English dialect is "Well perhaps" not a precursor to a suggestion??
That distinction is irrelevant to anything I wrote.
It may be irrelevant to what you subjectively intended to convey, but in that case, you need to work on doing a better job of expressing yourself and/or understanding other people.
I only pointed out that even if they had been wrong that wouldn't justify your personal attack on them.
And I've already explained that I made no personal attacks. You seem not to understand what a personal attack is.
I'll rephrase the ending of my previous post: It could be that your problems with other people don't arise from your gender or sexism, but simply because you come across as a jerk.
Nice to meet you, pot. Name's kettle.
I was pointing out that it is WHY they are resistant that matters. That poster could have been resistant because they don't believe gender is a factor in performance at all and therefore anything that claims men are better than women or women are better than men has to have an underlying cause not related to gender. The poster would then automatically posit what that underlying cause might be.
Ah, see, here's where the disconnect is. There's no reason to posit a different underlying cause unless one already has independent beliefs about underlying causes. It's only "automatic" if the expressed basis conflicts with one's own already-internalized preconceived beliefs. That's what cognitive dissonance is. You make a mistake if you assume that I've adjudged the other commenter, I don't know, a "bad person" because of this. All I was doing was pointing out that this "automatic" reaction you refer to in your last sentence above isn't actually "automatic" unless you are resolving psychic discomfort.
The poster could well believe that beyond anything that directly biologically related to having a male or female reproductive system it is completely and automatically invalid to assume gender as a causation for a correlation. Therefore, it isn't correct to automatically assume the drive was sexism.
Again, that would be the proper presumption had no alternative been offered. Also, keep in mind that "sexism" isn't a belief someone holds that makes him or her a "bad" person. It's an aspect of culture that taints all of our beliefs to one extent or another, in ways that harm both men and women.
Your post explains that you believe gender can be causation beyond reproduction but your beliefs do not impact the poster's motivation or mine.
I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at here. Are you talking about the fact that I referenced having been raised in a sexist culture and having had my beliefs influenced by that? Do you think yourself immune to cultural forces? I've yet to meet a human being who is.
There is nothing in the content or either my post or the one you responded to that is sexist in and of itself. It is a logical fallacy to attack the hypothetical motivation of the poster rather than the content of their post.
Again, you are confused about what "sexism" means (and I never suggested that anyone had any particular "motivation," by the way). Sexism isn't about "motivation," and it's not about conscious thought. It's about a cultural backdrop that one either recognizes or does not. Conflating a description of the operation of the subconscious mind with an ad hominem attack is a derailing tactic.
You are letting emotion cloud your judgement.... I'm saying that because there are 21 words in your reply that are either in bold print or all caps and you began with "Cute. Nice try," which is clearly confrontational.
What does that mean, exactly? Do you believe that judgment and emotion are islands that exist apart from one another under ideal circumstances? Do you believe it is possible for humans to form beliefs about anything, or to exercise judgment, absent emotion? There's a lot of very interesting psychological research about emotion that might surprise you. Regardless, I don't particularly care whether or not you think I'm being emotional. Did you find yourself unable to understand what I was saying? If so, that's the problem, regardless of what you subjectively perceived my emotional state to be. I could just as easily deem your remark suggesting I take deep breaths as confrontational and/or condescending, but I don't see as that gets us anywhere. Focus on the topic of discussion rather than your purported concern for my emotional well-being. I already have people for the latter.
It is obvious you feel you've been discriminated against and are angry about it. That anger could well be justified and perfe
Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification of the meaning of your comment.
I've been following the SCO trial. There were, indeed, lawyers there who were acting properly as officers of the court. Nearly half of them
I don't know what you're specifically referring to by "SCO trial" nor do I see what point you're trying to make. Surely you don't mean to suggest that, because you side with one party to a lawsuit, therefore the lawyers representing the other side are acting "improperly." If you take such a black-and-white, closed-minded view of the world, it's not the judicial system that is the problem.
Lawyers file frivolous lawsuits all the time.
"All the time." Really. I assume you have evidence of this, as well as sufficiently-detailed facts about each of the cases in question such as to justify your characterization of them as "frivolous," yes? I can tell you from actual first-hand experience that people use the term "frivolous" far too liberally. Usually what people mean when they say "frivolous" is that they personally disagree with the plaintiff's characterization of the facts as they understand them, which they've every right to do, but an under-informed individual's perspective about someone else's case does not demonstrate that case frivolous. Kind of the whole point of civil litigation is to give every interested side an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in an effort to find the truth, or at least as close to it as it's possible to get.
It's true that this is at the behest of clients, but the lawyers aren't punished.
You're revealing your ignorance here. If a lawsuit is ACTUALLY frivolous, the lawyers themselves can be and indeed are often punished. Take a look at Rule 11 of the FRCP for just one example of rules holding lawyers responsible for actions they take on behalf of clients.
The forms of the laws are such that nobody can understand them, even when covering simple matters.
This is an exaggeration, both because for most laws it is most certainly not the case that "nobody" can understand them -- and in fact, it is often more likely the case that most people of reasonable education and intelligence can understand them with some time, work, and attention. It is certainly fair to say that many laws are more complicated than necessary, but it is hardly true of all laws.
Supreme court judges who blatantly misinterpret the clear wording of the constitution are an egregious example. (Mind you, I don't believe that the constitution as stated would work in current society, but the proper answer is to amend it, not to lie about what it says. The justification for the feds controlling everything on the grounds of interstate commerce, for example, is one particular example that's barely even controversial. It doesn't say that the feds have ANY right to control intrastate commerce. But that's not how the lawyers have read it.
And you're more qualified to interpret the constitution? You're touching on a disagreement about constitutional jurisprudence about which lawyers and judges disagree, often passionately. The short response is that you're entitled to have an opinion and to side with the lawyers and judges who take the quasi-textualist approach you seem to espouse here -- but you're no more qualified than anyone else (and, indeed, are actually most likely far less so) to adjudge everyone else to "blatantly misinterpret" the Constitution. Textual interpretation isn't mathematics. Unless you're god, you're in no position to decree your view of constitutional interpretation the only affirmatively "correct" one. Interpretation is rigorous, difficult work that relies on a lot of philosophical reflection. It simply isn't the kind of thing you can decree a clear "right" or "wrong" about as though it were pH paper or something. Anything in
the leadership is almost always a herd of attorneys.
Serious question: how do you define "leadership" in this context, and how is the fact that some lobbying organizations' leadership are attorneys really relevant to the discussion anyway? For example, how does it make sense to talk about a lobbying organization like the NRA as though it's just a bunch of lawyers? Or NARAL? Or the American Legion? Whether or not the current president of the board of any of these types of organizations may or may not be a lawyer is fairly irrelevant to those organizations' existence and purpose. It seems to me that you're struggling to distinguish being a lawyer, which means possessing a certain skill set and having a license from a particular licensing organization, from being a sort of person. Even though I'm a lawyer, I have far less in common with another lawyer who may be on the board of a lobbying organization I find abhorrent than I do with my non-lawyer systems engineer husband.
I completely agree, and I've experienced the blinding flash myself and immediately noted, at the time, how dangerously distracting it was. Fortunately, my city (Los Angeles) has since taken down all of the red light cameras because they were losing a lot of money on them. I sincerely hope the rest of the country catches on soon. These things are unconstitutional, dangerous, and a massive waste of taxpayer money.
Defend what system? You've given me a sad anecdote, which does not a "system" make. Doctors make mistakes, too; does that render the practice of medicine inherently suspect?
If the bar associations actually punished malicious and unscrupulous lawyers, then you MIGHT have a valid argument.
And how much familiarity do you have with the operation of bar associations and the extent to which they supposedly do or don't punish malicious or unscrupulous lawyers? For that matter, how do you know if someone is being malicious or unscrupulous? Should every profession have a governing board that punishes malice and lack of scruples for their own sake? Usually, for most people, punishment is limited to cases in which wrong acts cause damage.
Even so, when the laws are written by the lawyers to the benefit of the lawyers
Which laws are written by lawyers to the benefit of lawyers? Do you have specific examples? Don't rely on your assumptions just because, from your vantage point, you see only the benefits to lawyers and none of the obligations that those supposed benefits entail.
I'd be dubious, but when unscruplous lawyers are given a free pass, there's no validity to the argument at all.
Again: examples? How are "unscrupulous lawyers ... given a free pass"? If you're speaking only of specific individuals, that's less a systemic problem as it pertains to lawyers generally and more as it pertains to powerful individuals regardless of profession.
It's kinda hard to make this statement since, at face value, it should be apparent that lawyers are defending the wrong party more than half the time.
Firstly, "wrong" and "right" aren't binaries like you seem to think. Secondly, even if they were, wouldn't it be exactly half? How on earth do you figure it's "more than half"? That's got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read, the more I think about it.
After all, when two people disagree either one is wrong or both are wrong.
Well that's just silly. You mean you've never in your life been in a situation in which a misunderstanding arose through the fault of neither party? Or where two people were upset about something for different reasons, both of which were valid? The world is not as simple as you're assuming it is in this sentence. Truth is not a binary, and, just as important, it's fundamentally unprovable in technical terms. The best we can do is attempt to find the most likely and/or reasonable explanation of or for something, but we can never find "truth." At least not in the current state of human consciousness and understanding.
And yes I know even criminals have rights, and if they didn't have a lawyers they'd be punished unfairly, which begs the question of why do we have a system that applies unfair punishments?
It raises the question, it doesn't "beg" it. And I just gave you the answer: because perfect knowledge is impossible for humanity in its current state of evolution. Imperfection and inefficiency in the justice system, therefore, are features, not bugs.
I understand your concerns but I still think the justice system is broken.
Then no, you don't understand my "concerns." You're allowed to think whatever you like about the justice system, but your comments make it quite clear that you don't understand it.
Most of the lobbyists are lawyers.
Not quite. It's true that any lobbying organization that's remotely effective will have a team of lawyers, but it's not as though lawyering as a profession is what leads people to become lobbyists -- which is the implication it seems you're going for here.
If you are lucky, if you win at the criminal level, you might be able to take the person to trial on a civil level and recoup some costs, but even that isn't very likely.
Which person? The prosecutor? Highly unlikely; it's very rare that you can establish that a prosecutor charged you with improper motives.
You're actually more likely to be able to recover fees in a civil case (good thing, too, since you're only entitled to a free attorney in the criminal context). If someone sued you without reasonable cause, you can frequently sue them right back for malicious prosecution/abuse of process. Now, this is hardly a guarantee, because there's a pretty high standard for these types of causes of action -- but if someone was acting in a truly unreasonable manner, it's absolutely an option.
Another horrible example of this is red-light tickets. I have been issued two in my life, and in both instances, the "evidence" (ie pictures / video) clearly shows that no violation occured. However, at $35 for a court hearing, plus two days of missing work (to go down to the court and plea not guilty, than for the actuall court date), then the amount of money I loose missing work, its easier just to pay the $75 ticket.
Its a broken system. It needs to be completely overhauled.
A lot of states have found the traffic cams unconstitutional. Small comfort for you if you've had to go to the effort of fighting tickets, but it's at least worth noting that the law does change and respond to reasonable arguments. I know it's very easy to see all courts and all judges generally as part of the messed-up system that unfairly favors moneyed interests, but it's a massive oversimplification and often outright inaccurate. The court system is actually the only one of the three branches of government in which an individual citizen can actually still go and make a huge impact (either on his or her own individual life or on many others) without needing to rely on another person finding it politically expedient to listen to him or her.
There is a defense. If you're bright, and a fast learner, you can represent yourself, and hopefully not cock it up. It will take even more of your time than hiring lawyers, but the expenses will be tiny. Naturally, judges, who all happen to be lawyers, take a dim view of this approach. It's a good thing the people passing the laws that lawyers live by aren't lawyers themselves! ... Oh, wait!
Judges don't take a "dim view" so much as go out of their way to make sure pro pers understand what's going on. This does frequently involve advising them to get an attorney, but more often it involves giving them more chances than represented parties get to do things right. It's frankly tiresome for practicing attorneys on the other side, not because it means we can't trip them up but because it means slow going and higher fees for OUR OWN clients -- not to mention frequently having to respond to ridiculous arguments, and do so in a more meticulous and careful manner than we'd have to if it were an attorney on the other side. This is because no judge wants to deal with an accusation (made far too easily by people who don't understand the legal system) the he or she was unfair to a self-represented litigant. It's bad PR for the judiciary overall (and people are already far too willing to blame judges generally without understanding what their job actually is) and it could lead to reversals on appeal.
I know it's easy to hate lawyers because we're very expensive and, much of the time, you're only hiring a lawyer if something has gone wrong, or you're afraid of something going wrong. So there's already a negative association. But only a tiny fraction of lawyers are ACTUALLY unscrupulous. Views like the one expressed in your comment are under-informed and contribute to an overall toxic climate when it comes to legal work. Not to mention, it makes the judiciary an easy target for budget cuts, which, guess what, means that the only way to fund the judiciary is through increased filing costs, reduced services to the public, and the like. Guess who this helps? Hint: not the little guy who doesn't have the money to make up the difference himself.
Who are intellecutal property laws protecting again. Once again, they always protect those with enough lawyers to make them work.
Of course the laws protect those who worked hard to make the laws (the layers). If they didn't, it wouldn't be fair.
Neither lawyers nor layers make the laws. Lobbyists do, using the Congresspersons they've purchased with their hard-earned money.
So someone points out an obvious possibility of selection bias in a factoid that makes one sex appear to be better at something, in doing so implying that men and women might actually be equally good at it. And your response to this is to accuse them of sexism?
Wrong. He didn't point out selection bias. He affirmatively suggested that the other commenter was incorrect. And I didn't "accuse" anyone of sexism, which isn't an accusation anyway, by the way (sexism is an aspect of culture, not a thing someone does).
It's "as though a part of your brain was uncomfortable with" people pointing out that women might not actually be better than men at something.
Yawn. I already responded to another commenter who doesn't understand the difference between making affirmative arguments and pointing out poor ones. Try again.
But don't worry, a sudden fit of blind, irrational anger toward something that you didn't even bother to read properly is very human of you. Anyway, the next time you use anti-sexism as a cover for being a hate-filled narcissist, you might want to attack someone who actually expressed a sexist idea. Just a friendly suggestion. :)
Not sure what I did to you or said to ANYONE for you to accuse me of being a narcissist, but that's a cruel, unfair, and quite incorrect assessment. Do you know any actual narcissists? If you did, you might understand how baseless and ridiculous it is to accuse someone of narcissism simply because you disagree with them. I never accused anyone of anything, nor did I use abusive language, and now you're insulting me with words you don't even understand. Grow the fuck up and come back after you've learned how to have a grown-up disagreement with strangers.