Whether it's good or bad, it's still copyright infringement. The most this study could argue for is to encourage copyright holders to ignore piracy. It does not provide an excuse, or even a rationalization, for piracy. If you're looking for an ethical out, this isn't it.
The only justification for the existence of copyright is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts". If copyright fails to do that, then any claim to moral legitimacy of copyright law is null. It may not provide a legal excuse, but justice is never an excuse under unjust laws.
I'm not complaining because I'm offended. I'm complaining because your (quite important) message will be less effective because of it. It's easy to read the last sentence of your post and write the whole thing off as the rantings of someone who hates women in power. Don't give people that opportunity. Stay on message.
The undisputed evidence showed that Bright obtains most of the videos it shows on Redtube free of charge from advertisers who pay Bright to display their videos containing their ads. Fundamentally, there is no difference between Redtube and a radio station in the early 1900s that broadcasted records it obtained for free from a music store and, in return, told its listeners where the records could be purchased. (See www.oldradio.com/current/bc_spots.htm; last visited Dec. 7, 2010.) In both cases the broadcaster's purpose is not to destroy competition or a competitor but to attract patrons to its broadcast site where they will, hopefully, respond to its advertisers' messages
I was under the impression that rights holders were either paid for the use of their song on the radio, or they paid for it to be played on the radio. In either case, you can't play something on the radio without a license. If this guy holds the copyright to something RedTube streams, he can file a DMCA complaint. If not, he can FOAD.
This makes absolutely no sense. IF (and that's a big if), the statute applies the way you think it does, then it clearly violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Because you can never ensure that the checks and balances will always be in place. Any power that can be abused will be abused, it's just a matter of time. NEVER assume that the government is acting from the best of motives.
The US government isn't planning one, the Obama administration claims it already has that authority. Here is part of Section 706 of the Communications act of 1934 (my emphasis):
(d) Upon proclamation by the President that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States, the President, if he deems it necessary in the interest of the national security and defense, may, during a period ending not later than six months after the termination of such state or threat of war and not later than such earlier date as the Congress by concurrent resolution may designate,
(1) suspend or amend the rules and regulations applicable to any or all facilities or stations for wire communication within the jurisdiction of the United States as prescribed by the Commission,
(2) cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication and the removal therefrom of its apparatus and equipment, or
(3) authorize the use or control of any such facility or station and its apparatus and equipment by any department of the Government under such regulations as he may prescribe, upon just compensation to the owners.
Considering that we are in a constant state of war, the President could exercise this authority at any time.
Agreed! I bought a Gigabyte board based on what I thought was a great reputation. Turns out this board loops on rebooting with USB stuff plugged in. The only way to get it to boot is to unplug all the USB stuff (or disable in in BIOS), or shut the power off at the PSU for 10 seconds. Neither of this can be done remotely unfortunately, so if I ever need to reboot the thing remotely I'm shit out of luck.
So, who actually makes decent motherboards? My last one was a DFI which was absolutely fantastic hardware. Did not like the company though as shortly after buying the board they introduced a new line and dropped all mention of my board from their website.
Besides this issue, which is Intel's fault, how is Asus?
You're exactly right. This is why we have DMCA safe harbor protections. The game publisher in question should not have sent a simple "email" to Apple. File a proper DMCA complaint and the app comes down immediately, no questions asked. If it doesn't, then (and only then) you have a suit against Apple.
I already quoted you a bit in another post. The official stance of the Obama administration, given as testimony to Congress by DHS Undersecretary Philip Reitinger is that the authority to implement a kill switch already exists. Since Obama has done nothing to change that, he must believe that it is a good thing.
Also, I said it before, and I'll say it again. Obama is no liberal. There are no liberals in the US government. Both Democrats and Republicans are rank authoritarians.
That provision has attracted widespread criticism from privacy advocates, who claim it amounts to giving the president a "kill switch" over the Internet. Collins has said the president already has that authority under Section 706 of the Communications Act. Testimony by DHS under secretary Philip Reitinger earlier this month indicates the administration shares that view.
So you see, Obama's position is even worse than that put forth in the bill. This bill would explicitly authorize an internet kill switch. Obama thinks he already has that power, without any further congressional oversight.
That is straight up hard core statism. If you care about freedom at all, oppose Obama.
That was what I meant by partisan BS. Summary Poster is obviously a Republican birther, or some such nonsense. The game is "hate the other side no matter what," and it's garbage.
You're playing the same game here. Anyone who calls Obama out over his obvious hard-on for authoritarianism is a teabagger? That's partisan bullshit.
The bill is also sponsored by Sen Lieberman (I formerly D), and Sen Carper (D). A similar bill in the past was sponsored by Sens. Rockefellar (D) and Snow (R). This bill was unanimously passed by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, a body with the same number of Democrats as Republican. (more D if you count Lieberman). This bill is as bipartisan as it gets.
I agree, that liberals would never pass such a bill. However, there are no liberals in the US government. Obama is a center-right statist. He has continued the practice of warrentless wiretapping. He has prosecuted no one for commiting acts of torture. He has done nothing, at any juncture, that decreases the power of the state. He has given no indication that he would veto this mainstream, bipartisan bill if it comes to his desk. Given all that, it is in no way misleading to put Obama's name on it. If he doesn't want the power to shut down the internet, all he has to say is "I'll veto that".
The first sentence of the summary isn't merely inaccurate. It's a lie, and a dirty trick.
Explain this to me. Not only is the first sentence of this summary accurate, it's the only way a reasonable person could construe the situation. How can you look at the "kill switch" proposal and think that it's for anything other than what Mubarak has just done? What other possible use is there?
It''s not so much that geekiness has gone mainstream- it's that the mainstream has gotten geekier.
But they haven't. Does the average person enjoy solving problems and using their imagination more than before? No, they've just adopted the trappings of those who do.
TFA seems to be confusing "geek" with "clever". You can like football and still suck at it, or like rock and be tone-deaf; being good at something isn't pre-requisite to it being your most favourite thing.
Clever is a prerequesite for being a geek. There are definitely football geeks, who know all the stats, and all the plays. They may or may not be good at the game, but it's the knowledge that makes them geeks.
They may be low value to you, but others disagree. I still fondly remember ascending with the Amulet of Yendor. I made a copy of the character info dump at the end, and still refer to it from time to time. Thankfully, Nethack being a free and open game I was able to do that.
How valuable is that? Not terribly, but I also didn't go far out of my way to get the file. Even for last generation consoles, all it takes is a minute to dump the contents of a memory card onto your file server then it gets backed up just as any other file does. It takes a negligible amount of effort, and provides considerable peace of mind to someone who plays a lot of long, story heavy games.
They are book marks. Reading is not banking. If you care that much about the off chance of having to re-read part of your book, consider finding a book that's more fun to read.
Storing game saves in on the network is a great idea. As long as they are also saved offline and are available for manual backups too. Network storage is not a substitute for offline backups.
Usually it's not so clear-cut. Who do you prosecute:
-The manager who was told by the lawyer it was legal and he didn't know the full extent of what was going on. -The lawyer who was doing his best attempt to interpret law but came to a different conclusion then the judge -The individual executing the wiretap under order from management and who received compliance training from the lawyer who misinterpreted law
All of the above. I think you'll find that if you were ordered to commit a crime by your management, and advised that it was legal to do so by your companies lawyers, that the government will still prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. We should give the government the same treatment we expect from them.
The real problem is when you try to go to the very edge of the line every time, sometimes you'll accidentally cross it with no maliciousness
Constantly pushing towards the edge is itself an act of maliciousness. There's a reason that borders in contention have a demilitarized zone. Lines get crossed, stay far away from them if you don't want to deal with the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
I see this tribalism is wrong argument popping up quite often but really what is this based on philosophically.
Whether it's good or bad, it's still copyright infringement. The most this study could argue for is to encourage copyright holders to ignore piracy. It does not provide an excuse, or even a rationalization, for piracy. If you're looking for an ethical out, this isn't it.
The only justification for the existence of copyright is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts". If copyright fails to do that, then any claim to moral legitimacy of copyright law is null. It may not provide a legal excuse, but justice is never an excuse under unjust laws.
I'm not complaining because I'm offended. I'm complaining because your (quite important) message will be less effective because of it. It's easy to read the last sentence of your post and write the whole thing off as the rantings of someone who hates women in power. Don't give people that opportunity. Stay on message.
Try to keep your sexist bigotry and legitimate political outrage separate. Thanks!
Why link? We all have it bookmarked anyway.
From the judge in TFA:
I was under the impression that rights holders were either paid for the use of their song on the radio, or they paid for it to be played on the radio. In either case, you can't play something on the radio without a license. If this guy holds the copyright to something RedTube streams, he can file a DMCA complaint. If not, he can FOAD.
This makes absolutely no sense. IF (and that's a big if), the statute applies the way you think it does, then it clearly violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Because you can never ensure that the checks and balances will always be in place. Any power that can be abused will be abused, it's just a matter of time. NEVER assume that the government is acting from the best of motives.
The US government isn't planning one, the Obama administration claims it already has that authority. Here is part of Section 706 of the Communications act of 1934 (my emphasis):
Considering that we are in a constant state of war, the President could exercise this authority at any time.
Agreed! I bought a Gigabyte board based on what I thought was a great reputation. Turns out this board loops on rebooting with USB stuff plugged in. The only way to get it to boot is to unplug all the USB stuff (or disable in in BIOS), or shut the power off at the PSU for 10 seconds. Neither of this can be done remotely unfortunately, so if I ever need to reboot the thing remotely I'm shit out of luck.
So, who actually makes decent motherboards? My last one was a DFI which was absolutely fantastic hardware. Did not like the company though as shortly after buying the board they introduced a new line and dropped all mention of my board from their website.
Besides this issue, which is Intel's fault, how is Asus?
You're exactly right. This is why we have DMCA safe harbor protections. The game publisher in question should not have sent a simple "email" to Apple. File a proper DMCA complaint and the app comes down immediately, no questions asked. If it doesn't, then (and only then) you have a suit against Apple.
Peace is a political motive.
Linus Torvalds is already cooler than any football player.
I already quoted you a bit in another post. The official stance of the Obama administration, given as testimony to Congress by DHS Undersecretary Philip Reitinger is that the authority to implement a kill switch already exists. Since Obama has done nothing to change that, he must believe that it is a good thing.
Also, I said it before, and I'll say it again. Obama is no liberal. There are no liberals in the US government. Both Democrats and Republicans are rank authoritarians.
Also, notice this article.
So you see, Obama's position is even worse than that put forth in the bill. This bill would explicitly authorize an internet kill switch. Obama thinks he already has that power, without any further congressional oversight.
That is straight up hard core statism. If you care about freedom at all, oppose Obama.
That was what I meant by partisan BS. Summary Poster is obviously a Republican birther, or some such nonsense. The game is "hate the other side no matter what," and it's garbage.
You're playing the same game here. Anyone who calls Obama out over his obvious hard-on for authoritarianism is a teabagger? That's partisan bullshit.
The bill is also sponsored by Sen Lieberman (I formerly D), and Sen Carper (D). A similar bill in the past was sponsored by Sens. Rockefellar (D) and Snow (R). This bill was unanimously passed by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, a body with the same number of Democrats as Republican. (more D if you count Lieberman). This bill is as bipartisan as it gets.
I agree, that liberals would never pass such a bill. However, there are no liberals in the US government. Obama is a center-right statist. He has continued the practice of warrentless wiretapping. He has prosecuted no one for commiting acts of torture. He has done nothing, at any juncture, that decreases the power of the state. He has given no indication that he would veto this mainstream, bipartisan bill if it comes to his desk. Given all that, it is in no way misleading to put Obama's name on it. If he doesn't want the power to shut down the internet, all he has to say is "I'll veto that".
The first sentence of the summary isn't merely inaccurate. It's a lie, and a dirty trick.
Explain this to me. Not only is the first sentence of this summary accurate, it's the only way a reasonable person could construe the situation. How can you look at the "kill switch" proposal and think that it's for anything other than what Mubarak has just done? What other possible use is there?
Partisanship? Which side do you think Obama is on when he proposes this kill switch? Which side do you think /. is taking?
Hint: It's not left vs right. It's subjugation vs freedom. That's the kind of partisanship we need more of.
It''s not so much that geekiness has gone mainstream- it's that the mainstream has gotten geekier.
But they haven't. Does the average person enjoy solving problems and using their imagination more than before? No, they've just adopted the trappings of those who do.
TFA seems to be confusing "geek" with "clever". You can like football and still suck at it, or like rock and be tone-deaf; being good at something isn't pre-requisite to it being your most favourite thing.
Clever is a prerequesite for being a geek. There are definitely football geeks, who know all the stats, and all the plays. They may or may not be good at the game, but it's the knowledge that makes them geeks.
They may be low value to you, but others disagree. I still fondly remember ascending with the Amulet of Yendor. I made a copy of the character info dump at the end, and still refer to it from time to time. Thankfully, Nethack being a free and open game I was able to do that.
How valuable is that? Not terribly, but I also didn't go far out of my way to get the file. Even for last generation consoles, all it takes is a minute to dump the contents of a memory card onto your file server then it gets backed up just as any other file does. It takes a negligible amount of effort, and provides considerable peace of mind to someone who plays a lot of long, story heavy games.
That's up to you. At the very least, you should have the option to save your bookmarks (or saved games) as many times as you wish.
They are book marks. Reading is not banking. If you care that much about the off chance of having to re-read part of your book, consider finding a book that's more fun to read.
Storing game saves in on the network is a great idea. As long as they are also saved offline and are available for manual backups too. Network storage is not a substitute for offline backups.
All of the above. I think you'll find that if you were ordered to commit a crime by your management, and advised that it was legal to do so by your companies lawyers, that the government will still prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. We should give the government the same treatment we expect from them.
Constantly pushing towards the edge is itself an act of maliciousness. There's a reason that borders in contention have a demilitarized zone. Lines get crossed, stay far away from them if you don't want to deal with the consequences.