We keep electing and reelecting the retards in Congress who passes this shit. The blame lies entirely on the voters. The problem with politics isn't that money is speech, it's that people vote for what the one eyed monster in their living room tells them to vote for. As long as that's the case, everything else is just a matter of who controls the stream, and it will never be someone who hast he public's interest at heart.
Innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal cases. A DMCA takedown notice isn't a criminal case. The only thing that matters here is statutory law.
The correct response to this kind of abuse is to track down the lawyer who signed his name to the takedown notice (it's not valid takedown notice without it) and prosecute him for perjury (since he swore under penalty of perjury that it was accurate and that he represented the copyright holder).
The first time a lawyer gets prosecuted for perjury, we'll see a hell of a lot less abuse of DMCA takedown notices. If it ever happens, which isn't likely.
Sure they can. Windows 10 will have updates that actively remove functionality. For instance, by adding more and more (and more and more and more) ads, they remove the functionality of actually being able to use the computer.
that when I reinstall Windows 7 SP 1 I won't have to wait 24 hours for automatic Windows Updates to run the first round of patches, because the list of updates is so big the manual update system chokes on it?
Seriously, Microsoft, this should have been done a year ago for that reason alone.
I believe the federal standard is "one party consent." California, however, is "all parties consent," and it's the only state where it's a felony to violate that requirement.
The law doesn't allow recording without permission in public spaces, it allows recoding without permission in places where there is no expectation of privacy. A subtle difference, perhaps, but on that, in California, can mean the difference between a felony conviction and selling the recording to the 10:00 news for five figures.
There is a legal distinction between video an audio recordings. It may not make sense to you, hell it may not make sense to the people who passed the laws, but it's there.
Audio recordings without the permission of all participants is illegal in many states. It's a misdemeanor in some. In California, and only in California, it's a felony.
All the talk over the last few years about various wingnut states making it a felony for federal law enforcement to enforce federal gun laws, and the more realistic chance we have to prosecute FBI agents for doing their jobs illegally come from California.
Not that it'll happen. California is run by California Democrats, who love overreaching federal authority.
Why is it so hard to realize that you are doing the thing you complain about
Er, dude, they do realize that. In fact, that's the whole point: they're doing what they have seen the inner circle doing for decades. (Whether or not said inner circle is actually doing so is a different question.)
The funniest thing is how many people believe it matters. That the Hugos matter. That's funny no matter who you are.
This entire controversy is about a small group of elitist pricks trying to hijack a meaningless award away from another small group of elitist pricks. The only difference between the Hugo inner circle for the last couple of decades and the Puppies (of either variety) is which books they're hawking. None of them want general participation on the part of the book buying public.
It's been decades since there was any detectable connection between what the sf buying public is buying and either the Hugos or the Nebulas.
There are statistical approaches to such research, as well as research involving the perps after they are caught, that ethics boards are perfectly fine with. In fact, a few such studies have been done.
If you were trying to be funny, you failed. If you weren't, you are an idiot.
Those are all good reasons to prosecute those who produce child porn, but they are not the theory behind making it illegal to possess child porn.
As evidence, I submit the repeated attempts to prosecute people for possession of virtual child porn - either photo quality cgi, or real porn using adults who are made to look like children - in which the prosecution acknowledges that no real children were involved,. Success attempts, in some cases.
If you have evidence that is happening because of child porn, you should forward it to the authorities. Or, better yet, submit a paper to a peer reviewed journal. You'll be famous, and hailed as a hero for saving so many children.
If they don't accept it, maybe it's not evidence at all, and maybe you invoking child rape is nothing but an attempt to generate hysteria for the purpose of confusing the issue.
Unreliable witnesses before court should be dismissed out of hand.
The reliability of witnesses if a question of fact, and the trier of fast is the jury, not the judge. And juries do often find witnesses too unreliable to believe. More and more, in recent years, they apply this to the cops, too.
The theory is that fapping to child porn makes you more likely to molest children. There's no evidence to support that theory - none at all - and what little research has been done suggests the opposite might be the case, but it's an internally consistent belief.
If one is willing to punish people for what they might do in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
We keep electing and reelecting the retards in Congress who passes this shit. The blame lies entirely on the voters. The problem with politics isn't that money is speech, it's that people vote for what the one eyed monster in their living room tells them to vote for. As long as that's the case, everything else is just a matter of who controls the stream, and it will never be someone who hast he public's interest at heart.
And remember, infringement for commercial purposes is criminal, as well as civil.
I'd contribute to that.
Innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal cases. A DMCA takedown notice isn't a criminal case. The only thing that matters here is statutory law.
The correct response to this kind of abuse is to track down the lawyer who signed his name to the takedown notice (it's not valid takedown notice without it) and prosecute him for perjury (since he swore under penalty of perjury that it was accurate and that he represented the copyright holder).
The first time a lawyer gets prosecuted for perjury, we'll see a hell of a lot less abuse of DMCA takedown notices. If it ever happens, which isn't likely.
Sure they can. Windows 10 will have updates that actively remove functionality. For instance, by adding more and more (and more and more and more) ads, they remove the functionality of actually being able to use the computer.
(Plus, you left out 8.1, which was the SP for 8.)
that when I reinstall Windows 7 SP 1 I won't have to wait 24 hours for automatic Windows Updates to run the first round of patches, because the list of updates is so big the manual update system chokes on it?
Seriously, Microsoft, this should have been done a year ago for that reason alone.
And it's a felony if you don't, making California unique.
I believe the federal standard is "one party consent." California, however, is "all parties consent," and it's the only state where it's a felony to violate that requirement.
The law doesn't allow recording without permission in public spaces, it allows recoding without permission in places where there is no expectation of privacy. A subtle difference, perhaps, but on that, in California, can mean the difference between a felony conviction and selling the recording to the 10:00 news for five figures.
There is a legal distinction between video an audio recordings. It may not make sense to you, hell it may not make sense to the people who passed the laws, but it's there.
Audio recordings without the permission of all participants is illegal in many states. It's a misdemeanor in some. In California, and only in California, it's a felony.
All the talk over the last few years about various wingnut states making it a felony for federal law enforcement to enforce federal gun laws, and the more realistic chance we have to prosecute FBI agents for doing their jobs illegally come from California.
Not that it'll happen. California is run by California Democrats, who love overreaching federal authority.
. . .Verhoeven made some pretty good movies (Robocop, Total recall, Flesh and Blood)
Starship Trooper wasn't one of them.
So just regular old right wing crybullies, then?
Why is it so hard to realize that you are doing the thing you complain about
Er, dude, they do realize that. In fact, that's the whole point: they're doing what they have seen the inner circle doing for decades. (Whether or not said inner circle is actually doing so is a different question.)
The funniest thing is how many people believe it matters. That the Hugos matter. That's funny no matter who you are.
This entire controversy is about a small group of elitist pricks trying to hijack a meaningless award away from another small group of elitist pricks. The only difference between the Hugo inner circle for the last couple of decades and the Puppies (of either variety) is which books they're hawking. None of them want general participation on the part of the book buying public.
It's been decades since there was any detectable connection between what the sf buying public is buying and either the Hugos or the Nebulas.
Allowing broad public campaigning undermines things because it becomes either a popularity contest
An award voted on by whoever chooses to participate is a popularity contest. That's the whole point.
You find child abuse funny? You must be a pedophile.
There is an argument there, but it's as weak as the bigger one. There have been prosecutions for virtual child porn, some successful, some not.
There are statistical approaches to such research, as well as research involving the perps after they are caught, that ethics boards are perfectly fine with. In fact, a few such studies have been done.
If you were trying to be funny, you failed. If you weren't, you are an idiot.
Those are all good reasons to prosecute those who produce child porn, but they are not the theory behind making it illegal to possess child porn.
As evidence, I submit the repeated attempts to prosecute people for possession of virtual child porn - either photo quality cgi, or real porn using adults who are made to look like children - in which the prosecution acknowledges that no real children were involved,. Success attempts, in some cases.
If you have evidence that is happening because of child porn, you should forward it to the authorities. Or, better yet, submit a paper to a peer reviewed journal. You'll be famous, and hailed as a hero for saving so many children.
If they don't accept it, maybe it's not evidence at all, and maybe you invoking child rape is nothing but an attempt to generate hysteria for the purpose of confusing the issue.
Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. It's stories.
And people who have been caught committing a serious crime do have a tendency to blame pretty much anything but themselves.
Unreliable witnesses before court should be dismissed out of hand.
The reliability of witnesses if a question of fact, and the trier of fast is the jury, not the judge. And juries do often find witnesses too unreliable to believe. More and more, in recent years, they apply this to the cops, too.
The theory is that fapping to child porn makes you more likely to molest children. There's no evidence to support that theory - none at all - and what little research has been done suggests the opposite might be the case, but it's an internally consistent belief.
If one is willing to punish people for what they might do in the future.
Very true. But Californicators do it wish such enthusiasm.
Preachers aren't allowed to tell you how to vote silly.
Actually, they are. They're just not allowed to claim a religious tax exemption if they do. Technically. Damned rare they get caught out on it.
They listen to Fox News. That's why they're rallying behind Trump, even though he is less of a Christian than Hilary.
As far as I can tell, Satan is more Christian than Hillary.
Especially if the preacher is on TV.