Of course this case won't fall under US jurisdiction, but if it did, this argument would not fly: in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Services Co. (499 US 340) the Supreme Court held that the purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, not to "reward the labor" of artists. It doesn't matter how much work you put into creating a work that is not copyrightable; that doesn't change the character of the work. Again, I'm not sure what the argument would be under British law, assuming they sued him there.
and then there's the whole "driving around in a bomb" thing...
That's a feature, not a bug. It ensures that the driver of the Hummer mentioned in an earlier comment will share the Sahimo's fate in such a collision. Mutual Assured Destruction -- no wonder this car was endorsed by the late Robert S. McNamara.
They had a pretty big hit in the 90s that got banned from MTV "Smack my Bitch Up." They're still recording as far as I know, but that was definitely their high point.
Perhaps, but you should really respond to what he actually wrote rather than what you believe he implied. In any case, I think your inference is mistaken.
I see nobody's answered your original question - where's Larry in all this. Extreme Associates actually asked for his help, and he declined. He sees this kind of porn as a threat to the industry. He said "It's cutting your own throat. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, it takes an idiot to create a product that he knows he can't defend in court that's going to send him to prison." So Larry's not going to come bail these guys out.
You're right I was addressing the specific issue of "virtual child porn"; but in cases where the material is determined to be "obscene," it is not protected; that's really a separate issue from the child porn laws. Of course, the definition of "obscenity" is slippery at best, and the Christopher Handley case is a grim reminder of when that goes awry. But if it went to the Supreme Court or if the lower court actually followed precedent, I can't imagine his case not getting thrown out (based on what little I know about it).
Dwight Whorley, on the other hand, is a registered sex offender who was caught downloading real child porn. He also downloaded 20 anime pics. He argued the anime was free speech but the court thought it was obscene. The PROTECT Act - which Congress passed in order to beat its way around the Ashcroft decision I mentioned above - says that cartoon depictions of child porn are illegal only if they are also deemed "obscene." You can read the court opinion here.
Now, this might seem like side-stepping to you, and I would agree, but the point is it all revolves around the question of defining "obscenity." Until the Court moves beyond that notion entirely -- not likely to happen in my lifetime. But "obscenity" has NEVER received first amendment protection -- whether it is actual photos, cartoon drawings, or ASCII text.
Thanks for that explanation - I didn't know this. Even half a second is a pretty long refresh rate for turning pages -- I'll most likely be waiting until the technology matures.
You really think that Grindr is as essential to a phone as a wheel is to a car?
Dude, Grindr is an application that helps you find sex. A wheel on a car helps you to drive to a location where you can find sex. If you remove either one, the result is the same -- it's more difficult to find sex. What's so difficult to understand here?
Someone please mod this up. Everyone in this discussion seems to have missed that they pleaded guilty. They granted the prosecutors' argument that the material was "obscene." They could have challenged it -- I think on at least one of the films involved they would have had a strong case -- but they chose not to. They probably made the right choice given the resources they had to fight this, but that's neither here nor there - the point is, the Court really wasn't asked to determine whether or not this material was "obscene." A huge majority of the comments on this page assume it made a decision about that.
According to the Miller Test, it passes because it does not depict sex or disposal of waste in an offensive manner, its not intended for sexual arousal, and it has a serious plot.
OR it has a serious plot. Not "and." Big difference.
As the previous poster said, clearly the US Supreme Court does not agree with you. Not in this case - it's not going to the Supreme Court - but in a host of cases since they first considered the question, they have held over and over again that "obscenity" is not protected speech. The question of how obscenity is defined is a bit of a moving target, but the fact is that the Supreme Court has never suggested obscenity would be protected speech, and there's currently nobody on the court who has given any indication they would vote otherwise. So yes, according to the Supreme Court, there is speech that is not "worthy" of first amendment protection.
Thank you for the summaries of the movies, but you left out an explanation of "1001 Ways to Eat My Jizz." Can you please tell us what this film is about? kthxbye
Slashdot Mirror
Of course this case won't fall under US jurisdiction, but if it did, this argument would not fly: in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Services Co. (499 US 340) the Supreme Court held that the purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, not to "reward the labor" of artists. It doesn't matter how much work you put into creating a work that is not copyrightable; that doesn't change the character of the work. Again, I'm not sure what the argument would be under British law, assuming they sued him there.
Have you tasted penguin? It's fucking delicious. Almost as good as bald eagle.
Is why everyone cares so much about Money. It's just pieces of paper and little bits of metal. What really matters is Love.
This vulnerability affects only automated teller machines today, but how long before it affects ALMs? (Automatic Love Machines)
Oh, just STFU up.
they are just taking the piss out of us.
Yes, and putting it in cars -- that's the point!
Maybe not but it will always be number two.
Why not just fly out and build a colony on Uranus?
It doesn't take a whiz to see why that's a piss-poor idea. Who leaked this idea to the press anyway? They're just trying to make a splash.
My urine goes to 11.
Yeah but mine is number one!
and then there's the whole "driving around in a bomb" thing...
That's a feature, not a bug. It ensures that the driver of the Hummer mentioned in an earlier comment will share the Sahimo's fate in such a collision. Mutual Assured Destruction -- no wonder this car was endorsed by the late Robert S. McNamara.
In a way, they kinda did that already.
when the first iPod came out, it was the smallest player with the highest capacity
Not true at all. It had less space than a Nomad!
And no wireless!!
You too can have superpowers but there is a sacrifice to be made. You must avoid Windows.
Is that you, Steve Jobs?
Whatever happened to Prodigy?
They had a pretty big hit in the 90s that got banned from MTV "Smack my Bitch Up." They're still recording as far as I know, but that was definitely their high point.
76012,3621 here...
Same here.
You guys both had the same address?
If they'd posted an "Ask Slashdot" story they'd have a million or so armchair experts willing to provide testimony at the drop of a hat.
Yeah but this is only helpful if they have questions about armchairs.
Perhaps, but you should really respond to what he actually wrote rather than what you believe he implied. In any case, I think your inference is mistaken.
I see nobody's answered your original question - where's Larry in all this. Extreme Associates actually asked for his help, and he declined. He sees this kind of porn as a threat to the industry. He said "It's cutting your own throat. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, it takes an idiot to create a product that he knows he can't defend in court that's going to send him to prison." So Larry's not going to come bail these guys out.
You're right I was addressing the specific issue of "virtual child porn"; but in cases where the material is determined to be "obscene," it is not protected; that's really a separate issue from the child porn laws. Of course, the definition of "obscenity" is slippery at best, and the Christopher Handley case is a grim reminder of when that goes awry. But if it went to the Supreme Court or if the lower court actually followed precedent, I can't imagine his case not getting thrown out (based on what little I know about it).
Dwight Whorley, on the other hand, is a registered sex offender who was caught downloading real child porn. He also downloaded 20 anime pics. He argued the anime was free speech but the court thought it was obscene. The PROTECT Act - which Congress passed in order to beat its way around the Ashcroft decision I mentioned above - says that cartoon depictions of child porn are illegal only if they are also deemed "obscene." You can read the court opinion here.
Now, this might seem like side-stepping to you, and I would agree, but the point is it all revolves around the question of defining "obscenity." Until the Court moves beyond that notion entirely -- not likely to happen in my lifetime. But "obscenity" has NEVER received first amendment protection -- whether it is actual photos, cartoon drawings, or ASCII text.
Thanks for that explanation - I didn't know this. Even half a second is a pretty long refresh rate for turning pages -- I'll most likely be waiting until the technology matures.
These debates aren't "wrong," but they have little to no relevance to the news story posted here. That's the problem.
You really think that Grindr is as essential to a phone as a wheel is to a car?
Dude, Grindr is an application that helps you find sex. A wheel on a car helps you to drive to a location where you can find sex. If you remove either one, the result is the same -- it's more difficult to find sex. What's so difficult to understand here?
Someone please mod this up. Everyone in this discussion seems to have missed that they pleaded guilty. They granted the prosecutors' argument that the material was "obscene." They could have challenged it -- I think on at least one of the films involved they would have had a strong case -- but they chose not to. They probably made the right choice given the resources they had to fight this, but that's neither here nor there - the point is, the Court really wasn't asked to determine whether or not this material was "obscene." A huge majority of the comments on this page assume it made a decision about that.
According to the Miller Test, it passes because it does not depict sex or disposal of waste in an offensive manner, its not intended for sexual arousal, and it has a serious plot.
OR it has a serious plot. Not "and." Big difference.
As the previous poster said, clearly the US Supreme Court does not agree with you. Not in this case - it's not going to the Supreme Court - but in a host of cases since they first considered the question, they have held over and over again that "obscenity" is not protected speech. The question of how obscenity is defined is a bit of a moving target, but the fact is that the Supreme Court has never suggested obscenity would be protected speech, and there's currently nobody on the court who has given any indication they would vote otherwise. So yes, according to the Supreme Court, there is speech that is not "worthy" of first amendment protection.
Thank you for the summaries of the movies, but you left out an explanation of "1001 Ways to Eat My Jizz." Can you please tell us what this film is about? kthxbye