The correct statement is, "...people shoot at you when you violently invade/overthrow their corrupt government, which they themselves hate, and peacefully occupy their nation." Yes. The'll do in fact. Wouldn't you hate it yourself if your mother-in-law somehow gets hold of a second pair of keys to your appartement, gets in while you are away and cleans everything because she deems you unable to get your mess cleared up yourself?
Even if afterwards lots of things are usable again, your appartement really looks comfy, the mouldy smell has gone from the laundry and from the litter bucket, the post is really sorted, important bills are neatly stapled and compared with your account balance, a plan is set up how to pay up everything.
You still will throw out your mother-in-law as soon as you get home and ask the judge for an injunction against her to never get close to your appartement again.
There is an old human saying: "The antonym of Art is Well-Intentioned".
Yes, it is possible to create your own Work of Art based on another work. No one argues against that. I never claimed that DI's creation shouldn't be protected by the same copyright laws that protect Harvard's creation. If the Discovery Institute cries foul after you took their version of Harvard's video, stripped everything except the narrative and made new pictures that fit the narrative, but show something completely different, then the Discovery Institute might well go after you for copyright violation, if you don't ask their permission and don't give credits.
It may or may not be valid scientific discourse (I lean to no), but if your argument is that someone making a mistaken (or even flawed or foolish argument) is therefore guilty of copyright violation when someone who does exactly the same thing but makes a valid argument isn't, then that would place a very unhealthy chill on free expression. You seem to argue that the video somehow was there, and then Harvard made a narrative for it, and later on Discovery Institute made another narrative. But the video was made by Harvard. They might have taken other sources (and they have to state so in the video, if they use another person's videos), but they did three things that makes this video a Work of Art on its own: a) They've choosen the pictures. b) They cut the pictures to length fitting their own intend c) They assembled them in a certain order. This technique is known as a collage, and thus it is by itself a Work of Art.
Discovery Institute didn't do so. They took a prefabricated sequence of pictures. They didn't change their order. Their narrative might be their own and probably is entitled to its own copyright. But everything else violates Harvard's copyright to the collage of pictures.
It would be right if we found the video without any narrative buried deep in the remainings of an ancient civilisation or something else. Then both narratives would be part of a discourse how to interpret the video. Then the video would be the raw scientific data, and both narratives had their rightful purpose.
Here it is different. The video is in no way raw data. It was choosen, cut, mounted together to help explaining something. In this case the narrative is the core of the video, and the pictures are merely there to illustrate. As someone who routinely draws comics as a hobby I always was playing with the possibilitiy to erase all words in a comic strip and then fill in something else which narrates a completely different story. Misinterpretation of a sequence of pictures is thus no "scientific discourse", it is always possible. At most it shows that the pictures alone are not enough to make the case for what Harvard wanted to explain with the video (but Harvard added the narrative anyway because the knew it was not enough). If the Institute wanted to show that, they might have a case, albeit a weak one.
But in this case it is just making a derivative work of someone else's work without a) getting a permission and b) without attributing it correctly. This is purely a copyright case, nothing else.
This is the major problem with "non-lethal" weapons. The other is, that there are people studying medicine for five years in order to know how to acutally calculate how much of a dose you need to sedate or stun people without threatening their lives too much. And somehow all this knowledge is supposed to be condensed in a single handgun and 100 milliseconds for pulling the trigger.
If if was so easy why don't we stun people with a taser before an operation?
Scarcity is a necessary economic principle even for intellectual items, and without it, you won't see anyone interested in producing intellectual works. 1. I am producing lots of intellectual works and never got paid for them. I just happen to like to create them. 2. If the only reason to limit access to a resource of plenty is creating the ability for a few to profiteer from it, then I would call this theft. That's like putting soldiers around a well to allow a person to sell more bottled water. 3. The intrinsic value of information lies in the fact that it is connected to other pieces of information, and the value of information increases if it can be connected to more information. Limiting the ability to interconnect information is thus degrading the value of said information. 4. There is always the famous quote (sometimes attributed to Isaac Newton or Robert Hooke, but both were also just quoting, thus pirating valuable intellectual property!): "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." There is no work of Art or invention or other intellectual work that stands all for itself. It is always the result of a huge body of knowledge and art it builds on. Limiting access to this body of knowledge is limiting the ability to create new intellectual works. 5. Thus, while the argument that a creator should be able to somehow get rewarded for his creation, has something for itself, it's not the sole reason for the creation itself. There are many others, and limiting access to creative works is in fact reducing the ability or the joy of new creation. Encouraging creative works thus has to take other things in consideration, and access to already created works is one of the most basic things. 6. Most economies were growing fastest at the moment, when limits of access to the body of knowledge were lifted, when duplication of works was getting cheaper, when monastry libraries were opened to the public, when access to universities was facilitated, when the number of people learning a music instrument by playing music works was increasing, in fact when creative works were turned from a scarce resource to a nearly unlimited source.
I have a very good understanding how this works. We are talking about Germany, and here keyloggers are illegal and not allowed as investigative means because of exactly that.
If you randomly test 100000 people, only one of them will have the sickness. 99999 are healthy. Of those 99 will be tested positive because one out of 1000 will falsely be tested positive.
- There is a severe sickness, which only one of 100,000 people gets. - There is a test for this sickness, which is 99,9% accurate, that means, that the result of only 1 in 1000 persons is wrong. (In reality you have two numbers, one giving how high the rate is to give a false positive, and another one for the false negatives, but for the sake of the calculation we consider them equal).
How high is the chance, after you got tested positive, that you in fact have the severe sickness?
In 99 out of 100 this was a false positive.
The same goes for the search of terrorists.
Terrorists are very seldom, lets say that only 1 in 100,000 persons in Germany is a terrorist (this still gives 800 terrorists living in Germany, far too much compared with the number of terroristic acts committed!). Lets say that the police has means to be 99,9% accurate to tell beforehand if a suspect is a terrorist or not, before asking for secret computer searches.
It still means that in 99 out of 100 cases a complete innocent person's computer will be searched.
There is a big difference between tapping a phone or a search warrant on the one side and a secret search of one's computer.
For a search warrant to be executed the suspect has to be present, or at least an outside witness has to be present. (I don't know about the legal situation in the U.S., but at least in Germany this is the case.)
Phone tapping can't create phone conversations that never happened.
But if you can install a software on a person's computer without him noticing, then you could also put counterbande files like the oh so beloved bomb construction howtos or kiddie porn on the computer.
The main problem with secretly spying on a computer is that it compromises the computer. From a legal point of view material gained with a secret computer search shouldn't be brought to court, because there is no way to prove that the evidence isn't faked.
The amount of traffic to send remains nearly same, for a centralized model or for a P2P-model. P2P just has some additional traffic for organisation, but it is not so much that you could call P2P administrative traffic the bandwidth hog to end all Internet.
So if Mark Cuban gets his way, and all traffic is only mail and http, then still his Internet Tubes[tm] are clogged by people downloading... just this time it's from YouPorn or AllOfMP3's granddaughter.
When my university had only an E1 uplink (2 MBit/sec), it was the same with FTP. FTP was clogging the bandwidth, because people were downloading as crazy from funet.fi or uni-stuttgart.de. So the admins at the university were setting up a gigantic FTP mirror and mirroring everything the students wanted to be mirrored. Then there came HTTP, and suddenly FTP was no longer the problem, but HTTP was clogging the Internet Tubes[tm].
Now it's supposed to be P2P. For some reason people seem to confuse the fact, that others will download, with the details about the protocols used to download.
An accused terrorist, on the other hand, should tell the truth because a terrorist might not have much legal protection at times. ... which in turn gives the interrogator the right to torture^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hspecially interrogate the accused terrorist or hand him over to a government that has more experience at this, because the fucking terrorist refuses to acknowledge that he in fact is one.
And as a last thought, are you seriously going to sit there and say a U.S. citizen has more to worry about from their government than a citizen of *Putin's Russia*? Than any Chinese citizen? In a certain way yes. In Germany there is a saying: "Grab something out of a naked man's pocket". You can't take freedom or privacy away from a person who has lost it already.
Personally, until china, russia, and many others clean up their goddamned spam issues, we ought to talk war With "many others" you surely talk about the U.S., still the source of 60% of the world's spam.
Computers are just like greek gods. They are capable, they are omnipotent, they just take everything you demand literally. Basicly computers are just levers mounted to your own incompetence, and they increase hundredfold every mistake you make.
"To err is human, to really screw up, you need a computer."
That said I remember a story I heard once from a neighbour. He was in Moscow for a conference, and in the morning he spilled coffee on his tie. So he was wondering i) where to get a necktie in the morning around the hotel and ii) what the hell the russian word for "necktie" is. He remembered: It was similar to the german word for the same thing. So he just tried, walked over to the nearest kiosque and asked the russian lady: "Kravat?" She was killing him with her stare, and he suddenly realized: kravat = bed. galstukh = necktie.
Before the invasion Iraqis killed Iraqis at a rate of 10,000 per year. After the invasion Iraqis killed Iraqis at a rate of 22,500 a year. That's helping progress towards democracy exactly how?
I am not a bible type at all, but one sentence I think is very important: Matthew 7,16 (rephrased in Matthew 7,20): "So then, you will know them by their fruits."
Given that Iraq has at least 100,000 deaths (that's according to the U.S. Army, other sources estimate 250,000 and more) due to homicide and war since 2003, that's four years and on average 25,000 each year. The death poll of Saddam Hussein's rule is put at 300,000 for the whole of more than 30 years, which results in 10,000 per year. Basicly the death rate has more than doubled since the starting of the Iraq war.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if afterwards lots of things are usable again, your appartement really looks comfy, the mouldy smell has gone from the laundry and from the litter bucket, the post is really sorted, important bills are neatly stapled and compared with your account balance, a plan is set up how to pay up everything.
You still will throw out your mother-in-law as soon as you get home and ask the judge for an injunction against her to never get close to your appartement again.
There is an old human saying: "The antonym of Art is Well-Intentioned".
So he's just following orders?
Yes, it is possible to create your own Work of Art based on another work. No one argues against that. I never claimed that DI's creation shouldn't be protected by the same copyright laws that protect Harvard's creation. If the Discovery Institute cries foul after you took their version of Harvard's video, stripped everything except the narrative and made new pictures that fit the narrative, but show something completely different, then the Discovery Institute might well go after you for copyright violation, if you don't ask their permission and don't give credits.
Discovery Institute didn't do so. They took a prefabricated sequence of pictures. They didn't change their order. Their narrative might be their own and probably is entitled to its own copyright. But everything else violates Harvard's copyright to the collage of pictures.
No. This is something completely different.
It would be right if we found the video without any narrative buried deep in the remainings of an ancient civilisation or something else. Then both narratives would be part of a discourse how to interpret the video. Then the video would be the raw scientific data, and both narratives had their rightful purpose.
Here it is different. The video is in no way raw data. It was choosen, cut, mounted together to help explaining something. In this case the narrative is the core of the video, and the pictures are merely there to illustrate. As someone who routinely draws comics as a hobby I always was playing with the possibilitiy to erase all words in a comic strip and then fill in something else which narrates a completely different story. Misinterpretation of a sequence of pictures is thus no "scientific discourse", it is always possible. At most it shows that the pictures alone are not enough to make the case for what Harvard wanted to explain with the video (but Harvard added the narrative anyway because the knew it was not enough). If the Institute wanted to show that, they might have a case, albeit a weak one.
But in this case it is just making a derivative work of someone else's work without a) getting a permission and b) without attributing it correctly. This is purely a copyright case, nothing else.
If if was so easy why don't we stun people with a taser before an operation?
2. If the only reason to limit access to a resource of plenty is creating the ability for a few to profiteer from it, then I would call this theft. That's like putting soldiers around a well to allow a person to sell more bottled water.
3. The intrinsic value of information lies in the fact that it is connected to other pieces of information, and the value of information increases if it can be connected to more information. Limiting the ability to interconnect information is thus degrading the value of said information.
4. There is always the famous quote (sometimes attributed to Isaac Newton or Robert Hooke, but both were also just quoting, thus pirating valuable intellectual property!): "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." There is no work of Art or invention or other intellectual work that stands all for itself. It is always the result of a huge body of knowledge and art it builds on. Limiting access to this body of knowledge is limiting the ability to create new intellectual works.
5. Thus, while the argument that a creator should be able to somehow get rewarded for his creation, has something for itself, it's not the sole reason for the creation itself. There are many others, and limiting access to creative works is in fact reducing the ability or the joy of new creation. Encouraging creative works thus has to take other things in consideration, and access to already created works is one of the most basic things.
6. Most economies were growing fastest at the moment, when limits of access to the body of knowledge were lifted, when duplication of works was getting cheaper, when monastry libraries were opened to the public, when access to universities was facilitated, when the number of people learning a music instrument by playing music works was increasing, in fact when creative works were turned from a scarce resource to a nearly unlimited source.
I have a very good understanding how this works. We are talking about Germany, and here keyloggers are illegal and not allowed as investigative means because of exactly that.
It's simple math.
If you randomly test 100000 people, only one of them will have the sickness. 99999 are healthy. Of those 99 will be tested positive because one out of 1000 will falsely be tested positive.
That's why a single statement from a single eyewitness is traditionally not enough to prove someones guilt.
Even the Romans demanded at least three eyewitnesses before court.
I like the old calculation we had in statistics:
- There is a severe sickness, which only one of 100,000 people gets.
- There is a test for this sickness, which is 99,9% accurate, that means, that the result of only 1 in 1000 persons is wrong. (In reality you have two numbers, one giving how high the rate is to give a false positive, and another one for the false negatives, but for the sake of the calculation we consider them equal).
How high is the chance, after you got tested positive, that you in fact have the severe sickness?
In 99 out of 100 this was a false positive.
The same goes for the search of terrorists.
Terrorists are very seldom, lets say that only 1 in 100,000 persons in Germany is a terrorist (this still gives 800 terrorists living in Germany, far too much compared with the number of terroristic acts committed!). Lets say that the police has means to be 99,9% accurate to tell beforehand if a suspect is a terrorist or not, before asking for secret computer searches.
It still means that in 99 out of 100 cases a complete innocent person's computer will be searched.
There is a big difference between tapping a phone or a search warrant on the one side and a secret search of one's computer.
For a search warrant to be executed the suspect has to be present, or at least an outside witness has to be present. (I don't know about the legal situation in the U.S., but at least in Germany this is the case.)
Phone tapping can't create phone conversations that never happened.
But if you can install a software on a person's computer without him noticing, then you could also put counterbande files like the oh so beloved bomb construction howtos or kiddie porn on the computer.
The main problem with secretly spying on a computer is that it compromises the computer. From a legal point of view material gained with a secret computer search shouldn't be brought to court, because there is no way to prove that the evidence isn't faked.
The problem goes deeper:
The amount of traffic to send remains nearly same, for a centralized model or for a P2P-model. P2P just has some additional traffic for organisation, but it is not so much that you could call P2P administrative traffic the bandwidth hog to end all Internet.
So if Mark Cuban gets his way, and all traffic is only mail and http, then still his Internet Tubes[tm] are clogged by people downloading... just this time it's from YouPorn or AllOfMP3's granddaughter.
When my university had only an E1 uplink (2 MBit/sec), it was the same with FTP. FTP was clogging the bandwidth, because people were downloading as crazy from funet.fi or uni-stuttgart.de. So the admins at the university were setting up a gigantic FTP mirror and mirroring everything the students wanted to be mirrored. Then there came HTTP, and suddenly FTP was no longer the problem, but HTTP was clogging the Internet Tubes[tm].
Now it's supposed to be P2P. For some reason people seem to confuse the fact, that others will download, with the details about the protocols used to download.
And this makes them different from 90% of the journalists exactly how?
So what's that? A pissing contest whose government is more bad ass?
If it was legal, then we won't need a law to immunize the telcos against it, right? So what's the fuss about?
Too many words. Computers are geek gods. Period.
Computers are just like greek gods. They are capable, they are omnipotent, they just take everything you demand literally. Basicly computers are just levers mounted to your own incompetence, and they increase hundredfold every mistake you make.
"To err is human, to really screw up, you need a computer."
That said I remember a story I heard once from a neighbour. He was in Moscow for a conference, and in the morning he spilled coffee on his tie. So he was wondering i) where to get a necktie in the morning around the hotel and ii) what the hell the russian word for "necktie" is. He remembered: It was similar to the german word for the same thing. So he just tried, walked over to the nearest kiosque and asked the russian lady: "Kravat?" She was killing him with her stare, and he suddenly realized: kravat = bed. galstukh = necktie.
But that's the reason bribery has such a stronghold. "Everyone does it, so I must do it myself."
Ok... Let me rephrase that:
Before the invasion Iraqis killed Iraqis at a rate of 10,000 per year. After the invasion Iraqis killed Iraqis at a rate of 22,500 a year. That's helping progress towards democracy exactly how?
I am not a bible type at all, but one sentence I think is very important: Matthew 7,16 (rephrased in Matthew 7,20): "So then, you will know them by their fruits."
Given that Iraq has at least 100,000 deaths (that's according to the U.S. Army, other sources estimate 250,000 and more) due to homicide and war since 2003, that's four years and on average 25,000 each year. The death poll of Saddam Hussein's rule is put at 300,000 for the whole of more than 30 years, which results in 10,000 per year. Basicly the death rate has more than doubled since the starting of the Iraq war.