You don't seem to understand the difference between people not like what you say and the government punishing you for what you say.
You have the freedom to say pretty much anything you want. Other people have the right to not associate with you because of what you say. The government has a limited right to control what you say, such as if what you say endangers others (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is the classic example). Basically, your statement is false dichotomy and there is nothing insightful about that.
Beyond all that, the placebo effect is "inactive agent is applied and there is a result because the patient believes the agent is actually active". The buttons, etc. mentioned in the article are not placebos because the effect happens even if the button is not pressed. The button does not effect the actual outcome, as a placebo does, but rather give the person pressing the button something to do, thereby making them feel less helpless and thus more patient in the matter.
What is described is more "Here, stupid monkey, play with this to make yourself feel useful while waiting for the inevitable to happen.", rather than "He had a physiological reaction to a sugar pill that we told him was actual medicine for his condition."
'By the way, why do you think there are so many AC posts that go against said groupthink? It is because one generally gets modded into oblivion when one goes against the groupthink. The "troll", "flamebait", and "overrated" moderations are treated by many slashdotters as "You do not think as we do so you should be punished." regardless of how true, informative, or insightful the comment actually is.
No, it is a website where a handful of editors put out submission after submission as above.
It is a website where commenters do exactly what the GPP states. They support copyright only when it serves their interests and attack it when it does not. Slashdot group think is not mythical and if you would know that is you bothered to look with an open mind
The GPP is writing an open letter using a literary device. Perhaps you should return to school and take a few more courses in literature.
No. They are convinced that if people would not make and give away for free unauthorized copies of their works, they would make more money, which is true.
The reason it is true is that while some people still would not buy a copy, many others would.
Seeing as Political Correctness, which is nothing more than suppression of free speech, is an invention of the left, I really doubt so-called liberals actually care about what is in the Constitution either. That does not even mention how the health insurance reform goes against the Interstate trade clause and the 10th Amendment or the continual assault on the 2nd Amendment
Both sides only interest in what the Constitution contains extends only as far as the contents support their position.
Now technically as the movie can not demonstrate the ability to "promote the useful arts and sciences"
Just because a work is of an erotic nature does not disqualify it from protection, regardless of your views on pornography. Under your theory, the work of Maplethorpe does not deserve protection because it does not "promote the useful arts and sciences." And, neither does any fiction or non-useful art, such as still-life paintings.
If her life is ruined, it is her fault and the fault of the people who told her she could win this.
Oh, by the way, technological literacy does not come into play. The law is pretty fucking clear on that.
What I find amusing about your post is that you start off by making it sound like Thomas got shafted, then admit that she lost and the jurors had no doubts about what she did. Perhaps you should go read the copyright law and the penalties for doing what she did.
I believe you feel that way because you have watched too much TV and are, in fact, a dumbass.
Just because one makes an appeal, there is no obligation of the court to do anything. In this particular case, Thomas has lost every single appeal. When you lose, you do not get your way, regardless of what you think or feel. When you lose, you lose.
Please explain in detail why "There's no way that this could have continued past 3 appeals and still have come up with 7+ digits in settlements" when she lost said appeals.
Really? So, if someone violates your rights and costs you money, when you sue them the most you should be able to receive in compensation is what you missed out on?
Also, they did not miss out on $1.00 per song. They missed out on $1.00 per copy downloaded per song.
So, let us say someone violated your rights and kept you from new, better paying job and earning money for a year. You sue and win, but you can only recover the difference between the pay you did earn and the pay you would have earned, but only for one day.
It is not an exemption at all. Let's look at more of your link:
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
Then, there are the rest of the tests. There is the nature of the work, which is a work created for commercialization and profit. Then, there is the inconvenient fact that the entire work is being copied and distributed. Finally, there is the fact that by providing freely available copies of works over the internet, the potential market for and value of authorized copies are greatly reduced.
The law applies to all copies. A satire for commercial use would still fall under fair use, as would copying for inclusion in criticism even if such criticism were done for commercial purposes; copying for person use, as is the case in the **AA suits, and copying for commercial use by direct publication, as is the case the article talks about, are still not covered by fair use.
Commercial activity doesn't have anything to do with it. The copyright law does not say "except for personal use". It applies regardless of personal or commercial use. If you believe that the copyright law has an exemption for personal use, please show me where it is.
Now, what this woman needs to do is sue the magazine for copyright infringement, including legal fees and punitive damages. You know, just like the **AA would do.
Oh, come on, you think making something illegal will stop all people from doing it if they think they can get away with it? Some people maybe, but there will always be people trying to get away shit.
I know what you mean about gaming with one's friends. And about babysitting. I freely admit I am not the best WoW player, but then I don't make it my life and I don't want to be the one being babysat. I prefer to play alone and maybe team up with someone for a few quests. I have tried Warhammer Online and I like their public quest system. I wish there were something like that in WoW.
We are not so far apart on our opinions. I just want to be able to play DOW II or SCII and not have to deal with or pay for MP or having to have a network connect to play.
Actually, this is part of why they want to protect the algorithms. The Norwegians figured out the system, but if the HFT algorithms are made public, it will be a lot easier for people to game the whole system.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't seem to understand the difference between people not like what you say and the government punishing you for what you say.
You have the freedom to say pretty much anything you want. Other people have the right to not associate with you because of what you say. The government has a limited right to control what you say, such as if what you say endangers others (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is the classic example). Basically, your statement is false dichotomy and there is nothing insightful about that.
I am afraid you do not understand the term "Political Correctness".
Beyond all that, the placebo effect is "inactive agent is applied and there is a result because the patient believes the agent is actually active". The buttons, etc. mentioned in the article are not placebos because the effect happens even if the button is not pressed. The button does not effect the actual outcome, as a placebo does, but rather give the person pressing the button something to do, thereby making them feel less helpless and thus more patient in the matter.
What is described is more "Here, stupid monkey, play with this to make yourself feel useful while waiting for the inevitable to happen.", rather than "He had a physiological reaction to a sugar pill that we told him was actual medicine for his condition."
Seeing as porn is one of the best selling genres, I would say the public has defined porn as a "useful art". You are hoist on your own petard.
Ah, yes, the way your ilk deals with reality: snarky dismissiveness. Then, you whine when your ass gets kicked.
'By the way, why do you think there are so many AC posts that go against said groupthink? It is because one generally gets modded into oblivion when one goes against the groupthink. The "troll", "flamebait", and "overrated" moderations are treated by many slashdotters as "You do not think as we do so you should be punished." regardless of how true, informative, or insightful the comment actually is.
No, it is a website where a handful of editors put out submission after submission as above.
It is a website where commenters do exactly what the GPP states. They support copyright only when it serves their interests and attack it when it does not. Slashdot group think is not mythical and if you would know that is you bothered to look with an open mind
The GPP is writing an open letter using a literary device. Perhaps you should return to school and take a few more courses in literature.
No. They are convinced that if people would not make and give away for free unauthorized copies of their works, they would make more money, which is true.
The reason it is true is that while some people still would not buy a copy, many others would.
Seeing as Political Correctness, which is nothing more than suppression of free speech, is an invention of the left, I really doubt so-called liberals actually care about what is in the Constitution either. That does not even mention how the health insurance reform goes against the Interstate trade clause and the 10th Amendment or the continual assault on the 2nd Amendment
Both sides only interest in what the Constitution contains extends only as far as the contents support their position.
Just because a work is of an erotic nature does not disqualify it from protection, regardless of your views on pornography. Under your theory, the work of Maplethorpe does not deserve protection because it does not "promote the useful arts and sciences." And, neither does any fiction or non-useful art, such as still-life paintings.
I think they would applaud the execution of someone who DDoSed WikiLeaks. I also doubt you are telling the truth.
You were wrong. It was modded flamebait. But, I still count it as a win for you.
Do not expect objectivity from hypocrites.
How many years would you want someone to get for taking away your first amendment rights?
Let's not forget about the republican campaign worker who had his arm broken by liberal union thugs.
If her life is ruined, it is her fault and the fault of the people who told her she could win this.
Oh, by the way, technological literacy does not come into play. The law is pretty fucking clear on that.
What I find amusing about your post is that you start off by making it sound like Thomas got shafted, then admit that she lost and the jurors had no doubts about what she did. Perhaps you should go read the copyright law and the penalties for doing what she did.
I believe you feel that way because you have watched too much TV and are, in fact, a dumbass.
Just because one makes an appeal, there is no obligation of the court to do anything. In this particular case, Thomas has lost every single appeal. When you lose, you do not get your way, regardless of what you think or feel. When you lose, you lose.
Please explain in detail why "There's no way that this could have continued past 3 appeals and still have come up with 7+ digits in settlements" when she lost said appeals.
Really? So, if someone violates your rights and costs you money, when you sue them the most you should be able to receive in compensation is what you missed out on?
Also, they did not miss out on $1.00 per song. They missed out on $1.00 per copy downloaded per song.
So, let us say someone violated your rights and kept you from new, better paying job and earning money for a year. You sue and win, but you can only recover the difference between the pay you did earn and the pay you would have earned, but only for one day.
Do you understand it now?
Be fair and don't violate other people's copyrights. That is nice and fair right there.
While the copying and distribution is not for commercial use (which may be debatable), it is also not for "nonprofit, educational use". As you said yourself, it is for personal use. Title 7 says "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." and defines publication as "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. Seeing as the downloading individual ends up with a copy of the work, it would seem that the works offered are, in fact, published.
Then, there are the rest of the tests. There is the nature of the work, which is a work created for commercialization and profit. Then, there is the inconvenient fact that the entire work is being copied and distributed. Finally, there is the fact that by providing freely available copies of works over the internet, the potential market for and value of authorized copies are greatly reduced.
The law applies to all copies. A satire for commercial use would still fall under fair use, as would copying for inclusion in criticism even if such criticism were done for commercial purposes; copying for person use, as is the case in the **AA suits, and copying for commercial use by direct publication, as is the case the article talks about, are still not covered by fair use.
Please explain how having to pay for access to copyrighted contents or doing without same a question of good/evil/suffering/basic justice.
And, if you want to bring up any of the law suits, you will need to justify the copyright infringement that the law suits are based on.
Commercial activity doesn't have anything to do with it. The copyright law does not say "except for personal use". It applies regardless of personal or commercial use. If you believe that the copyright law has an exemption for personal use, please show me where it is.
Now, what this woman needs to do is sue the magazine for copyright infringement, including legal fees and punitive damages. You know, just like the **AA would do.
Oh, come on, you think making something illegal will stop all people from doing it if they think they can get away with it? Some people maybe, but there will always be people trying to get away shit.
I know what you mean about gaming with one's friends. And about babysitting. I freely admit I am not the best WoW player, but then I don't make it my life and I don't want to be the one being babysat. I prefer to play alone and maybe team up with someone for a few quests. I have tried Warhammer Online and I like their public quest system. I wish there were something like that in WoW.
We are not so far apart on our opinions. I just want to be able to play DOW II or SCII and not have to deal with or pay for MP or having to have a network connect to play.
Actually, this is part of why they want to protect the algorithms. The Norwegians figured out the system, but if the HFT algorithms are made public, it will be a lot easier for people to game the whole system.
Nothing is stopping you from buying the access besides not having the money.