No, it is not. Movies have clear copyright notices in them stating that you can not distribute them. No external agreement is needed. If I find a DVD on the ground it doesn't mean it is legal for me to start copying it simply because I never made an agreement with the rightsholder.
It's not a theory. It's put into practice all the time... The PR arm distributes copies for publicity to many people (critics, celebrities, etc) . If those people start distributing their free copies, I guarantee they'll be in court as soon as they're caught.
how many people do you know use their work networks to download pirated content
None, actually. That's a really stupid thing to do... The only thing worse than being slapped with a 100k fine for downloading some music is also getting fired over it.
Not really... As the rights holder they can distribute it for free to as many people as they want. They can also say that those people do NOT have the right to distribute it to others. It's not the fault of the PR arm if the people they give a work to proceed to do something illegal with it.
Exactly. If it had been shot down in Afghanistan the US would be raising all hell. Clearly, it crashed in Iran. Who knows why, but in any case, the CIA was caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
On the contrary. It is mass media which makes freedom of speech lose its value.
There are simply too many voices. Free speech will "magically" regain its value in the face of mass media once it acquires a message embraced by an overwhelming plurality.
Banks won't let you hide your face and Health and Safety require cleanliness in the clothing for caterers. Both require that some religious clothes are not allowed.
How about the full Burqua in France?
Whereas the USA has Free Speech Zones.
Of course there are free speech zones. How else could you do it? You can't simply allow people to demonstrate and protest wherever they want... My right to free speech doesn't mean I can stand in the middle of the Holland tunnel and giving a speech (and thereby prevent everyone else from getting to their jobs in New York City).
You're only allowed to travel in the USA as long as you're not on the travel watchlist which you're not allowed to see or correct.
I'll agree that the do-not-fly list is a rather messed up thing, mainly because it seems to have an utter lack of oversight. But again, hyperbole.... this doesn't prevent you from traveling in the USA, it just prevents you from traveling on an airplane.
And in many states in the USA you have a lot of hassle to try (and fail) to carry firearms.
This is just plain ol bullshit. You can own and carry a firearm in every state of the USA. Purchasing a firearm in the USA is easier than in any other Western country.
That's just nonsense. Freedom of speech is somewhat restricted in most European countries. You can't carry firearms (without a great deal of hassle, if at all) in most European countries. Some European countries restrict your freedom to wear religious items of clothing. etc etc
I'll say it again - the US is one of the least "free" places I've ever been to.
I don't know where you've been, but this seems like hyperbole to me. What countries have you been to that are so much more "free" than the USA, and what freedoms do you have in them that you don't have in the USA?
What I really don't get is why observation would destroy the entanglement. That just doesn't seem possible. They either are entangled, or they aren't. Mere observation by a third unrelated party shouldn't matter. Someone needs to just kill that goddamn cat.
Fox News is a cable/satellite channel. I have never heard of them being broadcast on television. FOX is the broadcast television channel, available in almost all markets.
Some Fox News radio programs are syndicated in some markets.
I did not speak incorrectly. Broadcast, as we were talking about it, refers specifically to public airwaves. They used to have somewhat special regulations in terms of news broadcasting, since the public broadcast spectrum is inherently bandwidth limited. Of course that's less of an issue now with digital broadcasting, but yeah.
That's not entirely true. There was the Fairness doctrine until Reagan's cronies eradicated it, and there still is the Equal time rule.
Even-so, while broadcast news may generally be biased one way or the other, in my experience they are much more fair than Fox News.
If there is no law forcing them to do so, I'm not sure why exactly that is. I expect it is because they fear that if they cross the line too far that there will be repercussions. The Supreme Court did rule, after all, that the Fairness Doctrine was Constitutional.
Right, there IS a FOX channel which is broadcast in most areas, but it is entirely distinct (in terms of content, anyways) from the Fox News channel, which is essentially the "right wing CNN".
I don't like Fox news, and I hate defending them, but they don't use public spectrum. They're a cable/satellite channel. Outside of inciting violence (and various libel laws I'd imagine) they can pretty much say what they want.
So what you're saying is that the ends justify the means? Remember, if it's okay for the goose, it's okay for the gander. Dangerously slippery slope, that.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is not. Movies have clear copyright notices in them stating that you can not distribute them. No external agreement is needed. If I find a DVD on the ground it doesn't mean it is legal for me to start copying it simply because I never made an agreement with the rightsholder.
Movies have copyright notices in them, so they don't need any external note. You could easily put a copyright notice in the metadata of any file.
I download torrents all the time without uploading anything. There are many ways of preventing outbound traffic...
It's not a theory. It's put into practice all the time... The PR arm distributes copies for publicity to many people (critics, celebrities, etc) . If those people start distributing their free copies, I guarantee they'll be in court as soon as they're caught.
how many people do you know use their work networks to download pirated content
None, actually. That's a really stupid thing to do... The only thing worse than being slapped with a 100k fine for downloading some music is also getting fired over it.
Not really... As the rights holder they can distribute it for free to as many people as they want. They can also say that those people do NOT have the right to distribute it to others. It's not the fault of the PR arm if the people they give a work to proceed to do something illegal with it.
If they are downloading them, they are sharing them as well.
That's simply not true. They could have turned off uploading.
Can you imagine if Google, Bing, and Yahoo shut down together even for a few hours? The internet would basically grind to a halt!
It would certainly be an interesting experiment.
"is not about something that is not feeding his wallet" is the opposite of what they meant. Dropping either of the negations makes it correct ;)
Exactly. If it had been shot down in Afghanistan the US would be raising all hell. Clearly, it crashed in Iran. Who knows why, but in any case, the CIA was caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Are you prepared to deny people the right to carry a tool to defend themselves with?
Seems like the right to defend oneself would be right at the foundation of the pyramid of rights, no?
There are simply too many voices. Free speech will "magically" regain its value in the face of mass media once it acquires a message embraced by an overwhelming plurality.
And what are you going to accomplish with your freedom of speech if you don't own a media empire?
There is no "right to have other people listen to you".
Banks won't let you hide your face and Health and Safety require cleanliness in the clothing for caterers. Both require that some religious clothes are not allowed.
How about the full Burqua in France?
Whereas the USA has Free Speech Zones.
Of course there are free speech zones. How else could you do it? You can't simply allow people to demonstrate and protest wherever they want... My right to free speech doesn't mean I can stand in the middle of the Holland tunnel and giving a speech (and thereby prevent everyone else from getting to their jobs in New York City).
You're only allowed to travel in the USA as long as you're not on the travel watchlist which you're not allowed to see or correct.
I'll agree that the do-not-fly list is a rather messed up thing, mainly because it seems to have an utter lack of oversight. But again, hyperbole.... this doesn't prevent you from traveling in the USA, it just prevents you from traveling on an airplane.
And in many states in the USA you have a lot of hassle to try (and fail) to carry firearms.
This is just plain ol bullshit. You can own and carry a firearm in every state of the USA. Purchasing a firearm in the USA is easier than in any other Western country.
That's just nonsense. Freedom of speech is somewhat restricted in most European countries. You can't carry firearms (without a great deal of hassle, if at all) in most European countries. Some European countries restrict your freedom to wear religious items of clothing. etc etc
I'll say it again - the US is one of the least "free" places I've ever been to.
I don't know where you've been, but this seems like hyperbole to me. What countries have you been to that are so much more "free" than the USA, and what freedoms do you have in them that you don't have in the USA?
In other words, "Windmills don't work that way!"
Yes the wave-particle duality is still an amazing thing to me, especially when applied to all matter rather than just high frequency EM radiation.
What I really don't get is why observation would destroy the entanglement. That just doesn't seem possible. They either are entangled, or they aren't. Mere observation by a third unrelated party shouldn't matter. Someone needs to just kill that goddamn cat.
Some Fox News radio programs are syndicated in some markets.
I did not speak incorrectly. Broadcast, as we were talking about it, refers specifically to public airwaves. They used to have somewhat special regulations in terms of news broadcasting, since the public broadcast spectrum is inherently bandwidth limited. Of course that's less of an issue now with digital broadcasting, but yeah.
Even-so, while broadcast news may generally be biased one way or the other, in my experience they are much more fair than Fox News.
If there is no law forcing them to do so, I'm not sure why exactly that is. I expect it is because they fear that if they cross the line too far that there will be repercussions. The Supreme Court did rule, after all, that the Fairness Doctrine was Constitutional.
Right, there IS a FOX channel which is broadcast in most areas, but it is entirely distinct (in terms of content, anyways) from the Fox News channel, which is essentially the "right wing CNN".
yes but not using public spectrum
I don't like Fox news, and I hate defending them, but they don't use public spectrum. They're a cable/satellite channel. Outside of inciting violence (and various libel laws I'd imagine) they can pretty much say what they want.
So what you're saying is that the ends justify the means? Remember, if it's okay for the goose, it's okay for the gander. Dangerously slippery slope, that.