Exactly. Much of my decision to go to law school (I'm starting next year) was based on what I learned here on Slashdot about the infringement on our rights by the wealthy and powerful. And I picked my school because it runs The Berkman Center, which is partially responsible for both creative commons and chilling effects. I'll be able to start working on what I care about as soon as September rolls around. Few other professions afford you that opportunity.
Lawyers that represent clients in the wrong, are in the wrong themselves. No excuses.
Yeah, nobody deserves to have someone looking out for their rights. While almost all litigators take their adversarial role too far and play to win rather than find justice, everyone needs to have an advocate. Even the guilty and evil. Without that, the system is corrupt.
I don't understand your point here. If you drive a car that's more popular with thieves (for whatever reason) then you have a greater chance of having it stolen. If insurance companies have to pay more money on Camry claims, then they're going to charge more for Camry premiums. The reason they pay more on Camry claims is irrelevent.
The point was that the cars in the top 10 most stolen are more likely to be stolen since they're so common. If there are a billion camrys and 10 corvettes, and 5 corvettes are stolen and 50 million camrys (camries?) are stolen, Camries would cost more in terms of payouts and would blow the corvette out of the water in therms of numbers stolen. But you'd be a fool not to realize that corvettes have a higher chance of being stolen and should be more expensive to insure.
Statistically speaking, a stolen car has a higher chance of being a camry than a corvette in this case, but that shouldn't translate into higher premiums for camry owners, for the above reasons.
That's not what's being suggested. Fake kiddie porn isn't dangerous because it turns pepole into pedophiles, it's dangerous because it could turn pedophiles in to child molesters by feeding and intensifying their fantasies. There's a big difference.
People don't become pedophiles, or more active pedophiles, because they are looking at kiddie porn
Maybe, Maybe not. If pedophiles have virtual porn to use, it allows them to explore, and be sexually satisfied by, their fantasies. However, repeated use of virtual porn could legitimize the fantasy acts in the pedophile's mind and lead him/her to seek greater stimulation in the real world. If you're used to looking at pictures of kids in a sexual context, you'll start to see real-life kids as sexual beings. This could lower mental barriers to attack.
While virtual child porn won't create new pedophiles, it could make existing ones more dangerous. I don't think it should be restricted on free speech grounds, but let's not pretend that it's inconceivable for child porn to lead to molestation.
Are talking about the same CompUSA that's in my universe? None of their employees would understand the complexities and ramifications of stopping someone from copying software off a store machine.
That's subjective. I would argue that there were many films just as good, if not better, released in Spring and Summer.
Quality is subjective, yes, but Oscar-bait is generally released at the end of the year to be fresh in voters' minds; it's part of a studio's strategy for films. While there were certainly great films released early in the year (Memento), stuidos flog the late releases to the Powers That Be, which gets them nominated, which gets them votes, which means more $$$ for the studios.
Actually, you are wrong, because the courts interpret the constitution. You may disagree with their decisions, but they are, by definition, the law and the consitution.
It is ridiculous to protect all speech, all the time. Threat are not protected speech. Obscenity is not proteted speech. Any speech that disturbs the peace is not protected. Harrassment is not protected. Your interpretation would allow obscene phone calls, sexual harrassment, plotting to violently overthrow the government, etc. etc. Do you really want that? Do you want it to be legal for me to stand outside your bedroom window with a megaphone and 25000 watt speakers going 24x7, rendering your apartment/house unlivable?
There are perfectly reasonable limits on speech that are useful to civilized society.
That shows how much control the government has over protesters. They can't do drugs because else the cops can abuse that
Boo F'in Hoo. The protesters can't carry drugs because drugs are illegal. Cry me a river. It's not an abuse of power to charge someone with a crime that they actually are committing.
Wait, explain to me how this was extra-judicial punishment, please. They sent a lot of heavily armed agents to arrest a potentially dangerous suspect. They didn't shoot, beat, injure, or torture him, just used overwhelming force to ensure everyone's safety. I don't see the punishment aspect of this. Do enlighten me.
What does a model have to do with the privacy policy? Nothing!
Let's say that they're using this oversimplified model you mention. If it doesn't work, then they'll use a more granular model, that takes in to account the actual show you're watching. THey don't have to know who you are, no matte rhow detailed the profile is.
You don't even have to group shows (ie as sitcoms, etc.) to make predictions about what someone will like. All you have to know is that users who like shows A,B,and C also like show X. So you recommend show X to those that watch A,B, and C. It doesn't matter who the satr is, whether or not it's sports or ballet or porn. Just that users tend to cluster around those four shows.
The software is a lot simpler than you seem to think.
No, recordings of songs are copyrighted. That's why Napster got shut down.
Performances aren't copyrighted. So cover songs are legal since you are recreating a performance of a song. It's illegal for them to copy the lyrics, which is why you'll rarely, if ever, see the lyrics to a cover song in the liner notes of an album (check it out if you don't believe me). But it's fine to play someone else's song since you're recreating a performance.
IANAL (yet), but I do work at one of the top IP firms in the US, so I'm pretty confident that I've gotten accurate information on this.
ice deliverymen demand some kind of legal protection from refridgerator manufacturers
Well, we still had new ice being made once they went out of business. We still had transportation when horses weren't being shod. Then we were replacing a service with a better one that achieved the same ends. If we put musicians out of business, then there's no new music, which is, I think, pretty sacred to many people. So free music doesn't achieve the analogous situation as the ones you mentioned, since it kills, rather that replacing, the original product/service.
I realize musicians could still make money from concerts, etc, but if there's no economic incentive to distribute music, the world will be a poorer place for it.
$600 over the course of 3 years isn't much at all, when compared to a minimum wage salary.
Try $300 or so, which is the real difference. They're already paying $300 anyhow, so though the full cost of the upgrade is $651, the incremental additional cost is only $316 (651-335, if I did the mental math right).
Slashdot Mirror
Einstein's skeleton v. Hawking w/o wheelchair? Now that's tasteless entertainment.
To points 1 and 2: The system isn't perfect. Still, how else do you protect the rights of both parties without giving htem both advocates?
As for 3, you're just plain wrong.
And 4 is irrelevant.
Exactly. Much of my decision to go to law school (I'm starting next year) was based on what I learned here on Slashdot about the infringement on our rights by the wealthy and powerful. And I picked my school because it runs The Berkman Center, which is partially responsible for both creative commons and chilling effects. I'll be able to start working on what I care about as soon as September rolls around. Few other professions afford you that opportunity.
Yeah, nobody deserves to have someone looking out for their rights. While almost all litigators take their adversarial role too far and play to win rather than find justice, everyone needs to have an advocate. Even the guilty and evil. Without that, the system is corrupt.
I thought it was the huge hole torn in the fuel line by the titanium chunk that cause the disaster.
The point was that the cars in the top 10 most stolen are more likely to be stolen since they're so common. If there are a billion camrys and 10 corvettes, and 5 corvettes are stolen and 50 million camrys (camries?) are stolen, Camries would cost more in terms of payouts and would blow the corvette out of the water in therms of numbers stolen. But you'd be a fool not to realize that corvettes have a higher chance of being stolen and should be more expensive to insure.
Statistically speaking, a stolen car has a higher chance of being a camry than a corvette in this case, but that shouldn't translate into higher premiums for camry owners, for the above reasons.
If you'd bothered to read my post fully, you'd see that I agree with this point.
Of course, it had to be on a case where Thomas votes *not* to restrict porn...
That's not what's being suggested. Fake kiddie porn isn't dangerous because it turns pepole into pedophiles, it's dangerous because it could turn pedophiles in to child molesters by feeding and intensifying their fantasies. There's a big difference.
Maybe, Maybe not. If pedophiles have virtual porn to use, it allows them to explore, and be sexually satisfied by, their fantasies. However, repeated use of virtual porn could legitimize the fantasy acts in the pedophile's mind and lead him/her to seek greater stimulation in the real world. If you're used to looking at pictures of kids in a sexual context, you'll start to see real-life kids as sexual beings. This could lower mental barriers to attack.
While virtual child porn won't create new pedophiles, it could make existing ones more dangerous. I don't think it should be restricted on free speech grounds, but let's not pretend that it's inconceivable for child porn to lead to molestation.
Are talking about the same CompUSA that's in my universe? None of their employees would understand the complexities and ramifications of stopping someone from copying software off a store machine.
That's subjective. I would argue that there were many films just as good, if not better, released in Spring and Summer.
Quality is subjective, yes, but Oscar-bait is generally released at the end of the year to be fresh in voters' minds; it's part of a studio's strategy for films. While there were certainly great films released early in the year (Memento), stuidos flog the late releases to the Powers That Be, which gets them nominated, which gets them votes, which means more $$$ for the studios.
I disagree, the courts are wrong.
Actually, you are wrong, because the courts interpret the constitution. You may disagree with their decisions, but they are, by definition, the law and the consitution.
It is ridiculous to protect all speech, all the time. Threat are not protected speech. Obscenity is not proteted speech. Any speech that disturbs the peace is not protected. Harrassment is not protected. Your interpretation would allow obscene phone calls, sexual harrassment, plotting to violently overthrow the government, etc. etc. Do you really want that? Do you want it to be legal for me to stand outside your bedroom window with a megaphone and 25000 watt speakers going 24x7, rendering your apartment/house unlivable?
There are perfectly reasonable limits on speech that are useful to civilized society.
That shows how much control the government has over protesters. They can't do drugs because else the cops can abuse that
Boo F'in Hoo. The protesters can't carry drugs because drugs are illegal. Cry me a river. It's not an abuse of power to charge someone with a crime that they actually are committing.
Wait, explain to me how this was extra-judicial punishment, please. They sent a lot of heavily armed agents to arrest a potentially dangerous suspect. They didn't shoot, beat, injure, or torture him, just used overwhelming force to ensure everyone's safety. I don't see the punishment aspect of this. Do enlighten me.
I thought that would be Hustler Canada...
What does a model have to do with the privacy policy? Nothing!
Let's say that they're using this oversimplified model you mention. If it doesn't work, then they'll use a more granular model, that takes in to account the actual show you're watching. THey don't have to know who you are, no matte rhow detailed the profile is.
You don't even have to group shows (ie as sitcoms, etc.) to make predictions about what someone will like. All you have to know is that users who like shows A,B,and C also like show X. So you recommend show X to those that watch A,B, and C. It doesn't matter who the satr is, whether or not it's sports or ballet or porn. Just that users tend to cluster around those four shows.
The software is a lot simpler than you seem to think.
My dad, a judge, will. And lots of the lawyers at the firm I work at.
No, recordings of songs are copyrighted. That's why Napster got shut down.
Performances aren't copyrighted. So cover songs are legal since you are recreating a performance of a song. It's illegal for them to copy the lyrics, which is why you'll rarely, if ever, see the lyrics to a cover song in the liner notes of an album (check it out if you don't believe me). But it's fine to play someone else's song since you're recreating a performance.
IANAL (yet), but I do work at one of the top IP firms in the US, so I'm pretty confident that I've gotten accurate information on this.
ice deliverymen demand some kind of legal protection from refridgerator manufacturers
Well, we still had new ice being made once they went out of business. We still had transportation when horses weren't being shod. Then we were replacing a service with a better one that achieved the same ends. If we put musicians out of business, then there's no new music, which is, I think, pretty sacred to many people. So free music doesn't achieve the analogous situation as the ones you mentioned, since it kills, rather that replacing, the original product/service.
I realize musicians could still make money from concerts, etc, but if there's no economic incentive to distribute music, the world will be a poorer place for it.
THAT'S what's sacred.
Name an artist that's made significant money via fairtunes. (IE enough to pay for recording, production, and to support a band and their families).
[sound of crickets chirping]
$600 over the course of 3 years isn't much at all, when compared to a minimum wage salary.
Try $300 or so, which is the real difference. They're already paying $300 anyhow, so though the full cost of the upgrade is $651, the incremental additional cost is only $316 (651-335, if I did the mental math right).
It's a win/win/win
win/win/win? we can't even avoid mentioning their products when we're talking about Linux! AAAGH!
Just in ...
The White house denies ordering the attack in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Thanks so much. I know that my best friend at Morgan Stanley quit in January, but there are plenty of other acquaintances of mine that could be there.
If I had some mod points, I'd give 'em to you. Thanks again for the resource.