The restrictions exsist not because of the technology involved, but for the benefit of the copyright holder.
Specifically, copyright law in the U.S. was originally designed to allow those who create works to benefit from said works. It restricts who has the Right to Copy a work to those who have permission from the CopyRight holder.
Even if the law has been modified and/or abused, it does not change the why the restrictions are in place. Also, the copyright holder may put a work into the public domain at any time.
I see you did not read the article, or even the slashdot article. Nor do you make much sense in your reasoning.
The DRM does not erase the file, it simply stops decrypting the file.
The patron can renew his checkout of the audiobook.
The patron downloaded the audiobook over the internet. Why shouldn't he have to renew it over the internet?
As the DRM keeps the files from being decrypted after it is supposed to be returned, there are no late fees.
The libraries buy the audiobook download service from companies who manage all details.
Of these companies some only allow a certain total number of downloads, others allow unlimited total downloads but limit the number of accessible copies (the number checked out).
If the number of copies being used >= the total number allowed then you don't get to download a copy until a copy is checked in (the DRM expires and the file can no longer be decrypted)
The positives of downloadable audio books are mentioned in the article.
Much of what you say about what libraries should be doing is exactly what they are doing. They are just doing it within the confines of the law and the wishes of the copyright holders.
What you can or can not do with something you purchase is totally irrelevant to this discussion because you aren't buying the anything in this case. You are borrowing from a library by the largesse of the copyright holder.
As libraries generally depend upon good with with writers and publishers, making demands may be a bad idea.
Even a good library will not have everything one may want. And, if something is extremely popular, like The Da Vinci Code, you may have quite a wait for the book.
And to refute some of your points:
The copyright holder is the one who decides who can make copies, how many copies are made, and how they are distributed.
The copyright holder gets to decide if a DRM "period" is bogus, not the library, and not you.
A library is only able to lend books because the copyright holder allows them to do so. Libraries often pay a premium for the priviledge. This is why a library often charges more than the face value for a book when it is lost.
The point of a library is to provide access, not copies. They are called lending libraries for a reason.
Speaking of which, libraries don't have to let the items leave the premises.
In the end, what you have is a copyright holder sacrificing some revenue so an institution may have the priviledge to provide information to the public, i.e. you. It would be rude and unethical to go against the copyright holders wishes.
Alas, you are wrong. Audiobooks exsist under the same copyright law that books exsist under.
Just as a library may not buy a book, make copies of it and then give away copies of said book with out the copyright holders permission, a library may not make copies of audiobook and then give them away.
Copyright law has it's place, and thought it may be abused, it still protects the rights of the creators of works or those that pay for the work to be created.
Authors rely on sales for their livelyhood. How many of your favorite books would not have been written if the author had to wait tables or work construction to put food on the table and a roof over their head? Would you do your job for free?
You think that because an audiobook can be cheaply copied, that it right to do so. I wish people such as yourself would remember that just because something can be done does not make it right or fair to do it.
4. Apparently you can't read. I said "... it seems to me you are...". That means it is what I came away with after reading your post.
8. Please tell me you did not just reference a work of fiction as an example.
9.
"With regards to your comment about womens' groups. You issue a blanket statement."
How is a statement about "many" in a group a blanket statement? Many does not even imply most. Perhaps you need to get out your dictionary.
"Are the lives, feelings, or thoughts of women important to you at all?"
Yes, they are. However, I do not need extremists telling me what to think, how to act, or what to say. I am quite capable of evaluating statements and actions on my own.
"Some organizations do things that are backwards to our cause."
Yes, I know which is why I said "many".
"Women still do not share an equal playing ground with men."
Hm. No, they don't. In some ways women have things worse than men. In other ways, they have things better. An equal playing field implies a completely level playing field, so be careful what you wish for as you might get it. Would you advocate a single standard for a position? How about physical standards for the military, police, and firefighters (which currently are more lenient for women? Would you like to have to register for Selective Service (which women don't have to do)? Shall male reporters be allowed into women's locker rooms, as women are allowed into men's? Shall we take things to an extreme and say "separate is not equal" and have unisex restrooms, locker rooms, and showers? How about protesting Shapes (a women's only gym) as NOW does men's only establishments?
"To say women are more mercenary than men. Well, that is a joke. Mercenary implies materialism. What is materialism? A desire for wealth and material possessions with little interest in ethical or spiritual matters. If you notice how many women are involved in church, temple, or prayer, I think you could eat those words."
Now, now. No trying to change or selecting the meaning of what I said. I said "mercenary" and that is what I meant. You may wish to talk about materialism, but that is not what I said or meant. The two are not mutually inclusive. Bad form, trying to change the subject in that manner.
It is doubtful I would end up eating my words. One who is mercenary in some aspects of his or her life may be spiritual in another. Also, how many of those in church are just paying lip service? How many are there because they are expected? Then, one also has to consider all the men there as well as the percentages of each and each case above.
If you would like to stick to mercenary behavior, I will gladly expand on the subject.
"One most try to perfect moderation, which can be difficult when marketing agencies want to dangle a tasty item in front of your eye."
One should not blame others for one's lack of self-disciple. Rather, one should take responsibility for one's own behavior, something sorely lacking in today's society.
Are you aware of the notification provision of the Florida Adoption Act? I know of it. I vote and voted against it.
Which women's groups are you LISTENING to? If you've set foot into a honest intelligent women's group discussion about REAL topics (not the superbowl), you'll realize how amazingly foolish your statement is.
That quote is from a January 1993 press conference held by a colalition of women's groups about violence and sports. They stated there was a study that showed domestic violence increased on Superbowl Sunday. The authors of the study said that was not what they found. Later, Linda Mitchell of FAIR would later say she knew that the information being presented was false.
As to what women's groups I have listened to, I can not give ALL the names, but I have listened to quite a few and checked up on what I have heard. And, I have heard a lot of misrepresentation and falsehood from them.
Perhaps Seine IS blind to many things negatively affecting the American male culture. But from your post, it's clear that you yourself are blind to what can and does negatively affect American female culture. Let's trade spots some day so we can both see what it's like to be each other. I'm sure we'd change our minds about many things.
It is funny that you would suggest I am blind to the negatives in American culture that effects women because I am very aware of all the negatives of American culture. What I annoys me is people who only see their little problems.
For all the passion and prose of your post, it seems to me you are
taking the research to be directed at each woman individually
suggesting the research and researchers are biased
behaving as though the difference was much greater than it actually is
assuming that women are only the victims and never the perpetrators
This scientific study shows there is a difference between the average man and average woman. It says nothing of any two given individuals.
A difference of 5 points is small. It is so small that I have no doubts that one's messured IQ would vary by more than that from day to day. Which leads me to ask why there is no margin of error included in the numbers. I would be most interested to see how they arrived at their numbers.
But, I would not say that the researcher or research is biased. With the current state of science, I would not be surprised to find that the methodology was suspect or that the outcome incorrect due solely to poor work.
You state:
Society plays a huge role in grooming people. Of course, there is a certain amount of free will, but conditioning is a powerful thing. As a woman, when I look at magazines, television, etc, women are not treated the same as men. Women are provided with superficial imagery and the conditioning it imposes, which is to be beautiful, be thin, be popular, date (i.e. date good looking or someone with money) guys, get married and have children.
Interestingly, you totally ignore the following
In the media, men are portrayed as:
Incompetent, sloppy, conivings, lazy oafs, especially in "comedies" where they are paired with smart, capable, attractive women.
Ugly, mean, vicious criminals.
Poor, abusive, uncaring failures.
Rich, handsome, successfuly business men
Rich, powerful, ugly men with trophy wives
A good portion of the greeting card industry thrives on portaying men in the worst terms. Try a little experiment: Go to a card shop and pick out some of the "humorous" ones involving men and women and reverse the sexes and ask yourself "Would this card be sold like that?"
In many instances, if a man is accused of a crime, especially a sex crime, the man is automatically considered, and treated, as guilty. In a He said/She said situation, what She said is considered truth. Also, as we have seen recently in my home state of Florida, if a woman has sex with a young teen she is considered "sick" and in need of help, not inprisonment. If a man were to do the same, there would be calls for life sentences, castration, and execution. She is "mentally ill and in need of care" and he is a monster deserving of the worst punishments imaginable.
Many women's groups lie. My favorite is the statement that spouse abuse complaints and emergency room visits jump drastically on Superbowl Sunday in the US. This has been proven false. It was made up on the spot during a press conference.
Women are just as shallow as men, but do not own up to it. And, often they are even more mercenary.
Perhaps you are just blind to anything that does not directly effect you.
Maybe it's because it took YEARS for us to have the same "rights" as men. Maybe it's because we've been treated as the lesser of two human beings for centuries.
I am so tired of hearing that. It didn't take YOU years to get anything. YOU haven't been treated as ANYTHING for centuries. I am willing to bet you haven't been alive for a third of a century, let alone a full century. Last I checked, you had a bunch of rights, as well as laws and government agencencies to protect those rights.
I'm not sparking a debate here, but you guys need to think for a second. You haven't been denied the right to vote, discriminated at the workplace, took lesser wages, get constanly objectified... all because you're a chick.
No, but I have been denied due process, discrimated against at work, been DENIED positions, been objectified as a source of income and security, been judged on my appearance... All because I am an intellegent overweight white male who generally makes good money.
To use a favorite phrase of so many women, GET OVER IT.
You do not understand science, the scientific method, philosphy or evolution.
"But I don't think we should go teaching something we can't prove"
You mean like anything involving God? Basically, you want to cripple science because you don't like what it says about your religion.
And, you are a hypocrit. Catholic and believing in evolution are mutually incompatible.
You are just another ID quack trying to undermine science.
If God were to appear tomorrow, God would fit in the framework of science. If science were to prove the non-exsistance of God (Yes, I know it's not possible), what would happen to religion?
Try clicking on the link that says "View On Google Maps". It takes you to the actual map page.
The easy way to find Groom Lake: On Google Maps, search for Las Vegas, NV. Click the minus (-) sign on the slider 3 times, then click the up arrow once. Near the nav tool you will see a roundish, white dot. That is groom lake. Center your view on it and zoom in.
On a side note several of those craters are depressions from undergroun nuke tests.
You can also show selective enforcement. If the flow of traffic is exceeding the speed limit, why didn't the officers pull over the whole line of traffic.
From personal experience, I know what I am talking about. I was in a store. Someone didn't like my looks and called the cops. I didn't do anything and no one asked me to leave. Cops came, the manager swore out a trespass warrant, and I was escorted from the property.
Wrong. If the owner or their designated agent request it, the police an remove a person from anywhere, and issue a trespass warrant barring one's return. You don't even have to make a scene.
Disturbing the peace is a crime. Making a scene can be disturbing the peace and can get you arrested.
An elevator is a moving piece of floor, if jumping on a piece of floor endangers you and causes damage to the building, it's the designer's fault, not yours.
Um, no. You are at fault if you use something in a way that it is not designed to be used.
What John Tierney (and Steven E. Landsburg, who he cites) have missed is that muggers, while obnoxious and moderately costly to society, also provide a valuable benefit. By creating an environment where leaving a security hole open has tangible consequences, they provide a real impetus for making sure those holes get fixed, and soon. This makes it a lot harder for a real armed robber to do actual damage.
What John Tierney (and Steven E. Landsburg, who he cites) have missed is that petty theives, while obnoxious and moderately costly to society, also provide a valuable benefit. By creating an environment where leaving a security hole open has tangible consequences, they provide a real impetus for making sure those holes get fixed, and soon. This makes it a lot harder for a real burglar to do actual damage.
What John Tierney (and Steven E. Landsburg, who he cites) have missed is that rapists, while obnoxious and moderately costly to society, also provide a valuable benefit. By creating an environment where leaving a security hole open has tangible consequences, they provide a real impetus for making sure those holes get fixed, and soon. This makes it a lot harder for a serial killer to do actual damage.
Appeasement and appologism is not the answer to anything. The fact is script kiddies and crackers are at best rude, and at worst malicious. There is no excuse for what they do. They are not a neccessary evil.
Oh, and calling up the specter of terrorism to justify their exsistence is pretty lame.
If the employee had not allowed their opinion to affect their work performance, then I see no justification for firing them, and I strongly suspect that the law wouldn't either.
This is iffy reasoning. Would a bank be justified in firing someone who admitted that they believed embezzlement was not a crime, or that banks were evil because they charged interest and therefore it is good to steal from banks?
Ah, so you can only be fired if your boss happens to disagree with you. Right...
You have this backwards. It is not that the boss does not share this person's opinion, but rather that this person's opinion is contrary to the company's opinion and what those in charge of the company believe to be in the company's best interests.
Either way, having a probation period is not a license to fire someone for whatever reason you like.
During the probationary period, you can be let go for pretty much any reason. The company just has to say "We don't think you are a good fit." He pretty much said he does not believe in the something the company considers critical to its success. Doesn't sound like good fit to me.
In this case, the company can say "He holds views contrary to the company and that are contrary to the best interests of the company." Also, the company can state that if they had known about the website in advance, they would not have offered him the position.
I do not believe he will win his case. It seems to me he must prove that his stance is a "philisophical belief" and that the belief is covered under the laws sited and that he was fired for holding said belief and not for some other reason. I do not believe it will be an easy thing.
I find it amusing you use the name of a recent act which attempts to improve defeciencies in the current educational system.
In all actuality, this problem has been and continues to be caused by social promotion. For those who do not know, social promotion is the practice of promoting student to the next grade even though they have failed academically. This is done so the students will remain within there peer group.
This is a stupid policy and should never have been implemented. It was thought that being held back would hurt the student's feelings and lower their social standing. Education took a backseat to self-esteem.
Actually, that is the reason for making a copy of the hard drive. It allows them to do things to try to recover deleted files that may damage the exsisting files.
it's like driving 10mph over the speed limit or 100mph over the speed limit. They both are just as illegal, but you are going to get in a whole lot more trouble in the latter case.
Where do you draw the line? If driving 10mph over the limit is OK, then the limit should be raised by 10mph.
You miss the point. Driving 10mph over the limit is illegal and is called speeding. Driving 100mph over the limit is also speeding but could also be considered reckless driving, reckless endangerment. In most jurisdicitions speeding fines are set by the amount over the speed limit, thus 10mph will have a lower fine than 50mph. It is a matter of scale.
a guy repeatedly looking at many pictures of kiddie porn is someone you would leave your daughter with for the weekend?
No, I definitely wouldn't. But I wouldn't approve of her going out with a tattooed biker either. Should it be illegal for someone who is tattooed to own a motorcycle
Both of these are irrelevant in that one is obvious baiting and the other is exageration.
A guy who gets excited by looking at pictures of nude children is someone who should be under therapy. But he's not a criminal, just someone who is very sick. The only criminals here are the person who forced the children to perform sexual acts and the people who paid them to do so.
While you may be right about "A guy who gets excited by looking at pictures of nude children" needing therapy, you are wrong about the criminality of the act. What determines the criminality of the act is the law. If the states that possession of child porn is a crime, then it is a crime until such time as the law is overturned.
Having a picture of something doesn't mean you endorse that act.
This is irrelevant in a case where possession of said picture is a crime in itself.
The whole question about pornography, be it legal or illegal acts, is not about the performance per se, but about the "slippery slope" of censorship.
The "Slippery slope" argument is more fear than fact. It is also a falacy when it comes to logical arguments.
What the US Constitution states in its first ammendment is that the expression of ideas is not to be restricted, no matter how revolting those ideas may be to anyone. Being free to speak only "nice" things is not what liberty means.
What you forget is that there is limits on free speech. One can not shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire because it endangers others. Speech encouraging criminal acts can make one responsible for said acts (enciting a riot).
The main contention is what constitutes free speech and what constitutes criminal speach. Where most laws try to draw the line is at the point where the "speech" causes actual injury to others as opposed to mear offence.
In the case of child porn, the creation of the "speech" results in injury to the child. And in the eyes of the law, distribution and possession furthers that injury and is thus illegal speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogy is false.
The restrictions exsist not because of the technology involved, but for the benefit of the copyright holder.
Specifically, copyright law in the U.S. was originally designed to allow those who create works to benefit from said works. It restricts who has the Right to Copy a work to those who have permission from the CopyRight holder.
Even if the law has been modified and/or abused, it does not change the why the restrictions are in place. Also, the copyright holder may put a work into the public domain at any time.
And to refute some of your points:
In the end, what you have is a copyright holder sacrificing some revenue so an institution may have the priviledge to provide information to the public, i.e. you. It would be rude and unethical to go against the copyright holders wishes.
Alas, you are wrong. Audiobooks exsist under the same copyright law that books exsist under.
Just as a library may not buy a book, make copies of it and then give away copies of said book with out the copyright holders permission, a library may not make copies of audiobook and then give them away.
Copyright law has it's place, and thought it may be abused, it still protects the rights of the creators of works or those that pay for the work to be created.
Authors rely on sales for their livelyhood. How many of your favorite books would not have been written if the author had to wait tables or work construction to put food on the table and a roof over their head? Would you do your job for free?
You think that because an audiobook can be cheaply copied, that it right to do so. I wish people such as yourself would remember that just because something can be done does not make it right or fair to do it.
8. Please tell me you did not just reference a work of fiction as an example.
9.
How is a statement about "many" in a group a blanket statement? Many does not even imply most. Perhaps you need to get out your dictionary.
Yes, they are. However, I do not need extremists telling me what to think, how to act, or what to say. I am quite capable of evaluating statements and actions on my own.
Yes, I know which is why I said "many".
Hm. No, they don't. In some ways women have things worse than men. In other ways, they have things better. An equal playing field implies a completely level playing field, so be careful what you wish for as you might get it. Would you advocate a single standard for a position? How about physical standards for the military, police, and firefighters (which currently are more lenient for women? Would you like to have to register for Selective Service (which women don't have to do)? Shall male reporters be allowed into women's locker rooms, as women are allowed into men's? Shall we take things to an extreme and say "separate is not equal" and have unisex restrooms, locker rooms, and showers? How about protesting Shapes (a women's only gym) as NOW does men's only establishments?
Now, now. No trying to change or selecting the meaning of what I said. I said "mercenary" and that is what I meant. You may wish to talk about materialism, but that is not what I said or meant. The two are not mutually inclusive. Bad form, trying to change the subject in that manner.
It is doubtful I would end up eating my words. One who is mercenary in some aspects of his or her life may be spiritual in another. Also, how many of those in church are just paying lip service? How many are there because they are expected? Then, one also has to consider all the men there as well as the percentages of each and each case above.
If you would like to stick to mercenary behavior, I will gladly expand on the subject.
One should not blame others for one's lack of self-disciple. Rather, one should take responsibility for one's own behavior, something sorely lacking in today's society.
I know of it. I vote and voted against it.
That quote is from a January 1993 press conference held by a colalition of women's groups about violence and sports. They stated there was a study that showed domestic violence increased on Superbowl Sunday. The authors of the study said that was not what they found. Later, Linda Mitchell of FAIR would later say she knew that the information being presented was false.
As to what women's groups I have listened to, I can not give ALL the names, but I have listened to quite a few and checked up on what I have heard. And, I have heard a lot of misrepresentation and falsehood from them.
It is funny that you would suggest I am blind to the negatives in American culture that effects women because I am very aware of all the negatives of American culture. What I annoys me is people who only see their little problems.
And you are not dumb, mearely hasty.
Support this statement with facts.
I have seen some obvious gender re-assignments. Perhaps these people found it easier to be an average looking man than to be an unattractive woman.
- taking the research to be directed at each woman individually
- suggesting the research and researchers are biased
- behaving as though the difference was much greater than it actually is
- assuming that women are only the victims and never the perpetrators
This scientific study shows there is a difference between the average man and average woman. It says nothing of any two given individuals.A difference of 5 points is small. It is so small that I have no doubts that one's messured IQ would vary by more than that from day to day. Which leads me to ask why there is no margin of error included in the numbers. I would be most interested to see how they arrived at their numbers.
But, I would not say that the researcher or research is biased. With the current state of science, I would not be surprised to find that the methodology was suspect or that the outcome incorrect due solely to poor work.
You state:
Interestingly, you totally ignore the following- In the media, men are portrayed as:
- Incompetent, sloppy, conivings, lazy oafs, especially in "comedies" where they are paired with smart, capable, attractive women.
- Ugly, mean, vicious criminals.
- Poor, abusive, uncaring failures.
- Rich, handsome, successfuly business men
- Rich, powerful, ugly men with trophy wives
- A good portion of the greeting card industry thrives on portaying men in the worst terms. Try a little experiment: Go to a card shop and pick out some of the "humorous" ones involving men and women and reverse the sexes and ask yourself "Would this card be sold like that?"
- In many instances, if a man is accused of a crime, especially a sex crime, the man is automatically considered, and treated, as guilty. In a He said/She said situation, what She said is considered truth. Also, as we have seen recently in my home state of Florida, if a woman has sex with a young teen she is considered "sick" and in need of help, not inprisonment. If a man were to do the same, there would be calls for life sentences, castration, and execution. She is "mentally ill and in need of care" and he is a monster deserving of the worst punishments imaginable.
- Many women's groups lie. My favorite is the statement that spouse abuse complaints and emergency room visits jump drastically on Superbowl Sunday in the US. This has been proven false. It was made up on the spot during a press conference.
- Women are just as shallow as men, but do not own up to it. And, often they are even more mercenary.
Perhaps you are just blind to anything that does not directly effect you.I am so tired of hearing that. It didn't take YOU years to get anything. YOU haven't been treated as ANYTHING for centuries. I am willing to bet you haven't been alive for a third of a century, let alone a full century. Last I checked, you had a bunch of rights, as well as laws and government agencencies to protect those rights.
No, but I have been denied due process, discrimated against at work, been DENIED positions, been objectified as a source of income and security, been judged on my appearance... All because I am an intellegent overweight white male who generally makes good money.
To use a favorite phrase of so many women, GET OVER IT.
You do not understand science, the scientific method, philosphy or evolution.
"But I don't think we should go teaching something we can't prove"
You mean like anything involving God? Basically, you want to cripple science because you don't like what it says about your religion.
And, you are a hypocrit. Catholic and believing in evolution are mutually incompatible.
You are just another ID quack trying to undermine science.
If God were to appear tomorrow, God would fit in the framework of science. If science were to prove the non-exsistance of God (Yes, I know it's not possible), what would happen to religion?
Nah... there will always be the old geeks like me around, who lovingly handle the old tech.
BTW, want to get dinner and movie?
Taking a clue from a commercial, geeks from all over the world are already sending Replipee invitation to be their prom date.
It is believed they wish to reverse engineer her to build their own robot girlfriends.
Many experts fear this may, in fact, cause a major slow down in the technology R&D. Tech stocks closed at an all time low.
Parents groups protest the creation of female robot. Unamed spokesman states "It is obviously an attempt to corrupt our youth with sex."
Try clicking on the link that says "View On Google Maps". It takes you to the actual map page.
The easy way to find Groom Lake:
On Google Maps, search for Las Vegas, NV. Click the minus (-) sign on the slider 3 times, then click the up arrow once. Near the nav tool you will see a roundish, white dot. That is groom lake. Center your view on it and zoom in.
On a side note several of those craters are depressions from undergroun nuke tests.
You can also show selective enforcement. If the flow of traffic is exceeding the speed limit, why didn't the officers pull over the whole line of traffic.
Yes, it can be done.
I am sure the fact that there is a strong bit of Anti-intellectualism in the United States has nothing to do with this.
Wrong again.
From personal experience, I know what I am talking about. I was in a store. Someone didn't like my looks and called the cops. I didn't do anything and no one asked me to leave. Cops came, the manager swore out a trespass warrant, and I was escorted from the property.
God I hate you think-you-know-it-all dumb asses.
Wrong. If the owner or their designated agent request it, the police an remove a person from anywhere, and issue a trespass warrant barring one's return. You don't even have to make a scene.
Disturbing the peace is a crime. Making a scene can be disturbing the peace and can get you arrested.
Um, no. You are at fault if you use something in a way that it is not designed to be used.
Oh, and calling up the specter of terrorism to justify their exsistence is pretty lame.
Actually, I would like to see the flesh eating mold movie. That sounds pretty cool.
In this case, the company can say "He holds views contrary to the company and that are contrary to the best interests of the company." Also, the company can state that if they had known about the website in advance, they would not have offered him the position. I do not believe he will win his case. It seems to me he must prove that his stance is a "philisophical belief" and that the belief is covered under the laws sited and that he was fired for holding said belief and not for some other reason. I do not believe it will be an easy thing.
I find it amusing you use the name of a recent act which attempts to improve defeciencies in the current educational system.
In all actuality, this problem has been and continues to be caused by social promotion. For those who do not know, social promotion is the practice of promoting student to the next grade even though they have failed academically. This is done so the students will remain within there peer group.
This is a stupid policy and should never have been implemented. It was thought that being held back would hurt the student's feelings and lower their social standing. Education took a backseat to self-esteem.
true. but I got my point across, I hope.
Actually, that is the reason for making a copy of the hard drive. It allows them to do things to try to recover deleted files that may damage the exsisting files.
The main contention is what constitutes free speech and what constitutes criminal speach. Where most laws try to draw the line is at the point where the "speech" causes actual injury to others as opposed to mear offence.
In the case of child porn, the creation of the "speech" results in injury to the child. And in the eyes of the law, distribution and possession furthers that injury and is thus illegal speech.