Well that is not censorship, because the ISP can do what ever it wants with the information on their servers.
I'm not talking about censorship by the ISP! I'm talking about censorship by the complaining party.
Also if the information can be displayed on another site, such as your own, that is not censorship because you are not restricted from posting the content.
As long as I want to splash out on my own server. The freedom of the press only belongs to those who have one.
I want nothing to do with Britney Spears Music, but it doesn't mean I am censoring her. It just means she has to find other people willing to put up with the Music.
But whatt if you manage to pressure every single radio station to stop playing her music?
Re:they EXIST! Re:Checks and Balances
on
Testing ISP Censorship
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is actually about the only good part in the DMCA, and an example that the UK should follow.
I disagree. The good intentions are there, but it doesn't seem to work in practice. This is probably because it was designed by lawyers, and most organisations do not have the legal knowledge to implement it correctly.
Small ISPs often have a staff count in single figures. They certainly can't afford to have a department set up to handle DMCA violations.
Larger ISPs tend to be less concerned about losing single customers, and they'll just delete without appeal. The cost of losing customers is probably less than the potential hassle of dealing with a dispute, and the big copyright holders are usually happy with this response. The big ISPs will continue this policy until somebody sues.
In practice, there are some things that are very probably infringing copyright (Complete songs, PDFs of recent books), and some things that may or may not be (e.g. screengrabs from games, and fan fiction), and some things that clearly are not (e.g original fiction, personal photos). Ideally an ISP would should respond immediately to the first of these, take down the second pending review, and ignore complaints about the third.
A better analogy would be to stop it with all the analogies.
Look at it on its own merits. Something that is true for a similar situation may not be true for another situation even though it appears similar. The concepts here are not hard to understand. No analogy is needed. Is it censorship if an individual can have content he disagrees with removed at will? Simple question. Keep to the point.
Just one more time so you will remember COMPANIES DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CENSOR ANYTHING.
I dunno. They do appear to have the ability to have information they disagree with removed from a website, simply by making a bogus complaint to the ISP.
You are corrct that they don't have the power to throw you in jail. This is not the only means of censorship. They can have stuff removed simply by hinting that they may sue the ISP. They want stuff removed, it gets removed. Damn well looks like censorship to me!
Haven't read the article, but I suspect this is the main idea. Much more practical than the satelite idea.
2) Cost
These things are VERY cheap. Probably cost less to make than an ordinary licence plate.
3) Battery power
I don't think they take any. Passive tags (Which take their power from the detector) have a range of 10 feet or so, so would work if buried in roads. Even for active tags, the power consumption is negligible.
Apparently, according to the CIA world factbook, The USA is a constitution based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition.
Sadly, this isn't a government type permitted in civilization, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that a government system is a representative democracy doesn't mean that it's not a republic (in fact quite the opposite). It also doesn't mean that it isn't a democracy. It is not a direct democracy, perhaps, but that is only one type of democracy.
There are many types of democracitic government and many types of republic, and the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
It isn't anyway. By the time it's broadcast, at the very least, it's been displayed on a custom map. This is a copyrighted image, belonging to the station.
I can record something today and release it into public domain. It isn't just things that have expired copyrights. An example of this would be video from various scientific research and the like.
And which commercial organisations are going to broadcast this?
you can now get sued for having a copy of something YOU HAVE THE FULL RIGHTS TO USE
Which is - what? A handful of 100 year old films and Its a Wonderful Life? These will not be broadcast particularly frequently. How many public domain audio and video works do you have copies of?
Wow! Amazing! There's a whole single exception. I did say "The vast majority". If you like, I can name 10 works that are not in the public domain for every one that you can name that is.
This does suggest that there is anything in the public domain that anyone would want to broadcast.
Considering the vast majority of the public domain is targetted at an audience who were around 95 years ago, and is likely to be highly degraded, or even non-existant, this sounds like a largely academic objetion.
A license is a contract. If you have to click "I accept" it is overtly recognized as such by the licensor.
No it isn't. Groklaw dealt with this a while ago, and I'm going mostly from memory here. A contract is specifically dealt with under contract law. A licence is not. Clicking "I accept" means that you have accepted the permission they grant to you. If you breach the licence, then there is nothing they can do to you unless you also breach other laws in doing so.
Nonsense. You are often called upon to give up some consideration for the limited rights the license grants you.
No you aren't.
Commonly this is in the form of finacial consideration. Your money is yours by right. You must transfer that right to the licensor.
This would be a contract. You can, of course, purchase a licence, but that involves both a licence and a contract.
Under the GPL consideration is given by an exchange of rights. I'll give you some of mine if you give me some of yours.
The GPL does not require that you surrender any rights. It grants you the right to redistribute it. It is true that you can't redistribute it without source, but you never had that right in the first place.
If there is consideration, there is a contract. Even a simple retail exchange is contractual. You agree to give them money, they agree to give you property rights.
This is correct. Purchases are contracts. In fact, you can legally sue someone for "breach of contract" if they sell you faulty goods (At least in England).
In fact, this is precisely how the legality of a EULA is tested. A EULA is a just a contract. Contracts don't prevent lawsuits, they become the object of them.
Strictly speaking, it's a licence. It's different. It gives you permission to do certain things with it assuming certain limitiations. e.g. You may use this product for reasons X and Y but not Z. As a licence, it cannot require the licencee to give up anything in return.
Vacuum tubes are more electronic than transistors, yet if we had stuck with them, we'd never have had tiny packages.
I'm sure I heard somewhere that soviet planes had much smaller vacuum tubes, including what were essentially valve microchips, with several switches contained within a single tube.
So, the question is: what brought this up? Why did the Register feel the need to suddenly revisit this topic?
Because Collosus was recently rebuilt. this is often regarded as the first programmable computer. Since the Z3 preceded it, it seems this claim is untrue.
A key figure at Microsoft was found guilty of Murder. The justice department realised that a prison sentence would limit his freedom of movement, so in a last minute deal arranged by Microsoft's lawyers they agreed that the murderer would not use bladed weapons or bullets to attack people.
I don't know why the argument about how this will harm Microsoft is getting any time at all. Surely that's the entire point of a large fine!
Cash is old technology--hundreds of years. Why we insist on sticking with it is beyond me.
Because we know it works - more or less. We know what the risks are. They haven't changed substantially over the past 500 years. Technology that can counterfeit notes can be matched by technology that can detect forgeries.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that is not censorship, because the ISP can do what ever it wants with the information on their servers.
I'm not talking about censorship by the ISP! I'm talking about censorship by the complaining party.
Also if the information can be displayed on another site, such as your own, that is not censorship because you are not restricted from posting the content.
As long as I want to splash out on my own server. The freedom of the press only belongs to those who have one.
I want nothing to do with Britney Spears Music, but it doesn't mean I am censoring her. It just means she has to find other people willing to put up with the Music.
But whatt if you manage to pressure every single radio station to stop playing her music?
This is actually about the only good part in the DMCA, and an example that the UK should follow.
I disagree. The good intentions are there, but it doesn't seem to work in practice. This is probably because it was designed by lawyers, and most organisations do not have the legal knowledge to implement it correctly.
Small ISPs often have a staff count in single figures. They certainly can't afford to have a department set up to handle DMCA violations.
Larger ISPs tend to be less concerned about losing single customers, and they'll just delete without appeal. The cost of losing customers is probably less than the potential hassle of dealing with a dispute, and the big copyright holders are usually happy with this response. The big ISPs will continue this policy until somebody sues.
In practice, there are some things that are very probably infringing copyright (Complete songs, PDFs of recent books), and some things that may or may not be (e.g. screengrabs from games, and fan fiction), and some things that clearly are not (e.g original fiction, personal photos). Ideally an ISP would should respond immediately to the first of these, take down the second pending review, and ignore complaints about the third.
If I owned an ISP and someone reported that there was a problem with copyrighted material on my equipment, I would take the stuff down too
Why? Why not leave it there?
Very true. A better analogy...
A better analogy would be to stop it with all the analogies.
Look at it on its own merits. Something that is true for a similar situation may not be true for another situation even though it appears similar. The concepts here are not hard to understand. No analogy is needed. Is it censorship if an individual can have content he disagrees with removed at will? Simple question. Keep to the point.
Just one more time so you will remember COMPANIES DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CENSOR ANYTHING.
I dunno. They do appear to have the ability to have information they disagree with removed from a website, simply by making a bogus complaint to the ISP.
You are corrct that they don't have the power to throw you in jail. This is not the only means of censorship. They can have stuff removed simply by hinting that they may sue the ISP. They want stuff removed, it gets removed. Damn well looks like censorship to me!
Fair enough... I did say I hadn't read the article.
1) Easier to implement no-toll-booth toll roads
Haven't read the article, but I suspect this is the main idea. Much more practical than the satelite idea.
2) Cost
These things are VERY cheap. Probably cost less to make than an ordinary licence plate.
3) Battery power
I don't think they take any. Passive tags (Which take their power from the detector) have a range of 10 feet or so, so would work if buried in roads. Even for active tags, the power consumption is negligible.
Moderation Guideline: -1 Boring
It would be a much more useful moderation than most of what we have. I'd also suggest "-1: Political knowledge based entirely on Civilization"
Apparently, according to the CIA world factbook, The USA is a constitution based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition.
Sadly, this isn't a government type permitted in civilization, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that a government system is a representative democracy doesn't mean that it's not a republic (in fact quite the opposite). It also doesn't mean that it isn't a democracy. It is not a direct democracy, perhaps, but that is only one type of democracy.
There are many types of democracitic government and many types of republic, and the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
Yes.
It isn't anyway. By the time it's broadcast, at the very least, it's been displayed on a custom map. This is a copyrighted image, belonging to the station.
I can record something today and release it into public domain. It isn't just things that have expired copyrights. An example of this would be video from various scientific research and the like.
And which commercial organisations are going to broadcast this?
Oh, yes. I quite agree. The treaty is bad for all kinds of reasons. I just think that the public domain angle is a distraction.
Name 5 films or pieces of music where they have done this. Name any one that anyone would actually want to broadcast.
you can now get sued for having a copy of something YOU HAVE THE FULL RIGHTS TO USE
Which is - what? A handful of 100 year old films and Its a Wonderful Life? These will not be broadcast particularly frequently. How many public domain audio and video works do you have copies of?
Wow! Amazing! There's a whole single exception. I did say "The vast majority". If you like, I can name 10 works that are not in the public domain for every one that you can name that is.
This does suggest that there is anything in the public domain that anyone would want to broadcast.
Considering the vast majority of the public domain is targetted at an audience who were around 95 years ago, and is likely to be highly degraded, or even non-existant, this sounds like a largely academic objetion.
A license is a contract. If you have to click "I accept" it is overtly recognized as such by the licensor.
No it isn't. Groklaw dealt with this a while ago, and I'm going mostly from memory here. A contract is specifically dealt with under contract law. A licence is not. Clicking "I accept" means that you have accepted the permission they grant to you. If you breach the licence, then there is nothing they can do to you unless you also breach other laws in doing so.
Nonsense. You are often called upon to give up some consideration for the limited rights the license grants you.
No you aren't.
Commonly this is in the form of finacial consideration. Your money is yours by right. You must transfer that right to the licensor.
This would be a contract. You can, of course, purchase a licence, but that involves both a licence and a contract.
Under the GPL consideration is given by an exchange of rights. I'll give you some of mine if you give me some of yours.
The GPL does not require that you surrender any rights. It grants you the right to redistribute it. It is true that you can't redistribute it without source, but you never had that right in the first place.
If there is consideration, there is a contract. Even a simple retail exchange is contractual. You agree to give them money, they agree to give you property rights.
This is correct. Purchases are contracts. In fact, you can legally sue someone for "breach of contract" if they sell you faulty goods (At least in England).
In fact, this is precisely how the legality of a EULA is tested. A EULA is a just a contract. Contracts don't prevent lawsuits, they become the object of them.
Strictly speaking, it's a licence. It's different. It gives you permission to do certain things with it assuming certain limitiations. e.g. You may use this product for reasons X and Y but not Z. As a licence, it cannot require the licencee to give up anything in return.
Vacuum tubes are more electronic than transistors, yet if we had stuck with them, we'd never have had tiny packages.
I'm sure I heard somewhere that soviet planes had much smaller vacuum tubes, including what were essentially valve microchips, with several switches contained within a single tube.
According to wikipedia, The Z3 was turing complete whereas colossus was not
So, the question is: what brought this up? Why did the Register feel the need to suddenly revisit this topic?
Because Collosus was recently rebuilt. this is often regarded as the first programmable computer. Since the Z3 preceded it, it seems this claim is untrue.
Takes lots of photos. Throw out the ones that aren't very good. This will be the vast majority of them, even for a professional.
Actually, this was my technique with film as well. Digital has saved me a fortune.
A key figure at Microsoft was found guilty of Murder. The justice department realised that a prison sentence would limit his freedom of movement, so in a last minute deal arranged by Microsoft's lawyers they agreed that the murderer would not use bladed weapons or bullets to attack people.
I don't know why the argument about how this will harm Microsoft is getting any time at all. Surely that's the entire point of a large fine!
Cash is old technology--hundreds of years. Why we insist on sticking with it is beyond me.
Because we know it works - more or less. We know what the risks are. They haven't changed substantially over the past 500 years. Technology that can counterfeit notes can be matched by technology that can detect forgeries.