Well, I'm not going to personally fault someone for wanting to let go according to their bodies condition instead of hanging on according to the state of the art in medicine.
My father had a stroke in 1999. He went from an athletic headstrong 55 year old machine to a half-paralyzed forgetful dependent. With the hemmorage in his brain applying pressure to the rest and killing things in the surrounding area, the doctors brought up the chance that he would be have to remain on life support to breath or swallow. He said he was not interested in do ing that. He repeated that point after we got him home and described the whole ordeal to him, since he was out for most of it.
Having witnessed the situation you guys are hypothesizing about, I am confident telling you that the inherent desire to live is directly tied to the desire to thrive. If no prospects of thriving exist the desire to live suffers as well.
For another real live test case, I'd bet that Ariel Sharon would not want to be kept alive in his current state.
Well, I think you missed the point about the baggage not being anything more than a quote from the statute.
But looking again at what you are saying, it appears your right and I'm wrong. Assuming that moving a copy of data from a server in another country to one within the US is importing, section b would require that the data be scrutinized by US copyright law. In allofmp3's case, it would be illegal.
So here's a question (assuming you haven't gotten fed up and walked away). If it isn't importing, what would it be? What statute or precedence applies? Some oblique application of banking laws pertaining to financial trasactions between countries?
Okay, just stop. If you're now intending on swinging insults, lets consider the fact that I'm out of my profession but you practice law so carelessly as to make analogies such as the one below to introduce your "logic":
Pot is effectively legal in the Netherlands. But that doesn't mean that Americans can import it from there. That something is legal in one country doesn't mean it will be elsewhere.
Nevermind that Pot is illegal in the US and possessing a copy of someone elses work isn't necessarily?
It could just be that you're talking down to us and using an example that isn't quite correct? Is that it?
That's why you had to resort to an example involving baggage,
This is a laughable statement - the code indicates the two cases, you insist I be thorough in my responses, I indicate both cases and you suggest I'm resorting to the second?
Which do you want? Thoroughness in summary or specificity to the case we are talking about. Because your plan seems to be to broaden the conversation from the tree to the forest, then dodge the issue by stating I'm hiding behind the other trees when I'm not.
If that's what your profession is all about, it's no wonder to me that lawyers are regarded with such disdane.
Nowhere in the section does it say US law. It refers copyright law. The copyright law in Russia states that royalties must be paid to the central broker when making copies of other peoples works.
US Customs doesn't have authority when the copy, imported from Russia, followed Russian copyright laws.
If copying was illegal outright in the US (such as pot, for example), then importing it would be illegal. If it was illegal to obtain in the exporting country, then it would be illegal to import. If it's legal to obtain the copy in the outside country and legal to own a copy in the US, it's legal.
17 USC 602 deals with "copies or phonorecords". Not copies *of* phonorecords.
And as you yourself just said, "When you download, you are not importing. You are reproducing." Reproducing is copying my verbose friend. And you are off again - sending something over the wire is also considered importing.
Or have you forgotten the old export controls on cryptographic software transmitted oversears already? You can't have it both ways you know, unless you are saying uploaded is exporting and downloading isn't importing?
Finally, quoting the statute,
"This subsection does not apply to--... (2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage; "
again, copies or phonorecords. If you the copy is just for yourself or part of your baggage if you physically came through the borders there is no issue.
Sorry Charlie, if they are following the laws in Russia, US law permits the copying. As for why the RIAA isn't suing - they did and lost - no legal basis.
From 17 USC 602: In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable.
It certainly reeks of someone's pet project. I cannot imagine that everything between our current elevation and the spot they chose has been thoroughly investigated and that this is our last bastion of naturally occurring medicines.
If someone were to do a cost analysis on this, I'm betting they could fund several, if not tens of similar projects on dry land. Having said that, it's not likely you will get shot or kidnapped while searching in the depths of the ocean as oppose to wandering about in the jungles or forests of a hostile land (*cough* mississippi *cough*).
The assumption I'm making is that given even the smallest amount of continous feedback and an accept-corrections-and-not-further-errors filter, the documentation will approve.
And a good programmer might be willing to review your code and increase the quality if they were paid. A good support person might help you assist your user base, and a good artist might help you come up with a mascot.
What makes you think the programmers effort is *less* deserving of the authors time? It's amazing that you would suggest it cost them nothing to make it. Time is arguably the most valuable thing we have to give.
If they write a crappy manual and open it up to corrections while responding to feedback and rewarding those that give, I suspect the quality of the manual would increase like the software did by getting a larger user base.
in practice (and from what we've seen in the news), most of the time the enemy has no idea
So Iran doesn't doing nuclear testing underground because of our airborne and orbiting spying capability? And road side bombs go off next to convoys by sheer coincidence? And people committing crimes use cash based SIM cards and throw away phones because they are all just happen to be germaphobes adverse to using credit as well? If you work in intelligence, you always assume your enemy knows what you are doing and will eventually get hold of your communications.
If you are relying on a secret, you are in for a rude awakening and should be thankful if you are alive on the other end of the lesson.
That is one of the complaints I have about members of any consolidation of power - secrets don't actually exist and trying to enforce them leads to questionable behavior.
defend their claims in front of the world and a representative group
This is a bit of a misunderstanding. Trial by jury was never intended to be defense in front of the world. The point was to have a small peer review to be certain of guild before the damage of public dessimination occurred. That's why they still weed out jurors based on how much they think they already know about a case.
Amen Brotha! Did the same thing 5 years ago and started a software company, learned German and Salsa, bought a house, and now have a bountiful garden in my yard.
Are you suggesting that our current "enemy" in the war zone doesn't already know these things? If a teenager with a cell phone is capable of providing this information to an upstream armed group (it's called scouting), surely a reporter pointing out, for example, that we're also funding the opposing side of the war should be entitled to when they come across proof.
If a reporter finds out about something, it wasn't much of a secret, or going to be a secret much longer any way. It's often the case that US citiznes do not actually know what is going on until a report broadcasts the "secret".
You'll find me a little more agreeable the day FOI requests aren't denied by default, then fought to the death, and finally touted as the government cooperating with the people once someone actually wrestles a piece of public information from this Neo-Christo fascist country of ours.
Well, assuming she's mastered email, because hey, what would be the point of your post if she wasn't already there. And assuming ipV6, so peer to peer access is the norm, you would tell her "G' Your pictures are here. If you want uncle fester to see them, right-click on the picture and add his computer address to the list. The address? It's here, in the email he sent you with his picts. Now copy the location and send that back to him in the email."
Done. If you don't grant me ipv6, there's flickr, and multiple photo share sights that pass what??? urls instead of files.....
I specifically said corporate environment, but since we've gravitated to the entire Internet, a network appliance drive would do just nicely. People currently leave their routers and cable modems on all the time now, so the ideal world (spherical chickens in a vacuum and what-not) would be ipv6 with two nodes. One is the workstation, the other is the share-point for the individual.
Heck, utility companies could drop your bill off at the "home share" after you give them permissions. You could almost make the mailbox obsolete w/ ipV6 and followon changes in the way we operate.
1) Corporate share servers already do this. Put a document on a share, add people you want to read it, send email. 2) Shares can be marked for offline viewing. And even if your email client did fetches, a firewall can block the share if it's malicious and stop the spread from the source. 3) I argue this is better. If one server goes down, you aren't stuck in the mud. Lose the email, still have the doc. Lose the share? Still have the email. If you lost both, lose your IT department - they are letting you down. 4) Having the capacity to block access to the share being used to distribute the document *is* an effect.
Regarding your snail mail-package analogy. Packages end up at my door, because they are too large to fit in my mail slot. And scrutiny of packages in transit through the USPS is far greater than for letters. So although someone can put a letter in my mail slot, they can't put pit bull in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm not going to personally fault someone for wanting to let go according to their bodies condition instead of hanging on according to the state of the art in medicine.
My father had a stroke in 1999. He went from an athletic headstrong 55 year old machine to a half-paralyzed forgetful dependent. With the hemmorage in his brain applying pressure to the rest and killing things in the surrounding area, the doctors brought up the chance that he would be have to remain on life support to breath or swallow. He said he was not interested in do ing that. He repeated that point after we got him home and described the whole ordeal to him, since he was out for most of it.
Having witnessed the situation you guys are hypothesizing about, I am confident telling you that the inherent desire to live is directly tied to the desire to thrive. If no prospects of thriving exist the desire to live suffers as well.
For another real live test case, I'd bet that Ariel Sharon would not want to be kept alive in his current state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon
I'd also bet that if you gave him meds to regain minimal consciousness it would not change his mind.
No, I'm pretty certain that all of the I's that m874t232 used in his post meant he was talking about himself.
Well, I think you missed the point about the baggage not being anything more than a quote from the statute.
But looking again at what you are saying, it appears your right and I'm wrong. Assuming that moving a copy of data from a server in another country to one within the US is importing, section b would require that the data be scrutinized by US copyright law. In allofmp3's case, it would be illegal.
So here's a question (assuming you haven't gotten fed up and walked away). If it isn't importing, what would it be? What statute or precedence applies? Some oblique application of banking laws pertaining to financial trasactions between countries?
Okay, just stop. If you're now intending on swinging insults, lets consider the fact that I'm out of my profession but you practice law so carelessly as to make analogies such as the one below to introduce your "logic":
Pot is effectively legal in the Netherlands. But that doesn't mean that Americans can import it from there. That something is legal in one country doesn't mean it will be elsewhere.
Nevermind that Pot is illegal in the US and possessing a copy of someone elses work isn't necessarily?
It could just be that you're talking down to us and using an example that isn't quite correct? Is that it?
That's why you had to resort to an example involving baggage,
This is a laughable statement - the code indicates the two cases, you insist I be thorough in my responses, I indicate both cases and you suggest I'm resorting to the second?
Which do you want? Thoroughness in summary or specificity to the case we are talking about. Because your plan seems to be to broaden the conversation from the tree to the forest, then dodge the issue by stating I'm hiding behind the other trees when I'm not.
If that's what your profession is all about, it's no wonder to me that lawyers are regarded with such disdane.
It's linked from the original article as well...
5 .html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050307-467
Nowhere in the section does it say US law. It refers copyright law. The copyright law in Russia states that royalties must be paid to the central broker when making copies of other peoples works.
US Customs doesn't have authority when the copy, imported from Russia, followed Russian copyright laws.
If copying was illegal outright in the US (such as pot, for example), then importing it would be illegal. If it was illegal to obtain in the exporting country, then it would be illegal to import. If it's legal to obtain the copy in the outside country and legal to own a copy in the US, it's legal.
bzzzzt, wrong again.
...
17 USC 602 deals with "copies or phonorecords". Not copies *of* phonorecords.
And as you yourself just said, "When you download, you are not importing. You are reproducing." Reproducing is copying my verbose friend. And you are off again - sending something over the wire is also considered importing.
Or have you forgotten the old export controls on cryptographic software transmitted oversears already? You can't have it both ways you know, unless you are saying uploaded is exporting and downloading isn't importing?
Finally, quoting the statute,
"This subsection does not apply to--
(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage; "
again, copies or phonorecords. If you the copy is just for yourself or part of your baggage if you physically came through the borders there is no issue.
Sorry Charlie, if they are following the laws in Russia, US law permits the copying. As for why the RIAA isn't suing - they did and lost - no legal basis.
From 17 USC 602:
In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable.
It certainly reeks of someone's pet project. I cannot imagine that everything between our current elevation and the spot they chose has been thoroughly investigated and that this is our last bastion of naturally occurring medicines.
If someone were to do a cost analysis on this, I'm betting they could fund several, if not tens of similar projects on dry land. Having said that, it's not likely you will get shot or kidnapped while searching in the depths of the ocean as oppose to wandering about in the jungles or forests of a hostile land (*cough* mississippi *cough*).
I think GP's point was to identify the version at which point Mac OS supports this. No need to assume he/she was bragging....
The assumption I'm making is that given even the smallest amount of continous feedback and an accept-corrections-and-not-further-errors filter, the documentation will approve.
no can do... blocked.
Anyone spare a time's link w/o login?
And a good programmer might be willing to review your code and increase the quality if they were paid. A good support person might help you assist your user base, and a good artist might help you come up with a mascot.
What makes you think the programmers effort is *less* deserving of the authors time? It's amazing that you would suggest it cost them nothing to make it. Time is arguably the most valuable thing we have to give.
If they write a crappy manual and open it up to corrections while responding to feedback and rewarding those that give, I suspect the quality of the manual would increase like the software did by getting a larger user base.
in practice (and from what we've seen in the news), most of the time the enemy has no idea
So Iran doesn't doing nuclear testing underground because of our airborne and orbiting spying capability?
And road side bombs go off next to convoys by sheer coincidence?
And people committing crimes use cash based SIM cards and throw away phones because they are all just happen to be germaphobes adverse to using credit as well? If you work in intelligence, you always assume your enemy knows what you are doing and will eventually get hold of your communications.
If you are relying on a secret, you are in for a rude awakening and should be thankful if you are alive on the other end of the lesson.
That is one of the complaints I have about members of any consolidation of power - secrets don't actually exist and trying to enforce them leads to questionable behavior.
defend their claims in front of the world and a representative group
This is a bit of a misunderstanding. Trial by jury was never intended to be defense in front of the world. The point was to have a small peer review to be certain of guild before the damage of public dessimination occurred. That's why they still weed out jurors based on how much they think they already know about a case.
Amen Brotha! Did the same thing 5 years ago and started a software company, learned German and Salsa, bought a house, and now have a bountiful garden in my yard.
TV: Nothing to see here, move along.
Are you suggesting that our current "enemy" in the war zone doesn't already know these things? If a teenager with a cell phone is capable of providing this information to an upstream armed group (it's called scouting), surely a reporter pointing out, for example, that we're also funding the opposing side of the war should be entitled to when they come across proof.
If a reporter finds out about something, it wasn't much of a secret, or going to be a secret much longer any way. It's often the case that US citiznes do not actually know what is going on until a report broadcasts the "secret".
You'll find me a little more agreeable the day FOI requests aren't denied by default, then fought to the death, and finally touted as the government cooperating with the people once someone actually wrestles a piece of public information from this Neo-Christo fascist country of ours.
recent documents list.
we're speaking of oh-days, remember?
Well, assuming she's mastered email, because hey, what would be the point of your post if she wasn't already there. And assuming ipV6, so peer to peer access is the norm, you would tell her "G' Your pictures are here. If you want uncle fester to see them, right-click on the picture and add his computer address to the list. The address? It's here, in the email he sent you with his picts. Now copy the location and send that back to him in the email."
Done. If you don't grant me ipv6, there's flickr, and multiple photo share sights that pass what??? urls instead of files.....
I specifically said corporate environment, but since we've gravitated to the entire Internet, a network appliance drive would do just nicely. People currently leave their routers and cable modems on all the time now, so the ideal world (spherical chickens in a vacuum and what-not) would be ipv6 with two nodes. One is the workstation, the other is the share-point for the individual.
Heck, utility companies could drop your bill off at the "home share" after you give them permissions. You could almost make the mailbox obsolete w/ ipV6 and followon changes in the way we operate.
1) Corporate share servers already do this. Put a document on a share, add people you want to read it, send email.
2) Shares can be marked for offline viewing. And even if your email client did fetches, a firewall can block the share if it's malicious and stop the spread from the source.
3) I argue this is better. If one server goes down, you aren't stuck in the mud. Lose the email, still have the doc. Lose the share? Still have the email. If you lost both, lose your IT department - they are letting you down.
4) Having the capacity to block access to the share being used to distribute the document *is* an effect.
Regarding your snail mail-package analogy. Packages end up at my door, because they are too large to fit in my mail slot. And scrutiny of packages in transit through the USPS is far greater than for letters. So although someone can put a letter in my mail slot, they can't put pit bull in it.
Okay, so if Opera sits at %25, Thunderbird at %25, I guess that makes Outlook 50%. Then what? What your're suggesting is security through obscurity.