If you are, then how are you supposed to work on the code on a TCPA-compliant system?
You're not. You're supposed to work on a development box, that doesn't have to do things like handle movie clips or music files or porn.
If you're a professional ("day job"), you should focus. If you're an amateur, focusing can still help you.
And, of course, even if you can't have a second "trusted" system, it shouldn't be that bloddy hard to have a "trusted" and a "development" install of the same program...
I saw somewhere some idea for a device called a space elevator.
It's a time-honored Sci-Fi device, right up there with agropoloi and flying cars.
The reason why we haven't built one yet is, in a nutshell, time(/money) and technology.
Every little bit of that space elevator needs to be strong enough to hold the entire thing--and the thing is going to be the largest thing ever constructed. Period.
Oh, and there is that little problem of actually getting it it up in the first place...
The GPL was not, ever, ever, ever, meant to make it so buying software wasn't worthwhile. In fact, the situation outlined in the parent post is _an ideal business model_ for GPL'd software.
You keep all of the rights the GPL was designed to preserve (distributing and re-working code you buy), and there's still something worthwhile for buying the software.
US has global jurisdiction" thing, which sets a very dangerous legal prescedent.
How is it precedent-setting? KaZaa knowingly encourages distribution of their software in America, has a major distribution point being an American website, and targets American-made media for distribution.
And just to pick apart that "concentrating on a single thing for long periods of time," I have just one word: mother.
Mother's don't. Actually, mothers have to multitask to w+n+c, where "w" is their job, "n" is the ammount of housework that they do, and "c" is the number of their children under the age of 30.
While the "in-depth" crack was a load of bullocks, it is true that women multitask far better than men--and that men "focus" equally better than women.
Of course, the REAL reason why CS doesn't appeal to women is that it's a boy's club. The tools, methidology, culture, and framework are all designed by rather cloistered geeks for their own use in putting out a rather arcane end product.
Plus, it's a psedudo-mechanical thing, and there aren't that many women auto mechanics, either.
Hear, hear! The FSF should employ someone (Lessig?) to make an easy to use compendium of the law, key points from the law's forming debates, and every significant legal interpretation of the law. They should also file a modified brief to any significant court case, and make their dossier avalible to _anyone_ who wants it.
Jesus, you really *are* one of Bush's Bitches, aren't you?
No, troll. I voted for Gore (and I live in NY, so my vote _did_ count for him.)
The word 'soldier' was good enough for our government for more than two centuries - now Bush shows up and somehow it no longer does the trick?
For more than two centuries, our government fought wars by throwing dumb recruits who were worth less than their rifles against a target en masse. And then we had Vietnam, the possiblity nuclear war, and the sudden shift from beating the pants out of armies to tracking down terrorists and much weaker/smaller armies.
It's almost definitly not Bush's term. The word's been around since at least 1986, and if anyone in Washington is the motive force for picking it, it'd be Donald Rumsfeld.
Please, kiss my ass. Not only is that a crock of shit, but the term 'warfighter' sounds fucking silly. Only a moron would find the term anything less than ludicrous.
You voted Green, didn't you? I mean, anyone who signs their/. posts when they're logged in and equates personal tastes with intelligence has got to be a big enough fool to throw away their vote in the closest election in decades.
Come up with a legally sound solution and tell the editors about it (no, don't post it then whine about the -1 OT score that would be quickly dished out)
"Opt out/. ing"
Anyone with a/.ID can "opt out" of their/. ing. When a file on their TLD gets listed for a good/. ing, the editor gets flagged with a "site will crash" message, which would then pop up the/.er's perferred/. response: either a link to a TLD, up to a twelve hour warning, or a smallish temporary mirror.
Look up "Top Secret", "Classified", "Linux", "GNU", and all of the US military ranks.
Webseter's is a general dictionary, and does NOT include specific jargon. The military, on the other had, routinely applies specific meaning to otherwise common words to suit their purposes, just like any other specalized population. And the Department of Defense, being part of the military, needs to abide by all of those.
Oh, but wait! This is the *old* Websters, not the Government-Approved Websters. Better get rid of this contraband before the jackboots show up at my door!
Unless you join the military, feel free to call them whatever you want. Soldiers, Warfighters, thugs, redcoats, leathernecks, etc., etc. It's a free country--unless you trade you freedom for something else, like the chance to defend your nation and get paid to play wargams with the best toys in the history of mankind...
I was wondering what was with all the newspeak. At first I uncharitably thought that 'warfighter' might be easier to understand than 'soldier', but it's not like it has any fewer syllables.
It's a different meaning. It's a generic term for "person who fights." While "soldier" means "army guy that fights", and the folks who man battleships or fly figther planes aren't "soldiers."
Moving from 'citizen' to 'taxpayer' I guess was the beginning of the end. It's enough to make a foodeater sick.
Not all citizens pay taxes. Not all taxpayers are citizens (MS, IBM, GM, etc.)
"Taxpayer" is a source of revenue, and should be used when talking about the dollars and the worht of the government. (i.e., "giving the taxpayer what they paid for.")
"Citizen" means "member of "we the people" as described in the Constitution." Use it when reminding government about their duties, and during elections. (Thought "voter" is a nice subset of "citizen" that is who campaigns really care about.)
If you see military, government, or news articles that are misleading or confusing these terms, please please please correct them.
C'mon! Be Bush's bitch! Throw out that old, not-government-approved terminology like 'soldier' and sign up for your New and Improved English class today!
Sailors, Pilots, and Marines are not Soldiers. But they are all Warfighters.
There have been people calling for the government to protect us from drugs, violence, porn, and the internet. Where are the people calling for the government to protect us from the goddamn lawyers!?!?
You mean like Tort Reform in NYS, which has the highest per-capita Lawyer population in the US?
And then you bought CDs with it. You could just have easily given it to charity, kept it to save, or spent it on illegal drugs.
It stopped being "your money" when you gave it to someone else. The _only_ times the argument that a transactional exchange of money doesn't divorce you from ownership of that is banking and paying taxes.
Sheesh. If I buy a cheesburger and don't like it, do I have a right to "my money" back or does the restautant have an opportunity to purchase my goodwill by giving me the price of the cheeseburger?
Talk about a serious chokepoint to control information dispersal.
Not really. Any sizeable alteration of news is news--and thus, the hypothetical Media-Monopoly would get perhaps a day before it was shut down. And as for a cracking standpoint--well, you'd have to get each box individually, which won't be any easier than it is today.
It's much cheaper, btw, to simply manage misinformation with a skilled marketer and an on-staff lawyer. Legal, too.
Doesn't anyone else long for the privacy and anonynimity that the 'net used to provide?
Heck no. I long for the identifiability and community that the net used to provide, pre-AOL and the age of disposable accounts.
It should be really, really simple: If you want to just read, be anonymous. But when you actually add something, you should be able to be tracked down.
I can still time-shift Digital TV despite the copyright bit? I can make a backup copy of my DVDs? I can buy a copy of Windows XP, use it (which includes registering it) and then sell it to someone else, who will also need to be able to register it?
Each is an example of fair use, and currently cannot be done without special tools that are illegial in most cases. So feel free to elaborate on your point.
Your examples are NOT Fair Use. They're use. It's entirely possible for me and you to enter into a contract whereas you get to read my novel, but you may tell no one else of its contents nor transer your rights or duties without my explicit written permission. Unless I convince you to give up your Fair Use rights as consideration for this contract, you could still quote portions of my novel in a scholarly, journalistic, or paraody-ic (?) manner.
Fair Use is blatant Copyright Infringement that can be justified before a Judge and Jury. Time-shifting, backups, and transfer-of-sale are all legal unless (and only if) the Copyright Holder proves Copyright Infringement or breach of contract.
When RIAA busts you for file sharing, and says that you're committing copyright infringmenet, you kick and scream and hire lawyers to say "No, I did not commit Copyright Infringement."
When RIAA busts you for making Flash Parodies of their movies, or running a 30-second grainy clip of a pirate video in your academic presentation on Video Piracy, you politely say "yes, that's Copyright Infringement, BUT" and then kick and scream and hire lawyers to say "This infringement was Fair Use."
It's a specific semantics thing--just like the differnce between "stealing" and "copyright infringement." Abridgement of Fair Use has a chilling effect on the creation of additional and necessary works and therefore harms society; abridgement of simple use merely harms those few individuals who wish to enjoy a copyrighted work.
Side note 1: Windows XP, IMO, is more of a contractual problem than a copyright issue. By agreeing to the EULA, you give up certain rights, including your right to an ammount of money equal to what you paid for it, in exchange for a copy of the software program.
Also, unless you have an OEM copy (or some other copy that prohibits transfer of rights), you should be able to contact MS, "de-register" the software, and then sell it to someone else.
Side Note 2: The DMCA (and other relevant federal law), AFAIK, does not prohibit hacking, cracking, or otherwise reverse-engineering so long as the sole purpose of such is legal. TiVo-like timeshifting of Digital TV should be both legal and, if the seller knows what's good for them, included in the deal or offered as an option. And you should still be able to use an analog VCR to time-shift the Digital TV signal.
You can also, AFAIK, make a copy of the DVD you purchased without decoding CSS. I could be wrong, though...
IANAL, YMMV, Consult your Own Lawyer for Legal Advice, which this is not.
I can see how Gentile converts might have called themselves Jewish.
I can't. I was talking about Jewish converts--who, AFAIK, refered to themselves as "followers of the way" in Hebrew. I just didn't want to go into that much detail in my initial post.
I don't believe Gnostic heretics presented much of problem until about 200 AD. I consider this to be close to point at which we can say the Church was fairly well established, though I admit this is my subjective opinion. IMHO, it was mainly the Holy Spirit working from persecutions brought about by Jewish authorities, Roman authorities, and perhaps antagonistic Gentiles that most aided the growth of the early Church.
Ah, the hand of the Holy Spirit. It's entirely possible that God doesn't want us to have the really cool society that we could make Just Yet, so He's acted to keep our world imperfect--thus giving rise to the theory that Utopias are impossible. (He's probably just waiting until the Perfect Society can have Perfect Attendance, which He knows will require His intervention due to man's innate ignorance of fellow man.)
(Oh, and I know about the lack of a Protestant Authority. Hence my comment.)
Again, the Jewish church is not Christian. Jewish contemporary authorities still specifically reject Christ as the Messiah. Therefore, those who consider themselves a "Jew" would be Jewish, and a "Messianic Jew" would probably more appropriately be considered Christian.
Jews are an odd lot. Devout atheists who discredit the meaning and purpose of the rituals but still attend them can (and often are) still considered Jews by their peers. Regardless of how the central authority thinks, belief in Jesus as the Messiah--and certainly simple belief in Jesus as a prophet--won't get someone kicked out of the judaic people.
I suspect that Kabbalah's individual and spiritual teachings have more than a little bit to do with this.
I see your point here. But I'm still curious as to how a songwriter can prevent infringement-by-songwriting. In fact, I feel afraid to publish songs that I have written for precisely that reason, because I don't have the $$$ to defend myself against a derivative-work lawsuit brought by Warner Chappell Music [warnerchappell.com]'s army of retained lawyers.
Sell them. Hell, sell them to Warner Chappell if you can. And pay the fee to register your copyright.
But songwriter-infringment-by-songwriting is, well, sort of like novelists infringing through plot stealing. Unless there are _major_ sections taken, it should never ever happen.
I wish I was more familiar with the case--heck, I wish I was a lawyer, so I could say "sure, I'll represent you.":-/
Have you ever heard of 'chilling effects'? Do you have any idea just how noxious this idea is to freedom?
What, the idea that if you go to a public forum, other participants in that forum can identify you?
Anonymnity is anathema to society of ANY kind. It should be made as difficult as possible. (This is differnet from _privacy_, which is the freedom to hide what you're doing, not who you are.)
One of our fundamental principles has always been that you are free to think and read anything you wish; that information (with a very, very few exceptions) should not be suppressed in this country. No matter how noxious the current government may find the spread of some ideas, some of them are undoubtedly going to be right. There is little that makes authority figures more uncomfortable than the truth.
If you have persecuted information (i.e., communist propaganda, mailing lists of a hate group) then you should have at least one public member who acts as the go-between for the anonymous members of the persectuted sect and has a defended relationship with the anonymous members. (Ask a lawyer about forming one--having the public front BE a lawyer might be the easiest way.) If the gov't has a legitimate reason to perice the veil of anonymnity the public face provides, they can convince a judge to issue a specific order, akin to giving a criminal's lawyer a copy of the warrant.
Rights, in an atheistic view, are granted by the People to the individual through the government, and ceded to the government to protect the individual from the People. Your right to anonymnity deprives me of my right to confront those who speak or act against me; there's a reason non-logged in users are called "Anonymous Cowardes" here on/., y'know.
Assuming that the band in question is a cover band, recording a performance of a musical work without the permission of the songwriter is an infringement of copyright.
True. But most recordings are for legal purposes, and there's no reason to arbitrarily restrict the tape unless it really is cheaper to make it with the "no copy" bit turned on.
A MUCH better system to prevent infringement-by-performance would be to record the date and registered owner of the recording device. But that's be a violation of "privacy", which somehow became a right greater than all others...
You mean kind sort of like all religious sects get started -- saving only those that are outright hoaxes.
But the important thing is that gnosis (Greek for "knowledge") was supposed to be a direct revelational knowledge of God.
No, that's what I meant. It wasn't _began_ by a revelation--it was _communicated_ throug a series of zenlike revelations. Hence the name.
Ultimately that's probably why the Gnostic tradition died out, because the core belief was not amenable to any imposition of orthodoxy that would have allowed it to fight back as an unfragmented sect when the increasingly orthodox Christianity-as-we-know it decided they needed to quash Gnosticism. (IIRC, Gnosticism was the motivation behind the calling of the Council that voted on which books would be in the Bible-as-we-know it.)
I have the slightest suspicion that the Gnostic rejection of the entire friggin' Old Testament had something to do with it. Even if you don't believe as they did, don't make the mistake of thinking that the founders of the Catholic Church believed any less than founders of any other religion--or the "suckers" who still worship in churches in this enlightened "age of reason."
As were most of the early forms of Christianity, including the "primitive Christianity" described in the New Testament.
What substative qualities did the New Testament Christians have that have not been propogated through ancient denominations or revived through modern ones?
Slashdot Mirror
If you are, then how are you supposed to work on the code on a TCPA-compliant system?
You're not. You're supposed to work on a development box, that doesn't have to do things like handle movie clips or music files or porn.
If you're a professional ("day job"), you should focus. If you're an amateur, focusing can still help you.
And, of course, even if you can't have a second "trusted" system, it shouldn't be that bloddy hard to have a "trusted" and a "development" install of the same program...
I saw somewhere some idea for a device called a space elevator.
It's a time-honored Sci-Fi device, right up there with agropoloi and flying cars.
The reason why we haven't built one yet is, in a nutshell, time(/money) and technology.
Every little bit of that space elevator needs to be strong enough to hold the entire thing--and the thing is going to be the largest thing ever constructed. Period.
Oh, and there is that little problem of actually getting it it up in the first place...
Hydrocarbon fuel cells haven't taken off because, yes, Big Oil has a lot of control over a lot of America.
Not in the way you think. Fuel cells are "taking off"--just not very fast, considering how underpowered they (still) are.
It's not "size category" that they're comparing in--it's price. For $23000 Americans want a full size car with some kick, not a micromobile.
You can use it to defeat the GPL.
Oh, for crying out loud.
The GPL was not, ever, ever, ever, meant to make it so buying software wasn't worthwhile. In fact, the situation outlined in the parent post is _an ideal business model_ for GPL'd software.
You keep all of the rights the GPL was designed to preserve (distributing and re-working code you buy), and there's still something worthwhile for buying the software.
can you promise that there will be no nasty wordings that are likely to frighten off users who are trying Linux for the first time?
You mean like "this software will make your computer explode, we are not liable for any loss of revenue or life caused by your use of this software"?
US has global jurisdiction" thing, which sets a very dangerous legal prescedent.
How is it precedent-setting? KaZaa knowingly encourages distribution of their software in America, has a major distribution point being an American website, and targets American-made media for distribution.
And just to pick apart that "concentrating on a single thing for long periods of time," I have just one word: mother.
Mother's don't. Actually, mothers have to multitask to w+n+c, where "w" is their job, "n" is the ammount of housework that they do, and "c" is the number of their children under the age of 30.
While the "in-depth" crack was a load of bullocks, it is true that women multitask far better than men--and that men "focus" equally better than women.
Of course, the REAL reason why CS doesn't appeal to women is that it's a boy's club. The tools, methidology, culture, and framework are all designed by rather cloistered geeks for their own use in putting out a rather arcane end product.
Plus, it's a psedudo-mechanical thing, and there aren't that many women auto mechanics, either.
These problems are just uneducated judges!
Hear, hear! The FSF should employ someone (Lessig?) to make an easy to use compendium of the law, key points from the law's forming debates, and every significant legal interpretation of the law. They should also file a modified brief to any significant court case, and make their dossier avalible to _anyone_ who wants it.
Or maybe they shouldn't. *sigh*.
Jesus, you really *are* one of Bush's Bitches, aren't you?
/. posts when they're logged in and equates personal tastes with intelligence has got to be a big enough fool to throw away their vote in the closest election in decades.
No, troll. I voted for Gore (and I live in NY, so my vote _did_ count for him.)
The word 'soldier' was good enough for our government for more than two centuries - now Bush shows up and somehow it no longer does the trick?
For more than two centuries, our government fought wars by throwing dumb recruits who were worth less than their rifles against a target en masse. And then we had Vietnam, the possiblity nuclear war, and the sudden shift from beating the pants out of armies to tracking down terrorists and much weaker/smaller armies.
It's almost definitly not Bush's term. The word's been around since at least 1986, and if anyone in Washington is the motive force for picking it, it'd be Donald Rumsfeld.
Please, kiss my ass. Not only is that a crock of shit, but the term 'warfighter' sounds fucking silly. Only a moron would find the term anything less than ludicrous.
You voted Green, didn't you? I mean, anyone who signs their
Come up with a legally sound solution and tell the editors about it (no, don't post it then whine about the -1 OT score that would be quickly dished out)
/. ing"
/.ID can "opt out" of their /. ing. When a file on their TLD gets listed for a good /. ing, the editor gets flagged with a "site will crash" message, which would then pop up the /.er's perferred /. response: either a link to a TLD, up to a twelve hour warning, or a smallish temporary mirror.
"Opt out
Anyone with a
According to my Websters
Look up "Top Secret", "Classified", "Linux", "GNU", and all of the US military ranks.
Webseter's is a general dictionary, and does NOT include specific jargon. The military, on the other had, routinely applies specific meaning to otherwise common words to suit their purposes, just like any other specalized population. And the Department of Defense, being part of the military, needs to abide by all of those.
Oh, but wait! This is the *old* Websters, not the Government-Approved Websters. Better get rid of this contraband before the jackboots show up at my door!
Unless you join the military, feel free to call them whatever you want. Soldiers, Warfighters, thugs, redcoats, leathernecks, etc., etc. It's a free country--unless you trade you freedom for something else, like the chance to defend your nation and get paid to play wargams with the best toys in the history of mankind...
I was wondering what was with all the newspeak. At first I uncharitably thought that 'warfighter' might be easier to understand than 'soldier', but it's not like it has any fewer syllables.
It's a different meaning. It's a generic term for "person who fights." While "soldier" means "army guy that fights", and the folks who man battleships or fly figther planes aren't "soldiers."
Moving from 'citizen' to 'taxpayer' I guess was the beginning of the end. It's enough to make a foodeater sick.
Not all citizens pay taxes. Not all taxpayers are citizens (MS, IBM, GM, etc.)
"Taxpayer" is a source of revenue, and should be used when talking about the dollars and the worht of the government. (i.e., "giving the taxpayer what they paid for.")
"Citizen" means "member of "we the people" as described in the Constitution." Use it when reminding government about their duties, and during elections. (Thought "voter" is a nice subset of "citizen" that is who campaigns really care about.)
If you see military, government, or news articles that are misleading or confusing these terms, please please please correct them.
C'mon! Be Bush's bitch! Throw out that old, not-government-approved terminology like 'soldier' and sign up for your New and Improved English class today!
Sailors, Pilots, and Marines are not Soldiers. But they are all Warfighters.
Sheesh.
As a professional programmer, I refuse to let someone else's politics dictate how I feed my family
Odd, 19th century slavers said the same thing...
There have been people calling for the government to protect us from drugs, violence, porn, and the internet. Where are the people calling for the government to protect us from the goddamn lawyers!?!?
You mean like Tort Reform in NYS, which has the highest per-capita Lawyer population in the US?
It was ours to begin with
And then you bought CDs with it. You could just have easily given it to charity, kept it to save, or spent it on illegal drugs.
It stopped being "your money" when you gave it to someone else. The _only_ times the argument that a transactional exchange of money doesn't divorce you from ownership of that is banking and paying taxes.
Sheesh. If I buy a cheesburger and don't like it, do I have a right to "my money" back or does the restautant have an opportunity to purchase my goodwill by giving me the price of the cheeseburger?
Talk about a serious chokepoint to control information dispersal.
Not really. Any sizeable alteration of news is news--and thus, the hypothetical Media-Monopoly would get perhaps a day before it was shut down. And as for a cracking standpoint--well, you'd have to get each box individually, which won't be any easier than it is today.
It's much cheaper, btw, to simply manage misinformation with a skilled marketer and an on-staff lawyer. Legal, too.
Doesn't anyone else long for the privacy and anonynimity that the 'net used to provide?
Heck no. I long for the identifiability and community that the net used to provide, pre-AOL and the age of disposable accounts.
It should be really, really simple: If you want to just read, be anonymous. But when you actually add something, you should be able to be tracked down.
I can still time-shift Digital TV despite the copyright bit? I can make a backup copy of my DVDs? I can buy a copy of Windows XP, use it (which includes registering it) and then sell it to someone else, who will also need to be able to register it?
Each is an example of fair use, and currently cannot be done without special tools that are illegial in most cases. So feel free to elaborate on your point.
Your examples are NOT Fair Use. They're use. It's entirely possible for me and you to enter into a contract whereas you get to read my novel, but you may tell no one else of its contents nor transer your rights or duties without my explicit written permission. Unless I convince you to give up your Fair Use rights as consideration for this contract, you could still quote portions of my novel in a scholarly, journalistic, or paraody-ic (?) manner.
Fair Use is blatant Copyright Infringement that can be justified before a Judge and Jury. Time-shifting, backups, and transfer-of-sale are all legal unless (and only if) the Copyright Holder proves Copyright Infringement or breach of contract.
When RIAA busts you for file sharing, and says that you're committing copyright infringmenet, you kick and scream and hire lawyers to say "No, I did not commit Copyright Infringement."
When RIAA busts you for making Flash Parodies of their movies, or running a 30-second grainy clip of a pirate video in your academic presentation on Video Piracy, you politely say "yes, that's Copyright Infringement, BUT" and then kick and scream and hire lawyers to say "This infringement was Fair Use."
It's a specific semantics thing--just like the differnce between "stealing" and "copyright infringement." Abridgement of Fair Use has a chilling effect on the creation of additional and necessary works and therefore harms society; abridgement of simple use merely harms those few individuals who wish to enjoy a copyrighted work.
Side note 1: Windows XP, IMO, is more of a contractual problem than a copyright issue. By agreeing to the EULA, you give up certain rights, including your right to an ammount of money equal to what you paid for it, in exchange for a copy of the software program.
Also, unless you have an OEM copy (or some other copy that prohibits transfer of rights), you should be able to contact MS, "de-register" the software, and then sell it to someone else.
Side Note 2: The DMCA (and other relevant federal law), AFAIK, does not prohibit hacking, cracking, or otherwise reverse-engineering so long as the sole purpose of such is legal. TiVo-like timeshifting of Digital TV should be both legal and, if the seller knows what's good for them, included in the deal or offered as an option. And you should still be able to use an analog VCR to time-shift the Digital TV signal.
You can also, AFAIK, make a copy of the DVD you purchased without decoding CSS. I could be wrong, though...
IANAL, YMMV, Consult your Own Lawyer for Legal Advice, which this is not.
I can see how Gentile converts might have called themselves Jewish.
I can't. I was talking about Jewish converts--who, AFAIK, refered to themselves as "followers of the way" in Hebrew. I just didn't want to go into that much detail in my initial post.
I don't believe Gnostic heretics presented much of problem until about 200 AD. I consider this to be close to point at which we can say the Church was fairly well established, though I admit this is my subjective opinion. IMHO, it was mainly the Holy Spirit working from persecutions brought about by Jewish authorities, Roman authorities, and perhaps antagonistic Gentiles that most aided the growth of the early Church.
Ah, the hand of the Holy Spirit. It's entirely possible that God doesn't want us to have the really cool society that we could make Just Yet, so He's acted to keep our world imperfect--thus giving rise to the theory that Utopias are impossible. (He's probably just waiting until the Perfect Society can have Perfect Attendance, which He knows will require His intervention due to man's innate ignorance of fellow man.)
(Oh, and I know about the lack of a Protestant Authority. Hence my comment.)
Again, the Jewish church is not Christian. Jewish contemporary authorities still specifically reject Christ as the Messiah. Therefore, those who consider themselves a "Jew" would be Jewish, and a "Messianic Jew" would probably more appropriately be considered Christian.
Jews are an odd lot. Devout atheists who discredit the meaning and purpose of the rituals but still attend them can (and often are) still considered Jews by their peers. Regardless of how the central authority thinks, belief in Jesus as the Messiah--and certainly simple belief in Jesus as a prophet--won't get someone kicked out of the judaic people.
I suspect that Kabbalah's individual and spiritual teachings have more than a little bit to do with this.
I see your point here. But I'm still curious as to how a songwriter can prevent infringement-by-songwriting. In fact, I feel afraid to publish songs that I have written for precisely that reason, because I don't have the $$$ to defend myself against a derivative-work lawsuit brought by Warner Chappell Music [warnerchappell.com]'s army of retained lawyers.
:-/
Sell them. Hell, sell them to Warner Chappell if you can. And pay the fee to register your copyright.
But songwriter-infringment-by-songwriting is, well, sort of like novelists infringing through plot stealing. Unless there are _major_ sections taken, it should never ever happen.
I wish I was more familiar with the case--heck, I wish I was a lawyer, so I could say "sure, I'll represent you."
Have you ever heard of 'chilling effects'? Do you have any idea just how noxious this idea is to freedom?
/., y'know.
What, the idea that if you go to a public forum, other participants in that forum can identify you?
Anonymnity is anathema to society of ANY kind. It should be made as difficult as possible. (This is differnet from _privacy_, which is the freedom to hide what you're doing, not who you are.)
One of our fundamental principles has always been that you are free to think and read anything you wish; that information (with a very, very few exceptions) should not be suppressed in this country. No matter how noxious the current government may find the spread of some ideas, some of them are undoubtedly going to be right. There is little that makes authority figures more uncomfortable than the truth.
If you have persecuted information (i.e., communist propaganda, mailing lists of a hate group) then you should have at least one public member who acts as the go-between for the anonymous members of the persectuted sect and has a defended relationship with the anonymous members. (Ask a lawyer about forming one--having the public front BE a lawyer might be the easiest way.) If the gov't has a legitimate reason to perice the veil of anonymnity the public face provides, they can convince a judge to issue a specific order, akin to giving a criminal's lawyer a copy of the warrant.
Rights, in an atheistic view, are granted by the People to the individual through the government, and ceded to the government to protect the individual from the People. Your right to anonymnity deprives me of my right to confront those who speak or act against me; there's a reason non-logged in users are called "Anonymous Cowardes" here on
Assuming that the band in question is a cover band, recording a performance of a musical work without the permission of the songwriter is an infringement of copyright.
True. But most recordings are for legal purposes, and there's no reason to arbitrarily restrict the tape unless it really is cheaper to make it with the "no copy" bit turned on.
A MUCH better system to prevent infringement-by-performance would be to record the date and registered owner of the recording device. But that's be a violation of "privacy", which somehow became a right greater than all others...
We need Fair Use rights to be legally guaranteed.
If you can read it/listen to it, your Fair Use rights, in the classic sense, ARE guaranteed.
What you're talking about is your right to configure your system as you want and still use it. Much, much different thing.
You mean kind sort of like all religious sects get started -- saving only those that are outright hoaxes.
But the important thing is that gnosis (Greek for "knowledge") was supposed to be a direct revelational knowledge of God.
No, that's what I meant. It wasn't _began_ by a revelation--it was _communicated_ throug a series of zenlike revelations. Hence the name.
Ultimately that's probably why the Gnostic tradition died out, because the core belief was not amenable to any imposition of orthodoxy that would have allowed it to fight back as an unfragmented sect when the increasingly orthodox Christianity-as-we-know it decided they needed to quash Gnosticism. (IIRC, Gnosticism was the motivation behind the calling of the Council that voted on which books would be in the Bible-as-we-know it.)
I have the slightest suspicion that the Gnostic rejection of the entire friggin' Old Testament had something to do with it. Even if you don't believe as they did, don't make the mistake of thinking that the founders of the Catholic Church believed any less than founders of any other religion--or the "suckers" who still worship in churches in this enlightened "age of reason."
As were most of the early forms of Christianity, including the "primitive Christianity" described in the New Testament.
What substative qualities did the New Testament Christians have that have not been propogated through ancient denominations or revived through modern ones?