If you distribute the work at all, published, etc. and do not put a RESTRICTION notice on that work, then you just entered it into the public domain and anyone can take it and do what they want with it.
No, that's not right. It's still protected by copyright; it's only in the public domain if it explicitly contains a declaration to that effect. The presence of a copyright notice may affect the damages you can claim, but it doesn't fundamentally change whether or not a work is copyright.
That means, if he succeeds in proving his case, he may be entitled to a modest royalty, but he probably won't be able to get massive, bankrupting fines against the company, or cause all the copies of the album to be destroyed.
Are you sure about that? Wouldn't that mean that any copyright infringement of music would have limited damages? In particular, if Collins is only able to claim royalties under a compulsory license in this case, why wouldn't the RIAA also only have been able to obtain royalties under compulsory licensing when it sued file-sharers? The law you link to says:
(b) Notice of Intention To Obtain Compulsory License.â" (1) Any person who wishes to obtain a compulsory license under this section shall, before or within thirty days after making, and before distributing any phonorecords of the work, serve notice of intention to do so on the copyright owner. If the registration or other public records of the Copyright Office do not identify the copyright owner and include an address at which notice can be served, it shall be sufficient to file the notice of intention in the Copyright Office. The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation. (2) Failure to serve or file the notice required by clause (1) forecloses the possibility of a compulsory license and, in the absence of a negotiated license, renders the making and distribution of phonorecords actionable as acts of infringement under section 501 and fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509.
If I read this right, the full copyright damages would apply, unless Island followed this compulsory license procedure. Presumably, if they wrongly thought they already had a license, they probably didn't follow this procedure, and so Collins could sue them for whatever remedies the law allows.
Person who uploaded the content follows the counternotice procedure, and is ignored by the incompetent outsourcer.
As I understand it, you send the counternotice to the host, not to the person claiming rights. If you send a counternotice to the host, they are legally indemnified if they put the material back up, even if it turns out to actually be violating copyright; so there's no reason in principle for the ISP to not put the material back up.
Isohunt is a torrent search engine, not a tracker, so it's not really comparable to TPB; indeed, if you search on Isohunt, there's a good chance the results you get will be to torrents tracked by TPB. If TPB disappeared, Isohunt would have lot fewer torrents.
Dealing with.rar files for a movie that could have been downloaded as one file is so 1990's...
Sharing rar files on bittorrent is, generally speaking, stupid. The scene releases rars to allow for integrity checks and re-uploading parts in the case of file corruption; this is useful if you're distributing via systems like FTP (as the scene does), but it's pointless if you're distributing via bittorrent, where the protocol already divides the files up into blocks and performs integrity checking on them.
Now, some bittorrent sites directly distribute scene releases, so it makes some sense for them to distribute these releases unmodified, that is, as rar files. But insisting on rar files for non-scene releases, as some bittorrent sites do, is just aping the form of the scene without understanding the reasoning behind it; it's n00bish posturing, in other words.
The copyright assertion on the photo makes sense, but name of the blog can't be copyrighted. It's possible that he's claiming the name of his blog as a trademark, or, under the UK law for unregistered trademarks, "passing off." I would have thought you would have to actually be engaging in trade to make such a claim, and I don't think a blog qualifies; but I may be wrong about UK trademark law.
The twitterer isn't actually using Donal Blarney's name, they're using the name of his blog. Maybe he's claiming the name of the blog as a trademark? Most of the news reports seem to be parotting the law firm, who say that the twitterer is "breaching the copyright and intellectual property of the blogâ(TM)s owner," which is some uselessly vague bollocks, unfortunately, as it doesn't say what the intellectual property involved actually is.
I think the problem here is that you don't know anything about python.
No, it's not "outdated". Using the keyword...
It's not outdated, because it's completely incorrect. map isn't a keyword, and never has been; it's a function.
As nice as list comprehensions are, they're a bad method of chaining functions, because it is achieved by nesting, at the syntactic level. Something like:
[ (lambda x: x) for x in [ (lambda y: y) for y in list] ]
If I want to apply another function, I get to move that whole list construct into a new one.
No, a comprehension looks like:
[f(x) for x in l]
So if you want to apply another function, you write:
[g(f(x)) for x in l]
The function composition occurs the same way it does anywhere else - by applying one function to the result of another.
The last complaint could be mitigated by writing a regular function, too.
Brilliant. Let's break encapsulation for every single utility function a model might use.
I have no idea what this means. Functions created using lambda and functions created using def are exactly the same. What kind of "encapsulation" is "broken" by using a regular function, but somehow isn't broken by using a lambda?
the reasons why the press may sometimes be reluctant to run stories about accused criminals that might remotely suggest their guilt before they are convicted is that Britain has the kind of libel laws being discussed in the case
Not entirely. There are specific laws (a brief google suggests that the main one is the Contempt of Court Act 1981) that make it illegal to report on matters that are the subject of trials in a way that is likely to prejudice the outcome of the trial. Still, it's also possible that, if these laws were repealed, the libel laws would still cause the media to avoid reporting on accusations.
The Human Rights Act of 1998? The European Convention on Human Rights of 1950?
It very prominently silenced politicians from Northern Ireland in the 1990s.
Though the ban on broadcasting the voices of Irish republicans in the late 80s and early 90s was absurd and draconian, I'm not convinced it was all that significant an infringement of free speech - the politicians in question were only "silenced" in a very literal sense, in that people were forbidden from broadcast their voices. They weren't silenced in the metaphorical sense that they could not express their opinions; people were free to print their words, or to print someone else repeating their words. As I say, absurd, but a comparatively minor infringement on freedom of speech.
You must be confusing Britain with a free, democratic country governed by a written constitution.
Well, that would indeed be a mistake. Britain is a free, democratic country governed by an unwritten constitution.
Really? Fiction, drama, painting, and sculpture all involve constructing a "world" rather than simply representing one. Are none of these art? I don't think you've thought this through.
But the parallel processes in web servers typically don't share much data, so there's little advantage to using threads over processes, and python handles multiple processes just fine. That seems to be how they're using this framework:
We run multiple instances of the Tornado web server on multiple frontend machines. We typically run one Tornado frontend per core on the machine (sometimes more depending on utilization).
One reason people go to a store like Best Buy is for information.
Really? I've noticed Best Buy adverts that try to make a selling point out of the knowledge of their staff, but I've never yet encountered a Best Buy employee who, when asked a question about a piece of kit, could tell me anything that wasn't printed on the label in front of the item. Not that that's a real criticism of the store - they're a warehouse store who sell stuff fairly cheap, one shouldn't expect them to be a useful source of information.
Please define "hate speech" in a way that is objective and clear and does not require knowing what is going on inside the mind of the person using it.
How about the definition in UK law:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if-
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
This uses standard, clear and objective legal terminology such as "intend" and "likely" (note that just because these terms require judgement in their application does not mean they are not clear or objective - all criminal prosecutions require a determination of intent, the mens rea. This, of course, is not determined by spookily looking inside someone's head, but by applying reasonably human judgement to their observable actions).
The idea that hate speech is somehow subjective or requires knowledge of inaccessible mental states simply marks you as ignorant of the meaning of the term.
The problem with Biased BBC isn't that they disagree with the BBC; there are plenty of specific criticisms of the BBC you can make in particular cases. The problem with Biased BBC is that their criticisms of the BBC are idiotic. Oh no, the BBC quoted an NHS spokesperson in a story on the NHS! Oh no, a BBC article on tributes to Ted Kennedy after his death mostly quotes people saying nice things about Ted Kennedy! These only count as criticisms of the BBC from an absurd perspective in which the NHS can never be defended and Ted Kennedy is wholly evil. It's not just that these are right-wing criticisms of the BBC; it's that they come from a particular right-wing perspective that is both stupid and completely unrepresentative of the population the BBC serves.
That blog is definitive, in a sense. In that it accurately represents the fact that those who believe the BBC is systematically biased are right-wing nutjobs
Slashdot Mirror
If you distribute the work at all, published, etc. and do not put a RESTRICTION notice on that work, then you just entered it into the public domain and anyone can take it and do what they want with it.
No, that's not right. It's still protected by copyright; it's only in the public domain if it explicitly contains a declaration to that effect. The presence of a copyright notice may affect the damages you can claim, but it doesn't fundamentally change whether or not a work is copyright.
That means, if he succeeds in proving his case, he may be entitled to a modest royalty, but he probably won't be able to get massive, bankrupting fines against the company, or cause all the copies of the album to be destroyed.
Are you sure about that? Wouldn't that mean that any copyright infringement of music would have limited damages? In particular, if Collins is only able to claim royalties under a compulsory license in this case, why wouldn't the RIAA also only have been able to obtain royalties under compulsory licensing when it sued file-sharers? The law you link to says:
(b) Notice of Intention To Obtain Compulsory License.â"
(1) Any person who wishes to obtain a compulsory license under this section shall, before or within thirty days after making, and before distributing any phonorecords of the work, serve notice of intention to do so on the copyright owner. If the registration or other public records of the Copyright Office do not identify the copyright owner and include an address at which notice can be served, it shall be sufficient to file the notice of intention in the Copyright Office. The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
(2) Failure to serve or file the notice required by clause (1) forecloses the possibility of a compulsory license and, in the absence of a negotiated license, renders the making and distribution of phonorecords actionable as acts of infringement under section 501 and fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509.
If I read this right, the full copyright damages would apply, unless Island followed this compulsory license procedure. Presumably, if they wrongly thought they already had a license, they probably didn't follow this procedure, and so Collins could sue them for whatever remedies the law allows.
Person who uploaded the content follows the counternotice procedure, and is ignored by the incompetent outsourcer.
As I understand it, you send the counternotice to the host, not to the person claiming rights. If you send a counternotice to the host, they are legally indemnified if they put the material back up, even if it turns out to actually be violating copyright; so there's no reason in principle for the ISP to not put the material back up.
In Sony's (and the *AA's) eyes, you don't purchase content, you buy a license to use it
True. But I think it's worth continuing to point out that the *AA's eyes are the eyes of the delusional, with no legal basis.
Isohunt is a torrent search engine, not a tracker, so it's not really comparable to TPB; indeed, if you search on Isohunt, there's a good chance the results you get will be to torrents tracked by TPB. If TPB disappeared, Isohunt would have lot fewer torrents.
Dealing with .rar files for a movie that could have been downloaded as one file is so 1990's...
Sharing rar files on bittorrent is, generally speaking, stupid. The scene releases rars to allow for integrity checks and re-uploading parts in the case of file corruption; this is useful if you're distributing via systems like FTP (as the scene does), but it's pointless if you're distributing via bittorrent, where the protocol already divides the files up into blocks and performs integrity checking on them.
Now, some bittorrent sites directly distribute scene releases, so it makes some sense for them to distribute these releases unmodified, that is, as rar files. But insisting on rar files for non-scene releases, as some bittorrent sites do, is just aping the form of the scene without understanding the reasoning behind it; it's n00bish posturing, in other words.
What's stopping me from mailing, twittering and faxing a few million people injunctions?
The same thing that's stopping you from sentencing a million people to 20 years in jail. Only a court can issue an injunction.
The copyright assertion on the photo makes sense, but name of the blog can't be copyrighted. It's possible that he's claiming the name of his blog as a trademark, or, under the UK law for unregistered trademarks, "passing off." I would have thought you would have to actually be engaging in trade to make such a claim, and I don't think a blog qualifies; but I may be wrong about UK trademark law.
The twitterer isn't actually using Donal Blarney's name, they're using the name of his blog. Maybe he's claiming the name of the blog as a trademark? Most of the news reports seem to be parotting the law firm, who say that the twitterer is "breaching the copyright and intellectual property of the blogâ(TM)s owner," which is some uselessly vague bollocks, unfortunately, as it doesn't say what the intellectual property involved actually is.
I think the problem here is that you don't know anything about python.
No, it's not "outdated". Using the keyword...
It's not outdated, because it's completely incorrect. map isn't a keyword, and never has been; it's a function.
As nice as list comprehensions are, they're a bad method of chaining functions, because it is achieved by nesting, at the syntactic level. Something like:
[ (lambda x: x) for x in [ (lambda y: y) for y in list] ]
If I want to apply another function, I get to move that whole list construct into a new one.
No, a comprehension looks like:
[f(x) for x in l]
So if you want to apply another function, you write:
[g(f(x)) for x in l]
The function composition occurs the same way it does anywhere else - by applying one function to the result of another.
The last complaint could be mitigated by writing a regular function, too.
Brilliant. Let's break encapsulation for every single utility function a model might use.
I have no idea what this means. Functions created using lambda and functions created using def are exactly the same. What kind of "encapsulation" is "broken" by using a regular function, but somehow isn't broken by using a lambda?
The monarch hasn't been sovereign since 1688.
the reasons why the press may sometimes be reluctant to run stories about accused criminals that might remotely suggest their guilt before they are convicted is that Britain has the kind of libel laws being discussed in the case
Not entirely. There are specific laws (a brief google suggests that the main one is the Contempt of Court Act 1981) that make it illegal to report on matters that are the subject of trials in a way that is likely to prejudice the outcome of the trial. Still, it's also possible that, if these laws were repealed, the libel laws would still cause the media to avoid reporting on accusations.
Who said Britain has free speech?
The Human Rights Act of 1998? The European Convention on Human Rights of 1950?
It very prominently silenced politicians from Northern Ireland in the 1990s.
Though the ban on broadcasting the voices of Irish republicans in the late 80s and early 90s was absurd and draconian, I'm not convinced it was all that significant an infringement of free speech - the politicians in question were only "silenced" in a very literal sense, in that people were forbidden from broadcast their voices. They weren't silenced in the metaphorical sense that they could not express their opinions; people were free to print their words, or to print someone else repeating their words. As I say, absurd, but a comparatively minor infringement on freedom of speech.
You must be confusing Britain with a free, democratic country governed by a written constitution.
Well, that would indeed be a mistake. Britain is a free, democratic country governed by an unwritten constitution.
Really? Fiction, drama, painting, and sculpture all involve constructing a "world" rather than simply representing one. Are none of these art? I don't think you've thought this through.
That's how all current JVMs work, as far as I know, but FWIW early versions of Java implemented multitasking in the virtual machine.
But the parallel processes in web servers typically don't share much data, so there's little advantage to using threads over processes, and python handles multiple processes just fine. That seems to be how they're using this framework:
We run multiple instances of the Tornado web server on multiple frontend machines. We typically run one Tornado frontend per core on the machine (sometimes more depending on utilization).
One reason people go to a store like Best Buy is for information.
Really? I've noticed Best Buy adverts that try to make a selling point out of the knowledge of their staff, but I've never yet encountered a Best Buy employee who, when asked a question about a piece of kit, could tell me anything that wasn't printed on the label in front of the item. Not that that's a real criticism of the store - they're a warehouse store who sell stuff fairly cheap, one shouldn't expect them to be a useful source of information.
I do have mod points right now, but I'm commenting because, unfortunately, there's no "-1, preemptively complains about moderation" option.
Please define "hate speech" in a way that is objective and clear and does not require knowing what is going on inside the mind of the person using it.
How about the definition in UK law:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if-
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
This uses standard, clear and objective legal terminology such as "intend" and "likely" (note that just because these terms require judgement in their application does not mean they are not clear or objective - all criminal prosecutions require a determination of intent, the mens rea. This, of course, is not determined by spookily looking inside someone's head, but by applying reasonably human judgement to their observable actions).
The idea that hate speech is somehow subjective or requires knowledge of inaccessible mental states simply marks you as ignorant of the meaning of the term.
AC as I am making shit up...
FTFY
Ha! Actually, -1 cliched would be useful, and could have been all-too-fairly applied to my comment.
The problem with Biased BBC isn't that they disagree with the BBC; there are plenty of specific criticisms of the BBC you can make in particular cases. The problem with Biased BBC is that their criticisms of the BBC are idiotic. Oh no, the BBC quoted an NHS spokesperson in a story on the NHS! Oh no, a BBC article on tributes to Ted Kennedy after his death mostly quotes people saying nice things about Ted Kennedy! These only count as criticisms of the BBC from an absurd perspective in which the NHS can never be defended and Ted Kennedy is wholly evil. It's not just that these are right-wing criticisms of the BBC; it's that they come from a particular right-wing perspective that is both stupid and completely unrepresentative of the population the BBC serves.
You're happy to insist that all of your neighbours and countrymen also continue being forced to pay for it?
Well, that is how the provision of public services usually works, yes.
That blog is definitive, in a sense. In that it accurately represents the fact that those who believe the BBC is systematically biased are right-wing nutjobs
"State socialism" is the usual term, I think.