It's the situation where I think ex post facto is most interesting; I don't have either the resources nor the inclination to contest the copyright of works covered under the regulation you cite (has anybody had the inclination? Are there even very many works covered under that act?).
Say Mr. Baker owns a store and puts up a cork board, and Little Billy puts up a note that Sally is a whore. At a minimum, people are going to think Mr. Baker is an asshole if he doesn't take down the note.
I'm not saying that Google is necessarily legally liable for their results, just that the results come up on pages with "Google" logos on them, and people are going to associate the results with Google no matter what Google does.
They are responsible (in some sense, that word invokes both community and legal standards), no matter what, clearly they are doing whatever they can to maintain the appearance of neutrality while also trying to avoid controversy that is of no benefit to them.
Any such bill would probably be found to be against the U.S. Constitution (which has a broader prohibition against ex post facto laws than most other legal frameworks, which generally have statements specifically about criminal laws, rather than the general statement in the Constitution).
I got that it was a joke, but I don't really go for humor that is based on obscuring the issue, and movie companies are a lot more worried about insider copying than they are cell phone videos.
The drm in question is to prevent an insider at one of the theaters from posting the movie (which is the sort of piracy that is really hard to defend), not to obscure the analog whole.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the situation where I think ex post facto is most interesting; I don't have either the resources nor the inclination to contest the copyright of works covered under the regulation you cite (has anybody had the inclination? Are there even very many works covered under that act?).
Say Mr. Baker owns a store and puts up a cork board, and Little Billy puts up a note that Sally is a whore. At a minimum, people are going to think Mr. Baker is an asshole if he doesn't take down the note.
I'm not saying that Google is necessarily legally liable for their results, just that the results come up on pages with "Google" logos on them, and people are going to associate the results with Google no matter what Google does.
I just put the extra answers into the notes field of my password safe.
That analogy is insufficient, they are the maker of the cork board and the owner of the wall that it is mounted on.
They are responsible (in some sense, that word invokes both community and legal standards), no matter what, clearly they are doing whatever they can to maintain the appearance of neutrality while also trying to avoid controversy that is of no benefit to them.
Of course, it doesn't apply to a work that entered the United States public domain through expiration of copyright.
Any such bill would probably be found to be against the U.S. Constitution (which has a broader prohibition against ex post facto laws than most other legal frameworks, which generally have statements specifically about criminal laws, rather than the general statement in the Constitution).
Angsting (look at the user name).
There haven't been any reports of success, but fire is rumored to work pretty well.
The souvenir vial of Steve Jobs sperm.
Right, a little bit of flamebait to hold it together, but mostly sugary goodness.
My above post is flamebait in much the same way that marshmallows are meat.
Yeah, sorry, I don't own a phone with a camera, so I forget that they are quickly becoming the preferred way to take blurry, oversized photos.
Or perhaps the local storage features present in html5.
Of course it will still be attached to a consumer level camera with a shitty little lens in front of it.
He isn't grasping after his obsolete business model, he is abandoning it.
No, he used the "What I just said was retarded mark" ("~"), indicating he was being sarcastic.
I thought about that, but I wanted to make my meaning clear.
I got that it was a joke, but I don't really go for humor that is based on obscuring the issue, and movie companies are a lot more worried about insider copying than they are cell phone videos.
I guess things would be blue and red shifted, but they wouldn't seem 'faster' in the 'times the speed of light' sense.
Your perception of time would be unaltered.
Do you mean Stephen Donaldson?
I'm reasonably familiar with Stephenson's work and do not recognize his 'Gap series'.
hole.
The drm in question is to prevent an insider at one of the theaters from posting the movie (which is the sort of piracy that is really hard to defend), not to obscure the analog whole.
The rank and file, for the most part, will be mad that the projector was broken.