For example: I have no complaints about Okular vs KPDF, other than that there's no KDE3 version of Okular.
Wow, am I the only one? I find that 25-50% of the files I load in Okular print incorrectly in some way. And that doesn't count the fact that I have to explicitly switch printing from A4 to US Letter *every* *single* *time* I re-open Okular. The bug reports all explain that this is due to a QT4 limitation. Great. Why is *anyone* shipping this to a US market as a standard piece of software? IMO this is a fatal bug for your standard document viewer.
I've been using KDE for a while and am a pretty advanced user, but I'm still scratching my head as to why Kubuntu has gone with KDE4.1 as its only option on 8.10. Yeah, sure, 8.04 is still supported, but... my experience is that at least half the apps have bugs that aren't even subtle, they just flat out don't work in some fundamental way. And this includes Plasma, the fucking DESKTOP. I'm still using it because if I've worked out how to limp around its limitations and there's enough glimmer of hope that maybe it'll be nice some day, but if 4.2 doesn't just shine rainbows out its ass, I'm looking for something new.
And yeah, I know it's free, etc, etc, but it's disappointing to see such a huge step back in a distro that (for me) started off on the right track towards "just work"ing. Of course, I was transitioning from Gentoo so maybe my outlook was distorted...;-)
There's no right to a strong market, but copyright law itself says that a creator doesn't have to compete against his own work.
It's a little less clear for a used market, but I think there's a good argument that owners of used bookstores went into business in part because there was a limited supply of what they planned to sell. While I can certainly see the argument that it's better for society to have the content of out-of-print books freely available digitally, you have to be careful because that is going to have a big impact on used booksellers. I feel that they provide a valuable service, so it's not entirely clear that just dropping copyright is the ultimately best solution. It might be inevitable, but it's something that should be thought through carefully.
By downloading the pirated ebook, aren't you reducing the general market for the used book? So even though you're not necessarily going to purchase a specific copy from a specific used bookseller, in principle you're weakening his market. Why is that any less wrong than diluting the original creator/publisher's market by illegally duplicating a book that's still in print? Used bookstores are extremely valuable parts of our commercial landscape, IMO.
(not judging/flaming you, I agree: it's an interesting moral dilemma).
can't put 3 kids in a normal sized sedan, need either a giant sedan, SUV, or minivan with a third kid, and kids under 13 aren't supposed to ride up front... WTF? The sedan was the quintessential family car... now a mom running small carpool with 4 kids in her car needs a minivan because you can't put one up front and 3 in the back, something that was routine for us growing up as kids.
While I agree with much of the sentiment in your post, I don't think this is a sensible thing to flame about. Most cars will properly disable the front air bags (or have a switch option, don't know exactly what the current standard is). Still, the back seat is a safer location for a car seat. It always has been, it just wasn't recognized (or cared about) 30 years ago. Furthermore, it's an overwhelmingly good thing that the typical sedan is not sized for more occupants than a typical sedan driver needs. It is much more economical as a result. If you actually need the extra space, then buy a specialized vehicle like a minivan or larger sedan. Making sedans larger so the few people who actually need the space don't need to choose carefully is a ridiculous solution, quintessential as it may be.
Just like the federal government has no jurisdiction over speed limits, the drinking age, or myriad other "state and local issues" that they seem to dictate pretty well using the at-best questionably Constitutional practice of tying federal funds to compliance...
Interesting approach. It sounds like it's very nearly equivalent to keeping a release branch and not playing with multiple repositories. Is there a particular advantage to keeping completely separate repositories?
As far as I can tell, this is mainly because they are used to software sucking a lot.
Making lots of unnecessary changes as part of a bug-fix release is hardly a recipe for non-sucking software. A code change should make it in to a release either because it's required to fix a critical bug as part of a bug-fix (i.e., emergency) release or because it's part of a planned, scheduled change. If you're mixing these up, you're not serving stable software to your customers.
Remember, stable software is not just software that doesn't crash. It's software that works the same today as it did yesterday and the day before that. It's predictable and boring. New version roll-outs are expensive.
And no, a new version of Google coming out isn't even remotely relevant. I'm not talking about the kind of shops where users are responsible for their own software choices. Most of these places the users have to be *trained* to use the software. Even if they're technically capable of doing that, it's too risky because unless you've tested the process end-to-end, it's possible you don't understand what the software is doing. *Any* new version requires testing and training. Even a bug-fix release may not be rolled out unless the bug is so severe that no acceptable work-around exists.
Release early release often works well for geeks who don't mind fiddling, but for a huge number of gigs out there, it's gotta be release once and forget about it.
Exactly. Very well put. A bug is an unexpected consequence of your code. It's hard to expect the unexpected, no matter how good a programmer you are.
Furthermore, if you're developing stable software, by definition you're carefully controlling when new features roll out. You don't add a new feature in a bugfix release, you fix bugs! It's hard to manage that without a separate branch for the releases, or some other equivalent construct that's somehow technically not a branch.
I agree that's popular, but I don't think it's a good idea. Wouldn't it be better to have every check-in be stable?
Yeah, and it'd also be nice if software was released without bugs. Every non-trivial change (and more trivial changes than you or I would like to think) introduces the chance for an unintended consequence. If you are attempting to ship a solid product and you need a critical bug fix ASAP, you really want to start from EXACTLY the code you shipped last time and make the minimum change to fix the critical bug.
For some, especially informal users, a frequent release schedule with lots of miscellaneous changes irrelevant to their purposes might be ok. In many professional environments, that's a big problem. Ship early ship often is not a recipe for being taken seriously in a lot of businesses.
While your explanation is probably close to what they'd claim, that seems pretty darn farfetched to me. I'd think that a separate authorization from a separate terminal would be necessary to allow a voting station to cast a second ballot. Otherwise you're just begging for people to hurry and vote twice while no one's looking... Of course, maybe that's asking too much of the engineers designing the systems to implement the VERY BASIS FOR OUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
Oh, absolutely I agree that this is how it "should" be. Unfortunately, it would seem that EULAs are enforceable in some jurisdictions so the law is in conflict with what is right. It is ridiculous, it is sad, and it is something that should be fought.
Even if an EULA is enforceable, it cannot restrict an user's rights more than what is expressly allowed by law.
This doesn't smell right to me. Contracts frequently restrict rights more than the law, since otherwise there'd be no need for the contract. If a EULA is enforceable at all, it'd be a contract. As with any contract, it'd be an exchange of compensation between the two sides. The user is granted a license to use the software as compensation for agreement not to do certain things that he'd otherwise have the right to do.
The DMCA simply says that it's not a violation of the law to reverse engineer for the purpose of interoperability. It doesn't (AFAIK) provide a shield against contractual provisions that restrict such activities.
First of all, I'm not distracting from anything. If you can find a time I've suggested anyone not be held accountable for their actions/words, please point it out. If what they've written amounts to libel, then by all means, let their be punishment. My point is that the school's discipline system is absolutely the wrong place to punish activities that occur outside of school.
It's extremely important that school is not optional, particularly given that it's funded by taxes and is essentially a government enterprise. The school simply cannot infringe on a right unless the government would be allowed to do the same. Within the school walls, they have a clear vested interest in maintaining sufficient order to achieve their educational mission. The claim that this interest extends to private lives of the students is pretty sketchy at best, and I argue it's utterly baseless.
As for the principal, he may be a private citizen but he is opting to act as a public figure and representative of the school. With that job comes certain risks and responsibilities. Any public figure is at risk of being insulted; why is the principal so special?
Finally, calling someone a pedophile may or may not be legal. It's absolutely not true that "false insult" == "libel". Honestly, I don't give a damn if what they said was legal or not. Either way, the school should have no power to enforce its rules on students' private time.
God forbid life should intrude on schooling. If the discussion is disruptive in school, then the appropriate parties for the school to punish are those who are acting up in school. What a student does on his own time with his own resources is his own business. If it's within the law, then it's legal -- why should a school of all institutions be granted the power to write its own laws?
If school were an optional activity, then maybe I'd buy your argument (except for the "idiot" part, dumbass). A private school has a lot more leeway to define acceptable behavior, etc.
The analogy totally fails. The school simply should not have any control over what its students do on their own time outside of school property. If the student broke a law by arranging the beating, then it's a legal matter for the police/court system. There are other (and better) mechanisms for punishment than school suspensions/expulsions.
Whether school is a part of their lives or not, the school simply has no (or should not have any) special power to enforce its rules outside of school time.
In your opinion. I'm guessing your pro-choice. (FWIW I am too.) But if you believed that abortion was equivalent to murdering innocent babies as some pro-lifers argue, then there would be no question that federal legislation is entirely appropriate.
I am pro-choice, but that's not why I make that argument. I think abortion restrictions should be legislated at the state or local level if at all. It's hard to separate pure logic from one's position on the issue, but I think the fact that so many intelligent people disagree so strongly about the morality of such procedures is a fairly neutral indication that it should be left alone federally.
Our system of government already proscribes a solution: take a vote. And take another one periodically to make sure it reflects what people want.
First, nitpick (or, being charitable to my intentions, "opportunity for education"): you mean prescribes, not proscribes.
Second and more substantially, in addition to the various citizen votes (and more relevant to the creation of laws, votes by representatives on behalf of the citizens), there is also what should be a strict set of rules as to what sorts of laws can be created. This is (supposed to be) especially strict at the federal level. Laws should not 1:1 map to anyone's ethical code. It's not a matter of molding the laws to reflect the morals of the majority. IMO, it's irrelevant whether the majority of US citizens feels that abortion should or should not be performed. That is simply not a question that should be legislated federally.
Finally, wrt your comment about presidential elections... I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, but I don't see any effective way to have 51% of candidate A and 49% of candidate B performing a single executive role. Remember that the president is just a single member of the government, albeit probably the single most powerful one. Still, those 49% who voted against the winner will be substantially represented in the more numerous legislative branch so their influence will not be tossed out. I think there are plenty of problems with our electoral system, but I don't see any effective way to implement fractional representation in a singular office.
Except that the stored value + post-facto audit allows the stations to work even if they are do not have connectivity to the main server 100% of the time. You could do a daily log dump/blacklist update from the station back to the central server. Given the number of turnstiles that are broken on the MBTA at any given time, having the turnstile free to operate independently of the mothership seems critical...
I'm with you 90%. I don't have an ethical problem with "piracy" as a test drive, but I think you cross a line when you decide that you like a product but not at the offered price. IMO, you ethically either need to stop using it or pony up the cash.
Customs Deputy Commissioner Jayson P. Ahern said the efforts "do not infringe on Americans' privacy." In a statement submitted to Feingold for a June hearing on the issue, he noted that the executive branch has long had "plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border without probable cause or a warrant" to prevent drugs and other contraband from entering the country.
Perhaps it's just a poor characterization of his statements, but it appears that Mr. Ahern just doesn't get it. Regardless of what authority the executive branch has had, he needs a pretty damn strong argument as to why these efforts don't infringe on "Americans'" privacy. I can't think of any reasonable argument that they do not. Whether it's a *justified* infringement is a somewhat subtler question, but these powers are certainly subject to abuse. Further, even the obscenely few restrictions on preserving the data after the investigation is completed are little consolation in the face of the many stories of data mishandling by government entities. Mr. Ahern desperately needs to get a clue.
Further, even as an American I take exception to the idea that it's only relevant for our government to protect "Americans'" privacy, as is implied by this quote. Again, it might be due to incomplete quoting, but I somehow doubt that. As a scientist who frequently works with international collaborators, it's really true that communities outside the U.S. are deciding to keep their business out of this country due to the ridiculous policies for entering. It's often just not worth the effort. Way to go, Executive Branch!!
A statement like that in the NIV can give you rights in excess of fair use, but cannot ever curtail your fair use rights. Copyright law is what it is. A statement like that in a bible is probably intended as something of a "gift" to its users in the sense that part of the purpose of a bible is to quote/discuss in services/etc. No one needs to think twice about quoting it within that guideline. But, it doesn't necessarily mean that going outside those bounds is actually not permitted, that'd depend on the legal interpretation.
That said, I think the grandparent poster's idea, while it might work from a very letter-of-the-law standpoint, probably *shouldn't* work if you agree with the basic concept of copyright. At some point, someone creates something that causes a copy of the bits to be reassembled into a copy of the copyrighted work and someone initiates that process. There is a guilty party or parties in that process no matter how thinly you slice it -- either as direct infringement or conspiracy to do so.
That said, I don't necessarily think it *should* be illegal to do this. When it starts becoming necessary to go to enormous technical lengths to prevent people from doing things, I think that's a sign that perhaps it's not practical for it to be illegal in the first place...
That approach will work great if your company is broken or if you don't actually like your job. Part of doing one's job is doing it well and doing it within company policies. Email is not generally intended for long-term information storage, and that's especially true if your company uses a 6-month retention policy. If you're unable to foresee that you'll need something emailed to you after it rolls off the server, you're not doing your job. "The retention policy ate it" is a lame excuse unless it was really unforeseeable that you'd need it...
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting, I'd held off because I didn't dare play with something unstable if that was what they considered shippable. Maybe worth a shot.
For example: I have no complaints about Okular vs KPDF, other than that there's no KDE3 version of Okular.
Wow, am I the only one? I find that 25-50% of the files I load in Okular print incorrectly in some way. And that doesn't count the fact that I have to explicitly switch printing from A4 to US Letter *every* *single* *time* I re-open Okular. The bug reports all explain that this is due to a QT4 limitation. Great. Why is *anyone* shipping this to a US market as a standard piece of software? IMO this is a fatal bug for your standard document viewer.
I've been using KDE for a while and am a pretty advanced user, but I'm still scratching my head as to why Kubuntu has gone with KDE4.1 as its only option on 8.10. Yeah, sure, 8.04 is still supported, but ... my experience is that at least half the apps have bugs that aren't even subtle, they just flat out don't work in some fundamental way. And this includes Plasma, the fucking DESKTOP. I'm still using it because if I've worked out how to limp around its limitations and there's enough glimmer of hope that maybe it'll be nice some day, but if 4.2 doesn't just shine rainbows out its ass, I'm looking for something new.
And yeah, I know it's free, etc, etc, but it's disappointing to see such a huge step back in a distro that (for me) started off on the right track towards "just work"ing. Of course, I was transitioning from Gentoo so maybe my outlook was distorted... ;-)
There's an important difference between shutting down a service and willfully or negligently inflicting harm.
There's no right to a strong market, but copyright law itself says that a creator doesn't have to compete against his own work.
It's a little less clear for a used market, but I think there's a good argument that owners of used bookstores went into business in part because there was a limited supply of what they planned to sell. While I can certainly see the argument that it's better for society to have the content of out-of-print books freely available digitally, you have to be careful because that is going to have a big impact on used booksellers. I feel that they provide a valuable service, so it's not entirely clear that just dropping copyright is the ultimately best solution. It might be inevitable, but it's something that should be thought through carefully.
By downloading the pirated ebook, aren't you reducing the general market for the used book? So even though you're not necessarily going to purchase a specific copy from a specific used bookseller, in principle you're weakening his market. Why is that any less wrong than diluting the original creator/publisher's market by illegally duplicating a book that's still in print? Used bookstores are extremely valuable parts of our commercial landscape, IMO.
(not judging/flaming you, I agree: it's an interesting moral dilemma).
can't put 3 kids in a normal sized sedan, need either a giant sedan, SUV, or minivan with a third kid, and kids under 13 aren't supposed to ride up front... WTF? The sedan was the quintessential family car... now a mom running small carpool with 4 kids in her car needs a minivan because you can't put one up front and 3 in the back, something that was routine for us growing up as kids.
While I agree with much of the sentiment in your post, I don't think this is a sensible thing to flame about. Most cars will properly disable the front air bags (or have a switch option, don't know exactly what the current standard is). Still, the back seat is a safer location for a car seat. It always has been, it just wasn't recognized (or cared about) 30 years ago. Furthermore, it's an overwhelmingly good thing that the typical sedan is not sized for more occupants than a typical sedan driver needs. It is much more economical as a result. If you actually need the extra space, then buy a specialized vehicle like a minivan or larger sedan. Making sedans larger so the few people who actually need the space don't need to choose carefully is a ridiculous solution, quintessential as it may be.
Just like the federal government has no jurisdiction over speed limits, the drinking age, or myriad other "state and local issues" that they seem to dictate pretty well using the at-best questionably Constitutional practice of tying federal funds to compliance...
Give the cops a little more credit -- quicker, easier, and almost unquestionably the right thing to do.
Interesting approach. It sounds like it's very nearly equivalent to keeping a release branch and not playing with multiple repositories. Is there a particular advantage to keeping completely separate repositories?
As far as I can tell, this is mainly because they are used to software sucking a lot.
Making lots of unnecessary changes as part of a bug-fix release is hardly a recipe for non-sucking software. A code change should make it in to a release either because it's required to fix a critical bug as part of a bug-fix (i.e., emergency) release or because it's part of a planned, scheduled change. If you're mixing these up, you're not serving stable software to your customers.
Remember, stable software is not just software that doesn't crash. It's software that works the same today as it did yesterday and the day before that. It's predictable and boring. New version roll-outs are expensive.
And no, a new version of Google coming out isn't even remotely relevant. I'm not talking about the kind of shops where users are responsible for their own software choices. Most of these places the users have to be *trained* to use the software. Even if they're technically capable of doing that, it's too risky because unless you've tested the process end-to-end, it's possible you don't understand what the software is doing. *Any* new version requires testing and training. Even a bug-fix release may not be rolled out unless the bug is so severe that no acceptable work-around exists.
Release early release often works well for geeks who don't mind fiddling, but for a huge number of gigs out there, it's gotta be release once and forget about it.
Exactly. Very well put. A bug is an unexpected consequence of your code. It's hard to expect the unexpected, no matter how good a programmer you are.
Furthermore, if you're developing stable software, by definition you're carefully controlling when new features roll out. You don't add a new feature in a bugfix release, you fix bugs! It's hard to manage that without a separate branch for the releases, or some other equivalent construct that's somehow technically not a branch.
I agree that's popular, but I don't think it's a good idea. Wouldn't it be better to have every check-in be stable?
Yeah, and it'd also be nice if software was released without bugs. Every non-trivial change (and more trivial changes than you or I would like to think) introduces the chance for an unintended consequence. If you are attempting to ship a solid product and you need a critical bug fix ASAP, you really want to start from EXACTLY the code you shipped last time and make the minimum change to fix the critical bug.
For some, especially informal users, a frequent release schedule with lots of miscellaneous changes irrelevant to their purposes might be ok. In many professional environments, that's a big problem. Ship early ship often is not a recipe for being taken seriously in a lot of businesses.
While your explanation is probably close to what they'd claim, that seems pretty darn farfetched to me. I'd think that a separate authorization from a separate terminal would be necessary to allow a voting station to cast a second ballot. Otherwise you're just begging for people to hurry and vote twice while no one's looking... Of course, maybe that's asking too much of the engineers designing the systems to implement the VERY BASIS FOR OUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
Oh, absolutely I agree that this is how it "should" be. Unfortunately, it would seem that EULAs are enforceable in some jurisdictions so the law is in conflict with what is right. It is ridiculous, it is sad, and it is something that should be fought.
Even if an EULA is enforceable, it cannot restrict an user's rights more than what is expressly allowed by law.
This doesn't smell right to me. Contracts frequently restrict rights more than the law, since otherwise there'd be no need for the contract. If a EULA is enforceable at all, it'd be a contract. As with any contract, it'd be an exchange of compensation between the two sides. The user is granted a license to use the software as compensation for agreement not to do certain things that he'd otherwise have the right to do.
The DMCA simply says that it's not a violation of the law to reverse engineer for the purpose of interoperability. It doesn't (AFAIK) provide a shield against contractual provisions that restrict such activities.
First of all, I'm not distracting from anything. If you can find a time I've suggested anyone not be held accountable for their actions/words, please point it out. If what they've written amounts to libel, then by all means, let their be punishment. My point is that the school's discipline system is absolutely the wrong place to punish activities that occur outside of school.
It's extremely important that school is not optional, particularly given that it's funded by taxes and is essentially a government enterprise. The school simply cannot infringe on a right unless the government would be allowed to do the same. Within the school walls, they have a clear vested interest in maintaining sufficient order to achieve their educational mission. The claim that this interest extends to private lives of the students is pretty sketchy at best, and I argue it's utterly baseless.
As for the principal, he may be a private citizen but he is opting to act as a public figure and representative of the school. With that job comes certain risks and responsibilities. Any public figure is at risk of being insulted; why is the principal so special?
Finally, calling someone a pedophile may or may not be legal. It's absolutely not true that "false insult" == "libel". Honestly, I don't give a damn if what they said was legal or not. Either way, the school should have no power to enforce its rules on students' private time.
God forbid life should intrude on schooling. If the discussion is disruptive in school, then the appropriate parties for the school to punish are those who are acting up in school. What a student does on his own time with his own resources is his own business. If it's within the law, then it's legal -- why should a school of all institutions be granted the power to write its own laws?
If school were an optional activity, then maybe I'd buy your argument (except for the "idiot" part, dumbass). A private school has a lot more leeway to define acceptable behavior, etc.
The analogy totally fails. The school simply should not have any control over what its students do on their own time outside of school property. If the student broke a law by arranging the beating, then it's a legal matter for the police/court system. There are other (and better) mechanisms for punishment than school suspensions/expulsions.
Whether school is a part of their lives or not, the school simply has no (or should not have any) special power to enforce its rules outside of school time.
In your opinion. I'm guessing your pro-choice. (FWIW I am too.) But if you believed that abortion was equivalent to murdering innocent babies as some pro-lifers argue, then there would be no question that federal legislation is entirely appropriate.
I am pro-choice, but that's not why I make that argument. I think abortion restrictions should be legislated at the state or local level if at all. It's hard to separate pure logic from one's position on the issue, but I think the fact that so many intelligent people disagree so strongly about the morality of such procedures is a fairly neutral indication that it should be left alone federally.
Our system of government already proscribes a solution: take a vote. And take another one periodically to make sure it reflects what people want.
First, nitpick (or, being charitable to my intentions, "opportunity for education"): you mean prescribes, not proscribes.
Second and more substantially, in addition to the various citizen votes (and more relevant to the creation of laws, votes by representatives on behalf of the citizens), there is also what should be a strict set of rules as to what sorts of laws can be created. This is (supposed to be) especially strict at the federal level. Laws should not 1:1 map to anyone's ethical code. It's not a matter of molding the laws to reflect the morals of the majority. IMO, it's irrelevant whether the majority of US citizens feels that abortion should or should not be performed. That is simply not a question that should be legislated federally.
Finally, wrt your comment about presidential elections... I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, but I don't see any effective way to have 51% of candidate A and 49% of candidate B performing a single executive role. Remember that the president is just a single member of the government, albeit probably the single most powerful one. Still, those 49% who voted against the winner will be substantially represented in the more numerous legislative branch so their influence will not be tossed out. I think there are plenty of problems with our electoral system, but I don't see any effective way to implement fractional representation in a singular office.
Except that the stored value + post-facto audit allows the stations to work even if they are do not have connectivity to the main server 100% of the time. You could do a daily log dump/blacklist update from the station back to the central server. Given the number of turnstiles that are broken on the MBTA at any given time, having the turnstile free to operate independently of the mothership seems critical...
I'm with you 90%. I don't have an ethical problem with "piracy" as a test drive, but I think you cross a line when you decide that you like a product but not at the offered price. IMO, you ethically either need to stop using it or pony up the cash.
Customs Deputy Commissioner Jayson P. Ahern said the efforts "do not infringe on Americans' privacy." In a statement submitted to Feingold for a June hearing on the issue, he noted that the executive branch has long had "plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border without probable cause or a warrant" to prevent drugs and other contraband from entering the country.
Perhaps it's just a poor characterization of his statements, but it appears that Mr. Ahern just doesn't get it. Regardless of what authority the executive branch has had, he needs a pretty damn strong argument as to why these efforts don't infringe on "Americans'" privacy. I can't think of any reasonable argument that they do not. Whether it's a *justified* infringement is a somewhat subtler question, but these powers are certainly subject to abuse. Further, even the obscenely few restrictions on preserving the data after the investigation is completed are little consolation in the face of the many stories of data mishandling by government entities. Mr. Ahern desperately needs to get a clue.
Further, even as an American I take exception to the idea that it's only relevant for our government to protect "Americans'" privacy, as is implied by this quote. Again, it might be due to incomplete quoting, but I somehow doubt that. As a scientist who frequently works with international collaborators, it's really true that communities outside the U.S. are deciding to keep their business out of this country due to the ridiculous policies for entering. It's often just not worth the effort. Way to go, Executive Branch!!
A statement like that in the NIV can give you rights in excess of fair use, but cannot ever curtail your fair use rights. Copyright law is what it is. A statement like that in a bible is probably intended as something of a "gift" to its users in the sense that part of the purpose of a bible is to quote/discuss in services/etc. No one needs to think twice about quoting it within that guideline. But, it doesn't necessarily mean that going outside those bounds is actually not permitted, that'd depend on the legal interpretation.
That said, I think the grandparent poster's idea, while it might work from a very letter-of-the-law standpoint, probably *shouldn't* work if you agree with the basic concept of copyright. At some point, someone creates something that causes a copy of the bits to be reassembled into a copy of the copyrighted work and someone initiates that process. There is a guilty party or parties in that process no matter how thinly you slice it -- either as direct infringement or conspiracy to do so.
That said, I don't necessarily think it *should* be illegal to do this. When it starts becoming necessary to go to enormous technical lengths to prevent people from doing things, I think that's a sign that perhaps it's not practical for it to be illegal in the first place...
That approach will work great if your company is broken or if you don't actually like your job. Part of doing one's job is doing it well and doing it within company policies. Email is not generally intended for long-term information storage, and that's especially true if your company uses a 6-month retention policy. If you're unable to foresee that you'll need something emailed to you after it rolls off the server, you're not doing your job. "The retention policy ate it" is a lame excuse unless it was really unforeseeable that you'd need it...