Billy-Bob invents a new dohicky, doesn't have the resources to practically implement it, or the money to patent it. Joe-Jack hears about Billy-Bob's invention and gets a patent on it using a horrendously obfuscated, yet entirely typical name. Billy-Bob secures funding for his wonderful invention, it's a hit, sells millions. Joe-Jack dusts off "his" patent and sues the pants off of Billy-Bob.
The joys of the USPO fostering innovation and progress as usual.
"That's one of the reasons I don't necessarily advocate technical solutions as a means to control content. "
There is nothing wrong with technical solutions. The problem occurs when you back technical solutions with draconian laws. Content producers want DRM everything and built excruciatingly limited hardware, let them. In a free market, unencumbered by legal restrictions on circumvention, it will die a rapid, and not unwelcome death. DIVX (the pay per watch movie scheme) might still be with us is all of the other alternatives were made illegal. SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative) was stillborn. Why? they had to compete with unrestricted MP3's and non SDMI hardware that let people move their music from their CD-player to their computer to their MP3 player without restrictions. Given a choice of more features for less money, or less features for more money, most people choose the former.
DMCA, NET (No Electronic Theft), and other such laws remove choice, criminalize innovation, and strangle our culture in the interests of making a few corporations filthy rich.
As I have said before, if you extend the copyright on steamboat Willy another hundred years, good old Walt still isn't going to create anything new.
"...the FBI can listen in on all your cell phone calls. After all, you're broadcasting your conversation on public airwaves."
Yep, great isn't it.
If someone sends you a signal, it shouldn't be illegal to listen to it. If you don't want someone else to "intercept" (now there's a strange use, how can you intercept a signal that is being broadcast to you?) a signal, then DON'T broadcast it. Simple no?
Back in the day, when things were just a wee bit more sensible people understood that. Analog radio and television, remember those? Anyone could build a receiver and listen/watch. No fees, no going to court. Eventually big business got the FCC to regulate who could TRANSMIT, something about interference..., but anyone could receive. Now here's something that's sure to date me, I remember building crystal radios from kits that didn't even need batteries.
Fast forward to analog cordless phones, read glorified walkie-talkies. That's all they were, they took your phone call, transmitted it over a repackaged "Mr. Microphone" and did the same in reverse. Guess what, if you tuned to the right "station", you could listen in to other people phone conversations. Except for the friendly packaging and duplex, how's that any different from tying your phone to a citizen band (CB) radio? If you don't want people listening in don't broadcast it. Of course that would have made way too much sense. People didn't understand that cordless telephones weren't actually just telephones and it wasn't in the best interest of the companies who produced them to clarify the matter. Companies should have build better "encrypted" systems to mitigate the possibility of eavesdropping, but that would be more complicated and costly. The public should have been warned, "Conversations over this device are broadcast and therefore subject to possible interception by third parties." or something to that effect. But then people would have shied away from using them, also bad for business. So, our legislators in their infinite unwisdom simply pass a law that makes listening to certain channels with your radio illegal. Problem solved - well not really.
Analog cordless phones begot analog cellular phones, same problem, same non-solution, but one better not only is listening illegal, but producing, selling, possessing a device capable of listening is now a crime (very early fore shadowing of DMCA).
Analog begot digital, more things are being broadcast through our homes and bodies, more things are made illegal. Companies surveying the legal landscape come upon a brilliant marketing strategy. We'll create a product, beam it indiscriminately to everyone across the planet and charge them to listen/watch. Might not work in Equador, but the laws in the US and Europe will jail anyone who peeks. But how can we tell if people are peeking? I know, if anyone has anything, instructions, equipment, whatever that might possibly be used to "peek" (watch "our" signal that we are broadcasting through their homes and bodies) without paying us, we'll assume that is evidence that they are peeking and sue their pants off. Which leads us to the current sorry state of affairs.
Unless things get straightened out, legally, soon, it's only going to get worse. How you ask, well we now have pay per listen digital radio. Build a radio that can listen to these "special" channels go to jail. No twenty-first century equivalents of "crystal radio kits" for our kids. Have you heard about the "broadcast-flag" that is being proposed for over the air television, you remember that quaint twentieth century invention where people could watch whatever signal their television antenna could catch free of charge. When OTA (over the air) television goes digital in the States, they want to embedded a flag that at first would allow the television stations to decide what programs you were allowed to make a copy of. Say goodbye to the "Sony Betamax" decision. You can only time/space shift televisions shows that "they" allow you to. Bu
The problem most people who don't think that this is a very bad law is that they keep thinking of the internet as a newspaper/television|radio station. While that is a good analogy for a good portion of it, they aren't identical.
To see just how silly it is, apply it to leafleting instead of printing a newspaper. If I don't like company X, I print a couple of thousand leaflets that state my reasons I believe that people shouldn't do business with company X. Since company X doesn't like what I have to say, and since there is this "right to reply", a representative publishes a one page rebuttal to my leaflet and sends it to me. Should I have to print out another thousand copies and try to redistribute it to all of the places where I handed out my original leaflet?
How about a diary? What if I keep a diary of my comings and goings, and leave a copy in my front yard, so that anyone interested can come by and read what I have written. Yesterday I see you peeing in an ally near the public library. I write it up, and add a comment that I think you are a very uncouth fellow for urinating in public. Does your "right of reply" mean that I have to include a page in my diary containing your rebuttal, of how you were actually out of town that day, and anyway you really, really had to go?
I don't know about you, but that seems very silly to me. Luckily here in the United States the courts have ruled that the "Freedom of Speech" includes the right NOT to speak. In other words, the First Amendment protects us from compelled speech. Recently, the courts have ruled that industries like mushroom growers, didn't have to fund generic government mushroom ads. The "right to reply" would be just that, compelled speech. If you don't like what I have written, then by all means take an ad out in the paper, start a blog, plaster a billboard with your message. Just don't expect me to give you a forum to do that in.
If I have libeled you, take me to court. If I have written my honest opinion, or illuminated facts you had rather I didn't, too bad. People, have been developing remarkably thin skins in recent years. You don't like what people have to say about you, too bad, deal with it.
There is no constitutional right NOT to be offended. At least not in the United States, yet. I can't say how things are over there in Europe.
Things like this "right of reply" only burdens the right of those without means to speak and be heard. Newspapers, television stations, companies, well heeled individuals, can all afford to implement things like a "right of reply". It seems these Europeans are scared to death of the common man getting his voice heard by more than the few people around him. When mass communication is limited to the few, the government/corporations have a much easier time controlling what gets said, when, and by whom. The "official" version of events doesn't have any competition with any other version, or the truth.
Democracy is messy, it has to be to work. Otherwise you end up with a police state, where the only message that's allowed to be written, or heard, is the "correct" message. Take a look at the media in Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Cuba. Does Europe want to join that illustrious list?
Just look at the "official" news sources in the United States during the last Gulf War. It was very hard to hear anything negative about our actions. No bodies, no bloodshed, clean sanitized, made for television. Compare that with the coverage out of Vietnam during that war. When footage was broadcast of Saddam mistreating U.S. POW's, people had a fit.
(/sarcasm_on)How dare they broadcast that! (/sarcasm_off)
The caliphony of voices that the internet has enabled is healthy for society. Annoying, petty, down right aggravating at times, yes, but ultimately needed. Applying this "right of reply" to every individual who wants to be heard is nothing more than a thinly disguised bond for speakin
You said; "No matter how you look at this issue, its NOT your content. You are asking for permission to use it, and they are granting it."
Last I heard when I purchase a copy of a DVD, or CD-ROM Audio, or good ol' dead tree edition book, I've done just that, purchased a copy. I haven't licensed anything.
Every hear of something called the "First Sale Doctrine"? When I buy a copy of something that is copyrighted I can legally do anything I want with it except make more copies. Watching/Listening/Reading it, lending to friends, neighbors, or complete strangers, reselling it, using it to line my bird cage, or grinding DVD's into a fine powder and drinking it with my Ovaltine are all LEGAL. I didn't license it I bought it. Record/Movie/Software companies want you to think that you are just licensing it not buying it, but except for software (and even then not completely - have you read about Network Associates "you can't benchmark without our permission" clause being invalidated in New York?) neither judges nor the public are buying it.
Do you think I'm wrong? Well in the city I live in we have this big building, where complete strangers can walk out of the building with books, cd-roms, VHS tapes, and DVD's with nothing more than the promise to return it in a few days. Perhaps you may have heard of them, they're called libraries. How about used book/music/video stores? Didn't the RIAA/MPAA try to get them declared illegal? I don't think they were terribly successful.
Have you been following another DVD related case in California (321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer) The judge there wanted to know if the studios were trying to do an end run around copyright restrictions? While that is a DMCA case and not a trade-secrets case, I think it's enlightening that she views purchasing DVD's as just that, a purchase of a copyrighted work, not a license. If you were just "... asking permission to use it..." then Metro Goldwyn Mayer could simply point to the clause in their contract that forbids making a backup copy. The DMCA argument wouldn't have been needed. But, if it's a purchase, as opposed to a license, as I've been saying all along, then they need some other way to get around traditional fair use exemptions to copyright. The insidious part of the DMCA is that it doesn't actually protect copying copyrighted works, it protects access to that work.
It would be like if I sold you a book that had a locking cover, but I didn't sell you the keys to open it. If you want to actually read the book you have to insert it into a specially designed book opener/reader. Oh, and while they're at it, they have a law passed that makes it illegal for you to use a paper clip to pick the lock, or a butter knife to snap the flimsy band off of the book.
Now they are suing a fella for telling other people that he heard someone say if you drop one of these books on its spine from a 1.25 meter height onto 2 cm blue acrylic pile carpeting, the lock will spring open without damaging the book and you'll be able to read it without purchasing one of the publishers special book opener/readers.
You don't, or shouldn't, need to ask their permission to view the content you PURCHASED from them. You bought it for the purpose of watching it. They produced copies of a copyrighted work to which they hold the copyright to a retailer. You bought it from the retailer with the intention of watching it. You now own that copy. To suggest that you need to ask them for permission to take it out of the wrapper/box/case before you can view it is ludicrous. Up until a few years ago, I would have thought that patently obvious, unfortunately I was wrong.
Ummm... You said;
"Democratic governments (including the US) have adopted these laws and implemented them."
The United States does not now, nor ever has had a democratic government. The United States is governed under a system sometimes referred to as a Constitutional Republic. We elect representatives, they govern, hence the Republic portion. Our elected officials aren't allowed to do whatever they want, they are limited by the Constitution, hence the Constitutional part.
Democracies are bad. I wouldn't ever want to live under a pure democracy. In the first place, I have better things to do than vote on every decision needed to run a country. What brand of toilet paper should we purchase for the Senate bathroom? Ugh. Secondly, democracy = mob rule. One of the main reason's for the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If most of the country is white, and 51% of them think all non-white people should be slaves, in a democracy, they are slaves. If 51% of the country are Fundamentalist Christians, or Muslims, and they decide that their religion is the only "true" religion, guess what? If you don't follow/practice/adhere to the dominant religion, at best you're a second class citizen, at worse a criminal subject to summery execution.
There's on old saying that goes something like this, "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
Actually I can think of a couple of reasons that the RIAA might not like something like this to get into widespread use.
Analog hole - people taking DRM audio playing it into this little puppy and presto, minimal quality loss, unencumbered digital file.
Concert bootlegging - I bet something like this would come in real handy recording a concert.
Non-RIAA audio production - Have you looked at commercial audio products lately? I remember not too long ago (well perhaps I'm dating myself) where most consumer level audio equipment either came with a mic, a built in mic, or both. These days the only thing that records are those little dictation devices recording low quality mono. According to the RIAA people don't create music, they consume it. All "legal " music creation/distribution must, by definition, go through them. Something like this would come in real handy for your folk singer, garage band, night-club rapper to record/distribute their music, RIAA not needed.
Sure, it may be $2,000 USD now, but how much did CD-R drives cost when they first came out? How much does one cost now?
High quality, portable, in the price range of a small band or audiophile. Just one more piece of the puzzle to getting non-RIAA music developed/distributed. The fact that your average Joe can use it to un DRM her music is just icing on the cake. If it's legal, and catches on to any degree, the next version may have 100GB and this one resold for a couple of hundred. Perhaps a version could be sold as a kareoke machine. You never know.....
I don't think that "He" is using AOL, the problem is that "He" is using a residential DSL setup to host his mail server, due to the high cost of anything else, and AOL is blocking email that originates from all residential DSL servers.
Since he isn't on AOL he can't get "off" AOL.
If he could convince all of the recipients to change ISP's that may help.
First Avril, then Shakira, I've got these CD's. (Christmas gifts), and they aren't "protected" in any meaningful way in the States.
I wonder when this will start happening "big time" here in the U.S.?
I do seem to recall a case in California, where a consumer successfully sued a record company because they sold her a "copy protected" CD, that she couldn't rip, and that demanded that she supply her personal information to the company in order to download a version that would play on her computer.
Perhaps, they are worried about more law suits in the States. The DMCA may prevent you from bypassing their schemes, legally, but most consumer protection laws at the state level would eat them alive if they introduced a few million audio CD's that either couldn't be played on high end stereos, or damaged computers.
You said: "...You don't have any inalienable rights either. All rights are provided as a matter of law."
I guess that depends on where you are. Obviously NOT the United States of America. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_ freedom/declaration/declaration_transcription.html )
Guess where that little tid-bit comes from? The Declaration of Independence, U.S. version of course.
The United States constitution contains the following; "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;...."
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut ion.articlei.html) Article I Section 8
Of course the First Amendment says; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH [emphasis mine], or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_ freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html)
What is copyright if not an ABRIDGING of the freedom of speech, secured for a LIMITED time to AUTHORS the exclusive right to their writings, to PROMOTE the PROGRESS of useful arts?
What it was never meant to be was a method by which wealthy robber-barons deprived the country of its culture and stifled the progress of useful arts by monitizing every expression or utterance in perpetuity.
So, at least in the United States of America, we DO have inalienable rights and infringing a copyright isn't stealing. In fact, the current legal situation regarding copyright is contrary to the purpose it was established for and most likely unconstitutional. Not all laws are equally legal.
It only takes a majority of legislators to create a law. Just look at the number of laws that were ruled unconstitutional, so far, to get an idea of how many weren't "legal".
The broadcast would be copyrightable, but they couldn't stop someone from using the score of the game they are broadcasting anyway they wanted, just because a television station broadcast it.
The broadcast of the sporting event was a creative work. The fact that team A played team B at arena X on a certain day, and team A lost to team B by Y points are facts and therefore are fair game.
That's all that "button" is, the WWW equivalent of an EULA.
Personally I'm in the pro-deep-linking, anti-EULA camp myself. If they put info out on a publicly accessible website, then within the limits of our ridiculously contorted copyright laws, it's fair game.
If you check the little blurb on the EFF's site, it appears that the EFF is against it. They said: "... relying on trespass to chattels and breach of a browsewrap license." (http://www.eff.org/Cases/AA_v_Farechase/)
If you look here (http://www.eff.org/Cases/Intel_v_Hamidi/20030311_ eff_pr.php) the EFF writes: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an amicus brief in the Intel v. Hamidi case, arguing that the lower court distorted the "trespass to chattels" doctrine when applying it to the Internet."
Apparently AA is also relying on a misappropriation of the "trespass to chattels" doctrine, in this case with regard to the web as opposed to email. If either of these cases succeeds and becomes controlling, then most of the internet as we know it goes down the drain. Websites, email servers, etc. will be regarded as property that you will need to get permission to send to, or link to.
If you link to a website without permission, such as in the FORD vs. 2600 case (http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=297) could be found guilty of trespassing. Sending email without getting permission would also become illegal. Heck I can't get the postal service to stop sending me real honest-to-God paper mail, but I could go to jail because I sent you email? That's just nuts.
I think perhaps you read Qurin too broadly. A scant four paragraphs before the section you quoted the Court wrote: (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl? court=US&vol=317&invol=1)
"It has not hitherto been challenged, and so far as we are advised it has never been suggested in the very extensive literature of the subject that an alien spy, in time of war, could not be tried by military tribunal without a jury."
As to taking things out of context to try and prove a point, the very sentence preceding the one you quote:
"We have no occasion now to define [317 U.S. 1, 46] with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war."
Ex parte Qurin is notably silent on the imposition of military tribunals against American citizens during peace time. There is a very good reason for that, the laws of war include such things as bombing, rape, murder, the distraction of property.... hmm sounds like a lot of things that civilian courts handle. From the wikpedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war): "Spi es and terrorists are not protected by the laws of war; they are subject to civilian laws (if any) for their acts and in practice are often subjected to torture and execution."
Well hopefully not torture, at least not in the U.S.
Your broad reading of Ex parte Qurin would authorize the use of military tribunals for any action that fits the definition as breaking the "Laws of War". Since you are also broadly reading the definition of what being "at war" is, then all cases of murder, rape, bombing, espionage, etc. should be tried by military tribunals.
Gee, why haven't we been doing this all along? It would sure speed the judiciary. It would end up negating several constitutional amendments such as the fifth and sixth, but what's wrong with trashing the Constitution? Isn't swift and sure "justice" much more important than constitutional rights?
You seem to forget the Ex parte Qurin was decided during a declared war, to deal with obvious enemy combatants. The Supreme Court has never addressed the use of military tribunals during peace time. Until it does, or Congress declares a war, I think you, and Bush, are misusing the authority granted the president under Ex pate Qurin.
Other opinions: US Breaks Laws of War, discussing the hereto internationally unrecognized "unlawful combatant" (http://mondediplo.com/2002/04/08breac h)
I've read "Ex parte Qurin", it's a case of bad law and only of limited applicability here. "Ex parte Milligan" would have been a better choice, as it makes for better law. It is probably equally irrelevant since in both of those cases we were at war.
Tony Mauro has an interesting take on Ex parte Qurin and its applicability to Bush's "war on terrorism" here (http://www.counterpunch.org/mauro1.html).
If you look at the Qurin ruling itself (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl? court=US&vol=317&invol=1) you might notice a few interesting things'
"After the declaration of war between the United States and the German Reich,..." (14th paragraph)
"While landing they wore German Marine Infantry uniforms or parts of uniforms. Immediately after landing they buried their uniforms and the other articles mentioned and proceeded in civilian dress to New York City." (later in 14th paragraph)
"On or about June 17, 1942, they came ashore during the hours of darkness wearing caps of the German Marine Infantry and carrying with them a supply of explosives, fuses, and incendiary and timing devices. They immediately buried their caps and the other articles mentioned and proceeded in civilian dress to Jacksonville, Florida, and thence to various points in the United States." (15th paragraph)
"On the same day, by Proclamation,3 the President declared that 'all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, [317 U.S. 1, 23] and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals'." (16th paragraph, the President's order establishing the tribunal)
" The Proclamation also stated in terms that all such persons were denied access to the courts." (17th paragraph)
" The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared,..." (31st paragraph)
If you notice, the Qurin decision of the Supreme Court, during a time of declared war (declared by Congress) basically says that the Constitution gives the President as Commander in Chief wide latitude to wage war in a manner that he thinks is appropriate. The Constitution also places the requirement upon Congress to declare a war BEFORE these extraordinary powers can come into play. This is to prevent just this type of power grab that Bush is trying to succeed. A large part of the current crisis is that Congress is letting the American people down.
In the Qurin decision we were fighting a declared war against a foreign power. The decision takes pains to point out that they were wearing German uniforms, that they subsequently discarded. The presidential order that lead up to the Qurin decision limited itself to are acting for, a citizen of, or aiding any nation with whom we are at war. If the saboteurs were Swiss, and had acted under the belief that the U.S. needed to be punished for insulting coo-coo clocks everywhere, the order wouldn't have applied to them. You also have to remember that the case that lead up to the Qurin decision, they accused spies were being tried, they had access to a lawyer (who do you think filled the appeal to the Supreme Court?). In Padilla's case Bush wants to be able to hold a U.S. citizen, during a time of peace, incommunicado, without access to counsel, and without bringing him to any trial, military or otherwise. Padilla has a lawyer, the government doesn't believe that they should be forced to let him talk with his lawyer, or anyone else, now or ever. The judge rightly said, "I don't think so."
You said: "Actually no -- by that argument, had we captured any of the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor, we could not have held them as prisoners of war either, as war was not declared until the day after the attack."
I believe you would be correct. We would have held them as common murderers. They weren't at war with us, yet, and they murdered American citizens, damaged American property. They would have been held as common criminals, tried as common criminals, and convicted as common criminals. I'm not sure if we had the death penalty at that time, but if we did, they would have been executed as common criminals.
Why do you think the Japanese were so adamant about having people from the Japanese embassy declare War just BEFORE the attack? Not soon enough to allow the U.S. military to do anything about it, just soon enough to have its soldiers considered lawful combatants. If they Japanese ambassador hadn't gotten tied up in traffic and had managed to declare war just before the attack commenced at Pearl Harbor, then those imaginary pilots that we had captured would have had to have been treated as POW's not criminals.
You stated: "Welcome to Bush's America: where the oil companies and Jewish lobby decide how free you are allowed to be."
Oil companies I might be willing to give you. After all it should come as no surprise that America is rapidly turning into an oligarchy, the United *Corporate* States of America (sad but all too true), but the Jewish Lobby? Huh?
You might be on firmer, although probably just as erroneous, ground if you had stated the "Fundamentalist Christian Lobby". What does the "Jewish Lobby" have to do with either Bush or unlawful combatants?
Bush seems to be trying very hard to be the next Caesar, or Hitler. The "War on Terrorism", like the "War on Drugs" is just a convenient excuse to grab more power from an increasingly gullible populous. On many issues I believe Mein Furor Bush is wrong.
Naming people you don't like unlawful combatants, and holding them indefinitely without access to the courts is just un-American. In the various cases that people have been tossing around here, the accused actually got his day in court. In the case of French, or German saboteurs, regardless of who or what started it, when the war was over everyone knew. It was my understanding that traditionally, if we are at war, and the enemy gets captured then he is treated as a prisoner of war (POW) under any of the numerous treaties that we have signed. If he is a spy, or an unlawful combatant, then he is denied the rights and protections of a POW and instead is treated like a criminal. For example, if you are a soldier, in uniform, and you kill U.S. soldiers before you are captured, the government can't put you on trial for murder. On the other hand, if you are a saboteur and the bomb you planted kills a U.S. soldier, you can be charged with murder. The fact that you are an "unlawful combatant" means that you loose the protection that a POW status would have given you.
What the Bush administration is trying to do is create a nebulous non-status detainee. You aren't a POW, because then you would have certain rights granted to POW's. You aren't a criminal, because once again you would have certain rights as a criminal defendant in the U.S. court system. All that an "unlawful combatant" is, or used to be, was someone who claimed to be at war, but because of their actions is deemed a criminal not a POW. Padilla is a U.S. citizen that was arrested, and is accused by the government of either plotting to use a dirty bomb, trying to use a dirty bomb, or conspiring with others to use a dirty bomb. When his lawyers at the time filled a motion requiring the government to charge him or release him, they decided to do neither. Instead they claimed he was an unlawful combatant, whisked him off to a military base for *questioning*, and have denied him the ability to stand trial or even consult with an attorney.
This is wrong, period. If they can do it to him, they can do it to you. The government should not, now or ever, have the ability to accuse someone of anything and then detain and/or torture that person indefinitely. The judge rightly said, he has the right to counsel, and so let him consult with said counsel. Since the government is doing its darndest to hinder the process he stated it in what he hoped was a fairly direct, "I mean it, so you better do it" manner. Hence the quote at the top if this article that the submitter found so amusing.
What this has to do with the "Jewish Lobby" is beyond me. Other than the fact most (all?) of Israel's Arab neighbors would like to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth, and that both the 9/11 terrorists and Iraq are Arabs, I don't see how Jewish people fit in?
You said: "I still dont [sic] believe in true evolution. Too many holes (like, where's the link from the apes to humans?)"
If your looking for a "link" between apes and humans, you'll never find one. Not even anthropologists claim a linkage between apes and humans. That's a common misconception that lay people have.
An aspect of evolutionary theory, that primarily creationists, misunderstand or misrepresent is the belief that modern humans some how "evolved" from apes (or in some cases monkeys). I recall seeing bumper stickers and t-shirts proclaim that "Darwin isn't going to make a monkey out of me." or something to that effect.
Modern evolutionary theory holds that modern complicated life evolved from simpler forms of life a long time (we are talking millions or years here) ago. At some point in time, life formed. Whether it was random chance, or Godly design is immaterial to evolution. Over time, changes were introduced to a species. As a result of these changes individual organisms were either more or less likely to survive to pass on their genes. Another means to change was the occurrence of spontaneous mutations in an individual. It provided a better chance of survival than those that didn't have the mutation, over time most of the population would exhibit that mutation. If it made the individual less likely to survive, say being born without lungs, then the individual died taking the change with them. Finally, there could be environmental factors that would lead to evolution. Large scale climatic change, mass extinctions, etc. Those species that were well adapted to flourish in the old environment may have been ill suited for the new. Those that were ill suited for the old, may be well suited to the new and now flourish. That's the ten cent tour of evolution.
Now, back to your original quandary, the "link" between apes and humans. Humans and apes aren't related linearly they are related horizontally. If you go back far enough there was probably a single primate species, further back a single mammalian species, even further back a single vertebrate species, etc.
Modern humans are - hominids, primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc., etc. Modern apes (say gorillas) are primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc. etc,
Sure they are both primates, but that's like saying your house cat and Bengal tigers are both felines. You wouldn't be looking for the missing link between your tabby and tigers.
It's all rather complicated and rather fascinating....
If memory serves me correctly, and it has been known to fail me at times, one of the requirements under the DMCA is that an expedited "takedown" notice has to be stipulated "under penalty of perjury" to be valid.
Arguably, this was to prevent people from making stuff up to get other people's sites taken down. Otherwise I could send a letter to your ISP claiming that your site infringed on a copyright that I or someone who employed me held. The ISP would immediately take your site offline, doesn't want to loose its "safe harbor" immunity. By the time you contested it, your site would have been off line for a day or longer. This way, if you do send out a "take down" notice that you haven't checked and made sure that it did indeed contain infringing materials, you could be punished.
I think that the BSA should be taken to court. If they can have a program automatically generate notices to hundreds or thousands of sites automatically, whether or not they are actually infringing, it makes a mockery of swearing to something under "penalty of perjury".
Scripts shouldn't be allowed to threaten legal action. The DMCA is bad enough as it is. If someone doesn't put a stop to this soon, a large swath of the net could be censored by bogus "take down" letters. Saying "Opps, so sorry 'bout that" when some one calls you on your lie isn't good enough. What about all of the other sites that may have or will get taken down because of things like this that weren't caught?
Well, the "stealing music" argument is ridiculous, absolutely doesn't hold water, and is something I'm getting tired of hearing.
Neither the RIAA, nor the record company, nor the artist "owns" a song. You can't "own" a song like you can a car, a hamburger, or a pencil. You can own a CD-ROM but not the music on it. If no one can own a song then no one should be accused of stealing it.
If you own a CD-ROM containing Janis Ian's works, and I make a copy of it, do you still have the CD-ROM? Really? Then what exactly have I stolen?
If Sony sells me a CD-ROM containing the music of one of their artists, and I pay good American dollars for it, they can't turn around and claim I "stole" it from them. I still have the receipt.
What they have been granted is a copyright of the reproduction of a work (or collection of works). The artist has been granted a government sponsored monopoly on some forms of reproduction for a limited time in the hope of encouraging them to produce more works, which in turn will serve to enrich the public domain and promote the progress of the arts and sciences. There is no inherent "property right" involved with ideas. Intellectual property isn't property.
I'm glad I read that, I haven't had that good of a laugh in a while.
He's right on with the "theme mania" that is running ramped these days. If you have to have a themable GUI, please, please include a theme (the default) that mimics the platform that you are runing on. You know, rectangular windows, title bars, buttons, and never ever force my mouse to go anywhere, or force your window to be on top. I still hate that stupid Netscape 4.x (on windows) borderless window that insists on remaining on top while it attempts to load itself. At least mozilla's can get covered by something else while I'm waiting.
The GPL only requires that they release the source code, to GLPed works to the people that they distribute (sell is ok) there work to.
If you buy a copy of their distribution, then the GPL entitles you to a copy of the source code at a reasonable cost, to cover distributing the source to you.
If you haven't bought, or otherwise acquired a copy of their distribution from them, then you aren't entitled to squat.
Actually, if you recall I said,
"Other that the odd woman(or man) out, if left to their natural inclinations, men will prefer direct, mechanical, spatial, competitive, problem solving fields. Women, will tend toward social, linguistic, nurturing, cooperative, problem solving fields."
I still believe that is true, I hope you noticed that I prefaced my statements with the following disclaimer;
"On average, statistically, genetically inclined to, in other words, there are people of both sexes that are exceptions to the following."
I believe that people are biologically inclined to certain jobs/industries. Of course we are also biologically inclined to kill people who really annoy us, to feed ourselves and our offspring by any means available (including theft or murder), and to function in groups of less than 100 (perhaps even 50) people. Most people manage to avoid; killing each other, stealing, and live in cities of millions of people. So male nurses and female engineers aren't that much of a stretch either.
You mention that; "There are certainly still strong societal pressures for boys to behave in certain ways and girls to behave in certain different ways."
Did you ever stop to think that at one point there was a very valid reason for that? As we moved from hunter gatherers to agricultural, to industrial, what worked biologically, the roles we were adapted to perform best were mapped into societal norms. If all of the women in a village decided to raid the next village for whatever reason, while the men were away and got themselves killed, what would happen to the viability of that village? It was in societies best interest that biologically inclined roles be enforced socially. While this was extremely detrimental to the nurturing male, or the mechanically inclined female, on the whole it worked fairly well. We are still around to have this discussion right?
Now I'm not saying that men are better than women, or visa versa, men and women ARE different, physically, mentally, emotionally. Neither is better, they are both complementary. Humanity is best served by both sexes being present and working together. Humanity was best served by specialization between the sexes. Evolution determined the nature of that division.
The requirements of modern life in the first world (in the third world things are much as they were in times past) are such that the reasons for these societal norms may no longer be applicable. We let women into the armed forces; the population of the planet is large enough that if a few thousand women get killed, it's not a species wide disaster. Women work outside the home; family sizes are smaller, we can hire others to gather food, cook it, produce/mend our cloths, care for our children or our sick. If women worked with the men in the past, hunting prey for example who would gather the herbs, care for the children, etc.?
So, while women should be allowed to enroll in CS or EE, we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to ensure that 50% of the class are male and 50% of the class are female. Men should be allowed to enroll as elementary education majors, but I don't see anyone bemoaning the fact that most graduating classes contain below 25% male graduates. Of course in modern times we get into a dangerous dichotomy. There are programs to help women get better at, be more represented in fields heavy in math and science, but there are few if any that help men with language arts or caregiver roles, areas where men traditionally do poorly.
Why is it that when a couple gets divorced and the man makes significantly more than the woman, she gets alimony, but when the situation is reversed and the woman makes significantly more than her male partner, it is rare that he gets alimony. In the cases when he does he is often derided and ridiculed, called lazy, a mooch, or worse. In the United States all men between the ages of 18 and 27 are required to sign up for selective service. Women are allowed to serve in the armed forces, so why are women exempted from selective service? If a man dresses up in a dress, or a blouse and a skirt he is called a transvestite, regarded as deviant, unnatural, somehow perverted. Women wear men's cloths all the time. Where's the ridicule, the shunning, the problem?
Women and men aren't equal biologically. If they expect to be treated as equals socially then it has to be a two way street. Every privilege that women enjoy, men have to be granted. Every responsibility men endure, women have to endure as well. Unfortunately it seems that while many women want what they see as the privileges that men enjoy, they don't want any of the responsibilities, nor to they want to afford any of their privileges to men. Until that day, men and women can never be treated as equals in society.
But doesn't that assume that you want to run a MS OS on that box?
If you can boot and run non-Palladium Linux/BSD/etc. OS and you can access all of your box from the non-MS OS just what harm can Palladium do to you?
From my read, Palladium will allow MS to determine who runs what under its MS Palladium enabled OS. Data written by the DRM enabled OS won't be available to a non DRM OS. If you never let a DRM OS write the data in the first place, what's the problem?
Also, as I mentioned earlier, as long as it isn't illegal to bypass DRM encumbered content that you have legally purchased to play it on your non-DRM OS, they can't bite you there either.
Do you remember the DRM on ATA hard drives fiasco? (http://212.100.234.54/content/2/17009.html)
"But Linux ATA driver guru and T.13 committee member Andre Hedrick, who has watched CPRM for several months, strongly disagrees....."
"Hedrick's issued his own "suggestion" to the T.13 mailing list, promising to give away a command parser that bounces unknown new commands, so obliging a CPRM-vigilant OS to track and reject all such command sets. His threat poses a dilemma for drive manufacturers which may be inclined to sneak CPRM in through the back door: they'll effectively lose the Linux market. Hedrick's parser will include trap-doors for vendors who try to circumvent known command sets, too."
"I will share and give away a command-parser model that will allow any HOST OS to reject commands that it does not know how to match the data-phase returns. Remember that the SPEC are the rules how to talk to devices as we have all been told, but the HOST has every right and duty to restrict the execution of unknown commands. Additionally, should attempts be made to bypass this method of access filter, then we add complete taskfile register parsers and finally content tracking of all commands that return memory info that is outside of the registered and found user-space LBA's." (http://212.100.234.54/content/2/17230.html )
As long as something like Andre's response remain LEGAL, and we can get our non-DRM OS to boot, DRM encumbered CPU's or anything else for that matter will be a major pain in the backside, but ultimately ineffective.
That's why we should pressure manufacturers NOT to do something that silly, but at the same time ensure that it remains legal to work around it, legal for the enterprising manufacturer to continue to make and sell non-DRM encumbered hardware. Look at the SDMI in regards to handheld music playback devices. Those that sold non-DRM encumbered devices, like the Rio effectively destroyed any market for SDMI restricted devices. Heavily encumbered DAT audio drives, died in the market, and DiVX (the much maligned pay per view video scheme, not the codec) withered when confronted by less encumbered DVD's. As long as consumers have a REAL choice, they will always choose to buy that which gives them more choices, over that which restricts choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Billy-Bob invents a new dohicky, doesn't have the resources to practically implement it, or the money to patent it. Joe-Jack hears about Billy-Bob's invention and gets a patent on it using a horrendously obfuscated, yet entirely typical name. Billy-Bob secures funding for his wonderful invention, it's a hit, sells millions. Joe-Jack dusts off "his" patent and sues the pants off of Billy-Bob.
The joys of the USPO fostering innovation and progress as usual.
someone247356
"That's one of the reasons I don't necessarily advocate technical solutions as a means to control content. "
There is nothing wrong with technical solutions. The problem occurs when you back technical solutions with draconian laws. Content producers want DRM everything and built excruciatingly limited hardware, let them. In a free market, unencumbered by legal restrictions on circumvention, it will die a rapid, and not unwelcome death. DIVX (the pay per watch movie scheme) might still be with us is all of the other alternatives were made illegal. SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative) was stillborn. Why? they had to compete with unrestricted MP3's and non SDMI hardware that let people move their music from their CD-player to their computer to their MP3 player without restrictions. Given a choice of more features for less money, or less features for more money, most people choose the former.
DMCA, NET (No Electronic Theft), and other such laws remove choice, criminalize innovation, and strangle our culture in the interests of making a few corporations filthy rich.
As I have said before, if you extend the copyright on steamboat Willy another hundred years, good old Walt still isn't going to create anything new.
someone247356
"...the FBI can listen in on all your cell phone calls. After all, you're broadcasting your conversation on public airwaves."
Yep, great isn't it.
If someone sends you a signal, it shouldn't be illegal to listen to it. If you don't want someone else to "intercept" (now there's a strange use, how can you intercept a signal that is being broadcast to you?) a signal, then DON'T broadcast it. Simple no?
Back in the day, when things were just a wee bit more sensible people understood that. Analog radio and television, remember those? Anyone could build a receiver and listen/watch. No fees, no going to court. Eventually big business got the FCC to regulate who could TRANSMIT, something about interference..., but anyone could receive. Now here's something that's sure to date me, I remember building crystal radios from kits that didn't even need batteries.
Fast forward to analog cordless phones, read glorified walkie-talkies. That's all they were, they took your phone call, transmitted it over a repackaged "Mr. Microphone" and did the same in reverse. Guess what, if you tuned to the right "station", you could listen in to other people phone conversations. Except for the friendly packaging and duplex, how's that any different from tying your phone to a citizen band (CB) radio? If you don't want people listening in don't broadcast it. Of course that would have made way too much sense. People didn't understand that cordless telephones weren't actually just telephones and it wasn't in the best interest of the companies who produced them to clarify the matter. Companies should have build better "encrypted" systems to mitigate the possibility of eavesdropping, but that would be more complicated and costly. The public should have been warned, "Conversations over this device are broadcast and therefore subject to possible interception by third parties." or something to that effect. But then people would have shied away from using them, also bad for business. So, our legislators in their infinite unwisdom simply pass a law that makes listening to certain channels with your radio illegal. Problem solved - well not really.
Analog cordless phones begot analog cellular phones, same problem, same non-solution, but one better not only is listening illegal, but producing, selling, possessing a device capable of listening is now a crime (very early fore shadowing of DMCA).
Analog begot digital, more things are being broadcast through our homes and bodies, more things are made illegal. Companies surveying the legal landscape come upon a brilliant marketing strategy. We'll create a product, beam it indiscriminately to everyone across the planet and charge them to listen/watch. Might not work in Equador, but the laws in the US and Europe will jail anyone who peeks. But how can we tell if people are peeking? I know, if anyone has anything, instructions, equipment, whatever that might possibly be used to "peek" (watch "our" signal that we are broadcasting through their homes and bodies) without paying us, we'll assume that is evidence that they are peeking and sue their pants off. Which leads us to the current sorry state of affairs.
Unless things get straightened out, legally, soon, it's only going to get worse. How you ask, well we now have pay per listen digital radio. Build a radio that can listen to these "special" channels go to jail. No twenty-first century equivalents of "crystal radio kits" for our kids. Have you heard about the "broadcast-flag" that is being proposed for over the air television, you remember that quaint twentieth century invention where people could watch whatever signal their television antenna could catch free of charge. When OTA (over the air) television goes digital in the States, they want to embedded a flag that at first would allow the television stations to decide what programs you were allowed to make a copy of. Say goodbye to the "Sony Betamax" decision. You can only time/space shift televisions shows that "they" allow you to. Bu
Actually, this proposed law is very stupid.
The problem most people who don't think that this is a very bad law is that they keep thinking of the internet as a newspaper/television|radio station. While that is a good analogy for a good portion of it, they aren't identical.
To see just how silly it is, apply it to leafleting instead of printing a newspaper. If I don't like company X, I print a couple of thousand leaflets that state my reasons I believe that people shouldn't do business with company X. Since company X doesn't like what I have to say, and since there is this "right to reply", a representative publishes a one page rebuttal to my leaflet and sends it to me. Should I have to print out another thousand copies and try to redistribute it to all of the places where I handed out my original leaflet?
How about a diary? What if I keep a diary of my comings and goings, and leave a copy in my front yard, so that anyone interested can come by and read what I have written. Yesterday I see you peeing in an ally near the public library. I write it up, and add a comment that I think you are a very uncouth fellow for urinating in public. Does your "right of reply" mean that I have to include a page in my diary containing your rebuttal, of how you were actually out of town that day, and anyway you really, really had to go?
I don't know about you, but that seems very silly to me. Luckily here in the United States the courts have ruled that the "Freedom of Speech" includes the right NOT to speak. In other words, the First Amendment protects us from compelled speech. Recently, the courts have ruled that industries like mushroom growers, didn't have to fund generic government mushroom ads. The "right to reply" would be just that, compelled speech. If you don't like what I have written, then by all means take an ad out in the paper, start a blog, plaster a billboard with your message. Just don't expect me to give you a forum to do that in.
If I have libeled you, take me to court. If I have written my honest opinion, or illuminated facts you had rather I didn't, too bad. People, have been developing remarkably thin skins in recent years. You don't like what people have to say about you, too bad, deal with it.
There is no constitutional right NOT to be offended. At least not in the United States, yet. I can't say how things are over there in Europe.
Things like this "right of reply" only burdens the right of those without means to speak and be heard. Newspapers, television stations, companies, well heeled individuals, can all afford to implement things like a "right of reply". It seems these Europeans are scared to death of the common man getting his voice heard by more than the few people around him. When mass communication is limited to the few, the government/corporations have a much easier time controlling what gets said, when, and by whom. The "official" version of events doesn't have any competition with any other version, or the truth.
Democracy is messy, it has to be to work. Otherwise you end up with a police state, where the only message that's allowed to be written, or heard, is the "correct" message. Take a look at the media in Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Cuba. Does Europe want to join that illustrious list?
Just look at the "official" news sources in the United States during the last Gulf War. It was very hard to hear anything negative about our actions. No bodies, no bloodshed, clean sanitized, made for television. Compare that with the coverage out of Vietnam during that war. When footage was broadcast of Saddam mistreating U.S. POW's, people had a fit.
(/sarcasm_on)How dare they broadcast that! (/sarcasm_off)
The caliphony of voices that the internet has enabled is healthy for society. Annoying, petty, down right aggravating at times, yes, but ultimately needed. Applying this "right of reply" to every individual who wants to be heard is nothing more than a thinly disguised bond for speakin
You said;
"No matter how you look at this issue, its NOT your content. You are asking for permission to use it, and they are granting it."
Last I heard when I purchase a copy of a DVD, or CD-ROM Audio, or good ol' dead tree edition book, I've done just that, purchased a copy. I haven't licensed anything.
Every hear of something called the "First Sale Doctrine"? When I buy a copy of something that is copyrighted I can legally do anything I want with it except make more copies. Watching/Listening/Reading it, lending to friends, neighbors, or complete strangers, reselling it, using it to line my bird cage, or grinding DVD's into a fine powder and drinking it with my Ovaltine are all LEGAL. I didn't license it I bought it. Record/Movie/Software companies want you to think that you are just licensing it not buying it, but except for software (and even then not completely - have you read about Network Associates "you can't benchmark without our permission" clause being invalidated in New York?) neither judges nor the public are buying it.
Do you think I'm wrong? Well in the city I live in we have this big building, where complete strangers can walk out of the building with books, cd-roms, VHS tapes, and DVD's with nothing more than the promise to return it in a few days. Perhaps you may have heard of them, they're called libraries. How about used book/music/video stores? Didn't the RIAA/MPAA try to get them declared illegal? I don't think they were terribly successful.
Have you been following another DVD related case in California (321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer) The judge there wanted to know if the studios were trying to do an end run around copyright restrictions? While that is a DMCA case and not a trade-secrets case, I think it's enlightening that she views purchasing DVD's as just that, a purchase of a copyrighted work, not a license. If you were just "... asking permission to use it..." then Metro Goldwyn Mayer could simply point to the clause in their contract that forbids making a backup copy. The DMCA argument wouldn't have been needed. But, if it's a purchase, as opposed to a license, as I've been saying all along, then they need some other way to get around traditional fair use exemptions to copyright. The insidious part of the DMCA is that it doesn't actually protect copying copyrighted works, it protects access to that work.
It would be like if I sold you a book that had a locking cover, but I didn't sell you the keys to open it. If you want to actually read the book you have to insert it into a specially designed book opener/reader. Oh, and while they're at it, they have a law passed that makes it illegal for you to use a paper clip to pick the lock, or a butter knife to snap the flimsy band off of the book.
Now they are suing a fella for telling other people that he heard someone say if you drop one of these books on its spine from a 1.25 meter height onto 2 cm blue acrylic pile carpeting, the lock will spring open without damaging the book and you'll be able to read it without purchasing one of the publishers special book opener/readers.
You don't, or shouldn't, need to ask their permission to view the content you PURCHASED from them. You bought it for the purpose of watching it. They produced copies of a copyrighted work to which they hold the copyright to a retailer. You bought it from the retailer with the intention of watching it. You now own that copy. To suggest that you need to ask them for permission to take it out of the wrapper/box/case before you can view it is ludicrous. Up until a few years ago, I would have thought that patently obvious, unfortunately I was wrong.
Ummm... You said;
"Democratic governments (including the US) have adopted these laws and implemented them."
The United States does not now, nor ever has had a democratic government. The United States is governed under a system sometimes referred to as a Constitutional Republic. We elect representatives, they govern, hence the Republic portion. Our elected officials aren't allowed to do whatever they want, they are limited by the Constitution, hence the Constitutional part.
Democracies are bad. I wouldn't ever want to live under a pure democracy. In the first place, I have better things to do than vote on every decision needed to run a country. What brand of toilet paper should we purchase for the Senate bathroom? Ugh. Secondly, democracy = mob rule. One of the main reason's for the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If most of the country is white, and 51% of them think all non-white people should be slaves, in a democracy, they are slaves. If 51% of the country are Fundamentalist Christians, or Muslims, and they decide that their religion is the only "true" religion, guess what? If you don't follow/practice/adhere to the dominant religion, at best you're a second class citizen, at worse a criminal subject to summery execution.
There's on old saying that goes something like this, "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
someone247356
Actually I can think of a couple of reasons that the RIAA might not like something like this to get into widespread use.
Analog hole - people taking DRM audio playing it into this little puppy and presto, minimal quality loss, unencumbered digital file.
Concert bootlegging - I bet something like this would come in real handy recording a concert.
Non-RIAA audio production - Have you looked at commercial audio products lately? I remember not too long ago (well perhaps I'm dating myself) where most consumer level audio equipment either came with a mic, a built in mic, or both. These days the only thing that records are those little dictation devices recording low quality mono. According to the RIAA people don't create music, they consume it. All "legal " music creation/distribution must, by definition, go through them. Something like this would come in real handy for your folk singer, garage band, night-club rapper to record/distribute their music, RIAA not needed.
Sure, it may be $2,000 USD now, but how much did CD-R drives cost when they first came out? How much does one cost now?
High quality, portable, in the price range of a small band or audiophile. Just one more piece of the puzzle to getting non-RIAA music developed/distributed. The fact that your average Joe can use it to un DRM her music is just icing on the cake. If it's legal, and catches on to any degree, the next version may have 100GB and this one resold for a couple of hundred. Perhaps a version could be sold as a kareoke machine. You never know.....
someone247356
I don't think that "He" is using AOL, the problem is that "He" is using a residential DSL setup to host his mail server, due to the high cost of anything else, and AOL is blocking email that originates from all residential DSL servers.
Since he isn't on AOL he can't get "off" AOL.
If he could convince all of the recipients to change ISP's that may help.
What's the difference between a "coalition" and a "cartel"? It doesn't sound like the two would be mutually exclusive, and most cartels are illegal.
First Avril, then Shakira, I've got these CD's. (Christmas gifts), and they aren't "protected" in any meaningful way in the States.
I wonder when this will start happening "big time" here in the U.S.?
I do seem to recall a case in California, where a consumer successfully sued a record company because they sold her a "copy protected" CD, that she couldn't rip, and that demanded that she supply her personal information to the company in order to download a version that would play on her computer.
Perhaps, they are worried about more law suits in the States. The DMCA may prevent you from bypassing their schemes, legally, but most consumer protection laws at the state level would eat them alive if they introduced a few million audio CD's that either couldn't be played on high end stereos, or damaged computers.
Or would it.........?
You said:
_ freedom/declaration/declaration_transcription.html )
t ion.articlei.html) Article I Section 8
_ freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html)
"...You don't have any inalienable rights either. All rights are provided as a matter of law."
I guess that depends on where you are. Obviously NOT the United States of America.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of
Guess where that little tid-bit comes from? The Declaration of Independence, U.S. version of course.
The United States constitution contains the following;
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;...."
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitu
Of course the First Amendment says;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH [emphasis mine], or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of
What is copyright if not an ABRIDGING of the freedom of speech, secured for a LIMITED time to AUTHORS the exclusive right to their writings, to PROMOTE the PROGRESS of useful arts?
What it was never meant to be was a method by which wealthy robber-barons deprived the country of its culture and stifled the progress of useful arts by monitizing every expression or utterance in perpetuity.
So, at least in the United States of America, we DO have inalienable rights and infringing a copyright isn't stealing. In fact, the current legal situation regarding copyright is contrary to the purpose it was established for and most likely unconstitutional. Not all laws are equally legal.
It only takes a majority of legislators to create a law. Just look at the number of laws that were ruled unconstitutional, so far, to get an idea of how many weren't "legal".
someone247356
The broadcast would be copyrightable, but they couldn't stop someone from using the score of the game they are broadcasting anyway they wanted, just because a television station broadcast it.
The broadcast of the sporting event was a creative work. The fact that team A played team B at arena X on a certain day, and team A lost to team B by Y points are facts and therefore are fair game.
So I take it you are for bans on "deep-linking"?
_ eff_pr.php) the EFF writes:
I take you are also pro-EULA.
That's all that "button" is, the WWW equivalent of an EULA.
Personally I'm in the pro-deep-linking, anti-EULA camp myself. If they put info out on a publicly accessible website, then within the limits of our ridiculously contorted copyright laws, it's fair game.
If you check the little blurb on the EFF's site, it appears that the EFF is against it. They said:
"... relying on trespass to chattels and breach of a browsewrap license." (http://www.eff.org/Cases/AA_v_Farechase/)
If you look here (http://www.eff.org/Cases/Intel_v_Hamidi/20030311
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an amicus brief in the Intel v. Hamidi case, arguing that the lower court distorted the "trespass to chattels" doctrine when applying it to the Internet."
Apparently AA is also relying on a misappropriation of the "trespass to chattels" doctrine, in this case with regard to the web as opposed to email. If either of these cases succeeds and becomes controlling, then most of the internet as we know it goes down the drain. Websites, email servers, etc. will be regarded as property that you will need to get permission to send to, or link to.
If you link to a website without permission, such as in the FORD vs. 2600 case (http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=297) could be found guilty of trespassing. Sending email without getting permission would also become illegal. Heck I can't get the postal service to stop sending me real honest-to-God paper mail, but I could go to jail because I sent you email? That's just nuts.
I think perhaps you read Qurin too broadly. A scant four paragraphs before the section you quoted the Court wrote: (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl? court=US&vol=317&invol=1)
i es and terrorists are not protected by the laws of war; they are subject to civilian laws (if any) for their acts and in practice are often subjected to torture and execution."
c h)
"It has not hitherto been challenged, and so far as we are advised it has never been suggested in the very extensive literature of the subject that an alien spy, in time of war, could not be tried by military tribunal without a jury."
As to taking things out of context to try and prove a point, the very sentence preceding the one you quote:
"We have no occasion now to define [317 U.S. 1, 46] with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war."
Ex parte Qurin is notably silent on the imposition of military tribunals against American citizens during peace time. There is a very good reason for that, the laws of war include such things as bombing, rape, murder, the distraction of property.... hmm sounds like a lot of things that civilian courts handle. From the wikpedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war):
"Sp
Well hopefully not torture, at least not in the U.S.
Your broad reading of Ex parte Qurin would authorize the use of military tribunals for any action that fits the definition as breaking the "Laws of War". Since you are also broadly reading the definition of what being "at war" is, then all cases of murder, rape, bombing, espionage, etc. should be tried by military tribunals.
Gee, why haven't we been doing this all along? It would sure speed the judiciary. It would end up negating several constitutional amendments such as the fifth and sixth, but what's wrong with trashing the Constitution? Isn't swift and sure "justice" much more important than constitutional rights?
You seem to forget the Ex parte Qurin was decided during a declared war, to deal with obvious enemy combatants. The Supreme Court has never addressed the use of military tribunals during peace time. Until it does, or Congress declares a war, I think you, and Bush, are misusing the authority granted the president under Ex pate Qurin.
Other opinions:
US Breaks Laws of War, discussing the hereto internationally unrecognized "unlawful combatant"
(http://mondediplo.com/2002/04/08brea
I've read "Ex parte Qurin", it's a case of bad law and only of limited applicability here. "Ex parte Milligan" would have been a better choice, as it makes for better law. It is probably equally irrelevant since in both of those cases we were at war.
... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals'." (16th paragraph, the President's order establishing the tribunal)
..." (31st paragraph)
Tony Mauro has an interesting take on Ex parte Qurin and its applicability to Bush's "war on terrorism" here (http://www.counterpunch.org/mauro1.html).
If you look at the Qurin ruling itself (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl? court=US&vol=317&invol=1) you might notice a few interesting things'
"After the declaration of war between the United States and the German Reich,..." (14th paragraph)
"While landing they wore German Marine Infantry uniforms or parts of uniforms. Immediately after landing they buried their uniforms and the other articles mentioned and proceeded in civilian dress to New York City." (later in 14th paragraph)
"On or about June 17, 1942, they came ashore during the hours of darkness wearing caps of the German Marine Infantry and carrying with them a supply of explosives, fuses, and incendiary and timing devices. They immediately buried their caps and the other articles mentioned and proceeded in civilian dress to Jacksonville, Florida, and thence to various points in the United States." (15th paragraph)
"On the same day, by Proclamation,3 the President declared that 'all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, [317 U.S. 1, 23] and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States
" The Proclamation also stated in terms that all such persons were denied access to the courts." (17th paragraph)
" The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared,
If you notice, the Qurin decision of the Supreme Court, during a time of declared war (declared by Congress) basically says that the Constitution gives the President as Commander in Chief wide latitude to wage war in a manner that he thinks is appropriate. The Constitution also places the requirement upon Congress to declare a war BEFORE these extraordinary powers can come into play. This is to prevent just this type of power grab that Bush is trying to succeed. A large part of the current crisis is that Congress is letting the American people down.
In the Qurin decision we were fighting a declared war against a foreign power. The decision takes pains to point out that they were wearing German uniforms, that they subsequently discarded. The presidential order that lead up to the Qurin decision limited itself to are acting for, a citizen of, or aiding any nation with whom we are at war. If the saboteurs were Swiss, and had acted under the belief that the U.S. needed to be punished for insulting coo-coo clocks everywhere, the order wouldn't have applied to them. You also have to remember that the case that lead up to the Qurin decision, they accused spies were being tried, they had access to a lawyer (who do you think filled the appeal to the Supreme Court?). In Padilla's case Bush wants to be able to hold a U.S. citizen, during a time of peace, incommunicado, without access to counsel, and without bringing him to any trial, military or otherwise. Padilla has a lawyer, the government doesn't believe that they should be forced to let him talk with his lawyer, or anyone else, now or ever. The judge rightly said, "I don't think so."
It is well established that spies are unlawful
You said:
"Actually no -- by that argument, had we captured any of the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor, we could not have held them as prisoners of war either, as war was not declared until the day after the attack."
I believe you would be correct. We would have held them as common murderers. They weren't at war with us, yet, and they murdered American citizens, damaged American property. They would have been held as common criminals, tried as common criminals, and convicted as common criminals. I'm not sure if we had the death penalty at that time, but if we did, they would have been executed as common criminals.
Why do you think the Japanese were so adamant about having people from the Japanese embassy declare War just BEFORE the attack? Not soon enough to allow the U.S. military to do anything about it, just soon enough to have its soldiers considered lawful combatants. If they Japanese ambassador hadn't gotten tied up in traffic and had managed to declare war just before the attack commenced at Pearl Harbor, then those imaginary pilots that we had captured would have had to have been treated as POW's not criminals.
Does that clear things up for you?
You stated:
"Welcome to Bush's America: where the oil companies and Jewish lobby decide how free you are allowed to be."
Oil companies I might be willing to give you. After all it should come as no surprise that America is rapidly turning into an oligarchy, the United *Corporate* States of America (sad but all too true), but the Jewish Lobby? Huh?
You might be on firmer, although probably just as erroneous, ground if you had stated the "Fundamentalist Christian Lobby". What does the "Jewish Lobby" have to do with either Bush or unlawful combatants?
Bush seems to be trying very hard to be the next Caesar, or Hitler. The "War on Terrorism", like the "War on Drugs" is just a convenient excuse to grab more power from an increasingly gullible populous. On many issues I believe Mein Furor Bush is wrong.
Naming people you don't like unlawful combatants, and holding them indefinitely without access to the courts is just un-American. In the various cases that people have been tossing around here, the accused actually got his day in court. In the case of French, or German saboteurs, regardless of who or what started it, when the war was over everyone knew. It was my understanding that traditionally, if we are at war, and the enemy gets captured then he is treated as a prisoner of war (POW) under any of the numerous treaties that we have signed. If he is a spy, or an unlawful combatant, then he is denied the rights and protections of a POW and instead is treated like a criminal. For example, if you are a soldier, in uniform, and you kill U.S. soldiers before you are captured, the government can't put you on trial for murder. On the other hand, if you are a saboteur and the bomb you planted kills a U.S. soldier, you can be charged with murder. The fact that you are an "unlawful combatant" means that you loose the protection that a POW status would have given you.
What the Bush administration is trying to do is create a nebulous non-status detainee. You aren't a POW, because then you would have certain rights granted to POW's. You aren't a criminal, because once again you would have certain rights as a criminal defendant in the U.S. court system. All that an "unlawful combatant" is, or used to be, was someone who claimed to be at war, but because of their actions is deemed a criminal not a POW. Padilla is a U.S. citizen that was arrested, and is accused by the government of either plotting to use a dirty bomb, trying to use a dirty bomb, or conspiring with others to use a dirty bomb. When his lawyers at the time filled a motion requiring the government to charge him or release him, they decided to do neither. Instead they claimed he was an unlawful combatant, whisked him off to a military base for *questioning*, and have denied him the ability to stand trial or even consult with an attorney.
This is wrong, period. If they can do it to him, they can do it to you. The government should not, now or ever, have the ability to accuse someone of anything and then detain and/or torture that person indefinitely. The judge rightly said, he has the right to counsel, and so let him consult with said counsel. Since the government is doing its darndest to hinder the process he stated it in what he hoped was a fairly direct, "I mean it, so you better do it" manner. Hence the quote at the top if this article that the submitter found so amusing.
What this has to do with the "Jewish Lobby" is beyond me. Other than the fact most (all?) of Israel's Arab neighbors would like to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth, and that both the 9/11 terrorists and Iraq are Arabs, I don't see how Jewish people fit in?
Perhaps you could elucidate?
You said:
"I still dont [sic] believe in true evolution. Too many holes (like, where's the link from the apes to humans?)"
If your looking for a "link" between apes and humans, you'll never find one. Not even anthropologists claim a linkage between apes and humans. That's a common misconception that lay people have.
An aspect of evolutionary theory, that primarily creationists, misunderstand or misrepresent is the belief that modern humans some how "evolved" from apes (or in some cases monkeys). I recall seeing bumper stickers and t-shirts proclaim that "Darwin isn't going to make a monkey out of me." or something to that effect.
Modern evolutionary theory holds that modern complicated life evolved from simpler forms of life a long time (we are talking millions or years here) ago. At some point in time, life formed. Whether it was random chance, or Godly design is immaterial to evolution. Over time, changes were introduced to a species. As a result of these changes individual organisms were either more or less likely to survive to pass on their genes. Another means to change was the occurrence of spontaneous mutations in an individual. It provided a better chance of survival than those that didn't have the mutation, over time most of the population would exhibit that mutation. If it made the individual less likely to survive, say being born without lungs, then the individual died taking the change with them. Finally, there could be environmental factors that would lead to evolution. Large scale climatic change, mass extinctions, etc. Those species that were well adapted to flourish in the old environment may have been ill suited for the new. Those that were ill suited for the old, may be well suited to the new and now flourish. That's the ten cent tour of evolution.
Now, back to your original quandary, the "link" between apes and humans. Humans and apes aren't related linearly they are related horizontally. If you go back far enough there was probably a single primate species, further back a single mammalian species, even further back a single vertebrate species, etc.
Modern humans are - hominids, primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc., etc.
Modern apes (say gorillas) are primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc. etc,
Sure they are both primates, but that's like saying your house cat and Bengal tigers are both felines. You wouldn't be looking for the missing link between your tabby and tigers.
It's all rather complicated and rather fascinating....
I hope that this helps.
They couldn't have.
If memory serves me correctly, and it has been known to fail me at times, one of the requirements under the DMCA is that an expedited "takedown" notice has to be stipulated "under penalty of perjury" to be valid.
Arguably, this was to prevent people from making stuff up to get other people's sites taken down. Otherwise I could send a letter to your ISP claiming that your site infringed on a copyright that I or someone who employed me held. The ISP would immediately take your site offline, doesn't want to loose its "safe harbor" immunity. By the time you contested it, your site would have been off line for a day or longer. This way, if you do send out a "take down" notice that you haven't checked and made sure that it did indeed contain infringing materials, you could be punished.
I think that the BSA should be taken to court. If they can have a program automatically generate notices to hundreds or thousands of sites automatically, whether or not they are actually infringing, it makes a mockery of swearing to something under "penalty of perjury".
Scripts shouldn't be allowed to threaten legal action. The DMCA is bad enough as it is. If someone doesn't put a stop to this soon, a large swath of the net could be censored by bogus "take down" letters. Saying "Opps, so sorry 'bout that" when some one calls you on your lie isn't good enough. What about all of the other sites that may have or will get taken down because of things like this that weren't caught?
Actually, it was refreshing to see Josh cast a woman that actually looks like one.
Perhaps you prefer looking at "perfect" women, but personally it's refreshing to see the real thing.
Besides, the character of Tara was arguably the most compassionate and grounded character on the series.
"Much loved" is a very apt description for that character.
Perhaps you are mistook the original poster's comment for "Most wished to have sex with"?
Well, the "stealing music" argument is ridiculous, absolutely doesn't hold water, and is something I'm getting tired of hearing.
Neither the RIAA, nor the record company, nor the artist "owns" a song. You can't "own" a song like you can a car, a hamburger, or a pencil. You can own a CD-ROM but not the music on it. If no one can own a song then no one should be accused of stealing it.
If you own a CD-ROM containing Janis Ian's works, and I make a copy of it, do you still have the CD-ROM? Really? Then what exactly have I stolen?
If Sony sells me a CD-ROM containing the music of one of their artists, and I pay good American dollars for it, they can't turn around and claim I "stole" it from them. I still have the receipt.
What they have been granted is a copyright of the reproduction of a work (or collection of works). The artist has been granted a government sponsored monopoly on some forms of reproduction for a limited time in the hope of encouraging them to produce more works, which in turn will serve to enrich the public domain and promote the progress of the arts and sciences. There is no inherent "property right" involved with ideas. Intellectual property isn't property.
But, you probably already knew that.....
I'm glad I read that, I haven't had that good of a laugh in a while.
He's right on with the "theme mania" that is running ramped these days. If you have to have a themable GUI, please, please include a theme (the default) that mimics the platform that you are runing on. You know, rectangular windows, title bars, buttons, and never ever force my mouse to go anywhere, or force your window to be on top. I still hate that stupid Netscape 4.x (on windows) borderless window that insists on remaining on top while it attempts to load itself. At least mozilla's can get covered by something else while I'm waiting.
Ok your wrong.
The GPL only requires that they release the source code, to GLPed works to the people that they distribute (sell is ok) there work to.
If you buy a copy of their distribution, then the GPL entitles you to a copy of the source code at a reasonable cost, to cover distributing the source to you.
If you haven't bought, or otherwise acquired a copy of their distribution from them, then you aren't entitled to squat.
I hope that clears things up.
Actually, if you recall I said,
"Other that the odd woman(or man) out, if left to their natural inclinations, men will prefer direct, mechanical, spatial, competitive, problem solving fields. Women, will tend toward social, linguistic, nurturing, cooperative, problem solving fields."
I still believe that is true, I hope you noticed that I prefaced my statements with the following disclaimer;
"On average, statistically, genetically inclined to, in other words, there are people of both sexes that are exceptions to the following."
I believe that people are biologically inclined to certain jobs/industries. Of course we are also biologically inclined to kill people who really annoy us, to feed ourselves and our offspring by any means available (including theft or murder), and to function in groups of less than 100 (perhaps even 50) people. Most people manage to avoid; killing each other, stealing, and live in cities of millions of people. So male nurses and female engineers aren't that much of a stretch either.
You mention that;
"There are certainly still strong societal pressures for boys to behave in certain ways and girls to behave in certain different ways."
Did you ever stop to think that at one point there was a very valid reason for that? As we moved from hunter gatherers to agricultural, to industrial, what worked biologically, the roles we were adapted to perform best were mapped into societal norms. If all of the women in a village decided to raid the next village for whatever reason, while the men were away and got themselves killed, what would happen to the viability of that village? It was in societies best interest that biologically inclined roles be enforced socially. While this was extremely detrimental to the nurturing male, or the mechanically inclined female, on the whole it worked fairly well. We are still around to have this discussion right?
Now I'm not saying that men are better than women, or visa versa, men and women ARE different, physically, mentally, emotionally. Neither is better, they are both complementary. Humanity is best served by both sexes being present and working together. Humanity was best served by specialization between the sexes. Evolution determined the nature of that division.
The requirements of modern life in the first world (in the third world things are much as they were in times past) are such that the reasons for these societal norms may no longer be applicable. We let women into the armed forces; the population of the planet is large enough that if a few thousand women get killed, it's not a species wide disaster. Women work outside the home; family sizes are smaller, we can hire others to gather food, cook it, produce/mend our cloths, care for our children or our sick. If women worked with the men in the past, hunting prey for example who would gather the herbs, care for the children, etc.?
So, while women should be allowed to enroll in CS or EE, we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to ensure that 50% of the class are male and 50% of the class are female. Men should be allowed to enroll as elementary education majors, but I don't see anyone bemoaning the fact that most graduating classes contain below 25% male graduates. Of course in modern times we get into a dangerous dichotomy. There are programs to help women get better at, be more represented in fields heavy in math and science, but there are few if any that help men with language arts or caregiver roles, areas where men traditionally do poorly.
Why is it that when a couple gets divorced and the man makes significantly more than the woman, she gets alimony, but when the situation is reversed and the woman makes significantly more than her male partner, it is rare that he gets alimony. In the cases when he does he is often derided and ridiculed, called lazy, a mooch, or worse. In the United States all men between the ages of 18 and 27 are required to sign up for selective service. Women are allowed to serve in the armed forces, so why are women exempted from selective service? If a man dresses up in a dress, or a blouse and a skirt he is called a transvestite, regarded as deviant, unnatural, somehow perverted. Women wear men's cloths all the time. Where's the ridicule, the shunning, the problem?
Women and men aren't equal biologically. If they expect to be treated as equals socially then it has to be a two way street. Every privilege that women enjoy, men have to be granted. Every responsibility men endure, women have to endure as well. Unfortunately it seems that while many women want what they see as the privileges that men enjoy, they don't want any of the responsibilities, nor to they want to afford any of their privileges to men. Until that day, men and women can never be treated as equals in society.
But doesn't that assume that you want to run a MS OS on that box?
...."
If you can boot and run non-Palladium Linux/BSD/etc. OS and you can access all of your box from the non-MS OS just what harm can Palladium do to you?
From my read, Palladium will allow MS to determine who runs what under its MS Palladium enabled OS. Data written by the DRM enabled OS won't be available to a non DRM OS. If you never let a DRM OS write the data in the first place, what's the problem?
Also, as I mentioned earlier, as long as it isn't illegal to bypass DRM encumbered content that you have legally purchased to play it on your non-DRM OS, they can't bite you there either.
Do you remember the DRM on ATA hard drives fiasco? (http://212.100.234.54/content/2/17009.html)
"But Linux ATA driver guru and T.13 committee member Andre Hedrick, who has watched CPRM for several months, strongly disagrees.
"Hedrick's issued his own "suggestion" to the T.13 mailing list, promising to give away a command parser that bounces unknown new commands, so obliging a CPRM-vigilant OS to track and reject all such command sets. His threat poses a dilemma for drive manufacturers which may be inclined to sneak CPRM in through the back door: they'll effectively lose the Linux market. Hedrick's parser will include trap-doors for vendors who try to circumvent known command sets, too."
"I will share and give away a command-parser model that will allow any HOST OS to reject commands that it does not know how to match the data-phase returns. Remember that the SPEC are the rules how to talk to devices as we have all been told, but the HOST has every right and duty to restrict the execution of unknown commands. Additionally, should attempts be made to bypass this method of access filter, then we add complete taskfile register parsers and finally content tracking of all commands that return memory info that is outside of the registered and found user-space LBA's." (http://212.100.234.54/content/2/17230.html )
As long as something like Andre's response remain LEGAL, and we can get our non-DRM OS to boot, DRM encumbered CPU's or anything else for that matter will be a major pain in the backside, but ultimately ineffective.
That's why we should pressure manufacturers NOT to do something that silly, but at the same time ensure that it remains legal to work around it, legal for the enterprising manufacturer to continue to make and sell non-DRM encumbered hardware. Look at the SDMI in regards to handheld music playback devices. Those that sold non-DRM encumbered devices, like the Rio effectively destroyed any market for SDMI restricted devices. Heavily encumbered DAT audio drives, died in the market, and DiVX (the much maligned pay per view video scheme, not the codec) withered when confronted by less encumbered DVD's. As long as consumers have a REAL choice, they will always choose to buy that which gives them more choices, over that which restricts choice.