> Are you serious? First sentence in the article: "The Panopticon is a type of prison > building . . . " Which is exactly what a world without privacy would be.
The key feature of the Panopticon is that the guards have complete privacy. The prisoners can be observed at any time but can never know who is watching or when. In a world without any privacy you would know who was watching you when and could watch them in turn. Knowledge is not power. Secret knowledge is power.
No. US copyright law provides that the US government cannot enforce its copyright on works created by US government employees as part of their duties. However, this applies only to the Federal government. State and local governments can and do own and enforce their copyrights. The United States is a _federation_, not a monolithic state.
The video may not be protected by copyright at all, though. The authority's attorneys are going to have use some creativity themselves to argue successfully that the output of such an automated system is creative.
> I don't know the DMCA and how it relates to take down notices, but I recall from anouther >/. post on a different topic that you have to proceed with the take down no matter if it > is copyright material or not.
This is not true. Nothing obligates you to obey a takedown notice. If you _do_ comply then you are immune to suit for copyright infringment but if you do not the putative copyright owner must still sue you and prove infringment. A takedown notice is just a letter from a lawyer. It isn't any sort of an official document.
> They really have no choice at this time. that's the DMCA for you.
Of course they have a choice. They could investigate and if they determine that there is no copyright infringement they could ignore the notice. Takedown notices would exist without the DMCA. The difference is that without the DMCA the ISP could still be sued for copyright infringement even if he complied. With the DMCA he is immune if he complies.
Forged drivers' licenses are probably not protected by copyright because no creativity can go into their creation. Every detail is dictated by the requirement that the document look just like the real thing. However, it unlikely that a court would find the takedown notice fraudulent as the author can plausibly claim that he thought that the work was protected.
> Other than drafting a letter to the owners of the company on how I disagree with the > policy, what else can I do?"
Copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime (in this instance). Send a letter to the owners and proceed as ordered. And start looking for another job.
US law forbade (past tense) the export of more than 40 bit encryption. Hwoever, the algorithms were known outside the US and software implementing them was available, including patches for Netscape. The Koreans chose to lock themselves to Microsoft.
It would be legal in the US but the music publishers have no leverage on the ISP to compell them to cooperate (they would already be doing it if they could).
> What about due process?
It has nothing to do with due process. It does not involve government.
> That would be news to the high voltage tower service pilot. I've watched as a helicopter > hovered absolutely still (+/- 6-12") for over 5 minutes while a tech harnessed to the > side and hanging down attaches the insulator on top of the tower in 30 mph wind.
Hovering with respect to the ground in a 30mph wind is the same as moving 30mph in still air.
> People hate the RIAA? Guess what, that's exactly what it was created with in mind.
Nonsense. The RIAA was formed in 1952 to do things like establishing standards for phonographs. Until recently the general public had never heard of it.
Slashdot Mirror
More laws are not the solution to everything. In fact, it's not the solution to much of anything.
> Are you serious? First sentence in the article: "The Panopticon is a type of prison
> building . . . " Which is exactly what a world without privacy would be.
The key feature of the Panopticon is that the guards have complete privacy. The prisoners can be observed at any time but can never know who is watching or when. In a world without any privacy you would know who was watching you when and could watch them in turn. Knowledge is not power. Secret knowledge is power.
> Isn't all government stuff public domain?
No. US copyright law provides that the US government cannot enforce its copyright on works created by US government employees as part of their duties. However, this applies only to the Federal government. State and local governments can and do own and enforce their copyrights. The United States is a _federation_, not a monolithic state.
The video may not be protected by copyright at all, though. The authority's attorneys are going to have use some creativity themselves to argue successfully that the output of such an automated system is creative.
> The turnpike organization is a public authority...
...and even if it weren't, you can't claim copyright on an automated recording...
...of a public place!
It is an agency of the state of New Jersey. State governments can own and enforce copyrights.
>
This may be a valid defense.
>
Irrelevant.
> I don't know the DMCA and how it relates to take down notices, but I recall from anouther /. post on a different topic that you have to proceed with the take down no matter if it
>
> is copyright material or not.
This is not true. Nothing obligates you to obey a takedown notice. If you _do_ comply then you are immune to suit for copyright infringment but if you do not the putative copyright owner must still sue you and prove infringment. A takedown notice is just a letter from a lawyer. It isn't any sort of an official document.
> Besides Dark Matter, isn't a change to the laws of gravity a bit more elegant solution to
> why galaxy's don't fly apart?
No. General relativity isn't a set of heuristic equations that can be patched by adding some terms or jiggering some coefficients.
> Gravity doesn't obey Newton's laws on the very small scale (atomic)...
What gives you that idea?
> They really have no choice at this time. that's the DMCA for you.
Of course they have a choice. They could investigate and if they determine that there is no copyright infringement they could ignore the notice. Takedown notices would exist without the DMCA. The difference is that without the DMCA the ISP could still be sued for copyright infringement even if he complied. With the DMCA he is immune if he complies.
If it is a borrowed real id the copyright belongs to the issuing state. I don't think that the takedown notice came from a state government.
Forged drivers' licenses are probably not protected by copyright because no creativity can go into their creation. Every detail is dictated by the requirement that the document look just like the real thing. However, it unlikely that a court would find the takedown notice fraudulent as the author can plausibly claim that he thought that the work was protected.
> Other than drafting a letter to the owners of the company on how I disagree with the
> policy, what else can I do?"
Copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime (in this instance). Send a letter to the owners and proceed as ordered. And start looking for another job.
US law forbade (past tense) the export of more than 40 bit encryption. Hwoever, the algorithms were known outside the US and software implementing them was available, including patches for Netscape. The Koreans chose to lock themselves to Microsoft.
> Is this legal in the US?
It would be legal in the US but the music publishers have no leverage on the ISP to compell them to cooperate (they would already be doing it if they could).
> What about due process?
It has nothing to do with due process. It does not involve government.
Of course. Like all plastic items they are made of petroleum and so burn quite well.
> That would be news to the high voltage tower service pilot. I've watched as a helicopter
> hovered absolutely still (+/- 6-12") for over 5 minutes while a tech harnessed to the
> side and hanging down attaches the insulator on top of the tower in 30 mph wind.
Hovering with respect to the ground in a 30mph wind is the same as moving 30mph in still air.
> Her next call will probably be to you. Problem solved.
No. Money spent and customer antagonized.
You haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
> The article digs into the 321-page Microsoft Windows Logo Program 3.0 document to find
> out what the Windows logo is supposed to mean in Vista.
I thought it meant that the manufacturer had paid a fee to Microsoft.
> ...you friends turn out to be schizophrenics with an IQ of about 40.
That's to help you learn what it is really like to be a manager.
> Remember, radio signal strength is logarithmic.
No it isn't. It is inversely proportional to distance squared.
> Fortunately, people serious about color (like paint manufacturers) consider the full
> spectrum.
Please go and read a good article on color vision.
You don't need UV-sensitive cones to be a tetrachromat. You just need four kinds of cones.
> Mice without this alteration are normally colorblind.
No. They are dicromats.
We can, if the intensity is high enough.
> People hate the RIAA? Guess what, that's exactly what it was created with in mind.
Nonsense. The RIAA was formed in 1952 to do things like establishing standards for phonographs. Until recently the general public had never heard of it.
The RIAA isn't a company. It's a trade association.