The key emphasis is original content. Most YouTube content creators aren't creating original content, but using someone else's copyrighted content, slapping some commentary on it, and calling it fair use. And later scream bloody murder when the copyright owner dings them. You want to make money on YouTube, do it the hard way with original content.
IANAL, but from my understanding of fair use, depending on the amount of commentary, it could very well be fair use. Besides, the current system is that it is nearly impossible to get fair use protections even on things that are very solidly fair use, or even original work from years before the work it is supposedly infringing upon.
After finding that link, I realize that you are probably just mad that people are making probably bogus fair use claims, but it comes across as, "Never, ever, ever make use that goes under fair use: only original work is creative", which is a view that few/.ers can tolerate.
Honestly, fuck global until all people have complete and unlimited access to all markets - job markets, housing markets, free and unlimited travel and living opportunities without borders and hindrance.
How is that going to happen if countries don't all develop more or less equally? Unless protectionism is carried on forever, which, as shown by bluefoxlucid in this comment and a few following, is much worse for economies everywhere, this will lead to the same problems as we have now, as there either will be poorer countries we want to help that then take all our industrial jobs as has already happened in the US, or we will be a poorer country (more likely) and we will lose all our more trained workers, our laborers will be used as cheap labor, and all our jobs that are automatable will still be automated.
Also, "why think global before local" is just as applicable to "Why should we care about, say, the families of terrorists, even if they're innocent? They aren't (insert demonym for locals)" or "Why should we care about Ohioans if we're Virginians?" This is to some extent slippery slope, but it isn't completely false.
I normally use pencil and paper for math/science notes, because 1)they use lots of formulae, which is much better with pencil/paper, and 2)they normally involve practice problems, and I like doing math by hand. In history, however, I tend to do notes electronically, since typing is faster and I could search them to find stuff. For random notes about stuff to look up/do later, though, I tend to use paper. Not really sure why, though.
I strongly support nuclear power. It is much better for the environment than fossil fuels, and is closer in regularity to them than solar or wind, both of which can be unpredictable.
Correct, we shouldn't just ignore the problem. However, the entire point of terrorism is to cause fear. When we make a big deal of terrorism, and the government uses it as an excuse to increase powers that obliterate privacy rights, it is to some extent helping terrorism more than it hurts it. In the Middle East, yes, it is a problem, and trying to help end it there is a worthy goal, although active war is likely to increase terrorism via stronger dislike for the US and the rest of the 'western world', but terrorism is not a direct risk within the US, and certainly is not worth the NSA.
Slashdot Mirror
The key emphasis is original content. Most YouTube content creators aren't creating original content, but using someone else's copyrighted content, slapping some commentary on it, and calling it fair use. And later scream bloody murder when the copyright owner dings them. You want to make money on YouTube, do it the hard way with original content.
IANAL, but from my understanding of fair use, depending on the amount of commentary, it could very well be fair use. Besides, the current system is that it is nearly impossible to get fair use protections even on things that are very solidly fair use, or even original work from years before the work it is supposedly infringing upon.
After finding that link, I realize that you are probably just mad that people are making probably bogus fair use claims, but it comes across as, "Never, ever, ever make use that goes under fair use: only original work is creative", which is a view that few /.ers can tolerate.
We still have things that are at least named both those things, as required courses (at least in some areas)
Honestly, fuck global until all people have complete and unlimited access to all markets - job markets, housing markets, free and unlimited travel and living opportunities without borders and hindrance.
How is that going to happen if countries don't all develop more or less equally? Unless protectionism is carried on forever, which, as shown by bluefoxlucid in this comment and a few following, is much worse for economies everywhere, this will lead to the same problems as we have now, as there either will be poorer countries we want to help that then take all our industrial jobs as has already happened in the US, or we will be a poorer country (more likely) and we will lose all our more trained workers, our laborers will be used as cheap labor, and all our jobs that are automatable will still be automated.
Also, "why think global before local" is just as applicable to "Why should we care about, say, the families of terrorists, even if they're innocent? They aren't (insert demonym for locals)" or "Why should we care about Ohioans if we're Virginians?" This is to some extent slippery slope, but it isn't completely false.
My laptop has at almost all of the keys. Your problem is just that you got a Macbook
To be fair, Republicans probably don't view him as a 'true' Republican, and he isn't exactly a classic conservative.
I normally use pencil and paper for math/science notes, because 1)they use lots of formulae, which is much better with pencil/paper, and 2)they normally involve practice problems, and I like doing math by hand. In history, however, I tend to do notes electronically, since typing is faster and I could search them to find stuff. For random notes about stuff to look up/do later, though, I tend to use paper. Not really sure why, though.
Aw, I wanted to do that...
Sorry, but it does in American English. Still, I want to see how your idea would be implemented IRL...
I also would like that. Of course, that would be something other than thinner or faster, so...
I strongly support nuclear power. It is much better for the environment than fossil fuels, and is closer in regularity to them than solar or wind, both of which can be unpredictable.
+1
Correct, we shouldn't just ignore the problem. However, the entire point of terrorism is to cause fear. When we make a big deal of terrorism, and the government uses it as an excuse to increase powers that obliterate privacy rights, it is to some extent helping terrorism more than it hurts it. In the Middle East, yes, it is a problem, and trying to help end it there is a worthy goal, although active war is likely to increase terrorism via stronger dislike for the US and the rest of the 'western world', but terrorism is not a direct risk within the US, and certainly is not worth the NSA.
+1