It requires ratification by 3/4 of the state legistlatures, not 2/3.
Re:Don't celebrate for Pluto yet
on
Life on Pluto?
·
· Score: 2
Yes, but water is weird that way - as it freezes, it expands. So yes, it is possible that there is liquid water down there. But you need energy going in, and I don't see it happening.
Kinda reminds me of the movie Antitrust in an eerie way...
Don't celebrate for Pluto yet
on
Life on Pluto?
·
· Score: 2
Just to reply to a lot of the threads we've seen around here - yes, it is entirely possible that life, albeight completely alien to us, could florish on pluto, save for one simple fact. Any life form, no matter how alien, must obey the laws of thermodynamics. Simply put, they need *energy*. (Life is orderly, thus energy input is necessary to maintain that orderly state) Pluto has very, very little energy to give. Chemically and physically, it's a dead rock - no molten core, nothing more than frozen chemicals at its surface. Thermally, I think the average temperature isn't too far above absolute zero. Which means that no matter how alien you get, there still isn't much chance of life flourishing there.
I don't know, contempt of court citation(s) might change his tune, especially in those states that have give judges broad discretionary powers in how severe they can be.
I agree that it is ironic that disney wants to prevent others from doing exactly what it did. But that is irrelavent. When you say , constitutionally Congress has the right to pass things like the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, I disagree. Retroactive copyrights are *not* constitutional (see one of my others posts for the reasoning). How much the court takes the "spririt" of the law into consideration depends on how stricly you want to interpret it. Just thank god Robert Bork is there now.
One thing to remeber is that ashcroft is an appointed law enforcement official. What this basically means is that it is his job to enforce the law, even when he dislikes it.
Agreed. Except then explain to me the Microsoft case. A new administration takes over who microsoft just happens to give a lot of money to, and viola(!), the gov't cops out. So, he is *obviously* selectively enforcing laws. QED.
While I agree with your cause, your statement is wrong. Sorry if this is nitpicking, but when it comes to legal semantics, you want to be as precise as possible.
Works can enter the public domain 2 ways -
1) Authors can wave it at anytime before it expires (and this does happen a lot, just check out the baen free library).
2) Works continued to enter the public domain (via expired copyrights) up until the first of a series of copyright extensions in 1961. The statement "Nothing written within 50 years of my being born has had its copyright expire" would be correct, but yours is not.
No no, keep in mind that the surpreme court overturns good laws occasionally too. (Good, depending on your political orientation) But I agree with the grandparent to this post - that the courts should only look at the constitutionality of laws, and not whether or not they are good (that is not their purpose)
They're already one step closer to that than you think. One of the circuit court judges said explicetely that incrimental+retroactive changes in copyright law have made it, essentially, indefinite. The other side of the arguement is that there has always been a quid-pro-quo in copyright: the author benefits from being given a temporary monopoly (this is his incentive to create), while the public benefits from the author's wisdom. But with retroactive expansions, there *is* no quid-pro-quo, therefore it does not promote the "arts and useful sciences", therefore it is unconstitutional.
Every google search I've tried has come up with websites that either are put up either by the plantif or someone who filed an amicus brief in favor of the plantiff. Can anyone find something in support of Asscr^H^H^H^H^H^H err, Ashcroft?
Haha, sorry. I am actually not too far away, and had thought about it, but all the seats are usually gobbled up very quickly. I found out on a trip there about 5 years ago that they only set aside a few dozen for the general public anyway. (All the rest of the seats are reserved for participants and amicus observers) So unless you feel like tailgating the night before so you get in line early (god, this sounds like a star wars movie) I doubt you are going to get a seat. Plus, even if you do get in, they are anal about absoluste silence from the public.
Re:Whats wrong with this law?
on
Eldred vs. Ashcroft
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Except that the circuit court disagrees with you. In that case (it was an appeal of an earlier one) the judge did state explicitely that the incrimental expansions, done retroactively, (a) do not inspire the artists to create more (Walt Disney sure doesn't benefit) and (b) when taken together, they *are* indefinite. It is the natural state of things that their copyrights should expire. Copyrights should be expiring every year. In fact, they aren't. Nothing has entered the public domain this way in *decades.*
Ok slashdot, tell me this - The RIAA wants permission to, amoung other things, launch DOS attacks against people they see who are serving their files. Fair enough - now what is to prevent kazaa from reserving a small amount of bandwidth on everyone else's computers which could then be used in a ddos counter attack? (Besides the obvious legal implications)
Not exactly. The copyright is good until January 1 of the year after the expiration date. Steamboat mickey came out in '28, meaning its copyright wouldn't have expired until Jan 1 of (1928+75+1)=2004.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, tell me this - where do you draw the line between high traffic commercial websites, and (for instance), mine?
What about Linda Lovelace, Kevin Smith, and Tux?
All I can say - does anyone remember the NAMBLA episode of South Park - the one featuring 'The John Denver experience'
'Nuff said.
How long until someone patents it as a device for fixing Windows security problems?
Given the turn around time of (most) Open source projects, don't you think 30 years is cutting it a bit close?
It requires ratification by 3/4 of the state legistlatures, not 2/3.
Yes, but water is weird that way - as it freezes, it expands. So yes, it is possible that there is liquid water down there. But you need energy going in, and I don't see it happening.
Kinda reminds me of the movie Antitrust in an eerie way...
Just to reply to a lot of the threads we've seen around here - yes, it is entirely possible that life, albeight completely alien to us, could florish on pluto, save for one simple fact. Any life form, no matter how alien, must obey the laws of thermodynamics. Simply put, they need *energy*. (Life is orderly, thus energy input is necessary to maintain that orderly state) Pluto has very, very little energy to give. Chemically and physically, it's a dead rock - no molten core, nothing more than frozen chemicals at its surface. Thermally, I think the average temperature isn't too far above absolute zero. Which means that no matter how alien you get, there still isn't much chance of life flourishing there.
Hrmm... I knew investing in those slave-trade stocks was safer than investing in .bombs. This only reinforces that belief.
Very funny. Speaking of which, were are all the other people with low user #'s?
I don't know, contempt of court citation(s) might change his tune, especially in those states that have give judges broad discretionary powers in how severe they can be.
Just thank god Robert Bork IS NOT there now. Holy crap, what a horrible typo to make.
I agree that it is ironic that disney wants to prevent others from doing exactly what it did. But that is irrelavent. When you say , constitutionally Congress has the right to pass things like the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, I disagree. Retroactive copyrights are *not* constitutional (see one of my others posts for the reasoning). How much the court takes the "spririt" of the law into consideration depends on how stricly you want to interpret it. Just thank god Robert Bork is there now.
One thing to remeber is that ashcroft is an appointed law enforcement official. What this basically means is that it is his job to enforce the law, even when he dislikes it.
Agreed. Except then explain to me the Microsoft case. A new administration takes over who microsoft just happens to give a lot of money to, and viola(!), the gov't cops out. So, he is *obviously* selectively enforcing laws. QED.
While I agree with your cause, your statement is wrong. Sorry if this is nitpicking, but when it comes to legal semantics, you want to be as precise as possible.
Works can enter the public domain 2 ways -
1) Authors can wave it at anytime before it expires (and this does happen a lot, just check out the baen free library).
2) Works continued to enter the public domain (via expired copyrights) up until the first of a series of copyright extensions in 1961. The statement "Nothing written within 50 years of my being born has had its copyright expire" would be correct, but yours is not.
No no, keep in mind that the surpreme court overturns good laws occasionally too. (Good, depending on your political orientation) But I agree with the grandparent to this post - that the courts should only look at the constitutionality of laws, and not whether or not they are good (that is not their purpose)
They're already one step closer to that than you think. One of the circuit court judges said explicetely that incrimental+retroactive changes in copyright law have made it, essentially, indefinite. The other side of the arguement is that there has always been a quid-pro-quo in copyright: the author benefits from being given a temporary monopoly (this is his incentive to create), while the public benefits from the author's wisdom. But with retroactive expansions, there *is* no quid-pro-quo, therefore it does not promote the "arts and useful sciences", therefore it is unconstitutional.
Every google search I've tried has come up with websites that either are put up either by the plantif or someone who filed an amicus brief in favor of the plantiff. Can anyone find something in support of Asscr^H^H^H^H^H^H err, Ashcroft?
Haha, sorry. I am actually not too far away, and had thought about it, but all the seats are usually gobbled up very quickly. I found out on a trip there about 5 years ago that they only set aside a few dozen for the general public anyway. (All the rest of the seats are reserved for participants and amicus observers) So unless you feel like tailgating the night before so you get in line early (god, this sounds like a star wars movie) I doubt you are going to get a seat. Plus, even if you do get in, they are anal about absoluste silence from the public.
Except that the circuit court disagrees with you. In that case (it was an appeal of an earlier one) the judge did state explicitely that the incrimental expansions, done retroactively, (a) do not inspire the artists to create more (Walt Disney sure doesn't benefit) and (b) when taken together, they *are* indefinite. It is the natural state of things that their copyrights should expire. Copyrights should be expiring every year. In fact, they aren't. Nothing has entered the public domain this way in *decades.*
Ok slashdot, tell me this - The RIAA wants permission to, amoung other things, launch DOS attacks against people they see who are serving their files. Fair enough - now what is to prevent kazaa from reserving a small amount of bandwidth on everyone else's computers which could then be used in a ddos counter attack? (Besides the obvious legal implications)
Was I the only one who read that as "Lightning rods for narcoleptics" ?
I dunno, it must be too early in the day, but that is hilarous.
Not exactly. The copyright is good until January 1 of the year after the expiration date. Steamboat mickey came out in '28, meaning its copyright wouldn't have expired until Jan 1 of (1928+75+1)=2004.