Sure you can. Actual performances can be copyrighted (not recordings of them, or plays, or musical scores, but those one-time performances themselves). Which is why recording an orchestra performance in a concert hall is a violation. You are not copying a recording, and the original music (Mozart, say) is long since in the public domain.
Well, I have separate secure passwords for the few services I care about (like my bank, credit card, and other stuff); but I would happily have a single account for nytimes, slashdot, various online fora, and other sites that require membership - who really cares?
I take issue with your example, though. An American's opinion may be uninformed, and a non-American's very educated. A mechanic is someone that supposedly was trained and practices car repair. An average American may not even vote or know much about the Consitution or issues in depth.
Does the moderator really consider this a flamebait, or does it mean "this will effectively be a flamebait, although it certainly is a legitimate statement inviting thoughtful discourse anywhere but/."?
It's true, though. I once worked at a company where it was faster to drive down to the colocation site to dump the latest DB than transfer it over the wire. Before you say "duh", consider that the drive was only about 30-40 mins, the database was not that huge, and the company was just cheap and had only a dialup connection shared among ~8 users.
I give you that the laws can be misused, which is the blame of the lawyers leaving loopholes, or bad judges...not the idea of slander.
I give you that lawyers or not, lawmakers are human beings and cannot possibly write a law that would have no loopholes. There are always unique situations.
And masturbating while looking at kids being raped doesn't count as the pursuit of happiness; but even if it did, the Life & Liberty of the child supercede your perversion.
What if the child is happy at the moment? The moment he becomes unhappy is when you come down with all the might of the traditions upon her head to make sure she's unhappy about having DONE SOME ACTION physically no different than eating a candy.
Sir, you live in an idealistic world. Crowds have a way of behaving that's different from individuals. The likes of Hofstadter (as a columnist in Sci. Amer.) and his preaching of "hyperrational" behavior ignore the facts.
What does "forcing" someone mean? There's a concept of a "captive audience", which has been applied to passengers of a public transportation service (I can't recall where) that complained about certain ads. The logic went as follows (simplified greatly): Many people have to take the public transportation in order to earn their living, and being subject to a bombardment of some ads is akin to forcing them to listen to/read them (as in, either you take the subway to work and get the ads in your face, or you starve). Granted, that's partly because public transportation is paid for by taxes for the most part (Boston's public transportation authority certainly wouldn't survive in a free marketplace; maybe NY's would).
So, if we take that "captive audience" thing for granted, am I a "captive audience" if the only way I can get to work every day is to walk through a square where the Nazis hold rallies every morning 7 to 9?
I personally am OK with that, for I have obviously an opportunity at least to engage them in a discussion (rather, shouting match) as I go about my daily business. Are you?
Yet, the government now "protects" us from that. If someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater, you know what? I look around for signs of a fire. I dont run, stampede, etc.
Just because you don't run, doesn't mean that thousand other people won't, trampling you to death while you're rationalizing:) In fact, they will.
Words themselves never hurt, are never dangerous
Beware of engaging in an absolutist dispute. What are "words themselves"? An act of Congress signed by the President is just a piece of paper with just words on it. Where does that leave you? There are peopel in gov't sworn to abide by their superiors' ruling, say. Does that also mean nothing?
Like it or not, you are a human being (I assume). You receive information every time, and every time you decide to act it's based on the information you have. So information (21st century version of speech:) is powerful.
I really believe that no words, utterances, guttural noises, sound waves, speach patterns, vocal emissions or other speach can ever be illegal under the 1st amendment.
If you kindly tell me where you live, I will be willing to test your commitment to your ideals by blasting some music from a truck on the street near your home at about 120 dBA. At 3am. Or, if you're like me, at 6-7am (the sweetest sleep time).
The problem with slander laws is that they are inherently hypocritical. The gov'ts spew forth so much false propaganda, that had a private individual done it, they'd be up to their neck in debt.
To be honest, there is an argument that we grant the gov't monopoly on violence (like police; not that the police can shoot everyone in sight, but even with the restraints, there's still a monopoly.), and so this is just more of the same...
Indeed, that's the current stance of SCOTUS, the ultimate constitutional law authority. But not in my opinion:).
That is, I agree that SCOTUS can for now interpret laws against child pornography as being constitutional, but who's to say a child is not a sexual being?
(Is that anti-karma-whoring or what? I bet I see a Flamebait/Troll here in about 3 hours).
USPS has always had a list of things you are not allowed to mail (explosives, biohazards, blabla), but would you care to point out the source for your information? Questionable material? Is a mailing from ACLU a questionable material?
At the risk of getting "offtopic", I think even die-hard big-gov't types should have little problem with privatizing this part of the gov't. Who needs it to be a gov't agency?
By the way, you don't get to claim to be an authority "I am a lawyer" and then claim to not be giving legal advice
Yes, you do. To give an advice this lawyer would stand behind and say "this is legal advice" may necessitate getting more information from the client, maybe doing some research into the relevant facts and laws.
Do you have to be a jerk, or are you just playing one on/.?:)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as for "welcome to their opinion" -
:). What was the
many people don't even go that far, which,
I think, is a mistake.
But as for "they aren't the ones who decides" -
neither are most Americans
voter turnout last time?
In the beginning there was the Word, though. :). It's unclear whether the Word
No silence
was copyrighted either.
Sure you can. Actual performances can be copyrighted (not recordings of them, or
plays, or musical scores, but those one-time
performances themselves). Which is why
recording an orchestra performance in a
concert hall is a violation. You are not
copying a recording, and the original music
(Mozart, say) is long since in the public
domain.
This makes the Travolta/Cage juxtaposition :)
in Face/Off all the more interesting if
you view it in terms of CoS and its foes
Well, I have separate secure passwords for the few
services I care about (like my bank, credit
card, and other stuff); but I would happily
have a single account for nytimes, slashdot,
various online fora, and other sites that
require membership - who really cares?
Truly an american icon...
I take issue with your example, though. An
American's opinion may be uninformed, and
a non-American's very educated. A mechanic is
someone that supposedly was trained and
practices car repair. An average American
may not even vote or know much about the Consitution or issues in depth.
Because if you are actually convinced by
the argument, does it matter if a US citizen
made it or not?
Does the moderator really consider this /."?
a flamebait, or does it mean "this will
effectively be a flamebait, although it
certainly is a legitimate statement inviting
thoughtful discourse anywhere but
It's true, though. I once worked at a company
where it was faster to drive down to the colocation site to dump the latest DB than
transfer it over the wire. Before you say
"duh", consider that the drive was only about
30-40 mins, the database was not that huge,
and the company was just cheap and had only
a dialup connection shared among ~8 users.
This totally sounds like an urban myth;
any lawyers to confirm?
No, these are really big-ass files.
1000 terafiles, or 10^15 files.
*looking around*
What was that?
I did.
:)
Stay tuned
I give you that lawyers or not, lawmakers are human beings and cannot possibly write a law that
would have no loopholes. There are always unique
situations.
What if the child is happy at the moment? The moment he becomes unhappy is when you come down
with all the might of the traditions upon her head
to make sure she's unhappy about having DONE SOME
ACTION physically no different than eating a candy.
Sir, you live in an idealistic world. Crowds
have a way of behaving that's different from
individuals. The likes of Hofstadter (as a columnist in Sci. Amer.) and his preaching of "hyperrational" behavior ignore the facts.
Dammit,this is not as simple.
What does "forcing" someone mean? There's
a concept of a "captive audience", which
has been applied to passengers of a public
transportation service (I can't recall where)
that complained about certain ads. The logic went
as follows (simplified greatly): Many people
have to take the public transportation in
order to earn their living, and being subject
to a bombardment of some ads is akin to
forcing them to listen to/read them (as in,
either you take the subway to work and get
the ads in your face, or you starve). Granted,
that's partly because public transportation is
paid for by taxes for the most part (Boston's
public transportation authority certainly wouldn't
survive in a free marketplace; maybe NY's would).
So, if we take that "captive audience" thing
for granted, am I a "captive audience" if the
only way I can get to work every day is to
walk through a square where the Nazis hold rallies
every morning 7 to 9?
I personally am OK with that, for I have
obviously an opportunity at least to engage
them in a discussion (rather, shouting match)
as I go about my daily business. Are you?
Yet, the government now "protects" us from that. If someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater, you know what? I look around for signs of a fire. I dont run, stampede, etc.
Just because you don't run, doesn't mean that
thousand other people won't, trampling you to
death while you're rationalizing
they will.
Words themselves never hurt, are never dangerous
Beware of engaging in an absolutist dispute.
What are "words themselves"? An act of
Congress signed by the President is just
a piece of paper with just words on it.
Where does that leave you? There are
peopel in gov't sworn to abide by their
superiors' ruling, say. Does that also
mean nothing?
Like it or not, you are a human being (I assume).
You receive information every time, and every time
you decide to act it's based on the information
you have. So information (21st century version
of speech
I really believe that no words, utterances, guttural noises, sound waves, speach patterns, vocal emissions or other speach can ever be illegal under the 1st amendment.
If you kindly tell me where you live, I will
be willing to test your commitment to your ideals
by blasting some music from a truck on the
street near your home at about 120 dBA. At
3am. Or, if you're like me, at 6-7am (the sweetest
sleep time).
The problem with slander laws is that they
are inherently hypocritical. The gov'ts spew
forth so much false propaganda, that had
a private individual done it, they'd be
up to their neck in debt.
To be honest, there is an argument that we grant
the gov't monopoly on violence (like police; not
that the police can shoot everyone in sight, but even with the restraints, there's still a monopoly.), and
so this is just more of the same...
Define "illegal". Criminal (gov't vs. you)
prosecution will not happen in a case of slander,
this is a civil case.
Indeed, that's the current stance of SCOTUS, :).
the ultimate constitutional law authority.
But not in my opinion
That is, I agree that SCOTUS can for now
interpret laws against child pornography
as being constitutional, but who's to say
a child is not a sexual being?
(Is that anti-karma-whoring or what? I bet
I see a Flamebait/Troll here in about 3 hours).
A source, please?
USPS has always had a list of things you are not
allowed to mail (explosives, biohazards, blabla),
but would you care to point out the source for
your information? Questionable material? Is
a mailing from ACLU a questionable material?
At the risk of getting "offtopic", I think even
die-hard big-gov't types should have little problem with privatizing this part of the gov't.
Who needs it to be a gov't agency?
That would be good for Akamai's sales :)
Yes, you do. To give an advice this lawyer
would stand behind and say "this is legal
advice" may necessitate getting more information
from the client, maybe doing some research
into the relevant facts and laws.
Do you have to be a jerk, or are you just playing
one on