I use my university's online catalogs all the time. Most of the relevant material isn't available online without subscription, of course, and we have a limited budget. However, I can order photocopies of most journal articles (although lately many of them show up as PDFs). These come through other libraires in this state, first. Then, if not available in this state, through other public universites in the USA. Then, if that fails, it falls back on all public libraries in the USA. It does matter that you can get a reference to material, even if that material isn't located locally.
Well but...am wondering if "fair use" wouldn't include everything not specificly exempted from fair use by copyright law, since the natural state of events is "copy everything", and property-like rights where granted to the psuedo-property of IP to limit said natural rights. Seems like, then, rather than a type of fair use being granted by an exemption, it could be that only exemptions to fair use are covered by copyright.
Agreed, that after a little research it does appear that there is a defacto power (though absolutely no right) for a jury to disregard the law and apply their own brand of mercy.
"These constitutional rules, in combination, give a criminal jury the inherent discretionary power to "decline to convict." and insure that such "discretionary exercises of leniency are final and unreviewable." McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 311(1987). ".
nullification poses a threat to the process by which existing jurisprudence is vindicated. This threat was addressed by Justice Harlan in 1895 in Sparf v. United States. There the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of a jury in a criminal case to apply the law as given to it by the trial court. This decision set a precedent that has been followed to the present
However, this duty is mostly unenforcable once the verdict is rendered. I would suggest that it does seem that the "unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations" has abated:
California Supreme Court unanimously backed a Santa Clara County judge's actions in dismissing a juror who expressed the opinion in the jury room that statutory rape shouldn't be a crime.
Under California's 1998 "snitch" rule, judges routinely order jurors to inform the court if a juror is not applying the law during deliberations.
"Jury nullification is contrary to our ideal of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law," Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote
There is no legal obligation to pursue copyright infringement, but there is a threat of loss of Trademark if they allow their Trademark to become diluted.
In fact, you can even redistribute (as in sell) the CD you purchased, you just can't distribute copies of the material on the CD, except as allowed under Fair Use.
Actually here in the US we teach Driver's Safety in our public schools so that when they turn 16 they've had experience under the watchful eyes of an instructor. Also consider that at the very least, you need to let children who are old enough to work have the ability to spend what they earn.
They shouldn't have any rights as citizens? You think children aren't citizens? They aren't protected by Constitutions? "Human rights" aren't legal rights, but rather are ethical in nature. This is a dangerous world which you are describing.
To say nothing of what it would have done to me. When my Father died when I was 16 I was doing shopping for the family. Maybe make it illegal for anyone under 6 to engage in commerce, perhaps, but 18? Reality check time.
Well...ah...actually I'm going to school in the Bible Belt, and I can attest that there really do exist people who would gladly see Playboy made illegal. Remember, Soutern Baptists targeted Disney as being an example of immoral holywood excess. Disney!
Ah but the feature of character, "geekness", means we are likely to understand communications technology and actively pursue its exploitation as a form of play. We are capable of alerting one another should something suddenly go down, and we do act. Wonders: is my ACM membership card like unto a union card?
You have a point that we are the only people who are aware that JT is under review for ethics violations by the Bar Association. Perhaps its time for the Penny Arcade posse to take it one step further, and everyone should write a letter to the editor of their local newspaper, and their regional newspaper, and throw in the NY Times and Washington post for good measure.
In terms of the "feel" of it, WinXP *seemed* faster running under VMWare under Linux, than running natively on the same hardware. I kept the dualboot option to play DVDs, but would boot Linux if I had to work in WinXP (VisualStudio, and Mathematica).
I suspect we'll be complaining about the GW-deficits for generations. It isn't just being there, it is the long-term effects that linger long after, like the stench of a public dorm bathroom around finals. Smell the fear and hysteria? Yep...I knew you could.
At $10,000/lb to reach orbit, I don't think any heavy metals are going there for storage purposes. Now if radioactive materials could be mined on the moon, and reactors built, it might make sense to beam laser light to solar collectors in orbit to power satelites. Not so sure about dispersion losses going through the atmosphere (to say nothing about birds or planes that wander into said beams...hehehe).
"We would never have heard of their artists if they didn't exist."
I don't see any evidence supporting this. While I agree that the structure of music distribution would be (and eventually *will* be) very different, I don't think that our current structure is necessary for music to exist. Companies want you to believe that their business model is indispensible, but that is propaganda.
Get a court order to shut who down? That is the question in a nutshell. If you have enough evidence to go to court, but can't find out *who* they are until you get them to court, should you be able to get a court order without taking them to court? Is there a catch-22 here?
Well it is necessary to ballance the potential damage of not providing the name to the potential damage of invading individual privacy. Anonomous speech (at least seems to be) protected, as providing the name would inhibit free expression (due to the likelyhood of non-court based reprisal). Hard to draw a parallel, though, since "free expression" is a well recognized common public good, and sharing information is currently not as well recongized as the common public good I would suggest it is.
Yes well but...consider the "IP" problem in a larger light. You are the leader of a poor country whose inhabitants are mostly infected with a disease requiring a very expensive drug that can be cheaply produced in your country, but "IP" laws prevent you from saving their lives. Do you let your people die for a legal fiction?
I just can't see any justification for the claim that "IP" should be treated as property. It makes sense to be able to rent a seat at a performance. It doesn't make sense (to me) to be able to stop someone from recording the performance, or from copying (and distributing) the offical recording. The information contained on a CD or DVD should not be property. It really isn't, but we maintain a legal fiction. The problem is that we've maintained the legal fiction long enough that people know suppose that it is "right" to have IP rights.
Actually (in the US) it is the jury's duty to determine facts, and the judge's duty to interpret the law. A judge can and will set aside the jury decision if the facts at hand clearly indicate (or were stipulated to...) criminal action. Jury's can't legally ignore bad laws.
The recording study does *not* pay for the time in the recording studio. Rather, there are no profits until CD sells pay for the time in the recording studio, and the costs of distribution. Once fixed costs and variable costs are covered, what is left is divided by percentage. Therefor it isn't that they recoup the cost of the studio time from the artists' take of the sales, because it isn't the artists' take at that point.
Slashdot Mirror
His point was that making a copy of copyrighted works doesn't require authorization except for specific uses. The "exclusive rights" are limited.
I use my university's online catalogs all the time. Most of the relevant material isn't available online without subscription, of course, and we have a limited budget. However, I can order photocopies of most journal articles (although lately many of them show up as PDFs). These come through other libraires in this state, first. Then, if not available in this state, through other public universites in the USA. Then, if that fails, it falls back on all public libraries in the USA. It does matter that you can get a reference to material, even if that material isn't located locally.
Well but...am wondering if "fair use" wouldn't include everything not specificly exempted from fair use by copyright law, since the natural state of events is "copy everything", and property-like rights where granted to the psuedo-property of IP to limit said natural rights. Seems like, then, rather than a type of fair use being granted by an exemption, it could be that only exemptions to fair use are covered by copyright.
There is no legal obligation to pursue copyright infringement, but there is a threat of loss of Trademark if they allow their Trademark to become diluted.
In fact, you can even redistribute (as in sell) the CD you purchased, you just can't distribute copies of the material on the CD, except as allowed under Fair Use.
Actually here in the US we teach Driver's Safety in our public schools so that when they turn 16 they've had experience under the watchful eyes of an instructor. Also consider that at the very least, you need to let children who are old enough to work have the ability to spend what they earn.
They shouldn't have any rights as citizens? You think children aren't citizens? They aren't protected by Constitutions? "Human rights" aren't legal rights, but rather are ethical in nature. This is a dangerous world which you are describing.
To say nothing of what it would have done to me. When my Father died when I was 16 I was doing shopping for the family. Maybe make it illegal for anyone under 6 to engage in commerce, perhaps, but 18? Reality check time.
Well...ah...actually I'm going to school in the Bible Belt, and I can attest that there really do exist people who would gladly see Playboy made illegal. Remember, Soutern Baptists targeted Disney as being an example of immoral holywood excess. Disney!
Ah but the feature of character, "geekness", means we are likely to understand communications technology and actively pursue its exploitation as a form of play. We are capable of alerting one another should something suddenly go down, and we do act. Wonders: is my ACM membership card like unto a union card?
Methinks it isn't as clearcut as you'd suggest: Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked. I mean if you can't trust PBS and MIT...?
You have a point that we are the only people who are aware that JT is under review for ethics violations by the Bar Association. Perhaps its time for the Penny Arcade posse to take it one step further, and everyone should write a letter to the editor of their local newspaper, and their regional newspaper, and throw in the NY Times and Washington post for good measure.
In terms of the "feel" of it, WinXP *seemed* faster running under VMWare under Linux, than running natively on the same hardware. I kept the dualboot option to play DVDs, but would boot Linux if I had to work in WinXP (VisualStudio, and Mathematica).
Which is why we should be building nuclear reactors to produce cheap hydrogen *now*, not 10 years from now. Maybe small ones on boats, that could also distill potable drinking water, as well as produce electricity for local consumption. and so why not hydrogen for non-local (fuel) use, too?
Interested? more information here
I suspect we'll be complaining about the GW-deficits for generations. It isn't just being there, it is the long-term effects that linger long after, like the stench of a public dorm bathroom around finals. Smell the fear and hysteria? Yep...I knew you could.
At $10,000/lb to reach orbit, I don't think any heavy metals are going there for storage purposes. Now if radioactive materials could be mined on the moon, and reactors built, it might make sense to beam laser light to solar collectors in orbit to power satelites. Not so sure about dispersion losses going through the atmosphere (to say nothing about birds or planes that wander into said beams...hehehe).
"We would never have heard of their artists if they didn't exist."
I don't see any evidence supporting this. While I agree that the structure of music distribution would be (and eventually *will* be) very different, I don't think that our current structure is necessary for music to exist. Companies want you to believe that their business model is indispensible, but that is propaganda.
Actually what good are "fair use rights" if you have to violate federal law to get access to use them?
Get a court order to shut who down? That is the question in a nutshell. If you have enough evidence to go to court, but can't find out *who* they are until you get them to court, should you be able to get a court order without taking them to court? Is there a catch-22 here?
Well it is necessary to ballance the potential damage of not providing the name to the potential damage of invading individual privacy. Anonomous speech (at least seems to be) protected, as providing the name would inhibit free expression (due to the likelyhood of non-court based reprisal). Hard to draw a parallel, though, since "free expression" is a well recognized common public good, and sharing information is currently not as well recongized as the common public good I would suggest it is.
Yes well but...consider the "IP" problem in a larger light. You are the leader of a poor country whose inhabitants are mostly infected with a disease requiring a very expensive drug that can be cheaply produced in your country, but "IP" laws prevent you from saving their lives. Do you let your people die for a legal fiction?
I just can't see any justification for the claim that "IP" should be treated as property. It makes sense to be able to rent a seat at a performance. It doesn't make sense (to me) to be able to stop someone from recording the performance, or from copying (and distributing) the offical recording. The information contained on a CD or DVD should not be property. It really isn't, but we maintain a legal fiction. The problem is that we've maintained the legal fiction long enough that people know suppose that it is "right" to have IP rights.
Actually (in the US) it is the jury's duty to determine facts, and the judge's duty to interpret the law. A judge can and will set aside the jury decision if the facts at hand clearly indicate (or were stipulated to...) criminal action. Jury's can't legally ignore bad laws.
The recording study does *not* pay for the time in the recording studio. Rather, there are no profits until CD sells pay for the time in the recording studio, and the costs of distribution. Once fixed costs and variable costs are covered, what is left is divided by percentage. Therefor it isn't that they recoup the cost of the studio time from the artists' take of the sales, because it isn't the artists' take at that point.