If a mime is performing in the street, I can photograph him all I want. "Public Performance" is not protected, except by specific statute (like this new law.)
I don't doubt that he's in violation of this law. I agree that if he wants a copy of the movie he should wait and buy the DVD.
But it is too late for that. He is arrested and subject to a draconian law that requires the court to consider a year in jail, or a $25,000 fine. I think that it's stupid, senseless and wasteful of justice system resources. It's another sign that the gov will jump through hoops, and make its citizens jump hoops, to make big corporations happy.
That article is a little thin on actual information. I think we get a better inside line on Nintendo's operations from Samir Gupta, who should be posting in this thread at any minute.
I'm not arguing that what he did was legit. I was directing my initial comment to someone who seemed to think that this kid should get the book thrown at him. That's a year in jail, and a $25,000 fine.
I know kids in L.A. whose parents work in the business, they get screener DVDs which they freely swap with their friends. But let's lock up this middle-class kid and make his parents give up the college savings, because he turned on a camera in a theater.
I have no doubts the teen would share the file with his friends
Doing dumb things at 16 was my secondary point. The primary point is that we don't even know whether his camcorder was digital, or if he has any idea how to post a movie to Usenet or use IRC.
You are still operating on the same assumptions, what "file" are you talking about?
As to my secondary point, treating 16-year-olds like hard-case criminals creates hard-case criminals. Putting 16-year-olds into the criminal system is just the sort of thing this government is ready to do to appease its corporate masters. That old lizard Jack Valenti must be licking his chops at the thought of this kid having his life damn-near ruined.
It's part of the same idiotic mindset that allows the US to fight terrorism by waging a war on civilian populations; as if that could ever end instead of perpetuating the terror.
THAT is where "being stupid is no excuse." This fuckin' government plays at being dumb, doing things that are only stupid when you don't realize that it's the corporations, not the American people, who are calling all the shots.
And what if the 16 year old gets a harsh punishment? You think you'll enter a theatre again to pirate a movie you already paid to see so some stranger can see a crapy copy for free?
I don't mean to single you out, because everybody is making the same assumption here. But where in the article is it established that this kid was planning on ripping and uploading? So far as I know, it hasn't yet been established that he was anything other than a Spidy-fan who wanted his own personal copy of the movie.
Sound dumb? At 16, I'd done dumber. Probably you, too, if you would care to admit it. There are still plenty of teens these days who have handicams and a love for Spidey, but no idea at all how to move an image from a videocam onto the Internet.
Until we know better what this kid was up to, it may be a little early to call for this 16-year-old's blood.
I think it would be helpful to think of this as a media campaign, as much as it is a legal action. The biggest difficulty in creating a change is public awareness. What EFF is starting certainly has great legal merits, but if you consider it a media event, it is one that offers newswriters some great hooks. For instance - open a TV news piece from a rock club where a band is offering pressed CDs of the just-finished show...the quote Clear Channel's CEO:
"We want the practice of live recordings being made available immediately after concerts to be in widespread use and welcome all legitimate and serious conversations with those interested in licensing our patent," Becker said in his statement. "But we will not conduct licensing conversations in public or via the media. Nor will we put artists in the middle of those business negotiations -- or try to hide behind them as we negotiate."
Broadcasters already love attacking Clear Channel's arrogance...here, Becker is acting like the patent issue is not a matter of public concern, but their private business. And if anybody wants to record and sell their own live concert -- well, they have to talk to CC. Incredible gall, very newsworthy, and I'm sure there's another news story in each of the ten.
Any good newswriter will be able to make lots of hay with this. Given the "Powers That Be," public awareness is needed more than anything else.
It has more potential to make a difference without MS involvement, IMO; if they can provide a secure, convenient, reliable plug-in architecture, it becomes a security alternative to Microsoft's, which (like most of what they do) is too deeply rooted into the system to ever be reasonably safe. I think this is a matter of the neighbor kids banding together to target a weak spot on the "neighborhood bully."
Of course, if successful, MS may want to "embrace and extend" here, but they should not be involved in the development, as the spec should not have to consider the special needs of IE as it's being developed.
Doesn't matter. Patent #6754472, which you could easily access from the USPO website, is a patent for "method and apparatus," and spells out exactly what the apparatus is supposed to accomplish. It doesn't prevent others from using human conductivity for other unrelated purposes, and in fact cites 8 previous patents, including some exploiting the same principle. You seem to be lacking a sense of what it is that patents actually protect.
Your POV fails to recognize that, if the header does not look like spam, one's curiosity wrt the content of the email renders it non-spam, at least until it is viewed and a differing evaluation is made. It is not the content of the mail that makes a mail spam, but the user's feeling about that content.
It doesn't matter that the reason you judge it non-spam is because of fatigue. IMO, it just ain't Spam until I say it is. YMMV, of course.
In Firefox.9, the third item in the context menu will open a Google search for the highlighted item in a new tab.
After you fix the link in the google search box (a step made necessary by the way/. cripples long urls) a click at the search button brings you the page.
anyway, who is Ian $ez? Tell Ian that part of the whole point i$ that it doe$n't matter how the arti$t feel$ about copy protection. The label$ have been in the court$ and in front of the pre$$, repeatedly talking about the right$ of the arti$t; how well doe$ that rhetoric $tand up when we learn that the arti$t has no right to avoid $uch protection?
Where i$ the recording indu$trie$' re$pect for arti$t$' right$ in $uch a ca$e?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't doubt that he's in violation of this law. I agree that if he wants a copy of the movie he should wait and buy the DVD.
But it is too late for that. He is arrested and subject to a draconian law that requires the court to consider a year in jail, or a $25,000 fine. I think that it's stupid, senseless and wasteful of justice system resources. It's another sign that the gov will jump through hoops, and make its citizens jump hoops, to make big corporations happy.
Tubgoat
Now you can change that disturbing .sig
If that joke sounds familiar, check it out here
You seem to have forgotten Jack Valenti already. I'll be happy to see a human face on the movie industry's lobbyist, in lieu of that dapper lizard.
I know kids in L.A. whose parents work in the business, they get screener DVDs which they freely swap with their friends. But let's lock up this middle-class kid and make his parents give up the college savings, because he turned on a camera in a theater.
Utterly insane.
All that he's done, and the crime with which he's been charged, is pointing a camera at a screen, and pressing 'record.'
Doing dumb things at 16 was my secondary point. The primary point is that we don't even know whether his camcorder was digital, or if he has any idea how to post a movie to Usenet or use IRC.
You are still operating on the same assumptions, what "file" are you talking about?
As to my secondary point, treating 16-year-olds like hard-case criminals creates hard-case criminals. Putting 16-year-olds into the criminal system is just the sort of thing this government is ready to do to appease its corporate masters. That old lizard Jack Valenti must be licking his chops at the thought of this kid having his life damn-near ruined.
It's part of the same idiotic mindset that allows the US to fight terrorism by waging a war on civilian populations; as if that could ever end instead of perpetuating the terror.
THAT is where "being stupid is no excuse." This fuckin' government plays at being dumb, doing things that are only stupid when you don't realize that it's the corporations, not the American people, who are calling all the shots.
I don't mean to single you out, because everybody is making the same assumption here. But where in the article is it established that this kid was planning on ripping and uploading? So far as I know, it hasn't yet been established that he was anything other than a Spidy-fan who wanted his own personal copy of the movie.
Sound dumb? At 16, I'd done dumber. Probably you, too, if you would care to admit it. There are still plenty of teens these days who have handicams and a love for Spidey, but no idea at all how to move an image from a videocam onto the Internet.
Until we know better what this kid was up to, it may be a little early to call for this 16-year-old's blood.
Open price? I don't suppose that's free as in beer?
"We want the practice of live recordings being made available immediately after concerts to be in widespread use and welcome all legitimate and serious conversations with those interested in licensing our patent," Becker said in his statement. "But we will not conduct licensing conversations in public or via the media. Nor will we put artists in the middle of those business negotiations -- or try to hide behind them as we negotiate."
Broadcasters already love attacking Clear Channel's arrogance...here, Becker is acting like the patent issue is not a matter of public concern, but their private business. And if anybody wants to record and sell their own live concert -- well, they have to talk to CC. Incredible gall, very newsworthy, and I'm sure there's another news story in each of the ten.
Any good newswriter will be able to make lots of hay with this. Given the "Powers That Be," public awareness is needed more than anything else.
Of course, if successful, MS may want to "embrace and extend" here, but they should not be involved in the development, as the spec should not have to consider the special needs of IE as it's being developed.
read, weep.
Your POV fails to recognize that, if the header does not look like spam, one's curiosity wrt the content of the email renders it non-spam, at least until it is viewed and a differing evaluation is made. It is not the content of the mail that makes a mail spam, but the user's feeling about that content.
It doesn't matter that the reason you judge it non-spam is because of fatigue. IMO, it just ain't Spam until I say it is. YMMV, of course.
After you fix the link in the google search box (a step made necessary by the way /. cripples long urls) a click at the search button brings you the page.
Complicated to outline, simple to perform...
As its part of a lengthy thread with further JMS posts, some fans might wish to mine for further data...
Happenstance odds of three random letters alphabetically neighboring IBM in either direction: 26^3/2
Likelihood that Clarke's denial was inspired by fear of an IBM lawsuit: 1
Then what excuse is there for the absence of AF709?
That's why "manga is crap" makes no sense as a critique. You might as well say "ink drawings on paper originating from Japan are crap."
All I asked is for the guy to define his critique more specifically. If it is not defined more specifically it remains meaningless.
anyway, who is Ian $ez? Tell Ian that part of the whole point i$ that it doe$n't matter how the arti$t feel$ about copy protection. The label$ have been in the court$ and in front of the pre$$, repeatedly talking about the right$ of the arti$t; how well doe$ that rhetoric $tand up when we learn that the arti$t has no right to avoid $uch protection?
Where i$ the recording indu$trie$' re$pect for arti$t$' right$ in $uch a ca$e?
Neither the first results of Google nor the acronym site offer an answer that seems adequate when you know the origin of the phrase.