One route would be to check the law of the state where the spam was received. About 15 states have such laws, including populous CA. If the spam broke the law, I would suggest that forfeits copyright, at least as to publicizing the offending communication. It would be a little odd to send someone an illegal communication and then claim copyright prevented them from sharing it with others. (I don't think you could turn around and sell copies; but if you do figure out a way to sell spam please contact me!)
But checking each message against the law would be a pain to administer and would exclude many of your samples. Better to address the fair use angle, which is not a forfeiture of copyright but an exception to it.
Your first assertion is based on the old rule; copyright now attaches as soon as "original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression."
reference (I can't vounch for this source's complete accuracy, but I'm sure it has this basic point right)
For the interested, the law has gradually moved away from many of the ritualistic requirements in the past, such as attaching a copyright notice. But such notice is good form, as is registration, to protect your rights as author
Wow, I am impressed. This is beautifully clever -- enforcing a copyright on a message no one wants, because if you don't it might get harder to force the same message on other people. Elegant. Annoying.
I assume you rec'd a C&D letter, or was the contact more informal (you seem unpersauded the person really was a lawyer)? Details? Did they cite legal authority?
Check out the materials at chillingeffects.org, it should address your basic concerns but may not answer your specific question.
Personally, FWIW, I think you're OK, both under fair use (you are basically an online library, though it's not quite that simple) and the fact they forced you to take it (waiver?), but before you look at the merits the realistic issue is whether this could even possibly go to court. Even if you will win, that's where $$$ comes in. Often they are bluffing: litigation costs money, but a quick cheap threat often works, so why not take a stab at it?
I'm sure I've seen this question addressed online -- look around.
This is not legal advice, but it doesn't sound like you yet need it. (That wasn't legal advice, either.:) I'll relay anything I find.
No, you entirely missed the point, or rather you prove it -- lazy research.
The report and press release were released in tandem on the same day. The press release is naturally a condensed form of the report. Everything I cited from the press release is in the report, in greater detail.
I remember this question being posed 30 years ago. My rough recollection is that UV light was significant to the decomposition of the "rubber" bits (it's a petrol product) and that they were somehow biodegradable when washed away. It's noteworthy that the stuff doesn't pile up on the side of the road.
A figure I recall is that Americans use up 100 million tires a year.
The particulates causing asthma could be plausible. Another suspected culprit is diesel particulates or DEP. The particles may be more or less benign, but cause an irritation that might contribute the the rise in asthma and other respiratory problems.
Anyway... what are the chances of a significant reformulation of tire rubber?
The number of cameras is staggering. In addition to those familiar weatherproof housings around city buildings, some of which pivot and zoom, there are the ATM cameras (which can see surprisingly far, I recall a carjacking solved with one), store surveillance (Timothy McVeigh was taped at a McDonald's), traffic enforcement cameras (the DC snipers were photographed by one during their spree, running a red light -- but this was not discovered in time), etc. Many patrol cars now carry cameras; I don't know whether they turn them on outside of stops, where they are useful to deflect charges of police civil rights abuses or, in one case I saw, to tape an officer being murdered.
Note that I'm not a nutty civil libertarian (cut out the nutty part): the parenthetical examples above illustrate desirable uses of these cameras. But I also wonder, when the technology is developed to read license plates and recognize faces, if there won't be a temptation to track someone everywhere they go, without warrant or even any particular suspicion. I don't think this would violate the Fourth Amendment as currently interpreted. Imagine how use it would be for some civil actions, say to prove adultery.
Interesting that security guards would be upset at your taking pictures of cameras. Granted you might be casing the joint, but I also feel that if they can film you because you're in public, the reverse should be true.
Some group (applied autonomy) designed software to help the camera-shy navigate Manhattan's 2400 or so cameras -- a controversial project.
Did you know the V-2's flew up essentially into space, then returned at supersonic speeds? You literally couldn't hear them coming. An impressive technical achievement, and they owed it all to slave labor...
I wouldn't underestimate the influence of the scientists. They made the foreful point to the public that nuclear war really would suck, something politicians were eager to downplay. They also rallied public opinion while lobbying decionmakers. And politicians didn't use the bomb because they were afraid of what someone else might do to them, the public or another country. Anyway, the real issue here was whether the engineers and scientists have any real responsibility towards the real-world ramifications of their work. I think it's pretty obvious that they have at least the responsibility of any other citizen, and more influence than most. That doesn't mean they always get it right, or get it right more often than anyone else, but it does mean they're engaged and take responsibilities for their actions.
As an example, my rocket scientist friend (an aero/astro grad of MIT) interviewed at some aerospace company, I forget which, and he said the interviewer quizzed him about what sorts of miltary projects he might be willing to work on. For ABM's, he said OK; spy satellites, yes; and so on. Then the interviewer asked what he'd think of a space-based nuclear platform, and he replied uhhhhh. The guy smiled and said don't worry, I told them to leave me out of that one, too.
Seriously, look at the last 20 years or so of Einstein's life, as an exemplar. He didn't piss off the McCarthy crowd by being ineffectual and irrelevant. There are many others. Israel? Well, it's something to talk about...
Because the Chinese kill the people they dislike. Also, their censorship is much broader and utterly capricious, calculated only to maintaining a brutal regime. Germany's is at least related to a wrenching event in their recent history, and enacted democratically, and enforced by regular judicial processes. I don't know whether China's censorship is even written into law, it may just be the practice of the state as it sees fit. Good luck getting a fair trial regardless.
But that's not quite the point -- the companies criticized by Amnesty aren't breaking any laws anywhere, and censorship is not the specific problem. Rather, it is the kind of government they are aiding and abetting that is problematic -- one that practices censorship, torture, summary execution. To me that suggests caution when providing technology that might directly aid these human rights abuses. Our relationship with other countries is besides the point (excpet as to hypocrisy); the question is what should be out relationship with China?
So if (1) the Chinese conduct violates our norms; and (2) the American technology is helpful to committing these violations; then (3) we have to decide whether to continue such aid. This is a moral not legal question. Personally, I would tell them to go to hell, but I have a lower tolerance of thuggery than many people. It is good for Amnesty to at least bring the truth to light, even if it is futile appealing to the consciences of these companies (more precisely, their boards), because people will start to ask questions, and the principal players will not later be able to plead ignorance. I think China will present a growing problem if it does not democratize.
Yeah, I realized re the von Braun quote after I hit submit. It's still a good "quote." It's a lot funnier than his early career.
There was a lot of history after 1945:
Oppenheimer wigged out after the bomb was dropped; Truman called him a "crybaby." He eventually was even denied his security clearance, for hazy reasons.
Einstein was VERY active in the peace effort after the war, warned of nuclear Armageddon, and advocated abolishing nuclear weapons. Here is a quickie story from Google. Einstein was even investigated by the FBI for his alleged subversive activities. This was no political wallflower.
I'm pretty sure I've read the Rhodes book -- "Making of the Atomic Bomb" or something?
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department." -- Wernher von Braun, re the V-2
Many engineers disagree with you. (My best friend is a "rocket scientist.")
Von Braun was careful to surrender to the Americans, and to offer him his rocketry skills. In light of the Cold War, America was eager for his help and so quickly sanitized his resume. There has been a fair amount written about the lesser-known aspects of his work for the Nazis, such as the use of slave labor to build the rockets. Said laborers were not allowed to survive their assignment, lest they carry away secrets. Much debate has centered on what von Braun knew, and whether he played a part in recruited the slave labor that was otherwise, like targeting of 3,000 V-2's, "not his problem."
In the nuclear program, scientists from Oppenheimer to Einstein took a very active role in urging political caution with nuclear weapons. They did not see their role as merely to create.
Required -- by the laws of Germany concerning denying or celebrating the Holocaust. France acted similarly. Few countries have as broad protection of free speech as does the U.S. The actions of these foreign gov't's would be illegal here, but these corporations are obligated to play nice on foreign soil, fair enough. It is not entirely clear what the legal rules are for resolving conflicting rules for free speech on the Web, as so far companies like eBay have backed down. Theoretically you could not post anything of the web that offended the strictest country connected to the internet; the lowest common denominator would prevail. As a practical matter these countries filter, some Arab countries very aggressively.
So your question doesn't work -- Germany bans certain kinds of speech, China bans a whole lot more. It's just a Q of degree, and both are "wrong" from an American perspective. Personally the behavior that bothers me most is the violence employed in China to suppress speech. Germans despise the Holocaust but would not sanction torture and murder.
You did have rights, but they were attenuated. There is a Supreme Court decision called Tinker that you might check out, concerning a children protesting the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school.
The poster is also mistaken to say free speech rights never apply on private property; there are limited exceptions for shopping malls and union organizing.
Evil is in the eye of the beholder, true. And hypocrisy is always a hazard. But these problems need not paralyze us -- you don't have to be a saint to smell something rotten.
To be technical, true morality is not "placed" on anyone, it is adopted and internalized.
Regardless, you're right that a corporation is an artificial person like Data -- the law does anthropomorphize them for many purposes, for example a corporation may sue or be sued, is taxed as an entity, and can be found guilty of a crime (if not jailed). It enjoys privileges and assume burdens, but is fundamentally amoral. But that doesn't mean that it can't choose to concern itself with corporate responsibility; nor that we can't lobby it to do so; nor that as a bare minimum of good business sense most public companies will at least attempt to comport their activities with public opinion, for fear of damaging share price or customer good will.
So we do place moral obligations on them. They don't have to worry about whether they're going to heaven or hell, but they do need to respond to the world around them, if for no other reason than good business. They don't live in a business school beaker.
The level of responsiveness varies widely. The pressure on companies not to do business in apartheid South Africa, and on univerities and trusts to divest themselves of stock in these companies, was particularly bitter.
I don't think Amnesty is attempting a legal argument. I also doubt there is a law on point, though one could be written. The only significant effort to restrict exports that I can think of was the gov't's efforts to contain cryptography. Also, export of many goods to certain restricted countries ("axis of evil") is very tightly regulated. China's not on that list.
As I point out in another post below, the Amnesty allegations go well beyond suppressing freedom of speech, to torture and execution.
Should it be a legal issue? (he asks rhetorically)
I'm not sure if I'm missing something, or C|Net and I read different reports, but the Amnesty International press release is considerably grimmer than what C|Net selectively relates.
To give you a hint, the document is entitled "China: Internet users at risk of arbitrary detention, torture and even execution."
This is censorship with a big rock, not benign filtering, the occasional arrest and whoops a death or two in custody. "Benign" filtering software would probably be useful to track down suspects, a sinister dimension. Change anyone's minds?
This does remind me of the risk of trusting the press; even if the Amnesty report proves to be baloney, C|Net did not accurately describe it, or provide a link to it.
And if they cannot buy American products to do so, then they'll just develop their own.
Precisely why we should offer them Microsoft's full services.
Embrace, extend, extinguish -- China will be our by the end of the decade.;-)
(Disclaimer -- OK, this does implicitly make fun of MS. If you like MS, substitute the name of your personal bete noir for MS. Like IBM or Dan Quayle or whatever.)
Essentially, anything that could possibly affect a compnies profit is getting to be considered illegal.
And you have a problem with that? What is your ID number and grid location?
The MPAA & co. argument appears to center on our friend copyright, from my very brief search. (Bedtime for Bonzo.) The idea is that skipping the commercials alter the work as shown. Now, I don't know what people said, but this seems pretty stupid, like saying it's illegal to skip "plot" pages in a Penthouse book to get to the sex parts (uh, not that I've ever done that... or read one of those naughty books).
Here's some blather about the contractural argument I proposed -- someone has been dumb enough to argue it.
If the deletion were done as part of a recording, I could kinda sorta see a violation of fair use argument. But it's not, it is on playback. The mfrs did not want to litigate it, but the Q will come to a head soon enough. The article notes that the name-calling was great free advertising for PVR's. And ultimately the industry will survive. What I fear actually is having mostly for-pay commerciall-free TV -- cable has gotten us part-way there -- but I bet that's the future trend. It just seems less democratic.
Hey, you're not contradicting me, you're calling for holy war. I'm with you brother, provided it does not involve violate in letter or spirit all applicable U.S. anti-terrorism statutes, including those not yet written.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
One route would be to check the law of the state where the spam was received. About 15 states have such laws, including populous CA. If the spam broke the law, I would suggest that forfeits copyright, at least as to publicizing the offending communication. It would be a little odd to send someone an illegal communication and then claim copyright prevented them from sharing it with others. (I don't think you could turn around and sell copies; but if you do figure out a way to sell spam please contact me!)
But checking each message against the law would be a pain to administer and would exclude many of your samples. Better to address the fair use angle, which is not a forfeiture of copyright but an exception to it.
Your first assertion is based on the old rule; copyright now attaches as soon as "original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression."
reference (I can't vounch for this source's complete accuracy, but I'm sure it has this basic point right)
For the interested, the law has gradually moved away from many of the ritualistic requirements in the past, such as attaching a copyright notice. But such notice is good form, as is registration, to protect your rights as author
Wow, I am impressed. This is beautifully clever -- enforcing a copyright on a message no one wants, because if you don't it might get harder to force the same message on other people. Elegant. Annoying.
:) I'll relay anything I find.
I assume you rec'd a C&D letter, or was the contact more informal (you seem unpersauded the person really was a lawyer)? Details? Did they cite legal authority?
Check out the materials at chillingeffects.org, it should address your basic concerns but may not answer your specific question.
Personally, FWIW, I think you're OK, both under fair use (you are basically an online library, though it's not quite that simple) and the fact they forced you to take it (waiver?), but before you look at the merits the realistic issue is whether this could even possibly go to court. Even if you will win, that's where $$$ comes in. Often they are bluffing: litigation costs money, but a quick cheap threat often works, so why not take a stab at it?
I'm sure I've seen this question addressed online -- look around.
This is not legal advice, but it doesn't sound like you yet need it. (That wasn't legal advice, either.
Because it sucks. :)
I replied on a different branch of this thread.
No, you entirely missed the point, or rather you prove it -- lazy research.
The report and press release were released in tandem on the same day. The press release is naturally a condensed form of the report. Everything I cited from the press release is in the report, in greater detail.
I remember this question being posed 30 years ago. My rough recollection is that UV light was significant to the decomposition of the "rubber" bits (it's a petrol product) and that they were somehow biodegradable when washed away. It's noteworthy that the stuff doesn't pile up on the side of the road.
... what are the chances of a significant reformulation of tire rubber?
A figure I recall is that Americans use up 100 million tires a year.
The particulates causing asthma could be plausible. Another suspected culprit is diesel particulates or DEP. The particles may be more or less benign, but cause an irritation that might contribute the the rise in asthma and other respiratory problems.
Anyway
The number of cameras is staggering. In addition to those familiar weatherproof housings around city buildings, some of which pivot and zoom, there are the ATM cameras (which can see surprisingly far, I recall a carjacking solved with one), store surveillance (Timothy McVeigh was taped at a McDonald's), traffic enforcement cameras (the DC snipers were photographed by one during their spree, running a red light -- but this was not discovered in time), etc. Many patrol cars now carry cameras; I don't know whether they turn them on outside of stops, where they are useful to deflect charges of police civil rights abuses or, in one case I saw, to tape an officer being murdered.
Note that I'm not a nutty civil libertarian (cut out the nutty part): the parenthetical examples above illustrate desirable uses of these cameras. But I also wonder, when the technology is developed to read license plates and recognize faces, if there won't be a temptation to track someone everywhere they go, without warrant or even any particular suspicion. I don't think this would violate the Fourth Amendment as currently interpreted. Imagine how use it would be for some civil actions, say to prove adultery.
Interesting that security guards would be upset at your taking pictures of cameras. Granted you might be casing the joint, but I also feel that if they can film you because you're in public, the reverse should be true.
Some group (applied autonomy) designed software to help the camera-shy navigate Manhattan's 2400 or so cameras -- a controversial project.
Ouch.
Did you know the V-2's flew up essentially into space, then returned at supersonic speeds? You literally couldn't hear them coming. An impressive technical achievement, and they owed it all to slave labor...
I wouldn't underestimate the influence of the scientists. They made the foreful point to the public that nuclear war really would suck, something politicians were eager to downplay. They also rallied public opinion while lobbying decionmakers. And politicians didn't use the bomb because they were afraid of what someone else might do to them, the public or another country. Anyway, the real issue here was whether the engineers and scientists have any real responsibility towards the real-world ramifications of their work. I think it's pretty obvious that they have at least the responsibility of any other citizen, and more influence than most. That doesn't mean they always get it right, or get it right more often than anyone else, but it does mean they're engaged and take responsibilities for their actions.
As an example, my rocket scientist friend (an aero/astro grad of MIT) interviewed at some aerospace company, I forget which, and he said the interviewer quizzed him about what sorts of miltary projects he might be willing to work on. For ABM's, he said OK; spy satellites, yes; and so on. Then the interviewer asked what he'd think of a space-based nuclear platform, and he replied uhhhhh. The guy smiled and said don't worry, I told them to leave me out of that one, too.
Seriously, look at the last 20 years or so of Einstein's life, as an exemplar. He didn't piss off the McCarthy crowd by being ineffectual and irrelevant. There are many others. Israel? Well, it's something to talk about...
Because the Chinese kill the people they dislike. Also, their censorship is much broader and utterly capricious, calculated only to maintaining a brutal regime. Germany's is at least related to a wrenching event in their recent history, and enacted democratically, and enforced by regular judicial processes. I don't know whether China's censorship is even written into law, it may just be the practice of the state as it sees fit. Good luck getting a fair trial regardless.
But that's not quite the point -- the companies criticized by Amnesty aren't breaking any laws anywhere, and censorship is not the specific problem. Rather, it is the kind of government they are aiding and abetting that is problematic -- one that practices censorship, torture, summary execution. To me that suggests caution when providing technology that might directly aid these human rights abuses. Our relationship with other countries is besides the point (excpet as to hypocrisy); the question is what should be out relationship with China?
So if (1) the Chinese conduct violates our norms; and (2) the American technology is helpful to committing these violations; then (3) we have to decide whether to continue such aid. This is a moral not legal question. Personally, I would tell them to go to hell, but I have a lower tolerance of thuggery than many people. It is good for Amnesty to at least bring the truth to light, even if it is futile appealing to the consciences of these companies (more precisely, their boards), because people will start to ask questions, and the principal players will not later be able to plead ignorance. I think China will present a growing problem if it does not democratize.
Yeah, I realized re the von Braun quote after I hit submit. It's still a good "quote." It's a lot funnier than his early career.
There was a lot of history after 1945:
Oppenheimer wigged out after the bomb was dropped; Truman called him a "crybaby." He eventually was even denied his security clearance, for hazy reasons.
Einstein was VERY active in the peace effort after the war, warned of nuclear Armageddon, and advocated abolishing nuclear weapons. Here is a quickie story from Google. Einstein was even investigated by the FBI for his alleged subversive activities. This was no political wallflower.
I'm pretty sure I've read the Rhodes book -- "Making of the Atomic Bomb" or something?
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department." -- Wernher von Braun, re the V-2
Many engineers disagree with you. (My best friend is a "rocket scientist.")
Von Braun was careful to surrender to the Americans, and to offer him his rocketry skills. In light of the Cold War, America was eager for his help and so quickly sanitized his resume. There has been a fair amount written about the lesser-known aspects of his work for the Nazis, such as the use of slave labor to build the rockets. Said laborers were not allowed to survive their assignment, lest they carry away secrets. Much debate has centered on what von Braun knew, and whether he played a part in recruited the slave labor that was otherwise, like targeting of 3,000 V-2's, "not his problem."
In the nuclear program, scientists from Oppenheimer to Einstein took a very active role in urging political caution with nuclear weapons. They did not see their role as merely to create.
Required -- by the laws of Germany concerning denying or celebrating the Holocaust. France acted similarly. Few countries have as broad protection of free speech as does the U.S. The actions of these foreign gov't's would be illegal here, but these corporations are obligated to play nice on foreign soil, fair enough. It is not entirely clear what the legal rules are for resolving conflicting rules for free speech on the Web, as so far companies like eBay have backed down. Theoretically you could not post anything of the web that offended the strictest country connected to the internet; the lowest common denominator would prevail. As a practical matter these countries filter, some Arab countries very aggressively.
So your question doesn't work -- Germany bans certain kinds of speech, China bans a whole lot more. It's just a Q of degree, and both are "wrong" from an American perspective. Personally the behavior that bothers me most is the violence employed in China to suppress speech. Germans despise the Holocaust but would not sanction torture and murder.
How is this different than aiding known human rights violators?
You won't get busted.
You did have rights, but they were attenuated. There is a Supreme Court decision called Tinker that you might check out, concerning a children protesting the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school.
The poster is also mistaken to say free speech rights never apply on private property; there are limited exceptions for shopping malls and union organizing.
Yes, if they promise to be nice about it.
Evil is in the eye of the beholder, true. And hypocrisy is always a hazard. But these problems need not paralyze us -- you don't have to be a saint to smell something rotten.
To be technical, true morality is not "placed" on anyone, it is adopted and internalized.
Regardless, you're right that a corporation is an artificial person like Data -- the law does anthropomorphize them for many purposes, for example a corporation may sue or be sued, is taxed as an entity, and can be found guilty of a crime (if not jailed). It enjoys privileges and assume burdens, but is fundamentally amoral. But that doesn't mean that it can't choose to concern itself with corporate responsibility; nor that we can't lobby it to do so; nor that as a bare minimum of good business sense most public companies will at least attempt to comport their activities with public opinion, for fear of damaging share price or customer good will.
So we do place moral obligations on them. They don't have to worry about whether they're going to heaven or hell, but they do need to respond to the world around them, if for no other reason than good business. They don't live in a business school beaker.
The level of responsiveness varies widely. The pressure on companies not to do business in apartheid South Africa, and on univerities and trusts to divest themselves of stock in these companies, was particularly bitter.
I don't think Amnesty is attempting a legal argument. I also doubt there is a law on point, though one could be written. The only significant effort to restrict exports that I can think of was the gov't's efforts to contain cryptography. Also, export of many goods to certain restricted countries ("axis of evil") is very tightly regulated. China's not on that list.
As I point out in another post below, the Amnesty allegations go well beyond suppressing freedom of speech, to torture and execution.
Should it be a legal issue? (he asks rhetorically)
Yes, I speculated about this, with reference to American figures, in our last go-round. Ford was a big player.
Thx. :)
I'm not sure if I'm missing something, or C|Net and I read different reports, but the Amnesty International press release is considerably grimmer than what C|Net selectively relates.
To give you a hint, the document is entitled "China: Internet users at risk of arbitrary detention, torture and even execution."
This is censorship with a big rock, not benign filtering, the occasional arrest and whoops a death or two in custody. "Benign" filtering software would probably be useful to track down suspects, a sinister dimension. Change anyone's minds?
This does remind me of the risk of trusting the press; even if the Amnesty report proves to be baloney, C|Net did not accurately describe it, or provide a link to it.
And if they cannot buy American products to do so, then they'll just develop their own.
;-)
Precisely why we should offer them Microsoft's full services.
Embrace, extend, extinguish -- China will be our by the end of the decade.
(Disclaimer -- OK, this does implicitly make fun of MS. If you like MS, substitute the name of your personal bete noir for MS. Like IBM or Dan Quayle or whatever.)
Essentially, anything that could possibly affect a compnies profit is getting to be considered illegal.
... or read one of those naughty books).
And you have a problem with that? What is your ID number and grid location?
The MPAA & co. argument appears to center on our friend copyright, from my very brief search. (Bedtime for Bonzo.) The idea is that skipping the commercials alter the work as shown. Now, I don't know what people said, but this seems pretty stupid, like saying it's illegal to skip "plot" pages in a Penthouse book to get to the sex parts (uh, not that I've ever done that
Here's some blather about the contractural argument I proposed -- someone has been dumb enough to argue it.
If the deletion were done as part of a recording, I could kinda sorta see a violation of fair use argument. But it's not, it is on playback. The mfrs did not want to litigate it, but the Q will come to a head soon enough. The article notes that the name-calling was great free advertising for PVR's. And ultimately the industry will survive. What I fear actually is having mostly for-pay commerciall-free TV -- cable has gotten us part-way there -- but I bet that's the future trend. It just seems less democratic.
Hey, you're not contradicting me, you're calling for holy war. I'm with you brother, provided it does not involve violate in letter or spirit all applicable U.S. anti-terrorism statutes, including those not yet written. ;-)
You've read 1984 more recently than I have!
I may have been thinking of "A Clockwork Orange". I don't know, one of those utopian novels I read in my impressionistic years....
Double plus ungoodthought.