If you're placing a tap in the US, then you need a warrant.
Even if the communication isn't intercepted in the United States, if foreign communication travels through the United States, under the current law it requires a warrant. In situations such as this, the fact that a portion of a communication (where the two parties are outside the United States) travels through equipment in the United States is incidental.
So it would seem that the methods you appear to be advocating have failed.
(I'll just ignore the huge "war on drugs not 'won', therefore all signals intelligence must be a failure" logical fallacy, here...wow...)
If you believe that signals intelligence is not an extremely valuable tool for foreign intelligence, you:
1.) Don't know your history, and
2.) Are willfully ignorant of the realities of foreign intelligence gathering, by not only the United States, but the intelligence services of the rest of the world.
To say monitoring such communication should require a warrant is laughable.
You have failed to show how the existing law would prevent the US from tapping foreign communications. Before you go supposing that anyone here wants that outcome, start by showing that it's actually a likely one.
Easy.
The current law prevents the US from tapping foreign communications without a warrant:
1.) If one side of the communication is foreign and one or more additional parties masks their identities or the location can't be determined, and
2.) Most crucially, if the communication is routed through communications equipment within the United States.
This is crippling to foreign signals intelligence, which has never required a warrant, and should not saddled with the fundamental requirements of a warrant. If the parties can be reasonably believed to be outside the United States, that traffic is more than fair game for foreign SIGINT.
Your issue seems to be that the US should "just get a warrant" if there is any doubt. That misunderstands the basic principles of foreign intelligence gathering. There is no need for a warrant if the parties are foreign nationals outside of the United States, and the fact that the traffic might at some point travel through equipment in the United States is incidental. For foreign intelligence, we should NOT be erring on the side of getting a warrant. That was not what FISA was ever intended for.
"But this gives the intelligence agencies a blank check!" No, it doesn't. By that logic, any kind of monitoring any intelligence community component ever does should require a warrant. After all, how can we really be sure they aren't monitoring Americans within the United States? First, that's what Congressional oversight is for, and second, that's patently foolish position to take, and ignores the realities of the purposes of foreign intelligence gathering, particularly signals intelligence, and puts the United States at a marked disadvantage to the intelligence agencies of every other modern nation.
This is a much-needed update to an antiquated law that reflects the realities of monitoring foreign communications, which never has required, and never should require, a warrant of any kind from any court.
So, by that logic, all foreign signals intelligence should require a warrant?
If your goal is to cripple US foreign intelligence capability and put us at a marked and distinct disadvantage in countless respects to the intelligence services of the rest of the modern world, then we should put that suggestion on the top of our list.
Monitoring traffic outside of the United States does not require a warrant, never has, and never should.
This fixes FISA so that communication between persons exclusively outside of the United States without a warrant, even if a portion of the communication is physically routed through the US, which, under the current law, would require a warrant.
It's a much-needed update to an antiquated law. The fact that you think monitoring communications between foreigners outside of the United States should require any kind of warrant - and that you got modded up for it - speaks volumes.
What, do you think these foreign nationals go around, wearing t-shirts, saying, "Hi, I'm a foreign national engaged in terrorism against America!"? How does one differentiate between someone who is a terrorist and someone who is not?
It doesn't matter.
A warrant is not required to listen to communications between foreign nationals outside of the United States, regardless of what kind of activity they are involved in. This is communication the United States has always been free to monitor at will.
The problem is that now some communication, even between foreigners outside of the United States, gets routed through networking or switching equipment inside the United States, which, under the outdated FISA rules, would require a warrant.
This fixes that problem, and for you to suggest the United States shouldn't be engaged in aggressive global foreign intelligence gathering and threat monitoring is ridiculous. And yes, you should have to explain why this update to an antiquated law makes you uncomfortable. It has NOTHING to do with jumping at shadows. This idea that people only support things like this out of fear is incorrect. This is fair-game surveillance of foreign communication which is perfectly legitimate on the global stage and has gone on for decades. Pretending the United States shouldn't be doing it is sticking your head in the sand to unprecedented depths.
It's because listening to foreign communications (communications between two parties outside of the US) doesn't require a warrant, never has, nor should it.
The problem this addresses is that sometimes, foreign communications (including communications exclusively between individuals outside of the United States) now travels through switching or network equipment within the United States, which would require a warrant under the current antiquated rules.
The post-Watergate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required a warrant for eavesdropping on people in the U.S. But after 9/11, the administration asserted that warrants weren't needed to surveil communications involving suspected terrorists even inside the U.S. The controversy over "warrantless wiretapping" made intel officials gun-shy about eavesdropping even on messages they would have regarded as fair game before 9/11.
According to both administration and congressional officials (anonymous when discussing such issues), the White House and intelligence czar's office are now urgently trying to negotiate a legal fix with Congress that would make it easier for NSA to eavesdrop on e-mails and phone calls where all parties are located outside the U.S., even if at some point the message signal crosses into U.S. territory.
[...]
Much of the electronic communications NSA once pored over, between two parties communicating with each other outside the U.S., used to travel via satellite or radiolike signal, leaving NSA free to pluck the messages out of the air. Technological innovations, however, have shifted more and more traffic--both e-mail and telephone calls--to hard-wired or fiberoptic networks, many of which have critical switching or transit facilities inside the U.S. Therefore, intel-collection officials concluded that FISA court authorizations should be obtained to eavesdrop not just on messages where at least one party is inside the country, but also for eavesdropping on messages between two parties overseas that pass through U.S. communications gear.
Some would suggest that a year in prison for video taping 20 seconds of a film, with no intent to distribute, would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, given the nature of the crime.
That's not the issue.
She won't be going to jail.
Nothing will likely happen to her at all.
The case will likely be thrown out.
The question is whether the theater was right to press misdemeanor charges for recording in the movie theater, which is against a local and/or state law, and whether the theater should be saddled with the discretion of determining what kinds of recording in theaters is "okay" or "innocent", when any recording at all is prohibited by law and their own policy.
Nowhere in my post was I arguing for her to go to jail for a year for doing this. In fact, I think NOTHING will (or should) happen to her. But that is for a judge and a jury to decide, not the movie theater.
I predict nothing will happen to her as well. In fact, I think that the charges will be dropped before she even gets to court, at the insistence of the local prosecuting attorney.
The point of my post wasn't to say she deserved any punishment. It was to point out that the theater can't be expected to make these determinations.
Not in the case of fair use it's not. And - on the facts presented - this looks like a clear example of fair use.
No, it's actually not clear in the least. Fair use is very subjective. I will personally agree with you that a 20 second clip from anything that is more than an hour long is more than likely going to fall under fair use.
But it isn't up to the theater to decide or police that in the least.
(And also a clear example of violating the theater's no-camera policy, but that's not a criminal matter.)
Actually, many jurisdictions make it illegal to bring recording devices into theaters. The theater isn't enforcing copyright; it's enforcing its own no tolerance no camera policy, coupled with laws that make it possible to press charges for recording in a movie theater. While such laws may exist partly or mostly because of copyright, copyright isn't what is at issue here.
I predict this case will be thrown out or settled in short order.
As do I, but...
It's got several serious problems. First, there's a strong fair use argument.
Actually, fair use is mostly targeted at education and research. Satire, parody, and review come next.
But I'd agree that a 20 second clip could be argued to fall under "fair use", even if the only purpose was to show it to her little brother. (Why not use the trailer...?)
Second, the theater owner does not hold copyright on the movie, so may have no standing to bring charges of copyright infringement.
Irrelevant. First, they are in fact the de facto agent for the copyright holder. Second, they aren't bringing copyright infringement charges. While the article doesn't specifically say, it appears to be a local ordinance prohibiting recording in movie theaters.
Third, the actual harm done by this person is very close to nil.
By this person. But that's not up to the theater to decide.
Since most of your post seemed to be dedicated to talking about how this girl won't or shouldn't be punished, I agree. But that is for the legal system to decide, not the theater. And that's exactly what is going to happen.
Is it even the theater's responsibility to have customers arrested for taping, in the first place? As others pointed out, the theater is NOT the content owner. The only valid reason I can see them enforcing rules against videotaping would be an argument that it disturbs others trying to watch the movie. (Who wants to sit behind someone who keeps holding a camcorder up, blocking part of your view, for example?) Kicking them out of the movie should suffice, in any case.
The theater is acting as an agent for the content owners, which is why they enforce this. There are also many laws, local and otherwise, against recording in theaters, and many theater companies have policies that require customers be kicked out (and the applicable contents of their camcorder erased), and/or the police to be called when a patron is recording in the theater.
That being said, yes - I think it's *quite* reasonable for ushers to determine if someone is sitting there trying to videotape a large piece of the movie or not! Basically, you give the benefit of the doubt until you see some idiot sitting there, more interested in taping the movie than in watching it, and they don't put the camcorder away after you've come back down the aisle several times. Having someone arrested after the first 20 SECONDS they're seen with the camcorder out?? That's harassment!
It shouldn't have to be up to the theater to have to decide or determine that at all (aside from the fact that I don't think there is any reason to bring a *camcorder* into a movie theater). Sure, the theater could display some discretion and just say, "Hey, put that away," or say that's not allowed, or kick the person out. But they don't have to do that, and shouldn't be expected to. That's what the police and the legal system will decide.
So I read the comments in the recent DRM article here on slashdot.
Many make the case that DRM is worthless, because only one person needs to break it and then the content can be freely distributed. Okay, I buy that.
Well, that's the same case here. The problem is that you can't target redistribution. What are we going to do, "shut down" BitTorrent? Impossible. You stop it at the source, which is recording in theaters, which is where the recordings made in theaters, well, come from.
So while I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, you and I both know it's impossible to "target" internet redistribution of the content. I understand that you are taking a fundamentally different viewpoint, and see no problem with any losses or negative impact that might be sustained by, e.g., content owners, because you believe recording anything you see is a fundamental civil or human right. I firmly disagree with that position, and believe that legal frameworks are allowable to prevent redistribution of copyrighted content, as well as what enables such redistribution.
What you're arguing implies that recording whole movies in the theater is acceptable for personal use. I can almost agree with that. The only problem is that there is no way whatsoever to know what will become of that content. Is that the person who wants to watch a camcorded version of the movie at home for private consumption (frankly, very, very unlikely)? Or is that the person who is going to upload it to BitTorrent for his little ego stroke or points with his movie piracy group (very, very likely)?
I don't believe wholesale recording in theaters is fair or should be allowed, and therefore no recording in theaters can really be allowable from a practical standpoint, and that's where our disagreement will lie.
1.) It's not the theater's responsibility to do that, and
2.) Fair use doesn't actually have specific time limits, and it's very subjective. (See here.)
Even if we did decide on some length of time, which is extremely unlikely, I can't believe you think it would be reasonable for it to be the job of theaters to verify the length of recorded content on recording devices.
So, what happens when nothing happens to this girl, then?
Will you be back here pontificating about the "test of civilization" and making thinly-veiled comparisons of the US to despotic and backwards systems of "justice"?
No, because the resolution of this, which is likely to be that little or nothing happens to her after a judge and jury review the situation - you know, what happens here in this backward place - will never be posted here, and we'll just continue to feel righteously indignant about such a grave injustice.
The time shifting case allows the recording of entire TV shows, movies, etc., in a noncommercial home environment for personal use.
That is not "fair use". Fair use is an entirely different concept, and is widely understood to NOT allow the recording of entire copyrighted content wholesale. You can use small clips, and that's it. And what constitutes a "small clip" does not have a specific definition, but it is most certainly NOT the entirety of the content, e.g., in an educational context:
III. Amount
Amount is measured both quantitatively and qualitatively. No exact measures of allowable quantity exist in the law. Quantity must be evaluated relative to the length of the entire original and in light of the amount needed to serve a proper objective. One court has ruled that a journal article alone is an entire work; any copying of an entire work usually weighs heavily against fair use. Pictures generate serious controversies, because a user nearly always wants the full image, or the full "amount." On the other hand, a "thumbnail," low-resolution version of the image might be an acceptable "amount" to serve an education or research purpose. Motion pictures are also problematic, because even short clips may borrow the most extraordinary or creative elements. One may also reproduce only a small portion of any work, but still take "the heart of the work." This concept is a qualitative measure that may weigh against fair use.
There is quite a bit of information about the "short clip" provisions for fair use, which are subjective, all around various legal and other sites on the internet. But the bottom line is that it is NEVER all of the content, and is always a very small portion of the total content.
"The only problem is, that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision. "
The theater wasn't the "content owner."
The theater is acting as an agent for a trade association, which is in turn acting as an agent for a movie studio, an so on.
That's why they are enforcing this; they are effectively an agent for the content owners.
And the theatre owner doesn't understand the concept of "de minimus" - the law doesn't deal in trifles. They're just being dickheads. A 20-second clip isn't a clear case of copyright infringement, since copyright allows for short exerpts to be used without the copyright owners' permission, for example, in reviews.
I already spoke to that in my post.
Let me be clear: I agree that the theater had the discretion to ignore it, simply kick the person out, etc. And they may have been being dickheads, after the person explained what she was doing, assuming she did.
But why should the theater owner be put in that position? Camcorders and recording aren't allowed in movie theaters. That's what she was doing, and she even admits that it wasn't incidental (e.g., recording of a group of friends that just happened to be in the theater); she was recording the movie itself.
Talking about fair use and so on and how long clips can be is so out of the purview of what the theater should be dealing with that it's utterly ridiculous. As I said, the only way to solve this is to:
1.) Have recording in theaters be completely legal, or
2.) Specify the length of clips allowable, and have theaters police the length of clips recorded in theaters.
Do you really think 2.) is possible, and that 1.) is fair?
Actually, I just happened to see a free pass to a screening of some movie the other day.
On the pass, it specifically said:
- That customers were subject to search, and
- That any and all audio or video recording equipment, or any device with such capabilities, including phones, PDAs, etc., were strictly prohibited.
Granted, most customers in any theater at any given time probably do have camera phones. But again, this is a case where you can't really make a distinction between what is a "camcorder" versus a PDA that just happens to have enough memory to record the whole movie. If you come in with a Treo, no one is going to say anything. If you come in with your collapsible tripod asking for assistive hearing devices, or you get caught with a video camera out in the theater, you're going to get nailed.
I agree that this situation is ridiculous, and when it goes to trial, she probably (hopefully?) won't be punished. But even in this case it wasn't like the recording was incidental. The theater and others involved can't guess intent. Sure, they had the "discretion" to not do anything, but why is that in their lap? How are they to decide who's going to upload movies and who is "recording a 20 second clip to get their little brother excited"? The only alternative is to make it all legal, and that doesn't make any sense either.
If videotaping in a movie theater is illegal, and if that is what occurred in this instance - and indeed, the person in question admits just that - then why is this acceptable? Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"?
Isn't that for a judge and jury to decide?
Would it be acceptable to record twenty seconds? Two minutes? Twenty minutes? The entire movie?
(Believe it or not, there actually could be an answer here..."fair use" does have specific provisions for how long clips can be, what they can be used for, and so on.)
I realize most here on slashdot probably won't agree with this, and think that "copyright", or at least its current form in the US, which is the basis for prohibiting things like recording in movie theaters, ought to be done away with completely.
But if any claim on content ownership is supportable and valid in any legal framework, mustn't there necessarily be mechanisms to enforce related laws and prohibit its violation? And when there is a violation, and an agent that is party to the violation chooses to press charges for what may be the violation of a local, state, or federal statute in various circumstances, shouldn't a judge and jury be the ones to decide the outcome?
The article says:
"We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable," he said. "Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing."
Macdowell said the trade association, which represents 28,000 screens nationwide, realizes there is a difference between "egregious acts of stealing our movies and more innocent ones." But he said that distinction needed to be made in court rather than by theater managers.
Not everyone agrees.
And then comes the predictable reply:
"The movie industry needs to recognize that their audience isn't the enemy," said Cindy Cohn, general counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit group that specializes in digital rights issues. "They need to stop treating their fans like criminals. . . . What they're doing is extremely unreasonable, coming down on this poor girl who was actually trying to promote their movie."
The "your customers aren't the enemy" reply.
But you can easily argue that recording the entire movie and posting it on a torrent site also "promotes" the movie. Or that posting TV shows not available in certain markets "promote" the TV show. In fact, many make just that argument. Indeed, you can find many examples of how online "piracy" has increased or enhanced loyalty to various music, television shows, and so on.
The only problem is, that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision.
The only way to allow the behavior in this particular instance is to make recording movies in theaters legal, or have ridiculous provisions like time limits on number of seconds or minutes that can "legally" be recorded, that theaters would then have to enforce.
Where do you draw the line?
Copyright may not be perfect, and trade and industry groups may vigorously try to protect content. But that is their right under the current legal framework, and absurd examples don't really serve any function in having any real change, other than being able to be used as a rallying cry for people who DO fundamentally believe that we should be able to record entire movies in movie theaters, or entire TV shows, or entire DVDs, and post them to torrent sites, with no fear of retribution.
One source speculated that Apple wanted to get fixes in users' hands ahead of the Black Hat conference where details of early iPhone vulnerabilities could be revealed.
The battery replacement information was available on the evening of June 29, the same day that iPhones went on sale at 6pm.
Considering the out-of-warranty battery replacement service won't be needed until June 29, 2008, at the earliest, I'd say releasing the information the same day is acceptable.
Not only will Apple not look at anything at all, but you can simply do a "Restore" on the iPhone, erasing everything from it before sending it in for replacement.
I don't even know where you get the idea that you are "sure" Apple will look for illegal content, especially since there is no way to tell whether you own the content or not. It logically makes no sense, and the fact you even suggested they would, or even COULD, do that, shows a good deal of ignorance and paranoia.
Especially considering Apple itself says no data on the iPhone will be preserved, and you can simply and completely erase it and set it back to its factory defaults in seconds before sending it in. (Then, you sync your loaner iPhone with iTunes once, and it will look and behave like your own iPhone, with your own phone number and all of your contacts and data...before returning the loaner, you simply do a Restore on that one as well.)
But the fact that you think Apple will be "looking" for "illegal content", when there is no practical way to do that, is quite amusing to say the least.
No. I spoke to that point. You don't have to be without a phone, and you don't have to replace the battery yourself.
if you haven't moved on to the next device before it even needs a new battery, you can simply get a loaner iPhone as part of the battery replacement program, insert your SIM, sync once with iTunes, and it will then look, act, and feel like your own phone. If you choose not to get a loaner to save $29, that's your choice.
That means I'm a subscriber. Can you say "sub-SCRI-ber"?
That means I get to see stories early. Sometimes I see stories early I'd like to comment on.
Sometimes I write my comment, and it's already done when the article goes live. And then I post it. Sometimes it's even first.
Like a lot of other subscribers do, since that's one of the benefits of being a subscriber.
Sorry to rain on your little paranoid parade.
How about instead of saying garbage like "Apple-apolegetic manner" (sigh) and "potential collusion", you do a little bit of thinking and learning how slashdot's subscriber system works, and then maybe try to point out anything I said that is actually inaccurate in my comment, or perhaps even being more concerned with someone filing a lawsuit over a cell phone battery, instead of anonymously posting your idiocy in response to a sensible comment on a ridiculous abuse of our legal system, which seems to be all the rage with Apple?
If you do, it's your own choice to knowingly be without your phone for X number of days to save $29. Considering most people won't ever even need to replace their battery, and most of those that do will only need to do so every two years or so (or more infrequently), I hardly think that, for someone who is shelling out over $500 for a phone and paying $60/mo minimum for a plan, that $100 to replace the battery and have a loaner phone that literally behaves/looks/acts like your own phone while your battery is being replaced, is a significant hardship.
Especially since you don't have to buy an iPhone in the first place.
So you believe that if a large corporation wanted to buy 10,000 iPhones, Apple would turn them down?
That "large corporation" would know damned well exactly what the iPhone does, doesn't, can, and can't do before buying 10,000 of them.
The point is that people seem to think that Apple is inappropriately targeting or marketing this at enterprise/corporate markets, only to have people disappointed that it's not a drop-in replacement in every respect for a Blackberry, Treo, or Windows Mobile smartphone. The point is that Apple is not only NOT targeting those markets at all, it doesn't promote the iPhone as an enterprise/corporate device or smartphone, and clearly positions it, from marketing, sales, and support perspectives as a consumer device.
And actually, yes, they would "turn them down", right now anyway. There is no way to currently get an iPhone as anything but an individual from Apple, and on anything but individual, personal AT&T accounts. They are NOT selling to education, government, business, or corporate customers. Now, if some customer said, hey, we want 10,000 iPhones (like Apple itself, for example), that customer would probably also be very aware of the iPhones capabilities, and would plan infrastructure and support accordingly, and Apple and AT&T would probably work with them.
But that wasn't at all the point to which I was speaking in my previous post.
Whether Apple expects this or not is beside the point. I'm sure Apple doesn't shed a tear when someone buys a new iPod, but the fact is that many iPod owners do buy a newer iPod before their existing iPod needs a new battery. Now, if they bought a new iPod exclusively because their old iPod needed a new battery, then I guess you'd have a point. But for most people, it's the reverse. The fact that people simply get newer and newer gadgets has been reflected in the cell phone and general "gadget" markets for years. The iPod was no different, and I don't expect the iPhone will be, either. Some people will keep their devices for longer periods of time, and may need batteries. If they do, there are mechanisms to get the battery replaced. If they are really that offended by the replacement options AND know that they're the type of customer who probably will need to replace the battery at some point, then they don't have to buy the product.
As to your other points, no, you shouldn't have to replace any of those things. But the simple truth is that people do, and it's not because they break or because they need new batteries. It's because they want to. It's just like cars. Some people keep the same one for 10 years, others want a new car every 2-3 years. But that doesn't mean the existing vehicle needed to be replaced. It's the customer's decision. As to your last statement, "maybe I'm just out of touch with the average consumer/lemming that enjoys wasting their money on anything disposable," it's not that it's disposable...it's just that some people like to waste money on the newest toys. They TREAT them as disposable, but disposable doesn't imply the old one is broken or unusable - just that they no longer want it. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of old iPods that work perfectly fine - battery and all - sitting in drawers because someone wanted the newer, bigger, better, flashier version. Do vendors drive this mentality to a certain extent? Sure. But it doesn't have to be by making shoddy products. Just by making newer ones people want even more. In fact, most of the brands with the greatest loyalties and repeat buyers are the ones who make the most reliable products overall.
What kind of idiot would buy one of these things knowing that?
The same idiots as those who bought 100 million iPods without user-replaceable batteries.
The batteries really don't need to be replaced that often. My wife still has her first generation 5GB iPod and has never replaced the battery. Yeah, it's about half the life it was when it was new, but it doesn't "need" to have its battery replaced, either. Most people have already gotten new iPods before they even get to the point of thinking about replacing the battery. For those that do want to replace the battery, there are numerous ways to do it via third parties, including do-it-yourself, and there is a simple, defined way to have it replaced by Apple.
You also conveniently ignore the fact that the iPod and iPhone are smaller and lighter and with a higher capacity battery on balance because of the decision to design the unit with a sealed battery. Perhaps that is a more important factor for some than the exact process for replacing the battery every 2-3 years, if ever?
Slashdot Mirror
If you're placing a tap in the US, then you need a warrant.
Even if the communication isn't intercepted in the United States, if foreign communication travels through the United States, under the current law it requires a warrant. In situations such as this, the fact that a portion of a communication (where the two parties are outside the United States) travels through equipment in the United States is incidental.
So it would seem that the methods you appear to be advocating have failed.
(I'll just ignore the huge "war on drugs not 'won', therefore all signals intelligence must be a failure" logical fallacy, here...wow...)
If you believe that signals intelligence is not an extremely valuable tool for foreign intelligence, you:
1.) Don't know your history, and
2.) Are willfully ignorant of the realities of foreign intelligence gathering, by not only the United States, but the intelligence services of the rest of the world.
To say monitoring such communication should require a warrant is laughable.
You have failed to show how the existing law would prevent the US from tapping foreign communications. Before you go supposing that anyone here wants that outcome, start by showing that it's actually a likely one.
Easy.
The current law prevents the US from tapping foreign communications without a warrant:
1.) If one side of the communication is foreign and one or more additional parties masks their identities or the location can't be determined, and
2.) Most crucially, if the communication is routed through communications equipment within the United States.
This is crippling to foreign signals intelligence, which has never required a warrant, and should not saddled with the fundamental requirements of a warrant. If the parties can be reasonably believed to be outside the United States, that traffic is more than fair game for foreign SIGINT.
Your issue seems to be that the US should "just get a warrant" if there is any doubt. That misunderstands the basic principles of foreign intelligence gathering. There is no need for a warrant if the parties are foreign nationals outside of the United States, and the fact that the traffic might at some point travel through equipment in the United States is incidental. For foreign intelligence, we should NOT be erring on the side of getting a warrant. That was not what FISA was ever intended for.
"But this gives the intelligence agencies a blank check!" No, it doesn't. By that logic, any kind of monitoring any intelligence community component ever does should require a warrant. After all, how can we really be sure they aren't monitoring Americans within the United States? First, that's what Congressional oversight is for, and second, that's patently foolish position to take, and ignores the realities of the purposes of foreign intelligence gathering, particularly signals intelligence, and puts the United States at a marked disadvantage to the intelligence agencies of every other modern nation.
This is a much-needed update to an antiquated law that reflects the realities of monitoring foreign communications, which never has required, and never should require, a warrant of any kind from any court.
So, by that logic, all foreign signals intelligence should require a warrant?
If your goal is to cripple US foreign intelligence capability and put us at a marked and distinct disadvantage in countless respects to the intelligence services of the rest of the modern world, then we should put that suggestion on the top of our list.
Monitoring traffic outside of the United States does not require a warrant, never has, and never should.
This fixes FISA so that communication between persons exclusively outside of the United States without a warrant, even if a portion of the communication is physically routed through the US, which, under the current law, would require a warrant.
It's a much-needed update to an antiquated law. The fact that you think monitoring communications between foreigners outside of the United States should require any kind of warrant - and that you got modded up for it - speaks volumes.
See this Newsweek story for the issue at hand.
What, do you think these foreign nationals go around, wearing t-shirts, saying, "Hi, I'm a foreign national engaged in terrorism against America!"? How does one differentiate between someone who is a terrorist and someone who is not?
It doesn't matter.
A warrant is not required to listen to communications between foreign nationals outside of the United States, regardless of what kind of activity they are involved in. This is communication the United States has always been free to monitor at will.
The problem is that now some communication, even between foreigners outside of the United States, gets routed through networking or switching equipment inside the United States, which, under the outdated FISA rules, would require a warrant.
This fixes that problem, and for you to suggest the United States shouldn't be engaged in aggressive global foreign intelligence gathering and threat monitoring is ridiculous. And yes, you should have to explain why this update to an antiquated law makes you uncomfortable. It has NOTHING to do with jumping at shadows. This idea that people only support things like this out of fear is incorrect. This is fair-game surveillance of foreign communication which is perfectly legitimate on the global stage and has gone on for decades. Pretending the United States shouldn't be doing it is sticking your head in the sand to unprecedented depths.
It's because listening to foreign communications (communications between two parties outside of the US) doesn't require a warrant, never has, nor should it.
The problem this addresses is that sometimes, foreign communications (including communications exclusively between individuals outside of the United States) now travels through switching or network equipment within the United States, which would require a warrant under the current antiquated rules.
See this Newsweek article for a basic overview of the issue. Some excerpts:
The post-Watergate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required a warrant for eavesdropping on people in the U.S. But after 9/11, the administration asserted that warrants weren't needed to surveil communications involving suspected terrorists even inside the U.S. The controversy over "warrantless wiretapping" made intel officials gun-shy about eavesdropping even on messages they would have regarded as fair game before 9/11.
According to both administration and congressional officials (anonymous when discussing such issues), the White House and intelligence czar's office are now urgently trying to negotiate a legal fix with Congress that would make it easier for NSA to eavesdrop on e-mails and phone calls where all parties are located outside the U.S., even if at some point the message signal crosses into U.S. territory.
[...]
Much of the electronic communications NSA once pored over, between two parties communicating with each other outside the U.S., used to travel via satellite or radiolike signal, leaving NSA free to pluck the messages out of the air. Technological innovations, however, have shifted more and more traffic--both e-mail and telephone calls--to hard-wired or fiberoptic networks, many of which have critical switching or transit facilities inside the U.S. Therefore, intel-collection officials concluded that FISA court authorizations should be obtained to eavesdrop not just on messages where at least one party is inside the country, but also for eavesdropping on messages between two parties overseas that pass through U.S. communications gear.
Some would suggest that a year in prison for video taping 20 seconds of a film, with no intent to distribute, would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, given the nature of the crime.
That's not the issue.
She won't be going to jail.
Nothing will likely happen to her at all.
The case will likely be thrown out.
The question is whether the theater was right to press misdemeanor charges for recording in the movie theater, which is against a local and/or state law, and whether the theater should be saddled with the discretion of determining what kinds of recording in theaters is "okay" or "innocent", when any recording at all is prohibited by law and their own policy.
Nowhere in my post was I arguing for her to go to jail for a year for doing this. In fact, I think NOTHING will (or should) happen to her. But that is for a judge and a jury to decide, not the movie theater.
I predict nothing will happen to her as well. In fact, I think that the charges will be dropped before she even gets to court, at the insistence of the local prosecuting attorney.
The point of my post wasn't to say she deserved any punishment. It was to point out that the theater can't be expected to make these determinations.
Not in the case of fair use it's not. And - on the facts presented - this looks like a clear example of fair use.
No, it's actually not clear in the least. Fair use is very subjective. I will personally agree with you that a 20 second clip from anything that is more than an hour long is more than likely going to fall under fair use.
But it isn't up to the theater to decide or police that in the least.
(And also a clear example of violating the theater's no-camera policy, but that's not a criminal matter.)
Actually, many jurisdictions make it illegal to bring recording devices into theaters. The theater isn't enforcing copyright; it's enforcing its own no tolerance no camera policy, coupled with laws that make it possible to press charges for recording in a movie theater. While such laws may exist partly or mostly because of copyright, copyright isn't what is at issue here.
I predict this case will be thrown out or settled in short order.
As do I, but...
It's got several serious problems. First, there's a strong fair use argument.
Actually, fair use is mostly targeted at education and research. Satire, parody, and review come next.
But I'd agree that a 20 second clip could be argued to fall under "fair use", even if the only purpose was to show it to her little brother. (Why not use the trailer...?)
Second, the theater owner does not hold copyright on the movie, so may have no standing to bring charges of copyright infringement.
Irrelevant. First, they are in fact the de facto agent for the copyright holder. Second, they aren't bringing copyright infringement charges. While the article doesn't specifically say, it appears to be a local ordinance prohibiting recording in movie theaters.
Third, the actual harm done by this person is very close to nil.
By this person. But that's not up to the theater to decide.
Since most of your post seemed to be dedicated to talking about how this girl won't or shouldn't be punished, I agree. But that is for the legal system to decide, not the theater. And that's exactly what is going to happen.
Is it even the theater's responsibility to have customers arrested for taping, in the first place? As others pointed out, the theater is NOT the content owner. The only valid reason I can see them enforcing rules against videotaping would be an argument that it disturbs others trying to watch the movie. (Who wants to sit behind someone who keeps holding a camcorder up, blocking part of your view, for example?) Kicking them out of the movie should suffice, in any case.
The theater is acting as an agent for the content owners, which is why they enforce this. There are also many laws, local and otherwise, against recording in theaters, and many theater companies have policies that require customers be kicked out (and the applicable contents of their camcorder erased), and/or the police to be called when a patron is recording in the theater.
That being said, yes - I think it's *quite* reasonable for ushers to determine if someone is sitting there trying to videotape a large piece of the movie or not! Basically, you give the benefit of the doubt until you see some idiot sitting there, more interested in taping the movie than in watching it, and they don't put the camcorder away after you've come back down the aisle several times. Having someone arrested after the first 20 SECONDS they're seen with the camcorder out?? That's harassment!
It shouldn't have to be up to the theater to have to decide or determine that at all (aside from the fact that I don't think there is any reason to bring a *camcorder* into a movie theater). Sure, the theater could display some discretion and just say, "Hey, put that away," or say that's not allowed, or kick the person out. But they don't have to do that, and shouldn't be expected to. That's what the police and the legal system will decide.
So I read the comments in the recent DRM article here on slashdot.
Many make the case that DRM is worthless, because only one person needs to break it and then the content can be freely distributed. Okay, I buy that.
Well, that's the same case here. The problem is that you can't target redistribution. What are we going to do, "shut down" BitTorrent? Impossible. You stop it at the source, which is recording in theaters, which is where the recordings made in theaters, well, come from.
So while I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, you and I both know it's impossible to "target" internet redistribution of the content. I understand that you are taking a fundamentally different viewpoint, and see no problem with any losses or negative impact that might be sustained by, e.g., content owners, because you believe recording anything you see is a fundamental civil or human right. I firmly disagree with that position, and believe that legal frameworks are allowable to prevent redistribution of copyrighted content, as well as what enables such redistribution.
What you're arguing implies that recording whole movies in the theater is acceptable for personal use. I can almost agree with that. The only problem is that there is no way whatsoever to know what will become of that content. Is that the person who wants to watch a camcorded version of the movie at home for private consumption (frankly, very, very unlikely)? Or is that the person who is going to upload it to BitTorrent for his little ego stroke or points with his movie piracy group (very, very likely)?
I don't believe wholesale recording in theaters is fair or should be allowed, and therefore no recording in theaters can really be allowable from a practical standpoint, and that's where our disagreement will lie.
Because:
1.) It's not the theater's responsibility to do that, and
2.) Fair use doesn't actually have specific time limits, and it's very subjective. (See here.)
Even if we did decide on some length of time, which is extremely unlikely, I can't believe you think it would be reasonable for it to be the job of theaters to verify the length of recorded content on recording devices.
So, what happens when nothing happens to this girl, then?
Will you be back here pontificating about the "test of civilization" and making thinly-veiled comparisons of the US to despotic and backwards systems of "justice"?
No, because the resolution of this, which is likely to be that little or nothing happens to her after a judge and jury review the situation - you know, what happens here in this backward place - will never be posted here, and we'll just continue to feel righteously indignant about such a grave injustice.
You are completely wrong.
The time shifting case allows the recording of entire TV shows, movies, etc., in a noncommercial home environment for personal use.
That is not "fair use". Fair use is an entirely different concept, and is widely understood to NOT allow the recording of entire copyrighted content wholesale. You can use small clips, and that's it. And what constitutes a "small clip" does not have a specific definition, but it is most certainly NOT the entirety of the content, e.g., in an educational context:
III. Amount
Amount is measured both quantitatively and qualitatively. No exact measures of allowable quantity exist in the law. Quantity must be evaluated relative to the length of the entire original and in light of the amount needed to serve a proper objective. One court has ruled that a journal article alone is an entire work; any copying of an entire work usually weighs heavily against fair use. Pictures generate serious controversies, because a user nearly always wants the full image, or the full "amount." On the other hand, a "thumbnail," low-resolution version of the image might be an acceptable "amount" to serve an education or research purpose. Motion pictures are also problematic, because even short clips may borrow the most extraordinary or creative elements. One may also reproduce only a small portion of any work, but still take "the heart of the work." This concept is a qualitative measure that may weigh against fair use.
There is quite a bit of information about the "short clip" provisions for fair use, which are subjective, all around various legal and other sites on the internet. But the bottom line is that it is NEVER all of the content, and is always a very small portion of the total content.
"The only problem is, that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision. "
The theater wasn't the "content owner."
The theater is acting as an agent for a trade association, which is in turn acting as an agent for a movie studio, an so on.
That's why they are enforcing this; they are effectively an agent for the content owners.
And the theatre owner doesn't understand the concept of "de minimus" - the law doesn't deal in trifles. They're just being dickheads. A 20-second clip isn't a clear case of copyright infringement, since copyright allows for short exerpts to be used without the copyright owners' permission, for example, in reviews.
I already spoke to that in my post.
Let me be clear: I agree that the theater had the discretion to ignore it, simply kick the person out, etc. And they may have been being dickheads, after the person explained what she was doing, assuming she did.
But why should the theater owner be put in that position? Camcorders and recording aren't allowed in movie theaters. That's what she was doing, and she even admits that it wasn't incidental (e.g., recording of a group of friends that just happened to be in the theater); she was recording the movie itself.
Talking about fair use and so on and how long clips can be is so out of the purview of what the theater should be dealing with that it's utterly ridiculous. As I said, the only way to solve this is to:
1.) Have recording in theaters be completely legal, or
2.) Specify the length of clips allowable, and have theaters police the length of clips recorded in theaters.
Do you really think 2.) is possible, and that 1.) is fair?
Actually, I just happened to see a free pass to a screening of some movie the other day.
On the pass, it specifically said:
- That customers were subject to search, and
- That any and all audio or video recording equipment, or any device with such capabilities, including phones, PDAs, etc., were strictly prohibited.
Granted, most customers in any theater at any given time probably do have camera phones. But again, this is a case where you can't really make a distinction between what is a "camcorder" versus a PDA that just happens to have enough memory to record the whole movie. If you come in with a Treo, no one is going to say anything. If you come in with your collapsible tripod asking for assistive hearing devices, or you get caught with a video camera out in the theater, you're going to get nailed.
I agree that this situation is ridiculous, and when it goes to trial, she probably (hopefully?) won't be punished. But even in this case it wasn't like the recording was incidental. The theater and others involved can't guess intent. Sure, they had the "discretion" to not do anything, but why is that in their lap? How are they to decide who's going to upload movies and who is "recording a 20 second clip to get their little brother excited"? The only alternative is to make it all legal, and that doesn't make any sense either.
If videotaping in a movie theater is illegal, and if that is what occurred in this instance - and indeed, the person in question admits just that - then why is this acceptable? Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"?
Isn't that for a judge and jury to decide?
Would it be acceptable to record twenty seconds? Two minutes? Twenty minutes? The entire movie?
(Believe it or not, there actually could be an answer here..."fair use" does have specific provisions for how long clips can be, what they can be used for, and so on.)
I realize most here on slashdot probably won't agree with this, and think that "copyright", or at least its current form in the US, which is the basis for prohibiting things like recording in movie theaters, ought to be done away with completely.
But if any claim on content ownership is supportable and valid in any legal framework, mustn't there necessarily be mechanisms to enforce related laws and prohibit its violation? And when there is a violation, and an agent that is party to the violation chooses to press charges for what may be the violation of a local, state, or federal statute in various circumstances, shouldn't a judge and jury be the ones to decide the outcome?
The article says:
"We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable," he said. "Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing."
Macdowell said the trade association, which represents 28,000 screens nationwide, realizes there is a difference between "egregious acts of stealing our movies and more innocent ones." But he said that distinction needed to be made in court rather than by theater managers.
Not everyone agrees.
And then comes the predictable reply:
"The movie industry needs to recognize that their audience isn't the enemy," said Cindy Cohn, general counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit group that specializes in digital rights issues. "They need to stop treating their fans like criminals. . . . What they're doing is extremely unreasonable, coming down on this poor girl who was actually trying to promote their movie."
The "your customers aren't the enemy" reply.
But you can easily argue that recording the entire movie and posting it on a torrent site also "promotes" the movie. Or that posting TV shows not available in certain markets "promote" the TV show. In fact, many make just that argument. Indeed, you can find many examples of how online "piracy" has increased or enhanced loyalty to various music, television shows, and so on.
The only problem is, that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision.
The only way to allow the behavior in this particular instance is to make recording movies in theaters legal, or have ridiculous provisions like time limits on number of seconds or minutes that can "legally" be recorded, that theaters would then have to enforce.
Where do you draw the line?
Copyright may not be perfect, and trade and industry groups may vigorously try to protect content. But that is their right under the current legal framework, and absurd examples don't really serve any function in having any real change, other than being able to be used as a rallying cry for people who DO fundamentally believe that we should be able to record entire movies in movie theaters, or entire TV shows, or entire DVDs, and post them to torrent sites, with no fear of retribution.
And I don't think either extreme makes sense.
One source speculated that Apple wanted to get fixes in users' hands ahead of the Black Hat conference where details of early iPhone vulnerabilities could be revealed.
And this would be surprising why, exactly?
Is this not a good thing?
Actually, that's incorrect.
The battery replacement information was available on the evening of June 29, the same day that iPhones went on sale at 6pm.
Considering the out-of-warranty battery replacement service won't be needed until June 29, 2008, at the earliest, I'd say releasing the information the same day is acceptable.
No.
Not only will Apple not look at anything at all, but you can simply do a "Restore" on the iPhone, erasing everything from it before sending it in for replacement.
I don't even know where you get the idea that you are "sure" Apple will look for illegal content, especially since there is no way to tell whether you own the content or not. It logically makes no sense, and the fact you even suggested they would, or even COULD, do that, shows a good deal of ignorance and paranoia.
Especially considering Apple itself says no data on the iPhone will be preserved, and you can simply and completely erase it and set it back to its factory defaults in seconds before sending it in. (Then, you sync your loaner iPhone with iTunes once, and it will look and behave like your own iPhone, with your own phone number and all of your contacts and data...before returning the loaner, you simply do a Restore on that one as well.)
But the fact that you think Apple will be "looking" for "illegal content", when there is no practical way to do that, is quite amusing to say the least.
No. I spoke to that point. You don't have to be without a phone, and you don't have to replace the battery yourself.
if you haven't moved on to the next device before it even needs a new battery, you can simply get a loaner iPhone as part of the battery replacement program, insert your SIM, sync once with iTunes, and it will then look, act, and feel like your own phone. If you choose not to get a loaner to save $29, that's your choice.
See that little * next to my name?
That means I'm a subscriber. Can you say "sub-SCRI-ber"?
That means I get to see stories early. Sometimes I see stories early I'd like to comment on.
Sometimes I write my comment, and it's already done when the article goes live. And then I post it. Sometimes it's even first.
Like a lot of other subscribers do, since that's one of the benefits of being a subscriber.
Sorry to rain on your little paranoid parade.
How about instead of saying garbage like "Apple-apolegetic manner" (sigh) and "potential collusion", you do a little bit of thinking and learning how slashdot's subscriber system works, and then maybe try to point out anything I said that is actually inaccurate in my comment, or perhaps even being more concerned with someone filing a lawsuit over a cell phone battery, instead of anonymously posting your idiocy in response to a sensible comment on a ridiculous abuse of our legal system, which seems to be all the rage with Apple?
You don't have to be left without a phone.
Repeat after me:
You don't have to be left without a phone.
You don't have to be left without a phone.
If you do, it's your own choice to knowingly be without your phone for X number of days to save $29. Considering most people won't ever even need to replace their battery, and most of those that do will only need to do so every two years or so (or more infrequently), I hardly think that, for someone who is shelling out over $500 for a phone and paying $60/mo minimum for a plan, that $100 to replace the battery and have a loaner phone that literally behaves/looks/acts like your own phone while your battery is being replaced, is a significant hardship.
Especially since you don't have to buy an iPhone in the first place.
Next argument?
So you believe that if a large corporation wanted to buy 10,000 iPhones, Apple would turn them down?
That "large corporation" would know damned well exactly what the iPhone does, doesn't, can, and can't do before buying 10,000 of them.
The point is that people seem to think that Apple is inappropriately targeting or marketing this at enterprise/corporate markets, only to have people disappointed that it's not a drop-in replacement in every respect for a Blackberry, Treo, or Windows Mobile smartphone. The point is that Apple is not only NOT targeting those markets at all, it doesn't promote the iPhone as an enterprise/corporate device or smartphone, and clearly positions it, from marketing, sales, and support perspectives as a consumer device.
And actually, yes, they would "turn them down", right now anyway. There is no way to currently get an iPhone as anything but an individual from Apple, and on anything but individual, personal AT&T accounts. They are NOT selling to education, government, business, or corporate customers. Now, if some customer said, hey, we want 10,000 iPhones (like Apple itself, for example), that customer would probably also be very aware of the iPhones capabilities, and would plan infrastructure and support accordingly, and Apple and AT&T would probably work with them.
But that wasn't at all the point to which I was speaking in my previous post.
Whether Apple expects this or not is beside the point. I'm sure Apple doesn't shed a tear when someone buys a new iPod, but the fact is that many iPod owners do buy a newer iPod before their existing iPod needs a new battery. Now, if they bought a new iPod exclusively because their old iPod needed a new battery, then I guess you'd have a point. But for most people, it's the reverse. The fact that people simply get newer and newer gadgets has been reflected in the cell phone and general "gadget" markets for years. The iPod was no different, and I don't expect the iPhone will be, either. Some people will keep their devices for longer periods of time, and may need batteries. If they do, there are mechanisms to get the battery replaced. If they are really that offended by the replacement options AND know that they're the type of customer who probably will need to replace the battery at some point, then they don't have to buy the product.
As to your other points, no, you shouldn't have to replace any of those things. But the simple truth is that people do, and it's not because they break or because they need new batteries. It's because they want to. It's just like cars. Some people keep the same one for 10 years, others want a new car every 2-3 years. But that doesn't mean the existing vehicle needed to be replaced. It's the customer's decision. As to your last statement, "maybe I'm just out of touch with the average consumer/lemming that enjoys wasting their money on anything disposable," it's not that it's disposable...it's just that some people like to waste money on the newest toys. They TREAT them as disposable, but disposable doesn't imply the old one is broken or unusable - just that they no longer want it. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of old iPods that work perfectly fine - battery and all - sitting in drawers because someone wanted the newer, bigger, better, flashier version. Do vendors drive this mentality to a certain extent? Sure. But it doesn't have to be by making shoddy products. Just by making newer ones people want even more. In fact, most of the brands with the greatest loyalties and repeat buyers are the ones who make the most reliable products overall.
What kind of idiot would buy one of these things knowing that?
The same idiots as those who bought 100 million iPods without user-replaceable batteries.
The batteries really don't need to be replaced that often. My wife still has her first generation 5GB iPod and has never replaced the battery. Yeah, it's about half the life it was when it was new, but it doesn't "need" to have its battery replaced, either. Most people have already gotten new iPods before they even get to the point of thinking about replacing the battery. For those that do want to replace the battery, there are numerous ways to do it via third parties, including do-it-yourself, and there is a simple, defined way to have it replaced by Apple.
You also conveniently ignore the fact that the iPod and iPhone are smaller and lighter and with a higher capacity battery on balance because of the decision to design the unit with a sealed battery. Perhaps that is a more important factor for some than the exact process for replacing the battery every 2-3 years, if ever?