Poor analogy. You can just change a simple setting to see/not see the pages in a matter of seconds. If she throws out your books, you can't get them back without re-buying them. That's not even close - voluntary censorship isn't a crime (they don't force you - it's an option you control).
Letters like a C&D are sent with a timeframe - either they comply or it will go to court as of a certain date (typically a month in Small Claims Court). Basically, that letter (which should be sent with a Return Receipt, etc., is proof that they were made aware of the issue and were given time to resolve it. Without it, the court may just tell you that you have to give them a chance and throw out the case.
I'm no lawyer, but I was trained in Small Claims Court counselling (don't ask).
Perhaps it would help to have a public input phase - say a week during which freshly approved applications are posted on the web, and the public has a chance to review and weigh in with prior art, etc. If it was nicely indexed and searchable, helpful/.ers and others with free time might be able to make a difference.
In another decade, will we really use "TV"s anymore? I expect computers to take over eventually anyway, so will this have any real impact? You can be sure the internet TV stations will be DRM-ed and such, so I don't see this as a huge step in any way.
Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, yet children are constantly warned of their 'evil', correct. Any surprise then that drinking and smoking are so prevalent? Seems that my logic applies quite nicely, no? The only reason they aren't crimes is their social acceptability - they are both too deep in our culture to be taken out by law right now, exactly as prohibition failed last century. The people will simply not accept the loss of their vices - alcohol and cigs are still legal, and there is no short supply of people who want pot legal (mostly pot users, to be sure).
Make no mistake, alcohol should logically be illegal, and pot is indeed far less of a threat than it is perceived to be (thank mid-century propoganda for that), though it is by no means innocuous.
Exactly when did I say or imply that prisons " prisons are more effective than proper education"? You're a little trigger-happy, it would appear. I don't think prisons are the best solution in all cases (I'm quite against the Rockefellar Drug Laws, and am not opposed to controlled and limited legalization of marijuana), and I most certainly think education is the best route, but they aren't mutually exclusive. Without legal backing, all the education in the world won't do much in the modern USA - it's just hypocritical, confusing, and wasteful to tell people doing certain things are wrong, but that it's okay to do them anyway.
1. Harming yourself isn't necessarily legal. Suicide is illegal, and you won't be released from a psychiatric institution if you're a danger to yourself or others.
2. Drug use has other victims. Do you have any idea how many people die as a result of drunk driving and crime related to buying and selling drugs? These aren't all victimless crimes. True, doing a bit of pot in the privacy of your home and not driving for a few hours is fine, but that's not the issue here - most illegal drugs we're talking about do result in financial or physical losses to non-users every day.
Vigilante justice may be bad, but when there is no police force, it's all that stands between people and anarchy.
This may be a bad precedent (and illegal), but without any effective legal methods to stop the 'bad guys', it's essentially all we've got. This is a full assault - hackers, crackers, script-kiddies, scammers, spammers, etc. are not holding back, they're not stopping, and they've got little resistance. Legal methods (anti-viral programs, patches) aren't doing much to stop them - it's not a war, it's a slaughter. The vigilante white-hats aren't the best thing to have by any means, but I don't see much help in other corners. They may make things worse, but they may also be the big guns that can level the playing field (or win). Show me a an effective legal army, and I'll be against this, too. Until then, someone has to fight back, no?
They're still testing effects on humans, but like x-rays, I bet they're probably not going to be safe for constant/consistant use (like checking before games, etc).
Firstly, by your financial logic, on-the-spot executions would be the best answer, since bullets are so cheap.
Secondly, there are 'terrible social costs" for every criminal imprisoned and given a record. What about statutory rape - you don't even have to know you've committed the crime (17 year old could tell you they're 18), and you have to alert neighbors that you're moving in to the area for the rest of your life. Don't you think a shoplifter's parents would prefer they get counselling than a record? Unhappiness does not legality merit.
"Ecstasy... is an SSRI, like Prozac" "LEGALIZE IT!"
You've overlooked something quite simple here - Prozac isn't generally legal. The only legal uses are when it used for treatment as prescribed by a licesed practitioner (doctor) for an illness that is diagnosed by a licenced practitioner, dispensed by a licensed pharmacy for individual use. Prozac is not legal to be used for recreational purposes, and allowing others access to your legally acquired supply is also illegal.
A few days after I first updated to RealOne (when it first came out), I realized what crap it was. Since then, I've been using RealPlayer 8, which can handle all of the files, but with less hassle. Rather than go for illegal (?) alternatives, you can just go to their Legacy page (which they keep moving around - for a long time the only way to get there was to act like you couldn't get RealOne to work on your machine in the Help pages). For now, the "BlackJack" page is still there.
They show +/- 2 pages from the one the searched phase is on (total of 5 pages). However, a cake recipe isn't going to be more than that (in fact, many are only a half-page in big cookbooks). Ditto for most reference materials, which unlike novels don't depend on a storyline, but rather looking up small chunks of info.
So you're going to photocopy 1304 pages? I think spending the extra money (though it is an extremely high amount) might be a wiser choice. You could get a part time/temp job and spend less time just earning the cash than photocopying all of that.
Should this really be opt-out, though? I would think not. An author shouldn't have to take extra steps to prevent companies from making their work freely available. If that were the case, then other websites could keep doing it, and the authors would have to track them down one-at-a-time and hope to catch them all. I think it would need to be an opt-in system to prevent such absurdity.
If it's a recipe from a cookbook, it would make sense that you'd want it directly from the book, rather than finding something potentially similar from some other source.
"Amazon can do this without anybody's permission - they're not making content available to the public..."
Exactly what do you call the text from a book? If the pages/text aren't its content, then I guess it doesn't have any. So much for literature.
"...merely letting the public find the right product to then buy" Consider the ramifications of your statement: I should be able to make tracks from a CD available for free, so that others can determine whether they want to buy it. Whether you think that's the way it "should" be or not, it's clearly not legal.
"From my understanding, no content is being sold, or made available, outside of book form." Once again, I ask you what the content of a book is, if not the pages or text.
You forgot the most important point: people (esp. kids) don't care about consequences; they're all immortal in their own eyes. It's no secret that drugs, smoking, drinking, etc. will kill you, but that doesn't stop many people. Same with condoms, of course - everyone convinces themself that they won't be in the 20%.
Slashdot Mirror
Poor analogy. You can just change a simple setting to see/not see the pages in a matter of seconds. If she throws out your books, you can't get them back without re-buying them. That's not even close - voluntary censorship isn't a crime (they don't force you - it's an option you control).
Letters like a C&D are sent with a timeframe - either they comply or it will go to court as of a certain date (typically a month in Small Claims Court). Basically, that letter (which should be sent with a Return Receipt, etc., is proof that they were made aware of the issue and were given time to resolve it. Without it, the court may just tell you that you have to give them a chance and throw out the case.
I'm no lawyer, but I was trained in Small Claims Court counselling (don't ask).
"You don't get any free content in return."
What about the "Gator E-Wallet"? Technically it is a service/product.
Perhaps it would help to have a public input phase - say a week during which freshly approved applications are posted on the web, and the public has a chance to review and weigh in with prior art, etc. If it was nicely indexed and searchable, helpful /.ers and others with free time might be able to make a difference.
In another decade, will we really use "TV"s anymore? I expect computers to take over eventually anyway, so will this have any real impact? You can be sure the internet TV stations will be DRM-ed and such, so I don't see this as a huge step in any way.
Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, yet children are constantly warned of their 'evil', correct. Any surprise then that drinking and smoking are so prevalent? Seems that my logic applies quite nicely, no? The only reason they aren't crimes is their social acceptability - they are both too deep in our culture to be taken out by law right now, exactly as prohibition failed last century. The people will simply not accept the loss of their vices - alcohol and cigs are still legal, and there is no short supply of people who want pot legal (mostly pot users, to be sure).
Make no mistake, alcohol should logically be illegal, and pot is indeed far less of a threat than it is perceived to be (thank mid-century propoganda for that), though it is by no means innocuous.
If you had a job like that, your chances of being given mouth-to-mouth are pretty low, too.
Are soap and deoderant a write-off for Nasal Rangers?
Exactly when did I say or imply that prisons " prisons are more effective than proper education"? You're a little trigger-happy, it would appear. I don't think prisons are the best solution in all cases (I'm quite against the Rockefellar Drug Laws, and am not opposed to controlled and limited legalization of marijuana), and I most certainly think education is the best route, but they aren't mutually exclusive. Without legal backing, all the education in the world won't do much in the modern USA - it's just hypocritical, confusing, and wasteful to tell people doing certain things are wrong, but that it's okay to do them anyway.
Two problems (yet again).
1. Harming yourself isn't necessarily legal. Suicide is illegal, and you won't be released from a psychiatric institution if you're a danger to yourself or others.
2. Drug use has other victims. Do you have any idea how many people die as a result of drunk driving and crime related to buying and selling drugs? These aren't all victimless crimes. True, doing a bit of pot in the privacy of your home and not driving for a few hours is fine, but that's not the issue here - most illegal drugs we're talking about do result in financial or physical losses to non-users every day.
Vigilante justice may be bad, but when there is no police force, it's all that stands between people and anarchy.
This may be a bad precedent (and illegal), but without any effective legal methods to stop the 'bad guys', it's essentially all we've got. This is a full assault - hackers, crackers, script-kiddies, scammers, spammers, etc. are not holding back, they're not stopping, and they've got little resistance. Legal methods (anti-viral programs, patches) aren't doing much to stop them - it's not a war, it's a slaughter. The vigilante white-hats aren't the best thing to have by any means, but I don't see much help in other corners. They may make things worse, but they may also be the big guns that can level the playing field (or win). Show me a an effective legal army, and I'll be against this, too. Until then, someone has to fight back, no?
They're still testing effects on humans, but like x-rays, I bet they're probably not going to be safe for constant/consistant use (like checking before games, etc).
Two problems with your 'argument'...
Firstly, by your financial logic, on-the-spot executions would be the best answer, since bullets are so cheap.
Secondly, there are 'terrible social costs" for every criminal imprisoned and given a record. What about statutory rape - you don't even have to know you've committed the crime (17 year old could tell you they're 18), and you have to alert neighbors that you're moving in to the area for the rest of your life. Don't you think a shoplifter's parents would prefer they get counselling than a record? Unhappiness does not legality merit.
"Ecstasy ... is an SSRI, like Prozac"
"LEGALIZE IT!"
You've overlooked something quite simple here - Prozac isn't generally legal. The only legal uses are when it used for treatment as prescribed by a licesed practitioner (doctor) for an illness that is diagnosed by a licenced practitioner, dispensed by a licensed pharmacy for individual use. Prozac is not legal to be used for recreational purposes, and allowing others access to your legally acquired supply is also illegal.
A few days after I first updated to RealOne (when it first came out), I realized what crap it was. Since then, I've been using RealPlayer 8, which can handle all of the files, but with less hassle. Rather than go for illegal (?) alternatives, you can just go to their Legacy page (which they keep moving around - for a long time the only way to get there was to act like you couldn't get RealOne to work on your machine in the Help pages). For now, the "BlackJack" page is still there.
Automatic sheet feeder? We're talking about a book here - you'd need a robot to turn pages.
They show +/- 2 pages from the one the searched phase is on (total of 5 pages). However, a cake recipe isn't going to be more than that (in fact, many are only a half-page in big cookbooks). Ditto for most reference materials, which unlike novels don't depend on a storyline, but rather looking up small chunks of info.
Many major music stores make whole CDs available in-store, but I think the record companies authorize those kinds of things.
So you're going to photocopy 1304 pages? I think spending the extra money (though it is an extremely high amount) might be a wiser choice. You could get a part time/temp job and spend less time just earning the cash than photocopying all of that.
Should this really be opt-out, though? I would think not. An author shouldn't have to take extra steps to prevent companies from making their work freely available. If that were the case, then other websites could keep doing it, and the authors would have to track them down one-at-a-time and hope to catch them all. I think it would need to be an opt-in system to prevent such absurdity.
If it's a recipe from a cookbook, it would make sense that you'd want it directly from the book, rather than finding something potentially similar from some other source.
"Amazon can do this without anybody's permission - they're not making content available to the public..."
Exactly what do you call the text from a book? If the pages/text aren't its content, then I guess it doesn't have any. So much for literature.
"...merely letting the public find the right product to then buy"
Consider the ramifications of your statement: I should be able to make tracks from a CD available for free, so that others can determine whether they want to buy it. Whether you think that's the way it "should" be or not, it's clearly not legal.
"From my understanding, no content is being sold, or made available, outside of book form."
Once again, I ask you what the content of a book is, if not the pages or text.
"... tell them the truth about video Piracy and how it ... leads to severe tooth decay."
Tooth decay? What about blindness and hairy palms?
Uzbekistan? He's got to be the only person in his town (one of a few thousand in the US, no doubt) who knows of its existence. I'm impressed.
You forgot the most important point: people (esp. kids) don't care about consequences; they're all immortal in their own eyes. It's no secret that drugs, smoking, drinking, etc. will kill you, but that doesn't stop many people. Same with condoms, of course - everyone convinces themself that they won't be in the 20%.