Theaters are private property and it should be up to the property owners to make rules about cellphone usage, etc. If the owners of the theater are ok with people using cellphones, it is none of the city's business.
Funny, that's what I say about spam and I get flamed for it.
If you didn't ask for it, it is spam. Asking for it means submitting your e-mail address and specifically requesting the information.
Seems like it's pretty easy to avoid spam, by that definition. I wonder though, why do you put your email address on slashdot if you don't want to receive mail which you have not specifically requested?
i think privacy in the home and on personal property is important, but privacy on public grounds (airports, roads) should yield to safety and fairness.
I agree. You have a lessened expectation of privacy in an airport than in your home. But the privacy of my own thoughts is the most important privacy of all. You should never be allowed to analyze my brainwaves without my uncoerced written permission.
There's a big difference between giving people who currently holding their works as trade secrets a reason to release them and giving works already released by authors who won't be releasing any more an additional stay under copyright.
Actually that brings up a key difference between the CTEA and the previous retrospective copyright extensions. Before January 1, 1978, works were not automatically protected by copyright, they needed to either be published or registered. Since 1978, all works are automatically copyrighted. So while the previous retrospective extensions may have served to provide incentives to publish previously unpublished and uncopyrighted works, that's not the case for the CTEA.
Of course, it could be argued that one purpose of the CTEA is to provide incentive to publish works which were created before 1976 but were never published. I mean, it's a stretch, but it's possible.
You make a very good point though about the first congress. I hope Eldred has already made that point, or is planning on it.
I wonder if you could use google to find out the expected correlation.
Sex: 76,200,000 results
Sexy: 15,900,000 results
Sexy Sex: 2,010,000 results
We know that google indexes 2,469,940,685 pages. So P(Sex)=3.1% (wow, 3% of web pages contain the word sex). P(Sexy)=0.64%. P(Sex & Sexy)=0.81%. P(Sexy|Sex)=2.6%. P(Sex|Sexy)=12.6%.
The point is that each person's inbox would be uniquely filtered based on the general content of emails they receive.
Then either this man has discovered artificial intelligence or he is being overly optimistic about how well an automated system such as this is going to work. If you can separate spam from non-spam based on the content of the message against an active human attacker, you've just passed the turing test, as far as I'm concerned.
Your filter's usefulness is inversely proportional to the number of people who use it, since it is trivial to bypass by a spammer who knows its details.
Why do you need your customers to be able to send unsolicited email anyway? Set up a web based feedback form for the initial contact, and send replies from a uniquely generated address. Change your contact.html page to a php script which includes a clickthrough EULA which promises not to spam, and generates a unique address which identifies the person's IP address. Then if they harvest the address anyway, shut off that address and sue 'em.
There's simply no excuse for not being able to filter out 99.9% of your spam. Be smart, not stupid.
Revoking the CTEA extension of existing copyright would disrupt business models, including various mergers and other transactions that placed value on IP. AOL/TW is, of course, a prime example of such mergers. It is also argued that it would reduce the anticipated export revenue for the US. These arguably suggest that coyright extension is good for the US, but they don't address the constitutionality, and are thus moot for the Supreme Court.
Isn't avoiding the disruption of business models necessary and proper to promoting the progress of science and the useful arts?
Every law that established or extended copyright did so retrospectively; revoking the CTEA would cast doubt on other copyright laws. Neither point bears directly on whether such retrospective extension is constitutional. Clearly the plaintiffs are not required to attack all non-constitutional laws in the same action.
It goes to the intent of the framers. Do you think that the framers intended for retrospective copyright laws to be unconstitutional, then immediately went and voted in the first congress for a retrospective copyright law? That makes no sense.
In the light of the increasing cost of production and distribution of movies and music, an enduring revenue stream from previous works is required as "seed corn"; hence, retrospective extention of copyright does stimulate the Arts, in as much as the same people and organizations will create repeatedly. This argument has some facial merit, but neglects the bootstrap issue in favour of business interests.
Some facial merit is all that's needed. Congress makes the laws, not the Supreme Court, and if there is any reasonable way that Congress could come to the conclusion that this law is necessary and proper to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, then the Supreme Court must accepts Congress' determination.
The brief says that the specification of an end (promotion of Arts and Sciences) does not restrict the execution of the power to legislate copyright. It compares this to the ends specified for taxation (common defence and general welfare) and military (to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repell invasions) and how much deference is given to Congress with respect to these.
That's a crappy argument, but if the government can show that the law could promote arts and sciences, then it's moot.
The CTEA apparently both harmonizes with and places the US competitively with respect to international law and convention. The brief fails to be specific about how this makes restrospective copyright extension constitutional.
I could see if the law only applied to foreign works, but in its current form, I agree. There's no reason these laws need to apply to our copyrighted works as well, even if it was legitimate to make an unconstitutional law just to follow a treaty.
In short, their brief does more to whine about their business interests that it does to address the consitutional issues.
I thought the brief did a good job at showing possible ways that retrospective copyright laws could be necessary and proper to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. This is really the key argument by Eldred. The rest of the Eldred argument is likewise whining about how copyright keeps getting extended over and over again.
is what will happen to ticket prices when it's no longer required to hire background characters, costume makers, construction, caterers, cameramen, model makers, casting companies, etc.
Why, they'll go up, of course. Aren't monopolies grand?
As mentioned, saying SSL is "junk" when the transport encryption is unaffected is just plain dumb.
The transport encryption is affected.
Yes, I'm completely agreeing that it's possible to give bogus DNS replies, or to somehow intercede in the packet stream (MITM), but the likelihood of that is unbelievably remote (and performing overt acts like that is far more easily tracable and punishable than just doing a logged sniff).
I disagree. It isn't very hard at all to give bogus DNS replies. About as hard as sniffing a connection.
Let me repeat: Saying that the security of transport encryption is "nil" is ridiculous panicky BS.
I disagree. Note that I don't mean to imply that it renders online banking or credit card transactions unsafe. Personally I'd be willing to send my credit card numbers over a completely unencrypted network. But what I am saying, and what I stand by, is that this hole decreases the security of https transactions to those of http transactions.
Perhaps, as you seem to imply, it was already there to begin with, and https is just a marketing ploy to get people to feel safe about giving their credit card numbers over the web. Personally the only safety I assumed from https was that the web page I was connecting to was most likely not DNS spoofed. Any information I sent would be accessible by hundreds of employees anyway, so it's not like I'm going to send anything truly private to amazon.com. This kills that, at least for IE, which I rarely use anyway.
About 99.999%+ of the primary uses of SSL/TLS out there are for transport encryption, not for site authentity verification, and this does nothing to reduce the security of the transport encryption.
Umm. No. You are wrong. If you don't authenticate the person you are talking to, then you are vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack and the security of the transport encryption is nil.
...and whoever endorsed the higher speed limits would be denounced by their opponents as caving into the speed demons, the road ragers, and whoever else they can demonize, all while massive throngs of soccer moms chant that speeds must be kept where they are "for the children".
I doubt it. Most soccer moms I know break the speed limit. Give 'em a few speeding tickets and you'll see them change their tunes real quick.
You think I'm kidding? It would happen. It has happened before.
Slashdot Mirror
Above post protected by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (tm).
How so? What is the technological measure?
My thoughts exactly, this isn't the government's place. I'm suprised to see that most of the posters agree with this proposed law.
I'm not. Just look at slashdotters' positions on spam laws, which are essentially the same thing.
Theaters are private property and it should be up to the property owners to make rules about cellphone usage, etc. If the owners of the theater are ok with people using cellphones, it is none of the city's business.
Funny, that's what I say about spam and I get flamed for it.
If you didn't ask for it, it is spam. Asking for it means submitting your e-mail address and specifically requesting the information.
Seems like it's pretty easy to avoid spam, by that definition. I wonder though, why do you put your email address on slashdot if you don't want to receive mail which you have not specifically requested?
i think privacy in the home and on personal property is important, but privacy on public grounds (airports, roads) should yield to safety and fairness.
I agree. You have a lessened expectation of privacy in an airport than in your home. But the privacy of my own thoughts is the most important privacy of all. You should never be allowed to analyze my brainwaves without my uncoerced written permission.
There's a big difference between giving people who currently holding their works as trade secrets a reason to release them and giving works already released by authors who won't be releasing any more an additional stay under copyright.
Actually that brings up a key difference between the CTEA and the previous retrospective copyright extensions. Before January 1, 1978, works were not automatically protected by copyright, they needed to either be published or registered. Since 1978, all works are automatically copyrighted. So while the previous retrospective extensions may have served to provide incentives to publish previously unpublished and uncopyrighted works, that's not the case for the CTEA.
Of course, it could be argued that one purpose of the CTEA is to provide incentive to publish works which were created before 1976 but were never published. I mean, it's a stretch, but it's possible.
You make a very good point though about the first congress. I hope Eldred has already made that point, or is planning on it.
"No one should be forced to choose open source, any more than they should be forced to choose proprietary software."
I'm sorry, copyright law here is the force, not open source licenses.
Well, except for the clause in many open source licenses such as the GPL forcing people to reveal their source code.
I wonder if you could use google to find out the expected correlation.
Sex: 76,200,000 results
Sexy: 15,900,000 results
Sexy Sex: 2,010,000 results
We know that google indexes 2,469,940,685 pages. So P(Sex)=3.1% (wow, 3% of web pages contain the word sex). P(Sexy)=0.64%. P(Sex & Sexy)=0.81%. P(Sexy|Sex)=2.6%. P(Sex|Sexy)=12.6%.
So.... your filter's usefulness would be inversely proportional to 1. That's also 1. I'll take a filter that's 100% useful, thanks.
By the way, 0.0000000000000000000000000001 is also inversely proportional to 1.
The point is that each person's inbox would be uniquely filtered based on the general content of emails they receive.
Then either this man has discovered artificial intelligence or he is being overly optimistic about how well an automated system such as this is going to work. If you can separate spam from non-spam based on the content of the message against an active human attacker, you've just passed the turing test, as far as I'm concerned.
Your filter's usefulness is inversely proportional to the number of people who use it, since it is trivial to bypass by a spammer who knows its details.
Why do you need your customers to be able to send unsolicited email anyway? Set up a web based feedback form for the initial contact, and send replies from a uniquely generated address. Change your contact.html page to a php script which includes a clickthrough EULA which promises not to spam, and generates a unique address which identifies the person's IP address. Then if they harvest the address anyway, shut off that address and sue 'em.
There's simply no excuse for not being able to filter out 99.9% of your spam. Be smart, not stupid.
How does this affect my life in any way?
Just goes to show you how laws against trade secrets are obviously unconstitutional.
Is a way to buy earthquake insurance online in 30 seconds.
Just look at all the lawsuits waiting to happen.
Can they even do this? I wasn't aware you could sue someone for using a mark that was partially similar to your own trademark.
I don't know, but you can definately sue for using a mark which is completely similar and partially exact.
Revoking the CTEA extension of existing copyright would disrupt business models, including various mergers and other transactions that placed value on IP. AOL/TW is, of course, a prime example of such mergers. It is also argued that it would reduce the anticipated export revenue for the US. These arguably suggest that coyright extension is good for the US, but they don't address the constitutionality, and are thus moot for the Supreme Court.
Isn't avoiding the disruption of business models necessary and proper to promoting the progress of science and the useful arts?
Every law that established or extended copyright did so retrospectively; revoking the CTEA would cast doubt on other copyright laws. Neither point bears directly on whether such retrospective extension is constitutional. Clearly the plaintiffs are not required to attack all non-constitutional laws in the same action.
It goes to the intent of the framers. Do you think that the framers intended for retrospective copyright laws to be unconstitutional, then immediately went and voted in the first congress for a retrospective copyright law? That makes no sense.
In the light of the increasing cost of production and distribution of movies and music, an enduring revenue stream from previous works is required as "seed corn"; hence, retrospective extention of copyright does stimulate the Arts, in as much as the same people and organizations will create repeatedly. This argument has some facial merit, but neglects the bootstrap issue in favour of business interests.
Some facial merit is all that's needed. Congress makes the laws, not the Supreme Court, and if there is any reasonable way that Congress could come to the conclusion that this law is necessary and proper to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, then the Supreme Court must accepts Congress' determination.
The brief says that the specification of an end (promotion of Arts and Sciences) does not restrict the execution of the power to legislate copyright. It compares this to the ends specified for taxation (common defence and general welfare) and military (to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repell invasions) and how much deference is given to Congress with respect to these.
That's a crappy argument, but if the government can show that the law could promote arts and sciences, then it's moot.
The CTEA apparently both harmonizes with and places the US competitively with respect to international law and convention. The brief fails to be specific about how this makes restrospective copyright extension constitutional.
I could see if the law only applied to foreign works, but in its current form, I agree. There's no reason these laws need to apply to our copyrighted works as well, even if it was legitimate to make an unconstitutional law just to follow a treaty.
In short, their brief does more to whine about their business interests that it does to address the consitutional issues.
I thought the brief did a good job at showing possible ways that retrospective copyright laws could be necessary and proper to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. This is really the key argument by Eldred. The rest of the Eldred argument is likewise whining about how copyright keeps getting extended over and over again.
is what will happen to ticket prices when it's no longer required to hire background characters, costume makers, construction, caterers, cameramen, model makers, casting companies, etc.
Why, they'll go up, of course. Aren't monopolies grand?
As mentioned, saying SSL is "junk" when the transport encryption is unaffected is just plain dumb.
The transport encryption is affected.
Yes, I'm completely agreeing that it's possible to give bogus DNS replies, or to somehow intercede in the packet stream (MITM), but the likelihood of that is unbelievably remote (and performing overt acts like that is far more easily tracable and punishable than just doing a logged sniff).
I disagree. It isn't very hard at all to give bogus DNS replies. About as hard as sniffing a connection.
Let me repeat: Saying that the security of transport encryption is "nil" is ridiculous panicky BS.
I disagree. Note that I don't mean to imply that it renders online banking or credit card transactions unsafe. Personally I'd be willing to send my credit card numbers over a completely unencrypted network. But what I am saying, and what I stand by, is that this hole decreases the security of https transactions to those of http transactions.
Perhaps, as you seem to imply, it was already there to begin with, and https is just a marketing ploy to get people to feel safe about giving their credit card numbers over the web. Personally the only safety I assumed from https was that the web page I was connecting to was most likely not DNS spoofed. Any information I sent would be accessible by hundreds of employees anyway, so it's not like I'm going to send anything truly private to amazon.com. This kills that, at least for IE, which I rarely use anyway.
About 99.999%+ of the primary uses of SSL/TLS out there are for transport encryption, not for site authentity verification, and this does nothing to reduce the security of the transport encryption.
Umm. No. You are wrong. If you don't authenticate the person you are talking to, then you are vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack and the security of the transport encryption is nil.
Will it play in a DVD player?
If not, I'd just as well use a hard drive.
You can't fit a whole movie on a home recorded DVD?R anyway. So what exactly is the practical use?
IHBT. IHL. HAND.
I doubt it. Most soccer moms I know break the speed limit. Give 'em a few speeding tickets and you'll see them change their tunes real quick.
You think I'm kidding? It would happen. It has happened before.
When?