I wonder if any of them will join the Washington Post, which was running secret fundraisers with the DNC that the lawyers would "never" allow according to the leaked emails?
> No, progressive always meant this (pick up a dictionary and take a civics class):
You're the one who should take a history class if you think that "progress" has always had a consistent meaning across years and cultures.
The Nazis believed that they were creating a superior version of the human race by removing all the "inferior" people, for example, and this was their "progress" as they fought for (in their view) the common German worker and against those who they viewed as corrupt bankers (Jews).
The fact that they were wrong about basically everything simply underscores the point that not everything called "progress" is good and it requires more than simplistic sloganeering to evaluate the merits of something. In other words, if all someone can tell you is that they promote "progress" and everyone who doesn't is somehow inferior, rather than explaining the actual merits of their ideas, you should be very suspicious of them for that very reason.
A trap? You mean like ignoring their own lawyer's advice over what is and is not legal?
Interestingly enough, I can't help but notice that this is from the WaPo, which is the same one that held this fundraiser the lawyers told them not to hold...
That's talking about the persecution of Christians under the Romans. Jesus showed Christians how to live by telling the Apostles not to resist when they came to take Jesus to be crucified, so I don't see why you're trying to twist those words into an exhortation to violence.
Why don't they collect on the broadband promises that never materialized from the last round of subsidies before giving away another half billion dollars? Oh, right, never mind. They're just bribing people with our own money and trying to make it sound like a good thing, knowing that most people won't be able to call them on it.
Maybe this time it'll be different? I wish I could believe that.
> Last I heard, there was considerable evidence that it might not have been terrorism; it might have just someone going apeshit and committing mass murder.
> Well guess what: that isn't the copyright holders problem. If your business model is such that you can't monitor everything, then YOU NEED TO FIX your business model.
This is utter nonsense. One, that's not how the DMCA is set up--this burden is squarely on the copyright holder to identify and issue takedowns.
Two, it shouldn't work the other way. You see, copyright relies upon PERMISSION. So even if I upload a "leaked' video that looks completely pirated to an outsider, if I have permission from the copyright holder, it's legal. Given that the copyright holder is the only one who can reasonably be expected to know who they have and have not given permission to, they are the only reasonable party to do so. If you think this example sounds far-fetched, then you need to go back and read Viacom v. YouTube, because Viacom did exactly this and had to remove "infringing" videos they'd given permission to from the case. Twice. After extensive review by expensive lawyers. If their own lawyers with all that information can't get it right, what hope does a 3rd party have?
That this burden is unreasonable is of no concern to the rest of us--it's simply not our property, so it's unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to manage it for them.
Even stopped clocks are right twice a day. I think the complaints about this study look legit here. I don't read Vox regularly and have no stake in arguing whether they're good or bad in general.
> OK, I just realized that there are some of you who may believe that I'm overdoing my criticism of vox.com, so I'm going to post a story from their motherfucking front page today
That makes them better than Mother Jones (reporter of the original story) who has a "meme of the day" then, no?
I'm curious as to how RF causes cancer only in *male* rats and why they live longer anyhow, or why the middle exposure group tended to have zero rats with cancer, rather than the low exposure groups, which had about as much cancer as the high exposure groups. Frankly, from reading the data reported in the study (you all did that... right?), all I could help think there's no clear pattern here. It really looks like the noise is larger than the effects, given all the 'anomalous' zero samples assuming the hypothesis that it really does cause cancer.
> Political parody is explicitly protected as fair comment - this explicit protection was established in the famous Larry Flynt "free speech" trial [wikipedia.org] over a fake ad in Hustler magazine with a fake interview with Moral Majority founder discussing his first sexual encounter as a Campari liqueur fueled romp with his mother in an outhouse.
> So bottom line - make fun of a political figure with their likeness? No problem. Try to make money doing it? Yeah, problem.
So... Larry Flynt didn't make any money off of selling that issue of Hustler, or via the infamy it generated?
> Apple doesn't have to sue every Apple Fruit Stand or Apple Moving & Storage business in the country because it's not diluting their trademark on computers and electronics.
Might've wanted to pick a better example due to Apple Records...
I don't think you fully appreciate how being a public, political figure weighs into the fair use factors. The courts would balance the public's right to engage in political speech (the most protected category) against Bernie's rights here.
And there's no way they're going to shut down all critical political discourse because of trademark rights, because let's be honest, every politician would use it to stop "unfair" criticism of themselves.
It may not be anything like immunity but let's be clear here, this is trademark abuse. I don't like that no matter who is abusing IP law, whether that's SCO, the RIAA, the RNC or Bernie.
Note that political speech is MORE protected than other categories. You can't just trademark your likeness and shut down all political parody or it would soon cease to exist. Imagine for a moment if Bush had been able to use a trademark on his name and likeness to shut down all of the mockeries of him, using your myth of continual enforcement?
> in fact, its required, or else you lose trademark status.
That's a damned, dirty lie. If you'd been reading Slashdot lately, you might've seen this from the EFF:
See, this is why you read the *case law* and not just the statutes themselves. Otherwise you'd miss the fact that there's a fair use defense for trademarks:
"A nonowner may also use a trademark nominativelyâ"to refer to the actual trademarked product or its source. In addition to protecting product criticism and analysis, United States law actually encourages nominative usage by competitors in the form of comparative advertising"
"The fair use defense in trademark law is not precluded by the possibility of confusion, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004."
> The nature of trademark is such that if one doesn't attempt to defend it when violations are brought to one's attention it dilutes the trademark. It isn't like copyright or patents where you can selectively enforce.
Only the guy in the back was claimed to be getting the number.
If the physical evidence corroborates the claim that they *reversed* into a guard, they're going to have a really, really hard time getting out of this.
> NOBODY should be permitted to assault another except under attack.
There are two injured guards here, which neither party disputes. There are no allegations of injuries sustained by the reporters just yet (they allege that a window and a seat belt were harmed, though).
> The security guards were not likely to be being attacked by the journalists thus the only defensible position is in the journalists favour.
That is contradicted by the injuries sustained by the two guards. Neither party disputes the injuries and the police who have investigated this believed there was sufficient evidence to arrest the reporters for causing those injuries.
The guards may have also done something wrong, but we do not have undisputed evidence of this yet.
I agree in part--security people are normally trained to stay out of harm's way and this illustrates exactly why they shouldn't put themselves in harms way for a license plate or to detain someone. But I would also say that:
a) You can't legally just drive over people, even if they're doing something they shouldn't be. It's hard to reconcile the "rock attack" with any part of the stories, other than the collision with the ATV. You can't really hit the driver's window (or cut their seat belt) from behind the car. b) The fact that they injured multiple people is worrisome. You can say that running over the first guy was an accident, but it's less credible the second time you hit someone and nobody alleges that both injuries were sustained at the same time. c) We need more facts, especially camera recordings (if any), to see what's going on here, or at least a detailed reconstruction of the scene of the accident. The police should have taken lots of pictures of the state of everything, so it shouldn't be too hard to see where exactly the blood stains, rocks (if any), skid marks, etc. were found.
But just for right now, we have several injured guards and no injured reporters. I don't know about the "rock attack" bit of the story, it doesn't add up yet. So it's certainly possible the guards did something legally wrong, but the two stories disagree and there's no corroborating evidence other than the car itself. We'll know if any evidence is found for the "rock attack" because charges will probably get filed if they can substantiate their claims of being attacked first.
I would tend to reserve judgement until the evidence is presented at trial, but I do see it being problematic that the guards are hurt and the reporters are not and neither side appears to dispute the claim that the reporters caused injury to the guards. If, as they say, they were attacked first, why is it that they are unable to allege any specific bodily injury as a result?
I use the same logic when someone is arrested for "resisting arrest" and the injuries sustained are completely disproportionate (i.e. one party is unhurt and the other party is severely hurt). If you were actually attacked, there should be some evidence of injury. Similarly, when one side tries to flee before the cops arrive--a part of the story that neither side appears to dispute--they become automatically suspect for that very reason.
The contact address for it was the Clinton's home, actually (cite: wikipedia). I don't think the hardware was actually there, though, but I've heard so many stories about it I wonder.
They've changed the story every time they've told us about this server. That's not how it goes when you're being honest.
You've jumped on to point out all the R lies I was talking about. Yes, there were many. Yes, they were bad. But you've jumped into defense mode for the D team here when I'm happy to call out both parties. Maybe we'll be lucky and she won't lie about something like yellowcake or WMD, but I'd rather have someone who might implement actual transparency. Lessig and Sanders might be okay options. The Bushes have not rather bad about this sort of thing, though (see also: WMD). And no, I wasn't fooled by those lies, either, like when they tried to pawn it off on "bad intelligence" (though maybe you could claim it was "bad intelligence," if you're referring to IQ rather than secret agents, but I digress...).
> Clinton asserts no accountability rules were broken
You're worried about the rules, I'm worried that she set up a server to evade oversight. I don't even care if there was a law against it or not, I hate the very purpose for which the server existed--to keep email out of the archives. Now, you do have a good case that Washington accountability is already broken, I actually agree with you there! Both parties are a problem! Yes, the Rs too!
> Like when Palin use Yahoo Mail for official government business, and the Republicans rushed to defend her?
Yup! I don't like that either. I never liked Palin. I voted for Obama that time.
My problem is that people are just going to play team politics here and not let anybody on their team get punished, ever. Every time, we'll hear "they did it too!" (it's true, they did!) and then after a lot of fuss, everyone will still get away with it every time.
Everyone's being played here by both Ds and Rs. I'm sick of seeing the public get played for a fool, and even more sick of seeing it work.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if any of them will join the Washington Post, which was running secret fundraisers with the DNC that the lawyers would "never" allow according to the leaked emails?
> No, progressive always meant this (pick up a dictionary and take a civics class):
You're the one who should take a history class if you think that "progress" has always had a consistent meaning across years and cultures.
The Nazis believed that they were creating a superior version of the human race by removing all the "inferior" people, for example, and this was their "progress" as they fought for (in their view) the common German worker and against those who they viewed as corrupt bankers (Jews).
The fact that they were wrong about basically everything simply underscores the point that not everything called "progress" is good and it requires more than simplistic sloganeering to evaluate the merits of something. In other words, if all someone can tell you is that they promote "progress" and everyone who doesn't is somehow inferior, rather than explaining the actual merits of their ideas, you should be very suspicious of them for that very reason.
So is your assertion that politicians are never allowed to tell jokes, or just those that people are gullible enough to fall for?
The DNC leak emails show the Washington Post holding a fundraiser with the DNC that the lawyers said 'no' to and doing it on the sly.
A trap? You mean like ignoring their own lawyer's advice over what is and is not legal?
Interestingly enough, I can't help but notice that this is from the WaPo, which is the same one that held this fundraiser the lawyers told them not to hold...
Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...
Explanation: https://theconservativetreehou...
That's talking about the persecution of Christians under the Romans. Jesus showed Christians how to live by telling the Apostles not to resist when they came to take Jesus to be crucified, so I don't see why you're trying to twist those words into an exhortation to violence.
Why don't they collect on the broadband promises that never materialized from the last round of subsidies before giving away another half billion dollars? Oh, right, never mind. They're just bribing people with our own money and trying to make it sound like a good thing, knowing that most people won't be able to call them on it.
Maybe this time it'll be different? I wish I could believe that.
> Last I heard, there was considerable evidence that it might not have been terrorism; it might have just someone going apeshit and committing mass murder.
What's the difference, exactly?
Pretty sure we have at least 3 votes by now. I bet I could get more if I uploaded some cute pics to Imgur.
Vote for Sunny, 2016.
> Well guess what: that isn't the copyright holders problem. If your business model is such that you can't monitor everything, then YOU NEED TO FIX your business model.
This is utter nonsense. One, that's not how the DMCA is set up--this burden is squarely on the copyright holder to identify and issue takedowns.
Two, it shouldn't work the other way. You see, copyright relies upon PERMISSION. So even if I upload a "leaked' video that looks completely pirated to an outsider, if I have permission from the copyright holder, it's legal. Given that the copyright holder is the only one who can reasonably be expected to know who they have and have not given permission to, they are the only reasonable party to do so. If you think this example sounds far-fetched, then you need to go back and read Viacom v. YouTube, because Viacom did exactly this and had to remove "infringing" videos they'd given permission to from the case. Twice. After extensive review by expensive lawyers. If their own lawyers with all that information can't get it right, what hope does a 3rd party have?
That this burden is unreasonable is of no concern to the rest of us--it's simply not our property, so it's unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to manage it for them.
> Hillary didn't pull dirty tricks. That's all lies that idiots who believe everything they are told fall for.
So you mean the DNC didn't give her access to Sanders' campaign info while cutting him off from the system?
Oh... right, let's just forget about that.
Why bother reporting this? It's not even news. We've known all along that he'd get pressured into it.
I'm sure he just loves endorsing the one who pulled so many dirty tricks against his campaign...
I'm not voting for her or Trump. I'd rather write in my dog.
Would you really feel better if people regularly made throwaway accounts for that nonsense instead?
And it's not like you wouldn't see it anyway if you're reading score 0 posts...
> I'm saying exposure to Vox causes cancer.
Even stopped clocks are right twice a day. I think the complaints about this study look legit here. I don't read Vox regularly and have no stake in arguing whether they're good or bad in general.
> OK, I just realized that there are some of you who may believe that I'm overdoing my criticism of vox.com, so I'm going to post a story from their motherfucking front page today
That makes them better than Mother Jones (reporter of the original story) who has a "meme of the day" then, no?
http://www.motherjones.com/kev...
I'm curious as to how RF causes cancer only in *male* rats and why they live longer anyhow, or why the middle exposure group tended to have zero rats with cancer, rather than the low exposure groups, which had about as much cancer as the high exposure groups. Frankly, from reading the data reported in the study (you all did that... right?), all I could help think there's no clear pattern here. It really looks like the noise is larger than the effects, given all the 'anomalous' zero samples assuming the hypothesis that it really does cause cancer.
> Political parody is explicitly protected as fair comment - this explicit protection was established in the famous Larry Flynt "free speech" trial [wikipedia.org] over a fake ad in Hustler magazine with a fake interview with Moral Majority founder discussing his first sexual encounter as a Campari liqueur fueled romp with his mother in an outhouse.
> So bottom line - make fun of a political figure with their likeness? No problem. Try to make money doing it? Yeah, problem.
So ... Larry Flynt didn't make any money off of selling that issue of Hustler, or via the infamy it generated?
> Apple doesn't have to sue every Apple Fruit Stand or Apple Moving & Storage business in the country because it's not diluting their trademark on computers and electronics.
Might've wanted to pick a better example due to Apple Records...
I don't think you fully appreciate how being a public, political figure weighs into the fair use factors. The courts would balance the public's right to engage in political speech (the most protected category) against Bernie's rights here.
And there's no way they're going to shut down all critical political discourse because of trademark rights, because let's be honest, every politician would use it to stop "unfair" criticism of themselves.
It may not be anything like immunity but let's be clear here, this is trademark abuse. I don't like that no matter who is abusing IP law, whether that's SCO, the RIAA, the RNC or Bernie.
> defending a trademark is not bullying.
Sure it is, because it ignores fair use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note that political speech is MORE protected than other categories. You can't just trademark your likeness and shut down all political parody or it would soon cease to exist. Imagine for a moment if Bush had been able to use a trademark on his name and likeness to shut down all of the mockeries of him, using your myth of continual enforcement?
> in fact, its required, or else you lose trademark status.
That's a damned, dirty lie. If you'd been reading Slashdot lately, you might've seen this from the EFF:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
See, this is why you read the *case law* and not just the statutes themselves. Otherwise you'd miss the fact that there's a fair use defense for trademarks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"A nonowner may also use a trademark nominativelyâ"to refer to the actual trademarked product or its source. In addition to protecting product criticism and analysis, United States law actually encourages nominative usage by competitors in the form of comparative advertising"
"The fair use defense in trademark law is not precluded by the possibility of confusion, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004."
> The nature of trademark is such that if one doesn't attempt to defend it when violations are brought to one's attention it dilutes the trademark. It isn't like copyright or patents where you can selectively enforce.
You might want to ask the EFF about that:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
Only the guy in the back was claimed to be getting the number.
If the physical evidence corroborates the claim that they *reversed* into a guard, they're going to have a really, really hard time getting out of this.
> NOBODY should be permitted to assault another except under attack.
There are two injured guards here, which neither party disputes. There are no allegations of injuries sustained by the reporters just yet (they allege that a window and a seat belt were harmed, though).
> The security guards were not likely to be being attacked by the journalists thus the only defensible position is in the journalists favour.
That is contradicted by the injuries sustained by the two guards. Neither party disputes the injuries and the police who have investigated this believed there was sufficient evidence to arrest the reporters for causing those injuries.
The guards may have also done something wrong, but we do not have undisputed evidence of this yet.
I agree in part--security people are normally trained to stay out of harm's way and this illustrates exactly why they shouldn't put themselves in harms way for a license plate or to detain someone. But I would also say that:
a) You can't legally just drive over people, even if they're doing something they shouldn't be. It's hard to reconcile the "rock attack" with any part of the stories, other than the collision with the ATV. You can't really hit the driver's window (or cut their seat belt) from behind the car.
b) The fact that they injured multiple people is worrisome. You can say that running over the first guy was an accident, but it's less credible the second time you hit someone and nobody alleges that both injuries were sustained at the same time.
c) We need more facts, especially camera recordings (if any), to see what's going on here, or at least a detailed reconstruction of the scene of the accident. The police should have taken lots of pictures of the state of everything, so it shouldn't be too hard to see where exactly the blood stains, rocks (if any), skid marks, etc. were found.
But just for right now, we have several injured guards and no injured reporters. I don't know about the "rock attack" bit of the story, it doesn't add up yet. So it's certainly possible the guards did something legally wrong, but the two stories disagree and there's no corroborating evidence other than the car itself. We'll know if any evidence is found for the "rock attack" because charges will probably get filed if they can substantiate their claims of being attacked first.
I would tend to reserve judgement until the evidence is presented at trial, but I do see it being problematic that the guards are hurt and the reporters are not and neither side appears to dispute the claim that the reporters caused injury to the guards. If, as they say, they were attacked first, why is it that they are unable to allege any specific bodily injury as a result?
I use the same logic when someone is arrested for "resisting arrest" and the injuries sustained are completely disproportionate (i.e. one party is unhurt and the other party is severely hurt). If you were actually attacked, there should be some evidence of injury. Similarly, when one side tries to flee before the cops arrive--a part of the story that neither side appears to dispute--they become automatically suspect for that very reason.
The contact address for it was the Clinton's home, actually (cite: wikipedia). I don't think the hardware was actually there, though, but I've heard so many stories about it I wonder.
> Name the lie.
They've changed the story every time they've told us about this server. That's not how it goes when you're being honest.
You've jumped on to point out all the R lies I was talking about. Yes, there were many. Yes, they were bad. But you've jumped into defense mode for the D team here when I'm happy to call out both parties. Maybe we'll be lucky and she won't lie about something like yellowcake or WMD, but I'd rather have someone who might implement actual transparency. Lessig and Sanders might be okay options. The Bushes have not rather bad about this sort of thing, though (see also: WMD). And no, I wasn't fooled by those lies, either, like when they tried to pawn it off on "bad intelligence" (though maybe you could claim it was "bad intelligence," if you're referring to IQ rather than secret agents, but I digress...).
> Clinton asserts no accountability rules were broken
You're worried about the rules, I'm worried that she set up a server to evade oversight. I don't even care if there was a law against it or not, I hate the very purpose for which the server existed--to keep email out of the archives. Now, you do have a good case that Washington accountability is already broken, I actually agree with you there! Both parties are a problem! Yes, the Rs too!
> Like when Palin use Yahoo Mail for official government business, and the Republicans rushed to defend her?
Yup! I don't like that either. I never liked Palin. I voted for Obama that time.
My problem is that people are just going to play team politics here and not let anybody on their team get punished, ever. Every time, we'll hear "they did it too!" (it's true, they did!) and then after a lot of fuss, everyone will still get away with it every time.
Everyone's being played here by both Ds and Rs. I'm sick of seeing the public get played for a fool, and even more sick of seeing it work.