When the Lord of the Rings was published in the US, there was a legal technicality, and it wasn't under copyright in the US. Ace books produced their own unauthorized version, and Ballantine produced theirs, more expensive (95 cents vs. 75 cents a volume), with what was essentially a "Creator Endorsed" logo. I don't remember the sales figures, but that's the only case of such a thing I can think of.
The technicality was soon dealt with, and Tolkien held the US copyright to the books, ending this.
When I was young, I could look at the copyright date on a book, say, "That was over 28 years ago", and know it was out of copyright. I really like that sort of certainty. Nowadays, I have to find who had the copyright and when they died. With life plus 75 years, it's not even worth bumping the author off to shorten the copyright.
So, how far does the joy of the craft take you? Personally, I like to enter National Novel Writing Month (apologies if the URL is wrong, because I can't verifiy it here), and attempt to write a novel. That's fun. After the month is over, I'm sitting there with a novel with some merit (my wife's reviews on the last one were "readable" and "didn't seem amateurish in the second half") that I have absolutely no desire to go through the book and clean it up (when you're going for a 50K word count in a month, you leave in a lot of verbiage that should be brutally trimmed). Assuming I mustered the motivation, it's still not going to be particularly good without an editor's intervention, and trying to get an author to improve his novel is, I suspect, a lot less fun than writing one. With no financial reward in prospect, what you're going to get is whatever I think is fun to do (or, really, whatever someone who has more talent than I do thinks is fun to do).
I want my favorite authors to be able to spend their time creating stuff, to have financial incentive to do so, and for everybody else who needs to work on it to make it as good as it can be to be paid. This is difficult without copyright.
the claim can be traced back to that person claiming, under penalty of perjury, that the content is owned and infringing.
That's not going to work, since in most cases it's impossible to tell if it's infringing.
Whether a work is infringing is not necessarily clear, and some of this stuff gets the court involved and making independent judgment. In particular, US fair use law is deliberately vague, and two reasonable people could easily wind up disagreeing whether something is fair use or not. A lot of the takedowns I've read about have concerned incidental use of something, meaning that whether the work is infringing depends on whether it's fair use or not.
It might be possible to require a statement under pain of perjury that the work would infringe if there was no fair use, but some court would have to impose a criminal penalty under your plan, which requires that public prosecutors get involved in DMCA takedown cases.
Also, this can be offshored, which means that the complaintant will not necessarily be subject to US law. Since plenty of overseas entries hold US copyrights, that's a real problem.
Any remedy that involves me getting into a lawsuit with a megacorp isn't going to work. That's a LOT of time, worry, and money I expend with no certain return.
They don't have to put the video back after a counter-claim. What that does is shield them from any liability from the person who posted the video, which presumably doesn't exist under the terms of service.
You've provided no evidence that the debate wasn't fair and impartial. If Clinton got the questions ahead of time and Trump didn't, that's unfair and not impartial. If Clinton and Trump both got the questions ahead of time and examined them, that was fair and impartial. If Clinton got the questions ahead of time, while Trump was busy and didn't pay any attention, that's still fair and impartial.
How many people in the TV audience believe that things on TV are what they appear to be? Three? Four? I didn't watch these debates, but I've seen plenty of little prepared speeches in previous debates, and don't remember being told the questions were spontaneous. If there was an announcement to that effect, please let me know. There's requirements to think on one's feet in responding to the other candidate.
I agree that you don't want the voting public too angry, but the debates aren't nearly as great a problem as Trump. He has said that the election is rigged if he doesn't win it, and that he's not necessarily going to accept the outcome if he loses. That's the biggest threat to democracy in this campaign. (Fortunately, Pence is doing what he can to defuse that.)
There are uncooperative employees (although very few in my personal experience), and there are requests that have to be attended to immediately. There's also jobs that require concentration, and aren't really compatible with instant attention to every email. Over my career, I've had more problems from interruptions than from colleagues.
Organizations with fiduciary responsibilities can certainly have preferences, and I wasn't aware the DNC had fiduciary responsibilities. Could you clarify?
The "unfairness" to Sanders was a matter of requiring himself to prove his support. Had he won more delegates, he'd be the nominee. You're talking to a guy who cast his first Presidential ballot for McGovern here, guy, and I want someone tilting the candidate selection process towards stability and electability.
The DNC, as far as I can tell, didn't train or organize violent protesters. The video evidence is from a person who's widely known for faking his videos to serve his right-wing agenda. I doubt it was involved in busing repeat voters around, and in any case that would be a really inefficient and dangerous way to cheat on elections. If there was any will to stop such cheating, it would be stopped.
The current real threats to democracy are disenfranchisement of voters, typically those who vote Democrat, and Trump's insistence that any election he doesn't lose has to be rigged and that he won't accept the results if he loses.
There's been a lot of posts about them pushing a transparent smear campaign, and a lot claiming that they've killed people without being credibly accused or indicted, and I'm amused by the contrast.
Capone knew how to fill out his taxes (or, more likely, had someone do it for him). His mistake was in not declaring at least some of his illegal income. He didn't have to declare all of it, because it's a lot easier to prove someone had substantial illegal income than how much they made.
Islam is a religion, although one I"m not fond of. That it's not an inherently evil religion is shown by the historical record. Muslims are basically people like all others. They don't necessarily share Western values, but I don't see that that's a problem. Western values aren't perfect either, and if Western values are better than others they'll win out on their own. (They do seem to be effective values for world domination.)
People in general aren't that good at following their religious precepts. There's lots of people who claim to be Christians around here who store up their treasure on Earth rather than in Heaven, are quick to hate others, object to paying taxes, and despise the poor and downtrodden. Christianity has been a religion of peace and a religion of bloody conquest, and it's hard to reconcile those things in one religion. Muslims are people, and most Muslims, like most people, are more interested in their own day-to-day affairs than in something like religious conquest.
I'm not pretending to be an expert here, but it looks to me like Islam is more likely to pick up local customs and ossify them into the local version of the religion than most religions. I know a guy who said he had to move from Pakistan to the US to find out what Islam really was. This suggests that Muslims will adapt their religion to their environment, and come to share Western values.
The West isn't fragile, although it is adaptive, and there is no fundamental threat from ideologies that aren't Western. We've got the science and the technology and the sophistication and the wealth, as a cause and effect of our values, and we can seduce populations into accepting us for the goodies.
And the sexism/racism seems to be almost exclusively the province of the SJWs, and they're very public about it, but woe unto anyone else saying the same things.
Wrong. There's a LOT of it going on, as you can easily find out if you take the time to look. I've found I don't notice it as much in my daily life, but whenever I get into accounts by other people it starts to show up. It's real easy to assume that everyone is treated in much the same way that you are, and you need to guard against such assumptions.
In my experience, biased people tend to have their own version of the facts. I'd rather just be pointed at interesting facts, and in this election season I decided to concentrate on what happens to people negligent with classified information.
Clinton is eligible to be President if elected: she's a natural-born US citizen, and she's over 35. Aside from that, there's no such thing as "ineligible".
Did she retain a security clearance after leaving State? When I did my research, it didn't look like everyone negligent lost their security clearance anyway. One person lost it for three years, which means that if Clinton had lost it when she left the State department it would be back.
I'd use it, but it's been a long time since I could find a good job that I could get to by bus. I'll probably wind up with a volunteer gig downtown when I retire, and I can use the bus then.
Why would it be silly to expect a car to observe a police officer and hand signals?
Those aren't really just hand signals. They involve at least the forearm. They're designed to be visible, distinctive, and understandable. Once the car recognizes that there's an officer directing traffic, it's not going to be difficult to figure out the signals.
Maps aren't sufficient for not running into things in any case. A SDC has to have some sort of awareness of what's going on around it.no matter what, and therefore can tell when the map's leading it into immediate danger.
I can't necessarily pick out snow conditions and friction changes, and a computer could be a lot faster at figuring out the right thing to do in the circumstances than I am.
Wrong. Clinton's private server was legal at the time. It would be illegal now, since the law changed after Kerry became Secretary of State. I'm not claiming that Clinton's private server was a good idea, or that it was well administered, but it was legal.
The laws about using private servers for official work were changed after Kerry took over at State. Clinton's server was legal, just like Powell's private service. Both of them would be violating the law if they did it currently.
Benghazi was not Clinton's fault. You could blame Congress for not giving her the money for security she asked for, or you could chalk it up as one of those things that happens in a hostile world. A hostile Congress held hearing after hearing and couldn't find anything Clinton did wrong.
Trump is a two-faced liar who lies a lot more than Clinton does, and he works for himself.
Had you done what Clinton did with classified materials, as a civilian, you would likely have lost your security clearance and might have been fired. You would not have been prosecuted. I don't actually know if it would be different as a military officer, but I suspect not. Clinton was treated the same way anyone else would have been in her place.
The head of the FBI was completely correct when he said no one would prosecute her for negligence with classified information, as far as I've been able to find. I'm not going to comment on the law, or on possible perjury, since I didn't dig into that, but people who did what Clinton did don't get prosecuted.
If you get caught allowing classified material to get on an insecure system through negligence, I strongly advise you to use that defense. It will mean you don't get prosecuted. It won't necessarily save your job or your security clearance, but it will save you from felony charges, and probably any charge. I found one guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge, but didn't have to in the end, and the others didn't even go that far.
If you put classified material where it shouldn't be, and do it deliberately, the authorities are likely (not certain) to charge you with one or more felonies. That gets taken very seriously.
At the time Clinton was Secretary of State, using a private server like that was legal. Having had that server is a non-issue. It was probably a bad idea, given how she had it administered, but I'm not at all confident the State Department would have done well either. Naturally, there are people who apparently believe they have telepathic abilities who are going to tell you that she had the server for this or that nefarious purpose, but I want to see evidence, which isn't forthcoming.
Slashdot Mirror
When the Lord of the Rings was published in the US, there was a legal technicality, and it wasn't under copyright in the US. Ace books produced their own unauthorized version, and Ballantine produced theirs, more expensive (95 cents vs. 75 cents a volume), with what was essentially a "Creator Endorsed" logo. I don't remember the sales figures, but that's the only case of such a thing I can think of.
The technicality was soon dealt with, and Tolkien held the US copyright to the books, ending this.
When I was young, I could look at the copyright date on a book, say, "That was over 28 years ago", and know it was out of copyright. I really like that sort of certainty. Nowadays, I have to find who had the copyright and when they died. With life plus 75 years, it's not even worth bumping the author off to shorten the copyright.
So, how far does the joy of the craft take you? Personally, I like to enter National Novel Writing Month (apologies if the URL is wrong, because I can't verifiy it here), and attempt to write a novel. That's fun. After the month is over, I'm sitting there with a novel with some merit (my wife's reviews on the last one were "readable" and "didn't seem amateurish in the second half") that I have absolutely no desire to go through the book and clean it up (when you're going for a 50K word count in a month, you leave in a lot of verbiage that should be brutally trimmed). Assuming I mustered the motivation, it's still not going to be particularly good without an editor's intervention, and trying to get an author to improve his novel is, I suspect, a lot less fun than writing one. With no financial reward in prospect, what you're going to get is whatever I think is fun to do (or, really, whatever someone who has more talent than I do thinks is fun to do).
I want my favorite authors to be able to spend their time creating stuff, to have financial incentive to do so, and for everybody else who needs to work on it to make it as good as it can be to be paid. This is difficult without copyright.
That's not going to work, since in most cases it's impossible to tell if it's infringing.
Whether a work is infringing is not necessarily clear, and some of this stuff gets the court involved and making independent judgment. In particular, US fair use law is deliberately vague, and two reasonable people could easily wind up disagreeing whether something is fair use or not. A lot of the takedowns I've read about have concerned incidental use of something, meaning that whether the work is infringing depends on whether it's fair use or not.
It might be possible to require a statement under pain of perjury that the work would infringe if there was no fair use, but some court would have to impose a criminal penalty under your plan, which requires that public prosecutors get involved in DMCA takedown cases.
Also, this can be offshored, which means that the complaintant will not necessarily be subject to US law. Since plenty of overseas entries hold US copyrights, that's a real problem.
Any remedy that involves me getting into a lawsuit with a megacorp isn't going to work. That's a LOT of time, worry, and money I expend with no certain return.
They don't have to put the video back after a counter-claim. What that does is shield them from any liability from the person who posted the video, which presumably doesn't exist under the terms of service.
You've provided no evidence that the debate wasn't fair and impartial. If Clinton got the questions ahead of time and Trump didn't, that's unfair and not impartial. If Clinton and Trump both got the questions ahead of time and examined them, that was fair and impartial. If Clinton got the questions ahead of time, while Trump was busy and didn't pay any attention, that's still fair and impartial.
How many people in the TV audience believe that things on TV are what they appear to be? Three? Four? I didn't watch these debates, but I've seen plenty of little prepared speeches in previous debates, and don't remember being told the questions were spontaneous. If there was an announcement to that effect, please let me know. There's requirements to think on one's feet in responding to the other candidate.
I agree that you don't want the voting public too angry, but the debates aren't nearly as great a problem as Trump. He has said that the election is rigged if he doesn't win it, and that he's not necessarily going to accept the outcome if he loses. That's the biggest threat to democracy in this campaign. (Fortunately, Pence is doing what he can to defuse that.)
There are uncooperative employees (although very few in my personal experience), and there are requests that have to be attended to immediately. There's also jobs that require concentration, and aren't really compatible with instant attention to every email. Over my career, I've had more problems from interruptions than from colleagues.
Organizations with fiduciary responsibilities can certainly have preferences, and I wasn't aware the DNC had fiduciary responsibilities. Could you clarify?
The "unfairness" to Sanders was a matter of requiring himself to prove his support. Had he won more delegates, he'd be the nominee. You're talking to a guy who cast his first Presidential ballot for McGovern here, guy, and I want someone tilting the candidate selection process towards stability and electability.
The DNC, as far as I can tell, didn't train or organize violent protesters. The video evidence is from a person who's widely known for faking his videos to serve his right-wing agenda. I doubt it was involved in busing repeat voters around, and in any case that would be a really inefficient and dangerous way to cheat on elections. If there was any will to stop such cheating, it would be stopped.
The current real threats to democracy are disenfranchisement of voters, typically those who vote Democrat, and Trump's insistence that any election he doesn't lose has to be rigged and that he won't accept the results if he loses.
There's been a lot of posts about them pushing a transparent smear campaign, and a lot claiming that they've killed people without being credibly accused or indicted, and I'm amused by the contrast.
Capone knew how to fill out his taxes (or, more likely, had someone do it for him). His mistake was in not declaring at least some of his illegal income. He didn't have to declare all of it, because it's a lot easier to prove someone had substantial illegal income than how much they made.
Islam is a religion, although one I"m not fond of. That it's not an inherently evil religion is shown by the historical record. Muslims are basically people like all others. They don't necessarily share Western values, but I don't see that that's a problem. Western values aren't perfect either, and if Western values are better than others they'll win out on their own. (They do seem to be effective values for world domination.)
People in general aren't that good at following their religious precepts. There's lots of people who claim to be Christians around here who store up their treasure on Earth rather than in Heaven, are quick to hate others, object to paying taxes, and despise the poor and downtrodden. Christianity has been a religion of peace and a religion of bloody conquest, and it's hard to reconcile those things in one religion. Muslims are people, and most Muslims, like most people, are more interested in their own day-to-day affairs than in something like religious conquest.
I'm not pretending to be an expert here, but it looks to me like Islam is more likely to pick up local customs and ossify them into the local version of the religion than most religions. I know a guy who said he had to move from Pakistan to the US to find out what Islam really was. This suggests that Muslims will adapt their religion to their environment, and come to share Western values.
The West isn't fragile, although it is adaptive, and there is no fundamental threat from ideologies that aren't Western. We've got the science and the technology and the sophistication and the wealth, as a cause and effect of our values, and we can seduce populations into accepting us for the goodies.
Wrong. There's a LOT of it going on, as you can easily find out if you take the time to look. I've found I don't notice it as much in my daily life, but whenever I get into accounts by other people it starts to show up. It's real easy to assume that everyone is treated in much the same way that you are, and you need to guard against such assumptions.
In my experience, biased people tend to have their own version of the facts. I'd rather just be pointed at interesting facts, and in this election season I decided to concentrate on what happens to people negligent with classified information.
Clinton is eligible to be President if elected: she's a natural-born US citizen, and she's over 35. Aside from that, there's no such thing as "ineligible".
Did she retain a security clearance after leaving State? When I did my research, it didn't look like everyone negligent lost their security clearance anyway. One person lost it for three years, which means that if Clinton had lost it when she left the State department it would be back.
I'd use it, but it's been a long time since I could find a good job that I could get to by bus. I'll probably wind up with a volunteer gig downtown when I retire, and I can use the bus then.
What needs to work in a computer crash is brakes and steering. It's not necessary to make the thing fully drivable in such a state.
Why would it be silly to expect a car to observe a police officer and hand signals?
Those aren't really just hand signals. They involve at least the forearm. They're designed to be visible, distinctive, and understandable. Once the car recognizes that there's an officer directing traffic, it's not going to be difficult to figure out the signals.
Maps aren't sufficient for not running into things in any case. A SDC has to have some sort of awareness of what's going on around it.no matter what, and therefore can tell when the map's leading it into immediate danger.
I can't necessarily pick out snow conditions and friction changes, and a computer could be a lot faster at figuring out the right thing to do in the circumstances than I am.
Wrong. Clinton's private server was legal at the time. It would be illegal now, since the law changed after Kerry became Secretary of State. I'm not claiming that Clinton's private server was a good idea, or that it was well administered, but it was legal.
However, I do find this ironic and funny. And I'm not accepting recommendations for IT services from either candidate.
The laws about using private servers for official work were changed after Kerry took over at State. Clinton's server was legal, just like Powell's private service. Both of them would be violating the law if they did it currently.
Benghazi was not Clinton's fault. You could blame Congress for not giving her the money for security she asked for, or you could chalk it up as one of those things that happens in a hostile world. A hostile Congress held hearing after hearing and couldn't find anything Clinton did wrong.
Trump is a two-faced liar who lies a lot more than Clinton does, and he works for himself.
Had you done what Clinton did with classified materials, as a civilian, you would likely have lost your security clearance and might have been fired. You would not have been prosecuted. I don't actually know if it would be different as a military officer, but I suspect not. Clinton was treated the same way anyone else would have been in her place.
The head of the FBI was completely correct when he said no one would prosecute her for negligence with classified information, as far as I've been able to find. I'm not going to comment on the law, or on possible perjury, since I didn't dig into that, but people who did what Clinton did don't get prosecuted.
If you get caught allowing classified material to get on an insecure system through negligence, I strongly advise you to use that defense. It will mean you don't get prosecuted. It won't necessarily save your job or your security clearance, but it will save you from felony charges, and probably any charge. I found one guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge, but didn't have to in the end, and the others didn't even go that far.
If you put classified material where it shouldn't be, and do it deliberately, the authorities are likely (not certain) to charge you with one or more felonies. That gets taken very seriously.
At the time Clinton was Secretary of State, using a private server like that was legal. Having had that server is a non-issue. It was probably a bad idea, given how she had it administered, but I'm not at all confident the State Department would have done well either. Naturally, there are people who apparently believe they have telepathic abilities who are going to tell you that she had the server for this or that nefarious purpose, but I want to see evidence, which isn't forthcoming.