The next time you go out to eat, ask the chef if you can have the meal for free. Tell him that if he's really passionate about his work he should just share it with everyone.
This is symptomatic of the problem right here. You, dear music producer, seem to equate things of limited quantity (food) to things that are infinitely reproducible (digital performances). This is simply idiotic. Think back to that chef. Imagine he can prepare a dish one time and copy it infinitely forever. He could serve one helping to every person on the globe with no additional cost or effort on his part. How many chefs would refuse to do that?
Your beef isn't with the attitude, per se. You're just not able to grasp the difference between physical resources and creative effort. This is probably simply due to your bias, as a professional in that industry surrounded by others likewise. It is very human. However the reason you're not finding a raft of sympathy outside of those circles is because it logically doesn't make sense to the rest of us. The fact that copyright even exists is a gift, a charity, as are royalties, etc. Imagine being born Chinese and having this same opinion. You'd starve...
Anyway, I'm not expecting to change your mind. And I wanted to say that your post was very well-written and hits all the highlights one would need to go for that angle. I'm just hoping to illustrate that in a world of physical reality, it falls pretty flat.
Alrighty then. So long as the message got through to you. I'm not suffering from delusions of forcing some sort of flipflop response. Have a great day!
There exists a wide gulf between the problem ('how do we store this stuff in a museum') and the proposed solution ('make it playable in the future'). It isn't as if the any of the aircraft in the National Air and Space Museum, for example, is ever taken out and flown by the museum guests. Does anyone really expect us to believe that seeing the Spirit of Saint Louis hanging up there is anything at all like the experience of crossing the Atlantic in it?
An adequate solution would be to record samples of the gameplay onto more future-proof media, blow up huge screenshots, and otherwise fabricate museum exhibits out of what we have left. This would mirror exactly the way we preserve everything else.
The summary states plain as day that the non-commercial CC license was used, so if the offenders weren't using his material in the furtherance of making a buck he wouldn't have a problem.
Are you purporting that the 'software/movies/music/etc' do not likewise carry licenses with terms? Because this is the juxtaposition that you're supposed to be attempting to justify.
There are other ways of knowing things besides secret documents.
That's spiffy, and goes without saying. You do understand the point, yes? An illegal government operation's illegal killings isn't going to be well documented, now is it? You could purport that they do not happen, for lack of evidence, and that would be fine. To purport that the evidence necessarily would exist if this were to happen is ridiculous, because it would run contrary to the design of a democracy, and someone would have to wind up in prison.
We do, however, have facts surrounding things similar to these allegations, such as extraordinary renditions, overthrowing the Iranian government, and the financing and training of Osama bin Laden. We don't have hard facts about the perpetrators of these crimes because if we did someone would be facing prosecution - if for no other reason than to uphold the charade. But we do know that these examples, at least, did happen and we have every example of expecting identical behavior in the future.
Lack of evidence is equally as unconvincing as your allegation that I'm an assassin. But that doesn't rule out any of the myriad of possibilities.
No need for the insults. I'm certain you can fathom the definition of 'willful blindness', and likewise I am sure you understand the differences between a state-sanctioned organization, like the KGB, and one that cannot legally operate whatsoever, like the CIA.
The only thing that allows the CIA to receive funding is the assumption that they're not doing any work whatsoever. Since they can't operate legally within our country, and they do not have the permission necessary to conduct legal operations in enemy nations, they're the epitome of and anti-democratic organization.
The KGB, sanctioned by the government and without such limits, is clearly a different animal.
This story is about a glorified crawler. No actual hacking transpired. No personal information that wasn't already revealed has been revealed. This is not news.
To quote one of the genius minds of our era, 'no shit, Sherlock'. The cases of 'actual hacking' that transpire on a regular basis can be counted on one hand. Nearly all the major 'hackers' have in their hit lists mundane crap exactly like this. Do you think dumpster diving, social engineering, and using lists of common passwords are somehow any more romantic than scraping public pages?
Grow up. Security is about a lot more than terminals in a green font.
If Google's trends are causing junk sites to pop into searches, people will 'trend' away from using that as their primary source of info. That or more likely they'll start looking at the host before clicking the links. Either way, 'www.chocomize.com' would be the single best source for info on this company, and we knew that with or without Google. Didn't we?
Further I resent the implication that the author knows what is decent enough for production and what isn't. This is the web. Eyeballs and brains determine what gets looked at, not some pretentious blog somewhere. The junk sites will go away after the trend declines, and/or if no one links to them (which is genuinely likely), so all we're left with is one author's assumption that standards should be applied to the internet at large. Which I largely reject.
I mean so long as the UN, Nigeria, Mars, etc, are passing laws, who are you to say which websites follow which laws?
That website can say whatever it wants but if someone tries to convince me that I have any obligation to follow Martian law that person will promptly told to go fuck himself.
But you have that backwards. If you want to use their site, you'll abide by their policies. Otherwise you're the one doing the masturbation.
I'm pointing out the absurdity of claiming to prosecute individuals under "UN law". Appealing to US law makes sense if the servers are located in the US or the users to be prosecuted are under US jurisdiction.
Appealing to "UN law" makes as much sense as appealing to Nigerian law or Martian law.
Indeed it does, but is it not the website's right to decide which laws they wish to respect? I mean so long as the UN, Nigeria, Mars, etc, are passing laws, who are you to say which websites follow which laws?
Which is your disquiet? The UN can pass 'laws', can it not? Are you chafing at chatroulette's willful compliance, or what? I'm not seeing the panty-wrinkling here.
I did both. I'm referring to the one behind the motorcycle, which you clearly saw when you did what you're assuming I didn't do. Honest mistake to make, no apology necessary.:)
1) Yes, they are. All police records are, with limited exceptions. Certainly in my jurisdiction, and probably in yours as well.
Subject to FOIA requests and sealed during pending investigations, which means they're effectively not public records.
Wrong. They are public records under a (non-permanent) seal. There's no privacy unless a judge attaches such, except again in special situations (rape, etc).
2) Again, the officer is already being recorded. The additional recording would not require consent. If I pointed a camera at the YouTube screen while it was playing, would I likewise be facing 16 years? Not so much.
You're not recording the conversation... You're recording a recording of the conversation. There is no second party, just YouTube.
Bingo! The same is true of recording something that's already being legally recorded under the law. No privacy attaches.
The 'harm' done to the officer's 'privacy' was already done by the state. Any replications of that are completely unimportant.
"Unimportant" to you doesn't mean there's not a legal or semantic difference.
Logic, FTW. The case clearly has no merit under what we both seem to agree is the intent of the law.
3) Same thing for this purpose. Again, already knowingly, legally recorded == consent not necessary.
[Citation needed] Additionally, that you are knowingly recorded by a cop doesn't mean you consent is not required for any and all other recordings.
Here's your citation: The grey mass between your ears. This really is a common sense point of view. You can disagree if you lack said sense, but calling for a cite as an argument tactic is just lame.
This is a 'two party' law, is it not? Were both parties aware they were being recorded? Yes they were. Consent not necessary.
Reeeeaallly, now. Find me a single citation, anywhere, of a situation in which parties A and B may consent to each other's recording, and party C may then automatically record them without needing either A or B's permission.
Camcorder at an amusement park. Or are all the folks at Six Flags, Adventure Park USA, etc, also facing felony charges?
Further, if you're out to quote the statue, go ahead and link it. Otherwise you're speculating, same as I am, and should label it as such.
Cool, thanks! Except the link doesn't work... I'll see if I can track down what you were attempting to link.
(a) Unlawful acts.- Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to:
(1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
Doesn't apply. There's no interception, due to the public record recording. In order for interception to attach, some expectation of privacy would be required. Do we intercept the evening news with a VCR? No, not so much.
(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or
Again, not intercepted.
(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that t
1) Yes, they are. All police records are, with limited exceptions. Certainly in my jurisdiction, and probably in yours as well.
2) Again, the officer is already being recorded. The additional recording would not require consent. If I pointed a camera at the YouTube screen while it was playing, would I likewise be facing 16 years? Not so much. The 'harm' done to the officer's 'privacy' was already done by the state. Any replications of that are completely unimportant.
3) Same thing for this purpose. Again, already knowingly, legally recorded == consent not necessary. This is a 'two party' law, is it not? Were both parties aware they were being recorded? Yes they were. Consent not necessary.
Further, if you're out to quote the statue, go ahead and link it. Otherwise you're speculating, same as I am, and should label it as such.
Not so... If you and I have a conversation and we both agree that I can record it, that doesn't give a third party consent to also record it. The cop's consenting to a dash cam recording is irrelevant to his or her consent to any other recordings.
Additionally and independently, the cop doesn't have to consent to the dash cam - which is the point of my previous post - it's recorded by law enforcement, so no consent is required by anyone. Thus, you can't automatically extend a situation in which no consent is required because it's specifically exempted to situations where consent is required.
Of course you can extend it. How can the officer have any expectations of privacy over something that is a part of the public record? Consent was already given, by standing in a state with that law, and therefore no violation of rights came to the recorded party in any way.
I can't speak for MD in particular (although I do live here) but beyond the pernicious "the public can't watch us do the public's work" aspect of this is those dashboard cameras we all love on America's Funniest Car Chases and whatever. I've certainly seen clips that include audio from the citizen as well as the police officer--are we to take it that these too are felonious wiretaps?
Every state that has dual-consent wiretapping laws has an exception for recordings by law enforcement during the course of their duties, so no.
But again, if the state police officer consented to being recorded by the dash cam (by default), then the helmet cam is moot.
Actually, that's a slam-dunk defense right there! If the car behind him was recording, the helmet recording is completely moot, because the officer knew he was on tape. Yes?
Slashdot Mirror
The next time you go out to eat, ask the chef if you can have the meal for free. Tell him that if he's really passionate about his work he should just share it with everyone.
This is symptomatic of the problem right here. You, dear music producer, seem to equate things of limited quantity (food) to things that are infinitely reproducible (digital performances). This is simply idiotic. Think back to that chef. Imagine he can prepare a dish one time and copy it infinitely forever. He could serve one helping to every person on the globe with no additional cost or effort on his part. How many chefs would refuse to do that?
Your beef isn't with the attitude, per se. You're just not able to grasp the difference between physical resources and creative effort. This is probably simply due to your bias, as a professional in that industry surrounded by others likewise. It is very human. However the reason you're not finding a raft of sympathy outside of those circles is because it logically doesn't make sense to the rest of us. The fact that copyright even exists is a gift, a charity, as are royalties, etc. Imagine being born Chinese and having this same opinion. You'd starve...
Anyway, I'm not expecting to change your mind. And I wanted to say that your post was very well-written and hits all the highlights one would need to go for that angle. I'm just hoping to illustrate that in a world of physical reality, it falls pretty flat.
Alrighty then. So long as the message got through to you. I'm not suffering from delusions of forcing some sort of flipflop response. Have a great day!
What are the names of the agents that overthrew the Iranian government?
Who was/is Osama's handler?
Car crashes happen, so it would seem your standard of detail has been met.
There exists a wide gulf between the problem ('how do we store this stuff in a museum') and the proposed solution ('make it playable in the future'). It isn't as if the any of the aircraft in the National Air and Space Museum, for example, is ever taken out and flown by the museum guests. Does anyone really expect us to believe that seeing the Spirit of Saint Louis hanging up there is anything at all like the experience of crossing the Atlantic in it?
An adequate solution would be to record samples of the gameplay onto more future-proof media, blow up huge screenshots, and otherwise fabricate museum exhibits out of what we have left. This would mirror exactly the way we preserve everything else.
Typical geek silliness, if you ask me.
The summary states plain as day that the non-commercial CC license was used, so if the offenders weren't using his material in the furtherance of making a buck he wouldn't have a problem.
Are you purporting that the 'software/movies/music/etc' do not likewise carry licenses with terms? Because this is the juxtaposition that you're supposed to be attempting to justify.
There are other ways of knowing things besides secret documents.
That's spiffy, and goes without saying. You do understand the point, yes? An illegal government operation's illegal killings isn't going to be well documented, now is it? You could purport that they do not happen, for lack of evidence, and that would be fine. To purport that the evidence necessarily would exist if this were to happen is ridiculous, because it would run contrary to the design of a democracy, and someone would have to wind up in prison.
We do, however, have facts surrounding things similar to these allegations, such as extraordinary renditions, overthrowing the Iranian government, and the financing and training of Osama bin Laden. We don't have hard facts about the perpetrators of these crimes because if we did someone would be facing prosecution - if for no other reason than to uphold the charade. But we do know that these examples, at least, did happen and we have every example of expecting identical behavior in the future.
Lack of evidence is equally as unconvincing as your allegation that I'm an assassin. But that doesn't rule out any of the myriad of possibilities.
No need for the insults. I'm certain you can fathom the definition of 'willful blindness', and likewise I am sure you understand the differences between a state-sanctioned organization, like the KGB, and one that cannot legally operate whatsoever, like the CIA.
The only thing that allows the CIA to receive funding is the assumption that they're not doing any work whatsoever. Since they can't operate legally within our country, and they do not have the permission necessary to conduct legal operations in enemy nations, they're the epitome of and anti-democratic organization.
The KGB, sanctioned by the government and without such limits, is clearly a different animal.
Insults not withstanding.
This story is about a glorified crawler. No actual hacking transpired. No personal information that wasn't already revealed has been revealed. This is not news.
To quote one of the genius minds of our era, 'no shit, Sherlock'. The cases of 'actual hacking' that transpire on a regular basis can be counted on one hand. Nearly all the major 'hackers' have in their hit lists mundane crap exactly like this. Do you think dumpster diving, social engineering, and using lists of common passwords are somehow any more romantic than scraping public pages?
Grow up. Security is about a lot more than terminals in a green font.
I would love to have a citation for the fact that the CIA used to (still does) kill people in unfortunate car or plane crashes.
Ironically you'd only find such a thing on Wikileaks, due to the CIA being an illegal, secret organization.
If Google's trends are causing junk sites to pop into searches, people will 'trend' away from using that as their primary source of info. That or more likely they'll start looking at the host before clicking the links. Either way, 'www.chocomize.com' would be the single best source for info on this company, and we knew that with or without Google. Didn't we?
Further I resent the implication that the author knows what is decent enough for production and what isn't. This is the web. Eyeballs and brains determine what gets looked at, not some pretentious blog somewhere. The junk sites will go away after the trend declines, and/or if no one links to them (which is genuinely likely), so all we're left with is one author's assumption that standards should be applied to the internet at large. Which I largely reject.
That website can say whatever it wants but if someone tries to convince me that I have any obligation to follow Martian law that person will promptly told to go fuck himself.
But you have that backwards. If you want to use their site, you'll abide by their policies. Otherwise you're the one doing the masturbation.
I'm pointing out the absurdity of claiming to prosecute individuals under "UN law". Appealing to US law makes sense if the servers are located in the US or the users to be prosecuted are under US jurisdiction.
Appealing to "UN law" makes as much sense as appealing to Nigerian law or Martian law.
Indeed it does, but is it not the website's right to decide which laws they wish to respect? I mean so long as the UN, Nigeria, Mars, etc, are passing laws, who are you to say which websites follow which laws?
It is just odd.
Too bad you didn't include those, and too bad your link doesn't work.
Works for me. Try going a bit deeper, or doing a search for one of the words I quoted. I'm not your personal link-monkey.
Indeed you are not. I did in fact try. I see only 'articles' and no 'titles' or 'sections'. I searched using the built-in function and came up empty.
As I said, however, I'm confident enough (and the stakes here are low enough) that I don't genuinely feel the need to spend more time on it.
I'm not at all surprised you feel the same.
Have a great day!
Which is your disquiet? The UN can pass 'laws', can it not? Are you chafing at chatroulette's willful compliance, or what? I'm not seeing the panty-wrinkling here.
I did both. I'm referring to the one behind the motorcycle, which you clearly saw when you did what you're assuming I didn't do. Honest mistake to make, no apology necessary. :)
1) Yes, they are. All police records are, with limited exceptions. Certainly in my jurisdiction, and probably in yours as well.
Subject to FOIA requests and sealed during pending investigations, which means they're effectively not public records.
Wrong. They are public records under a (non-permanent) seal. There's no privacy unless a judge attaches such, except again in special situations (rape, etc).
2) Again, the officer is already being recorded. The additional recording would not require consent. If I pointed a camera at the YouTube screen while it was playing, would I likewise be facing 16 years? Not so much.
You're not recording the conversation... You're recording a recording of the conversation. There is no second party, just YouTube.
Bingo! The same is true of recording something that's already being legally recorded under the law. No privacy attaches.
The 'harm' done to the officer's 'privacy' was already done by the state. Any replications of that are completely unimportant.
"Unimportant" to you doesn't mean there's not a legal or semantic difference.
Logic, FTW. The case clearly has no merit under what we both seem to agree is the intent of the law.
3) Same thing for this purpose. Again, already knowingly, legally recorded == consent not necessary.
[Citation needed]
Additionally, that you are knowingly recorded by a cop doesn't mean you consent is not required for any and all other recordings.
Here's your citation: The grey mass between your ears. This really is a common sense point of view. You can disagree if you lack said sense, but calling for a cite as an argument tactic is just lame.
This is a 'two party' law, is it not? Were both parties aware they were being recorded? Yes they were. Consent not necessary.
Reeeeaallly, now. Find me a single citation, anywhere, of a situation in which parties A and B may consent to each other's recording, and party C may then automatically record them without needing either A or B's permission.
Camcorder at an amusement park. Or are all the folks at Six Flags, Adventure Park USA, etc, also facing felony charges?
Further, if you're out to quote the statue, go ahead and link it. Otherwise you're speculating, same as I am, and should label it as such.
Maryland Code, title 10, section 402:
Cool, thanks! Except the link doesn't work... I'll see if I can track down what you were attempting to link.
(a) Unlawful acts.- Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to:
(1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
Doesn't apply. There's no interception, due to the public record recording. In order for interception to attach, some expectation of privacy would be required. Do we intercept the evening news with a VCR? No, not so much.
(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or
Again, not intercepted.
(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that t
1) Yes, they are. All police records are, with limited exceptions. Certainly in my jurisdiction, and probably in yours as well.
2) Again, the officer is already being recorded. The additional recording would not require consent. If I pointed a camera at the YouTube screen while it was playing, would I likewise be facing 16 years? Not so much. The 'harm' done to the officer's 'privacy' was already done by the state. Any replications of that are completely unimportant.
3) Same thing for this purpose. Again, already knowingly, legally recorded == consent not necessary. This is a 'two party' law, is it not? Were both parties aware they were being recorded? Yes they were. Consent not necessary.
Further, if you're out to quote the statue, go ahead and link it. Otherwise you're speculating, same as I am, and should label it as such.
Not so... If you and I have a conversation and we both agree that I can record it, that doesn't give a third party consent to also record it. The cop's consenting to a dash cam recording is irrelevant to his or her consent to any other recordings.
Additionally and independently, the cop doesn't have to consent to the dash cam - which is the point of my previous post - it's recorded by law enforcement, so no consent is required by anyone. Thus, you can't automatically extend a situation in which no consent is required because it's specifically exempted to situations where consent is required.
Of course you can extend it. How can the officer have any expectations of privacy over something that is a part of the public record? Consent was already given, by standing in a state with that law, and therefore no violation of rights came to the recorded party in any way.
I can't speak for MD in particular (although I do live here) but beyond the pernicious "the public can't watch us do the public's work" aspect of this is those dashboard cameras we all love on America's Funniest Car Chases and whatever. I've certainly seen clips that include audio from the citizen as well as the police officer--are we to take it that these too are felonious wiretaps?
Every state that has dual-consent wiretapping laws has an exception for recordings by law enforcement during the course of their duties, so no.
But again, if the state police officer consented to being recorded by the dash cam (by default), then the helmet cam is moot.
Actually, that's a slam-dunk defense right there! If the car behind him was recording, the helmet recording is completely moot, because the officer knew he was on tape. Yes?
How do you know this is true for a fact? Are you David, or Shannon?
"I could teach you, but I'd have to charge..."
lol
Don't read too much into that, though. Most of my best skills aren't helped by the size you're thinking of at all. ;)
Nothing in here about actual grip strength. I'd think that a 'guide' would tell you how hard is too hard, etc.
Also, as a person with huge hands, I can tell you that size matters a lot in terms of too much/too little grip.
But was he dreaming at the end? That's what I want to know. I think he was, but some people don't agree with me.
Not to get all 'meta' on you here, but you're missing the point. The decision you're being led towards is more complex than 'yes/no':
'Cobb got what he wanted either way, so it simply does not matter'.
My PoV anyway...