So true... people still hack the software to make it work, but those trying to follow the straight and narrow get nothing but grief. How is this a good thing?
DRM is not about getting people who were not paying for something to pay for it.
It's about getting people who were paying for something to pay for it twice.
For example, I downloaded a couple ring tones for my phone. Phone died. I replaced the phone with EXACTLY THE SAME MODEL, but even though I was able to back up and restore all my contacts and other information, the ring tones did not transfer because there's some weird DRM on them.
So now if I want my ringtones back, I have to buy them AGAIN, and apparently every time I replace my phone. How stupid is that?
In the US, in MOST states, you are supposed to stay in the right lane except to pass.
Except, this is not enforced. If you drive 15 MPH over the limit, you'll get pulled over. But no one ever gets pulled over for driving 10 MPH under the limit in the left lane.
In addition to that, the driver licensing requirements in the US are far less significant than in Europe. So in Europe, drivers have been taught the concept of passing. Not so much in the US. So you have a bunch of untrained drivers who drive whatever speed they want in whatever lane they want, because they were never taught otherwise, either as part of driver education or by getting ticketed.
Oftentimes, when there are three or more lanes of traffic, the FASTEST lane to drive in is actually the right one, since nobody actually drives in it.
This is not going to work out well for you when some other driver calls in that you are driving around pointing guns at people. Then you look like a grey-haired lunatic, and the courts don't look kindly on them.
I should have been more clear - I was operating under the assumption that the limitation in the parent post - that 'if this were in a college paper' or whatever - applied; ergo, if it's similar enough to count as plagiarism were someone to put it in their paper unattributed, it's probably similar enough to be infringing absent other mitigating factors (like fair use).
It would be considered plagiarism. In all of the election coverage out there, the AP article is the only place that uses those three phrases (According to Google).
It's only evidence of such if it actually causes non-infringing content to be removed.
And even then, the evidence is only anecdotal. If 7 non-infringing items get removed from the internet and 3,000,000 infringing items get removed from the internet without anybody having to go to court, that's a system that, on the whole, works pretty well. Or if the system allows service providers to let their users post whatever content they want unfiltered and at low prices because the service providers don't have to worry about being sued by content holders, that's also a system that, on the whole, works pretty well.
To have evidence that the system is fundamentally broken, one would have to know how often the DMCA is used to remove legitimate content and the cost of processing DMCA requests, and compare that to how much illegitimate content would be hard to remove and the costs of exposing service providers to liability for it - and then compare that cost/benefit to the cost/benefit of other possible ways of handling copyright infringement on the internet.
Of course, that would involve some actual research and critical thinking.
"The news" and a particular presentation of the news are not the same thing. 30-80 words is enough to be a particular presentation.
Whether quoting that much is fair use or not is going to depend on a lot more than just the words quoted themselves. Is the quoting commercial? Done for rebuttal purposes? Source-cited? How much of the total work is the quote?
These are factors that may not be easy to clearly decide except at trial.
Disclaimer: I have not seen the 7 cases cited in this story, so for all I know they could be clearly fair use, clearly not, or up for debate.
Presidential communications are not subject to FOIA. If Congress wants the public to have access to those communications, they should pass a law requiring that.
Access to communications required by subpoena or Congress, however, should most certainly be required.
I think you're missing where I was going with that statement.
Really, everyone is born with rights. The Constitution allows for those rights to be abridged through various due processes. The government can seize property under imminent domain, and it can deprive you of privacy or liberty or even life through due process.
I didn't mean that terrorists should be some special class, just that if they are convicted of an actual crime, they would suffer the same loss of rights as other criminals, ergo, once you've been put on trial and found guilty, you don't (necessarily) have a right to life anymore.
(With the caveat that I personally oppose capital punishment. Death sentences should all be commuted to a life of hard labor.)
I will, right after you quote the part of the Constitution that prohibits searches.
The fourth amendment does not prohibit searches. It prohibits UNREASONABLE searches. While you may not personally feel searches at the border are 'reasonable', there is 200+ years of history and standard practice that solidly considers searches of persons entering the country to be reasonable.
If we've already accepted that searches of persons and papers at the border are reasonable, then searches of laptops are reasonable.
But, I don't suppose I should expect an actual understanding of the constitution from someone with such a... nuanced... argumentative style.
The question is not whether Al Qaeda will reciprocate the same rights our country grants.
The question is whether Great Britain, Germany, Brazil, China, Japan, Russia, Egypt, Canada, Mexico, etc, will reciprocate. Because if THEY will reciprocate, then we sure as hell better stop locking people up without charges lest the rest of the world follow our lead and start locking up our citizens.
While I certainly agree with you, I do have the feeling they're just going to shuffle them into the custody of other countries without so many inconvenient rights and just drop by for info as they need it.
This all is really a situation that isn't going to be ultimately decided by the courts, but by the 22nd amendment. When Bush gets replaced by McCain or Obama, all of this stupidity will end. Neither of them is going to attempt to move people to foreign countries.
It is nice that the Supreme Court gets to go on record as saying this is bullshit before Bush is tossed from office though.
I just hope that when some more time has passed and the new administration reigns in on the propaganda that the NEXT administration has the opportunity to try the members of this administration for the crimes they have committed.
I don't want terrorists to have US constitutional rights. Kill 'em all.
What I want though is to first FIGURE OUT WHO IS A TERRORIST AND WHO IS NOT.
Just because the executive branch SAYS they are a terrorist doesn't mean they are actually a terrorist. And in fact, quite a few of the Gitmo detainees seem to quite obviously NOT be terrorists, but just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
So what I want is for ACCUSED terrorists to be given a trial, and then all the ones found guilty can rot in Gitmo or be shot as appropriate.
But what I do NOT want is for our government to be able to grab random people and toss them in prison for as long as they feel like - even if they do tricky things like put the prisons in other countries. Because if its OK for our government to do it, then its OK for other governments to do it, and that would crimp my travel plans.
But, they HAD lives to get on TO. That's not true in the middle east - the vast majority of the population lives in poverty, and in even worse, in Iraq, they don't even have basic security. Anybody can be killed at any time.
When you have large disaffected populations, you create a ripe stomping ground for nefarious personalities to indoctrinate them to their 'causes'. Why does your life suck? It's because of the evil Americans! Kill the infidels!
We're the new Jews; we just have bigger guns. (Well, the new Jews are also the new Jews, and THEY have bigger guns too, thanks in large part to us.)
Privacy is not a right the limited to the technical elite.
Actually, privacy at the border is limited to diplomats. Everybody else doesn't have any.
The proverbial 'grandma' should be able to expect crossing the border to "just work"
It does 'just work'. Don't cross the border with things you don't want customs agents to find. That goes for drugs, things you are trying to smuggle in without paying duty on, more than $10,000, kiddie porn, documents about another country's nuclear program, trade secrets, or any of those things on a laptop.
Putting it on a hard drive shouldn't make it any less searchable than if you were carrying it on paper.
Er, like their ruling that drastically reduced cases where an injunction was appropriate, this taking away the big injunction stick from patent trolls?
You may, for example, have friends who are not wealthy enough to have but the most basic phone service. Or maybe you have people who want to call you from their office, where local personal calls are kosher and non-local personal calls are not.
Not nearly the issue it used to be now that most people have cell phones that don't care about who you are calling, but still an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
If there are 6 groups, then the chance of randomly guessing the correct group is 16.66%, not 2.75%.
Let's say we pick the same city every time.
We have a picture. It's from one of 6 locales. We pick a locale C. What are your chances that you're right? 1 in 6.
We have another picture, and pick locale C again - chances? 1 in 6.
Another picture, we pick locale C, and again, chances are 1 in 6.
You seem to understand this concept when you say the chances are 1 in 6 when we pick the same location each time.
So, let's get adventurous, and the next picture we look at, we're going to guess A.
What are the chances that the picture we are looking at is from location A?
ONE IN SIX!
It's 16.66% no matter what.
So true... people still hack the software to make it work, but those trying to follow the straight and narrow get nothing but grief. How is this a good thing?
DRM is not about getting people who were not paying for something to pay for it.
It's about getting people who were paying for something to pay for it twice.
For example, I downloaded a couple ring tones for my phone. Phone died. I replaced the phone with EXACTLY THE SAME MODEL, but even though I was able to back up and restore all my contacts and other information, the ring tones did not transfer because there's some weird DRM on them.
So now if I want my ringtones back, I have to buy them AGAIN, and apparently every time I replace my phone. How stupid is that?
In the US, in MOST states, you are supposed to stay in the right lane except to pass.
Except, this is not enforced. If you drive 15 MPH over the limit, you'll get pulled over. But no one ever gets pulled over for driving 10 MPH under the limit in the left lane.
In addition to that, the driver licensing requirements in the US are far less significant than in Europe. So in Europe, drivers have been taught the concept of passing. Not so much in the US. So you have a bunch of untrained drivers who drive whatever speed they want in whatever lane they want, because they were never taught otherwise, either as part of driver education or by getting ticketed.
Oftentimes, when there are three or more lanes of traffic, the FASTEST lane to drive in is actually the right one, since nobody actually drives in it.
This is not going to work out well for you when some other driver calls in that you are driving around pointing guns at people. Then you look like a grey-haired lunatic, and the courts don't look kindly on them.
I should have been more clear - I was operating under the assumption that the limitation in the parent post - that 'if this were in a college paper' or whatever - applied; ergo, if it's similar enough to count as plagiarism were someone to put it in their paper unattributed, it's probably similar enough to be infringing absent other mitigating factors (like fair use).
It would be considered plagiarism. In all of the election coverage out there, the AP article is the only place that uses those three phrases (According to Google).
It's only evidence of such if it actually causes non-infringing content to be removed.
And even then, the evidence is only anecdotal. If 7 non-infringing items get removed from the internet and 3,000,000 infringing items get removed from the internet without anybody having to go to court, that's a system that, on the whole, works pretty well. Or if the system allows service providers to let their users post whatever content they want unfiltered and at low prices because the service providers don't have to worry about being sued by content holders, that's also a system that, on the whole, works pretty well.
To have evidence that the system is fundamentally broken, one would have to know how often the DMCA is used to remove legitimate content and the cost of processing DMCA requests, and compare that to how much illegitimate content would be hard to remove and the costs of exposing service providers to liability for it - and then compare that cost/benefit to the cost/benefit of other possible ways of handling copyright infringement on the internet.
Of course, that would involve some actual research and critical thinking.
Erm, I mean, DAMN THE MAN!
"The news" and a particular presentation of the news are not the same thing. 30-80 words is enough to be a particular presentation.
Whether quoting that much is fair use or not is going to depend on a lot more than just the words quoted themselves. Is the quoting commercial? Done for rebuttal purposes? Source-cited? How much of the total work is the quote?
These are factors that may not be easy to clearly decide except at trial.
Disclaimer: I have not seen the 7 cases cited in this story, so for all I know they could be clearly fair use, clearly not, or up for debate.
So you've updated to Vista without paying? Via Microsoft's servers? WOW. How'd u manage that?
Who cares about free downgrades?
Presidential communications are not subject to FOIA. If Congress wants the public to have access to those communications, they should pass a law requiring that.
Access to communications required by subpoena or Congress, however, should most certainly be required.
Accused terrorist != terrorist
But they didn't just do that to random people, they did it to people who expressly opted in to that arrangement.
I think you're missing where I was going with that statement.
Really, everyone is born with rights. The Constitution allows for those rights to be abridged through various due processes. The government can seize property under imminent domain, and it can deprive you of privacy or liberty or even life through due process.
I didn't mean that terrorists should be some special class, just that if they are convicted of an actual crime, they would suffer the same loss of rights as other criminals, ergo, once you've been put on trial and found guilty, you don't (necessarily) have a right to life anymore.
(With the caveat that I personally oppose capital punishment. Death sentences should all be commuted to a life of hard labor.)
I will, right after you quote the part of the Constitution that prohibits searches.
... nuanced ... argumentative style.
The fourth amendment does not prohibit searches. It prohibits UNREASONABLE searches. While you may not personally feel searches at the border are 'reasonable', there is 200+ years of history and standard practice that solidly considers searches of persons entering the country to be reasonable.
If we've already accepted that searches of persons and papers at the border are reasonable, then searches of laptops are reasonable.
But, I don't suppose I should expect an actual understanding of the constitution from someone with such a
Second, will Al Qaeda reciprocate?
The question is not whether Al Qaeda will reciprocate the same rights our country grants.
The question is whether Great Britain, Germany, Brazil, China, Japan, Russia, Egypt, Canada, Mexico, etc, will reciprocate. Because if THEY will reciprocate, then we sure as hell better stop locking people up without charges lest the rest of the world follow our lead and start locking up our citizens.
You'd suspend it for non-citizens because it would be paralyzing to put enemy soldiers caught in battle through a court system.
When you have something like the Civil War, all of the opposing soldiers are actually citizens - you'd suspend it there for the same reasons.
While I certainly agree with you, I do have the feeling they're just going to shuffle them into the custody of other countries without so many inconvenient rights and just drop by for info as they need it.
This all is really a situation that isn't going to be ultimately decided by the courts, but by the 22nd amendment. When Bush gets replaced by McCain or Obama, all of this stupidity will end. Neither of them is going to attempt to move people to foreign countries.
It is nice that the Supreme Court gets to go on record as saying this is bullshit before Bush is tossed from office though.
I just hope that when some more time has passed and the new administration reigns in on the propaganda that the NEXT administration has the opportunity to try the members of this administration for the crimes they have committed.
I don't want terrorists to have US constitutional rights. Kill 'em all.
What I want though is to first FIGURE OUT WHO IS A TERRORIST AND WHO IS NOT.
Just because the executive branch SAYS they are a terrorist doesn't mean they are actually a terrorist. And in fact, quite a few of the Gitmo detainees seem to quite obviously NOT be terrorists, but just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
So what I want is for ACCUSED terrorists to be given a trial, and then all the ones found guilty can rot in Gitmo or be shot as appropriate.
But what I do NOT want is for our government to be able to grab random people and toss them in prison for as long as they feel like - even if they do tricky things like put the prisons in other countries. Because if its OK for our government to do it, then its OK for other governments to do it, and that would crimp my travel plans.
they just wanted to get on with their lives
But, they HAD lives to get on TO. That's not true in the middle east - the vast majority of the population lives in poverty, and in even worse, in Iraq, they don't even have basic security. Anybody can be killed at any time.
When you have large disaffected populations, you create a ripe stomping ground for nefarious personalities to indoctrinate them to their 'causes'. Why does your life suck? It's because of the evil Americans! Kill the infidels!
We're the new Jews; we just have bigger guns. (Well, the new Jews are also the new Jews, and THEY have bigger guns too, thanks in large part to us.)
I think the only way to counter it is to teach philosophy and rational thinking from an early age.
Or bullets.
This is the border we're talking about here.
Privacy is not a right the limited to the technical elite.
Actually, privacy at the border is limited to diplomats. Everybody else doesn't have any.
The proverbial 'grandma' should be able to expect crossing the border to "just work"
It does 'just work'. Don't cross the border with things you don't want customs agents to find. That goes for drugs, things you are trying to smuggle in without paying duty on, more than $10,000, kiddie porn, documents about another country's nuclear program, trade secrets, or any of those things on a laptop.
Putting it on a hard drive shouldn't make it any less searchable than if you were carrying it on paper.
...Safari won't work. You need to upgrade to CattleDrive. It'll connect straight off. Alternatively, you can paint Safari to look like a cow.
If you impeach Bush and successfully remove him from office, then you get Cheney.
But, maybe if they SIMULTANEOUSLY impeached Bush and Cheney on the same charges, then Pelosi could be President.
Er, like their ruling that drastically reduced cases where an injunction was appropriate, this taking away the big injunction stick from patent trolls?
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/15/78316_HNebaypatent_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/15/78316_HNebaypatent_1.html
You may, for example, have friends who are not wealthy enough to have but the most basic phone service. Or maybe you have people who want to call you from their office, where local personal calls are kosher and non-local personal calls are not.
Not nearly the issue it used to be now that most people have cell phones that don't care about who you are calling, but still an issue.