You have to realize that you do NOT have the right (in the legal sense of the word) to break copy protection to do anything with the music. The DMCA prohibits this. So you can stop saying that you have the right to do this and that, when the law says you dont. Now, if you think its some sort of inallianable human right, then thats another matter entirly, but you seem to be using the law to backup your claims of rights, and the law just isn't on your (our) side. The DMCA is a terrible law but its there. All that said I happily break the DMCA, I just don't claim to have a legal right to do so.
You have to realize that you do NOT have the right (in the legal sense of the word) to break copy protection to do anything with the music. The DMCA prohibits this. So you can stop saying that you have the right to do this and that, when the law says you dont. Now, if you think its some sort of inallianable human right, then thats another matter entirly, but you seem to be using the law to backup your claims of rights, and the law just isn't on your (our) side. The DMCA and a terrible law but its there. All that said I happily break the DMCA, I just don't claim to have a legal right to do so.
Besides what others have already mentioned (that this was a decision made on the facts of the case), precident set by trial courts like this is rarely binding. Its pretty meaningless.
Lets be honest, stockholders are almost always of the higher classes. Clearly, the russian revolution is not the right model. I don't think a 50% tax in exchange for the Scandinavian model would be that bad of a trade, but I think a better model is libertarian socialism. I don't think human beings are inherently greedy for money. They do seek happiness, but that is quite seperate. Ideally, we'd live in a society in which people realize this distinction.
I think you are making a false distinction. If I were to ask you to add 5+4 in your head, would you do something consciously to come up with the answer or would the answer just pop out of your mouth? I think it would be the latter. Now, if I asked you to solve some algebra problem, you might right out a couple steps on a piece of paper. But, this is really a memory technique isn't it? What to do between the steps still just pops out. People who are good at math tend to have good intuition when it comes to numbers. They can make bigger leaps without breaking things into steps. I remember in 8th grade, I had a math teacher who would give me on C on any test on which I didn't write down just one step. This drove me mad, because, of course, I would just look at the problems and know the answer, and she could not possibly understand this. Would you argue that I am not better at math because of my intuition? The deep secret about human intelligence is that it is all intuitive. Language is the perfect example. As you said, you can't say why something sounds wrong, it just does. You rarely think about a sentence before you say it. It just pops out.
Where do you suppose this software is stored? The physical neurons are the hardware and the software. Unless, of course, you are sugesting that autism is completly determined by someones experiences anot not genetics, which I find hard to believe since autiism can develop so early in life.
I was not aware of that decision, but I am certainly not surpised by it. Another decision, that while practical, clearly is not in line with the constitution. I guess they just decided the 14th amendment was more of a guideline than a rule.
That is the origin of the term but it was used in the TLO decision in discussing the concept of the school taking the place of the parent during the school day, instead of being considered an agent of the state. They struck this down.
And yet the court has also ruled that the school does not excersize in locus parentis authority over students. Teachers and administrators are agents of the state. There is still, in theory, a "reasonable suspicion" requirement, in the TLO ruling. It seems to me that random searches do not meet that standard. Personally, I think the standard should be proboble cause. Equal protection under the law includes students.
In TLO v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court mostly agreed with you. They made a pragmatic ruling, that school officials only need "reasonable suspicion" to search a student, not proboble cause or a warrent. However, they also ruled that school officials could not take away students' rights in locus parentis. They ruled that school officials are agents of the state, and so the bill of rights does apply. Personally, I disagree with the ruling. While it may be practical to take away certain rights, it is clearly unconstitutional. The 14th amendment guarentees equal protection under the law, and that includes students. This, combined with the 4th amendment, clearly means that school officials should need proboble cause, if not a search warrent, to search a students property. If the supreme court doesn't like this, then all they should do is hope the congress passes a constitutional amendment. But then, I am biased, I bring drugs to school.
I think all this shows is that most people, deep down, are really alot dirtier than anyone would like to admit. This is what happens when, through anonymity, they are allowed to express those dirtier aspects of themselves without hte social consequences. I think when we realize how not socially acceptable we really are, we will learn to change our society to better reflect ourselves. But then that could be the opium talking.
When I was in junior high, the foolproof password was 'admin'. I don't think I can think of a worse password. It was pretty funny. One time though a teacher in the computer lab saw me unlock it, and made me go talk to the head media center person. He said if I did it again they'd ban me from the computers for a year. I didn't unlock fool proof again but I hacked their webpage a couple months later and did get banned for a year, along with having to do 16 hours of community service for a diversons program. I gotta say though, I had alot more interesting story about what I did to tell at the diversion meetings than all the other people who had just stolen lipstick from a department store or something.
A) bullshit on multiple counts. For one things, most state consitutions have similar provisions, and for another, the first amendment does apply to state and local governments.
B) If the government is going to sponser a school newspaper it cannot choose to fund some articles and not others. This is analogous to NEA precident.
C) I think this is bullshit as far as the consitution is concerned, especially since the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment does not say equal protection except for minors. However, the supreme court has made certain pragmatic dicisions that I think are inconsistent with the constitution when deciding what powers school administrators should be allowed. They made a similar error in TLO V. New Jersey, in which they significantly lowered the burden required by school admiistrators to conduct searches of students and their property (while acknowledging that school administrators are agents of the state no less). So from a current legal perspective, you are corrent that ths supreme court has sided with the schools on this one, but it is still unconstitutional.
It isn't that the right to freedom of speech is inforced. Its just that laws which would restrict the freedom of speech aren't inforced. If some private citizen wants to go out and try to restrict freedom of speech, as long as they aren't violating some other law, they are free do to so. Freedom is a negative concept, not a positive one (do not read this and think I mean freedom is bad).
Slashdot Mirror
You have to realize that you do NOT have the right (in the legal sense of the word) to break copy protection to do anything with the music. The DMCA prohibits this. So you can stop saying that you have the right to do this and that, when the law says you dont. Now, if you think its some sort of inallianable human right, then thats another matter entirly, but you seem to be using the law to backup your claims of rights, and the law just isn't on your (our) side. The DMCA is a terrible law but its there. All that said I happily break the DMCA, I just don't claim to have a legal right to do so.
You have to realize that you do NOT have the right (in the legal sense of the word) to break copy protection to do anything with the music. The DMCA prohibits this. So you can stop saying that you have the right to do this and that, when the law says you dont. Now, if you think its some sort of inallianable human right, then thats another matter entirly, but you seem to be using the law to backup your claims of rights, and the law just isn't on your (our) side. The DMCA and a terrible law but its there. All that said I happily break the DMCA, I just don't claim to have a legal right to do so.
But "postings" was not defined, and it was unclear whether or not it applied to IMs. This clears up the ambiguity.
Curiousity may have killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect.
Large organised videogame piracy groups are a white dwarf, slowly shrinking away. The game makers have wone that one.
You go ahead and keep thinking that.
Besides what others have already mentioned (that this was a decision made on the facts of the case), precident set by trial courts like this is rarely binding. Its pretty meaningless.
Yes, socialism + the wisdom of buddhism would be ideal I think.
Lets be honest, stockholders are almost always of the higher classes. Clearly, the russian revolution is not the right model. I don't think a 50% tax in exchange for the Scandinavian model would be that bad of a trade, but I think a better model is libertarian socialism. I don't think human beings are inherently greedy for money. They do seek happiness, but that is quite seperate. Ideally, we'd live in a society in which people realize this distinction.
This is the truth because we are presuing for profit.
And therein lies the problem. Why should the rich elites be able to use us all to increase their profit margin? Revolution is the only answer.
I think Hunter Thompson would probobly rather his death not be taken so seriously.
I think you are making a false distinction. If I were to ask you to add 5+4 in your head, would you do something consciously to come up with the answer or would the answer just pop out of your mouth? I think it would be the latter. Now, if I asked you to solve some algebra problem, you might right out a couple steps on a piece of paper. But, this is really a memory technique isn't it? What to do between the steps still just pops out. People who are good at math tend to have good intuition when it comes to numbers. They can make bigger leaps without breaking things into steps. I remember in 8th grade, I had a math teacher who would give me on C on any test on which I didn't write down just one step. This drove me mad, because, of course, I would just look at the problems and know the answer, and she could not possibly understand this. Would you argue that I am not better at math because of my intuition? The deep secret about human intelligence is that it is all intuitive. Language is the perfect example. As you said, you can't say why something sounds wrong, it just does. You rarely think about a sentence before you say it. It just pops out.
Where do you suppose this software is stored? The physical neurons are the hardware and the software. Unless, of course, you are sugesting that autism is completly determined by someones experiences anot not genetics, which I find hard to believe since autiism can develop so early in life.
Not really. He just thought he would make a better president than bush. He spent plenty of time mocking kerry too.
Personally, I just don't believe in intellectual property period. Physical property is bad enough.
Doesn't matter. Its still an amazing deal to download unlimited music for a month for 10 bucks.
I was not aware of that decision, but I am certainly not surpised by it. Another decision, that while practical, clearly is not in line with the constitution. I guess they just decided the 14th amendment was more of a guideline than a rule.
That is the origin of the term but it was used in the TLO decision in discussing the concept of the school taking the place of the parent during the school day, instead of being considered an agent of the state. They struck this down.
And yet the court has also ruled that the school does not excersize in locus parentis authority over students. Teachers and administrators are agents of the state. There is still, in theory, a "reasonable suspicion" requirement, in the TLO ruling. It seems to me that random searches do not meet that standard. Personally, I think the standard should be proboble cause. Equal protection under the law includes students.
In TLO v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court mostly agreed with you. They made a pragmatic ruling, that school officials only need "reasonable suspicion" to search a student, not proboble cause or a warrent. However, they also ruled that school officials could not take away students' rights in locus parentis. They ruled that school officials are agents of the state, and so the bill of rights does apply. Personally, I disagree with the ruling. While it may be practical to take away certain rights, it is clearly unconstitutional. The 14th amendment guarentees equal protection under the law, and that includes students. This, combined with the 4th amendment, clearly means that school officials should need proboble cause, if not a search warrent, to search a students property. If the supreme court doesn't like this, then all they should do is hope the congress passes a constitutional amendment. But then, I am biased, I bring drugs to school.
I definatly know I'm a geek when I think, "Wow, Charles Ofria reads slashdot? I cited him in my paper a few weeks ago"! Anyway, good work.
That may be the most ironic sentence ever written.
I think all this shows is that most people, deep down, are really alot dirtier than anyone would like to admit. This is what happens when, through anonymity, they are allowed to express those dirtier aspects of themselves without hte social consequences. I think when we realize how not socially acceptable we really are, we will learn to change our society to better reflect ourselves. But then that could be the opium talking.
When I was in junior high, the foolproof password was 'admin'. I don't think I can think of a worse password. It was pretty funny. One time though a teacher in the computer lab saw me unlock it, and made me go talk to the head media center person. He said if I did it again they'd ban me from the computers for a year. I didn't unlock fool proof again but I hacked their webpage a couple months later and did get banned for a year, along with having to do 16 hours of community service for a diversons program. I gotta say though, I had alot more interesting story about what I did to tell at the diversion meetings than all the other people who had just stolen lipstick from a department store or something.
A) bullshit on multiple counts. For one things, most state consitutions have similar provisions, and for another, the first amendment does apply to state and local governments.
B) If the government is going to sponser a school newspaper it cannot choose to fund some articles and not others. This is analogous to NEA precident.
C) I think this is bullshit as far as the consitution is concerned, especially since the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment does not say equal protection except for minors. However, the supreme court has made certain pragmatic dicisions that I think are inconsistent with the constitution when deciding what powers school administrators should be allowed. They made a similar error in TLO V. New Jersey, in which they significantly lowered the burden required by school admiistrators to conduct searches of students and their property (while acknowledging that school administrators are agents of the state no less). So from a current legal perspective, you are corrent that ths supreme court has sided with the schools on this one, but it is still unconstitutional.
It isn't that the right to freedom of speech is inforced. Its just that laws which would restrict the freedom of speech aren't inforced. If some private citizen wants to go out and try to restrict freedom of speech, as long as they aren't violating some other law, they are free do to so. Freedom is a negative concept, not a positive one (do not read this and think I mean freedom is bad).