Take a huge step back from all this, and realize the big issue is that, here in America, there is now music that is illegal to listen to. Fucked up, isn't it? "I killed my family... what are you in for?"
i give the EFF a 50% chance of the RIAA police (ya know, the cops and politicians they pay for) indicting every member of the EFF (yep, even me for donating money to 'em) under RICO for being a criminal organization as they are soliciting crime (sharing).
Can you give me an example of right wing rhetoric? I didn't mention the words "god" or "morality" or "family" or "our precious little children" anywhere.
Space exploration is, at this time, too expensive and risky for private enterprise. Capitalism has its limits. I'm quite sure that in the future private enterprise will replace government acces to space.
Well, astronauts are free to pay for their own "need to explore".
If any group of people could afford to do it, i'm sure they would. It's one of the few things, if not possibly the only thing, that is so cost-prohibitive that only the government has the funds to spend/waste (depending on your opinion) on it.
I, for one, wouldn't want Microsoft going up into space and building a big Monty-Burns-like sun-blocker to make us all pay a licensing fee for use of sunlight (of course using artificial light would be a DMCA violation).
I don't mean that in a cynical way. Humans by their very nature need to explore. "We don't need to go there" isn't part of the human psyche. Yeah it's expensive. Yeah, it's very dangerous, too. But don't feel too bad for the astronauts--they knew the risk they were taking. And they were more than happy to take that risk to get the chance to go into space. I'm sure there are plenty of us here who would do the same thing. We go to far away places because we can. I realize they're not going to uncharted territory each time the shuttle goes into orbit, but each time we learn something about how the human body functions in space, for example, we have done something worthwhile. It would be a horrible shame if manned spaceflight came to an end because it became politically incorrect.
if he went and did it, it would be a different crime, with a different charge/indictment. Double jeapordy is very narrow. And stupid shit like that movie "double jeopardy" ('you attempted to kill your husband and went to jail, so now you can kill him and they can't charge you') don't help vanquish the world of ignorance.
That being said, ordering someone to pay restitution for nonexistant damages smells unconstitutional to me. Major due process violation.
What Ginsburg said in Eldred is most certainly nice and fluffy, but it's dicta, and thus not binding precedent. That's the bottom line. Eldred does not stand for the proposition that the first amendment guarantees fair use. Of course, such dicta can be cited persuasively in the future, but it's most certainly not binding on the next court to hear a DMCA challenge, even though the SCOTUS said it.
Ever notice how, when an IP law (smart or stupid) is introduced in Congress, it's nearly always by 1 Democrat and 1 Republican? It's not due to the wonderfully happy beautiful spirit of bipartisanship that's permeating the air of Washington. Naw I'm more cynical than that.
Here's why. The RIAA, MPAA, etc. make sure they toss around large amounts of money to both parties (as all good interest groups should do) to get the laws they want passed. As IP policy is not addressed by the platforms of either political party, those who are going to sell out and fuck america up the ass for lots of campaign money realize that it will not only look better if they introduce said law in bipartisan pairs, but it is much safer, too. A bill sponsored by 1 republican and 1 democrat is much less likely to be attacked by either party as a whole. In fact, such a bill will never be attacked by either party as a whole. If, say, the republicans were the ones passing all the "destroy their computers and send them to guantanimo" IP laws, the democrats would immediately campaign against it, and vice-versa. So since both parties know the other doesn't care, and since both parties have plenty of members willing to whore themselves out for money, those who introduce these bills know it's mutually beneficial for both parties to do so in pairs.
Of course the same thing does for good laws, such as the one that's the subject of this thread. If two Republicans introduced the Eldred Act, the Democrats would immediately accuse the Reps of supporting criminals.
The danger is that only those willing to pay MSFT a fee will be able to get their spams through. Of course, that will cut down on spam, but is that the right way to do it?
Remember the good old days when an album wasn't one single + 10 tracks of filler shit? Yeh, that was the 70's. Anyway, a vast majority of albums now contain 1 (maybe 2 if they're really talented, heh) song meant for commercial distribution. The rest of the crap on the album is so you think you are getting your money's worth when you spend $15.99 for that one stupid song you really liked when you heard it on the radio (and will be sick of by next week b/c there is no substance to it whatsoever).
that can be easily tested. Just see if Orin Hatch's congressional website is down ("destroyed"). Since it is one webpage we KNOW is using pirated software, it should be down if this is the case. Then again, congresspeople typically don't pass laws that affect themselves. Section 133(d)(3)(A) of Hatch's bill, burried in the trash, exempts elected officials from having their computers destroyed for pirating software. After all, destroying gov't property, we just can't have that. As for YOUR computer....
There is nothing inherantly wrong with using SSN's as identification (because there are lots of Bob R. Smiths out there). The problem arises when the ID itself becomes proof of ID. This is how SSN's are used nowadays.
A lot of the time, not only is it stupid from a security standpoint, but it's also redundant. For example, with credit cards, each cardholder already has a private, individualized identification number--the credit card number itself. Each cardholder should use that number to identify themselves when calling the CC company, and each cardholder should have a password. SSN's should not be passwords. They're meant for identification, not proof thereof.
Hooking ourselves up to 1.21 gigawatt machines that shock our brains into seeing the world in a different way are more acceptable than a pill that does the same, simply because the machine doesn't make you euphoric in the process (and if by chance it did, that could easily be fixed with some mandatory (by law) spikes, sandpaper, etc. Does it make any sense? Of course not.
We managed to colonize america, defeat the british, expand all the way to california, go through the industrial revolution, and build what is now the world's sole superpower all with legalized drugs. Only in 1914 with the Harrison Act could you no longer waltz into the local grocery store and buy a pound of opium. I would argue that since then, it's all been downhill. Correlation doesn't equal causation, sure... but it shouldn't be ignored either.
I just don't want anybody to think that all you have to do to win a judgement in your favor is prove that something somebody wrote about you is false.
For a private figure (which this guy is)regarding a matter not of public concern (which this is not), all he must show is a false statement about him that was published (in the communicated sense of the word) and that it harmed his reputation. Certain things are libel per se, and you don't even have to show any harm, as it is presumed. Falesly stating he has declared bankruptcy would be such a per se libel. So yeah, it's that easy.
Of course, the NYT will whip out the consent form the guy most likely signed, use the tape recorded interview to show that nothing was false, etc. Lesson: stay away from the media. This guy had a huge ego and let the media come in to "interview" him about how great he is at this mysterious game. Just because he didn't know the times was gonna write a schmuck-piece about it doesn't make it libel (assuming it's all true, of course).
He keeps saying there are all these untrue statements, but identifies none. He just didn't like the tone of the piece. I don't blame him. But it's his fault. If he didn't want the reporter to mention something, get the reporter to sign a contract agreeing to not disclose the fact. NDA's aren't only for big evil companies.
in a civil trial, and possibly a criminal one, a jury could reasonably conclude that the log showing you downloaded a 10,303,334mb file named "Metallica_Enter_Sandman.mp3" on such and such day is evidence that you downloaded a copyrighted song. downloading = copying. copying without permission is the 'crime.' Of course, it is a malum prohibitum crime and not a malum in se, no matter how much they try to convince the world otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a huge step back from all this, and realize the big issue is that, here in America, there is now music that is illegal to listen to. Fucked up, isn't it? "I killed my family... what are you in for?"
i give the EFF a 50% chance of the RIAA police (ya know, the cops and politicians they pay for) indicting every member of the EFF (yep, even me for donating money to 'em) under RICO for being a criminal organization as they are soliciting crime (sharing).
Can you give me an example of right wing rhetoric? I didn't mention the words "god" or "morality" or "family" or "our precious little children" anywhere.
Space exploration is, at this time, too expensive and risky for private enterprise. Capitalism has its limits. I'm quite sure that in the future private enterprise will replace government acces to space.
Well, astronauts are free to pay for their own "need to explore".
If any group of people could afford to do it, i'm sure they would. It's one of the few things, if not possibly the only thing, that is so cost-prohibitive that only the government has the funds to spend/waste (depending on your opinion) on it.
I, for one, wouldn't want Microsoft going up into space and building a big Monty-Burns-like sun-blocker to make us all pay a licensing fee for use of sunlight (of course using artificial light would be a DMCA violation).
I don't mean that in a cynical way. Humans by their very nature need to explore. "We don't need to go there" isn't part of the human psyche. Yeah it's expensive. Yeah, it's very dangerous, too. But don't feel too bad for the astronauts--they knew the risk they were taking. And they were more than happy to take that risk to get the chance to go into space. I'm sure there are plenty of us here who would do the same thing. We go to far away places because we can. I realize they're not going to uncharted territory each time the shuttle goes into orbit, but each time we learn something about how the human body functions in space, for example, we have done something worthwhile. It would be a horrible shame if manned spaceflight came to an end because it became politically incorrect.
Yes it is Philips, and Philips has already said they cannot use the logo on non-standard discs.
if he went and did it, it would be a different crime, with a different charge/indictment. Double jeapordy is very narrow. And stupid shit like that movie "double jeopardy" ('you attempted to kill your husband and went to jail, so now you can kill him and they can't charge you') don't help vanquish the world of ignorance.
That being said, ordering someone to pay restitution for nonexistant damages smells unconstitutional to me. Major due process violation.
"...and we are sure the users of that prior art will soon become our customers."
What Ginsburg said in Eldred is most certainly nice and fluffy, but it's dicta, and thus not binding precedent. That's the bottom line. Eldred does not stand for the proposition that the first amendment guarantees fair use. Of course, such dicta can be cited persuasively in the future, but it's most certainly not binding on the next court to hear a DMCA challenge, even though the SCOTUS said it.
"Of course the same thing does for good laws..." should be "goes for good laws..."
unless it's domination by white people.
Ever notice how, when an IP law (smart or stupid) is introduced in Congress, it's nearly always by 1 Democrat and 1 Republican? It's not due to the wonderfully happy beautiful spirit of bipartisanship that's permeating the air of Washington. Naw I'm more cynical than that.
Here's why. The RIAA, MPAA, etc. make sure they toss around large amounts of money to both parties (as all good interest groups should do) to get the laws they want passed. As IP policy is not addressed by the platforms of either political party, those who are going to sell out and fuck america up the ass for lots of campaign money realize that it will not only look better if they introduce said law in bipartisan pairs, but it is much safer, too. A bill sponsored by 1 republican and 1 democrat is much less likely to be attacked by either party as a whole. In fact, such a bill will never be attacked by either party as a whole. If, say, the republicans were the ones passing all the "destroy their computers and send them to guantanimo" IP laws, the democrats would immediately campaign against it, and vice-versa. So since both parties know the other doesn't care, and since both parties have plenty of members willing to whore themselves out for money, those who introduce these bills know it's mutually beneficial for both parties to do so in pairs.
Of course the same thing does for good laws, such as the one that's the subject of this thread. If two Republicans introduced the Eldred Act, the Democrats would immediately accuse the Reps of supporting criminals.
Insightful. You bet your ass.
The danger is that only those willing to pay MSFT a fee will be able to get their spams through. Of course, that will cut down on spam, but is that the right way to do it?
They used my tax dollars to build the space shuttle, yet they won't let me take a trip on it.
Remember the good old days when an album wasn't one single + 10 tracks of filler shit? Yeh, that was the 70's. Anyway, a vast majority of albums now contain 1 (maybe 2 if they're really talented, heh) song meant for commercial distribution. The rest of the crap on the album is so you think you are getting your money's worth when you spend $15.99 for that one stupid song you really liked when you heard it on the radio (and will be sick of by next week b/c there is no substance to it whatsoever).
that can be easily tested. Just see if Orin Hatch's congressional website is down ("destroyed"). Since it is one webpage we KNOW is using pirated software, it should be down if this is the case. Then again, congresspeople typically don't pass laws that affect themselves. Section 133(d)(3)(A) of Hatch's bill, burried in the trash, exempts elected officials from having their computers destroyed for pirating software. After all, destroying gov't property, we just can't have that. As for YOUR computer....
There is nothing inherantly wrong with using SSN's as identification (because there are lots of Bob R. Smiths out there). The problem arises when the ID itself becomes proof of ID. This is how SSN's are used nowadays.
A lot of the time, not only is it stupid from a security standpoint, but it's also redundant. For example, with credit cards, each cardholder already has a private, individualized identification number--the credit card number itself. Each cardholder should use that number to identify themselves when calling the CC company, and each cardholder should have a password. SSN's should not be passwords. They're meant for identification, not proof thereof.
seriously...wow.
Hooking ourselves up to 1.21 gigawatt machines that shock our brains into seeing the world in a different way are more acceptable than a pill that does the same, simply because the machine doesn't make you euphoric in the process (and if by chance it did, that could easily be fixed with some mandatory (by law) spikes, sandpaper, etc. Does it make any sense? Of course not.
We managed to colonize america, defeat the british, expand all the way to california, go through the industrial revolution, and build what is now the world's sole superpower all with legalized drugs. Only in 1914 with the Harrison Act could you no longer waltz into the local grocery store and buy a pound of opium. I would argue that since then, it's all been downhill. Correlation doesn't equal causation, sure... but it shouldn't be ignored either.
And I think he also needs a license from Lego to create a derivative work with their blocks.
Oops. Sorry 'bout that. Had I picked "Metallica_One" maybe it would have been more realistic. I meant a file about 10 megs.
Yeah I'm surprised it took this long for someone to catch my idiotic error. mea culpa... meant "byte" of course.
I just don't want anybody to think that all you have to do to win a judgement in your favor is prove that something somebody wrote about you is false.
For a private figure (which this guy is)regarding a matter not of public concern (which this is not), all he must show is a false statement about him that was published (in the communicated sense of the word) and that it harmed his reputation. Certain things are libel per se, and you don't even have to show any harm, as it is presumed. Falesly stating he has declared bankruptcy would be such a per se libel. So yeah, it's that easy.
Of course, the NYT will whip out the consent form the guy most likely signed, use the tape recorded interview to show that nothing was false, etc. Lesson: stay away from the media. This guy had a huge ego and let the media come in to "interview" him about how great he is at this mysterious game. Just because he didn't know the times was gonna write a schmuck-piece about it doesn't make it libel (assuming it's all true, of course). He keeps saying there are all these untrue statements, but identifies none. He just didn't like the tone of the piece. I don't blame him. But it's his fault. If he didn't want the reporter to mention something, get the reporter to sign a contract agreeing to not disclose the fact. NDA's aren't only for big evil companies.
in a civil trial, and possibly a criminal one, a jury could reasonably conclude that the log showing you downloaded a 10,303,334mb file named "Metallica_Enter_Sandman.mp3" on such and such day is evidence that you downloaded a copyrighted song. downloading = copying. copying without permission is the 'crime.' Of course, it is a malum prohibitum crime and not a malum in se, no matter how much they try to convince the world otherwise.
Islam is a religion, not a race. Unlike race, religion is voluntary.
"The more you deal with people, the more you hate people" ... ain't that the truth?