Sorry, but yes; self-plagiarism can be a copyright problem. Publishers usually have you sign away your copyright to them before they will publish your work. They can then legally prevent you from publishing your work with another publisher or yourself. Sure, the author usually retains a moral right to be identified as the author, but the right to profit from the work can be sold to others. If the author creates another work too similar to the first, i.e., they plagiarise themselves, then that can be just as much a problem as if anybody else plagiarised them.
The only entity that can't plagiarise a work (from a legal, copyright perspective), is the copyright owner, and that entity is often not the author.
Note that I don't believe this is a factor for Prince and Mooney since it seems that neither of them have sold their copyright.
471 million potatos is a lot of potatos. 471 million.2mm bits of plastic is enough to cover in plastic all of the living rooms in California. Wait - no - one living room. Or about a dinner-plates worth a day.
If the beads are 0.2mm in diameter then, by my maths, that comes to about 1 (one) (US) gallon of them. Did someone leave off some zeros?
I don't think this is a good comparison to make. As I understand it, the restrictions of the 1990s did not require a back door to be inserted; they just limited the strength of the cryptography, presumably to a level breakable by the NSA even then. The old Clipper-chip back door fiasco was not responsible for logjam et al. and the new proposals are not intending to limit key length.
N.B.: I still definitely think that the current noises about mandating back doors is very worrying. My hope is that it won't happen due to the major privacy and security issues it presents. Perhaps our saviour will be the inability of different governments to trust each other.
You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.
But no where does it say "launching". Launching should be fine.
I'm not sure you understand what "without limitation" means.
You appear to be stuck on the notion that if copyright violation on a movie, for example, were theft, that it is the movie itself that was being allegedly stolen
Never said anything like that. All I'm saying is that if I download a movie (or other IP) in violation of copyright laws then that is not theft. If you want a catchy, single-word term, use "piracy" (though, in my view, that devalues the original crime of that name which is still going on) but use of the word "theft" in this context by big content et al. is wrong.
Since "good" refers to something physical, I see you've decided to respond with the predicted "it's not tangible, so therefore it doesn't count" excuse.
This completely ignores the fact that things do not have to be tangible to be considered to have a measurable value. Your time, for example, is worth money both to yourself and your employer.
Nobody is saying that there's no value in copyright violations. What they are saying is that it is not theft. I like the car analogy for this one:
Theft: Somebody come and steals your car parked outside your house. Now they have a car and you don't.
Copyright Violation: Somebody comes and makes a copy of your car parked outside your house. Now they have a car and so do you.
See the difference? And remember that it was you who said it makes no difference as to whether the things are tangible or not.
I think the early startups were going after the wedding topper market. Those are the decorations on the top of the cake that have often been in the form of little bride and groom dolls. Now those dolls can be actual replicas of the bride and groom.
Even if they're required by law to block the site, they're not required to do it in such a brainless way that they impact other sites. If HTTP, inspect the host name. If HTTPS then the IP will be enough by itself.
You haven't done much navigating have you? Nautical miles remain very much the standard for both aircraft and ships. It's because a minute of arc (a sixtieth of a degree) equals a nautical mile on the earth's surface... and that's not going to change. 21600 (nautical miles around the equator) is a much nicer number than 40000 (kilometres around the earth via the poles) anyway.
For aircraft, altitude is still always reported in feet, presumably because changing would inevitably cost lives during the transition.
But you can't choose the distance units any more. It defaults to where you are or you can say you're in the US and it will show you miles or you can say you're in Australia and you'll get kilometres, &c. Too bad if you want nautical miles, which the old version allowed you to select, along with many other units.
Yes, data are data, but I don't see how a law making it illegal for you to obtain content that has been geo-blocked would break the Internet. The law wouldn't have to talk at all about technical details and they could catch people by following the money more easily than by following the bytes. More practically, it would make it hard for service providers in the jurisdiction to offer services to work around geo-blocking, making the case that started this thread open-and-shut.
As for the content providers grey-marketing their content, that's (currently) a contractual issue between them and their suppliers. New Zealand has historically been very pro-consumer-choice; explicitly allowing region-free DVD players so that people could grey-market the discs. If you're going to try stopping streaming suppliers, don't forget to also have Amazon stop shipping media (including books) internationally.
VPNs are perfectly legal. Proxy servers are legal. Using a different DNS server is legal. These things cannot be outlawed.
Maybe these things cannot be outlawed in the US, due to your strong constitutional rights to free speech, but they certainly could be in many other countries. Even in the US I believe there are limits on distributing ways to defeat copyright protection mechanisms. I'm not saying this is right, just that it's naïve to think this couldn't be legislated and upheld in many jurisdictions.
This is just what we need to wear to taser-proof ourselves. The conductive fibres should be able to short out the high voltage more effectively than our bodies. We might get a little burned---I'm not sure how much power (as opposed to voltage) tasers put out---but I suspect that's going to be preferable to the alternative electrocuting effects. I guess if it works the police will ban it the same as bullet-proof vests.
By using different protocol numbers in the IP headers, the designers of these protocols [...] made them harder to support, because routers have to explicitly know how to handle those nonstandard protocol numbers.
How do nonstandard protocol numbers make it harder for routers to route the packet? You have the destination IP: just forward the packet already. Oh, you want to be a firewall and block selected traffic or even do deep packet inspection? That's not routing.
Yes, anti-personnel is the danger. I wouldn't be surprised if the secret service don't already jam potential drone control frequencies for their high-value people. The real danger is with autonomous drones that use GPS or, worse, are smart enough to do without it. These things could be a poor man's mini cruise missile.
That many satellites could tip us over the space junk critical mass threshold. If a spacecraft is hit by something it tends to send debris flying everywhere. Some of the pieces can then hit other spacecraft causing more debris. Once you have enough spacecraft in orbit -- critical mass -- the chain reaction sustains itself long enough to destroying many spacecraft in the same orbital region. It's called the Kessler syndrome.
The contract wouldn't be between Uber and the government. The contract would be between Uber and the private individual who also happens to be a transport inspector, not even a police officer. Remember, it's a sting operation so they're not going to register as a government department. It's not so clear to me that this would fail in a civil case. Are there laws voiding contract terms that impede government officials in their duties? Lawyers anywhere?
I think $2000 would be a better number for Uber to try since it would be much more likely to be under the limit of a government-issued credit card but still more than the fine. They could be more subtle by making the passenger responsible for any financial consequences of their actions during the ride. That looks more innocuous but, with the right legal phraseology, could still cover transport inspectors' fines. But, as correctly noted, this is the way to get new legislation.
Could be treated just like speeding and red light camera tickets. The ticket is issued to the registered owner of the car.
Apparently not under the existing laws. If they go to the trouble of changing the law I think they'll go a different way, like nasty penalties for repeat offences and, more likely, finding a way to hit Uber directly with some conspiracy to offend law with huge penalties for corporations.
The problem, noted in TFA, is that the existing legislation doesn't have provisions for higher penalties for repeat offenders. Currently it seems they can't do anything more than fine them $1700 per infringement. Uber is paying the drivers' fines for them.
I don't see how this could work. They need to confirm the driver's identity to issue the fine which they're not going to be able to do without confronting the driver at the time of the ride. Just knowing the vehicle's registration isn't enough.
These rockets are really big. The square/cube means that big things are not as strong as little ones. Get two toy cars and smash them into each other. Now try the same thing with two full sized vehicles and compare the results. Sure you could catch a model rocket with a butterfly net and it will fly again. This idea just doesn't scale up.
There's already "Ephemeris Time" (ET) that doesn't have leap seconds. It's now exactly 26 seconds different from UTC. Go ahead and use that for system time if you like.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but yes; self-plagiarism can be a copyright problem. Publishers usually have you sign away your copyright to them before they will publish your work. They can then legally prevent you from publishing your work with another publisher or yourself. Sure, the author usually retains a moral right to be identified as the author, but the right to profit from the work can be sold to others. If the author creates another work too similar to the first, i.e., they plagiarise themselves, then that can be just as much a problem as if anybody else plagiarised them.
The only entity that can't plagiarise a work (from a legal, copyright perspective), is the copyright owner, and that entity is often not the author.
Note that I don't believe this is a factor for Prince and Mooney since it seems that neither of them have sold their copyright.
471 million potatos is a lot of potatos. .2mm bits of plastic is enough to cover in plastic all of the living rooms in California.
471 million
Wait - no - one living room. Or about a dinner-plates worth a day.
If the beads are 0.2mm in diameter then, by my maths, that comes to about 1 (one) (US) gallon of them. Did someone leave off some zeros?
I don't think this is a good comparison to make. As I understand it, the restrictions of the 1990s did not require a back door to be inserted; they just limited the strength of the cryptography, presumably to a level breakable by the NSA even then. The old Clipper-chip back door fiasco was not responsible for logjam et al. and the new proposals are not intending to limit key length.
N.B.: I still definitely think that the current noises about mandating back doors is very worrying. My hope is that it won't happen due to the major privacy and security issues it presents. Perhaps our saviour will be the inability of different governments to trust each other.
You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.
But no where does it say "launching". Launching should be fine.
I'm not sure you understand what "without limitation" means.
So yes... it is theft. Suggesting that it isn't is just a specious rationalization used by people who don't want to feel guilty about it.
And by judges preventing improper inflaming of juries.
You appear to be stuck on the notion that if copyright violation on a movie, for example, were theft, that it is the movie itself that was being allegedly stolen
Never said anything like that. All I'm saying is that if I download a movie (or other IP) in violation of copyright laws then that is not theft. If you want a catchy, single-word term, use "piracy" (though, in my view, that devalues the original crime of that name which is still going on) but use of the word "theft" in this context by big content et al. is wrong.
Since "good" refers to something physical, I see you've decided to respond with the predicted "it's not tangible, so therefore it doesn't count" excuse.
This completely ignores the fact that things do not have to be tangible to be considered to have a measurable value. Your time, for example, is worth money both to yourself and your employer.
Nobody is saying that there's no value in copyright violations. What they are saying is that it is not theft. I like the car analogy for this one:
See the difference? And remember that it was you who said it makes no difference as to whether the things are tangible or not.
I think the early startups were going after the wedding topper market. Those are the decorations on the top of the cake that have often been in the form of little bride and groom dolls. Now those dolls can be actual replicas of the bride and groom.
Even if they're required by law to block the site, they're not required to do it in such a brainless way that they impact other sites. If HTTP, inspect the host name. If HTTPS then the IP will be enough by itself.
You haven't done much navigating have you? Nautical miles remain very much the standard for both aircraft and ships. It's because a minute of arc (a sixtieth of a degree) equals a nautical mile on the earth's surface ... and that's not going to change. 21600 (nautical miles around the equator) is a much nicer number than 40000 (kilometres around the earth via the poles) anyway.
For aircraft, altitude is still always reported in feet, presumably because changing would inevitably cost lives during the transition.
But you can't choose the distance units any more. It defaults to where you are or you can say you're in the US and it will show you miles or you can say you're in Australia and you'll get kilometres, &c. Too bad if you want nautical miles, which the old version allowed you to select, along with many other units.
Yes, data are data, but I don't see how a law making it illegal for you to obtain content that has been geo-blocked would break the Internet. The law wouldn't have to talk at all about technical details and they could catch people by following the money more easily than by following the bytes. More practically, it would make it hard for service providers in the jurisdiction to offer services to work around geo-blocking, making the case that started this thread open-and-shut.
As for the content providers grey-marketing their content, that's (currently) a contractual issue between them and their suppliers. New Zealand has historically been very pro-consumer-choice; explicitly allowing region-free DVD players so that people could grey-market the discs. If you're going to try stopping streaming suppliers, don't forget to also have Amazon stop shipping media (including books) internationally.
VPNs are perfectly legal. Proxy servers are legal. Using a different DNS server is legal. These things cannot be outlawed.
Maybe these things cannot be outlawed in the US, due to your strong constitutional rights to free speech, but they certainly could be in many other countries. Even in the US I believe there are limits on distributing ways to defeat copyright protection mechanisms. I'm not saying this is right, just that it's naïve to think this couldn't be legislated and upheld in many jurisdictions.
This is just what we need to wear to taser-proof ourselves. The conductive fibres should be able to short out the high voltage more effectively than our bodies. We might get a little burned---I'm not sure how much power (as opposed to voltage) tasers put out---but I suspect that's going to be preferable to the alternative electrocuting effects. I guess if it works the police will ban it the same as bullet-proof vests.
Maybe they meant lossless compression of CD audio, that would reduce the bitrate by at least half.
If they meant "lossless compression" they shouldn't have said "uncompressed".
Bluetooth has a megabit of bandwidth, you can certainly push uncompressed CD audio over it.
Last I checked, 44100 * 16 * 2 was over 1.4Mbps.
By using different protocol numbers in the IP headers, the designers of these protocols [...] made them harder to support, because routers have to explicitly know how to handle those nonstandard protocol numbers.
How do nonstandard protocol numbers make it harder for routers to route the packet? You have the destination IP: just forward the packet already. Oh, you want to be a firewall and block selected traffic or even do deep packet inspection? That's not routing.
Yes, anti-personnel is the danger. I wouldn't be surprised if the secret service don't already jam potential drone control frequencies for their high-value people. The real danger is with autonomous drones that use GPS or, worse, are smart enough to do without it. These things could be a poor man's mini cruise missile.
That many satellites could tip us over the space junk critical mass threshold. If a spacecraft is hit by something it tends to send debris flying everywhere. Some of the pieces can then hit other spacecraft causing more debris. Once you have enough spacecraft in orbit -- critical mass -- the chain reaction sustains itself long enough to destroying many spacecraft in the same orbital region. It's called the Kessler syndrome.
The contract wouldn't be between Uber and the government. The contract would be between Uber and the private individual who also happens to be a transport inspector, not even a police officer. Remember, it's a sting operation so they're not going to register as a government department. It's not so clear to me that this would fail in a civil case. Are there laws voiding contract terms that impede government officials in their duties? Lawyers anywhere?
I think $2000 would be a better number for Uber to try since it would be much more likely to be under the limit of a government-issued credit card but still more than the fine. They could be more subtle by making the passenger responsible for any financial consequences of their actions during the ride. That looks more innocuous but, with the right legal phraseology, could still cover transport inspectors' fines. But, as correctly noted, this is the way to get new legislation.
Could be treated just like speeding and red light camera tickets. The ticket is issued to the registered owner of the car.
Apparently not under the existing laws. If they go to the trouble of changing the law I think they'll go a different way, like nasty penalties for repeat offences and, more likely, finding a way to hit Uber directly with some conspiracy to offend law with huge penalties for corporations.
The problem, noted in TFA, is that the existing legislation doesn't have provisions for higher penalties for repeat offenders. Currently it seems they can't do anything more than fine them $1700 per infringement. Uber is paying the drivers' fines for them.
They could also wait a week to issue the fines
I don't see how this could work. They need to confirm the driver's identity to issue the fine which they're not going to be able to do without confronting the driver at the time of the ride. Just knowing the vehicle's registration isn't enough.
These rockets are really big. The square/cube means that big things are not as strong as little ones. Get two toy cars and smash them into each other. Now try the same thing with two full sized vehicles and compare the results. Sure you could catch a model rocket with a butterfly net and it will fly again. This idea just doesn't scale up.
There's already "Ephemeris Time" (ET) that doesn't have leap seconds. It's now exactly 26 seconds different from UTC. Go ahead and use that for system time if you like.