Publishing it to a medium that has a different and very well known set of 'rules' does change reasonable expectation. So sorry, your examples simply make no sense.
This is your opinion. My opinion is that publishing to the web does not fundamentally change protections granted by copyright law. We'll have to agree to disagree.
The reasonable expectation principle for privacy does not apply here. Do newspapers and magazines give up the copyright on their front page because they display it in storefronts? Do billboards fall outside the protections of copyright law? What about books in libraries?
"You published information on a public medium. Case [d]ismissed."
Right, except that isn't at all supported by copyright law, so if the judge did that, they'd be in deep shit. You do not give up your rights under the law because you publish in a public medium. That's simply ludicrous.
Ah.. true. Would require more work on the engine to setup that control, but I don't see why it couldn't be done. You still have to worry about dark spots on the track (crossing switches, etc.), as well.
do believe that when you publish toa medium that has sharing and caching and linking at its core, then you cannot blame others for your publuication being shared, cached and linked to.
I'm not so sure that "sharing and caching and linking" are at the "core" of the Web. Yes, linking is a big part, but it is completely possible to have a web page with no links. People can link to it, but if you remove the content, change the filename, anything.. then that link will no longer function.
Caching? I'm not sure where you got this idea. Caching is completely unnecessary for operation of the web. It's merely an optimization tool. And sharing.. that's just naieve. Yes, the web is a medium for transmitting information and makes it easy for the masses to reach the masses, but that doesn't mean that we all have to play nice and share.
Think before you publish etc.
This is just a fancy way of saying "tough titties" or "you snooze you lose". Simply put, it's not a very sound argument. You do not give up your rights under copyright law if you publish a webpage.
I would say that caching and archiving are so well understood to be part of the Internet that posting a web page and not expecting it to be archived or spidered is absurd
I wouldn't quite go that far. While the slashdot crowd is more than familiar with Wayback, it isn't something that is universally known.
There's only one problem with this. When the train is stopped, there is no power in the tracks. You'd be shutting the computer off every time you brought the train to a stop...
Don't have a cite, but iirc there is a law that basically says "If you break US law in other countries, you can still be prosecuted in the US". AFAIK, it's mainly used to prosecute people who go abroad to have sex with children.
Most kids now know that "No child is left behind" and that students are just pushed through to the next grade.
Actually, the exact opposite is now occurring in NYC schools. Mayor Bloomberg ended 'social promotion' for the 3rd grade, and is set to do the same for the 5th grade this year. Since this is a relatively new development, the effects have yet to be seen.
Odd, most people say that SimCity is too unrealistic in the other direction. That is, to have a successful city you must have an unrealistic level of mass transit coverage.
In theory, perhaps. In reality, I know that I'm not about to set aside 10-20 GB of disk space so that Netflix/Tivo can use my computer as a distribution platform. However, if this is going to use a dedicated device, that's less of an issue.
What would be an issue is the use of upstream bandwidth and consumer's ISPs. Many ISPs assume that any large amount of upstream traffic must be a server, and therefore against the TOS.
However, if nothing is done, it sets a precedent for the strict on sale date being unimportant, and then you've got the fiasco mentioned above, and THAT is why they can't be ignored.
Bullshit. If they let these 15 copies go, it does not mean that anarchy will suddenly break out in book stores worldwide.
The publisher is within their rights to punish the seller, as defined in the distribution agreement and the law, but to say that these 15 copies will render "on-sale" date agreements impotent is simply ludicrous.
Assuming that's what happened, then Karl Rove broke the law by revealing this information, and the revelation was not done in a 'whistleblower' capacity.
It's absolutely vital to a functioning democracy that individuals who have information can feel safe taking it to
the press.
An individual should not feel safe giving information to the press that the public, by law, is not supposed to know. Would people be defending Judith Miller if she was protecting someone who leaked nuclear secrets to North Korea?
I reiterate, the press is a red herring here. If Rove revealed the identity of a covert agent, he broke the law. It doesn't matter who he tells: his wife, his dog, or Bob Novak. It's illegal. A person should not get a shield from investigation just because they revealed the information to a so-called journalist. What Rove (apparently) tried to do here was exactly this.. use Novak and others as shields so that he could release the information and not get prosecuted. The Supreme Court has made sure that he is not going to get away with it.
A downloaded version won't have the problem of being "out".
A downloaded version won't have the "out" problem that renting actual cassettes/dvds has, but if the company has not secured enough bandwidth, there is still a scarcity of resources that might prevent you from viewing the movie when you want.
Analogies are fucking hideous. The point of an analogy is to try to make things clearer. How the hell does your paragraph of hypothetical (and ridiculous) situation make anything clearer? What's the point?
That's not exactly true. Judith Miller, as a sibling points out, never wrote about Plame. She did background on a potential column. During the background investigation, she allegedly was told of Plame's identity by someone (believed to be Karl Rove).
The prosecutor investigating the leak demanded that Miller reveal who she spoke to. The leak of Plame's identity was criminal, and some elevate it to the level of treason. The revelation of Plame's identity was not 'whistleblowing', but done apparently for purely political reasons.
Judith Miller is not special. She does not have the right or privilege to withhold information about crimes that have been committed. Just like you and I would be put in jail if we failed to respond to a grand jury's request, Judith Miller has been jailed.
"Freedom of the press" is a red herring in this case. Judith Miller is a citizen of the United States, nothing more.
No, they explained the reason for the shutdown. IIRC, while performing a test run, the train clipped a bracket for the track that was not installed correctly, resulting in damage to the train and track. Since the parts are all completely custom, it will take some time to fabricate them.
They were having other problems with the ride (notably with moisture.. the ride needed many hours after a rainstorm to dry out), so perhaps they're looking at a few other modifications while it's down. Unfortunately, it was down when I visted on Memorial Day weekend.
*Sharing information* is a natural right and not morally wrong *at all*.
Slow down, cowboy! Would you say the same thing if your doctor was releasing details of your medical records? How about government officials revealing the identity of covert agents or other national secrets?
The OP indicated that s/he felt it was justified for indymedia to be forced to turn over this info, and to have their servers seized in lieu of turning over the info. I think it's completely logical to ask whether the poster feels the same way about slashdot.
Imagine if Ford bought the company that checks for defects in cars, and the next week all Ford defects were considered as desirable behavior. Imagine if Monsanto...
The problem with your shitty analogy (and let's face it, all analogies are shitty) is that there isn't any one authority for spyware detection, vehicle defect detection, whatever. If MS has truly crippled this piece of software, use something else.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlinked Drudge paragraphs are usually wire summaries that he has retyped, that's all. Very little of Drudge's information is an actual scoop.
Publishing it to a medium that has a different and very well known set of 'rules' does change reasonable expectation. So sorry, your examples simply make no sense.
This is your opinion. My opinion is that publishing to the web does not fundamentally change protections granted by copyright law. We'll have to agree to disagree.
The reasonable expectation principle for privacy does not apply here. Do newspapers and magazines give up the copyright on their front page because they display it in storefronts? Do billboards fall outside the protections of copyright law? What about books in libraries?
"You published information on a public medium. Case [d]ismissed."
Right, except that isn't at all supported by copyright law, so if the judge did that, they'd be in deep shit. You do not give up your rights under the law because you publish in a public medium. That's simply ludicrous.
Wanting the advantages of the WWW while retaining the control that paper publications give you is like wanting to eat your cake and have it.
It's not paper that gives you the control, it's copyright law. Copyright law still applies on the Internet.
Ah.. true. Would require more work on the engine to setup that control, but I don't see why it couldn't be done. You still have to worry about dark spots on the track (crossing switches, etc.), as well.
do believe that when you publish toa medium that has sharing and caching and linking at its core, then you cannot blame others for your publuication being shared, cached and linked to.
I'm not so sure that "sharing and caching and linking" are at the "core" of the Web. Yes, linking is a big part, but it is completely possible to have a web page with no links. People can link to it, but if you remove the content, change the filename, anything.. then that link will no longer function.
Caching? I'm not sure where you got this idea. Caching is completely unnecessary for operation of the web. It's merely an optimization tool. And sharing.. that's just naieve. Yes, the web is a medium for transmitting information and makes it easy for the masses to reach the masses, but that doesn't mean that we all have to play nice and share.
Think before you publish etc.
This is just a fancy way of saying "tough titties" or "you snooze you lose". Simply put, it's not a very sound argument. You do not give up your rights under copyright law if you publish a webpage.
I would say that caching and archiving are so well understood to be part of the Internet that posting a web page and not expecting it to be archived or spidered is absurd
I wouldn't quite go that far. While the slashdot crowd is more than familiar with Wayback, it isn't something that is universally known.
Pull the power from the tracks
There's only one problem with this. When the train is stopped, there is no power in the tracks. You'd be shutting the computer off every time you brought the train to a stop...
Don't have a cite, but iirc there is a law that basically says "If you break US law in other countries, you can still be prosecuted in the US". AFAIK, it's mainly used to prosecute people who go abroad to have sex with children.
Most kids now know that "No child is left behind" and that students are just pushed through to the next grade.
Actually, the exact opposite is now occurring in NYC schools. Mayor Bloomberg ended 'social promotion' for the 3rd grade, and is set to do the same for the 5th grade this year. Since this is a relatively new development, the effects have yet to be seen.
Democracy/Republic was not perfect in Civ. It is very difficult to wage an offensive war in D/R due to Senate interference and/or citizen unhappiness.
Odd, most people say that SimCity is too unrealistic in the other direction. That is, to have a successful city you must have an unrealistic level of mass transit coverage.
In theory, perhaps. In reality, I know that I'm not about to set aside 10-20 GB of disk space so that Netflix/Tivo can use my computer as a distribution platform. However, if this is going to use a dedicated device, that's less of an issue.
What would be an issue is the use of upstream bandwidth and consumer's ISPs. Many ISPs assume that any large amount of upstream traffic must be a server, and therefore against the TOS.
However, if nothing is done, it sets a precedent for the strict on sale date being unimportant, and then you've got the fiasco mentioned above, and THAT is why they can't be ignored.
Bullshit. If they let these 15 copies go, it does not mean that anarchy will suddenly break out in book stores worldwide.
The publisher is within their rights to punish the seller, as defined in the distribution agreement and the law, but to say that these 15 copies will render "on-sale" date agreements impotent is simply ludicrous.
Assuming that's what happened, then Karl Rove broke the law by revealing this information, and the revelation was not done in a 'whistleblower' capacity.
It's absolutely vital to a functioning democracy that individuals who have information can feel safe taking it to the press.
An individual should not feel safe giving information to the press that the public, by law, is not supposed to know. Would people be defending Judith Miller if she was protecting someone who leaked nuclear secrets to North Korea?
I reiterate, the press is a red herring here. If Rove revealed the identity of a covert agent, he broke the law. It doesn't matter who he tells: his wife, his dog, or Bob Novak. It's illegal. A person should not get a shield from investigation just because they revealed the information to a so-called journalist. What Rove (apparently) tried to do here was exactly this.. use Novak and others as shields so that he could release the information and not get prosecuted. The Supreme Court has made sure that he is not going to get away with it.
A downloaded version won't have the problem of being "out".
A downloaded version won't have the "out" problem that renting actual cassettes/dvds has, but if the company has not secured enough bandwidth, there is still a scarcity of resources that might prevent you from viewing the movie when you want.
Stop it!!
Analogies are fucking hideous. The point of an analogy is to try to make things clearer. How the hell does your paragraph of hypothetical (and ridiculous) situation make anything clearer? What's the point?
That's not exactly true. Judith Miller, as a sibling points out, never wrote about Plame. She did background on a potential column. During the background investigation, she allegedly was told of Plame's identity by someone (believed to be Karl Rove).
The prosecutor investigating the leak demanded that Miller reveal who she spoke to. The leak of Plame's identity was criminal, and some elevate it to the level of treason. The revelation of Plame's identity was not 'whistleblowing', but done apparently for purely political reasons.
Judith Miller is not special. She does not have the right or privilege to withhold information about crimes that have been committed. Just like you and I would be put in jail if we failed to respond to a grand jury's request, Judith Miller has been jailed.
"Freedom of the press" is a red herring in this case. Judith Miller is a citizen of the United States, nothing more.
No, they explained the reason for the shutdown. IIRC, while performing a test run, the train clipped a bracket for the track that was not installed correctly, resulting in damage to the train and track. Since the parts are all completely custom, it will take some time to fabricate them.
They were having other problems with the ride (notably with moisture.. the ride needed many hours after a rainstorm to dry out), so perhaps they're looking at a few other modifications while it's down. Unfortunately, it was down when I visted on Memorial Day weekend.
So you're saying that this hypothetical doctor would be "at fault", but his actions would be "not morally wrong at all"? Interesting.
*Sharing information* is a natural right and not morally wrong *at all*.
Slow down, cowboy! Would you say the same thing if your doctor was releasing details of your medical records? How about government officials revealing the identity of covert agents or other national secrets?
The OP indicated that s/he felt it was justified for indymedia to be forced to turn over this info, and to have their servers seized in lieu of turning over the info. I think it's completely logical to ask whether the poster feels the same way about slashdot.
People here on slashdot brag about committing crimes daily, be it breaking CSS, pirating the latest MS or Adobe product, illegal drugs, etc..
Do you think that Slashdot should be forced to yield the identity (IP, subscription info if applicable, etc.) of posters who do this?
Imagine if Ford bought the company that checks for defects in cars, and the next week all Ford defects were considered as desirable behavior. Imagine if Monsanto...
The problem with your shitty analogy (and let's face it, all analogies are shitty) is that there isn't any one authority for spyware detection, vehicle defect detection, whatever. If MS has truly crippled this piece of software, use something else.