When "the public" pays me to referee papers by other astronomers, and "the public" pays the page charges for the papers I write ($110 per page, by the way), and "the public" pays the editors and typesetters of the journals, then "the public" might assert a right to those papers.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
You know the terms, get over it. Unless you are willing to forgoe "the public" footing the bill to protect your artificial rights that is...
It should be noted that none of those links come even close to proving your point. They are all links to anecdotal evidence about a subset of killers (e.g. serial). Well, duh, psycopaths feel no remose, that is pretty much true by definition.
Thanks for the comment - I completly agree with you but I'd be labeled an idiot since I can't claim to have a background in law. However, this woman's right to free speech was not infringed on; she exercised it! Oh boy did she exercise it!
I wish people would stop confusing freedom of speech with freedom from repercussion.
Not to comment on this particular case as the jury obviously believes she comitted libel/fraud with these postings.
But as for your statement: Apparently the Chinese have free speech then too, you can say whatever you want. Its just the the government will disappear you for it.
That's sure consistent with the open source anti-capitalist argument: that you should only be able to accrue income for labor, not for owning the fruits of that labor.
Intellectual Monopoly laws ARE anit-capitalist. If the Free Market supported these rights we wouldn't need the external force of law to create them.
This is quite a sensible decision by the belgian court, I think. Several newspapers offer the news of today for free on their websites, and let you pay for searching the archives. Google caches those pages and offers them for free with their own ads added. Plain and simple copyright violation, no arguing around it. But quite convenient of course...
Well, we might not be able to argue if you had your facts straight, but alas.
Google caches pages and offers an excerpt of the article on the results page (which contains ads). It then offers a link to the source material. While you may be able to find the full cache of the article through the normal search this is not a feature of News (and it doesn't contain ads).
Under U.S. law, excerpts for reporting and review purposes are protected as "Fair Use", though no cases that I am aware of have been decided against or in favor of google specifically.
Of course this was decided by a Belgium court so they probably have a different concept of fair use that is (obviously) not sufficient for Google's purposes.
But how many generations had their kids sitting in front of, essentially, puppet-shows (or some other analog equivalent) all day, every day? In fact, one could argue that the loonier offspring of the "idle" artistocracy and their highly entertained (but not so very challeneged, physically, etc) kids were the precursor to what we're seeing now, but across much larger swaths of the society: flacid minds, a sense of entitlement, no sense of causality or critical thinking... sort of the Caligulazation of a much wider population.
'The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in lace of
exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.'
-Socrates (possibly miss-attributed but still very old)
Why support the now quite obsolete 802.11b standard, unless that support isn't already automatically incorporated into the 802.11g standard? Are there tons of 802.11b standard MP3 players already running around out there that Zune needs to be compatible with?
802.llx is pretty much backwards compatible, but b offers more bandwidth than a. So they went with the most common "high" bandwidth standard.
So will there never be another terrorist attack in this country then? We are giving all these freedoms away for something right? Or is it trivially easy to maim and kill civilians if only you have the motivation?
The investment to make a movie is substantial. All the people in the credits get paid, equipment is rented and/or purchased, special effects need to be created. Even the film costs astonishingly large amounts of money. Obviously, there is some value in the movie, otherwise you wouldn't invest the time in pirating it. I agree copyright has been taken too far, but very few people are of the delusion that we can get rid of it entirely. If we didn't have copyright, who would pay for that movie you have shown yourself to value?
Just because it has "always" been like this doesn't make it right. In the absense of copyright law the movie producers would need to get paid up front like everyone else on the planet. Before modern copyright laws wealthy aristocrats would commission work, I don't see why something like that couldn't work now. With the power of modern communications it would be fairly easy to do a distributed setup as well. The point being, it is not our respionsibility to hand these people a business model, the free market is supposed to work that out remember...
Show me where any sort of commercial activity is permitted in the "Fair Use" exemptions to copyright infringement.
A lot of commercial uses are permitted under the "Fair Use" doctrine. Excerpts used for a commercial review site for example. Show me where commercial use is specifically omitted from Fair Use.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1.
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2.
the nature of the copyrighted work;
3.
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered "fair" nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Revised July 2006
ACLU is a joke, and fights for the gloss on the paper, and not the paper itself.
From the article:
The NBC 10 Investigators asked the ACLU union how they viewed the incident.
"There is no law that prevents people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street," said Larry Frankel of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I think it's rather scary that in this country you could actually be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street."
Frankel said Cruz's civil rights might have been violated.
"He was unlawfully seized, which is a violation of the 4th amendment the last time we checked," Frankel said
Do you not think it's a little silly to declare you allegance to a collection of inert minerals? The Earth cares not at all for what we do, it will keep orbiting regardless.
Yeah, that is way less logical that declaring you allegiance to some imaginary lines some guy pulled out of his ass 400 years ago.
NEWSFLASH: The reason the radio is free is because they don't ask the artist's permission before they broadcast their songs. You might as well be pirating, it's basically the same thing. Honestly, if you want an artist's music, you can't double-dip and make your own rules about how you obtain it. They get to decide. So if you don't like buying DRM infested files, well, you have no other legal options to buy their music if that's how they want to sell it. And don't tell me radio is legal; it's only scantily legal because of ASCAP having fucked up copyright laws. (Read that "Compulsory Licensing".)
Slashdot Mirror
At least one other piece of Jon's software has been made into a t-shirt, so, who knows....
It gives you Ted Stevens.
I thought Alaskans gave us Ted Stevens.
When "the public" pays me to referee papers by other astronomers, and "the public" pays the page charges for the papers I write ($110 per page, by the way), and "the public" pays the editors and typesetters of the journals, then "the public" might assert a right to those papers.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
You know the terms, get over it. Unless you are willing to forgoe "the public" footing the bill to protect your artificial rights that is...
It should be noted that none of those links come even close to proving your point. They are all links to anecdotal evidence about a subset of killers (e.g. serial). Well, duh, psycopaths feel no remose, that is pretty much true by definition.
Thanks for the comment - I completly agree with you but I'd be labeled an idiot since I can't claim to have a background in law. However, this woman's right to free speech was not infringed on; she exercised it! Oh boy did she exercise it! I wish people would stop confusing freedom of speech with freedom from repercussion.
Not to comment on this particular case as the jury obviously believes she comitted libel/fraud with these postings.
But as for your statement:
Apparently the Chinese have free speech then too, you can say whatever you want. Its just the the government will disappear you for it.
That's sure consistent with the open source anti-capitalist argument: that you should only be able to accrue income for labor, not for owning the fruits of that labor.
Intellectual Monopoly laws ARE anit-capitalist. If the Free Market supported these rights we wouldn't need the external force of law to create them.
Disregarding the premade conclusion here that Zune will mysteriously capture mind share and marketshare,
If by mysterious you mean the result of a huge PR campaign...
It doesn't matter that it isn't a vacuum, photons will always travel at the speed of light.
Pretty sure that is wrong. The medium influences the speed of a waveform. Otherwise, why does light bend when it hits water or glass?
I've sent a few fish through the tubes in my day. But by then they weren't in much shape to do any anti-terror work.
I wonder how would you change things to make it better?
Re-instate the first ammendment? Prosecute people for the act of abusing a child instead of talking or transmitting data about it?
This is quite a sensible decision by the belgian court, I think. Several newspapers offer the news of today for free on their websites, and let you pay for searching the archives. Google caches those pages and offers them for free with their own ads added. Plain and simple copyright violation, no arguing around it. But quite convenient of course...
Well, we might not be able to argue if you had your facts straight, but alas.
Google caches pages and offers an excerpt of the article on the results page (which contains ads). It then offers a link to the source material. While you may be able to find the full cache of the article through the normal search this is not a feature of News (and it doesn't contain ads).
Under U.S. law, excerpts for reporting and review purposes are protected as "Fair Use", though no cases that I am aware of have been decided against or in favor of google specifically.
Of course this was decided by a Belgium court so they probably have a different concept of fair use that is (obviously) not sufficient for Google's purposes.
No kidding. I am so sick of Slashdot's pro-microsoft anti-apple bias!
But how many generations had their kids sitting in front of, essentially, puppet-shows (or some other analog equivalent) all day, every day? In fact, one could argue that the loonier offspring of the "idle" artistocracy and their highly entertained (but not so very challeneged, physically, etc) kids were the precursor to what we're seeing now, but across much larger swaths of the society: flacid minds, a sense of entitlement, no sense of causality or critical thinking... sort of the Caligulazation of a much wider population.
'The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in lace of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.'
-Socrates (possibly miss-attributed but still very old)
Because killing a person's whole family, friends and neighbors won't at all lead to them becoming a terrorist.
Why support the now quite obsolete 802.11b standard, unless that support isn't already automatically incorporated into the 802.11g standard? Are there tons of 802.11b standard MP3 players already running around out there that Zune needs to be compatible with?
802.llx is pretty much backwards compatible, but b offers more bandwidth than a. So they went with the most common "high" bandwidth standard.
I think he just wants a free copy. I mean, who wouldn't?
Yeah, seriously, what an ass. Bastard should get it off Bittorrent like the rest of us.
So will there never be another terrorist attack in this country then? We are giving all these freedoms away for something right? Or is it trivially easy to maim and kill civilians if only you have the motivation?
The investment to make a movie is substantial. All the people in the credits get paid, equipment is rented and/or purchased, special effects need to be created. Even the film costs astonishingly large amounts of money. Obviously, there is some value in the movie, otherwise you wouldn't invest the time in pirating it. I agree copyright has been taken too far, but very few people are of the delusion that we can get rid of it entirely. If we didn't have copyright, who would pay for that movie you have shown yourself to value?
Just because it has "always" been like this doesn't make it right. In the absense of copyright law the movie producers would need to get paid up front like everyone else on the planet. Before modern copyright laws wealthy aristocrats would commission work, I don't see why something like that couldn't work now. With the power of modern communications it would be fairly easy to do a distributed setup as well. The point being, it is not our respionsibility to hand these people a business model, the free market is supposed to work that out remember...
Show me where any sort of commercial activity is permitted in the "Fair Use" exemptions to copyright infringement.
A lot of commercial uses are permitted under the "Fair Use" doctrine. Excerpts used for a commercial review site for example. Show me where commercial use is specifically omitted from Fair Use.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported." Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission. When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered "fair" nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney. FL-102, Revised July 2006
copyright.gov's formatting is nicer...
ACLU is a joke, and fights for the gloss on the paper, and not the paper itself.
From the article:
The NBC 10 Investigators asked the ACLU union how they viewed the incident.
"There is no law that prevents people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street," said Larry Frankel of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I think it's rather scary that in this country you could actually be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street."
Frankel said Cruz's civil rights might have been violated.
"He was unlawfully seized, which is a violation of the 4th amendment the last time we checked," Frankel said
Do you not think it's a little silly to declare you allegance to a collection of inert minerals? The Earth cares not at all for what we do, it will keep orbiting regardless.
Yeah, that is way less logical that declaring you allegiance to some imaginary lines some guy pulled out of his ass 400 years ago.
but I cringe when I think about who that directly benefits and who gets next to nothing.
The ones who did all the work of trying the case?
More like "submitter is making stuff up".
More like "submitter is using data from TFA".
More like "sumbitter was actually using quotes to denote a, you know, quote."
P.S. I said this out loud first....
NEWSFLASH: The reason the radio is free is because they don't ask the artist's permission before they broadcast their songs. You might as well be pirating, it's basically the same thing. Honestly, if you want an artist's music, you can't double-dip and make your own rules about how you obtain it. They get to decide. So if you don't like buying DRM infested files, well, you have no other legal options to buy their music if that's how they want to sell it. And don't tell me radio is legal; it's only scantily legal because of ASCAP having fucked up copyright laws. (Read that "Compulsory Licensing".)
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov