actually, no it isn't voluntary. Under the currently purposed plans, if you opt out or for lesser coverage, you will be enrolled in a sponsored plan and receive a tax penalty for the costs. That's no where near voluntary.
Your right, the FIOA covers mortgage institutions and mortgage insurance and most defence contractors when supplying war related materials so I thought it was by extension. Turns out after a second look, it was specifically coded to include those by including them in the definition of agency subject to the FOI requests.
Saddam was supported by the US through Kuwait who was paying them for protection from Iran. Kuwait has been a safe harbor port for the US since before our country was even formed. Jefferson quartered troops and supplies in Kuwait while organizing the marine operation against Tripoli even though Kuwait was part of the Ottoman empire. The support amounted to a little more then transport vehicles and whatever money Kuwait gave them to buy Russian arms.
Al-Qaida was not part of the Mujahedin and did not exist until after the soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. It's sort of impossible to claim Al-Qaida benefited when it was nowhere to be known of during the time. Bin Laden was also self financed during the soviet occupation of Afghanistan and was mostly shunned by the Mujahedin.
The site I linked to showed why. Unless you find something about that logic unbelievable which I find hard to believe seeing how the math actually works out. What is boils down to is that you have a word problem with incomplete knowledge and are attempting to work a problem from it without deriving the rest of the knowledge.
This has nothing to do with being a holey roller or anything of the sorts. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the bible (which you seem to be confused a little about) either. The measurments talk about the outside of the rim and the inside of the rim and when you take the thickness of the rim/wall into consideration, Pi works out to about 3.14. Claiming it is 3 is not using your critical thinking skills, it's repeating a known falsehood.
It seems odd that someone would have suddenly had a personal or political problem with a file that was almost 8 months old [latimes.com]. And if someone removed it for personal (rather than corporate) reasons, then it would seem that person for some reason believed that getting rid of the flickr copy would make all other copies go away - and I don't think many reasonable people would argue against that being a stupid assumption.
That is of course if the person who removed it knew how long it was there or that there was another copy and this was not the one giving Obama trouble. There are a lot of assumptions going on there that just might not have really been present.
Sanctioned by flickr? I stated before, and I continue to believe, that this action was indeed sanctioned by flickr, just not for the reasons that some suggest. The initial statement given from flickr to the artist was that there were "copyright concerns", which from my vantage point is a reasonable concern for a company like flickr to have regarding a piece of artwork that so rapidly went viral.
The problem I have with this being a legitimate take down for copyright concerns is that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of time and DC comics copyrighted images on the site placed there by users who have no apparent connection to either of them. If they were actually concerned over copyright, then I think they would have done something about those as well. That didn't happen and they were only concerned with one image while being unconcerned by countless others which tread on the same space outside of being about Obama.
You can go on believing in false information pushed to further an agenda. That makes you a tool.
Or you could simply wake up and smell the coffee, do some critical thinking for once, it's entirely up to you. It's not hard and I bet if you try it, you might like it.
That assumes that DMCA was applied in this case. There is no solid evidence to support a DMCA notice having been served.
Indeed, the earlier evidence suggests that DMCA was not applied.
I think I am in agreement here. There was no real talk of a DMCA notice until after the issue got national/international attention. The problem is that someone at the company told the user there was a DMCA notice at some time.
I suspect that may depend on the TOS for Flickr. It is possible for Flickr to have a TOS agreement that says they are not liable for any loss of profit any customer may face as a result of images hosted there.
That may be possible but seeing how an employee told the user that it was a DMCA matter, the law could supersede any TOS.
Again, that is only valid under the assumption that DMCA was in some way applied to this case. We haven't seen solid information to support that conjecture; earlier Flickr told the artist that they had "copyright concerns" which does not inherently imply DMCA. And as a private company Flickr does not have the obligation to put themselves at risk of copyright suits just to host a user's images.
Exactly. Except in this case, we have some low level help desk/support forum person making the claim that a DMCA take down notice was filed with them and that she thought it was Time who did it. Now I wouldn't call that solid proof, especially when time, DC comics and the photographer all publicly claims to not have filed one.
My guess is that someone at the company didn't like it and removed it for their own personal or political justifications. However, I find this extremely troubling because they have sought to protect these actions as if it was sanctioned or something. We then enter into another problem with the site having government contracts and in some cases exclusive content published by the government. If nothing else, the government needs to change that until Flickr can identify what happened and take solid steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Using legal proxies are as old as law itself to some degree. This wouldn't be an anonymous DMCA put up, it would be a legitimate legal tactic to hide exposing your identity until it went so far. Your not going to remain completely anonymous because the lawyer or whoever will have to disclose your information if requested by a court. What this can do is stop an abuse like you were mentioning.
The subscriber in this case would be the lawyer in question as representing you. This tactic is most commonly used when people win the lottery so they do not have 20 million cousins popping out of the wood work asking for loans or have to fear some criminal using an old phone book to get your name and number from published winner lists of the lottery.
As for the jail time, again this is something embedded in law since almost the beginning of it. You are signing the take down notice under penalty of perjury. If you (or anyone) is directed to commit a false take down notice, then the person directing you or whoever would be guilty of Subornation of perjury which can carry a 5 year prison term. The DMCA take down notice is an Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury which as you can see here, can carry a 5 year sentence too. The civil liabilities are an aside remedy availible to people wronged by the use of the statute. However, getting truthful information and expecting people to be honest is something that the courts do not take lightly. Some would say it's imperative for our legal system to work. If it's obvious abuse, any prosecutor would likely be more then happy to take it up. States have different laws on this too which means you might even find satisfaction without going to a federal level and making the complaint.
The take down law is in two parts. The copyright holder would have contacted Flickr but Flickr would have had to pass the information on to the user in order to be immune from damages of the content being removed.
As it stands now, Flickr is not immune from potential lawsuits over the removal of the image. The user is guaranteed a right to file a counter claim (under the law) in which case Flickr would have to leave the image up until a court decided otherwise.
I think the point of the safe harbor provisions is to remove the burden from the website/ISP altogether. If they act in accordance with the statute, they are not liable for those actions.
It places the burden in the courts where it rightfully should be. Websites and ISP's shouldn't need to make any judgments in matters of law. They should just follow it and keep their safe harbor. Obviously this isn't what is happening right now because they were supposed to give notice to the user of who filed and what was claimed to be infringing.
Not really. If they believed the joker image to be infringing, then they would have had to delete the other time magazine and DC comic photos that are still on their site today.
That's where it fails for them horribly. If they believed it to be infringing, they would have had to apply the same reasoning to all of their other files hosted. They didn't do that as there are still tons of Joker images and Time covers on the site and presented by people other then Time.
Unless you can find a valid line of reasoning that would mean only the obama joker image was infringing and all the other ones weren't subject to it.
Sort of. You can have a lawyer files the counter notice for you. You can also hide underneath a trust and have the trust do the counter notice for you.
These are just some of the tactics people use when attempting to keep their privacy. They are most often employed after someone wins a large sum in a lottery or something but aren't limited to those situations. There is a paper trail that can eventually bring it back to you if it actually does go to court though.
Whoever initially files the take down notice will also have to have a stake or claim in doing so. They can actually get jail time for lieing about that.
The problem with option 3 is that the DMCA exempts them from legal action if they disclose who filed the take down notice to the person and gives them a change to file a counter claim (as the DMCA also spells out).
They are actuallly puting themselves at a greater legal risk by not disclosing who did it.
Actually, Flickr is a government contractor and has exclusive content the government releases. A FOI request might actually work here. Of course it would have to be worded to include connections to government services they offer OR perhaps a statement concerning how the removal of the image was or was not connected to the government services they offer.
I find it humorous that only people who want to make sure people know they do not believe in the bible go though that much trouble to get something wrong just because they think they can throw it back into someone's face. In fact, it's them who are wrong in reality. There are two diameters of a bowl. an inside and an outside. Taking the measurements from different pieces does not equal what you and others want to think it does. Or do you somehow think that even ignoring the technology challenges of the time, the thing was only a half inch thick (something we still can't do today)?
I think the problem is that Real Climate is just as invested in global warming as Al Gore it. I'm not sure you would find an accurate standard of truth there any more then you would anywhere else and most likely a less of a standard.
I gave up on Real Climate when they were citing information that was claimed to be inaccurate in order to attempt to invalidate the person claiming it was inaccurate. I seemed that there was no other information availible at the time and they thought it was perfectly fine to use information claimed to be inaccurate to invalidate a claim against it's accuracy. That's when I realized they were nothing more then lunatics pushing a point of view.
Oh how little do you know. If you would have read the verse and applied literal physics to the situation you would understand that the wall comprising of rim to rim cannot be paper thin. In fact, when you add the thickness of the rim into the equation, Pi comes out to an except-able number.
So how did this change? Answer as you well know IT DIDN'T. Thus there is NO OFFICIAL ACT to influence because NOTHING NEW WAS DONE by the officials.
I suggest you read the law, it doesn't have to change. If they did what they did to keep it the same, that is influencing an official act. Please stop acting so fucking stupid.
The business arrangement you find so dire existed prior to this stupidity over the retouched magazine cover with some clowns that wouldn't know a socialist if they were bitten by one plastering the thing on walls and calling attention to it. The stupidity over the retouched image of the cover thus changed nothing. While it may irk you that a conduit for this silly bit of propaganda has vanished there is NOTHING AT ALL ILLEGAL ABOUT THAT.
When things are as you said, it becomes highly illegal. Pull your head out of your ass and read the fucking law.
On the other hand while Flickr most likely has a vast number of images that could cause copyright hassles this one differed from all the others because it got in the news, making it a good move for a lot of entirely legal reasons to delete it. However you know all of this and I wish you would stop pretending that you don't - nobody capable of reading this thread is stupid enough to fall for your trick by this point.
Yes, it got in the news because it was an effective criticism of Obama. The Obama administration is the same people controlling the exclusive contracts with Flickr which makes them removing it wrong. It also shows that Flickr needs to be pulled from an exclusive agreement and that other comparible sites need to be used either instead or in addition to Flickr.
Your lie implies that everyone associated with a government contract of any kind is a criminal - which is obviously bullshit.
First of all, it isn't a lie, it is what you said happened. You said they deleted the picture to not piss off their customers. While that may be a seemingly ordinary thing to do, it becomes illegal when the governemnt is involved. If you would have just read the god damned law instead of closing your eyes and pretending it doesn't exist like you did with known facts surounding Flickr, you would know this. Second, your right, it is bullshit but you are the one who insisted it was this way before you got educated on the law.
Plenty of exclusive contracts exist quite innocently, for instance you don't call in two plumbing companies to fix one leaky tap.
This isn't the same and you know it. Fixing a leaking pipe is completely different then forcing citizens to go to a politically biased site to get access to government released data.
This whole discussion would not have happened if you were honest or thought about the implications of what you were writing. All this harping about that law is irrelevant when nothing that the law addresses has happened.
Actually, none of this discussion would have happened if you were not bending over backwards to apologize for Flickr and the administration by closing your eyes to the known facts. You did that without knowing what the law said and your excuse turns out to be in violation of it. Now instead of changing your story, you are attempting to ignore the entire law. That is wrong, plain and simply wrong.
It appears you just keep bringing it up to attempt to paint me as someone that is not law abiding. It's a pity that such nasty tactics came out but at least you are showing the readers here a lot about yourself, although I doubt anyone will bother with a stupid thread like this.
It's not to paint you as not law abiding. It's because you are fucking ignoring the law as it is written. You have that theme going for yourself. You are either attempting to ignore relevant facts or the law. You are attempting to shape your own reality independent from the real world. While you can do that and live in la la land, do not expect me to jump right in there with you.
You can be offended all you want. You taking offense doesn't change anything. And no, the official act wasn't Flickr doing something, that was how they influenced the official act. The official act is Flickr's contract with the government and their exclusive arrangements. If as you said, they were motivated to remove this photo in order not to jeopardize their exclusive content agreement, then they are in fact in violation of this law as it is worded.
You can pretend that it's a lie all you want. You made the case for it. You happened to be completely ignorant of the law and attempted to back peddle into nothingness after it was brought to your attention, and now your going back to ignoring it altogether. You can claim I told a Lie but the reality is that your attempting to live one.
In general, just expecting certain things, and when talking about liability I would agree with you. But clearly this isn't that, it's expecting a certain defined behavior with people watching. Lets take the HIPAA situation for instance. Suppose the employee has a legitimate need for the information to be accessible, clearly the policy in place is the only thing separating them from running rampant abuses. Well, the policy and the law.
Let's look at another example. Let's do the sexual harassment. When the company policy is not to allow it to happen, then when someone violates it, a simple firing of the employee can be enough to stave off any liability of the company. Obviously the company can't segregate the employees so the company policy and training is the only thing preventing it from happening. When or if it happens, it isn't the companies fault, it's the employees.
I would like to see you tell that to a company who is firing you for violating a misuse of company computers clause by viewing porn. Something tells me you will still be out a job and probably a little harder to find employment in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you forgot barney reaching for his one bullet from his shirt pocket (assuming Andy let him have it back) because this is serious police work.
actually, no it isn't voluntary. Under the currently purposed plans, if you opt out or for lesser coverage, you will be enrolled in a sponsored plan and receive a tax penalty for the costs. That's no where near voluntary.
Your right, the FIOA covers mortgage institutions and mortgage insurance and most defence contractors when supplying war related materials so I thought it was by extension. Turns out after a second look, it was specifically coded to include those by including them in the definition of agency subject to the FOI requests.
Saddam was supported by the US through Kuwait who was paying them for protection from Iran. Kuwait has been a safe harbor port for the US since before our country was even formed. Jefferson quartered troops and supplies in Kuwait while organizing the marine operation against Tripoli even though Kuwait was part of the Ottoman empire. The support amounted to a little more then transport vehicles and whatever money Kuwait gave them to buy Russian arms.
Al-Qaida was not part of the Mujahedin and did not exist until after the soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. It's sort of impossible to claim Al-Qaida benefited when it was nowhere to be known of during the time. Bin Laden was also self financed during the soviet occupation of Afghanistan and was mostly shunned by the Mujahedin.
The site I linked to showed why. Unless you find something about that logic unbelievable which I find hard to believe seeing how the math actually works out. What is boils down to is that you have a word problem with incomplete knowledge and are attempting to work a problem from it without deriving the rest of the knowledge.
This has nothing to do with being a holey roller or anything of the sorts. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the bible (which you seem to be confused a little about) either. The measurments talk about the outside of the rim and the inside of the rim and when you take the thickness of the rim/wall into consideration, Pi works out to about 3.14. Claiming it is 3 is not using your critical thinking skills, it's repeating a known falsehood.
The Vietnam war help in the same way that the french did. Or are you forgetting that we went in when they bailed out?
History revisionism at it's finest. It wouldn't be slashdot without.
You should teach a class on altered realities.
That is of course if the person who removed it knew how long it was there or that there was another copy and this was not the one giving Obama trouble. There are a lot of assumptions going on there that just might not have really been present.
The problem I have with this being a legitimate take down for copyright concerns is that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of time and DC comics copyrighted images on the site placed there by users who have no apparent connection to either of them. If they were actually concerned over copyright, then I think they would have done something about those as well. That didn't happen and they were only concerned with one image while being unconcerned by countless others which tread on the same space outside of being about Obama.
You can go on believing in false information pushed to further an agenda. That makes you a tool.
Or you could simply wake up and smell the coffee, do some critical thinking for once, it's entirely up to you. It's not hard and I bet if you try it, you might like it.
I think I am in agreement here. There was no real talk of a DMCA notice until after the issue got national/international attention. The problem is that someone at the company told the user there was a DMCA notice at some time.
That may be possible but seeing how an employee told the user that it was a DMCA matter, the law could supersede any TOS.
Exactly. Except in this case, we have some low level help desk/support forum person making the claim that a DMCA take down notice was filed with them and that she thought it was Time who did it. Now I wouldn't call that solid proof, especially when time, DC comics and the photographer all publicly claims to not have filed one.
My guess is that someone at the company didn't like it and removed it for their own personal or political justifications. However, I find this extremely troubling because they have sought to protect these actions as if it was sanctioned or something. We then enter into another problem with the site having government contracts and in some cases exclusive content published by the government. If nothing else, the government needs to change that until Flickr can identify what happened and take solid steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Using legal proxies are as old as law itself to some degree. This wouldn't be an anonymous DMCA put up, it would be a legitimate legal tactic to hide exposing your identity until it went so far. Your not going to remain completely anonymous because the lawyer or whoever will have to disclose your information if requested by a court. What this can do is stop an abuse like you were mentioning.
The subscriber in this case would be the lawyer in question as representing you. This tactic is most commonly used when people win the lottery so they do not have 20 million cousins popping out of the wood work asking for loans or have to fear some criminal using an old phone book to get your name and number from published winner lists of the lottery.
As for the jail time, again this is something embedded in law since almost the beginning of it. You are signing the take down notice under penalty of perjury. If you (or anyone) is directed to commit a false take down notice, then the person directing you or whoever would be guilty of Subornation of perjury which can carry a 5 year prison term. The DMCA take down notice is an Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury which as you can see here, can carry a 5 year sentence too. The civil liabilities are an aside remedy availible to people wronged by the use of the statute. However, getting truthful information and expecting people to be honest is something that the courts do not take lightly. Some would say it's imperative for our legal system to work. If it's obvious abuse, any prosecutor would likely be more then happy to take it up. States have different laws on this too which means you might even find satisfaction without going to a federal level and making the complaint.
The take down law is in two parts. The copyright holder would have contacted Flickr but Flickr would have had to pass the information on to the user in order to be immune from damages of the content being removed.
As it stands now, Flickr is not immune from potential lawsuits over the removal of the image. The user is guaranteed a right to file a counter claim (under the law) in which case Flickr would have to leave the image up until a court decided otherwise.
I think the point of the safe harbor provisions is to remove the burden from the website/ISP altogether. If they act in accordance with the statute, they are not liable for those actions.
It places the burden in the courts where it rightfully should be. Websites and ISP's shouldn't need to make any judgments in matters of law. They should just follow it and keep their safe harbor. Obviously this isn't what is happening right now because they were supposed to give notice to the user of who filed and what was claimed to be infringing.
Not really. If they believed the joker image to be infringing, then they would have had to delete the other time magazine and DC comic photos that are still on their site today.
That's where it fails for them horribly. If they believed it to be infringing, they would have had to apply the same reasoning to all of their other files hosted. They didn't do that as there are still tons of Joker images and Time covers on the site and presented by people other then Time.
Unless you can find a valid line of reasoning that would mean only the obama joker image was infringing and all the other ones weren't subject to it.
Sort of. You can have a lawyer files the counter notice for you. You can also hide underneath a trust and have the trust do the counter notice for you.
These are just some of the tactics people use when attempting to keep their privacy. They are most often employed after someone wins a large sum in a lottery or something but aren't limited to those situations. There is a paper trail that can eventually bring it back to you if it actually does go to court though.
Whoever initially files the take down notice will also have to have a stake or claim in doing so. They can actually get jail time for lieing about that.
The problem with option 3 is that the DMCA exempts them from legal action if they disclose who filed the take down notice to the person and gives them a change to file a counter claim (as the DMCA also spells out).
They are actuallly puting themselves at a greater legal risk by not disclosing who did it.
Actually, Flickr is a government contractor and has exclusive content the government releases. A FOI request might actually work here. Of course it would have to be worded to include connections to government services they offer OR perhaps a statement concerning how the removal of the image was or was not connected to the government services they offer.
Funny but it stands to reason and is accurate.
Or did you find a flaw in his argument?
I find it humorous that only people who want to make sure people know they do not believe in the bible go though that much trouble to get something wrong just because they think they can throw it back into someone's face. In fact, it's them who are wrong in reality. There are two diameters of a bowl. an inside and an outside. Taking the measurements from different pieces does not equal what you and others want to think it does. Or do you somehow think that even ignoring the technology challenges of the time, the thing was only a half inch thick (something we still can't do today)?
I think the problem is that Real Climate is just as invested in global warming as Al Gore it. I'm not sure you would find an accurate standard of truth there any more then you would anywhere else and most likely a less of a standard.
I gave up on Real Climate when they were citing information that was claimed to be inaccurate in order to attempt to invalidate the person claiming it was inaccurate. I seemed that there was no other information availible at the time and they thought it was perfectly fine to use information claimed to be inaccurate to invalidate a claim against it's accuracy. That's when I realized they were nothing more then lunatics pushing a point of view.
What's your point?
Oh how little do you know. If you would have read the verse and applied literal physics to the situation you would understand that the wall comprising of rim to rim cannot be paper thin. In fact, when you add the thickness of the rim into the equation, Pi comes out to an except-able number.
I suggest you read the law, it doesn't have to change. If they did what they did to keep it the same, that is influencing an official act. Please stop acting so fucking stupid.
When things are as you said, it becomes highly illegal. Pull your head out of your ass and read the fucking law.
Yes, it got in the news because it was an effective criticism of Obama. The Obama administration is the same people controlling the exclusive contracts with Flickr which makes them removing it wrong. It also shows that Flickr needs to be pulled from an exclusive agreement and that other comparible sites need to be used either instead or in addition to Flickr.
First of all, it isn't a lie, it is what you said happened. You said they deleted the picture to not piss off their customers. While that may be a seemingly ordinary thing to do, it becomes illegal when the governemnt is involved. If you would have just read the god damned law instead of closing your eyes and pretending it doesn't exist like you did with known facts surounding Flickr, you would know this. Second, your right, it is bullshit but you are the one who insisted it was this way before you got educated on the law.
This isn't the same and you know it. Fixing a leaking pipe is completely different then forcing citizens to go to a politically biased site to get access to government released data.
Actually, none of this discussion would have happened if you were not bending over backwards to apologize for Flickr and the administration by closing your eyes to the known facts. You did that without knowing what the law said and your excuse turns out to be in violation of it. Now instead of changing your story, you are attempting to ignore the entire law. That is wrong, plain and simply wrong.
It's not to paint you as not law abiding. It's because you are fucking ignoring the law as it is written. You have that theme going for yourself. You are either attempting to ignore relevant facts or the law. You are attempting to shape your own reality independent from the real world. While you can do that and live in la la land, do not expect me to jump right in there with you.
You can be offended all you want. You taking offense doesn't change anything. And no, the official act wasn't Flickr doing something, that was how they influenced the official act. The official act is Flickr's contract with the government and their exclusive arrangements. If as you said, they were motivated to remove this photo in order not to jeopardize their exclusive content agreement, then they are in fact in violation of this law as it is worded.
You can pretend that it's a lie all you want. You made the case for it. You happened to be completely ignorant of the law and attempted to back peddle into nothingness after it was brought to your attention, and now your going back to ignoring it altogether. You can claim I told a Lie but the reality is that your attempting to live one.
In general, just expecting certain things, and when talking about liability I would agree with you. But clearly this isn't that, it's expecting a certain defined behavior with people watching. Lets take the HIPAA situation for instance. Suppose the employee has a legitimate need for the information to be accessible, clearly the policy in place is the only thing separating them from running rampant abuses. Well, the policy and the law.
Let's look at another example. Let's do the sexual harassment. When the company policy is not to allow it to happen, then when someone violates it, a simple firing of the employee can be enough to stave off any liability of the company. Obviously the company can't segregate the employees so the company policy and training is the only thing preventing it from happening. When or if it happens, it isn't the companies fault, it's the employees.
I would like to see you tell that to a company who is firing you for violating a misuse of company computers clause by viewing porn. Something tells me you will still be out a job and probably a little harder to find employment in the future.