The thing about the web is that because everyone can both send and receive, and we have these nice little tools called encryption and anonymizing networks, it doesn't ultimately matter what the big producers want... those in the know will always be one step ahead.
The problem isn't that you can do what you want with your OS. The problem is that there are so many holes in its security that programs that you don't even know exist and are communicating with your system can do what they want as well.
Once everyone has an iphone like device that has a standard development environment
This is where people miss the point. There won't be a standard interface for local coding, because that would require a monopoly on the operating system... and as Linux has proven, a lot of people don't like that.
Java tried it. The idea behind Java is nice, but those who want the power of local coding will usually go with C anyway because it's simply faster, and they can access all of the platform-specific speedups that Java blocks (by default) in the interest of platform agnosticism.
There's a reason that web apps are as popular as they are, and that's that a thin client allows the developer on the other end of the connection to do all sorts of crazy stuff on the high-powered server and just report to you the results in a language that for the most part every browser understands.
The whole choice thing isn't even a real consideration. I'm running my own server on a simple ISP connection. I'm technically not supposed to, but both of the ISPs I've been running it on simply don't care because the traffic isn't nearly high enough for them to notice. Anyone can run a server.
Well, to be honest, with a name like "Scrameustache", I can't blame the camera for being suspicious. That just screams early black and white movie villain.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but when does freedom of speech go too far?
When it impedes the freedom of other people. Same goes for laws; they should only exist to prevent people from impeding others' freedoms.
I've thought about this a lot. Treason is one of those cases where the state has to act in the national interest of its people... in the case of the Rosenburgs, their speech was directly endangering millions, so restricting it would make sense.
Back in early 2007 when the Wii was out of stock absolutely everywhere, I setup a cron job to repeatedly check the product pages of the Wii console on Best Buy and other sites and email me when it said they were in stock. It worked surprisingly well and I got a Wii at retail price within about a week or so (with a well timed email and quick checkout) from Best Buy.
This is a really good move on Best Buy's part as it will only increase people buying their items.
I'm coming to the conclusion now that any legislation that forces changes on technology is a violation of the right to free speech.
Think about it. Source code is speech. It can do what you want, say what you want, be what you want. If you accept that, then legislating that you can't do certain things with technology is restricting the number of possible ideas that you can express.
So then, the question becomes "is this a valid restriction on the free speech of the populace?" There are some that most people agree with, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre where no such fire exists. But these are very limited; they generally directly endanger one or more other people by that speech alone (in this case due to trampling, etc).
In this case, we're dealing with a hypothetical: Some people may use their cell phones to stalk other people, putting them in danger. Is it right to restrict everyone due to the actions of a few? Especially when there are valid reasons why someone might want to express an idea (in this case, have their cell phone's sound off), the answer should be no.
Lawmakers get around this because most people don't associate mechanisms and software with speech, but the sooner we all understand that fundamentally it's all the same, the better.
Oh, come on. Battlefield Earth was terrible for so many more reasons than the "tech".
But Wild Wild West? I think it gets a bad rap. It's one of those movies where you know there's going to be a giant mechanical spider before you sit down. If you can't handle that, don't watch it; it's not your kind of movie.
Then you're licensing your own work, since the copyright of your own notes falls to you.
Of course, this is much murkier legal waters than the question the OP asked, which IMHO is pretty straightfoward: since the teacher was teaching them, and no other contract was in place, an implicit personal use license was granted.
Yeah, I got that when I looked again. I blame it being 3 in the morning.;^)
Nonetheless, the fact that it's a high school brings up other issues that may be to the OP's benefit, like that the teacher's intellectual property was probably a Work for Hire under US law and was actually the property of the school, who may or may not legally be able to prevent a student from taking notes...
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about the web is that because everyone can both send and receive, and we have these nice little tools called encryption and anonymizing networks, it doesn't ultimately matter what the big producers want... those in the know will always be one step ahead.
Help!
The chrome!
It's... it's all around me!
I can't escape it!
ARRRRGGGGGHHHH
The problem isn't that you can do what you want with your OS. The problem is that there are so many holes in its security that programs that you don't even know exist and are communicating with your system can do what they want as well.
Oh.
My.
God.
Bacon wings.
Just think about it.
I fear such tastiness cannot exist in our world.
Once everyone has an iphone like device that has a standard development environment
This is where people miss the point. There won't be a standard interface for local coding, because that would require a monopoly on the operating system... and as Linux has proven, a lot of people don't like that.
Java tried it. The idea behind Java is nice, but those who want the power of local coding will usually go with C anyway because it's simply faster, and they can access all of the platform-specific speedups that Java blocks (by default) in the interest of platform agnosticism.
There's a reason that web apps are as popular as they are, and that's that a thin client allows the developer on the other end of the connection to do all sorts of crazy stuff on the high-powered server and just report to you the results in a language that for the most part every browser understands.
Pffft, if it isn't pneumatic tubes, it ain't running my internets, gad dangit.
The whole choice thing isn't even a real consideration. I'm running my own server on a simple ISP connection. I'm technically not supposed to, but both of the ISPs I've been running it on simply don't care because the traffic isn't nearly high enough for them to notice. Anyone can run a server.
Stop! My brain can't take the idea that there's such horribleness in the world!
I think you're being a bit redundant with the whole "lazy hippies" thing.
Well, to be honest, with a name like "Scrameustache", I can't blame the camera for being suspicious. That just screams early black and white movie villain.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but when does freedom of speech go too far?
When it impedes the freedom of other people. Same goes for laws; they should only exist to prevent people from impeding others' freedoms.
I've thought about this a lot. Treason is one of those cases where the state has to act in the national interest of its people... in the case of the Rosenburgs, their speech was directly endangering millions, so restricting it would make sense.
I've played both console versions of that game and I still refuse to believe it exists.
Namely, how much time (and thus money) are they willing to throw at the game?
Doesn't matter, they just have to supply enough pizza.
Cowabunga, dude! No anchovies.
Back in early 2007 when the Wii was out of stock absolutely everywhere, I setup a cron job to repeatedly check the product pages of the Wii console on Best Buy and other sites and email me when it said they were in stock. It worked surprisingly well and I got a Wii at retail price within about a week or so (with a well timed email and quick checkout) from Best Buy.
This is a really good move on Best Buy's part as it will only increase people buying their items.
Windows Mobile.
I'm coming to the conclusion now that any legislation that forces changes on technology is a violation of the right to free speech.
Think about it. Source code is speech. It can do what you want, say what you want, be what you want. If you accept that, then legislating that you can't do certain things with technology is restricting the number of possible ideas that you can express.
So then, the question becomes "is this a valid restriction on the free speech of the populace?" There are some that most people agree with, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre where no such fire exists. But these are very limited; they generally directly endanger one or more other people by that speech alone (in this case due to trampling, etc).
In this case, we're dealing with a hypothetical: Some people may use their cell phones to stalk other people, putting them in danger. Is it right to restrict everyone due to the actions of a few? Especially when there are valid reasons why someone might want to express an idea (in this case, have their cell phone's sound off), the answer should be no.
Lawmakers get around this because most people don't associate mechanisms and software with speech, but the sooner we all understand that fundamentally it's all the same, the better.
No, but I bet Microsoft or Apple will make that argument, since it would eliminate a competitor to their respective mobile OSes.
PS: Watch An Evening with Kevin Smith to hear some hilarious backstory to how that spider actually got in the movie.
Oh, come on. Battlefield Earth was terrible for so many more reasons than the "tech".
But Wild Wild West? I think it gets a bad rap. It's one of those movies where you know there's going to be a giant mechanical spider before you sit down. If you can't handle that, don't watch it; it's not your kind of movie.
For it to be arson, wouldn't you have to be burning someone else's property?
Charges? You'd have been disappeared.
Finish my sentence with "from the teacher to the students" and it will make more sense.
Then you're licensing your own work, since the copyright of your own notes falls to you.
Of course, this is much murkier legal waters than the question the OP asked, which IMHO is pretty straightfoward: since the teacher was teaching them, and no other contract was in place, an implicit personal use license was granted.
Yeah, I got that when I looked again. I blame it being 3 in the morning. ;^)
Nonetheless, the fact that it's a high school brings up other issues that may be to the OP's benefit, like that the teacher's intellectual property was probably a Work for Hire under US law and was actually the property of the school, who may or may not legally be able to prevent a student from taking notes...
High school.
Sad to say, the information probably is worthless.