I talked to someone who has a TWC business connection. It's more expensive, I don't think available in residential areas, and it is still capped, according to this person.
The moment you start thinking you know something about Anonymous, the moment you start trying to put Anonymous into a box, you're no longer talking about Anonymous
Are you sure you're not talking about the Tao?:
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. * * * I do not know its name; I call it Tao.
This is an interesting analogy. I wonder then if you would be making an infringing duplication (an exclusive right of the copyright holder under 17 USC 106(1) I think) in addition to the server doing a public performance.
In any case, copyright law in the US has lagged woefully behind technological advancements in defining what things mean. It's a shame that judges have had to decide this whole streaming/transfer performance/distribution thing. It makes things very murky.
Of course, this gives scholars the opportunity to write interesting articles for publication. Here's hoping I get to do that over the coming months!
We're talking about streaming, not copying a file. Once you have the file, it's not a stream. It's a file.
Then, yes, it's a distribution, not a performance. However, when you stream music (see internet radio), you typically are not storing files on your computer aside from some cache, typically buffered in RAM.
But this is a developing legal doctrine. Still, congressional and judicial pronouncements indicate that streaming == performance, transfering (in some sense that is not a streaming) a file == distribution.
Basically think of it like this: Without having anything transferred again, can you listen to the file again? If so, it's a distribution. If not, it's a performance.
(that's why their called illegal aliens, not immigrants)
I assumed, incorrectly, that you weren't limiting your usage to the language prosecutors use, but rather to the term as used by the population as a whole. Furthermore, I assumed you were decrying general usage of "immigrant" as a class that includes those who have entered a country illegally.
Now I see that you were merely complaining about people speaking within a legal context and misusing the term. Although, to be honest, I've never met anyone in law school nor in DOJ offices (I have worked in one before) who erroneously used the term "immigrant" to describe those who entered the country illegally permanently.
I've only heard non-attorneys make the mistake, but they don't speak from a legal standpoint.
I hope this explains why I misunderstood your words.
OK, I need to start being careful here I think. I'm not a lawyer (just a third-year law student). I'm not your lawyer. I'm not anyone's lawyer on Slashdot. This is not legal advice. This is merely my uninformed view based on research for an academic article. Anything I say would drastically change if I were representing you (which I can't anyway since I'm not a licensed lawyer).
That being said, it seems like judges are more concerned with what the intent is rather than the underlying technical structure. Copyright law is poorly written for the internet. Judges are struggling to make it fit in the digital age. A good example of where copyright doesn't help is in sending a file to someone else. Where are copies made that are "fixed" enough to infringe? At upload? At download? On the myried Cisco routers on the way? Do you really make 15 copies of an MP3 when attempting to send one file to a friend? Should that make you liable 15 times (the answer here is "no").
So I would expect the judge to say
the file was sent for a one-time listen, not for multiple playbacks
in order to play the file a second time, you have to do the transfer again
thus, it's a performance, not a distribution
In areas of the law like this, the courts are perfectly happy to perform a gap-filling, federal common law role in determining matters of law.
You raise very good points, but I have to call you on this:
that's why their called illegal aliens, not immigrants
You seem to have forgotten the chief definition of "immigrant":
a person who comes to a country where they were not born in order to settle there
The word "immigrant" normally connotes no legality of movement. It is only you (and a small group of people) who pretend that "immigrant" means "legal migrant" rather than "in-migrant" like it actually means to the largest portion of the English-speaking world.
As I'm currently researching a tangential issue for a journal article right now, I have found numerous cases and pronouncements from Congress that if the song file is transferred (as distinguished from streamed), it is a public distribution, not a public performance.
Thus, ASCAP should not be implicated when you're selling tracks (as distinguished from streaming radio).
Yes, I know from a technical standpoint there isn't much difference between streaming and transferring a 4MB MP3 file with speeds the way they are now over the net.
However, it basically breaks down to: a streamed MP3 is "performed" and the "performance" is sent over the net. However, a merely transferred MP3 is sent as a piece of data that is meant for later performance.
Think of it as the difference between sending a VHS recording of a play you produced and transmitting a live show over the airwaves.
You seem to have forgotten the US attorney firings that happened for political reasons under Bush. Why did he not do it in this case if the Democrats were doing such a terrible thing for political reasons?
He would have actually had a legitimate reason beyond "hurr durr democrats"!
I haven't thought this through, but this seems like a good way of testing for who is a cheater (of course, assuming you use the expected compiler and don't change the source code in any way):
1. send client a random number 2. client sends back a hash of the executable + random number and its version number 3. server performs hash on executable with that version number + random number that was sent
If the client's submitted hash and the server's calculated hash are equal, they're not cheating.
Of course, this means that people can't play online on certain servers with their own modified versions of the game. But isn't that what the definition of "cheating" is, to a certain extent? Playing with a modified version of the game (that improves your ability), that is.
I haven't played CS in a couple years, but I used to stick around in rooms where I dominated simply because it was so difficult to find a room with free slots that didn't have a high ping.
You seem to know your stuff re:VLC. Would you by any chance know if it's possible (and, if so, how) to, over a LAN, tell VLC running on ComputerX to stream a video on one of ComputerX's hard drives to ComputerY (also on the LAN) by selecting from a playlist generated from every video file on ComputerX's hard drive? Basically, a VOD server that can play any video in any subdirectory of a certain root directory?
On my network, I try to have VLC on ComputerY play a file directly off of the hard drive of ComputerX, but it lags terribly (802.11g here). However, if I have ComputerX unicast to ComputerY, it plays perfectly.
I'm just interested in having my desktop box on in the bedroom with my laptop in the living room. The laptop is plugged into the HDTV. I'd like to play video on the HDTV off my desktop's many hard drives.
I'm sure I'm not explaining what I want correctly, and I feel like I've written gobbledygook above, but I hope I've conveyed what I'm looking for.
These days, unless there is an important Constitutional interpretation at stake, the Court will typically pass on the case.
Not true. Let's just look at the opinions issued today.
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Issue: Whether a 1993 congressional resolution requires Hawaii to reach a political settlement with native Hawaiians before transferring some 1.2 million acres of state land.
Rivera v. Illinois, Issue: Whether the erroneous denial of a criminal defendantâ(TM)s preemptory challenge that resulted in the challenged juror being seated requires automatic reversal of a conviction.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Williams, Issue: Whether the Supreme Court of Oregon, on remand from the Courtâ(TM)s 2007 decision on the constitutionality of a $79.5 million punitive damages award based on harms done to non-named plaintiffs, improperly asserted a state law procedural bar having the effect of precluding Phillip Morris from asserting a constitutional claim.
Now, it is entirely possible that by "important Constitutional interpretation," you meant "issue that touches on the Constitution." However, that would be so broad as to be meaningless. Everything that may be tried in federal court touches on the Constitution in some way, even in mere diversity cases. It would be like stating that "these days, all cases before the Supreme Court involve some legal controversy."
So I'm assuming you mean that the core issues are about interpreting some provision about the Constitution.
The three links above are decent evidence against your assertion.
Re:Islamic groups are pushing censorship worldwide
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 1
Islamic teaching is that Mohammed is the ideal role model
I'm assuming you were not educated at a public school in the US, where all those morality tales about Washington and his father's cherry tree are meant to instruct children of the moral superiority of George Washington (and additionally not to lie).
People keep saying it was a failure. The movie's been out less than a month, and it's made a $40M profit. It's also the #3 biggest grossing opening weekend in March ever.
kids today, despite being coddled and sheltered from the outside world, are getting more and more fucked up
I'd like to point out that kids 150 years ago played a game where they'd ride a horse under a branch that had a goose with a greased up neck hanging from it and bite the head of the goose off. As a game. That parents encouraged to test manliness.
I'd like to point out that kids 100 years ago participated in lynchings.
I'd like to point out that (white) kids 50 years ago still viewed black people as inferior en masse.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you have to go to Singapore to cane it.
I talked to someone who has a TWC business connection. It's more expensive, I don't think available in residential areas, and it is still capped, according to this person.
Are you sure you're not talking about the Tao?:
(from the Tao Te Ching)
This is an interesting analogy. I wonder then if you would be making an infringing duplication (an exclusive right of the copyright holder under 17 USC 106(1) I think) in addition to the server doing a public performance.
In any case, copyright law in the US has lagged woefully behind technological advancements in defining what things mean. It's a shame that judges have had to decide this whole streaming/transfer performance/distribution thing. It makes things very murky.
Of course, this gives scholars the opportunity to write interesting articles for publication. Here's hoping I get to do that over the coming months!
We're talking about streaming, not copying a file. Once you have the file, it's not a stream. It's a file.
Then, yes, it's a distribution, not a performance. However, when you stream music (see internet radio), you typically are not storing files on your computer aside from some cache, typically buffered in RAM.
But this is a developing legal doctrine. Still, congressional and judicial pronouncements indicate that streaming == performance, transfering (in some sense that is not a streaming) a file == distribution.
Basically think of it like this: Without having anything transferred again, can you listen to the file again? If so, it's a distribution. If not, it's a performance.
I understand now. When I read
I assumed, incorrectly, that you weren't limiting your usage to the language prosecutors use, but rather to the term as used by the population as a whole. Furthermore, I assumed you were decrying general usage of "immigrant" as a class that includes those who have entered a country illegally.
Now I see that you were merely complaining about people speaking within a legal context and misusing the term. Although, to be honest, I've never met anyone in law school nor in DOJ offices (I have worked in one before) who erroneously used the term "immigrant" to describe those who entered the country illegally permanently.
I've only heard non-attorneys make the mistake, but they don't speak from a legal standpoint.
I hope this explains why I misunderstood your words.
"Emigrant" and "immigrant" are used like this:
He immigrated to the US.
He emigrated from the UK.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting that if you enter a country illegally, you are not an immigrant? Because dictionaries disagree.
OK, I need to start being careful here I think. I'm not a lawyer (just a third-year law student). I'm not your lawyer. I'm not anyone's lawyer on Slashdot. This is not legal advice. This is merely my uninformed view based on research for an academic article. Anything I say would drastically change if I were representing you (which I can't anyway since I'm not a licensed lawyer).
That being said, it seems like judges are more concerned with what the intent is rather than the underlying technical structure. Copyright law is poorly written for the internet. Judges are struggling to make it fit in the digital age. A good example of where copyright doesn't help is in sending a file to someone else. Where are copies made that are "fixed" enough to infringe? At upload? At download? On the myried Cisco routers on the way? Do you really make 15 copies of an MP3 when attempting to send one file to a friend? Should that make you liable 15 times (the answer here is "no").
So I would expect the judge to say
In areas of the law like this, the courts are perfectly happy to perform a gap-filling, federal common law role in determining matters of law.
You raise very good points, but I have to call you on this:
You seem to have forgotten the chief definition of "immigrant":
The word "immigrant" normally connotes no legality of movement. It is only you (and a small group of people) who pretend that "immigrant" means "legal migrant" rather than "in-migrant" like it actually means to the largest portion of the English-speaking world.
To be fair, though, your average $3 loaf of bread is a lot more fungible than your average song.
There are, believe it or not, extremely expensive loaves of bread. This is because such bread is not fungible.
As I'm currently researching a tangential issue for a journal article right now, I have found numerous cases and pronouncements from Congress that if the song file is transferred (as distinguished from streamed), it is a public distribution, not a public performance.
Thus, ASCAP should not be implicated when you're selling tracks (as distinguished from streaming radio).
Yes, I know from a technical standpoint there isn't much difference between streaming and transferring a 4MB MP3 file with speeds the way they are now over the net.
However, it basically breaks down to: a streamed MP3 is "performed" and the "performance" is sent over the net. However, a merely transferred MP3 is sent as a piece of data that is meant for later performance.
Think of it as the difference between sending a VHS recording of a play you produced and transmitting a live show over the airwaves.
You seem to have forgotten the US attorney firings that happened for political reasons under Bush. Why did he not do it in this case if the Democrats were doing such a terrible thing for political reasons?
He would have actually had a legitimate reason beyond "hurr durr democrats"!
I haven't thought this through, but this seems like a good way of testing for who is a cheater (of course, assuming you use the expected compiler and don't change the source code in any way):
1. send client a random number
2. client sends back a hash of the executable + random number and its version number
3. server performs hash on executable with that version number + random number that was sent
If the client's submitted hash and the server's calculated hash are equal, they're not cheating.
Of course, this means that people can't play online on certain servers with their own modified versions of the game. But isn't that what the definition of "cheating" is, to a certain extent? Playing with a modified version of the game (that improves your ability), that is.
I haven't played CS in a couple years, but I used to stick around in rooms where I dominated simply because it was so difficult to find a room with free slots that didn't have a high ping.
It's not a play on the Oxford comma, as the addition of one wouldn't change the meaning one bit:
-Consumes, fires, and departs.
-Eats stems and sunlight-receivers.
Note that neither of those has only one comma as in the title (thus a list without the Oxford comma).
So it's not a pun on the comma; it's a pun on the meaning of the words in the sentence (a/k/a double entendre).
It could be a pun on the use of the first comma, but it's definitely not a pun on the Oxford comma.
But that's getting crazily pedantic ;)
I'm sorry, but if the book is missing an Oxford comma in its own title, it's a book for Joe Hillbilly as far as I'm concerned. ;)
You seem to know your stuff re:VLC. Would you by any chance know if it's possible (and, if so, how) to, over a LAN, tell VLC running on ComputerX to stream a video on one of ComputerX's hard drives to ComputerY (also on the LAN) by selecting from a playlist generated from every video file on ComputerX's hard drive? Basically, a VOD server that can play any video in any subdirectory of a certain root directory?
On my network, I try to have VLC on ComputerY play a file directly off of the hard drive of ComputerX, but it lags terribly (802.11g here). However, if I have ComputerX unicast to ComputerY, it plays perfectly.
I'm just interested in having my desktop box on in the bedroom with my laptop in the living room. The laptop is plugged into the HDTV. I'd like to play video on the HDTV off my desktop's many hard drives.
I'm sure I'm not explaining what I want correctly, and I feel like I've written gobbledygook above, but I hope I've conveyed what I'm looking for.
Thanks.
Not true. Let's just look at the opinions issued today.
Now, it is entirely possible that by "important Constitutional interpretation," you meant "issue that touches on the Constitution." However, that would be so broad as to be meaningless. Everything that may be tried in federal court touches on the Constitution in some way, even in mere diversity cases. It would be like stating that "these days, all cases before the Supreme Court involve some legal controversy."
So I'm assuming you mean that the core issues are about interpreting some provision about the Constitution.
The three links above are decent evidence against your assertion.
[Citation needed]
I'm assuming you were not educated at a public school in the US, where all those morality tales about Washington and his father's cherry tree are meant to instruct children of the moral superiority of George Washington (and additionally not to lie).
No. Many religions are full of self-consistent logic. You just disagree with its axioms.
Your comment seems to imply that you don't know who she is. Here you go.
People keep saying it was a failure. The movie's been out less than a month, and it's made a $40M profit. It's also the #3 biggest grossing opening weekend in March ever.
I'd like to point out that kids 150 years ago played a game where they'd ride a horse under a branch that had a goose with a greased up neck hanging from it and bite the head of the goose off. As a game. That parents encouraged to test manliness.
I'd like to point out that kids 100 years ago participated in lynchings.
I'd like to point out that (white) kids 50 years ago still viewed black people as inferior en masse.
I suggest you read up on Incorporation Doctrine.