It has absolutely already happened in law. About three seconds in Google will reveal blogs devoted to the subject, NYT articles about it, and you can just take a cursory glance at the most prominent law blog ("blawg," *shudder*) on the net: Above the Law
Corn? Corn didn't even exist in its current form a thousand years ago, yet it was in its current form before the GMO corps were even founded. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you eat corn or corn products on a regular basis though don't you?
I had this discussion with my sister-in-law. She started citing a professor of nutrition at Rice who has published papers showing corn is a very unhealthy thing to eat. (not in its natural form, it's GMO, etc.)
I'd love to crowdsource the counterarguments^H^H^Hget some feedback from/. about this.
As I cook from scratch almost every meal, very rarely to I consume anything with corn or HFCS, so it's really an academic exercise. Well, that and wanting my nieces and nephews to grow up big and strong (read: CORN FED like this country boy) if it's safe.:)
Since RMS consequently rejects any piece of software that restricts his rights or movements, the only right thing to do would be to reject the Arab invitation to visit the former British mandate of Palestine. Of course the Israeli invitees then should pick up the tab to pay for his travel expenses to Israel. The Israelis did not restrict RMS's whereabouts and should be lauded for their policy of sticking to freedom for all, including the Arabs.
I'm still trying to figure out what percentage of your comment is sarcasm.
It would also be outrageous is Israel is doing it, which it isn't. I would ask you to find citations for that ever happening. And what is this about "Israel paying"? When a scientist is invited to speak at an academic institution the institution is paying. There is zero government involvement.
Well, there's that whole "unreasonable" word that appears in the text you conveniently glossed over. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether being patted down before boarding a flying death box you are not being forced to board is unreasonable or not.
Did someone with a 4-digit UID sell his to you or something?
How you got modded insightful for this stupid fucking comment is beyond me. Or maybe the modders missed the part about how easy it is to paint you committing the exact same fallacy you accuse GP of (namely, suggesting GP is wrong because he's being elitist, but then you criticize him, and under your same implicit logic, you're an elitist for criticizing him)?
The post you're responding to did not say "you should mindlessly consume." It said "reviews nowadays are stupid and shitty because they are based on single experiences and masquerade as hyperbolic expert opinion."
"Hey, Ralph4U, can you tell me about Mars?" "Well, Bill, from the one time I've looked at a picture of Mars, it has a PLETHORA of exquisitely-maintained Zen rock gardens and an AMAZING neoexpressionist sculpture of a man's face, evoking the meticulous artistry of Leonardo da VInci himself!!! I recommend EVERY ONE GET IN THEIR ROCKET SHIP AND GO NOW." "What about its lack of atmosphere?" "stfu I LEARNED ABOUT MARS IN JUNIOR HIGH MAN"
In an obscure coptic codex it was discovered a mysterious, heretofore unknown passage of Revelation: Aeternum Stephanus sellam in gehennae mittit.
Classicists have long puzzled over who Stephanus is, and why he is eternally throwing chairs in hell.
*Funny thing about Slashdot and my computer: It turns the AE ligature into A with umlaut when I hit "preview." No idea why; in the TEXTAREA box, it appears as the correct ligature...
Even as a mathematician, I get frustrated sometimes looking at Wikipedia articles from other fields of mathematics that are narrowly aimed at specialists within the field.
I really don't get this sentiment. While I only have a BS in abstract math, I have literally never encountered a math article on WP that I couldn't read and understand.
Am I just visiting the wrong articles (I do read up on Lie algebras and such, not just the article on Linear Algebra)? Because I hardly think I'm the most brilliant and adaptable mathematical mind in a hundred years! (Fifty, yes; a hundred? My ego forbids such a claim!)
Honestly, by and large, I cannot parse a thesis out of your post to respond to. That being said, there are a couple things in it that, if I understand them correctly, are used erroneously to form some sort of "MP3.com should have been considered legal" thesis.
in both cases, you've "bought a license", therefore that license either exists or doesn't
Yes, but there is little doubt you're infringing copyright by uploading a copy of a song to Amazon (or ripping it off your CD or anything). However, there is this nice affirmative defense called "fair use." The factors of fair use come out differently when applied to the two systems at issue.
Why that case should have failed: that digital copy was necessary to use the product. A copy required in the normal use of a copyrighted work is not covered by copyright.
The snag is that not everything can be considered a "normal use." I do come down on the side of space shifting (which is basically what this service is) being fair use, but you're making a conclusory statement when you say copying your music to another "person's" hard drive across the globe is "normal" use. You need to defend it, and that's precisely what is going to be at issue if this went to court.
But it probably won't go to court; Amazon and Google will settle out of court like Google did with the books issue. They'll pay some kind of license to the recording industry because it's cheaper than litigating the issue. It'll take a small company (that can't afford to—or is not willing to—settle) offering a similar service and a talented group of cause lawyers (like the EFF) to get the ruling at the SCOTUS level.
I wrote a scholarly article on this topic (copyright issues with audio cloud storage) a couple years ago, and My.MP3.com was something I discussed. My.MP3.com had one copy of a music file that it stored on its servers, and that copy was shared between all users who "proved" they owned the CD. In my paper, I concluded that this was the real damning thing about their service: The users did not rip their music; My.MP3.com ripped its music and then shared it with people who allegedly owned the CD already. While ethically equivalent in my opinion, this is legally distinct from what Amazon is offering (with Amazon, you're basically using a giant iPod that uses the Internet instead of wired earbuds).
There are other issues I addressed in my paper about this service (ultimately I concluded that cloud-based audio streaming could be legal if the service was structured a certain way), but that is beyond the scope of a response to your post.
You're kidding, right? Immunizations, treatments for cancers and other serious diseases, ability to keep in contact with loved ones at far distances (for example, I am able to video chat with my family in Japan, whereas before I only got to talk to them at great expense by phone or flight-OH WAIT THESE ARE ALSO THINGS ENABLED BY SCIENCE), cheap clothes, better house construction. My grandmother literally did not even know her grandmother or cousins because the cousins lived in Louisiana and her family in Texas (this was before everyone had a car and traveled).
Also, there is no starvation in the US (or minimal) rather than mass starvation. In Japan, the death toll would have been orders of magnitude higher without the science to combat earthquakes and travel quickly away from the tsunami and give advanced warning to some places.
I mean, have you ever opened a history book?! You've taken the most untenable position I've ever seen on/.!
We have the most advanced science in the world but our society hash't changed much has it?
Said the guy typing away on a surface made of synthetic polymer and sending bleeps and bloops to millions of other humans on the other side of the globe, facilitated by bugs flying around the earth that absorb and repeat those bleeps and bloops, all in the blink of an eye.
People interested in this news item might be interested in this relatively brief overview (considering lawyers' tendency to logorrhea) of antitrust and IP rights bundling put out by the US government. Enjoy!
Polyandry is a subset of polygamy. Polygamy is having multiple spouses, not multiple wives. You're mistaking polygamy for polygyny (having multiple wives).
It's not always benefits that make something illegal. Sometimes, it's just that it's something injurious to society.
As marriage laws in all states currently stand, having multiple legal partners mucks up a lot of stuff like child custody, paternity presumptions, inheritance, power of attorney, who gets to pull the plug at the hospital, visitation rights, family insurance coverage, welfare/state support, etc.
These problems burden the state. In a cost-benefit analysis, with the benefit being (for politicians) "vanishingly small number of people free to wed multiple people" versus "have to expend a decade and (b|m)illions of dollars to reform reams upon reams of law that the vast majority of my electorate would vote for my opponent due to my support" it's an easy question to answer.
Factor in the Supreme Court upholding anti-bigamy laws years and years ago, and there's not much expectation of bigamy being defended by anyone with power anytime soon.
Because it is unnecessary to transcribe a piece of music in order to perform it freely.
On the other hand, it is sometimes necessary to code your own program to accomplish a task freely.
And the open source projects that rival huge commercial projects tend to have corporate backers who use it to sell services and such. I'm not sure the same type of economic strategy would work for music transcription.
Slashdot Mirror
It has absolutely already happened in law. About three seconds in Google will reveal blogs devoted to the subject, NYT articles about it, and you can just take a cursory glance at the most prominent law blog ("blawg," *shudder*) on the net: Above the Law
I had this discussion with my sister-in-law. She started citing a professor of nutrition at Rice who has published papers showing corn is a very unhealthy thing to eat. (not in its natural form, it's GMO, etc.)
I'd love to crowdsource the counterarguments^H^H^Hget some feedback from /. about this.
As I cook from scratch almost every meal, very rarely to I consume anything with corn or HFCS, so it's really an academic exercise. Well, that and wanting my nieces and nephews to grow up big and strong (read: CORN FED like this country boy) if it's safe. :)
www.tryagain.com
I'm still trying to figure out what percentage of your comment is sarcasm.
All nine Israeli universities are public.
TO sit upon my throne
as the prince of Bel Air!
Well, there's that whole "unreasonable" word that appears in the text you conveniently glossed over. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether being patted down before boarding a flying death box you are not being forced to board is unreasonable or not.
Did someone with a 4-digit UID sell his to you or something?
How you got modded insightful for this stupid fucking comment is beyond me. Or maybe the modders missed the part about how easy it is to paint you committing the exact same fallacy you accuse GP of (namely, suggesting GP is wrong because he's being elitist, but then you criticize him, and under your same implicit logic, you're an elitist for criticizing him)?
The post you're responding to did not say "you should mindlessly consume." It said "reviews nowadays are stupid and shitty because they are based on single experiences and masquerade as hyperbolic expert opinion."
"Hey, Ralph4U, can you tell me about Mars?"
"Well, Bill, from the one time I've looked at a picture of Mars, it has a PLETHORA of exquisitely-maintained Zen rock gardens and an AMAZING neoexpressionist sculpture of a man's face, evoking the meticulous artistry of Leonardo da VInci himself!!! I recommend EVERY ONE GET IN THEIR ROCKET SHIP AND GO NOW."
"What about its lack of atmosphere?"
"stfu I LEARNED ABOUT MARS IN JUNIOR HIGH MAN"
Except that Opera has had sync for nearly three years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_of_the_Opera_web_browser#Opera_Link
In an obscure coptic codex it was discovered a mysterious, heretofore unknown passage of Revelation: Aeternum Stephanus sellam in gehennae mittit.
Classicists have long puzzled over who Stephanus is, and why he is eternally throwing chairs in hell.
*Funny thing about Slashdot and my computer: It turns the AE ligature into A with umlaut when I hit "preview." No idea why; in the TEXTAREA box, it appears as the correct ligature...
OS X*us delenda est!
*Would the Romans have called OS X "OS 10"?
I really don't get this sentiment. While I only have a BS in abstract math, I have literally never encountered a math article on WP that I couldn't read and understand.
Am I just visiting the wrong articles (I do read up on Lie algebras and such, not just the article on Linear Algebra)? Because I hardly think I'm the most brilliant and adaptable mathematical mind in a hundred years! (Fifty, yes; a hundred? My ego forbids such a claim!)
Honestly, by and large, I cannot parse a thesis out of your post to respond to. That being said, there are a couple things in it that, if I understand them correctly, are used erroneously to form some sort of "MP3.com should have been considered legal" thesis.
Yes, but there is little doubt you're infringing copyright by uploading a copy of a song to Amazon (or ripping it off your CD or anything). However, there is this nice affirmative defense called "fair use." The factors of fair use come out differently when applied to the two systems at issue.
The snag is that not everything can be considered a "normal use." I do come down on the side of space shifting (which is basically what this service is) being fair use, but you're making a conclusory statement when you say copying your music to another "person's" hard drive across the globe is "normal" use. You need to defend it, and that's precisely what is going to be at issue if this went to court.
But it probably won't go to court; Amazon and Google will settle out of court like Google did with the books issue. They'll pay some kind of license to the recording industry because it's cheaper than litigating the issue. It'll take a small company (that can't afford to—or is not willing to—settle) offering a similar service and a talented group of cause lawyers (like the EFF) to get the ruling at the SCOTUS level.
I wrote a scholarly article on this topic (copyright issues with audio cloud storage) a couple years ago, and My.MP3.com was something I discussed. My.MP3.com had one copy of a music file that it stored on its servers, and that copy was shared between all users who "proved" they owned the CD. In my paper, I concluded that this was the real damning thing about their service: The users did not rip their music; My.MP3.com ripped its music and then shared it with people who allegedly owned the CD already. While ethically equivalent in my opinion, this is legally distinct from what Amazon is offering (with Amazon, you're basically using a giant iPod that uses the Internet instead of wired earbuds).
There are other issues I addressed in my paper about this service (ultimately I concluded that cloud-based audio streaming could be legal if the service was structured a certain way), but that is beyond the scope of a response to your post.
640K ought to be enough chlorophyll for anyone.
You're kidding, right? Immunizations, treatments for cancers and other serious diseases, ability to keep in contact with loved ones at far distances (for example, I am able to video chat with my family in Japan, whereas before I only got to talk to them at great expense by phone or flight-OH WAIT THESE ARE ALSO THINGS ENABLED BY SCIENCE), cheap clothes, better house construction. My grandmother literally did not even know her grandmother or cousins because the cousins lived in Louisiana and her family in Texas (this was before everyone had a car and traveled).
Also, there is no starvation in the US (or minimal) rather than mass starvation. In Japan, the death toll would have been orders of magnitude higher without the science to combat earthquakes and travel quickly away from the tsunami and give advanced warning to some places.
I mean, have you ever opened a history book?! You've taken the most untenable position I've ever seen on /.!
Said the guy typing away on a surface made of synthetic polymer and sending bleeps and bloops to millions of other humans on the other side of the globe, facilitated by bugs flying around the earth that absorb and repeat those bleeps and bloops, all in the blink of an eye.
And comments like that really make Americans want to give a shit about the rest of the world's opinions!
So do you enjoy apples costing $27 apiece?
Joke's on you: both are headquartered in DC!
People interested in this news item might be interested in this relatively brief overview (considering lawyers' tendency to logorrhea) of antitrust and IP rights bundling put out by the US government. Enjoy!
Bah, I can do it with a small pit and an above-average sized rod any night I want. It takes about nine months for the results, though.
I've been a churchgoing man for 27 years, and I've never, ever, ever heard a preacher argue against polygamy.
Polyandry is a subset of polygamy. Polygamy is having multiple spouses, not multiple wives. You're mistaking polygamy for polygyny (having multiple wives).
So take your uneducated PCness and shove it. :)
It's not always benefits that make something illegal. Sometimes, it's just that it's something injurious to society.
As marriage laws in all states currently stand, having multiple legal partners mucks up a lot of stuff like child custody, paternity presumptions, inheritance, power of attorney, who gets to pull the plug at the hospital, visitation rights, family insurance coverage, welfare/state support, etc.
These problems burden the state. In a cost-benefit analysis, with the benefit being (for politicians) "vanishingly small number of people free to wed multiple people" versus "have to expend a decade and (b|m)illions of dollars to reform reams upon reams of law that the vast majority of my electorate would vote for my opponent due to my support" it's an easy question to answer.
Factor in the Supreme Court upholding anti-bigamy laws years and years ago, and there's not much expectation of bigamy being defended by anyone with power anytime soon.
Because it is unnecessary to transcribe a piece of music in order to perform it freely.
On the other hand, it is sometimes necessary to code your own program to accomplish a task freely.
And the open source projects that rival huge commercial projects tend to have corporate backers who use it to sell services and such. I'm not sure the same type of economic strategy would work for music transcription.