Unless Joe provided his work to Google on that CD, along with an explicit transfer of copyright to Google, Google does not have copyright for that work. Joe and Google never arranged to transfer copyright, and Joe never lost copyright by publishing his work.
However Joe gave limited reproduction rights to all usenet servers, and google may be considered one within the limits of being one (ie: no books based on his stuff)
The fact that some third party burned Joe's work to CD and then gave it to Google does not establish a relationship between Joe and Google, nor does it establish a relationship between Joe and the third party that made the CD. In other words, the third party violated Joe's copyright when they distributed his work to Google.
Why? If google is a usenet server then the third part who archived the content in accordance with general usenet practices did nothing wrong. They already had implied permission to do this. I was simply pointing out that such storage was a practice before with usenet, and as such google cannot be chastised for having a permanent record since it already existed (and as such posting to usenet must involve such implied permission).
The works for hire bit you mentioned involves a consideration (payment) for the right to the works. Do you believe Joe had a work-for-hire arrangement with Google, possibly years before Google was incorporated?:)
It was an example; want a better one then here: webrowsers have implied permission to copy web pages into cache both in ram and on the hard drive. This is, ignoring implied permission, clearly copyright violation especially in hard drive cache. Nonetheless web pages do not need to give explicit permission and this implied permission may even override explicit permission.
First of all permission can be implied, it does not need to be explicit. Court cases back this up, for example if you do a work for hire then you may reasonably be assumed to have implicitly given certain permissions to whomever ordered the product (ie: if you know your product needs to be put on 50 computers then putting it on 50 computers would probably not be infringement barring other factors)
What Google has done is to take an ephemeral work and make it available: 1) permanently,
Since google has access to the work it was already archived somewhere, on tape usually, as such it did nothing different from what was already happening (someone had to provide it with the posts before it's creation). Nice try.
2) in a different medium (the web, not Usenet),
Still usenet, simply a web-based access method. It's like saying you can't view my '94 website (not changed since '94) because modern browsers are very different from what existed back then, for example those may not have had disk based cache. Unfortunately it's inane since the medium itself changes and since the changes are understandable, and reasonable, your implied license extends as well or rather it must for things to remain sane.
Let me give another example. Joe creates a web page with his opus. You could certainly argue that Joe wants his work seen. You might even say that technology makes it easy and likely that Joe's page will be copied (by visitors and by web crawlers). Does Joe, by publishing to the web, lose his copyright? Does someone who copies his work suddenly have the right to redistribute it forever, and in a different medium, in a way that makes them money?
He doesn't but he also doesn't remove the right of future web-crawlers (which may not have existed when he made the page) to index his page.
Does this implied license necessarily give Google (or any other usenet provider) (henceforth "Google" for short) the right to change the message's distribution method from an nntp based distribution model to a web based model?
That is a question although I don't see why not; other usenet servers have web based access as well I believe. If Groups still propagates messages that get posted to it then it only has a different interface. Again it is a reasonable extension of how usenet works, and does'nt fundamentally go against it the design.
If so, what the content provider posts under a license forbidding delivery through a web-based distribution model? This doesn't sound like an unreasonable restriction.
What is web-based? Can they limit my client? Can they limit what my client does? If I write a web based interface to access an nntp server am I infringing? What if my usenet server writes such an interface but it communicates using nntp? What if it accessed the data directly but looks exactly the same? What if it accessed the data through nntp then caches it all (as many usenet viewers do), I it still infringing?
The implied license may mean that reasonably it included web based clients, especially since google groups is quite popular I assume so by posting to usenet you reasonably must assume it will go to groups. I think usenet has a non-archiving flag, and the most I see google being forced to do is manually check posts upon request and remove them if the contents state different terms. Again this would be a reasonable assumption upon posting to newsgroups since it's quite impossible for google to check every single message.
Nonetheless for the vast, vast majority of posts this does not apply.
Two things motivated my interest in this case. First is that Google lost its case regarding Google Images, as mentioned in TFA, due to arguments similar to mine.
Not really that case involved images uploaded illegally to a website by someone who was not the copyright holder of the images. Not to mention that the case will be appealed and these things can often change. Nonetheless Google Images is quite a bit more fuzzy than Google Groups. Usenet servers function almost exactly to Grousp except with a different interface, however that does not hold true for Images. Nonetheless, the court seem to not agree with you (from TFA as well):
" The Perfect 10 lawsuit has received a high level of public attention, not least because of the 2003 Arriba Soft decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that ruling, the court sided with an image search engine over a photographer who claimed the automatically generated thumbnails amounted to copyright infringement."
Second is that many works in usenet are copyrighted using relatively strong licenses, such as the GPL, that could potentially cause trouble for automated services like these, or GPL licensed works, should the shit hit the fan.
Not really as I don't see why the GPL would prohibit such copying of messages in full. If a user posts content that they do not have a copyright on then that may be grounds for the removal of the post, although even then GPL code would probably be free to post (assuming the license is mentioned and so on). Even if the lisence was more restrictive it doesn't matter: "Yay, I can view your code on a usenet server; if I compile it or add it to my app or copy it somewhere else I'm potentially infringing on your copyright..."
Except that as I said usenet servers are given an implied license to reproduce the post. Just like internet browsers are given (court cases seem to uphold this) an implied license to reproduce content so you can view it (into cache both ram and hard drive). You may even have an implied license to print the webpage thus moving it to a different medium. Just because I only uploaded it to my webhosts server doesn't mean I can reasonably expect people to not view it (assuming it's in the public folder and so on).
The point is, Google is a fucking third party, distributing work without the author's expressed, written consent, and as such, should be liable for copyright infringement under current copyright law.
Which I may say isn't what you said in the last post, you said they're not YOUR newsgroup server. Neither is every other damn newsgroup server in the world to which your message gets sent.
Indeed. But Google isn't my usenet provider. They are a third party redistributing material without my consent....are you really that dense or are you trying really hard. Shut up and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenetthen post. Key words include servers (note the "s"), distributed and exchange.
If you post total shit with seemingly no fuckin knowledge of how usenet works and is supposed to work then I will simply be forced to keep insulting you.
No, if your license says something totally arsine then the implied license may override it. For example if you put the following on the bottom of a webpage (well written better and so on):
No one may cache or make copies of this site, including into the ram or hard drive due to a web browser. Any such behavior is copyright infringement and liable to prosecution.
you will get laughed out of court if you try to sue people who viewed your website.
Law isn't black and white, and is based on past cases and probably dozens of other things including social norms and views. That is a damn good thing although it does force a lot of lawyers to exist.
This of course assumes someone actually had such a license in their post and google refused to remove it (I'm sure there are court cases about how automatic systems are not liable right away within some sane limits).
You're saying that giving out copies of, say, my work to anyone who cares to search isn't unlimited distribution? This sounds off to me.
Of course it's not, unlimited means "without limits." What google does have a fuck load of limits on it, specifically those inherent in any newsgroup server. As I said, they're not making a copy in another medium and so on.
Let me state this clearly: Every fuckin newsgroup server and Slashdot and most forums and half the fuckin internet shows your work to anyone who wishes to search for it. Just because I post somewhere doesn't mean I get to sue the website to which I psoted for showing my content.
It DOESN'T, what google does ISN'T unlimited distribution. They're doing pretty much what every other newsgroup server does, it is a very limited form of distribution and one pretty much like the original (a newsgroup server hosts the message and viewer can access it, just that in this case the viewer is on a web page).
If they published it as a book, THEN they'd have a problem however they're not.
Check court cases, there is the concept of implied license. For example, web browsers are given an implied license by web site owners to copy content for viewing purposes.
Okay, I'll try to talk more simply you seem to be one of those who needs it:
Can't be done. Once the company is through running their employees out the door they label them as bad in HR databases.
Then you're an utter nitwit, why the fuck did you stay that long in such a bad situation. READ what I said, I said you can find a different company to work for I DIDN'T say you can find a different company only once you get fired. The days of corporations caring for you for your whole life are over, and if you don't find a good employer simply try again.
Even if you do get fired, I'm sure smaller companies don't check HR databases or are more likely to ignore them.
Don't give me that crap about wrongful dismissal or slander claims. Lawyers don't give a rat's ass unless you already have a pile of money to donate to them.
You've already been fired, I never said anything about that. I said what to do before you get fired.
No. Here in America we've got our own little system for fucking people over. If you've got it good well then more power to you. Don't act like your lucky lot in life is the same for everyone.
As the other poster said, and you don't act like everyone was stupid enough to stay with a bad employer and get fucked over.
Because there is a difference between going to war and complaining about a country. If you don't understand the difference (which includes a massive monetary and human cost) then I'm afraid there isn't much I can say to you. Things aren't black and white, and you can make a shitty analogy to "prove" any point.
3. Seems like the system in Singapore, if someone high up wants to screw you, you're totally and completely screwed. Or if there is some error in the system somewhere, you can't even go out and buy food anymore. Maybe I'm wrong but a system like that would make me want to deal with everyone in cash only!
Yeah I was thinking the same thing; I don't like entities having excessive power over people. I mean we got someone like Nixon as President, not much of a stretch to imagine someone who got a chance to do more than watch those he didn't like. I don't feel like having my life ruined because I decided to donate to a socialist or libertarian organization, and the people in power didn't like those beliefs.
It's workable, I guess, if there is very good and specific information provided for why something gets cancelled and a good system to challenge such things. However, if not or if someone decides to remove them "for the good of society" it seems like nasty things could be gotten away with.
It's also useful when you have to print, and your computer isn't set up with the LAN network, and you leave the assignment to the last minute so there isn't enough time to set up LAN.
Welcome to great world of wireless networking, enjoy your stay.
ever heard of email? Or if your file is that big, a memory key/whatever, but even in a group project I doubt you'd be transferring large files very often.
Because saving graphs, sending them over, waiting for feedback then redoing things is so much faster than asking the person sitting 5' from you. Or asking them a question about things you do not udnerstand.
And all sitting in a little circle coding on your laptops is going to wreck your neck.
That is why they invented desks and chairs. And I wasn't talking about pure coding, personally I decided to find a major which isn't getting outsoruced to india.
If you're going to be in proximity for long amounts of time you could just setup a LAN anyway
Yes, because dragging my desktop and monitor across campus without a car is always great fun.
Back in college, I took a software engineering class where I was the only student without a laptop. I also go the highest grade in the class. The laptops were distractions. I saw people using instant messenger, playing video games, reading slashdot... (cricket, cricket). I thought it was a complete waste. They didn't offer any "educational benefit" whatsoever.
Good for you. Now, when you have 3 people in a group project trying to share what they did have fun loading each other's stuff on whatever computer you're next to. Or you could all simply bring your laptops and share... oh wait.
There are a lot of small 12" notebooks, with no cd-rom drive and limited ports, google for subnotebooks. They're in the 2 to 3lb range. Smaller ones have a smaller screen.
Then please provide me with links or an argument. I'm always interested in learning new things however I take the un-backed words of some random poster on Slashdot with three trucks worth of salt.
I'm confused by your statement. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld seems to state that the prisoner did have a right to challenge his detention, specifically by reversing a dismissal of a petition of habeas corpus. Now the majority did say that he is not entitled to a civilian trial which Scalia disagreed with. However, that does not mean he did not have a right to challenge his detainment, simply that his right does not entitle him to the same challenge as a civilian.
In other words, the supreme court agrees with me, however they alter what habeas corpus means somewhat from it's normal means. Scalia didn't believe they had the power to do so, and that congress should have done this and they could only say if what congress decides is constitutional or not.
You both seem to totally ignore the first half of the sentence and then take the second out of context. I'll explain this slowly then: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended" - says that this is to not be suspended, as in no law can do this and the president cannot legally do this.
"unless" - okay, now we get an exception.
"when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion " - here, the exception is detailed. And two conditions are given when this may apply. Note that the exception only applies to those two conditions, a rebellion or invasion.
"the public Safety may require it." - This simply limits the two conditions above even more; it does not ignore them nor create a separate condition. In other words: not just any cases during a rebellion or invasion, but only when the suspension is for the public good during an invasion or rebellion.
In summary: Writ of Habeas Corpus may be ignored if there is an invasion or rebellion AND suspending it is in the interest of public safety.
I would assume that the rare case(s) wherein someone is being held without trial would be attributed to the fact that they are an enemy on our soil posing a clear threat to the public safety.
The blurb you posted from the constitution only mentions two cases in which this can be done, neither of which applies. Just because they're an "enemy" is not a good reason, and any sane person would quickly realize why. Someone needs to define enemy, many in the past (Nixon potentially) believed it was anyone who in any way had socialists leanings or interacted with socialists. You can argue that anyone who doesn't support the decisions of the government is an enemy, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless Joe provided his work to Google on that CD, along with an explicit transfer of copyright to Google, Google does not have copyright for that work. Joe and Google never arranged to transfer copyright, and Joe never lost copyright by publishing his work.
:)
However Joe gave limited reproduction rights to all usenet servers, and google may be considered one within the limits of being one (ie: no books based on his stuff)
The fact that some third party burned Joe's work to CD and then gave it to Google does not establish a relationship between Joe and Google, nor does it establish a relationship between Joe and the third party that made the CD. In other words, the third party violated Joe's copyright when they distributed his work to Google.
Why? If google is a usenet server then the third part who archived the content in accordance with general usenet practices did nothing wrong. They already had implied permission to do this. I was simply pointing out that such storage was a practice before with usenet, and as such google cannot be chastised for having a permanent record since it already existed (and as such posting to usenet must involve such implied permission).
The works for hire bit you mentioned involves a consideration (payment) for the right to the works. Do you believe Joe had a work-for-hire arrangement with Google, possibly years before Google was incorporated?
It was an example; want a better one then here: webrowsers have implied permission to copy web pages into cache both in ram and on the hard drive. This is, ignoring implied permission, clearly copyright violation especially in hard drive cache. Nonetheless web pages do not need to give explicit permission and this implied permission may even override explicit permission.
First of all permission can be implied, it does not need to be explicit. Court cases back this up, for example if you do a work for hire then you may reasonably be assumed to have implicitly given certain permissions to whomever ordered the product (ie: if you know your product needs to be put on 50 computers then putting it on 50 computers would probably not be infringement barring other factors)
What Google has done is to take an ephemeral work and make it available: 1) permanently,
Since google has access to the work it was already archived somewhere, on tape usually, as such it did nothing different from what was already happening (someone had to provide it with the posts before it's creation). Nice try.
2) in a different medium (the web, not Usenet),
Still usenet, simply a web-based access method. It's like saying you can't view my '94 website (not changed since '94) because modern browsers are very different from what existed back then, for example those may not have had disk based cache. Unfortunately it's inane since the medium itself changes and since the changes are understandable, and reasonable, your implied license extends as well or rather it must for things to remain sane.
Let me give another example. Joe creates a web page with his opus. You could certainly argue that Joe wants his work seen. You might even say that technology makes it easy and likely that Joe's page will be copied (by visitors and by web crawlers). Does Joe, by publishing to the web, lose his copyright? Does someone who copies his work suddenly have the right to redistribute it forever, and in a different medium, in a way that makes them money?
He doesn't but he also doesn't remove the right of future web-crawlers (which may not have existed when he made the page) to index his page.
Does this implied license necessarily give Google (or any other usenet provider) (henceforth "Google" for short) the right to change the message's distribution method from an nntp based distribution model to a web based model?
That is a question although I don't see why not; other usenet servers have web based access as well I believe. If Groups still propagates messages that get posted to it then it only has a different interface. Again it is a reasonable extension of how usenet works, and does'nt fundamentally go against it the design.
If so, what the content provider posts under a license forbidding delivery through a web-based distribution model? This doesn't sound like an unreasonable restriction.
What is web-based? Can they limit my client? Can they limit what my client does? If I write a web based interface to access an nntp server am I infringing? What if my usenet server writes such an interface but it communicates using nntp? What if it accessed the data directly but looks exactly the same? What if it accessed the data through nntp then caches it all (as many usenet viewers do), I it still infringing?
The implied license may mean that reasonably it included web based clients, especially since google groups is quite popular I assume so by posting to usenet you reasonably must assume it will go to groups. I think usenet has a non-archiving flag, and the most I see google being forced to do is manually check posts upon request and remove them if the contents state different terms. Again this would be a reasonable assumption upon posting to newsgroups since it's quite impossible for google to check every single message.
Nonetheless for the vast, vast majority of posts this does not apply.
Two things motivated my interest in this case. First is that Google lost its case regarding Google Images, as mentioned in TFA, due to arguments similar to mine.
Not really that case involved images uploaded illegally to a website by someone who was not the copyright holder of the images. Not to mention that the case will be appealed and these things can often change. Nonetheless Google Images is quite a bit more fuzzy than Google Groups. Usenet servers function almost exactly to Grousp except with a different interface, however that does not hold true for Images. Nonetheless, the court seem to not agree with you (from TFA as well):
" The Perfect 10 lawsuit has received a high level of public attention, not least because of the 2003 Arriba Soft decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that ruling, the court sided with an image search engine over a photographer who claimed the automatically generated thumbnails amounted to copyright infringement."
Second is that many works in usenet are copyrighted using relatively strong licenses, such as the GPL, that could potentially cause trouble for automated services like these, or GPL licensed works, should the shit hit the fan.
Not really as I don't see why the GPL would prohibit such copying of messages in full. If a user posts content that they do not have a copyright on then that may be grounds for the removal of the post, although even then GPL code would probably be free to post (assuming the license is mentioned and so on). Even if the lisence was more restrictive it doesn't matter: "Yay, I can view your code on a usenet server; if I compile it or add it to my app or copy it somewhere else I'm potentially infringing on your copyright..."
Except that as I said usenet servers are given an implied license to reproduce the post. Just like internet browsers are given (court cases seem to uphold this) an implied license to reproduce content so you can view it (into cache both ram and hard drive). You may even have an implied license to print the webpage thus moving it to a different medium. Just because I only uploaded it to my webhosts server doesn't mean I can reasonably expect people to not view it (assuming it's in the public folder and so on).
The point is, Google is a fucking third party, distributing work without the author's expressed, written consent, and as such, should be liable for copyright infringement under current copyright law.
Which I may say isn't what you said in the last post, you said they're not YOUR newsgroup server. Neither is every other damn newsgroup server in the world to which your message gets sent.
Indeed. But Google isn't my usenet provider. They are a third party redistributing material without my consent. ...are you really that dense or are you trying really hard. Shut up and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet then post. Key words include servers (note the "s"), distributed and exchange.
If you post total shit with seemingly no fuckin knowledge of how usenet works and is supposed to work then I will simply be forced to keep insulting you.
No, if your license says something totally arsine then the implied license may override it. For example if you put the following on the bottom of a webpage (well written better and so on):
No one may cache or make copies of this site, including into the ram or hard drive due to a web browser. Any such behavior is copyright infringement and liable to prosecution.
you will get laughed out of court if you try to sue people who viewed your website.
Law isn't black and white, and is based on past cases and probably dozens of other things including social norms and views. That is a damn good thing although it does force a lot of lawyers to exist.
This of course assumes someone actually had such a license in their post and google refused to remove it (I'm sure there are court cases about how automatic systems are not liable right away within some sane limits).
You're saying that giving out copies of, say, my work to anyone who cares to search isn't unlimited distribution? This sounds off to me.
Of course it's not, unlimited means "without limits." What google does have a fuck load of limits on it, specifically those inherent in any newsgroup server. As I said, they're not making a copy in another medium and so on.
Let me state this clearly: Every fuckin newsgroup server and Slashdot and most forums and half the fuckin internet shows your work to anyone who wishes to search for it. Just because I post somewhere doesn't mean I get to sue the website to which I psoted for showing my content.
It DOESN'T, what google does ISN'T unlimited distribution. They're doing pretty much what every other newsgroup server does, it is a very limited form of distribution and one pretty much like the original (a newsgroup server hosts the message and viewer can access it, just that in this case the viewer is on a web page).
If they published it as a book, THEN they'd have a problem however they're not.
Check court cases, there is the concept of implied license. For example, web browsers are given an implied license by web site owners to copy content for viewing purposes.
Okay, I'll try to talk more simply you seem to be one of those who needs it:
Can't be done. Once the company is through running their employees out the door they label them as bad in HR databases.
Then you're an utter nitwit, why the fuck did you stay that long in such a bad situation. READ what I said, I said you can find a different company to work for I DIDN'T say you can find a different company only once you get fired. The days of corporations caring for you for your whole life are over, and if you don't find a good employer simply try again.
Even if you do get fired, I'm sure smaller companies don't check HR databases or are more likely to ignore them.
Don't give me that crap about wrongful dismissal or slander claims. Lawyers don't give a rat's ass unless you already have a pile of money to donate to them.
You've already been fired, I never said anything about that. I said what to do before you get fired.
No. Here in America we've got our own little system for fucking people over. If you've got it good well then more power to you. Don't act like your lucky lot in life is the same for everyone.
As the other poster said, and you don't act like everyone was stupid enough to stay with a bad employer and get fucked over.
Then go find a better company to work at, such companies would in general be more efficient.
Because there is a difference between going to war and complaining about a country. If you don't understand the difference (which includes a massive monetary and human cost) then I'm afraid there isn't much I can say to you. Things aren't black and white, and you can make a shitty analogy to "prove" any point.
I assume all the non-contractors have company approved (and tested) anti-virus software on their laptops.
3. Seems like the system in Singapore, if someone high up wants to screw you, you're totally and completely screwed. Or if there is some error in the system somewhere, you can't even go out and buy food anymore. Maybe I'm wrong but a system like that would make me want to deal with everyone in cash only!
Yeah I was thinking the same thing; I don't like entities having excessive power over people. I mean we got someone like Nixon as President, not much of a stretch to imagine someone who got a chance to do more than watch those he didn't like. I don't feel like having my life ruined because I decided to donate to a socialist or libertarian organization, and the people in power didn't like those beliefs.
It's workable, I guess, if there is very good and specific information provided for why something gets cancelled and a good system to challenge such things. However, if not or if someone decides to remove them "for the good of society" it seems like nasty things could be gotten away with.
Except, unlike "sand", styrofoam is evil because mankind created it....
And unlike sand nature did not have billions of years to get used to it.
It's also useful when you have to print, and your computer isn't set up with the LAN network, and you leave the assignment to the last minute so there isn't enough time to set up LAN.
Welcome to great world of wireless networking, enjoy your stay.
ever heard of email? Or if your file is that big, a memory key/whatever, but even in a group project I doubt you'd be transferring large files very often.
Because saving graphs, sending them over, waiting for feedback then redoing things is so much faster than asking the person sitting 5' from you. Or asking them a question about things you do not udnerstand.
And all sitting in a little circle coding on your laptops is going to wreck your neck.
That is why they invented desks and chairs. And I wasn't talking about pure coding, personally I decided to find a major which isn't getting outsoruced to india.
If you're going to be in proximity for long amounts of time you could just setup a LAN anyway
Yes, because dragging my desktop and monitor across campus without a car is always great fun.
Back in college, I took a software engineering class where I was the only student without a laptop. I also go the highest grade in the class. The laptops were distractions. I saw people using instant messenger, playing video games, reading slashdot... (cricket, cricket). I thought it was a complete waste. They didn't offer any "educational benefit" whatsoever.
Good for you. Now, when you have 3 people in a group project trying to share what they did have fun loading each other's stuff on whatever computer you're next to. Or you could all simply bring your laptops and share... oh wait.
There are a lot of small 12" notebooks, with no cd-rom drive and limited ports, google for subnotebooks. They're in the 2 to 3lb range. Smaller ones have a smaller screen.
Then please provide me with links or an argument. I'm always interested in learning new things however I take the un-backed words of some random poster on Slashdot with three trucks worth of salt.
I'm confused by your statement. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld seems to state that the prisoner did have a right to challenge his detention, specifically by reversing a dismissal of a petition of habeas corpus. Now the majority did say that he is not entitled to a civilian trial which Scalia disagreed with. However, that does not mean he did not have a right to challenge his detainment, simply that his right does not entitle him to the same challenge as a civilian.
In other words, the supreme court agrees with me, however they alter what habeas corpus means somewhat from it's normal means. Scalia didn't believe they had the power to do so, and that congress should have done this and they could only say if what congress decides is constitutional or not.
You both seem to totally ignore the first half of the sentence and then take the second out of context. I'll explain this slowly then:
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended" - says that this is to not be suspended, as in no law can do this and the president cannot legally do this.
"unless" - okay, now we get an exception.
"when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion " - here, the exception is detailed. And two conditions are given when this may apply. Note that the exception only applies to those two conditions, a rebellion or invasion.
"the public Safety may require it." - This simply limits the two conditions above even more; it does not ignore them nor create a separate condition. In other words: not just any cases during a rebellion or invasion, but only when the suspension is for the public good during an invasion or rebellion.
In summary: Writ of Habeas Corpus may be ignored if there is an invasion or rebellion AND suspending it is in the interest of public safety.
I would assume that the rare case(s) wherein someone is being held without trial would be attributed to the fact that they are an enemy on our soil posing a clear threat to the public safety.
The blurb you posted from the constitution only mentions two cases in which this can be done, neither of which applies. Just because they're an "enemy" is not a good reason, and any sane person would quickly realize why. Someone needs to define enemy, many in the past (Nixon potentially) believed it was anyone who in any way had socialists leanings or interacted with socialists. You can argue that anyone who doesn't support the decisions of the government is an enemy, and so on.
For one thing disease, specifically the testing for it or lack thereof. The general health and age of the tissue is another problem.