No, that's not quite the case. If the content is copyrighted material not owned by the uploader, then the ISP/site may or may not have knowledge of the copyright violation. In this case, DCMA notices in the US are what are frequently issued to the site, so as to take down the copyrighted or otherwise claimed material.
If you check the links, you'll see that defamation, and speech is the crux of the matter. Someone got slimed online, and holds the site responsible as well as the slimer. The courts have said that the site isn't responsible unless it edits the material in some way. If it doesn't touch it, then it's not a party to damages as a result of the content of the speech. Movies, MP3s, and digital movies aren't thought to be 'speech' in the circumstance described by the litigation in the post we're talking about. And so, it's not censorship; if it were censorship, then the site involves themselves in the motives of the poster, who is accused of defamation. If they don't touch it, they do nothing but provide the sheet of paper which is written upon by the defamer. Decisions say that when there is no censorship, the site isn't active in the results of what's posted.... in this case, defamation.
Sites like YouTube and others try to enforce terms where they can. They're often held harmless regarding the content that their users upload. It's then up to copyright holders and law enforcement officials to assess and act upon illegal or contravening content posting. You can complain to YouTube if someone has posted your stolen video. But if you don't own the video, it's difficult for you to claim nexus to ask YouTube to take down the video unless the video fails YouTubes terms test.
This means that YouTube primarily offers space, and users upload whatever to that space. YouTube's terms include community guidelines at http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines which spell out what they'll enforce. Notice that they're clear, non-discriminatory and will generally take a complaint to be enforced.
The Seventh Circuit, however, says that the site in question merely delivers all messages, and as a messenger, didn't add to whatever injury occurred.
Yeah, like that was working. The fervor after 9/11 was there. A tactical reason was not. And so, some half a million deaths later, we might get some oil. Justice? We found a way to lynch Hussein. There was no plan, no reason, just a great boondoggle.
Once again, private interests would make lots of money. Ask Halliburton, Boeing, and the billions of dollars used to secure the oil.
Amen, brother. Oil went up 50c/gal where I live in the past two months. Must be economic sustainability that'll let the oil refiners make untold amounts of jack.
What part of "it's all about the oil" did you miss? You thought the Iraq war was to unseat the unholy Hussein? No. This was about oil, and Geo Bush's vendetta. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Here was just one more murderous dictator... but this one had oil that Georgie needed. Mugabe doesn't have any oil that we know of, or we'd have been there by now.
You're merely a transport until you do something that's not transport-like. If you do something that's not transport-like, then you're somehow become a part of the problem captioned in the litigation. Otherwise, you're just a neutral fact of the matter.
Not quite true. SCOTUS has had several cases where ISPs and websites have been sued to have content taken down, where the ISP wasn't "in active concert" with the purveyors of the content. It allowed the hosting providers/webmasters/portals to be held harmless-- so long as the ISP/webmasters didn't edit or delete user-added content/comments, thus NOT providing a role that shapes the content. IF you don't touch the content, then you're not actively being involved. That's why the Seventh Circuit's language is what it is in this particular ligitation. IANAL, but understand the law and SCOTUS speech precendents well.
Of course, other US Agencies have taken down some websites based on another legal theory, but that hasn't been litigated yet. And in my opinion, they did this without probable cause and without due process.
I'll add: it must be Monday, and traffic is low, so they needed a flamebait post that would cause torching in two dimensions. Hit count. The value of the Internet has been reduced to hit count.
Further, maybe we won't see lots of code being released, but interest in the community and examples of interesting code will evolve. The German developer community will have new sales outlets, now that Attachmate/Novell seems to have altered the future of SUSE. And it will be amusing watching the consortium that bought Novell's patent collective try to sue the Russians. Hah.
Our arguments are now circular. You believe education is the mandate, and while promising, lacks guaranteed delivery, ensuring partial failure.
Your concept of the 'nanny state' precludes further meaningful discussion between us, I'm afraid. I believe the measure not to be draconian, and you do. We probably both believe in liberty, approached from different directions. So it will stand.
Civility demands that we become responsible for each other. That suffering you speak of is the price paid for civility, among others. Common sense is an oxymoron in this divisive world. What's clear is that children need protection from concepts they have no context for. That's what I argue.
Your black and white world is full of grey scales that are difficult to understand because of their dimensions and weight. We capture the problem through our sense of responsibility to others, that they might help us, too.
Letting Darwin rule is so terribly expensive. That's why we got the gifts of judgment, along with opposable thumbs and other gifts as humans. It separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Exercising responsibility ensures better outcomes.
it's not so hard to register to get porn. With 90% of people viewing it, there'll be lots of company.
"I understand the needs of existentialists, but cannot satisfy them until the train has already run them over...."
I personally worry that those that advance the concept of the travails of the "nanny state" have themselves, no empathy for those that society and civility demand help for.
You believe there are parents. Sometimes there are not. Yet there are problems, at a huge cost, for your small inconvenience of wall to surmount for porn. Education is needed, but there also needs to be a safety net. Letting Darwinian methods prevail connotes sociopathy, IMHO.
Answering your last question seems the productive path:
You don't keep children ignorant. You use parenting skills to endow a value system. That's for those children that have parents, that care, that take the time to do this.
Congruently, read this: v\http://unhinfo.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV76.pdf (sorry about the pdf) and get one view of the potential difficulties. Children need to be children; eventually, they express interest. Making them callous towards sex, or getting incorrect impressions of reality, consent, and so on are real problems.
Kids often live in this world not knowing what's real and not. And they can act on information believed to be real to them, but isn't to an adult. This is where the distinction must be made, and don't think that parents have great control over their childrens' online viewing-- even with 'nanny' software.
Not all are saints, not all are sinners. Some lack passion, others lack intellect, still others have motivation problems both adjunct and not to their avocations.
Production health care might work when the variables have been solved, and the mooch money goes looking somewhere else. That might work long after I'm dead and gone. I've been to Sweden, Canada, Japan, the UK, and have examined the health systems there. Excellence hasn't been pushed out of the system, rather, money has. In this era, we've switched out monarchies for the principalities of endowed organizational wealth. The divisions of the haves and have-nots grows deeper. The nots class devolves, rather than being brought up from the bottom... the metaphor of a rising tide lifts all ships. Today, they're mired at the bottom. Industrialization of health care isn't a failed social experiment, it's a failed entrepreneurial agenda.
To cut to the chase, GPs are most people's (and sadly so) first line of health care, be it physical or psychological care. GPs dole out the very largest part of mental health meds, as an example, for better and worse.
Some, as you cite, are rote businesspeople first, and use the oath as a financial tool in ways not intended by its utterance. That's an issue for another thread. I cite talking to one because people actually see them first. Others are still better at understanding the hows and whys of limiting exposure of porn to children. This is my goal: understanding, not moral judgment, not condemnation of porn, not dramatic changes in Internet accessibility. The issue is verifying the veracity of my statements regarding porn harming children. GPs ought to know, and there are better if more distantly available choices. Just googling something is inadequate, but a realistic alternative to recommendations that I've made.
It's just one more place to learn.... if we're lucky.
IF you really want to start a flame war, talk about violence game ratings. Were it my choice, we'd find an intelligent, graduated methodology of exposing children to violence, rather than letting them think it's normal. It needn't be.
I don't blame pornography for anything. I believe that children shouldn't be exposed to it, and that sadly, they do, and get the wrong ideas. Some take it further and act on sex ideas without suitable context and understanding of consequences. They're children, not adults. They didn't emerge from the womb knowing about rape, HIV, the nature of consensual conduct, relationships, birth control, and so on.
Some don't get education. Don't presume that others have your education, parenting background, and values. Often, they don't. There's a whole subculture of children that are essentially parent-less for one reason and another. I'm not trying to put children in bubbles, rather, to let them be children and get prepared for a rough world of adulthood. It's not a kind world out there.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's not quite the case. If the content is copyrighted material not owned by the uploader, then the ISP/site may or may not have knowledge of the copyright violation. In this case, DCMA notices in the US are what are frequently issued to the site, so as to take down the copyrighted or otherwise claimed material.
If you check the links, you'll see that defamation, and speech is the crux of the matter. Someone got slimed online, and holds the site responsible as well as the slimer. The courts have said that the site isn't responsible unless it edits the material in some way. If it doesn't touch it, then it's not a party to damages as a result of the content of the speech. Movies, MP3s, and digital movies aren't thought to be 'speech' in the circumstance described by the litigation in the post we're talking about. And so, it's not censorship; if it were censorship, then the site involves themselves in the motives of the poster, who is accused of defamation. If they don't touch it, they do nothing but provide the sheet of paper which is written upon by the defamer. Decisions say that when there is no censorship, the site isn't active in the results of what's posted.... in this case, defamation.
Sites like YouTube and others try to enforce terms where they can. They're often held harmless regarding the content that their users upload. It's then up to copyright holders and law enforcement officials to assess and act upon illegal or contravening content posting. You can complain to YouTube if someone has posted your stolen video. But if you don't own the video, it's difficult for you to claim nexus to ask YouTube to take down the video unless the video fails YouTubes terms test.
This means that YouTube primarily offers space, and users upload whatever to that space. YouTube's terms include community guidelines at http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines which spell out what they'll enforce. Notice that they're clear, non-discriminatory and will generally take a complaint to be enforced.
The Seventh Circuit, however, says that the site in question merely delivers all messages, and as a messenger, didn't add to whatever injury occurred.
Yeah, like that was working. The fervor after 9/11 was there. A tactical reason was not. And so, some half a million deaths later, we might get some oil. Justice? We found a way to lynch Hussein. There was no plan, no reason, just a great boondoggle.
Once again, private interests would make lots of money. Ask Halliburton, Boeing, and the billions of dollars used to secure the oil.
Yes, but when that's over, there'll be the oil.
Amen, brother. Oil went up 50c/gal where I live in the past two months. Must be economic sustainability that'll let the oil refiners make untold amounts of jack.
Laugh all you want: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece as it still doesn't have a "reasoned argument". It was about oil. It's still about oil. It's going to be exiting, about oil.
What part of "it's all about the oil" did you miss? You thought the Iraq war was to unseat the unholy Hussein? No. This was about oil, and Geo Bush's vendetta. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Here was just one more murderous dictator... but this one had oil that Georgie needed. Mugabe doesn't have any oil that we know of, or we'd have been there by now.
Pretty much.
You're merely a transport until you do something that's not transport-like. If you do something that's not transport-like, then you're somehow become a part of the problem captioned in the litigation. Otherwise, you're just a neutral fact of the matter.
Not quite true. SCOTUS has had several cases where ISPs and websites have been sued to have content taken down, where the ISP wasn't "in active concert" with the purveyors of the content. It allowed the hosting providers/webmasters/portals to be held harmless-- so long as the ISP/webmasters didn't edit or delete user-added content/comments, thus NOT providing a role that shapes the content. IF you don't touch the content, then you're not actively being involved. That's why the Seventh Circuit's language is what it is in this particular ligitation. IANAL, but understand the law and SCOTUS speech precendents well.
Of course, other US Agencies have taken down some websites based on another legal theory, but that hasn't been litigated yet. And in my opinion, they did this without probable cause and without due process.
Mod parent up.
I'll add: it must be Monday, and traffic is low, so they needed a flamebait post that would cause torching in two dimensions. Hit count. The value of the Internet has been reduced to hit count.
Further, maybe we won't see lots of code being released, but interest in the community and examples of interesting code will evolve. The German developer community will have new sales outlets, now that Attachmate/Novell seems to have altered the future of SUSE. And it will be amusing watching the consortium that bought Novell's patent collective try to sue the Russians. Hah.
Let's also change "suicide bomber" to "bomb murderer".
Yeah, it's a "brand".
Did you notice that there was a recent COMDEX, too? It was online. You didn't have to wait for taxis.
Sorry. One problem: Google Maps. You need to add: duck while you're doing it.
Our arguments are now circular. You believe education is the mandate, and while promising, lacks guaranteed delivery, ensuring partial failure.
Your concept of the 'nanny state' precludes further meaningful discussion between us, I'm afraid. I believe the measure not to be draconian, and you do. We probably both believe in liberty, approached from different directions. So it will stand.
Civility demands that we become responsible for each other. That suffering you speak of is the price paid for civility, among others. Common sense is an oxymoron in this divisive world. What's clear is that children need protection from concepts they have no context for. That's what I argue.
Your black and white world is full of grey scales that are difficult to understand because of their dimensions and weight. We capture the problem through our sense of responsibility to others, that they might help us, too.
Letting Darwin rule is so terribly expensive. That's why we got the gifts of judgment, along with opposable thumbs and other gifts as humans. It separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Exercising responsibility ensures better outcomes.
it's not so hard to register to get porn. With 90% of people viewing it, there'll be lots of company.
Absolute scientific fact..... reminds me of:
"I understand the needs of existentialists, but cannot satisfy them until the train has already run them over...."
I personally worry that those that advance the concept of the travails of the "nanny state" have themselves, no empathy for those that society and civility demand help for.
You believe there are parents. Sometimes there are not. Yet there are problems, at a huge cost, for your small inconvenience of wall to surmount for porn. Education is needed, but there also needs to be a safety net. Letting Darwinian methods prevail connotes sociopathy, IMHO.
We're not censoring everything for children's sake. We're censoring for children, Internet porn. Adults get to move on and view what they will.
You think I don't understand natural urges? I want to throttle the throats of our abysmal politicians, but I don't follow that urge.
Did you read the link? Or are you just having fun digging in your heels?
Answering your last question seems the productive path:
You don't keep children ignorant. You use parenting skills to endow a value system. That's for those children that have parents, that care, that take the time to do this.
Congruently, read this: v\http://unhinfo.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV76.pdf (sorry about the pdf) and get one view of the potential difficulties. Children need to be children; eventually, they express interest. Making them callous towards sex, or getting incorrect impressions of reality, consent, and so on are real problems.
Kids often live in this world not knowing what's real and not. And they can act on information believed to be real to them, but isn't to an adult. This is where the distinction must be made, and don't think that parents have great control over their childrens' online viewing-- even with 'nanny' software.
Years of med school, internship, experience.
It takes a few brains to become a doctor; they're often smarter than the average Joe or Jane. They see a very wide denominator of human condition.
That's why. It's a matter of trust, and asking the right questions. If you have brains, then you'll be able to weigh the answers.
None of these. I promote nothing except the interests of children.
Not all are saints, not all are sinners. Some lack passion, others lack intellect, still others have motivation problems both adjunct and not to their avocations.
Production health care might work when the variables have been solved, and the mooch money goes looking somewhere else. That might work long after I'm dead and gone. I've been to Sweden, Canada, Japan, the UK, and have examined the health systems there. Excellence hasn't been pushed out of the system, rather, money has. In this era, we've switched out monarchies for the principalities of endowed organizational wealth. The divisions of the haves and have-nots grows deeper. The nots class devolves, rather than being brought up from the bottom... the metaphor of a rising tide lifts all ships. Today, they're mired at the bottom. Industrialization of health care isn't a failed social experiment, it's a failed entrepreneurial agenda.
To cut to the chase, GPs are most people's (and sadly so) first line of health care, be it physical or psychological care. GPs dole out the very largest part of mental health meds, as an example, for better and worse.
Some, as you cite, are rote businesspeople first, and use the oath as a financial tool in ways not intended by its utterance. That's an issue for another thread. I cite talking to one because people actually see them first. Others are still better at understanding the hows and whys of limiting exposure of porn to children. This is my goal: understanding, not moral judgment, not condemnation of porn, not dramatic changes in Internet accessibility. The issue is verifying the veracity of my statements regarding porn harming children. GPs ought to know, and there are better if more distantly available choices. Just googling something is inadequate, but a realistic alternative to recommendations that I've made.
It's just one more place to learn.... if we're lucky.
Oh yeah. Psychology is bull.
If you don't understand pregnancy, it's baby roulette.
If you don't understand STDs, you're a host for one or more of 34 STDs, some rapidly fatal, looking for a spot marked X.
If you don't understand consent, you're a candidate for rapist.
If you don't understand relationships, you'll cause a lot of misunderstanding and pain.
IF you really want to start a flame war, talk about violence game ratings. Were it my choice, we'd find an intelligent, graduated methodology of exposing children to violence, rather than letting them think it's normal. It needn't be. I don't blame pornography for anything. I believe that children shouldn't be exposed to it, and that sadly, they do, and get the wrong ideas. Some take it further and act on sex ideas without suitable context and understanding of consequences. They're children, not adults. They didn't emerge from the womb knowing about rape, HIV, the nature of consensual conduct, relationships, birth control, and so on. Some don't get education. Don't presume that others have your education, parenting background, and values. Often, they don't. There's a whole subculture of children that are essentially parent-less for one reason and another. I'm not trying to put children in bubbles, rather, to let them be children and get prepared for a rough world of adulthood. It's not a kind world out there.
I have. Others cannot, could not, would not, have not. See peer reviewed references at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10261&page=115. Google it for more.