That is an interesting comment, but as I understand it, the producers of movies are trying to stop you from reselling the movies at any price by saying that they are not selling you the movie/CD but are selling you an exclusive (i.e. non-transferable) LICENSE to view/listen to said movie/CD.
(3) COMPUTER; PROTECTED COMPUTER*- The terms `computer' and `protected computer' have the meanings given such terms in section 1030(e) of title 18, United States Code
Looking up the relevant section of US Code it defines a "computer/protected computer" as:
(1) the term "computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
(2) the term "protected computer" means a computer:
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communications, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States
On my reading of the bill as currently written (IANAL), it seems that this bill does not apply to the vast majority of us since it constantly refers to a "protected computer". However the part that worries me is where is says that if the monitoring fcks up your computer or internet connection the person/company doing said monitoring is not liable for any problems.
1. Has anyone certified that MediaSentry works as claimed? 2. Was this an independent investigator/lab? 3. Were these lawsuits (current litigating) initiated by experts using MediaSentry? 4. Has the RIAA ever sued people who don't own computers? (cite examples if needed) 5. Has the RIAA ever sued people who don't have Internet connectivity (amazingly some people still don't). (again cite examples) 6. Were those lawsuits initiated by experts using MediaSentry? I leave the rest up to your imagination.
Where did that come from? Nowhere did I find any indication that the son was being accused of downloading any music, let alone from his work. These kinds of accusations remind me very much of the RIAA/MPAA. However, to answer your question, if he WAS downloading music at work and IF the music was from an ILLEGAL site (and not from one of the RIAA shills like Apple or others), then yes, they would have a "right" to contact his employer. Did I miss something here or are you deliberatly being inflammatory?
I don't want to be nit-picky here, but I am not aware of ever voting for a "Supreme Court Judge". And in no state (or for that matter in the country as a whole) have I ever heard of voting in Supreme Court Judges. IIRC, they are nominated by the chief executive (as applicable) and approved by the legislators. If they were voted in, we could vote them out again. Not such a bad idea at that.
What gives you, the consumer, the right to dictate the conditions on which another entity must part with their property? Our culture, ie, the ideas which have molded and formed our society, says that you in fact do not have that right.
We as consumers have decided that 17 year olds cannot buy cigarettes. We have decided that 20 year olds cannot purchase alcoholic beverages. We have decided (through our representatives (ha) in congress) all these things and more. You cannot sell a fully automatic weapon in the US to anyone without a Federal Firearms License. These things were decided, not by the companies that sell the products, but by the consumers and voters in the US.
Please explain again why we cannot tell someone how they can sell their products.
What about Libraries? I can go to my local library, check out any books I want for no money read them and if I truly like them go out and buy them. Have I dramatically reduced the value of the book? If noone bought any books but everyone went to the library to read said books, would the library be considered pirates and be responsible for the "loss of income", raided and all the stacks confiscated?
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland
"....If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).
I have to disagree with your last comment. If "Deep Throat" didn't fail those same three tests in all but one market (Memphis, TN, hand-picked for the job), I can't believe that a cartoon of genital-less people would. Mind you that I can't believe that too many people would purchase this game if the Hot Coffee mod was the only thing in the game so it is, perhaps, a moot point.
But just one of the three isn't enough, it has to fail all 3 of the tests.
A mod to unlock something on a disc is still a mod if the area on the disc is supposed to be inaccesable. (It is still changing the way the game was designed to play in the final cut.)
I would not argue that it should or should not have been removed, just that it isn't obscene (failing to pass the SCOTUS test).
BTW, the usage of that many CAPS just makes your argument more likely to be ignored by reasonable people.
Do you know what the current acceptable definition of "Porn" is?
The U.S. Supreme Court defined obsentity in Miller
v. California in 1973. It is a three-part test, as follows:
"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489;
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
I don't see this "Mod" as applying to above. At least not in NY.
Since a Femto-watt = 10^-15, 10 billion or more would be required to reach even 20 milli-watts. I believe that even then a moderate amount of shielding would keep this from radiating too far.
The true problem with the "Patriot Act" as I see it is that if the Government decides to do something to you (or me) under this act, you (or I) will never hear about it. So how can you say that nothing is happening do to this act? The Act itself expressly forbits any mention of any actions taken under it.
Slashdot Mirror
That is an interesting comment, but as I understand it, the producers of movies are trying to stop you from reselling the movies at any price by saying that they are not selling you the movie/CD but are selling you an exclusive (i.e. non-transferable) LICENSE to view/listen to said movie/CD.
In the Bill itself it says:
(3) COMPUTER; PROTECTED COMPUTER*- The terms `computer' and `protected computer' have the meanings given such terms in section 1030(e) of title 18, United States Code
Looking up the relevant section of US Code it defines a "computer/protected computer" as:
(1) the term "computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
(2) the term "protected computer" means a computer:
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communications, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States
On my reading of the bill as currently written (IANAL), it seems that this bill does not apply to the vast majority of us since it constantly refers to a "protected computer". However the part that worries me is where is says that if the monitoring fcks up your computer or internet connection the person/company doing said monitoring is not liable for any problems.
1. Has anyone certified that MediaSentry works as claimed?
2. Was this an independent investigator/lab?
3. Were these lawsuits (current litigating) initiated by experts using MediaSentry?
4. Has the RIAA ever sued people who don't own computers? (cite examples if needed)
5. Has the RIAA ever sued people who don't have Internet connectivity (amazingly some people still don't). (again cite examples)
6. Were those lawsuits initiated by experts using MediaSentry?
I leave the rest up to your imagination.
Where did that come from?
Nowhere did I find any indication that the son was being accused of downloading any music, let alone from his work.
These kinds of accusations remind me very much of the RIAA/MPAA.
However, to answer your question, if he WAS downloading music at work and IF the music was from an ILLEGAL site (and not from one of the RIAA shills like Apple or others), then yes, they would have a "right" to contact his employer.
Did I miss something here or are you deliberatly being inflammatory?
I don't want to be nit-picky here, but I am not aware of ever voting for a "Supreme Court Judge". And in no state (or for that matter in the country as a whole) have I ever heard of voting in Supreme Court Judges. IIRC, they are nominated by the chief executive (as applicable) and approved by the legislators. If they were voted in, we could vote them out again. Not such a bad idea at that.
Registrant:
Manila Industries, Inc.
3843 S. Bristol St. #628
Santa Ana, CA 92704
US
Domain Name: MURDERPEOPLE.COM
Registrar: COMPANA, LLC
Whois Server: whois.budgetnames.com
Referral URL: http://www.budgetnames.com/
Name Server: NS2.OFFLINECD.COM
Name Server: NS1.OFFLINECD.COM
Status: ACTIVE
EPP Status: ok
Updated Date: 18-May-2006
Creation Date: 17-May-2005
Expiration Date: 17-May-2007
What about Libraries? I can go to my local library, check out any books I want for no money read them and if I truly like them go out and buy them. Have I dramatically reduced the value of the book? If noone bought any books but everyone went to the library to read said books, would the library be considered pirates and be responsible for the "loss of income", raided and all the stacks confiscated?
1936 Senate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_election% 2C_1936,
1936 House of Representatives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_election%2 C_1936,
and of course,
1936 President: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_ele ction%2C_1936.
Seems pretty one-sided to me.
Try This: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_doesn't_ explain_art
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland "....If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).
I have to disagree with your last comment. If "Deep Throat" didn't fail those same three tests in all but one market (Memphis, TN, hand-picked for the job), I can't believe that a cartoon of genital-less people would. Mind you that I can't believe that too many people would purchase this game if the Hot Coffee mod was the only thing in the game so it is, perhaps, a moot point.
But just one of the three isn't enough, it has to fail all 3 of the tests. A mod to unlock something on a disc is still a mod if the area on the disc is supposed to be inaccesable. (It is still changing the way the game was designed to play in the final cut.) I would not argue that it should or should not have been removed, just that it isn't obscene (failing to pass the SCOTUS test). BTW, the usage of that many CAPS just makes your argument more likely to be ignored by reasonable people.
Do you know what the current acceptable definition of "Porn" is? The U.S. Supreme Court defined obsentity in Miller v. California in 1973. It is a three-part test, as follows: "The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." I don't see this "Mod" as applying to above. At least not in NY.
Sorry, slashdot users aren't allowed. You've been too naughty.
(Current Website from the link)
Since a Femto-watt = 10^-15, 10 billion or more would be required to reach even 20 milli-watts. I believe that even then a moderate amount of shielding would keep this from radiating too far.
The true problem with the "Patriot Act" as I see it is that if the Government decides to do something to you (or me) under this act, you (or I) will never hear about it. So how can you say that nothing is happening do to this act? The Act itself expressly forbits any mention of any actions taken under it.