It is a lot more that just a connector standard, it is also a protocol standard.
Its true that HDMI is backwards compatible with DVI, but with each new rev of HDMI (they have had 4 so far and are at 1.3 now) they introduce more and more differences.
For example, DVI doesn't support YCbCr, but HDMI supports 8, 10 and even 12-bit YCbCr.
With 1.3, they've specced out a faster data-rate (frequency on the wire) and also bumped the color formats up to include 30, 36 and 48-bit colors (both RGB and YCbCr) as well as the entirely new colorspace XvYCC.
Additionally, one thing you glossed over is that the HDMI spec mandates HDCP but DVI does not. If a device has a properly licensed HDMI connector, it must fully support HDCP. Thus any application, like Vista's playback of hi-def defective recorded media (DRM) that requires HDMI, is implicitly requiring HDCP. Thus that defective media will not be [sic] edittable.
There is also HD video playback, HD video editing, currently, people are asking me about this and I keep telling them the technology is coming and there is no reason to update because your pc needs to be hdmi ready
Anything that needs HDMI will not be edittable. HDMI is only necessary to support DRM, not to support any technical requirements of HD and DRM, as its backer's perceive it, precludes editting.
I play back and edit raw HD transport streams on my AGP system all the time and since they have no DRM it works just fine. Even some of the DRM'd stuff (notably MS WMV9 encoded stuff like Terminator 2, Brothers Grimm, and a whole slew of IMAX titles) all play back 'fine' on the current system, at full rez.
Of course, coming from Japan, the super-powers of this suit will be voice-activated. And not just regular-voice, or sotto voce, the wearer will be required to shout-out the desired function as it is being used.
But if the US breaks international law to in an (misguided) attempt prevent terrorist attacks it is evil, while when China does breaks international law it is justified to prevent spying...
That's just another false dichotomy from the standard arsenal of "why do you hate america?"
American citizens have no control over what China does.
We do have control over what the USA does. Thus American citizens have every right to complain, in fact they probably have an obligation to complain, whenever the US goverment does something they think is wrong.
That's not a free pass to china, its the national equivalent of your mom asking you if you would jump off a bridge just because all the other kids did too.
What competitor? What other OS runs MasterCAM, Autodesk Inventor, JobBOSS, <shudder>Quickbooks</shudder> and all the other software companies like ours depend on to keep revenue coming in and the IRS satisfied?
Lol. With a username of "Fortran IV" you must have way too much experience with legacy apps that can't be ported to modern systems.
If these movies are at 320x240 like the tv shows are, that is a total rip off since that is a quarter of the resolution of a real DVD. I bet they are "foolscreen" too in order to fill that tiny little display. And their official prices are even higher - $15 for a recent release and $10 for library titles.
That might actually mean something if The Democratic People's Bullshit Dictatorship wasn't run by the whim of a genocidal psychopath.
It's not. You've just been listening to too much PR. I guarantee you that the CIA does not consider him to be a "genocidal psychopath" - nor is the country run solely by his whim either. Now don't be a knee-jerker and think I'm saying that the DPRK is a real democracy or anything, my point is that there is a lot of grey and the US media's portrayl of Kim as the black of black and white is a vast over simplification.
For one thing, the recent missile launches were probably done against his will - with the imposition of sanctions and major reductions in foreign aid (until very recently the USA was the largest, by an order of magnitude, source of foreign aid for the DPRK) Kim needs international cooperation and everybody had made it quite clear that a missile launch would not win him any friends internationally.
The military is extremely influential (after all, the country has been in a state of war for about half a century or so now, and the military is pretty much the country's sole industry) and the analyses that I have read suggest that the desire to "test-launch" was very strong and that Kim had to acquiesce to the internal pressure or risk a coup. Some analysts believe there is a good chance that we'll see underground nuke testing in the next six months or so for similar reasons.
Ironically, such events may lead China to 'sponsor' a coup that takes out both Kim and his more hawkish generals because while China has no love of japan, their high rate of economic growth means that every day they have more and more of a vested interest in seeing stability in the region. A nuke test would also send the south back into the arms of the US (until this missile launch, we had really been falling out of favor with the general population) which is not in China's best interests either.
North Korea doesn't need nuclear missiles. It has regular short-range missiles that can easily reach Seoul, and enough to completely destroy the city if they were attacked. That's just as good as having a nuke, for all practical purposes, and it's a huge deterrant against pissing them off.
Except that the DPRK also has a huge deterrent against firing on Seoul - kinship. The whole north-south thing with families arbitrarily divided down the middle is still a big deal - at least it is in the south where it is a constant meme in their public discourse and must be somewhat in the north since there have been on-again off-again "family reunification" bus trips to the north for a few years now. (Currently off-again in response to the recent sanctions against the north, political tit-for-tat).
But with a nuke and a medium range missile, the DPRK can hit Tokyo. A lot of people in the south would not be too terribly upset if Tokyo got nuked, neither would a lot of people in China.
The P2P services don't offer music, they offer files.
You cannot communicate any information between individuals distant in time or space without first converting it into a "file" -- a form -- that can be conveniently stored and transmitted.
You seem to be in complete agreement with the post you are criticisizing.
Your statement is that music, and all other kinds of information, must be converted into the form of a "file" in order to be distributed.
His point is that limewire doesn't discriminate on what kind of information has been converted into 'files' - music, text, video, software, copyrighted, public-domain, etc it is all just 'files' to limewire.
Sounds like you are saying exactly the same thing he is.
Lately there's been a few incidents of Plagiarism in the news, not to mention some wholesale ethical breaches of faked stories (e.g. Blair at the NY times and "a million Little pieces"). But the thing is the reason those are news is that they are both exceptional and something that is specifically drummed in to any professional journalist not to do.
I disagree. "Traditional journalism" is rife with "press release reporting" where someone reads a press release, rewrites it, maybe calls a few sources starting with the company's (or government's) own PR department and then publishes it as news. That kind of reporting is so common that it basically gets a free pass nowadays.
I'll traditional plagiarism where at least the original author put in the legwork to come up with his own perspective over the parroting of a PR campaign.
This story fits in the broader context of a developing "surveillance state" in the USA. Forget about wiretaps and such, I just want to focus stuff that is out in plain view.
The 4th amendment says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Evidence gathered via public cameras, recording of pulic conversations, etc - all stuff out in "public" is generally protected by the doctrines of plain view or Open Fields with the reasoning that people do not have an expectation to privacy when they are out in public. That makes sense as long as we maintain a sense of proportion.
Nowadays (versus in ye olde tymes when the bill of rights was written) it is becoming feasible for governments and large corporations to have a much "broader view" of events "out in public" - a view that is more broad and far-reaching than that of any regular person. In England, they've got thousands, probably tens of thousands, of cameras recording public areas 24x7. No one but the government can do that. Similarly, no one can read every post to slashdot, every post to every blog, discussion forum, etc on the web - you can't even do it for just 1/1000th of them.
Even with public tools like google, there are still some kinds of things - like the more orwellian uses of sophisticated NLP tools, that regular people just can't do, but large organizations like the government can, and seemingly want to do.
I think that when it gets to the point where large-scale and automated surveillance programs are used to gather evidence, that such searches no longer fall under the definition of "reasonable." That video monitoring of even a "fair-sized" minority (a purposely vague term on my part) of public places is not a reasonable search because the means to do so are far beyond those available to an average person or group of people.
So, what kind of doctrine am I proposing to replace "Plain View" or "Open Fields?" I don't quite know yet - maybe something that differentiates between actively searching for specific facts or events versus passive monitoring that records any and everything for later examination.
It just seems to me that when the primary reason that you can't expect privacy in some semi-public area is because the government has the equivlanet of 10million guards watching and listening to most every public space in real life and online, that the situation has progressed far beyond the state of reasonable and off deep into the territory of excessive or extreme.
Well, when you put them in two consecutive sentences where one is contructed to support the other, can you blame someone for not having the ESP to know that they really aren't related? If your intent was not to support your opinion about how a judge would rule, just why did you write that following sentence? Just a random fortune cookie perhaps?
If you are asking me if a judge, tasked with interpreting the law, will dismiss the claim of a plaintiff who files a petition stating something along the lines of "their copyright has been infringed but they haven't been harmed in any way except that they're unable to sell a paper to another student in order to facilitate academic cheating and somebody stole their lolly" then yes, that will happen.
Strawman. Eric made no such claim at all - really you are the only one making that claim. So congratualations on the self-lovin... Clearly you enjoy it, with all your cookies and milk and squirmin.
In fact, Eric made the point that turnitin is using their unauthorized copies for their commercial benefit. Clearly if they are using the copies to make money, then they fail one of the key tests for fair use.
I'm convinced that the average Slashdot poster would argue with Larry Wall over Perl syntax.
Lol. You aren't even a contributing author to title 17. I've met Larry Wall and you sir are no Larry Wall. Your hubris about your linguistic and syntactical finesse is definitely not Larry's kind of hubris either.
I sure as hell ain't gonna start using Linux exclusively and abandon the stuff I like using just to stick it to Microsoft. Doesn't do a damn thing in the long run.
I think you mean "in the short run" because presumably if you do it, others will too and after enough time has passed for enough people to do it, MS will lose their monopoly position and real competition will return to the market.
Kind of like deciding to always vote third-party (in the USA) no matter what the specifics are in each election because it won't make a bit of difference in the short run - might even be counter-productive (e.g. the meme about nader making the dems lose), but if enough others end up doing it too, we might see a real change in the political landscape in the long run (or the powers that be will just co-opt the leading 3rd parties too, but that's a flaw way beyond the scope of the analogy).
Any judge would dismiss this with prejudice. As the original poster stated, the student's ability to publish her own work for profit has been in no way diminished. That is exactly what copyright laws are intended to protect.
Yes, only an idiot would confuse letter-of-the-law, statutory infringement with a statement about what a set of laws were originally intended to protect.
So, it is your contention that a judge will dismiss a case with prejudice without regard to the letter of the law?
Wrong on both counts. But feel free to think of me as a symbol of how bad things have gotten in the legal field
If it's all the same to you, I'll just think of you as a very poor copyright lawyer since any copyright lawyer worth his salt would have never asserted that there is no infringement as long as the owner's ability to publish for profit is not affected. Even this dim-witted and self-righteous slashdot poster knows that without having to look up the cases in westlaw.
As the original poster stated, the student's ability to publish her own work for profit has been in no way diminished. That is exactly what copyright laws are intended to protect.
first legal challenge to Turnitin fails--probably because it will be mounted by some jackass kid who actually was cheating
No, idiot, a legitimate copyright holder will sue Turnitin and Turnitin will either win or get a slap on the wrist. I really think you have a reading comprehension problem.
Since I am such an idiot, could you please explain how a plagarist - the only kind of cheating that turnitin catches - can have a legitimate copyright on the plagarized work?
People like you believe that the law will prove out your beliefs
You went with the same old tired "the law doesn't care what I think" copout, that's where.
Since I am such an idiot, could you please explain how "the law doesn't care what I think" means that I "believe that the law will prove out [my] beliefs?"
to object to Turnitin is comparatively trite
Easy for you to say since its not your copyright being violated nor is it apparently being used against your moral beliefs.
At least you've now accepted that there is at least one valid, if 'trite,' answer to:
Why would a student not want to contribute to a system that helps to ensure high academic standards?
Jesus, your posts just seethe with arrogance and misinformation.
Don't like it? Don't start it. You are the one who started it with your attempts to belittle my position by claiming that a simple, well-understood analogy was "grandstanding."
instead of accepting that there is a chance that you might be wrong about this.
Pot, kettle, black -- uses of terms like "orwellian," "dna testing" to exaggerate a position as if there is only black or white and that those people who don't like a particular shade of grey are whackos because you think that shade of grey is pure white.
Now you're just making things up. I would love to see a citation for this. I won't waste money searching Lexis or WestLaw, so I'll just believe the article when it says that there is still no legal challenge to Turnitin,
You are so quick to dismiss statute. In another post you've already stated that a judge would require turnitin to pull the plaintif's papers from their database. Seems to me that you've already agreed with my point.
You see, if (when) the first legal challenge to Turnitin fails--probably because it will be mounted by some jackass kid who actually was cheating--it will set a disturbing precedent
So, lets see if I got this right. A plagarist will take turnitin to court for violating his copyright on the work that he does not hold copyright because it is plagarised and that will establish precedent affecting actual copyright holders? I suppose the ACLU will be defending him too?
You professed to be a positivist,.., People like you believe that the law will prove out your beliefs
Lol, I have no idea where you got that from, but you got a whole paragraph of tilting at windmills out of it. I am the last person who thinks the law is just, especially copyright law. Or wasn't my grandstanding clear enough?
The reality is that these kids aren't taught, they are owned.
And judging from the rest of your post, you think that sort of authoritarianism is the correct state of affairs and thus anyone who might think otherwise, especially the kids themselves, can't possibly be right. You know what they said about Mussolini -- he made the trains run on time.
The copyright owner has the option of requesting statutory damages rather than actual damages. Statutory damages range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed.
Last I checked, you could only sue for statutory damages if the copyright was registered.
However, you are correct about his bogus laugh test. I suspect that his disclaimer about being a lawyer is just false appeal to authority and that he is not a lawyer with experience in the field of copyright.
Look, I am not your foil, to be used for idealistic grandstanding. You pretty much just cut and pasted a few things I wrote, without any context, got modded up for it , and then ducked the real question I posed, so here it is again:
You have a problem with the timeline of your events, and it seems your comprehension of them too.
Why would a student not want to contribute to a system that helps to ensure high academic standards?
I didn't quote that line and answer that question because it is an over simplification of the situation and I thought a word to the wise would be enough to make that clear. Since you are not wise, here is the elaboration you require:
Your question is the contextual equivalent of, "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." Submitting each student's work to the system for testing is an implicit assumption of guilt. Some people don't like that attitude and don't wish to be a part of it. It's bad enough that they have to put up with it being done to them, at least they have the legal right to avoid enabling its use against others.
Slashdot Mirror
I have the Hacker creedo up on my office door. Just took the hacker creedo label off it. Everyone thinks it's the best statement since sliced bread.
Pirate!
HDMI is a connector standard.
It is a lot more that just a connector standard, it is also a protocol standard.
Its true that HDMI is backwards compatible with DVI, but with each new rev of HDMI (they have had 4 so far and are at 1.3 now) they introduce more and more differences.
For example, DVI doesn't support YCbCr, but HDMI supports 8, 10 and even 12-bit YCbCr.
With 1.3, they've specced out a faster data-rate (frequency on the wire) and also bumped the color formats up to include 30, 36 and 48-bit colors (both RGB and YCbCr) as well as the entirely new colorspace XvYCC.
Additionally, one thing you glossed over is that the HDMI spec mandates HDCP but DVI does not. If a device has a properly licensed HDMI connector, it must fully support HDCP. Thus any application, like Vista's playback of hi-def defective recorded media (DRM) that requires HDMI, is implicitly requiring HDCP. Thus that defective media will not be [sic] edittable.
Forget kids...
Won't someone please think of the Constitution?
There is also HD video playback, HD video editing, currently, people are asking me about this and I keep telling them the technology is coming and there is no reason to update because your pc needs to be hdmi ready
Anything that needs HDMI will not be edittable. HDMI is only necessary to support DRM, not to support any technical requirements of HD and DRM, as its backer's perceive it, precludes editting.
I play back and edit raw HD transport streams on my AGP system all the time and since they have no DRM it works just fine. Even some of the DRM'd stuff (notably MS WMV9 encoded stuff like Terminator 2, Brothers Grimm, and a whole slew of IMAX titles) all play back 'fine' on the current system, at full rez.
Of course, coming from Japan, the super-powers of this suit will be voice-activated. And not just regular-voice, or sotto voce, the wearer will be required to shout-out the desired function as it is being used.
Fat-Person-Lifting Super-Strength!!!!
New-Bride-Over-Threshold Ultimate-Lift!!
Giant-Cherry-Blossom Power-Tree-Shaker!!!
But if the US breaks international law to in an (misguided) attempt prevent terrorist attacks it is evil, while when China does breaks international law it is justified to prevent spying...
That's just another false dichotomy from the standard arsenal of "why do you hate america?"
American citizens have no control over what China does.
We do have control over what the USA does. Thus American citizens have every right to complain, in fact they probably have an obligation to complain, whenever the US goverment does something they think is wrong.
That's not a free pass to china, its the national equivalent of your mom asking you if you would jump off a bridge just because all the other kids did too.
Lol. With a username of "Fortran IV" you must have way too much experience with legacy apps that can't be ported to modern systems.
If these movies are at 320x240 like the tv shows are, that is a total rip off since that is a quarter of the resolution of a real DVD. I bet they are "foolscreen" too in order to fill that tiny little display. And their official prices are even higher - $15 for a recent release and $10 for library titles.
It's not. You've just been listening to too much PR. I guarantee you that the CIA does not consider him to be a "genocidal psychopath" - nor is the country run solely by his whim either. Now don't be a knee-jerker and think I'm saying that the DPRK is a real democracy or anything, my point is that there is a lot of grey and the US media's portrayl of Kim as the black of black and white is a vast over simplification.
For one thing, the recent missile launches were probably done against his will - with the imposition of sanctions and major reductions in foreign aid (until very recently the USA was the largest, by an order of magnitude, source of foreign aid for the DPRK) Kim needs international cooperation and everybody had made it quite clear that a missile launch would not win him any friends internationally.
The military is extremely influential (after all, the country has been in a state of war for about half a century or so now, and the military is pretty much the country's sole industry) and the analyses that I have read suggest that the desire to "test-launch" was very strong and that Kim had to acquiesce to the internal pressure or risk a coup. Some analysts believe there is a good chance that we'll see underground nuke testing in the next six months or so for similar reasons.
Ironically, such events may lead China to 'sponsor' a coup that takes out both Kim and his more hawkish generals because while China has no love of japan, their high rate of economic growth means that every day they have more and more of a vested interest in seeing stability in the region. A nuke test would also send the south back into the arms of the US (until this missile launch, we had really been falling out of favor with the general population) which is not in China's best interests either.
North Korea doesn't need nuclear missiles. It has regular short-range missiles that can easily reach Seoul, and enough to completely destroy the city if they were attacked. That's just as good as having a nuke, for all practical purposes, and it's a huge deterrant against pissing them off.
Except that the DPRK also has a huge deterrent against firing on Seoul - kinship. The whole north-south thing with families arbitrarily divided down the middle is still a big deal - at least it is in the south where it is a constant meme in their public discourse and must be somewhat in the north since there have been on-again off-again "family reunification" bus trips to the north for a few years now. (Currently off-again in response to the recent sanctions against the north, political tit-for-tat).
But with a nuke and a medium range missile, the DPRK can hit Tokyo. A lot of people in the south would not be too terribly upset if Tokyo got nuked, neither would a lot of people in China.
Bingo! Give this man a +5 correct.
You seem to be in complete agreement with the post you are criticisizing.
Your statement is that music, and all other kinds of information, must be converted into the form of a "file" in order to be distributed.
His point is that limewire doesn't discriminate on what kind of information has been converted into 'files' - music, text, video, software, copyrighted, public-domain, etc it is all just 'files' to limewire.
Sounds like you are saying exactly the same thing he is.
What's the difference? Taking when attribution is expected is plagiarism.
You gotta be pulling my leg.
As the reader of the newspaper, and presumably the one paying for it, *I* expect attribution.
Lately there's been a few incidents of Plagiarism in the news, not to mention some wholesale ethical breaches of faked stories (e.g. Blair at the NY times and "a million Little pieces"). But the thing is the reason those are news is that they are both exceptional and something that is specifically drummed in to any professional journalist not to do.
I disagree. "Traditional journalism" is rife with "press release reporting" where someone reads a press release, rewrites it, maybe calls a few sources starting with the company's (or government's) own PR department and then publishes it as news. That kind of reporting is so common that it basically gets a free pass nowadays.
I'll traditional plagiarism where at least the original author put in the legwork to come up with his own perspective over the parroting of a PR campaign.
This story fits in the broader context of a developing "surveillance state" in the USA. Forget about wiretaps and such, I just want to focus stuff that is out in plain view.
The 4th amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Evidence gathered via public cameras, recording of pulic conversations, etc - all stuff out in "public" is generally protected by the doctrines of plain view or Open Fields with the reasoning that people do not have an expectation to privacy when they are out in public. That makes sense as long as we maintain a sense of proportion.
Nowadays (versus in ye olde tymes when the bill of rights was written) it is becoming feasible for governments and large corporations to have a much "broader view" of events "out in public" - a view that is more broad and far-reaching than that of any regular person. In England, they've got thousands, probably tens of thousands, of cameras recording public areas 24x7. No one but the government can do that. Similarly, no one can read every post to slashdot, every post to every blog, discussion forum, etc on the web - you can't even do it for just 1/1000th of them.
Even with public tools like google, there are still some kinds of things - like the more orwellian uses of sophisticated NLP tools, that regular people just can't do, but large organizations like the government can, and seemingly want to do.
I think that when it gets to the point where large-scale and automated surveillance programs are used to gather evidence, that such searches no longer fall under the definition of "reasonable." That video monitoring of even a "fair-sized" minority (a purposely vague term on my part) of public places is not a reasonable search because the means to do so are far beyond those available to an average person or group of people.
So, what kind of doctrine am I proposing to replace "Plain View" or "Open Fields?" I don't quite know yet - maybe something that differentiates between actively searching for specific facts or events versus passive monitoring that records any and everything for later examination.
It just seems to me that when the primary reason that you can't expect privacy in some semi-public area is because the government has the equivlanet of 10million guards watching and listening to most every public space in real life and online, that the situation has progressed far beyond the state of reasonable and off deep into the territory of excessive or extreme.
Again, you've confused one thing for another.
Well, when you put them in two consecutive sentences where one is contructed to support the other, can you blame someone for not having the ESP to know that they really aren't related? If your intent was not to support your opinion about how a judge would rule, just why did you write that following sentence? Just a random fortune cookie perhaps?
If you are asking me if a judge, tasked with interpreting the law, will dismiss the claim of a plaintiff who files a petition stating something along the lines of "their copyright has been infringed but they haven't been harmed in any way except that they're unable to sell a paper to another student in order to facilitate academic cheating and somebody stole their lolly" then yes, that will happen.
Strawman. Eric made no such claim at all - really you are the only one making that claim. So congratualations on the self-lovin... Clearly you enjoy it, with all your cookies and milk and squirmin.
In fact, Eric made the point that turnitin is using their unauthorized copies for their commercial benefit. Clearly if they are using the copies to make money, then they fail one of the key tests for fair use.
I'm convinced that the average Slashdot poster would argue with Larry Wall over Perl syntax.
Lol. You aren't even a contributing author to title 17. I've met Larry Wall and you sir are no Larry Wall. Your hubris about your linguistic and syntactical finesse is definitely not Larry's kind of hubris either.
It is people such as yourself holding views such as your own that are the downfall of the public education system.
Only a real dumbass would think that a discussion on slashdot would have any impact whatsoever on the public education system.
I sure as hell ain't gonna start using Linux exclusively and abandon the stuff I like using just to stick it to Microsoft. Doesn't do a damn thing in the long run.
I think you mean "in the short run" because presumably if you do it, others will too and after enough time has passed for enough people to do it, MS will lose their monopoly position and real competition will return to the market.
Kind of like deciding to always vote third-party (in the USA) no matter what the specifics are in each election because it won't make a bit of difference in the short run - might even be counter-productive (e.g. the meme about nader making the dems lose), but if enough others end up doing it too, we might see a real change in the political landscape in the long run (or the powers that be will just co-opt the leading 3rd parties too, but that's a flaw way beyond the scope of the analogy).
So, it is your contention that a judge will dismiss a case with prejudice without regard to the letter of the law?
If it's all the same to you, I'll just think of you as a very poor copyright lawyer since any copyright lawyer worth his salt would have never asserted that there is no infringement as long as the owner's ability to publish for profit is not affected. Even this dim-witted and self-righteous slashdot poster knows that without having to look up the cases in westlaw.
At least you've now accepted that there is at least one valid, if 'trite,' answer to:
Jesus, your posts just seethe with arrogance and misinformation.
.., People like you believe that the law will prove out your beliefs
Don't like it? Don't start it. You are the one who started it with your attempts to belittle my position by claiming that a simple, well-understood analogy was "grandstanding."
instead of accepting that there is a chance that you might be wrong about this.
Pot, kettle, black -- uses of terms like "orwellian," "dna testing" to exaggerate a position as if there is only black or white and that those people who don't like a particular shade of grey are whackos because you think that shade of grey is pure white.
Now you're just making things up. I would love to see a citation for this. I won't waste money searching Lexis or WestLaw, so I'll just believe the article when it says that there is still no legal challenge to Turnitin,
You are so quick to dismiss statute. In another post you've already stated that a judge would require turnitin to pull the plaintif's papers from their database. Seems to me that you've already agreed with my point.
You see, if (when) the first legal challenge to Turnitin fails--probably because it will be mounted by some jackass kid who actually was cheating--it will set a disturbing precedent
So, lets see if I got this right. A plagarist will take turnitin to court for violating his copyright on the work that he does not hold copyright because it is plagarised and that will establish precedent affecting actual copyright holders? I suppose the ACLU will be defending him too?
You professed to be a positivist,
Lol, I have no idea where you got that from, but you got a whole paragraph of tilting at windmills out of it. I am the last person who thinks the law is just, especially copyright law. Or wasn't my grandstanding clear enough?
The reality is that these kids aren't taught, they are owned.
And judging from the rest of your post, you think that sort of authoritarianism is the correct state of affairs and thus anyone who might think otherwise, especially the kids themselves, can't possibly be right. You know what they said about Mussolini -- he made the trains run on time.
The copyright owner has the option of requesting statutory damages rather than actual damages. Statutory damages range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed.
Last I checked, you could only sue for statutory damages if the copyright was registered.
However, you are correct about his bogus laugh test. I suspect that his disclaimer about being a lawyer is just false appeal to authority and that he is not a lawyer with experience in the field of copyright.
Look, I am not your foil, to be used for idealistic grandstanding. You pretty much just cut and pasted a few things I wrote, without any context, got modded up for it , and then ducked the real question I posed, so here it is again:
You have a problem with the timeline of your events, and it seems your comprehension of them too.
Why would a student not want to contribute to a system that helps to ensure high academic standards?
I didn't quote that line and answer that question because it is an over simplification of the situation and I thought a word to the wise would be enough to make that clear. Since you are not wise, here is the elaboration you require:
Your question is the contextual equivalent of, "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." Submitting each student's work to the system for testing is an implicit assumption of guilt. Some people don't like that attitude and don't wish to be a part of it. It's bad enough that they have to put up with it being done to them, at least they have the legal right to avoid enabling its use against others.
Then neither are political, just self-interest.