In case you want to discuss merits rather than the folly of those arguing them, we're talking about an organization who has been giving love in order to suckle off the teat of pro-IP legislation such that copyrights now never expire, and even after this governmental handholding are insisting that even fair use is bogus. Yeah, there are merits.
idiotn. - Person who is fine with the ESRB rating of a game that allows fucking hookers in a swaying van, then killing them, then taking the money you just paid them, but files a complaint about hot coffee because of the rating. "Any settlement for the 2,676 complainants doubles as a searing, cherry-red brand of idiocy for life and thus serves us all."
Of course there will be people in IT who have power, and of course that power can be abused.
Somebody at a television network has the power to broadcast rocking horse porn if they want to as well and there is no time machine to unrock that horse.
The articles hypes up one person being able to abuse power as if it were unique to IT and suggests a remedy that more than one person should have this power, as if this had any bearing on anything, e.g. the ability for the abuser to simply revoke access to others. What, somebody else should be assigned the exclusive ability to revoke? Then that person is the potential abuser. This is silly.
I was just commenting about this with a coworker this morning, and how the Minneapolis Star Tribune indicates Minnesota high school girls are still lagging behind boys. I said we just need to bump down the high school boys' performance a couple notches and we'll be good: no child left behind!
Ten years? That could be fair if they show movies to the inmates sans FBI warnings. That way I don't think he would be losing any more of his life than the rest of us.
I work for a bar association, and we indeed host continuing legal education (CLE) seminars entitled, Avoiding Ethics Mistakes in the Legal Profession, but that title doesn't fit on our room signage so we just go with, Avoiding Ethics.
One could argue it is beneficial to tarnish a president's record with an impeachment when warranted by his conduct because it becomes a part of history. Particularly if this conduct is more than perjury over sexual conduct. Clinton's impeachment was a joke.
Copyrights weren't established to encourage the release of work, they were established to give the people who do the work of creating them have some redress when someone else rips them off. You're wrong. Here's a PDF of the Copyright Act of 1790. This outlines exactly why copyright was enacted, notably "for the encouragement of learning" through an exchange between the author and the State whereby the State will secure and defend the author's copyright for the limited duration of seven to fourteen years in exchange for the work being submitted to the State.
If you have any question as to the spirit of the act toward public enrichment, note both that authors were not allowed to benefit from the act unless they submitted their work to the State, and that authors were required to submit their work to a newspaper for public consumption within two months of submitting their work. This, quite literally, was a mutually beneficial agreement between the People and an author wherein the People and the author were mutually exclusive.
I guess 70 years might seem endless to someone who's itching to make money off of someone else's work, rather than their own. In the same profiteering spirit, I'll be happy to continue doing the research for your posts but I will have to begin charging a fee.
One more for free: it's not 70 years, it's 70 years after the author's death, subject to further extension of course.
Copyrights were established by the government to encourage the release of work for the many to the public domain after a short period of time, not to provide an endless revenue stream for the few.
Things are not as black and white as you depict. The argument of yours to which I responded indicated that the judgment was acceptable because it is only going to be enforced in egregious cases. If a power is to be granted it should be reasonable for it to be enforced all the time. Meanwhile this precedent means somebody can post a hyperlink on a forum and subject a third party to liability (note that DMCA Safe Harbor does not apply). Hell, the proprietor of the server to which the hyperlink points could change the content to infringing material.
Yes, in a world of all-or-nothing, it would be more than hyperbole to suggest anarchy would ensue attempting to qualify grants of power by their vulnerability to corruption or potential for unreasonable results.
Finally, you're jumping to quite a conclusion to suggest, again, all-or-nothing that just because I am dismissing this approach that others couldn't be valid. On the other hand, when it comes to "ripping off" copies of one's works, you could say I'm already being ripped off by infinite copyright terms.
In this interview director Sam Raimi indicates that the footage was shot specifically for the teaser. He wanted to use the image but in a different context for a key part of the final reel. Hence they manufactured the bank heist story for the teaser, but the clip showing the web would have been used at a more pivotal point in the movie as opposed to a bank heist unrelated to the rest of the plot.
Slashdot Mirror
In case you want to discuss merits rather than the folly of those arguing them, we're talking about an organization who has been giving love in order to suckle off the teat of pro-IP legislation such that copyrights now never expire, and even after this governmental handholding are insisting that even fair use is bogus. Yeah, there are merits.
5.) People attack a position without addressing its merits whatsoever.
Your girlfriend is skeptical you were ever wearing an "atom-thick condom" to begin with.
idiot n. - Person who is fine with the ESRB rating of a game that allows fucking hookers in a swaying van, then killing them, then taking the money you just paid them, but files a complaint about hot coffee because of the rating. "Any settlement for the 2,676 complainants doubles as a searing, cherry-red brand of idiocy for life and thus serves us all."
When I first read "tantalite" I was thinking, woooOOOOoooo! But then after I looked it up I found it is anything but. Ugh.
Of course there will be people in IT who have power, and of course that power can be abused.
Somebody at a television network has the power to broadcast rocking horse porn if they want to as well and there is no time machine to unrock that horse.
The articles hypes up one person being able to abuse power as if it were unique to IT and suggests a remedy that more than one person should have this power, as if this had any bearing on anything, e.g. the ability for the abuser to simply revoke access to others. What, somebody else should be assigned the exclusive ability to revoke? Then that person is the potential abuser. This is silly.
I was just commenting about this with a coworker this morning, and how the Minneapolis Star Tribune indicates Minnesota high school girls are still lagging behind boys. I said we just need to bump down the high school boys' performance a couple notches and we'll be good: no child left behind!
I reckon if Linden's servers cost money and other servers don't, other servers will matter fairly quickly.
What about the Toyota Camry Hybrid that debuted in 2006? It looks pretty normal to me.
Not to mention the Honda Civic Hybrid from 2003.
In fact, even the Honda Accord Hybrid has been around since 2005.
Unless it is an objection to all non-$100k cars, perhaps all of the debut press of the Prius only branded hybrid=ugly in your mind.
This link will remain valid after it's no longer the latest post.
You're forgetting the War on Drugs. WWV comes next.
What is "suck luck" and why do Tennesseans want it?
Ten years? That could be fair if they show movies to the inmates sans FBI warnings. That way I don't think he would be losing any more of his life than the rest of us.
The Vostro 1000 laptop starts at $399 and is available with XP ($99 surcharge).
Those of us who browse /. at work while on hold with Dell do not support this plan.
I work for a bar association, and we indeed host continuing legal education (CLE) seminars entitled, Avoiding Ethics Mistakes in the Legal Profession, but that title doesn't fit on our room signage so we just go with, Avoiding Ethics.
One could argue it is beneficial to tarnish a president's record with an impeachment when warranted by his conduct because it becomes a part of history. Particularly if this conduct is more than perjury over sexual conduct. Clinton's impeachment was a joke.
If you have any question as to the spirit of the act toward public enrichment, note both that authors were not allowed to benefit from the act unless they submitted their work to the State, and that authors were required to submit their work to a newspaper for public consumption within two months of submitting their work. This, quite literally, was a mutually beneficial agreement between the People and an author wherein the People and the author were mutually exclusive. I guess 70 years might seem endless to someone who's itching to make money off of someone else's work, rather than their own. In the same profiteering spirit, I'll be happy to continue doing the research for your posts but I will have to begin charging a fee.
One more for free: it's not 70 years, it's 70 years after the author's death, subject to further extension of course.
Copyrights were established by the government to encourage the release of work for the many to the public domain after a short period of time, not to provide an endless revenue stream for the few.
Things are not as black and white as you depict. The argument of yours to which I responded indicated that the judgment was acceptable because it is only going to be enforced in egregious cases. If a power is to be granted it should be reasonable for it to be enforced all the time. Meanwhile this precedent means somebody can post a hyperlink on a forum and subject a third party to liability (note that DMCA Safe Harbor does not apply). Hell, the proprietor of the server to which the hyperlink points could change the content to infringing material.
Yes, in a world of all-or-nothing, it would be more than hyperbole to suggest anarchy would ensue attempting to qualify grants of power by their vulnerability to corruption or potential for unreasonable results.
Finally, you're jumping to quite a conclusion to suggest, again, all-or-nothing that just because I am dismissing this approach that others couldn't be valid. On the other hand, when it comes to "ripping off" copies of one's works, you could say I'm already being ripped off by infinite copyright terms.
Any time power is granted, bar none, it will be abused. This has nothing to do with the spirit of the judgment.
I wonder what method they used to eliminate all that hair prior to his sex change.
I dig. If I accidentally bought a bottle of wine whose grapes were mechanically squeezed I'd still rather assume a half dozen feet did the job.
So what kind of riders will be on this bill? Adding them to a child porn bill is a slam dunk.
In this interview director Sam Raimi indicates that the footage was shot specifically for the teaser. He wanted to use the image but in a different context for a key part of the final reel. Hence they manufactured the bank heist story for the teaser, but the clip showing the web would have been used at a more pivotal point in the movie as opposed to a bank heist unrelated to the rest of the plot.