Despite the fact I can't conceal my street address when dealing remotely with most businesses, and in fact, anyone walking by my house could theoretically harvest the address and send me "Urgent" mail addressed to "Valued Customer", I have never yet been tricked into giving out my mailbox key or credit card number to a scammer.
...that I can think of to oppose this legislation is that it puts a gun into unknown hands.
That's it. It doesn't matter that they're killing animals. It doesn't matter that the weapon is connected to a machine instead of physically held by the person shooting it. It doesn't matter that the command to pull the trigger is transmitted from miles away.
Since when is something illegal just because it's disgraceful? (Especially when it comes to the internet?) You can order Omaha steaks online - surely that translates to an animal's death, and you're contributing with the click of a mouse button. Hell, if I put a "pick your own lobster" webcam up, would there be this kind of uproar? And would there be any justification for a law to prevent it?
The only difference I can see here is that whoever provides this online hunting service is handing over a gun to someone whose identity is unknown. They could, technically, be allowing a convicted felon to pull the trigger - but that's about the only reason I could possibly see for shutting down the service. (I'm not even sure that that's enough.)
There are plenty of distasteful and disgraceful yet legal uses of the internet. You need a better argument if you think it merits government involvement.
Can't spare the resources from their $BILLions in profits to protect their "valued employees" from bigots who'll burn them at the stake when the law allows.
Microsoft's valued employees are already protected by the company's anti-discrimination policy, which includes sexual orientation. Maybe Microsoft has no intention of extending that protection should they seek employment elsewhere.;)
Right. Because what the store and the defrauded buyer really want is to spend a few months figuring out who screwed with them and tracking them down.
Most folks would rather avoid the aggravation by preventing as much fraud as possible up front - rather than letting the fraud happen and then tracking the scattered scammers afterward.
Seriously, I've been looking for some clear statement that says I can make a copy of a movie I have on VHS or DVD. I can't find it. "Fair Use" as spelled out on the copyright website doesn't give me any such rights. Add to that the federal notices on these particular copies of the movies (on any commercially available movie today), and I have a hard time proving to myself that I'm allowed to make "backup" copies.
Note - the copyright site mentions exceptions for making backup copies of software, but explicitly states that this covers software media only (not DVDs or audio CDs).
So, while I think that I ought to be able to (for example) copy a VHS movie to DVD as a "backup" or as part of my normal use for a work that I've purchased, I can't figure out whether I'm legally permitted to do so.
"I have nothing against legitimate advertising from legitimate companies--as long as I control the flow and especially if I can target what I receive."
You don't control the flow of junk (snail) mail - the Post Office does. Since when did anyone pay you to get their prepaid card offers, weekly ads, and the like?
Charging for email may cut into the spam flow, but keep in mind that bulk (snail) mail is cheaper than what the average person pays for a letter to Grandma. If the spammers have to pay, we'll inevitably be paying more.
Stealing a $20 DVD from a "government store" would carry the same penalty (for shoplifting) as stealing a $20 pair of shoes from a "government store".
But stealing the DVD could theoretically also violate some copyright laws, which I assume would carry a different penalty. I just doubt anyone's ever tried to prosecute a petty shoplifter for copyright infringement when there are larger copyright offenders to pursue.
...are there to shoplift in such a way that it becomes a federal offense? WalMart's not going to lobby the U.S. Congress for better shoplifting laws if all offenses will be prosecuted under state laws, and a DVD theft is the same as stealing the equivalent value in breakfast cereal.
Perhaps the gap here is the failure to recognize shoplifting of a copyrighted material as a copyright offense - which would mean separate prosecution for the physical theft (state) and the copyright infringement (federal)? And if it's recognized as a federal offense, they may still prioritize the mass offenders (i.e. P2P file-sharers) over those who have one physical copy on the shelf at home.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite the fact I can't conceal my street address when dealing remotely with most businesses, and in fact, anyone walking by my house could theoretically harvest the address and send me "Urgent" mail addressed to "Valued Customer", I have never yet been tricked into giving out my mailbox key or credit card number to a scammer.
Well, unless you count Columbia House.
"Leia, do you remember your mother? Your real mother?" (Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086190/quotes) Sorry, try again.
...that I can think of to oppose this legislation is that it puts a gun into unknown hands.
That's it. It doesn't matter that they're killing animals. It doesn't matter that the weapon is connected to a machine instead of physically held by the person shooting it. It doesn't matter that the command to pull the trigger is transmitted from miles away.
Since when is something illegal just because it's disgraceful? (Especially when it comes to the internet?) You can order Omaha steaks online - surely that translates to an animal's death, and you're contributing with the click of a mouse button. Hell, if I put a "pick your own lobster" webcam up, would there be this kind of uproar? And would there be any justification for a law to prevent it?
The only difference I can see here is that whoever provides this online hunting service is handing over a gun to someone whose identity is unknown. They could, technically, be allowing a convicted felon to pull the trigger - but that's about the only reason I could possibly see for shutting down the service. (I'm not even sure that that's enough.)
There are plenty of distasteful and disgraceful yet legal uses of the internet. You need a better argument if you think it merits government involvement.
Legislation pending against Yahoo! Pool; "disgrace to the sport", says BCA
Right. Because what the store and the defrauded buyer really want is to spend a few months figuring out who screwed with them and tracking them down.
Most folks would rather avoid the aggravation by preventing as much fraud as possible up front - rather than letting the fraud happen and then tracking the scattered scammers afterward.
Apparently Franklin overestimated his country's ability to take a joke.
I say, if we're going to turn satirical essays into public policy, we should start with Swift's "A Modest Proposal"...
Says who?
Seriously, I've been looking for some clear statement that says I can make a copy of a movie I have on VHS or DVD. I can't find it. "Fair Use" as spelled out on the copyright website doesn't give me any such rights. Add to that the federal notices on these particular copies of the movies (on any commercially available movie today), and I have a hard time proving to myself that I'm allowed to make "backup" copies.
Note - the copyright site mentions exceptions for making backup copies of software, but explicitly states that this covers software media only (not DVDs or audio CDs).
So, while I think that I ought to be able to (for example) copy a VHS movie to DVD as a "backup" or as part of my normal use for a work that I've purchased, I can't figure out whether I'm legally permitted to do so.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Read sections 107 and 108 -
"Fair Use" refers to reproducing works in part or in whole for comment, criticism, or scholarship. It doesn't work for your private DVD collection
Archival copies are permitted for public libraries or research archives. Again (and unfortunately), this doesn't apply to your private DVD collection.
"I have nothing against legitimate advertising from legitimate companies--as long as I control the flow and especially if I can target what I receive." You don't control the flow of junk (snail) mail - the Post Office does. Since when did anyone pay you to get their prepaid card offers, weekly ads, and the like? Charging for email may cut into the spam flow, but keep in mind that bulk (snail) mail is cheaper than what the average person pays for a letter to Grandma. If the spammers have to pay, we'll inevitably be paying more.
Stealing a $20 DVD from a "government store" would carry the same penalty (for shoplifting) as stealing a $20 pair of shoes from a "government store". But stealing the DVD could theoretically also violate some copyright laws, which I assume would carry a different penalty. I just doubt anyone's ever tried to prosecute a petty shoplifter for copyright infringement when there are larger copyright offenders to pursue.
...are there to shoplift in such a way that it becomes a federal offense? WalMart's not going to lobby the U.S. Congress for better shoplifting laws if all offenses will be prosecuted under state laws, and a DVD theft is the same as stealing the equivalent value in breakfast cereal. Perhaps the gap here is the failure to recognize shoplifting of a copyrighted material as a copyright offense - which would mean separate prosecution for the physical theft (state) and the copyright infringement (federal)? And if it's recognized as a federal offense, they may still prioritize the mass offenders (i.e. P2P file-sharers) over those who have one physical copy on the shelf at home.