You can try to define "Fair Use" all you want to. But any definition is utterly meaningless in the real world because your rights are entirely and completely dependent on a number of factors that have nothing to do with any attempt to define the term:
The determination of the copyright owner to take you down (how far they're willing to go)
The determination of your host to refuse their attempt (if you're on a site like Youtube that takes down videos at the slightest complaint, this is pretty much 0)
Your determination and ability to defend yourself to your host and in court (i.e., do you have the financial resources and time to defend yourself and are you willing to do so?)
The quality and disposition of the judge in the case
Your ability to withstand additional harassment from the copyright owner even after the initial case (process can start over at this point, depending on the factor #1)
The Church of Scientology, for example, is a copyright holder that is VERY determined (very high in the #1 factor). They have taken down MANY critiques that clearly fell well within any reasonable definition of "Fair Use." Go up against them and it won't matter what the "definition" of Fair Use is, they will still likely prevail in any real-world scenario (unless you are also VERY determined and VERY capable of defending yourself).
Keep in mind that a lot (if not most) of the judges in this country are ancient old farts who are probably still adjusting the the advent of the CD player. They are generally intellectually intransigent and not particularly knowledgeable of anything anything beyond good-old-boy politics.
.
Some lawyer trying to explain the complexities of the modern internet to most American judges is tasked with the equivalent of explaining the concept of a spacecraft to a chimpanzee.
It's already bad enough getting rear-ended by some asshole at an intersection who can't wait until he gets home to ask his daughter how her fucking math test went, or ending up in a pileup because some exec suddenly realizes he's not checked his email in *over 2 minutes* as he's driving along the interstate at 70 mph.
Most of the best ways that MS could change would be way too risky for all but the most gutsy (and possibly most reckless) leadership to embrace.
They could design a whole new OS from the ground up, abandoning much of the legacy code in Windows that makes it a bit flaky and adopting the "Ã la carte" modular design. They could even make it more secure. But that would risk alienating a huge chunk of traditional Windows users (who still want their old stuff to work, will be confused by a modular design, and who *hate* security popups asking for a password every time they install something). It would be a major risk to the dominance of one of their two big cash cows and could open the door for Apple to swoop in for some market share.
They could fully embrace open source. But that means risking the dominance of Office--their other cash cow. And they're not going to do that.
Basically, I don't expect them to change much at all in the post-Gates era. They may embark on some new initiatives and head in some new directions. And I do expect they will be a LOT more internet-oriented in the future. But they're not going to change their fundamental business model, or abandon their core apps to some radical new ideology.
I've have a grandmother who would still be using her 1969 Philco black and white TV if it hadn't broken at some point. Some people just get to a point in their life where they get used to doing things the way they've been used to doing them for a long time. And those people resist change with a surprising tenacity.
It's the same phenomenon that leaves me shaking my head every time they interview some laid-off Detroit autoworker who says something like "This is what I've done my whole life. What am I going to do now?" The obvious questions would be "Good Lord man, you didn't see this coming?" and "Why didn't you get some training or find a field with a brighter future in the last few decades?" Sometimes you just get used to doing something one way, and are lethargic about changing.
You CAN teach an old dog new tricks, you just have to kick him in the ass sometimes to get him out of his rut.
He's called the mighty Wizard of Woz. We can get to him by following the bricked console road. Along the way we'll pick up a cowardly Democrat, a dumb Republican, and a RIAA lawyer with no heart.
The intentions are good (curbing online gaming cheats, offering new services and features, etc.). But good intentions often lead to terrible consequences.
And do you honestly think this is ALL they will use this information for? The marketing data value alone of those drives has to be worth well in the millions of dollars (if not billions). And that doesn't count the lawsuit value (they now have IP information on every person who has ever watched a copyrighted video on Youtube, after all)--which could put the data's value *well* into the billions.
.
In other words, an ignorant judge just handed them a cache of data worth way more than anything they could have gotten from an actual win (and has compromised the personal data of millions of completely innocent people to Viacom's market research department in the process)
He was never as good after those shitty writers came back. He should have told them to STAY on strike.
.
So, sadly, it won't be hard to so goodbye to him. I will miss Colbert, though.
Actually, it's not inconvenient to me either way--as I just refuse them or toss them into the trash. It's just a shame that my government is still wasting money on a coin that should have been retired long ago (and wasting a valuable metal like copper on it, no less).
I'm glad he at least acknowledges the MUD (multi-user dungeon). I personally doubt we would have ever seen MMO's like Meridian 59, et. al. without their text-based MUD predecessors. And, unfortunately, many people overlook them when talking about modern MMO's.
.
And, as a recovering KobraMUD addict myself, I can definitely attest that the classic MUD's were every bit as addictive as their modern MMO counterparts. Though they required a little more imagination, their miniscule system requirements and free online play helped make up for it (not to mention that their low overhead allowed them to be played without shards or multiple servers--letting you play with all your friends without having to jump servers).
It's literally not worth the equivalent of my time to keep them, count them, roll them, carry them to the bank, and exchange them. The amount of time and effort I would spend creating a 50-cent roll and turning it into something useful would be worth way more than the 50 cents I would get out of it.
.
It would be just as foolish for me to do this as it is for the U.S. mint to spend 1.17 cents producing a coin worth 1 cent. Money only has value if it is more an asset than a burden.
.
As for the other points: No the U.S. mint cannot tell states what to set their tax rates at, but it also shouldn't be obligated to indulge them with a subsidized coin either. And by recycling, I mean that you can't just toss pennies into a recycle bin because it is illegal for a recycler to scrap them for copper.
The "founding fathers" were not for "small government" (this is a bunch of horseshit concocted by modern fiscal libertarians and conservatives). Quite the contrary, those we traditionally call the founding fathers were almost all Federalists (with the exception of a few anti-federalists like Patrick Henry), who made their bones favoring a much stronger and more centralized federal government (hence the term "Federalist"). They even wrote produced a major series of essays justifying why the U.S. should overturn the Articles of Confederation (which provided for a very small, very weak federal government without the power to even levy taxes) in favor of a U.S. Constitution (which greatly expanded the power, scope, and taxing ability of the federal government).
.
The Founding Fathers' "big federal government" ideas were, in fact, so controversial at the time that they had to introduce a series of amendments of the Constitution (guaranteeing protections of individual rights and allowing for checks against government power) to even get their Constitution ratified by the states.
.
The idea that the Federalists were for "small government" shows a laughable ignorance of the early history of the Republic. It's like arguing that Stalin and Trotsky were for capitalism.
When the cost of producing a currency exceeds it's value, it's shameful to keep making it. The U.S. mint is essentially just subsiding lazy states who refuse to round off their sale taxes to the nearest nickel.
It's embarrassing to have to throw the things in the trash because they're completely useless and (by law) can't be recycled. Usually, I just refuse them when I get them. But on the rare occasions when I end up with them, I would rather throw them in a recycle bin than the trash.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this amnesty bill has done more to show Barack Obama's TRUE colors than any other vote in his career.
.
"A Vote for Change" my ass.
That demand didn't stop Qwest from telling them to go fuck themselves. Being a pansy is hardly an excuse for breaking the law on a massive scale.
The rephrase a quote from the great A Fish Called Wanda: Monkeys can fly spaceships, they just don't UNDERSTAND them.
The Church of Scientology, for example, is a copyright holder that is VERY determined (very high in the #1 factor). They have taken down MANY critiques that clearly fell well within any reasonable definition of "Fair Use." Go up against them and it won't matter what the "definition" of Fair Use is, they will still likely prevail in any real-world scenario (unless you are also VERY determined and VERY capable of defending yourself).
Keep in mind that a lot (if not most) of the judges in this country are ancient old farts who are probably still adjusting the the advent of the CD player. They are generally intellectually intransigent and not particularly knowledgeable of anything anything beyond good-old-boy politics.
.
Some lawyer trying to explain the complexities of the modern internet to most American judges is tasked with the equivalent of explaining the concept of a spacecraft to a chimpanzee.
It's already bad enough getting rear-ended by some asshole at an intersection who can't wait until he gets home to ask his daughter how her fucking math test went, or ending up in a pileup because some exec suddenly realizes he's not checked his email in *over 2 minutes* as he's driving along the interstate at 70 mph.
My beloved dead uncle was named Mortimer Onlyoneontheplanet, you insensitive clod!
They could design a whole new OS from the ground up, abandoning much of the legacy code in Windows that makes it a bit flaky and adopting the "Ã la carte" modular design. They could even make it more secure. But that would risk alienating a huge chunk of traditional Windows users (who still want their old stuff to work, will be confused by a modular design, and who *hate* security popups asking for a password every time they install something). It would be a major risk to the dominance of one of their two big cash cows and could open the door for Apple to swoop in for some market share.
They could fully embrace open source. But that means risking the dominance of Office--their other cash cow. And they're not going to do that.
Basically, I don't expect them to change much at all in the post-Gates era. They may embark on some new initiatives and head in some new directions. And I do expect they will be a LOT more internet-oriented in the future. But they're not going to change their fundamental business model, or abandon their core apps to some radical new ideology.
You mean like the Challenger and Columbia?
It's the same phenomenon that leaves me shaking my head every time they interview some laid-off Detroit autoworker who says something like "This is what I've done my whole life. What am I going to do now?" The obvious questions would be "Good Lord man, you didn't see this coming?" and "Why didn't you get some training or find a field with a brighter future in the last few decades?" Sometimes you just get used to doing something one way, and are lethargic about changing.
You CAN teach an old dog new tricks, you just have to kick him in the ass sometimes to get him out of his rut.
As long as there is a central place for me to go download my midget porn, the web will live on.
All that and a golden Baku watch and imperial medal to boot!
He's called the mighty Wizard of Woz. We can get to him by following the bricked console road. Along the way we'll pick up a cowardly Democrat, a dumb Republican, and a RIAA lawyer with no heart.
The intentions are good (curbing online gaming cheats, offering new services and features, etc.). But good intentions often lead to terrible consequences.
And do you honestly think this is ALL they will use this information for? The marketing data value alone of those drives has to be worth well in the millions of dollars (if not billions). And that doesn't count the lawsuit value (they now have IP information on every person who has ever watched a copyrighted video on Youtube, after all)--which could put the data's value *well* into the billions.
.
In other words, an ignorant judge just handed them a cache of data worth way more than anything they could have gotten from an actual win (and has compromised the personal data of millions of completely innocent people to Viacom's market research department in the process)
He was never as good after those shitty writers came back. He should have told them to STAY on strike.
.
So, sadly, it won't be hard to so goodbye to him. I will miss Colbert, though.
Actually, it's not inconvenient to me either way--as I just refuse them or toss them into the trash. It's just a shame that my government is still wasting money on a coin that should have been retired long ago (and wasting a valuable metal like copper on it, no less).
I'm glad he at least acknowledges the MUD (multi-user dungeon). I personally doubt we would have ever seen MMO's like Meridian 59, et. al. without their text-based MUD predecessors. And, unfortunately, many people overlook them when talking about modern MMO's.
.
And, as a recovering KobraMUD addict myself, I can definitely attest that the classic MUD's were every bit as addictive as their modern MMO counterparts. Though they required a little more imagination, their miniscule system requirements and free online play helped make up for it (not to mention that their low overhead allowed them to be played without shards or multiple servers--letting you play with all your friends without having to jump servers).
I'm sorry, we can't comment on that--as the investigation is still ongoing.
It's literally not worth the equivalent of my time to keep them, count them, roll them, carry them to the bank, and exchange them. The amount of time and effort I would spend creating a 50-cent roll and turning it into something useful would be worth way more than the 50 cents I would get out of it.
.
It would be just as foolish for me to do this as it is for the U.S. mint to spend 1.17 cents producing a coin worth 1 cent. Money only has value if it is more an asset than a burden.
.
As for the other points: No the U.S. mint cannot tell states what to set their tax rates at, but it also shouldn't be obligated to indulge them with a subsidized coin either. And by recycling, I mean that you can't just toss pennies into a recycle bin because it is illegal for a recycler to scrap them for copper.
The "founding fathers" were not for "small government" (this is a bunch of horseshit concocted by modern fiscal libertarians and conservatives). Quite the contrary, those we traditionally call the founding fathers were almost all Federalists (with the exception of a few anti-federalists like Patrick Henry), who made their bones favoring a much stronger and more centralized federal government (hence the term "Federalist"). They even wrote produced a major series of essays justifying why the U.S. should overturn the Articles of Confederation (which provided for a very small, very weak federal government without the power to even levy taxes) in favor of a U.S. Constitution (which greatly expanded the power, scope, and taxing ability of the federal government).
.
The Founding Fathers' "big federal government" ideas were, in fact, so controversial at the time that they had to introduce a series of amendments of the Constitution (guaranteeing protections of individual rights and allowing for checks against government power) to even get their Constitution ratified by the states.
.
The idea that the Federalists were for "small government" shows a laughable ignorance of the early history of the Republic. It's like arguing that Stalin and Trotsky were for capitalism.
And here Lamont though Fred Sanford was crazy all those years.
It's embarrassing to have to throw the things in the trash because they're completely useless and (by law) can't be recycled. Usually, I just refuse them when I get them. But on the rare occasions when I end up with them, I would rather throw them in a recycle bin than the trash.
I just hope it's as exhaustive as their investigation into the Valerie Plame leak or O.J.'s hunt for the real killer.
I mean, why enjoy the peacefulness of nature or the majestic view when I could be tapping away on a fucking keyboard?