From TFA: The new law will not target those who accidentally come into contact with obscene pornography or affect mainstream entertainment industry working within current obscenity laws.
Bullshit. There's money to be made in court. And, while I can only offer an American viewpoint on this matter since I have never been to the UK, I suspect this will only encourage the abuse of "reasonable suspicion" as a valid motive for police searches. It's bad enough that most police assume that everyone is guilty of something.
P.S. Satire is protected speech - doesn't that apply here in the Barney case?
Actually, this is often not the case. Parody has been found to be protected in the majority of fair use cases, which deals primarily with poking fun directly at the copyrighted entity in question; whereas satire is rarely held as fair use, since it uses the copyrighted entity to poke fun at something else.
The real challenge here for the Lyons Partnership will be proving that the Barney Antichrist was satirical in nature. If it was Stuart Frankel's intent all along to make fun of Barney by calling him the Antichrist, then chances are good that he will win the case. Otherwise, he might be in trouble.
Entertainment analysts have predicted in recent weeks that sites with large followings would command a high price.
In other news, Entertainment analysts also predicted unanimously that tomorrow the sun will rise. Other predictions include that next week will have exactly 1 Monday and that Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa will not be candidates for the 2008 Presidential election.
I think maybe some replies here are kinda misinterpreting what I meant. Wandering around your neighborhood on bikes as a kid is entirely different from jumping into your friend's car and leaving town. In the first case, not only is the child familiar with the area, but chances are good your neighbors probably know them and vice versa. If the child gets in trouble or otherwise needs to contact a parent, they aren't far away. On the other hand, if a teenager and his/her friends are in another town at the time and, say, the car breaks down, that an entirely different kind of scenario.
I still hold that younger children don't need cell phones. I'm not claiming that they need be under constant supervision, but the kind of activities that I'm talking about where a cell phone might come in handy are unsupervised parties, road trips, vacations (spring break, anyone?), etc. Children aren't typically allowed to engage in these kind of activites without supervision until they reach their teen years; hence, the correlation to the legal driving age.
If the child has not yet reached the age where they are allowed to engage in activities without parental or some other form of supervision, then they are too young to need a cell phone. Consequently, this age will probably fall somewhat in line with the legal driving age most of the time. So, ballpark figure, probably somewhere between 14 and 16 years old.
Me, personally, I didn't get one until I was 22 and moving into my own place.
Noble in theory, impossible in practice. This goes way beyond "I punched you, you punched me back." It's tough to reason with someone who believes they are in the right with their chosen deity by eradicating you and your way of life. Though, if you'd like to try, don't let any of us stop you. March yourself onto a plane and go explain it to them in person. I'm sure your face will end up on the 5 o'clock news...just before they decapitate you.
Looking forward to it, myself. This'll be my first Gencon experience. I meant to go last year, but I had something else come up at the last minute (don't remember what). Anyways, now that I live in the Indy area, I suspect I'll be going every year.
I'm looking to get into the Living Greyhawk tourney on Saturday. We'll see how that goes.
...if this is VMWare's subtle riposte to Transgaming's 'Cider' engine for the world of Mac gaming? It's a bit of a stretch, I know, but the timing is a little too convenient.
This is nothing new. My CD player came iPod-ready, though I have to purchase an extra extension seperately to make it work (for some reason, they decided to put the attachment on the back of the unit). The only interesting thing I see here is some conjecture about how the other auto giants will respond.
I think some people are missing the point here. LimeWire isn't under the gun because it "allows" users to illegally trade copyrighted material. The RIAA is asserting that the operators are encouraging its users to break copyright laws.
This claim is not unlike an accusation of slander. It's very difficult to truly prove that the intent of the accused was to cause harm to the accuser, yet this is the burden that the RIAA must now bear. I'm sure they have some sort of "proof" up their sleeves of LimeWire's misdeeds.
I'm in no way condoning the anti-consumer practices of the *AA as of late, but I suspect that the RIAA will win this one by precedent, sad though that may be.
The best thing we, as consumers, can do at this point is to take Circuit City up on their offer. Use the service they're providing. If the market gets lucrative enough, the other electronics giants (Best Buy, Fryes, etc.) will want a piece of the action. At that point, none of them will want to listen to the MPAA's whining and will do everything in their power to maintain their hold on this new market.
You want a bunch of bigwig companies to gang up on the MPAA? I think this is the best way to accomplish that.
It would have fined youths under age 17 $25 for renting or buying video games designed for adults - those rated "M" for mature or "AO" for adults only. The law also would have required stores to post warning signs about the fines.
I'm wondering how they were planning to enforce this. Obviously they can't rely on store clerks to ask for ID, since they were considering putting this law into effect in the first place. So what then? Have a cop watch the checkout lines? Oh, I know.....search warrants for all residences with children 17 or younger!
I'm thinking this is just another scare tactic. Another "this could happen to you!" situation to worry about, in the hopes that it'll stop kids from trying to buy/rent games that they shouldn't be.
Personally, I think a better solution would be to fine the store when this happens.
Meh, Indiana Beach is so-so. Good for a lazy Saturday when you've got nothing better to do, but not really worth planning a trip for. On the other hand, they've got all kinds of classic arcade games there, so...
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA: The new law will not target those who accidentally come into contact with obscene pornography or affect mainstream entertainment industry working within current obscenity laws.
Bullshit. There's money to be made in court. And, while I can only offer an American viewpoint on this matter since I have never been to the UK, I suspect this will only encourage the abuse of "reasonable suspicion" as a valid motive for police searches. It's bad enough that most police assume that everyone is guilty of something.
Double posting. Here's a good reference that criticizes the difference.
P.S. Satire is protected speech - doesn't that apply here in the Barney case?
Actually, this is often not the case. Parody has been found to be protected in the majority of fair use cases, which deals primarily with poking fun directly at the copyrighted entity in question; whereas satire is rarely held as fair use, since it uses the copyrighted entity to poke fun at something else.
The real challenge here for the Lyons Partnership will be proving that the Barney Antichrist was satirical in nature. If it was Stuart Frankel's intent all along to make fun of Barney by calling him the Antichrist, then chances are good that he will win the case. Otherwise, he might be in trouble.
Man thrown into prison for breaking the law. Stay tuned for more developments.
Ja wohl, mein Führer!
Entertainment analysts have predicted in recent weeks that sites with large followings would command a high price.
In other news, Entertainment analysts also predicted unanimously that tomorrow the sun will rise. Other predictions include that next week will have exactly 1 Monday and that Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa will not be candidates for the 2008 Presidential election.
More at 11.
I think maybe some replies here are kinda misinterpreting what I meant. Wandering around your neighborhood on bikes as a kid is entirely different from jumping into your friend's car and leaving town. In the first case, not only is the child familiar with the area, but chances are good your neighbors probably know them and vice versa. If the child gets in trouble or otherwise needs to contact a parent, they aren't far away. On the other hand, if a teenager and his/her friends are in another town at the time and, say, the car breaks down, that an entirely different kind of scenario.
I still hold that younger children don't need cell phones. I'm not claiming that they need be under constant supervision, but the kind of activities that I'm talking about where a cell phone might come in handy are unsupervised parties, road trips, vacations (spring break, anyone?), etc. Children aren't typically allowed to engage in these kind of activites without supervision until they reach their teen years; hence, the correlation to the legal driving age.
I pity you and the educational environment in which you grew up. That is just sad.
And they wonder why Indiana constantly ranks between 47th-49th on nationwide standardized testing.
I figured that should be obvious. Students tend to be free-thinkers, which makes them a threat. Threat = terrorist!
You don't have this in your area?
If the child has not yet reached the age where they are allowed to engage in activities without parental or some other form of supervision, then they are too young to need a cell phone. Consequently, this age will probably fall somewhat in line with the legal driving age most of the time. So, ballpark figure, probably somewhere between 14 and 16 years old.
Me, personally, I didn't get one until I was 22 and moving into my own place.
Noble in theory, impossible in practice. This goes way beyond "I punched you, you punched me back." It's tough to reason with someone who believes they are in the right with their chosen deity by eradicating you and your way of life. Though, if you'd like to try, don't let any of us stop you. March yourself onto a plane and go explain it to them in person. I'm sure your face will end up on the 5 o'clock news...just before they decapitate you.
What are you talkin' about? Terrorists have no honor....they spawn kill! Patch your Windows before it's too late!
Wait, I'm not running Windows! The terrorists win! Onoes!!1!!1!!111cos(0)
Yeah, gotta watch out for those Rogues. A few points into Pick Pocket and they think they're master thieves.
Yep. All those middle-aged guys playing Texas Hold'em, they need to be committed.
Looking forward to it, myself. This'll be my first Gencon experience. I meant to go last year, but I had something else come up at the last minute (don't remember what). Anyways, now that I live in the Indy area, I suspect I'll be going every year.
I'm looking to get into the Living Greyhawk tourney on Saturday. We'll see how that goes.
...if this is VMWare's subtle riposte to Transgaming's 'Cider' engine for the world of Mac gaming? It's a bit of a stretch, I know, but the timing is a little too convenient.
This is nothing new. My CD player came iPod-ready, though I have to purchase an extra extension seperately to make it work (for some reason, they decided to put the attachment on the back of the unit). The only interesting thing I see here is some conjecture about how the other auto giants will respond.
I think some people are missing the point here. LimeWire isn't under the gun because it "allows" users to illegally trade copyrighted material. The RIAA is asserting that the operators are encouraging its users to break copyright laws.
This claim is not unlike an accusation of slander. It's very difficult to truly prove that the intent of the accused was to cause harm to the accuser, yet this is the burden that the RIAA must now bear. I'm sure they have some sort of "proof" up their sleeves of LimeWire's misdeeds.
I'm in no way condoning the anti-consumer practices of the *AA as of late, but I suspect that the RIAA will win this one by precedent, sad though that may be.
The best thing we, as consumers, can do at this point is to take Circuit City up on their offer. Use the service they're providing. If the market gets lucrative enough, the other electronics giants (Best Buy, Fryes, etc.) will want a piece of the action. At that point, none of them will want to listen to the MPAA's whining and will do everything in their power to maintain their hold on this new market.
You want a bunch of bigwig companies to gang up on the MPAA? I think this is the best way to accomplish that.
In Mafia-run America, Reason sees you!
I happen to have this awesome bitmap for you all of you /. posters to look at. Ever heard of Asherah?
* snicker snicker evil laugh *
It would have fined youths under age 17 $25 for renting or buying video games designed for adults - those rated "M" for mature or "AO" for adults only. The law also would have required stores to post warning signs about the fines.
I'm wondering how they were planning to enforce this. Obviously they can't rely on store clerks to ask for ID, since they were considering putting this law into effect in the first place. So what then? Have a cop watch the checkout lines? Oh, I know.....search warrants for all residences with children 17 or younger!
I'm thinking this is just another scare tactic. Another "this could happen to you!" situation to worry about, in the hopes that it'll stop kids from trying to buy/rent games that they shouldn't be.
Personally, I think a better solution would be to fine the store when this happens.
And it accounts for the other 3%. :)
Meh, Indiana Beach is so-so. Good for a lazy Saturday when you've got nothing better to do, but not really worth planning a trip for. On the other hand, they've got all kinds of classic arcade games there, so...