It can be made in other countries, but it's damn hard to profit off it in the States. His point is that individual IPs are unique, and cannot be outsourced. You can't have some guy in India make a new $POP_SENSATION record.
I think that you would benefit from reading Thomas McCauley's opinion on copyright. It's from 1841, so the language is a bit tough to swallow, but it's well worth the read.
And then they only vote for one of the two parties. Of course, they're told by everyone else that if they don't vote for one of the two parties, the one they hate most will get into power. If people actually did some research and voted for the group they actually wanted in power, then you'd have a very different system. But since everyone's too busy, no one will vote the way they want, and the cats keep ruling the mice.
My plan is different. I would made no addition to the uncertain term; but I would make a large addition to the certain term. I propose to add fourteen years to the twenty-eight years which the law now allows to an author. His copyright will, in this way, last till his death, or till the expiration of forty-two years, whichever shall first happen. And I think that I shall be able to prove to the satisfaction of the Committee that my plan will be more beneficial to literature and to literary men than the plan of my noble friend.
The link I gave actually has an incredibly well thought out discussion of copyright by McCauley, who in 1841 saw many of the problems of near perpetual copyright as we're seeing now.
Keep in mind that the standards for surviving as a human 12 million years ago are probably a lot harsher (i.e. tends to kill off unfavourable mutations fast) than they are for bacteria. However, I am not a biologist, I am a physicist, so take this with a grain of salt.
Unfortunately, that's not the point. They'll also be blocking access to web sites. Read the article, this is like the 3rd time I've mentioned that web sites will be blocked.
The point isn't to make it illegal for people to see it, the point is to make it incredibly difficult for Joe Taxpayer to see those photos. And if you go and read the article (fairly coherent, actually), you'll see that there's a list of websites that the Center keeps. So if there's not a proper procedure, someone can simply add a new site to that list. And of course, make it very difficult for said site to be taken off that list. So the end result is that Joe Taxpayer can't visit those sites, even though there's no child pr0ns.
My point is it's not the current state of affairs you have to worry about, it's what could and will happen. Murphy's Law, people. If it can be screwed up, someone will screw it up sooner or later. Better to worry about it now than when the whole process is FUBARed and unaccountable.
Yet. What happens when they start getting political pressure? After all, they do receive government funding. Or what happens when someone gets to the head and starts abusing the process? Ask yourself this: "Would I support this program if the politician/bureaucrat/nutcase I hate most got to add sites to the list?" If you can't say yes, then the program is too flawed. Only if there's independent oversight, with a proper and fair procedure to get websites on/off the list, then it should be passed.
You forgot problem 4. It's a blacklist. By the nature of the beast, a blacklist is incomplete and difficult to maintain. For the same reason that DRM is cracked, blacklists will be avoided.
That's actually a completely different issue. He's talking more about sites that might discuss child pornography, or sites that have gore on them, i.e. stuff that "no sane person" would want to see.
The answers is you don't prosecute, unless there was abuse. Here's a suggestion of mine: look at the age of consent in the area being considered. For example, in Canada, 16. If you're 14/15, you can consent to sex with someone no more than 5 years older than you, and if you're 12/13, the rule is 3 years. So work the child pornography laws around that.
For example, if the person in possession of the photos is legally allowed to have sex with a person of the age of the person in the photo (i.e. you're 19 and have a photo of a 15 year old girl), then the data should be destroyed, but no one should be prosecuted. Otherwise, go right ahead with prosecution. The problem being there's no way to tell how old they were at the time, so obviously someone will eventually have to make a judgment on the photo in question.
So my suggestion would lead to the following.
A (pornographic) photo of an 18 year old would be legal.
A photo of a 16/17 year old would be taken from you, but not result in prosecution.
A photo of a 15 year old would result in a prosecution for anyone over the age of 20. Otherwise the photo is taken from you.
A photo of a 14 year old would result in a prosecution for anyone over the age of 19. Otherwise the photo is taken from you.
A photo of a 13 year old would result in a prosecution for anyone over the age of 16. Otherwise the photo is taken from you.
A photo of a 12 year old would result in a prosecution for anyone over the age of 13. Otherwise the photo is taken from you.
Granted, this is not a perfect situation, but it does reduce the risk of an idiot 15 year old having his life ruined for a photo of his naked girlfriend.
The agreement is designed to bar access to Web sites that feature child pornography by requiring service providers to check against a registry of explicit sites maintained by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
So at the moment, it seems like the list that NCMEC is probably legitimate. But now there will be intense political pressure to get sites added to that list. Personally, I see 4chan being one of them, as Scientology has a lot of lobbyists, and are willing to spend huge amounts of money to get rid of the threat of Anonymous.
They will, and it will work, because the average consumer hasn't a goddamned clue as to how the internet works. They'll just think of it as a wonderful time saving mechanism for getting their e-mail.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
Why are you driving in a snow storm? That's my real question. If you have a good reason, I'd love to hear it. Really. This past winter, Ottawa received the most snow we've had in 30 years. The only time I drove in a snowstorm I was driving someone home. I didn't really need to, and I paid for it by getting my sorry arse stuck 3 times on unplowed streets. But that says more about me than it does the minivan I was driving. So please, inform me of why you need to drive in a snowstorm, rather than wait for the plow to come by?
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
Hell, I managed to drive my Toyota Echo and/or Dodge Grand Caravan every day this winter without putting on snow tires. Some days it was hellish, but I only got caught once (and that was because I went out in the middle of a snowstorm, which says more about me than it does my car). Keep in mind that this past winter was the worst snow Ottawa has had in 30 years. My conclusion? Slow down, leave early, and be prepared to make changes to your lifestyle.
To repeat that, me and my 2WD Toyota Echo survived the worst snowfall in 30 years. So sucks to your SUV.
Slashdot Mirror
How?
It can be made in other countries, but it's damn hard to profit off it in the States. His point is that individual IPs are unique, and cannot be outsourced. You can't have some guy in India make a new $POP_SENSATION record.
But more importantly, only a woman can make you care.
I think that you would benefit from reading Thomas McCauley's opinion on copyright. It's from 1841, so the language is a bit tough to swallow, but it's well worth the read.
And then they only vote for one of the two parties. Of course, they're told by everyone else that if they don't vote for one of the two parties, the one they hate most will get into power. If people actually did some research and voted for the group they actually wanted in power, then you'd have a very different system. But since everyone's too busy, no one will vote the way they want, and the cats keep ruling the mice.
That should be, "Personally, I think that McCauley said it best."
Keep in mind that the standards for surviving as a human 12 million years ago are probably a lot harsher (i.e. tends to kill off unfavourable mutations fast) than they are for bacteria. However, I am not a biologist, I am a physicist, so take this with a grain of salt.
My suggestion deals with that problem. Once he hits 21, that picture is illegal. It is his responsibility to get rid of it.
Unfortunately, that's not the point. They'll also be blocking access to web sites. Read the article, this is like the 3rd time I've mentioned that web sites will be blocked.
The point isn't to make it illegal for people to see it, the point is to make it incredibly difficult for Joe Taxpayer to see those photos. And if you go and read the article (fairly coherent, actually), you'll see that there's a list of websites that the Center keeps. So if there's not a proper procedure, someone can simply add a new site to that list. And of course, make it very difficult for said site to be taken off that list. So the end result is that Joe Taxpayer can't visit those sites, even though there's no child pr0ns.
My point is it's not the current state of affairs you have to worry about, it's what could and will happen. Murphy's Law, people. If it can be screwed up, someone will screw it up sooner or later. Better to worry about it now than when the whole process is FUBARed and unaccountable.
Yet. What happens when they start getting political pressure? After all, they do receive government funding. Or what happens when someone gets to the head and starts abusing the process? Ask yourself this: "Would I support this program if the politician/bureaucrat/nutcase I hate most got to add sites to the list?" If you can't say yes, then the program is too flawed. Only if there's independent oversight, with a proper and fair procedure to get websites on/off the list, then it should be passed.
You forgot problem 4. It's a blacklist. By the nature of the beast, a blacklist is incomplete and difficult to maintain. For the same reason that DRM is cracked, blacklists will be avoided.
That's actually a completely different issue. He's talking more about sites that might discuss child pornography, or sites that have gore on them, i.e. stuff that "no sane person" would want to see.
Paranoid as I am, I suggest you look at my earlier post.
For example, if the person in possession of the photos is legally allowed to have sex with a person of the age of the person in the photo (i.e. you're 19 and have a photo of a 15 year old girl), then the data should be destroyed, but no one should be prosecuted. Otherwise, go right ahead with prosecution. The problem being there's no way to tell how old they were at the time, so obviously someone will eventually have to make a judgment on the photo in question.
So my suggestion would lead to the following.
- A (pornographic) photo of an 18 year old would be legal.
- A photo of a 16/17 year old would be taken from you, but not result in prosecution.
- A photo of a 15 year old would result in a prosecution for anyone over the age of 20. Otherwise the photo is taken from you.
- A photo of a 14 year old would result in a prosecution for anyone over the age of 19. Otherwise the photo is taken from you.
- A photo of a 13 year old would result in a prosecution for anyone over the age of 16. Otherwise the photo is taken from you.
- A photo of a 12 year old would result in a prosecution for anyone over the age of 13. Otherwise the photo is taken from you.
Granted, this is not a perfect situation, but it does reduce the risk of an idiot 15 year old having his life ruined for a photo of his naked girlfriend.So at the moment, it seems like the list that NCMEC is probably legitimate. But now there will be intense political pressure to get sites added to that list. Personally, I see 4chan being one of them, as Scientology has a lot of lobbyists, and are willing to spend huge amounts of money to get rid of the threat of Anonymous.
They will, and it will work, because the average consumer hasn't a goddamned clue as to how the internet works. They'll just think of it as a wonderful time saving mechanism for getting their e-mail.
Serious immigrant requirements? In Canada? Ha! Just work for a politician and you'll get in.
Not quite. But dare to print some cartoons...
Why are you driving in a snow storm? That's my real question. If you have a good reason, I'd love to hear it. Really. This past winter, Ottawa received the most snow we've had in 30 years. The only time I drove in a snowstorm I was driving someone home. I didn't really need to, and I paid for it by getting my sorry arse stuck 3 times on unplowed streets. But that says more about me than it does the minivan I was driving. So please, inform me of why you need to drive in a snowstorm, rather than wait for the plow to come by?
Hell, I managed to drive my Toyota Echo and/or Dodge Grand Caravan every day this winter without putting on snow tires. Some days it was hellish, but I only got caught once (and that was because I went out in the middle of a snowstorm, which says more about me than it does my car). Keep in mind that this past winter was the worst snow Ottawa has had in 30 years. My conclusion? Slow down, leave early, and be prepared to make changes to your lifestyle.
To repeat that, me and my 2WD Toyota Echo survived the worst snowfall in 30 years. So sucks to your SUV.
Why not? If there's a market for it, it could very well come to that. There's no a priori reason to prevent it from happening.