that's exactly right and that is the intent of this law
No, you missed my point. As I see it, in order to actually prosecute someone under this law, you'd have to wait until the actual perpetrator was convicted. Depending what "violent crime" you'd filmed, this could be a while. Is it seriously practical to arrest a citizen and then not give them a fair trial for an unknown amount of time while you find out if you even have any basis for the prosecution? Is it even legal to arrest someone without having sufficient evidence of a crime? Imagine a murder arrest where the police could claim "we're pretty sure you murdered and buried someone in the park but we don't have a body so we're going to arrest and hold you while we dig up the park to find out if there is really a body... shouldn't take us more than a couple of years to be sure."
I have some emails out, and hopefully someone in the press will stop focusing on getting up photos of this woman's breasts for long enough to see if they can get a copy of the actual lawsuit to post as well.
Breasts or lawyers, your's still talking about a bunch or tits surely? /possibly too english joke
IANAL, but it occurs to me that if this became law it would be all but unenforceable.
It is unlawful for a person to produce or create, or conspire to produce or create, a video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation of a violent crime,(Emphasis mine)
In order to be arrested for filming a violent crime, the perpetrator would have to be tried and convicted first, would they not? If no conviction is secured, it wasn't a violent crime that was filmed and therefore not illegal. So technically they'd have to defer a prosecution under this statute until after the act it depicts, which doesn't sound too practical to me...
Copyright is what empowered you to demand that attribution, and you grabbed onto it with both hands.
Well I find myself completely unsurprised that you failed to read even the part you actually quoted. Or perhaps you deliberately misinterpreted...
and embedding a note about the CC BY-SA licensing makes it more likely that people won't lose the licensing information and feel they need to ask for permission.
The point Mr Michael seems to be making there is that copyright exists on everything and , as has been seen time and again, many publications are nervous to use content that might be copyrighted. His stated intent in attribution is not personal aggrandisement, but instead to help keep the information intact that would allow more people to use it without fear. That you would try and paint someone desperately trying to work as best he can within the mess that is copyright law as hypocritical is as predictable as it is dumb.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How can an "opt out" system be "defeated"?
When I was 12 or 13 back in the 60's My friends had a stash of Playboys one of them got from his older brother
Uh huh. And no doubt other, more hardcore titles. There was (is) always someone that can "get stuff" in a school. And even if pornography were suddenly and magically eliminated from schools, the main danger to children of it shaping their views on "real" sex, is likely to still be taken care of by other older children who claim to know. Either way, talking about it works way better than the pointless political moralising. Personally I find it hypocritical that our societies seem to feel no need to, for example, shield children from the increasingly violent images available on the news, but if there's a chance a teenager might see a picture of a naked body, or a depiction of a bodily function combined with (usually) pleasure... Shouting, arm-waving and politicians and every "moral guardian" group clamouring for the spotlight every single time.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How can an "opt out" system be "defeated"?
the only computer with internet access was in the living room and access disabled
If that solution ever worked as a general solution (and I have my doubts - it's not like porn was hard to find as a teenager before there was internet access), it's not realistic today. There are too many devices and friends with internet access.
Re: Re: How can an "opt out" system be "defeated"?
Here is another very simple solution for parents who are concerned what their children can access:Let them install software themselves
And here is another suggestion actually from a parent for parents who are sensible enough to know that their children are smart enough to circumvent blocking software too: Actually talk to your children about the dangers and wonders of the internet and educate them correctly instead of trying to pretend all the ickyness out there doesn't exist.
the only way for a true democracy is one person one vote on everything.
Very true and theoretically the technology now exists to enable this and in many respects could be considered desirable. However, as someone else pointed out, at least equally important to how voting is done is how to decide what is voted on. That bit, I think, while it desperately needs changing too, also definitely shouldn't be "every opinion carries equal weight" - that way madness lies...
I think you are overestimating how many people would want to vote that often.
And, pessimist that I usually am, I think you're underestimating the number of people that would engage if there was a feeling of actually being part of a real democratic process instead of just getting to pick the lesser of who-gives-a-f*ck every few years.
However, even if you're right and a significant number rarely vote at all and others vote only regarding things of real interest to them that doesn't make what I said any less true and in fact may well make any statistical anomalies even more glaring.