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.
In terms of traceability it is absolutely possible to solve, but many of the current solutions are in conflict with other safety-requirements or uncoercion measures
I suspect this is because the thinking starts from the constraint "This is how elections are done, make it electronic now." It's like saying "Tables are only made out of wood, make me a table that doesn't burn". It's a lot harder unless you start further back with "what properties does it have to have to be a table and what can we change?"
In terms of coercion, social engineering is a far more serious problem in online voting.
And again a far less serious one if the stakes aren't so high and the window of tampering so narrow. Imagine if the average citizen voted on something once a week, or once a month as part of overall decision making. Think of how much harder it would be to effect a significant shift in overall direction by coercion of tens of thousands or more on a regular basis than it is if the decision is to select the one decision maker you can then influance subsequently. Think also how much harder it would be to continually hide evidence of that tampering from analysis.
Politicians are, at least, smart, capable, and motivated to ensure the system feeding them remains functional, regardless of whether or not it satisfies their "constituents".
Which is pretty much what I said. "Democracies" as we have them today seem set up to attract the more power hungry, opportunistic and self-centred instead of any kind of altruism. If the "good of the country" happens it usually turns out there was an ulterior motive for it.
The democratic ideal is that people are stupid enough to require governing, while being intelligent and capable enough to govern themselves
That's not the democratic ideal, merely a cynical version of the quote, "Democracy is absolutely the worst form of government - except for all the others." I'd agree that the most likely reason for democracies being as they are is because those who grasped the power want to keep and expand it, but perhaps a more optimistic viewpoint might be found. Until relatively recently, societies had no tools capable of involving any significant portion of society in decision making that wouldn't hopelessly stall any decision. We can hope, at least, that now generations are growing up intimitely familiar with tools that are capable of this, a way may be found to use them... that is closer to the "democratic ideal"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It adds to our culture.
A writer rights a story and creates a character. Years later someone wants to make a film based on his story. Then toys are made....maybe an amusement park ride...who knows.
OK, let's take that example... a writer writes a story. The story is based on his life experiences, public domain works and copyrighted works he (or she) has seen, heard, read, smelt, tasted etc. It just so happens that this idea re-hashing existing ideas is different enough to fall within the arbitrary definition "new work" under law. Let's assume his book sells (far from a given). Great, he gets money for work he's done. Seems fair to me. There are other ways to monetise ephemeral creations like writing, but being able to stop anyone but you selling it for a while is certainly one way. Now, years later as you say, along comes a screenwriter. He takes the ideas and perhaps dialog of the book and uses his own work and creative talent to change a written story into something suitable for screen. Perhaps the end product is quite close to the book, but likely not. Either way, the author of the book has done no additional work to create his screenplay and the only difference in what the screenplay writer has done to the what the author did is that the new work has a more obvious connection to one origin rather than many. (Unless we're talking about a Hollywood "book adaptation", where the only obvious connection may be the title...). I can't see in that any innate or moral "right" of the original author to any profits from someone else's additional work when they have done none themselves so if you do I'd love you to explain how? Also, assuming the screenplay becomes a popular film, without copyright in the picture the original author is able to use the work of others to make more money for himself by doing additional work himself to cash in on the popularity of the film. To me this method of reward for someone else's work seems rather fairer than "give me money you worked for because I did some work years ago". Perhaps the author could stretch his creative talents to create those toys you mentioned - doing work to turn a mental picture created by words into a visual 3d form. I'd be right alongside him being paid for that. Being paid because someone else did that piece of work many years afterwards, not so much.
I feel the creator should be able to profit from that idea as opposed to someone else.
But the author's profited from many other people's ideas, so how is that different? I feel a creator should be able to profit from his work, assuming there is profit to be had in it at all. Sadly, while the theory of copyright agrees with me (as I understand it copyright is supposed to protect specific expression not ideas), the practice of it goes even further than you seem to want to.