Oh, I see it now, it's just like the aliens who are among us to study us being discrete so we all don't panic...
Yeah, sure...
Was that a stealth "Ninjas vs. Pirates" joke?
so someone needs to mirror all of the CC content and make sure a free repository for it continues to existActually, your previous sarcastic post is very on-topic, here. It should be perfectly legal for someone at an academic institution which pays Elsevier's blackmail money for this journal to run an automated process which downloads the articles of the journal (which were published by Wiley under a CC license) and puts them up for free on a competing website.
Similarly, you have the right to the fair use of copyrighted materials. You can fairly use copyrighted materials all you like. That's the point of your fair use rights.How does this jive with the legality of DRM and the DMCA? Seems to me that either DRM would be illegal as violating my fair use "rights", or fair use isn't really a right.
doesn't change the nature of that very thing's molecules, or the law.
My reading of the post you are replying to is that FedEx is not refusing to ship it because it is illegal. This is merely a business decision: FedEx is refusing to ship it in order to reduce its chance it will be sued (or be hurt by negative PR) over a subsequent shooting incident.
If the other AC is correct, however, that FedEx has no problem with shipping actual firearms and ammunition, then this looks like a really strange business decision...
I admit that I'm not intelligent enough to understand your comment without additional explanation.
But I am curious.
The duty associated with the fair use right would, like the duty to not trespass, be the duty to not sue, seek injunctions, or demand payment or takedown of any work that falls under fair use.The sticker in this is "that falls under fair use". Since copyright law did not deign to explictly define what uses are "fair use", only a court can decide that, in which case either the copyright holder is being denied "due process" since he is effectively denied the possibility of taking the actions you have listed, or the "right" of fair use has been effectively castrated.
Changing copyright law such that all downloading was authorized would also accomplish this...
It stinks that I have to agree with antidirt on this one, but according to the most widely used definition of "right", fair use probably doesn't qualify as a right in the US.
The only countries I know of where courts have ruled that some aspects of fair use are rights are Canada and Israel.
Right... from Intel, Bosch, and Panasonic... we certainly can trust them to both not actively cooperate with national intelligence agencies, and be competent to defend themselves against active attack by said agencies (like Sony!)...
Did that 16 kg. of meth somehow make its way to you?
Found it: https://telex.cc/
Last time I checked, the Freenet protocol wasn't disguised. I see no reason it couldn't be blocked just as easily as VPNs. To get around this kind of censorship, you need something like a proxy which accepts HTTPS which is just disguised VPN traffic. I remember reading sometime in the last few years about a different protocol which used the HTTPS headers somehow to enable a kind of transparent redirection, but I cannot find it now.
Eventually if that falls through, there's always steganography. But the data rate for that sucks.
Copyright maximimalists hate it when non-maximialist copyright law is enforced.
I'll have to add myself in as old and distrusting, but I have to also add that in this new day and age, I have the constant fear that as my own information source curator, I will eventually get stuck in a self-made bubble world.
I suppose that's better than being stuck in an externally imposed bubble world, though.
The product that is being stolen, the movies that are produced by Hollywood, is the exact same one that is in theaters.Well, you've just shown that business savvy isn't exactly your strong point. Time and time again, I've witnessed arguments on the net concerning the "cinema experience" vs. the "personal viewing experience".
I also have to jump on the "disappointed by Techdirt using exaggerated headline" bandwagon.
OTOH, if the headline had been true, one could only conjecture that the reason was that European privacy laws were to blame, which of course would mean those photos were chock full of ETs. /sarc
longish queue
I uploaded http://ia601404.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.273913/gov.uscourts.nysd.273913.1035.1.pdf
and the other exhibits ...[1-8].pdf
many months ago, but RECAP doesn't show them...
Somehow I don't believe you meant that long a queue.
The Ghost of Injustice Past, I rather think...
Google's power of delisting is strong only against someone with competition/replacements which haven't also been delisted. In any other case, delisting only drives users to other alternatives.
So no, delisting all EU sites probably wouldn't exactly do what you think it would do. Besides, what is an "EU site"? A site from a company based in the EU? A site hosted on a server in the EU?
Why not?