pixelpusher220 (profile), Dec 11th, 2012 @ 11:25am
Re: *Gasp*
Regulations are written for those with both a vested interest in their outcome AND the drive to be involved in their creation.
The public fails miserably at the 2nd part and so are very often left out of the process.
Doesn't make it right, but given the lax attention paid by most people to anything related to, well, anything that doesn't have a 'Book', 'Face', 'Desperate' or 'Housewives' in the subject it isn't exactly rocket science to see them cut out.
We have control over those in office. We need to wield it more frequently and more forcefully to get the ends we desire. SOPA/PIPA was an example.
The lack transparency and the 'corruption laundering' (love the phrase!) are merely symptoms of the lack of involvement by the US people going back decades.
pixelpusher220 (profile), Nov 15th, 2012 @ 11:04am
Digital isn't material?
A 'digital' file is nothing more than the physical characteristics of a particular storage medium read into a computer.
It's like saying the 'copy' on silly putty isn't a 'material' copy.
Digital obviously changes things in terms of the ability to copy infinitely, but there is a clear 'physical' representation of the digital file; without it it doesn't exist.
pixelpusher220 (profile), Oct 17th, 2012 @ 10:12am
Not in the constitution?
Article I Section 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Given that the argument is usually that current copyright law is broken because it isn't promoting progress...it's a bit of a nitpick position to claim copyright isn't in the constitution.
Sure the 'word' Copyright isn't in there, but the express purpose of it is granted explicitly to Congress to make the laws to enforce that power.
Congress certainly could decide 'not' to do so, but our copyright system today in the US is clearly founded in the Constitution.
On a serious note, what are the arguments that it isn't 'in the Constitution'?
I would disagree. The law is independent of circumstance and in this case, the photograph was used without permission. Open and shut case.
Political speech is rightly highly protected, but they can't break the law while exercising that right. This clearly breaks the law.
Political campaigns have used songs against the artists wishes but those artists agreed to license their works for a flat use fee. They can't complain when it's used outside their interests and beliefs because legal license was granted.
I highly doubt any such 'use' license for this photograph exists and therefore the campaign has no legal standing to use the image.
If you report it stolen...then you aren't going to be liable.
Stolen cars generally aren't returned after the crime is committed, neither are laptops, phones, etc. Since you're no longer in possession of your property, your liability doesn't exist.
Your open WIFI...you still have and as such would still be liable for uses of it.
how about if I left a live phone drop outside my house?
If threats to the President were made from my number, would I not be considered 'negligent' for putting such a system in place?
I fully agree there's no requirement to secure your wifi, but as the account holder I am in the end responsible for its use am I not? Perhaps not criminally liable, but certainly civilly (sp?) I would expect.
And the obligatory car analogy -
if my car is seen robbing a bank, you can bet there going to be talking to me about 'who' was using my car. Is leaving my car on the street with the keys in it 'negligent'?
Just arguing the devils advocate positions, interested in any ideas to counter them.
On the post: Corruption Laundering: The Art Of Manipulating Regulations To Block Innovation
Re: *Gasp*
The public fails miserably at the 2nd part and so are very often left out of the process.
Doesn't make it right, but given the lax attention paid by most people to anything related to, well, anything that doesn't have a 'Book', 'Face', 'Desperate' or 'Housewives' in the subject it isn't exactly rocket science to see them cut out.
We have control over those in office. We need to wield it more frequently and more forcefully to get the ends we desire. SOPA/PIPA was an example.
The lack transparency and the 'corruption laundering' (love the phrase!) are merely symptoms of the lack of involvement by the US people going back decades.
On the post: ITU: Not Even Good At Not Being Transparent, Accidentally Releases Deep Packet Inspection Standard
Re: So.
On the post: The SHOCKING Photos That Violated Facebook's Policies!
Re: Nuts
On the post: Open Letter To Human Synergistics International In Response To Your Accusation That Techdirt Is Infringing
Re:
And then nail them for perjury :)
On the post: Why Do We Even Have 'Distribution' As A Right Protected By Copyright?
Re:
Just like if I carve a drawing into a tree, I don't get rights to the whole tree, just the part with the drawing.
On the post: Why Do We Even Have 'Distribution' As A Right Protected By Copyright?
Digital isn't material?
It's like saying the 'copy' on silly putty isn't a 'material' copy.
Digital obviously changes things in terms of the ability to copy infinitely, but there is a clear 'physical' representation of the digital file; without it it doesn't exist.
On the post: Cracked Lists Examples Of Bad Copyright... Without A Single Actual Example Of Copyright
Re: Re: Not in the constitution?
But yes the 'method', i.e. our current copyright system, isn't laid out, though the power to create one is.
On the post: Cracked Lists Examples Of Bad Copyright... Without A Single Actual Example Of Copyright
Not in the constitution?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Given that the argument is usually that current copyright law is broken because it isn't promoting progress...it's a bit of a nitpick position to claim copyright isn't in the constitution.
Sure the 'word' Copyright isn't in there, but the express purpose of it is granted explicitly to Congress to make the laws to enforce that power.
Congress certainly could decide 'not' to do so, but our copyright system today in the US is clearly founded in the Constitution.
On a serious note, what are the arguments that it isn't 'in the Constitution'?
On the post: Harvey Weinstein's 'Hang 'Em First' Approach To Piracy Hits All The Wrong Suspects
To be fair...
I doubt he actually understands that though...
On the post: Textbook Publisher Pearson Takes Down 1.5 Million Teacher And Student Blogs With A Single DMCA Notice
Re:
On the post: Textbook Publisher Pearson Takes Down 1.5 Million Teacher And Student Blogs With A Single DMCA Notice
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case On Legality Of Retroactive Immunity For Telcos
Re: Re:
Having the 'will' to do it is another matter unfortunately.
On the post: Why It's Tempting, But Troubling, To Use Copyright As A Stand In For Moral Rights
Re: Re: question
Political speech is rightly highly protected, but they can't break the law while exercising that right. This clearly breaks the law.
Political campaigns have used songs against the artists wishes but those artists agreed to license their works for a flat use fee. They can't complain when it's used outside their interests and beliefs because legal license was granted.
I highly doubt any such 'use' license for this photograph exists and therefore the campaign has no legal standing to use the image.
On the post: Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Case Law
They are responsible, period. That's why the law carves out Safe Harbors to *exempt* them from that liability in certain circumstances.
On the post: Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anaology Away!
On the post: Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'
Re:
Stolen cars generally aren't returned after the crime is committed, neither are laptops, phones, etc. Since you're no longer in possession of your property, your liability doesn't exist.
Your open WIFI...you still have and as such would still be liable for uses of it.
On the post: Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'
Re: Re: Re: Anaology Away!
If you're arguing that open wifi isn't serious enough negligence, then you're validating the argument.
On the post: Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'
Re: Re: Re: Case Law
On the post: Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'
Re: Re: Case Law
If threats to the President were made from my number, would I not be considered 'negligent' for putting such a system in place?
I fully agree there's no requirement to secure your wifi, but as the account holder I am in the end responsible for its use am I not? Perhaps not criminally liable, but certainly civilly (sp?) I would expect.
And the obligatory car analogy -
if my car is seen robbing a bank, you can bet there going to be talking to me about 'who' was using my car. Is leaving my car on the street with the keys in it 'negligent'?
Just arguing the devils advocate positions, interested in any ideas to counter them.