Interesting. If it's ISPs magically waving away infringement, it's really easy to figure out infringement from non-infringement. If they have to do it, it's too hard.
"It's been said that on a long enough time table, everybody's chances for survival goes to zero. I'd make the same argument for oppressive regimes."
This statement makes the dangerous assumption that democracy and freedom are natural endpoints of social evolution. Democracy came about in the West through very specific circumstances, and it could dissolve in the future.
If it's something worth having it must be protected and defended from those that try everyday to turn our country into China (falsely believing that censorship and the erosion of civil liberties is the best way to defend the country). We cannot assume or take for granted achieving and preserving freedom takes hard work.
Right but if you are on private property and you break rules that you have been informed of, you are trespassing. The speech itself is not the crime, it's the trespassing. That's the difference.
It doesn't actually give police the ability to arrest you for filming, only for trespassing (by breaking the rules by filming).
Maybe you could make some corporate spying or wiretapping laws work?
The problem is, and it's not exactly constitutional, is that we haven't really left the feudal era in the employment context, where employers are viewed as lords and employees peasants (almost property).
The employee/employer relationship is much closer to the feudal system than it is to consenting adults entering a mutually beneficial business arrangement.
"Hopefully long enough such that Wikileaks can recoup its operational costs... and continue practicing the free speech ideals that the U.S. is merely preaching."
The U.S. government only protects free speech that doesn't bother them, such as racist speech and homophobic speech. That's when the 1st amendment really shines. But don't even think about saying anything that might be embarrassing to a U.S. official.
"which was just a very small portion, which is why the federal judge had argued it was protected by fair use"
Fair use implies Hulk Hogan made a copyright claim, but how can that be if he didn't know he was being filmed. He most definitely can't be the copyright owner then? Unless filmer sold rights to him, in which case does that mean Hulk published it knowingly to web?
Well we wouldn't want to modify the agreements made between artists and the public after the fact.
Oh wait, that's exactly what every copyright maximalist wants, so long as it's retroactively improving their side of the deal and not the other way around.
Whatever. Every time someone gets mad because politicians only give canned responses, and then when they are real everyone gets mad, "Gasp you can't say that!"
He got into it with a jerk. We've all been there. Give the guy a break.
“No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [copyright law].”
I never actually read the law, but based on that reading doesn't that exclude the circumvention of technological measures which aren't effective? (i.e. all DRM?)
I'm not going to give you my Facebook password and here is why you still want to hire me.
When people interact with me and message me in social media, there is an implicit trust to keep their information confidential.
Similarly, when employees leave your company, certainly there is information you expect them to keep confidential.
If I were willing to give you this information, that would tell you that I am willing to betray the trust of others in my attempts to get a new job. The fact that I am willing to risk this job opportunity here shows that I can be trusted whereas the other candidates who comply are likely to violate your trust in the future if properly incentivized.
That is why you want to hire me."
Unfortunately, this sort of policy specifically selects for employees that, if pressed, will betray these companies in the future.
On second thoughts, copyright needs a use it or lose it clause. I know this is not an original idea (if such a thing exists) but this would be a great example of a situation where it would be useful.
On the post: More Details Show IRS Targeted Groups Critical Of How The Government Was Run
And you can go on the no fly list too, no extra charge!
On the post: Monsanto Wins Case Of Seed Patents; Planting Your Own Legally Purchased & Grown Seeds Can Be Infringing
On the post: MPAA Freaks Out: Insists That Having To Consider Fair Use Before Filing A DMCA Takedown Would Be Crazy
On the post: China's State-Run TV Uses Daily Show Clip To Demonize US, Viewers Point Out The Irony
This statement makes the dangerous assumption that democracy and freedom are natural endpoints of social evolution. Democracy came about in the West through very specific circumstances, and it could dissolve in the future.
If it's something worth having it must be protected and defended from those that try everyday to turn our country into China (falsely believing that censorship and the erosion of civil liberties is the best way to defend the country). We cannot assume or take for granted achieving and preserving freedom takes hard work.
On the post: TV Syndication Company Attempts To Take Down Public Domain Content By Abusing Trademark Law
On the post: Woman Prosecuted For Filming Slaughterhouse From The Road In Utah; Public Backlash Leads To Quick Reversal
Re: Re:
It doesn't actually give police the ability to arrest you for filming, only for trespassing (by breaking the rules by filming).
Maybe you could make some corporate spying or wiretapping laws work?
On the post: Woman Prosecuted For Filming Slaughterhouse From The Road In Utah; Public Backlash Leads To Quick Reversal
Re: Re:
I mean, anyone who has had their speech chilled for fear of being prosecuted has been harmed, no?
On the post: Mainstream Press Waking Up To DOJ's Massive Overreaction To Minor Computer Hacks
Re: Re: How?
On the post: IL Follows Suit: Employers Right To Ask For Social Media Passwords Codified Into Law
Re: Re:
The employee/employer relationship is much closer to the feudal system than it is to consenting adults entering a mutually beneficial business arrangement.
On the post: IL Follows Suit: Employers Right To Ask For Social Media Passwords Codified Into Law
Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
The U.S. government only protects free speech that doesn't bother them, such as racist speech and homophobic speech. That's when the 1st amendment really shines. But don't even think about saying anything that might be embarrassing to a U.S. official.
On the post: Gawker Defies Judge, Refuses To Take Down Post About Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Despite Court Order
Fair use implies Hulk Hogan made a copyright claim, but how can that be if he didn't know he was being filmed. He most definitely can't be the copyright owner then? Unless filmer sold rights to him, in which case does that mean Hulk published it knowingly to web?
On the post: Grooveshark Loses Latest Round In Court, In A Ruling That Could Gut The DMCA's Safe Harbors
Oh wait, that's exactly what every copyright maximalist wants, so long as it's retroactively improving their side of the deal and not the other way around.
On the post: How Not To Email Constituents: The Brian Nieves Story
He got into it with a jerk. We've all been there. Give the guy a break.
On the post: IRS Says It Will Change Its Policy On Looking At Emails Without A Warrant... At Some Point
On the post: Congress Quickly And Quietly Rolls Back Insider Trading Rules For Itself
On the post: Sorry, Having IMDB Accurately List Your Age Doesn't Entitle You To A Million Dollars
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
I never actually read the law, but based on that reading doesn't that exclude the circumvention of technological measures which aren't effective? (i.e. all DRM?)
On the post: Proposed WA Bill Would Allow Employers To Request Facebook Passwords
Re: Re: Employment at will
"Dear Prospective Employer,
I'm not going to give you my Facebook password and here is why you still want to hire me.
When people interact with me and message me in social media, there is an implicit trust to keep their information confidential.
Similarly, when employees leave your company, certainly there is information you expect them to keep confidential.
If I were willing to give you this information, that would tell you that I am willing to betray the trust of others in my attempts to get a new job. The fact that I am willing to risk this job opportunity here shows that I can be trusted whereas the other candidates who comply are likely to violate your trust in the future if properly incentivized.
That is why you want to hire me."
Unfortunately, this sort of policy specifically selects for employees that, if pressed, will betray these companies in the future.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: