As the article makes clear, claims of entrapment rarely work in these cases,
This is what makes it all possible--judges defining "entrapment" so narrowly that police have wide latitude to create the crimes they are "preventing."
Give it it's real meaning and much of this would go away.
This is common throughout the law. If you own your house, you remember closing day as 2 hours of 8 people sitting around a table (buyers, sellers, buyers' attorney, sellers' attorney, bank attorney, closer), with huge stacks of papers that have to be signed buy one or both parties. The mortgage alone is 2 inches thick, promissory notes, adjustments, tax forms, forms verfiying that other forms have been explained to you...it's similar in any endeavor that involves significant risk.
Every clause in a TOS is there because, at some point in the past, the lack of it led to a problem. As time goes on, the clauses pile up because the incentive is on the side of making sure that problem doesn't happen again.
From a legal standpoint, here is no incentive to make things simpler because that will almost inevitably lead to increased risk. Over time, it gets relentlessly more complicated, more expensive, more confusing to the non-lawyer (and sometimes even to lawyers).
And, of course, no matter how many "I agree" buttons they make you hit, they don't really want you to read it; that's why they present it in an unreadable format. Beyond the most obvious common sense terms, they should be completely unenforceable.
Where do people keep getting the idea that they should be able to buy things that other people claim to want to sell them?
Why, just because the shopping model of pushing a button has existed for years and has become widely used, should people think they ought to be able to buy things by pushing a button?
Why shouldn't Mr. Keenan offer something for sale, but not in any way his eager buyers want?
Next thing you know, wackos will be claiming the customer is always right or that customer service matters.
If I ever decide to support a "loser pays" model for litigation, it'll be crap like this that leads me there. Is it too much to hope for a sweeping judgment that anything in a public space is per se fair use?
All things being equal, most people would rather do the right thing than the wrong thing. But "all things" are rarely equal, and the more unequal they are, the more people will choose the wrong thing.
You can rail against that reality and get steamrolled by it, or you can work within that reality and maybe be successful.
law enforcement activity left me stunned at the incredible waste of time and resources. The fishing expeditions, the low probability actions. At all levels. It's amazing there's any time or money left over to do real work.
My old driving instructor said that women cause many more accidents then men but the typical male accident is a 3-car pile up while drag racing and the typical female accident is a fender bender from hitting a light pole while applying makeup.
Even toned down, that easily answers the superficially oxymoronic question of why insurance companies treat women as better drivers even though men cause fewer accidents.
But then, with an equally straight face, he compared Loverboy favorably to the Beatles.
If the TSA says they don't single out attractive women for nudie scans, then they must not. Because I'm sure if they did, they'd come right out and say so.
I can't imagine any usable meaning for "promote the progress" other than "promote the creation." As this post notes, judges can't be critics, they can't put themselves in the role of deciding what represents progress and what does not. They should limit themselves to the question, "is it legal?"
"I'm at a loss as to why Hollywood can't do the math here"
I think it helps to realize that entertainment companies are a sort of monopoly. Sure, there are many studios, big and small, but if you want to watch this particular movie or listen to that particular singer, someone in the chain must deal with the particular studio that owns the rights.
The main focus of the monopoly is not maximizing customer service (indeed, the fundamental problem with monopolies is that they don't have to care at all about customer service), it's maintaining control.
If you own Toy Story 3 or War Horse, your only competition for people wanting to see these movies are the pirates. Stop the pirates and you can have any release window you want and there's nothing anybody can do about it. And you like your release windows.
So of course you will do whatever you can to get the pirates and save your monopoly. Screw the internet users. Your secretary spends too much time on Facebook anyway.
Absolutely. I have a lot of problems with the Safe Harbor provisions of DMCA, which are basically "guilty until proven innocent" (read: a violation of due process rights), but much of my objection could be alleviated if the supposedly infringing material came down only if and when the "infringer" failed to respond to the takedown notice.
I find that petition site extremely clunky and stupidly difficult to use (often as not, and for no particular reason, I can't sign in, but there's nothing to say my sign in failed, the petition buttons just don;t become functional).
Besides, they never respond to the good petitions. Those grapes are probably sour, anyway.
I find that petition site extremely clunky and stupidly difficult to use (often as not, and for no particular reason, I can't sign in, but there's nothing to say my sign in failed, the petition buttons just don;t become functional).
Besides, they never respond to the good petitions. Those grapes are probably sour, anyway.
If the theory is valid, it will be able to predict how people will change their behavior upon learning about the data set. If the theory cannot accommodate openness then the theory is invalid.
That's not the point of copyright. The point is to create a profit motive to encourage new works. Not to keep something private until nobody wants it anymore.
IMO, you buried the lead
As the article makes clear, claims of entrapment rarely work in these cases,
This is what makes it all possible--judges defining "entrapment" so narrowly that police have wide latitude to create the crimes they are "preventing."
Give it it's real meaning and much of this would go away.
As always, the problem is the incentives
This is common throughout the law. If you own your house, you remember closing day as 2 hours of 8 people sitting around a table (buyers, sellers, buyers' attorney, sellers' attorney, bank attorney, closer), with huge stacks of papers that have to be signed buy one or both parties. The mortgage alone is 2 inches thick, promissory notes, adjustments, tax forms, forms verfiying that other forms have been explained to you...it's similar in any endeavor that involves significant risk.
Every clause in a TOS is there because, at some point in the past, the lack of it led to a problem. As time goes on, the clauses pile up because the incentive is on the side of making sure that problem doesn't happen again.
From a legal standpoint, here is no incentive to make things simpler because that will almost inevitably lead to increased risk. Over time, it gets relentlessly more complicated, more expensive, more confusing to the non-lawyer (and sometimes even to lawyers).
And, of course, no matter how many "I agree" buttons they make you hit, they don't really want you to read it; that's why they present it in an unreadable format. Beyond the most obvious common sense terms, they should be completely unenforceable.
Re:
Yes, patents should be ignored whenever ignoring them is convenient. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Right?
What's that...did you hear that? Why, I do believe that is the Law of Unintended Consequences clearing its throat.
Shhh....everybody quiet. I think it's about to say something...
Ahh...yes, entitlement...again
Where do people keep getting the idea that they should be able to buy things that other people claim to want to sell them?
Why, just because the shopping model of pushing a button has existed for years and has become widely used, should people think they ought to be able to buy things by pushing a button?
Why shouldn't Mr. Keenan offer something for sale, but not in any way his eager buyers want?
Next thing you know, wackos will be claiming the customer is always right or that customer service matters.
Crazy talk.
Re: Re: Perhaps?
Bingo! It all goes back (as so much of this crap does) to the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions.
All of the incentives are on the side of "take it down," there are no incentives at all for getting it right.
Why would any online company spend extra time and resources investigating the claims in the take down notice when the only possible outcomes are:
1. They increase their risk of getting sued; or
2. They take down the material.
(untitled comment)
If I ever decide to support a "loser pays" model for litigation, it'll be crap like this that leads me there. Is it too much to hope for a sweeping judgment that anything in a public space is per se fair use?
A shorter Arment?
All things being equal, most people would rather do the right thing than the wrong thing. But "all things" are rarely equal, and the more unequal they are, the more people will choose the wrong thing.
You can rail against that reality and get steamrolled by it, or you can work within that reality and maybe be successful.
Virtually every story I've read about
law enforcement activity left me stunned at the incredible waste of time and resources. The fishing expeditions, the low probability actions. At all levels. It's amazing there's any time or money left over to do real work.
Re:
My old driving instructor said that women cause many more accidents then men but the typical male accident is a 3-car pile up while drag racing and the typical female accident is a fender bender from hitting a light pole while applying makeup.
Even toned down, that easily answers the superficially oxymoronic question of why insurance companies treat women as better drivers even though men cause fewer accidents.
But then, with an equally straight face, he compared Loverboy favorably to the Beatles.
That settles it
If the TSA says they don't single out attractive women for nudie scans, then they must not. Because I'm sure if they did, they'd come right out and say so.
Re:
I can't imagine any usable meaning for "promote the progress" other than "promote the creation." As this post notes, judges can't be critics, they can't put themselves in the role of deciding what represents progress and what does not. They should limit themselves to the question, "is it legal?"
If it's legal, then it's progress.
It's a Monopoly
"I'm at a loss as to why Hollywood can't do the math here"
I think it helps to realize that entertainment companies are a sort of monopoly. Sure, there are many studios, big and small, but if you want to watch this particular movie or listen to that particular singer, someone in the chain must deal with the particular studio that owns the rights.
The main focus of the monopoly is not maximizing customer service (indeed, the fundamental problem with monopolies is that they don't have to care at all about customer service), it's maintaining control.
If you own Toy Story 3 or War Horse, your only competition for people wanting to see these movies are the pirates. Stop the pirates and you can have any release window you want and there's nothing anybody can do about it. And you like your release windows.
So of course you will do whatever you can to get the pirates and save your monopoly. Screw the internet users. Your secretary spends too much time on Facebook anyway.
Re:
Absolutely. I have a lot of problems with the Safe Harbor provisions of DMCA, which are basically "guilty until proven innocent" (read: a violation of due process rights), but much of my objection could be alleviated if the supposedly infringing material came down only if and when the "infringer" failed to respond to the takedown notice.
WH Petitions is a watse of time
I find that petition site extremely clunky and stupidly difficult to use (often as not, and for no particular reason, I can't sign in, but there's nothing to say my sign in failed, the petition buttons just don;t become functional).
Besides, they never respond to the good petitions. Those grapes are probably sour, anyway.
WH Petitions is a watse of time
I find that petition site extremely clunky and stupidly difficult to use (often as not, and for no particular reason, I can't sign in, but there's nothing to say my sign in failed, the petition buttons just don;t become functional).
Besides, they never respond to the good petitions. Those grapes are probably sour, anyway.
Re:
And the few that do vote will still vote Democratic.
As presented, the theory is disproven
If the theory is valid, it will be able to predict how people will change their behavior upon learning about the data set. If the theory cannot accommodate openness then the theory is invalid.
Re:
That's not the point of copyright. The point is to create a profit motive to encourage new works. Not to keep something private until nobody wants it anymore.
(untitled comment)
And how will they determine that it was decrypted accurately?
It seems the long arm of the law
is getting even longer.