I've said it here before, the rule they use to justify their actions is selected wayyy after they decide to do whatever it is. They are going to do it anyway, loophole or not.
It's not the loophole's fault that it's happening, it's just the excuse they are using. They would just find another loophole or lacking that simply tell you there is a secret law authorizing it that you're not allowed to ask about.
The fact that they used this particular terrorism law to "justify" Miranda's detention is a red herring.
The fact is that they were going to stop him and take away his electronics in any case. Pulling some regulation or other out of a hat to apply as a reason for nosy parkers who ask is simply a necessary annoyance to the authorities.
If this law had not given them the convenient allowance to detain him and take his stuff, they would have found another. I'm sure some copyright law would have been the next choice.
The point of Schrodinger's Cat is that quantum physics dictates that the cat under that set of circumstances must be considered simultaneously to exist in both states.
Thusly, (if the already tenuous analogy were to be stretched even further) until they listen to a file to determine if it is infringing, they can say that it both is and is not, a condition no doubt likely to bring a smile to a certain Mr. Clinton.
You can guarantee which side the copyright lobby would choose to decide is the determining state; it's not so clear which the courts would decide trumps the other in this hypothetical overextended analogy world.
I don't see the investigation's upside in delaying reading him his rights if truly that is all it is - a delay in explaining to him the rights he still maintains whether or not he is aware of them.
On the surface they seem to be contending that not reading him his rights will give them extra leeway in interrogating him. This would only hold if they were in fact suspending his rights themselves and not just his right to be made explicitly aware of their existence.
The only advantage I can see to this tactic is to set a precedent to be used as a wedge to erode the rights themselves, not just the right to know about them.
I would be only too glad to hear of a less pessimistic explanation. Why take on the downside of trial complications unless there is much more at stake than telling him something he probably already knows?
If it were always possible to find purchaseable DRM-free content, I would ALWAYS purchase it. It's that simple
Other than the original days of Napster, I have since only ever resorted to downloading content when I find it impossible to buy a reasonable working copy of it either from the source or from their distributors, and even then only when it's something I really care to see or hear badly enough to download it.
Being unable to purchase media content despite my best efforts happens far too often due to zone restrictions, purchase windows, DRM, ecommerce and shopping cart fuckups and complete buttheadedness on the part of the industry.
It's almost ALWAYS possible to find downloadable content. If it were always possible to find purchaseable DRM-free content, I would ALWAYS purchase it. It's that simple.
It turns out it's not as simple as it seems at first. For the benefit of all, here are some things that have become clear to me this week.
Copyright isn't where the expense lies, it's Licensing.
If you want photos of public domain art works that are of high enough quality for print publication, you have a few choices.
1) You can send a photographer out to take photos of each work. Many will be in museums and will require negotiating a photography session with the museum. One reason is that the light used in high power flashes for this quality of photo has a high UV content and over time will contribute to deterioration of the work, so they limit access.
This is very expensive and time-consuming, but you will get high quality photos.
2) You can find a photographer or organization who has done #1 themselves or has bought the rights to license images from other photographers.
This will get you the quality photos, and save you some money.
3) You can try to source photos that have open and free licenses. While there are some organizations who are collecting such images (e.g. googleartproject.com, art.sy, and others), there is not a deep well of these resources, so your experience will result in a lot of searching and varied quality.
As you can see, #2 is optimal among these (possibly not exhaustive) choices.
When you want to get photos for your book, you pay a license fee to the person who can provide you with the high-quality source material. They calculate it based on a number of factors, one of which is the quality of the final images - i.e. it's cheaper to license a bunch of images to be presented in thumbnail or screen form than in full resolution.
If you print and sell 10,000 copies of your book, the cost component of the licensing is distributed much more thinly than if you have a limited run of 500 books. You have a choice of whether to present pictures in full, thumbnail, or online, or a combination. The choices made in this case resulted in a product that did not meet the needs of the audience (understated, I know, but that's the bottom line).
What this all comes down to is that once the logistics of producing a book are considered, it's apparent that there is no one entity in the chain demanding excessive profits. It's just the economics of a high quality small print run in play here, and then the design decisions that came out of that.
So far the response of the school and the publisher has been very positive and I'm optimistic that a much better solution will come out of this episode. Open dialogue has been spawned and the wider issues of copyright, licensing and the spiralling cost of a university education have been subjected to very public review and criticism.
Thanks to the students who started the petition, and TechDirt who provided a platform for wide recognition, this story promises to have as happy an ending as one could hope for.