Exactly. So if I, as a member of the audience, film it on my own, with my own cameras, there is no use of a copyrighted broadcast. Certainly there might be some issue if I can hear the announcer on my recording, but if I delete the sound, there shouldn't be any copyright interest. And yet, if you bring your own camera to a sporting event and stream it or upload it, you will be successfully sued for copyright infringement (among other things). For no reason that anyone has ever discovered.
I don't think that's true. Can you cite a case?
The owner of the stadium has the right to ban you and or to not let you back in, but I don't see how they could possibly sue you for copyright infringement.
Did he say those things or did the FBI say he said those things? This is the last place I expected to be so trusting of the government. Other articles are saying he hacked into a flight simulator. That he built himself.
We expressed skepticism for the FBI's story in the piece -- but note that it's important to know more before deciding what really happened here. I think, frankly, that we expressed a lot more skepticism of this story that most of the media reporting elsewhere did.
I do not believe he was trying to deceive because if that was his intent he would likely have provided the same answer to the public's representatives in the prior classified briefings.
Nice word play. Do you really believe that the politicians are the public's representatives?
There is nothing to suggest that in any one of those briefings he tried to deceive/mislead the members of the committee.
You're absolutely wrong. Wyden and his team have spoken many times about how Clapper has tried to mislead them.
I believe the reason for his answering as he did in the unclassified setting is much more straightforward...the preservation of classified information until such time that the information was properly declassified.
Again, you keep saying that and we've explained MULTIPLE TIMES why that answer makes no sense at all. The proper answer if asked about classified info is "we will provide details in a classified setting" or "we have provided details that answer your question in a classified setting." Clapper has done that in the past. He did not do that here.
Instead, he lied, which is against the law.
I thought you were a "rule of law" kind of guy. Funny that that goes out the window when it comes to people you support. It suggests blatant hypocrisy on your part.
Because everyone has a First Amendment right to petition the court. Requesting a subpoena falls under that protection. Are you seriously suggesting that Rightscorp should not be able to petition the court? I get that you don't like what they're doing, but I find it hilarious that you'd deny them the constitutional right of petition. The fault in your conspiracy theory approach is that you're not separating out asking the court to take action vs. the merits of that request. You have a right to ask the court for something, even if the court ultimately denies the request and sanctions you for being frivolous. This is basic, simple stuff
Don't know why you feel the need to rush to insult.
I see your point in separating out the petition with what they then do with the info. In fact, I may be convinced that this ruling does make sense now.
I'm still troubled by the fact that the petitioning is clearly to abuse the judicial system, but I can see how that can be dealt with at a later stage.
Just imagine how freaked out Mike would be if, say, the MPAA argued that the EFF couldn't even petition the court. He would go absolutely apeshit. But here, it's perfectly OK. First Amendment? What's that? Prior restraint? Never heard of it.
If EFF were "petitioning the court" solely for the sake of abusing the legal system to identify anonymous individuals in order to shake them down for cash, rather than for the purpose of actually filing a lawsuit... well, yeah, I'd have a problem with it.
I still don't see how abusing the court system just to identify anonymous individuals for the sake of extorting them is legitimately "petitioning the court" under the First Amendment, but alas, it's clear that the court says I'm wrong. And I'm perfectly willing to admit that the court disagrees with me.
What a croc...a gotcha question to a person he well knew could provide no answer without violating his obligations concerning the preservation of classified information. Frankly, Clapper should have said in a strong voice "No!", talked with the chair and scheduled a classified session immediately after the public session, and then in a classified setting cut Wyden a new one while calling for the immediate termination of his security clearance.
Yes, we've had this discussion before, and we've even pointed you to similar hearings where Clapper and others like Keith Alexander have simply said "we cannot discuss specific matters like this in unclassified settings" or something along those lines.
The idea that you are publicly advocating having the intelligence community lie to the Senate Intelligence Committee any time they ask a question that might embarrass them, says a lot about you.
Good. Now square up the inane intrusiveness, banal malevolence and regulatory capture omnipresent in our beloved federal government with your support for the governments jurisdiction over stronger net neutrality rules.
Do you support the First Amendment, or do you see that as "intrusive government interference"?
If we're making strings of credit, then it should go back further, right? Radical Islam is often creating terrorist attacks in response to Western policies that they feel were unfair and impeded on their own views and ideas. And, of course, those Western policies were in response to other moves by leadership in the middle eastern region, and those were in response to... hell, we could go back to the dinosaurs and the fact that they died and created all this oil in the ground.
Maybe, rather than blaming whichever part of that ongoing cycle you hate, we should STOP DOING STUPID SHIT that simply continues the ongoing cycle?
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Shouldn't Have a Media Player in the First Place, and Possibly, Not Even Podcasts.
A human of ordinary literacy can read things about twice as fast as he can listen to them. That is simply a consequence of the way our brains are organized. Unlike dogs and cats, our immediate relatives, monkeys and apes, do not have big focusing ears, and extra brain circuitry to support them. So, when you ask your audience to listen instead of reading, what are you offering in return? Are you not saying that you want to deny your audience the possibility of skimming?
I guess we should do away with TV, radio, plays, movies, phone calls and the like then, huh?
Does it not occur to you that there are different ways that people like to get different types of content. We're just adding another one for a different kind of content -- one involving a verbal/audio discussion among a few people.
The absence of a transcript is a tacit admission that the pod-caster never rehearsed at all.
Yes, because this isn't a scripted radio play, it's an open conversation among some interesting people. That's why we do it. For the conversation. Do you rehearse all your conversations ahead of time?
As someone intimately familiar with the hosting business this is not true, not remotely. Especially for your volume.
Don't know what to tell you other than that you are wrong.
Delusional. Having a third party control a major function of your product is not convenient. Or quicker. Short term thinking at its worst.
It is not "controlling" a major part of our product. We are using it for hosting and bandwidth. If it wasn't them, it would be another company. Even if we were doing it "ourselves" it would still involve a third party hosting company/data center somewhere. Soundcloud is like that, but also has some useful features and lower prices. Most people like it.
Then stop doing it.
Many people like the podcast. We should stop doing it because one person doesn't like the fact that we use a third party service that many others like? Really?
Why don't you care about freedom?
Really? It's tough to take you seriously if you say that.
This is a new world where content gets created without thrid party overloards. Join us.
There are always third parties. There are data centers and bandwidth providers. There are always other tools. The idea that it's just you and the end user is not a realistic scenario in all but the most convoluted of circumstances.
I know, I know, next time we'll host the podcast on a server in my house and give you an FTP account to log in and download it... but, oh, crap, that would involve both your "third party" ISP and mine. Well, darn. We must hate freedom.
I mean, seriously. A podcast is a directory of files. Most are MP3 files, which you get by using any number of FOSS audio recording programs. One will be an XML file (RSS or Atom), which admittedly requires you to either work with nasty angle brackets or find some editor that works directly with that file format. Why in the name of $DEITY would you have any third party service involved, beyond whatever you are using for hosting this very site?
Many reasons. One is bandwidth. Bandwidth is still costly, but Soundcloud can buy it at much better rates than we can afford. Two is convenience. Doing it yourself is a lot of work and that's work that takes away from other, more important, things we're doing. Soundcloud just makes it a lot easier and we find that worth it. If we had to do it ourselves and pay for the bandwidth at our own costs we wouldn't be doing it. It's that simple.
Similarly, you vent about ad network behavior. TechDirt is *more* than big enough to source its own ads, bypassing any ad network. If you don't like ad networks, why are you using them?
Uh, I don't know what to tell you other than you're wrong. We're not "more than big enough." We're not even big enough. We've tried. We can't source nearly enough ads on our own to keep this site running. Not even close. Your assumptions and/or knowledge about how this works are off by a large amount.
Now, I realize that my recommendations violate hipster aesthetic, where you have to use some graphically-intense Web site (e.g., SoundCloud), complete with unpleasant terms of service, rather than just using a program on your own machine.
You really think we care about a "hipster aesthetic"? Have you looked at our site?
If you don't like the behavior of silos, stop using the silos.
It's not silos. But we live in a connected world and its a world where we believe that specialization does matter, and often it makes sense to work with those who specialize in things (comparative advantage and all that). But, as part of that, we should also speak up when we think they can do a better job.