> doesn't change the nature of that very thing's molecules, or the law.
My reading of the post you are replying to is that FedEx is not refusing to ship it because it is illegal. This is merely a business decision: FedEx is refusing to ship it in order to reduce its chance it will be sued (or be hurt by negative PR) over a subsequent shooting incident.
If the other AC is correct, however, that FedEx has no problem with shipping actual firearms and ammunition, then this looks like a really strange business decision...
Re: Re: Probably not a "right" in the US (but should be!)
The duty associated with the fair use right would, like the duty to not trespass, be the duty to not sue, seek injunctions, or demand payment or takedown of any work that falls under fair use.
The sticker in this is "that falls under fair use". Since copyright law did not deign to explictly define what uses are "fair use", only a court can decide that, in which case either the copyright holder is being denied "due process" since he is effectively denied the possibility of taking the actions you have listed, or the "right" of fair use has been effectively castrated.
Right... from Intel, Bosch, and Panasonic... we certainly can trust them to both not actively cooperate with national intelligence agencies, and be competent to defend themselves against active attack by said agencies (like Sony!)...
Did that 16 kg. of meth somehow make its way to you?
Last time I checked, the Freenet protocol wasn't disguised. I see no reason it couldn't be blocked just as easily as VPNs. To get around this kind of censorship, you need something like a proxy which accepts HTTPS which is just disguised VPN traffic. I remember reading sometime in the last few years about a different protocol which used the HTTPS headers somehow to enable a kind of transparent redirection, but I cannot find it now.
Eventually if that falls through, there's always steganography. But the data rate for that sucks.
I'll have to add myself in as old and distrusting, but I have to also add that in this new day and age, I have the constant fear that as my own information source curator, I will eventually get stuck in a self-made bubble world.
I suppose that's better than being stuck in an externally imposed bubble world, though.
The product that is being stolen, the movies that are produced by Hollywood, is the exact same one that is in theaters.
Well, you've just shown that business savvy isn't exactly your strong point. Time and time again, I've witnessed arguments on the net concerning the "cinema experience" vs. the "personal viewing experience".
> It's written by Marc Randazza, so it's got that readable style he's become known for.
I especially enjoyed this from page 21:
If we must have factual development on this, then Defendants may be forced to call an expert on existential philosophy and another on quantum physics, or the court could simply realize what any sensible person would recognize, and that is that this is a statement of hyperbole, and protected opinion.
and this from page 24:
A reasonable reader would not reasonably believe that a suggestion to swallow cement in lieu of the Roca Labs product is a statement of fact. If this is not rhetorical hyperbole, then one would presume that the only discovery we could engage in to prove it true or false would be to find an unfortunate test subject, force them to drink a glass of liquid cement, and leave them sitting on the witness stand until they report to us whether they feel full or not. Such mockery is not offered to be irreverent toward the Court ...
Hilarious, yet prudent... scrumptious (no, not the cement, or Roca Labs' product)...