yeah i've been wondering about the comments from the people saying "you should just stop when they tell you to".
Why do I get the feeling that we have a growing population of people who have not matured emotionally beyond "follow the law because they tell you to", and have moved into "do what is right, because it is right".
These jokers seem to think that if you do what you are told, then everything will work out at the end. Shut up, stop talking, stop dancing, and comply.
You know, just because it is the way law isn't interpreted, doing things a certain way, because the government wants you to, doesn't mean it is right, or even legal.
The government imposes illegal laws all the time. The job of the 3 branches of government is to balance and determine if the law is valid.
Our governement has forgotten their job, and enact laws whether or not they are legal. Look at the Patriot Act - this clearly violates the 4th amendment by giving the government powers to ignore the need to get a warrant. Which is expressly laid out in the 4th, but that law just got renewed.
So, to recap - just because the law says you have to do it a certain way, doesn't mean that the law is legal, or ethical.
I don't recall the 1st amendment saying that congress will allow people to peacefully assemble when they have a permit, it says "congress shall make no law...abridging..the right of the people peaceably to assemble...".
So no law means - no law, except when I want to control when people exercise their rights.
The point of all of this is to continue to drive civil issues into criminal.
Previously, the RIAA/MPAA would have to do this work themselves. Their lawyers, their lawsuit, they are the plaintiff.
Now, we can drag this into the criminal courts, where you as the taxpayer is the plaintiff, and the infringer is criminal. This way, the US Government is the one protecting the profits of these consortiums. This way, they can continue to maximize profits, and let the taxpayer foot the bill on any issue that infringes on their profitability.
Out of the goodness of the prosecutors heart? How about when you get sued by someone looking for a payout?
Why make this a law at all, if you think it wont be enforced?
There are plenty of legitimate reasons for copyright and piracy laws. I find it funny that there is always a small army unleashed on this board to blindly defend all legislation, and everyone against it must be a pirate and wants to steal content.
How about people like many here who believe that piracy is bad, but overreaching, moronic laws can be much worse?
Simple thing, this is too broad, and can incur unintended consequences. Lawmakers really need to hire more widely education tech consultants, and not just the onse sent by their major campaing contributors.
If you retweet a link to a picture that someone else took, you can go to jail, if the person didnt get copyright clearance, whether you knew about it or not.
If you link to an article in another blog, then that person is found to have plagarized portions of the article, you can go to jail.
If you send an email with a link to your grandma's facebook account, and she posted a picture of herself that she got taken by a studio without permisson, you have committed a felony.
Understand the slippery slope? Do any of those activities sohnd like something an OMGPIRATE would do, or something an average person would find themselves doing with no idea that anything is wrong.
Cant have an expectation to perform full copyright checks on every rticle, picture, tweet, etc that you might reference.
you know that ACORN doesn't exist, right? It was killed they lost federal funding, due to that guy making the fake video. Congress overreacted and killed funding, and ACORN collapsed.
And I love how getting poor, inner-city, and other American Citizens involved with voting for their own benefit is considered voter fraud, because they primarily don't vote for the Republican Party; but things like this, well everyone should just sit down, shut up, its in the past we just all need to move on and accept the a&& screwing.
If any lawsuit comes of this, and NoScript is classified as a circumvention device because of the way NY Times is coded....
Then I have a new business model:
1. Create some content & copyright it.
2. Go look for companies that make plugins.
3. Analyze plugins for software that disables things
4. Build a Paywall that can be disabled by the plugin.
5. Encrypt Content
6. Contact the plugin developer, and let them know that their software is in violation of DCMA, because it could be used to circumvent your copyright protection. You won't sue them, if they pay you $10,000 (or $100k, or $1m, depending on the size of the company). Then you change your paywall design to use the next plugin. Repeat.
This can be used for permanent markers as well.
Your welcome, Internet.
Missing the Point: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
While some will argue there is no harm, I don't think that ANYONE will argue the impact that Napster had on the recording industry. Before Napster, record companies controlled music DISTRIBUTION, and by colluding on price, they forced the price of physical media up, where if this was a free marketplace, the price would be lower.
When a new distribution model was invented (the internet), and digital music production massively reduced the costs of creating music, the record companies sought to keep the same or continue to increase the prices of music, even though their costs dropped astronomically (you don't even have to pay for travel/hotels anymore, email music files around).
What I'm getting at is that since the dawn of digital distribution, record companies CANNOT maintain the same business model. Yes, online piracy changed things. BUT - the cat is out of the bag. These businesses can moan and complain and pay for legislation, but it won't change the fact that an entire generation grew up thinking that paying $20 for 10 songs is stupid. THEY WILL NEVER COME BACK. Its like taxes, once they go up, they've gone up. Kids will never see the value of an album at the price point RIAA wants.
The record companies can spend BILLIONS of OUR TAXES to try to maintain their model, or they can find another way to do business. Right now, they are focusing on #1. We're still fighting the war on drugs, so they will probably likewise continue to send YOUR TAX MONEY down the drain trying to fix their profits for the rest of your lifetime.
Read the article.
CNET is saying not just In-App purchases, but any purchase that can be downloaded on the device (so that could be books, VOD, who knows)
Now, THAT would really suck - so this would bring us back to 2003 where I could buy an app for my Treo, but then had to download it to my PC and sync it.
That kinda thing would make me want to look for another tablet (i love my iPad).
Demonstrating how a competitor values Google's results isn't childish, its good business sense.
Think of it this way - when you prepare to write an article, you use all sorts of sources to put your data together. This is techcrunch or some other competing website noticing that every time you write an article, you source techcrunch (sometimes a little, sometimes a lot).
So, Techcrunch says "Techdirt uses OUR analysis and research and articles as a source - we must be THAT GOOD!" and then go on to say how techdirt must be in a sad state if they have to use techcrunch's research, and they should really go do the work themselves.
Yeah, everyone knows that all reporters quote each other anyway, so its not really relevant, BUT its great press.
Crack me up - you are talking about ex-vitro fertilization. Sperm from a syringe. Instead of playing dumb, why don't you try to actually debate, instead of looking for a way to bring in ABORTION. This isn't mommy and daddy - its a sterile lab with eggs and sperm.
The research that YOU posted said that these eggs were NEVER inside a mother, they are 100% from lab fertilization.
So, they are eggs cooked up in a lab, and you think that God has a plan for each and every one. Too bad, I thought you might have a real debate. Can't argue that - people are magic!
So - Lab babies, John Doe thinks that each one is precious. Do you think that the entire practice of lab fertilization should end (since, God wanted a man and woman only to have babies naturally), or are you really saying that if the lab creates 10 embryos to get 1 viable, that all 10 should be raised ala Octomom?
And every sperm in your body, if it fertilizes and egg, can end up being a human being as well.
Is that a baby in your book?
So, you are calling murder every time a mother fertilizes 10 eggs, and then choses one to develop - is that mass murder? How about when a mother's body rejects a fertilized egg - is that manslaughter?
The thing I really can't stand is people with this position, never look at the effects of their stance beyond the birth. If every fertilized egg is a potential human, and all potential humans have a right to exist, please tell me what you propose to do with the mass increases of poverty, population, and children in the system to support such a stance? Oh right, the churches should just take care of it, and you should only have sex when you are trying to make a baby.
Right. Good luck with that.
First, Mr. Owen was not seen throwing gang signs.
Second, if you live in the inner city/urban areas, its pretty much impossible NOT to hang out, or have friends who are associated with gangs. Your childhood friends, relatives, etc all might end up joining gangs; living in these areas, one doesn't just stop associating with people because of that (esp for self protection - you don't want to seem like a person who might be willing to snitch).
Third, if you live in an area controlled by a certain gang, you also must not wear colors of another gang, or will face frequent beatings etc. The color of safety - Black, or, include the gang's color with your other clothing...it doesn't make you part of the gang, but it does make you blend in. Never wear green in a red gang area, if you want to live.
This type of law is intentionally left vague, so that not much is needed to convict. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that this guy had done anything criminal, except to be photographed with gang members, and having a grill.
With that as evidence, just about every rapper right now should be convicted for the same crime.
It doesn't seem that the customers are worried about people being able to see their boat, but from businesses using it as a prop in an ad. I see this as a complete different subject. If Babs had complained about a commercial using the pictures of her house in it, vs pictures available to the general public for free - different.
This was a very carefully framed shot, with that boat intentionally used as a prop - that shot wouldn't have been the same without the boat. It was a substantial part of those three seconds of film.
Many states allow you to ask the police officer to show you the speed results, and if they cannot produce them (i.e. didn't actually catch you on the gun, or if they cleared the results), you can have the ticket overturned. Believe this was in CA.