All they have to do is look around and realize all the crap Hillary is getting into right now, to know they don't want anyone looking in their mail. They know the mail would likely help create probable cause, so they don't want it to be open.
The critters don't last long if they don't learn to protect themselves!
(for cultural reference, say it in the same tone as "shut up Wesley", it makes more sense).
My point is only that they didn't randomly just show up one day and say "hey, this is illegal!" and randomly send out a DMCA. The owner of the content would generally know it about it's creative commons license, and it's restrictions. It should be noted that the song in question is under the more strict non-commercial Sampling.
So potentially, the posting and hosting of the content in it's entirety on another site isn't a permitted use, rather you would only be allowed to use samples. So having it on the blog may in fact be in violation of the license.
It should also be noted that My Morning Jacket was pretty much an inactive group for a number of years, but returned with a Grammy award winning alt rock album. Perhaps as a result, there is a more aggressive enforcement of their rights that hadn't really been done before.
"It's not just that you're wrong all the time"
No, it's just because your an old geez who can't think past his nose. See above to the tone of "shut up wesley".
" it's that you're always wrong in failed attempts to discredit writers here"
Thankfully, I don't have to discredit you, as you have done it to yourself so often it is laughable.
"And while creatively experimenting with how ads get delivered is certainly part of the solution, it's not going to be a substitute for the one thing broadcasters (and by proxy cable companies) have been totally unwilling to do: offer the same content at a lower price."
You of course realize that NBC is OTA, totally completely and utterly free? There is no cost related to viewing SNL unless you choose to pay someone for cable rather than receiving it OTA. Most cord cutters freely admit that they have rabbit ears or another form of antenna to receive the free OTA. So arguing about cost to view SNL is a total non-starter.
The real take away here though is that (just like with adblockers online) they are just going to move to a model that is in the end even more annoying, turning their "content" into "advertent". So that may mean product placements, ad signs, lower third advertising, brand name usage in the programming, and the like. It's way harder to filter out, and potentially even more valuable to advertisers. It's also more annoying to viewers in the long run. It turns every programming into a sort of disguised informercial, with the content of the show perhaps skewed to fit the products rather than the other way around.
Actually, Apple said no such thing. Their argument in fact was that what was asked was essentially impossible, so they would not try, and that they would continue to fight the order to the very end (generally meaning to SCOTUS).
Apple essentially would have fought the order until it was no longer relevant. In the mean time, you can bet that they are furiously working on an update for all of their phones (including the older ones) to make what the government asked moot.
The link you provide is a page that is mostly broken, hard to tell what it is. However, there appears to have been a nice advertisement for EFF at this point.
Interestingly, this site is apparently not indexed by the wayback machine, which means there is no way to see what the page was in the past. Odd that!
I do note that the page has no real attribution on it. The current CC rules are:
"Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."
It could perhaps be unlicensed as a result of using this to promote EFF without attribution and without clearly stating the relationship between the content and the promoted entity. It may also be that the page has a "share alike" license that does not match the license of the content.
It could just be that he works for Google now... :)
"Translation: it's OK for public servants to refuse to account for their actions because they think it's too hard to do so. What a pathetic excuse"
Nah, pathetic is how desperate you are to slam me. You won't even consider a valid issue, and instead dismiss it out of hand. Then again, you avoided taxes by relocating to a tax haven country, so the costs to the taxpayer for things like this isn't relevant to you, is it?
You can go look online (I suspect you may know how to use Google) and find plenty of police forces facing millions of dollars of costs JUST related to collection and storage of the data, and not even the extraction of it.
"If I refused to provide logs to account for my work, I wouldn't get away with "it takes too long" or "it's too much work". Why is this OK for a police officer?"
See, this proves you are a fucking idiot. It's not just a question of PROVIDING the log (video recording and storage is the easy part, not the problem, idiot!). The problem is in extracting the relevant footage from each officer that was at a scene, and vetting it to make sure that no personal information not relevant to this case is on the tape, that no access is granted to "private" or unsearchable locations, and so on. THINK PAST THE END OF YOUR POINTY LITTLE NOSE FOR A MINUTE and you might realize the problem.
Then again, you are an idiot, so perhaps I expect too much of you.
The length of time or storage would be "life of any case". When you consider that a simple traffic ticket might take years to wander it's way through the courts, you cannot just arbitrarily toss out the video at 30 days to save storage. You must retain everything/
" If it is being effective to reduce police abuse then it should be done, end of the story."
There is always the question of cost. Public services have to live within budgets and within financial constraints as a result, and cannot just do what's right no matter the cost. You have to think of the staggering scale of things and how that relates to cost.
Temporary off buttons are a very bad idea, as it's likely that during any questionable activity someone will "bump" the button and poof, no video. Cameras only work when you record absolutely everything, the "unblinking eye" and then deal with it after the fact. If you really want to put the screws to questionable conduct, then you have to watch ALL the time, not just when the officer thinks it's good.
I think it's bad that they are stopping to use the cameras. I do think that they came to realize however that it's both incredibly expensive and very time consuming to turn the raw video into anything usable, and that they were not ready (or able) to support all that came with it.
"Why the hell would the officer being recorded be the one given responsibility to edit it?"
Paul, with all due respect, you are a fucking idiot.
I didn't say the officers would edit the video. I said that when there was a freedom of information request, someone would have to get the video, extract the items in question, and then review them. The time required to do that (if you have ever done any NLE or similar) is insanely long.
Nobody is saying the officers would edit the footage, the would be fucking insane.
Please, stop answering my posts, you come off like a fucking douche nozzle every time you do.
The problem isn't in the collection of raw footage, except that in the long run it's a very large amount of data that has to be ALL preserved in the same manner that you would preserve any evidence.
The biggest issue is EXTRACTION. A single crime scene could involve a number of officers. You have to find the right dataset, you have to load the full file, you have to locate where the call happened in that video file, extract only the call, and then you have to review everything seen or said on the call to make sure that the material on the video is only related to that crime scene (and no others) and doesn't have any personal information or "private time" that should not be given out (like officer taking a nature break).
You have to think that everything would have to go past a lawyer as well, maybe the DA, and maybe a privacy officer to assure that nobody's privacy is violated.
Overall, just recording it and sticking it on a hard drive somewhere is easy. Managing, maintaining, and using the data is the hard part, both time wise and legally.
So you think it's acceptable for the FCC to impose conditions on a company that would likely lead to a competitor greatly harming it, and at the same time driving consumers to the alternate capped provider?
Seems like it's lose-lose for consumers and the company.
I don't "support" it, but I can understand it. They have gone from a paper report from each agent to hours of cam footage that has to be reviewed, edited, and put together. This isn't like they added a new minutes extra work to the deal, it's adding hours. If you don't think so, just take a camera and record your full work day, and then take the time to edit out anytime you mention someone's name, or take a bathroom break, or eat, or chat on the phone with someone, or show personally identifiable information about people who are not primary to your video (like people standing around when you talk to someone).
Then do that every day for a week.
Suddenly, you will discover that you have to spend MORE time than your day was long at work, but even longer to edit it down.
Then multiply it by the number of officers on a given scene, and you start to understand how much of a burden this could be.
Reality: Cameras are a nice idea, but FOI requests against them appear to be a whole lot more work than anyone wants to admit.
I think you missed it all Tim, you are adding the wrong things up and trying not to understand.
"Meyer could possibly be referring to redaction efforts, which could be time-consuming. He couldn't possibly be referring to the "burden" of uploading film because that's, well, non-existent."
You missed entirely. What they would be talking about is (a) locating the raw uploaded video, (b) extracting only the time each officer was on the scene, and (c) uploading that footage to the area from where whoever requested the information could ask. Depending on their rules and such, it may require that the entire video is viewed and editing (to remove thing like bathroom breaks or non-related discussion such as answering phone or radio calls about other cases or events). It would be burdensome indeed!
"When the going gets tough, the tough say, "Fuck it," apparently. "
It's more a case of coming to realize that this great new source of information doesn't sort, edit, collate, or organize itself, and when you have multiple officers on the scene, it can end up being a really big amount of work to proving the information just like that.