Ah, a fair playing field. Outside that is where we find the good students vs the okay ones. Nothing in life is a fairly played field. If one student is more resourceful than another, should we really be blaming the resourceful student?
I agree with SteelWolf; the purpose of the courses is learning the material. If a students can learn it better by using publicly available practice tests, so be it. They are learning, and that's the whole point here.
I hadn't directly paid for cable since, oh, 2003. I hadn't watched cable since the 90s. And the /only/ reason I have cable now is because it's lumped in with my HOA. I prefer to be without it, with cheaper HOA payment.
UMG can't claim copyright against the poster, since they don't own copyright to the news clip. That's the point here: blame the right party.
The use of the clips in the video, most likely, was fair use, and not challenge. Back in the 80s, fair use was much more accepted than it is today. I'd wager 20/20 didn't have "proper licenses" for the clips either, since ... well ... it is a news report, and fair use was fair back then.
Makes sense, except this isn't whether the video on YouTube is fair use. UMG claimed copyright. Since UMG doesn't own the copyright to the original video, clearly it had to do with content within the video. Basically, UMG is claiming copyright against ABC with this take-down.
At first, I immediately jumped to the students' defense. However, the more I think about it, they broke a rule to catch a criminal. In essence, they are a small scale renegade.
Letting the kids off would show it's okay to break the rules to catch a criminal. Although, punishing them could make them less likely to blow the whistle (so to speak).
I keep thinking about the US wiretapping in all this: if the illegal wiretapping caught an actual criminal, would people still be against it? Or should that criminal go free cause the wiretapping was illegal? Hard choices! Stupid gray areas.
I've personally never even heard of her, but looking over the site, I like! I found a few pieces I'm very much interested in building and she does an awesome job laying things out. I'm surely keeping this site around.
Once again, a site that people never heard of, until the lawyers got in the way. I guess I should be thanking the lawyers ... I would have never known about her if it wasn't for them.
"Err...why? I thought the issue with the old dot com days was over-valuing potential monetization of site traffic and coupling that over-valuing with over-valuing stock prices and the potential revenue to be generated through buyouts or public spinoffs. How is this a parallel?"
Wow. That sounds exactly like what the recording industry is doing today: over-valuing the content (music [not to forget movies and publishes, too]). Potential revenue generation from forced user-purchases (bundles; delayed digital releases, etc).
I think Anti-Mike hit the nail on the head with his parallel. That was definitely my first thought when I thought of a recording industry depression (lost of exec jobs, etc).
It makes sense. One of these days, the recording industry will discover it takes 1/3 or even 1/5 the man power they currently posses to do the necessary jobs using the internet. That means a potential 2/3 or 4/5 layoff of industry jobs. Looks like a bubble burst to me!
I'm with the mobile phone operators in that this is not unnecessary, except on one part. Cell phone service contracts are becoming as cumbersome as credit card contracts. I agree, it's often hard to see all these extra ETF fees or what is being charged for what reason.
What this bill SHOULD do is not worry about capping anything (that is what competition is for), but rather focus on making these fees more apparent for the consumer - make a "required diagram" like all credit card contracts have that clearly lists out all the fees, how they are charged and why. This would make it easier for a user to see $350 and decide not to sign. These days people just assume the fee is there, buried, and assume it's something like $150 or $175. Little do people know, it's gone up throughout the years. Requiring cellphone companies to display a clearly readable chart, listing these extra fees, would assist in the consumer confusion AND help lower the ETFs through competition when consumers starting seeing the real costs.
Again, BPI assumes that BT can magically tell which content is infringing and which is not. Just recently, we pointed out that EMI -- in the UK -- was happily distributing infringing mixtapes from Lily Allen off of an EMI owned website.
Mike, you missed one thing here. They said "But the weekly notifications we send to BT relate solely to music files which we know are being shared illegally" which would imply they expect BT to assume BPI is giving them a legitimate list. Your reply would only graze over that, if you read it a certain way. So, here, BPI is not saying the expect BT to magically tell what's infringing; BPI is saying they expect BT to use the list they supplied to BT.
On a personal note, I still disagree with BPI. Having one company take another company's word for who's "illegal" or not is a violation of civil rights. BT has to be able to verify those claims, which often aren't provable, as you've pointed out Mike.
but the social networking sites seriously need to be forced to hold some form of responsibility if they are just going to let things like threats--or worse--happen.
You may be onto something there! We may want to also look into enforcing phone companies to take responsibility for threats over the phone, too. Oh wait...that's right, that would be illegal. And why would it be legal on Facebook? Not to mention we're not even talking completely within US borders anymore.
You do know there are already current laws in place for serious threats on life, right? And I do mean serious. Imagine the world if you got arrested every time you said "I'm gonna kill you!" even though you really had no intent to do so.
Yes, the world is full of childish antics, but you know what? That's life. Learn to live with it and not take it so personal.
"Again, it's worth asking: why does any educational institution or education professional use such obviously biased (and at times misleading) educational materials?"
I think the question here isn't how could they fall for something such obvious, but really - do they understand how biased this really is?
If you ask your average person, even a smart guy, they will be spewing the same numbers, same data. Why? Well, if you want to know about the details of a computer, ask a computer guy. So they use that same logic when asking about the details of piracy and its affects.