But they're not just giving the start/stop times--they're releasing the actual video--which is infringement.
A more interesting question would be--could you consider this fair use? They are not releasing the entirety of the three movies--just the parts used in the edit, it was not done for commercial purposes, it's a commentary on how bad the originals were--and the only way to demonstrate that is to release this edit, and it has only limited effect on the value of the originals--the great majority of those interested in viewing this version already have or have seen the originals.
Sure all modern digital panels do this, of course it has to be implemented properly (it's not in all cases). Do portable device screens do this? Maybe, who knows. How about analog HDTVs and SDTVs? Not a chance.
This is so idiotic that it boggles the mind. No screen in the world reports its screen size--they report its resolution (number of pixels). My 24in PC monitor has the exact same resolution as my 40in HDTV (1920x1080 pixels). No screen manufacturer is going to put the money into developing and implementing a system for a service that doesn't exist. And who will pay for this service if no TV supports it? It's like 3D TV all over again--how many people watch 3D movies at home?
Re: Re: Re: Re: One law for me, and another for thee
That's not the role of the court.
Yes, but if evidence of a crime by someone other than the defendant comes out in the course of a trial, you bet that it should and is reported to the proper authorities. Do you honestly think the courts are allowed to just ignore it?
I think this so-called "research chief" needs to show some actual research. Making a statement that only 19% of viewers posted to social media is bad needs some numbers--and you know, some actual research--to back it up.
What percentage were they expecting (or hoping) would use social media? Where's the research showing that it would be valid to believe that?
Why do they believe that 19% is a bad number? Do they have research on other events that show that number could be higher?
Honestly, this is an area that any "research" is mostly just vague guessing--to many variables, nothing to compare against, and no ability to repeat any experiments with identical variables.
No, they were correct in pulling the car over. Issues with verifying a plate number in heavy traffic are common, and the plate could have been switched to another car. But the car was stopped with a cop in front and back, you would think they would manually rerun the plates, before confronting the driver (he wasn't going anywhere at that point). In every traffic stop I've been involved in, it's been a minute (or more) after the stop before the officer gets out of his car to talk to you. I always assumed they were running the plates at this time to check for any outstanding issues on the car or the registered owner. Taking a minute to verify this manually would have turned a situation that caused citizen concern (and sparked the attention of the media) into something everyone involved gets a chuckle out of (and no one else hears about).
We're sorry Mrs. Buttle, We were looking for an Archibald Tuttle--but, you know--mistakes happens.
What worries me is after pulling the car over an eyeball verification and manually rerunning of the plate number would have told them that this was not the car or plate they were looking for. They just blindly accepted that the ALPR was correct in reading the plate. And you can't tell me they couldn't see the license plate for a manual verification after the car in question pulled over and stopped.
To truly see how ridiculous this is replace the word "phone" with "house" and see how it looks.
Rather, the primary function of a warrant requirement would be to preclude officers from searching a house when they have reason to believe that it contains evidence of crime, but cannot establish the higher standard of probable cause—or cannot obtain a warrant before a house becomes inaccessible.
Becomes rather chilling, doesn't it?
Of course, I always thought that the Fourth Amendment was created specifically to make the police's job harder.
But you know, they have my sympathy. It must be really hard to get a police state started up with all those pesky rules in the way.
Yes, because cell phone manufacturers and service providers are able to take the basic Android ROM and make as many changes to it as they see fit. The OEM version of Windows that Dell gets from Microsoft is identical to the one that HP gets and the only thing they can change is adding the pre-installed software (the Windows OS comes pre-compiled, the Android ROM is source code). If the PC OEMs could lock you from uninstalling that crap they would.
At some point they will stop wasting money bundling such crap with the hardware.
Not likely, If it's like all the bloatware that comes pre-installed on OEM PCs--The software-makers are the ones paying the manufacturers to bundle that crap with the hardware. I seriously doubt the hardware manufacturers would be willing to turn down free money. Plus, it reduces the cost of the manufacturing the hardware--meaning more profit with little extra work involved.
All I'm trying to get at, and I'm not saying it's outcome determinative or necessarily bad, I'm just saying your legal opinion is based solely on circumventing current legal precedent that you don't want to comply with, which is fine. I mean, that's -- you know, judges do that.
As Lee notes, as easy as it is to ascribe comic-book levels of ill-intent here, that's unlikely. McCoy and others genuinely believe what they're doing is the right thing.
Nope. I used to give them the benefit of doubt, but I don't buy that anymore. These people have spent their entire careers rationalizing that what's enriches them and furthers advancement for them and their cronies must be what's good for the country. They have ignored dissenting opinions for far too long (I don't believe for a second that they haven't received information from anyone other than the industry they are regulating) that it can only be a deliberate attempt to subvert the regulatory processes for their own personal gain.