As written, perhaps, but in practice, there are so many small sections of fence out there that you can barely take a step in any direction without stepping over one.
Also, they're often practically invisible so that you don't know you've crossed someone else's fence until their lawyer is knocking on your door demanding rent.
And they're movable fences, so...ok...analogy broken.
Speaking of quality lulz..."If patents had prevented the web we might have had something even better. Stupid open standards produced a crappy internet!" That's an all-expenses paid vacation to Fantasy Island.
What's that? It sounded like you said that the whole piracy kerfuffle is just a lot of posturing and playing politics whose eventual goal is to secure wealth and power for a bunch of glorified salesmen riding on the backs of artists and techies. It sounded like you said that this was just another datum of evidence that they really don't care at all about artists and will do whatever it takes to maintain control and that we shouldn't be surprised that they would turn on an artist who don't toe the line since they turned on their customers years ago.
That's what it sounded like anyway. Maybe i misheard.
Copyright Hero™ and Grammar Nazi™ are both Registered Trademarks of Inaction Comics™ and their use is not authorized in this discussion. Please cease and desist any invocation of these or any other intellectual properties of Inaction Comics™ or we will be forced to seek legal remedy.
Regardless of what the DOJ says about it, it is the lawyers' ethical obligation to read those documents in order to provide the best defense possible for their clients. A (corrupt) judge could exclude the contents of those documents from being used as evidence, but the DOJ should not have the right to bar them from reading them.
Of course, this whole subject is neck deep in the DOJ doing things they should not be doing, so...yeah.
Not to be too condescending about it because i think that really these are a bunch of people who are caught in a bad situation, but the job only requires a GED or a year of experience as a luggage screener or X-ray tech. These are not law enforcement officers. They are not adequately trained to assess real threats and deal with them. Real security would be too expensive so we get security theater instead.
We have a situation where the people in charge really just want to cover their asses and avoid being blamed for the next bad thing that happens so they make up long lists of rules to cover every conceivable attack. That way when something inevitably happens, the people in charge can say they were prepared, but Joe TSO on the bottom rung of the ladder didn't follow the correct procedures - it's his fault, not ours.
It's a failure of leadership that started well before 9/11 and is perpetuated by partisanship and fear.
I view it as my ethical (not legal) responsibility to secure my wireless, but i would also consider it to be a good deed to provide free internet access to my neighbors who can't afford their own. Unfortunately, the risk of doing so just seems too high.
Anyone have tips for administering an open wireless connection while still being a responsible network operator and minimizing the chances of finding myself in this guy's situation?
Without getting into the merits of the case, i find it very plausible that Zuckerberg would make such an offer. This is not billionaire Zuckerberg we're talking about - this is poor college hacker Zuckerberg. $1000 was a lot of money to that Zuckerberg and there was no way anyone could have predicted the success of his little project. That's precisely why we have so many legal cases about it now. At the time, no one thought the details of who did and owned what mattered. They didn't even know how to make money off of it until after it was already wildly popular - it was just a big money pit for a long time.
I could stick a bunch of bootleg discs in the trunk of my car and then sell them to people. My car is clearly inducing piracy. Ford should install anti-piracy measures in their cars and pay a licensing fee to the *AAs to offest the inevitable harm those groups will suffer as a direct result of cars.
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 31st, 2011 @ 11:30pm
In general, i think publicity rights cases are pretty stupid, but i don't want to see Jackie Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe teaming up on Martin Luther King Jr. We live in a world where celebrity sex tapes are pretty common, so I don't think social pressure is going to stop it from happening, so what are we left with?