Art museums have been claiming copyright on the public domain since time immemoriam, or at least since the first art museum gift shop was opened. Just look at the back of any postcard in such a shop...
Uhm, I totally agree with the fair use thing, but Mike should be the absolutely last person to be pulling out a weak argument that virally popular things actually disappear from the Internet once they've been "taken down".
OK, put your job where your mouth is. I dare you to upload original (or at least modified so that the content itself won't be automatically identified) porn to imgur.com (or any other image/file hosting site on the net) and then test your proxy's ability to block it. (You don't have to turn yourself in, in case you were wrong. Just be careful not to pee your pants from the anxiety.)
Or, possibly you could admit that your idealized world isn't, well, exactly reality?
You do seem to either have a problem with personal ethics, or the ability to expect ethical behavior in others. "Telecommuter" was stealing taxpayers' money, and not in the "government is inefficient" sense, in a very direct sense which said "Telecomuter" should have been aware of.
Frankly, in this story, something smells, and if I were investigating, the first possibility I'd investigate was that said "Telecommuter" was blackmailing said manager.
> and if we find just one image, do not pass "go", fired.
Talk about chilling effects. If I worked at your place, for sure I would only browse using a smartphone with uncensored net access. Even for browsing for work reasons. A pretty big thumbs down for working at your institute.
OTOH, your enthusiastic enforcement means that my fitting a small, inconspicuous device to anyone's keyboard cable could enable me to get him fired at will. I wouldn't find that an advantage, but I'm sure lots of assholes would.
OTOH, anyone could fit one of those on my computer. OK, for sure now I'm not getting near your workplace. Or it that what you really meant by
> There's no excuse for them not to have a proxy
as in, "them", the individual workers, running their own filtering software, trying to keep their jobs?
> if the e-mail says not to forward it, could be > copyright infringement, making one liable > for a $150,000 fine
I'm all for copyright reform, but I think Khanna should know better than to say this without qualification, making this statement, more or less, FUD. The $150K fine is only for registered works, and face it, the risk that a friend of yours has applied to the Copyright Office for an official copyright registration on his email is, essentially, zero.
Are you blind? Did you somehow overlook Viacom vs. YouTube, in which Google presented evidence that Viacom authorized the posting of numerous "pirated(-looking) videos" on YouTube as a form of viral marketing?
> Congress was so intent on providing safe harbors
I wasn't there when the DMCA managed to get through, but given what I've been seeing about Congress recently, it seems to me to be equally likely that they were just "so intent" on pushing something through, so they could continue to collect big campaign contributions from certain lobbyists...
I find your comment simultaneously both insightful and ironic, since the "mentality" of copyright most often resonates with the philosophy of "moral rights" (which is widespread in Europe) rather than the relatively strict view of copyright as an economic issue which is mostly found in US law.
Do you always feel an urgent need in public forums to repeatedly post over and over again, in a futile attempt to drown out other opinions, rather than actually countering them?
Your understanding of science seems limited. For example, why did you post an "op-ed" piece from the BMJ as evidence? You don't seem to realize that in order to come to a conclusion, you have to review the whole body of scientific literature on a subject, rather than just cherry-picking?