"The Court concludes that an award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling." I would just like to point out that the judge did make one mistake in his write up. The plaintiff didn't steal anything, he infringed on copyrights.
Because you DID miss it.
from CommonSense's post above yours
" to this cool new thing that interests him, and point out that even though it was done before, the creator of this particular project had no previous knowledge of the other projects. It's a clear example of independent invention, and that is all. Time between inventions matter as much as the distance between inventors, which should be not at all."
No one missed where he said it had already been invented before, all Mike is saying is that they did it both independently.
I was going to post the same thing. I have groups for different subject matter, like religious debates that I know make some people uncomfortable, tech talk that makes others eyes glaze over, etc. I have hope for Google+ and would love an invite as I'm a current user of Buzz(though not many of my friends use it) and was hoping that it would take off as I go there all the time to check my mail anyway.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Depends on how you use it.
"I'll grant that police may use such phrases in certain situations for classification that may have validity "in the trade" as it were,"
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.
"but I'd contend that classification is very definitely not the primary intent in most cases when it is used in a news article or political speech. Education isn't going to sort that out for you.
News is entertainment and emotions get better ratings than dry fact and politics is a popularity contest and emotions are a very good way of tugging the electorate around."
That part I'm not debating other than to say I think that is what we need to change, will it be easy, no, but I do think it is necessary to make the fight.
Okay, all very good points.
"Both would fall under the artificial bucket "street crime" though, and how is it important to seperate a mugging on the street from a mugging where, for example, the victim is attacked in their own home to the same result?" In this scenario one would probably have home invasion as the charge rather than mugging, unless, it was over the internet that the "mugging" happened. Then it wouldn't be street crime, it wouldn't be a home invasion, it would be a cyber-mugging, in which case your both describing the severity of the crime, as well as the method. While it was wrong, you could argue convincingly i would think that it was less wrong then breaking into someones home and stealing from them, as the personal violation would probably feel considerably less.
As to your other points I have no doubt that there is a certain emotive content to the word, but like I said before we need to educate that away, not stop using it.
That's pretty circular logic. You stated something so therefore what you stated is right? You are incorrect and I'm showing why you are, just like we should be doing with these reporters and politicians that are incorrect. Wow, look at that, my logic isn't even circular.
I never suggested it should be used to downplay or up the severity of the crime. It is useful however to limit the type of crime we are talking about. If I go punch a guy in the face and steal his wallet that's a violent crime. If I just steal his wallet that's a non-violent crime. I think it's valuable to know that difference and report on it as violent vs non-violent. It makes it easier for the public to understand what happened, that however doesn't mean it should be abused. Like I said I don't agree with a lot of what is reported with the term "cyber-crime" that doesn't mean it's not a valuable label, it just means we need to educate reporters and politicians. That takes time, any new type of crime is always over-reported at first, and with the advent of the 24-hr news media it's that much worse.
I don't particularly care for the term cyber-crime either, but we use other words to describe crime all the time. There is violent crime, street-crime, drug-crime, gun-crime, etc. Cyber-crime is just another definition to limit the type of crime that is being talked about. Do some people get it wrong and use it to describe just about anything that had a computer involved at all? absolutely and those people need to be corrected. That doesn't however mean that the term shouldn't exist.
Just thought I would let you know when your going on about how you can't secure Windows you might want to link to a story that actually has a compromised windows server. From the article "In just one of the many ironies in this story, the compromised server inside of Microsoft appears to have been running Linux, not one of Microsoft’s server technologies. "
I also have to contend that you can secure Windows, it just isn't done for the majority of consumers out there.
Re: Standard Mike avoidance, hiding behind "some people'.. typical...
From the third article linked in the storie.
"Australian Sex Party leader Fiona Patten said the measure amounted to an invasion of privacy, and warned that many tourists and even Australians would not know what pornography was illegal.
"They are still totally confusing," she said of the arrival cards.
"What is illegal to import to our country is not necessarily illegal to possess," she added."
Not sure they would be guilty, wouldn't their manager be part of the band? (In a legal sense) It would be the same for corporations that run facebook pages, the person updating it is (hopefully) a member of the organization.