But like almost everything else law enforcement forensic experts claim are reasonably certain, scientifically-speaking, examination of prints no more guarantees a match than examining bite marks.
A few months ago I had to be fingerprinted as part of obtaining clearance for work. I went to a place that performed fingerprinting, which they did by pressing my fingers up against the glass surface of some sort of scanning machine, which fed the results into a computer.
They were supposed to run each finger twice to make sure they matched. The guy running it had to do each finger multiple times because he couldn't get matches, and several times he just overrode the requirement to get a second print after multiple failures.
This makes me think maybe I ought to go commit a crime, because my prints don't match themselves! :P
We've been discussing for a while now about how the MPAA, with the help of the Copyright Office, has been propping up the complete myth that the FCC's plan to create more competition in the cable set top box space involves violating the copyrights of studios. It's a complete myth.
Meh. Only if you think, like some sort of ridiculously antiquated reasonable person that copyright is a right to control copying. Wherever would you get such a silly, outmoded idea? Ever since the DMCA passed and gave us legal protection for DRM, we have been able to achieve it's true goal: a right to control usage! And as such, this plan clearly violates our copyright! - the MAFIAA
I listened to this on the way in to work this morning. (It's very convenient, as these podcasts tend to last almost exactly as long as my commute.) And I was a bit shocked by what I heard, because one thing kept going through my head: what if it were Comcast?
Take this story, keep it exactly the same as far as is possible to do so, but replace "Facebook" with "Comcast," and Mike's position would almost certainly have been the polar opposite of the opinions expressed here. He would have (quite reasonably!) pointed out that a content delivery platform needs to deliver the content and stay out of deciding what content is worthy of delivering and what content is not, no?
The thing is, this makes it prohibitively expensive for the publishers too. It would force them to focus on infringement that's 1) real and 2) actually causing problems for them, and drop this ridiculous idea of "let's use this tool to suppress anything and everything that's not 100% under our control just because we can."
Again, this is why the DMCA takedown system (calling it a "safe harbor" is an Orwellian abuse of our language) needs to be done away with. Nothing should be forcibly taken down until it has been demonstrated in a court of law that it's illegal.
Yes, because after losing the first meritless suit, it would set a precedent. This would make future meritless suits that much harder. And with organizations like the EFF around, crushing a non-"biggest player" under the weight of a bogus IP lawsuit isn't as easy as it used to be.
The first part is insane. Young actually wants service providers to be fully responsible for the actions of their users.
I'm actually fully in favor of repealing the DMCA "safe harbor", for exactly the opposite reason. Without the legalized extortion of the takedown system required to qualify for safe harbors, service providers could tell copyright trolls that it's not their problem because they operate as a common carrier. The DMCA makes it their problem.
All of the problems we have with copyright abuse and the desire for ever-greater takedowns and "staydowns" is built upon the foundation of the DMCA. Get rid of it and the liability shifts to the person who posted the content, not the company that delivered it. Get rid of it, and we restore Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence--we restore basic sanity to digital copyright, in other words. Get rid of it, and we require studios to actually prove in a court of law that something needs to be taken down before it can be taken down.
That's not the "larger point" that I was making. The point was that if blaming this guy for "driving his roommate to suicide" is a bunch of crap--and it is--then so is blaming the prosecutors for "driving Aaron Swartz to suicide," which certainly seems to be a position that Techdirt favors.
As we've explained a few times, while there's an obvious emotional reaction to someone killing themselves, no one fully knows why they did it other than the individuals themselves. And, blaming others for mean things they may have done after someone commits suicide is a really dangerous place to go. It actually encourages suicide by letting people think that killing themselves will "punish" those who are tormenting them. But the biggest thing is that we shouldn't blame one person based on the actions of another.
...unless, of course, it's Aaron Swartz, in which case it's all the prosecutors' fault for driving him to suicide by doing their job.
Again, copyright was created with the explicit purpose of suppressing abusive publishers. When it starts to be used to enable abusive publishers, the framework has become corrupt and needs to be reworked.
Living space in New York, for example, will always be desirable
Yeah, maybe if you're a sardine. By and large, people living in NYC live there by necessity, or because they were born there and don't have any easy way to leave. In all my life I've known a grand total of one person who wanted to move there, and she was crazy. (No, literally. She suffered, quite severely at times, from bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia.)
This would be surprisingly simple to fix: just fix the definition of profit.
Taxable profit in [country] is the sum total of all money earned by sales of goods and services in [country] minus all money spent on goods, services, and wages in [country]. Period.
This definition fixes the "move revenue overseas" tax dodge: if you're spending that money in another country, it doesn't affect the money you're spending in this country. It also the additional benefits of disincentivizing offshoring of jobs, and disincentivizing buying foreign goods rather than domestic ones.
Non sequitur. How does it being a website make it suddenly non-tresspassable? One of the big principles on here is that something doesn't magically become different and all the rules stop applying just because you tack "on a computer" on the end. Well, that works both ways.