Maybe I'm not human then. [grin] The only time I assumed that I was being referenced in a work of fiction was a novel by someone who knows me... and the name was my own not-terribly-common name. Oh, and the author said it was me.*
--- * No, I didn't sue. I laughed. A lot. It was an inside joke regarding firearms preferences; pretty darned funny to those who know me.
Why would Gravano want people to think that's her? (Aside from the money that she isn't going to get anyway, that is.)
Oddly enough, I've had my own run-ins with folks who think I'm writing about them. A woman was apparently convinced that one of my characters was her. But she never said which one, leaving me to hope it wasn’t the the pissed off lady with the .357 Magnum and a box of explosives.*
At least she didn't sue me.
----- * "Point of Honor", which those interested can find in The Anarchy Belt (freebie).
I'm most often in the "suspicious of government motives, but doubtful of conspiracy to the point of ridicule" camp, but my quick read of the proposal (I haven't gone through all 78 pages yet) suggests that what folks feared is exactly what the survey was going to do.
The three listed main goals of the study could be/are met without the newsroom interviews that were proposed.
1. "the access (or potential barriers) to CINs as identified by the FCC": The proposed news census would have done that,
2. "the media that makes up media ecologies...": Doesn't matter. The media is a black box; you ddon't need to know what's inside in order to observe the CIN "output" which they claim was their concern.
3. "the use of and interaction between media that makes media ecologies...": Reading further, you'll discover this translates into "Where do people get their news?" That question is answered through the news census and surveys of the users.
Nothing in those goals requires grilling media management or staff as proposed. To the extent that anyone is interested in the process of ensuring that outlets provide what the consumers want, that's marketing research conducted by the media so they can sell more advertising.
THIS is crap; and I can understand why people are worried about the big license grantor walking in and demanding access and answers:
Page 10, "Qualitative Analysis of Media Providers" is the tricky section, with the real kicker on page 11:
"The final component of this qualitative piece involves the execution of in-depth interviews with corporate management, local management, and support staff. We suggest a maximum of 56 media provider sites (radio and television stations) be surveyed. Within that maximum, interviews will be conducted within each market, stratified by market size. We propose that interviews be conducted at six sites in each of the selected small markets, ten sites in the selected medium markets, and 12 sites in large markets. Five interviews will be conducted at each media site. The selection of the type of staff to interview within each market shall be largely dependent on the number of properties within each market. The maximum number of interviews will be capped at 280."
And on page 12: "The purpose of these interviews is to ascertain the process by which stories are selected, station priorities (for content, production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CINs, and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations. Due to the highly sensitive nature of information collected (particularly among reporters and anchors of television news stations), demographic information will not be reported. Additionally, confidentiality will be assured among all participants interviewed."
"While the police may not have been required to corroborate the CI’s assertions, once they undertook this surveillance and observed no such criminal activity, this lack of corroboration should have been included in the warrant application."
JBT Translation: "Once you've got a snitch's story, don't bother investigating before you ask for a warrant."
"Help out a slow guy by explaining why "copyright infringement" by an individual isn't theft, while copyright infringement by a corporation is theft."
..and immediately started talking about "Copyright infringement by an individual", I just naturally assumed you were addressing my request. Silly me.
T"ry to clarify what you're" answering. "It'll be easier."
As for this: "It deprives them because if the copyrights have transferred, then those people have lost the rights to sell, modify, remix, re-record, etc. their own work."
Make up your mind. If copyright doesn't legally prevent individuals copying files, then it doesn't prevent creators copying their files. If an assigned copyright prevents a creator copying the files, then it prevents other nonholders of the copyright copying the files. Either copyright exists, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Unless your meds have worn off.
Moreover, if the "copyright" itself -- not the work -- was stolen as you and MrWilson would have it, then the copyright reassignment by definition is invalid, and the invalid reassignment confers no privilege on the thief.
MrWilson wrote: "Musicians who have had their copyrights stolen by corporations are victims of theft." Which prompted me to ask: "Help out a slow guy by explaining why "copyright infringement" by an individual isn't theft, while copyright infringement by a corporation is theft."
Whereupon PaulT disingenuously pretends that I asked something else.
"Copyright" is a government created privilege that protects the fair chance of a creator to make a buck. Like it or not, and I figure you don't -- nor do I actually -- in our current system, "copyright" is a legal doctrine which assumes that unauthorized copying does deprive the copyright holder. Therefore, in the existing system, something "is lost".
If, as you assert, "copyright" does not protect against unauthorized copying, then "copyright" is an intangible that can't be taken physically. You are in the position of saying that the word "copyright" only means something when you want it to mean something, then accusing meof playin g games with semantics. Why not "Just use the words that apply"?
You'll note that in my examples I very specifically addressed whether copies or pysical originals were taken in each scenario. I wasn't speaking of a legal fiction, a government-provided privilege that protects the ownership of data being taken; I spoke of the data being taken of copied.
Back to my original question, paraphrased for the logic-impaired. Why is unauthorized copying by an individual not theft if the same act by a corporation is theft? How does MrWilson's "copyrights stolen by corporations" deprive the artists of the data/information/songs/books/etc they still have? How does a corporation steal a an intangible government-provided privilege; a forged contract assigning the rights to the company? That's a clear criminal violation -- fraud -- right there, as is a company defrauding others of money be lying and claiming to own a copyright it doesn't possess.
For Bog's sake, if the information is an intangible that isn't lessened, nor the creator deprived, by copying, then how is a gov-granted monopoly on that very data any more tangible lessened by "taking".
Oddly enough, MrWilson, I didn't use the terms " copyright rape" or "copyright murder"; you did. Now, I might call that technique a "strawman argument", but I'm sure you'd come up with something that makes you sound like less of an @ss. Similarly, I didn't use the term "pirate" as you did.
I do note that you admit that this unauthorized use constitutes a crime (" a description of the crimes committed "). Even though you don't want to call it theft. Get used it. You may -- as even I do -- think the current system of copyright law is wrong. But... it is the law for now. A great many people whose works have been used without authorization do colloquially refer to this as theft, since it often does (contrary to "information wants to be free" types') negatively impact sales.* "Colloquial" is the key here. Possibly it escaped your notice that musicweek.com is not a court, and their article was not a formal legal ruling from the bench.
Interestingly, in the US, copyright infringement has formally been considered theft, as opposed to mere colloquial usage. Public Law 113-52 (17 USC § 504) includes language that implemented... ...wait for it... the Digital THEFT Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 (emphasis added-cb).
"Musicians who have had their copyrights stolen by corporations are victims of theft. The public who has had its public domain works stolen by Congress and their masters in those corporations are victims of theft. As Nina would say, "copying is not theft"
Now you've confused me. Help out a slow guy by explaining why "copyright infringement" by an individual isn't theft, while copyright infringement by a corporation is theft. Are you suggesting that the record companies are breaking into musicians' houses at night at making off with all their sheet music and lyrics, leaving no copies behind? Did all those works that were in public domain magically evaporate (some sort of scifi-ish retroactive temporal anomaly) from the universe when Congress changed the rules? And if Congress were to abolish copyrights would currently protected works in the physical hands of artists everywhere somehow vanish and reappear in in someone else's hands, or would such legislation only affect... copying which "as Nina would say, 'copying is not theft.'"?
Why is something affecting copies sometimes "theft" and sometimes not?
--- * I'm all for reforming, or even eliminating, the current copyright system. I await a reasonable explanation of what incentive creators will have to write books, songs, or otherwise create new works in a "the words aren't yours/info wants to be free" (two phrases I heard many times from people who didn't think they should even kick in a small voluntary donation for my books) scenario. When I get that explanation, maybe I'll dust off the next two manuscripts in my series and publish them.
...since they only steal money from banks, rather than the actual buildings?
C'mon, complaining about "copyright thief" in a very abbreviated headline that indicates topic and not specific details is nitpicking. They used the term to indicate a general class of theft, not that a copyright was stolen.
Not theft. Your babble would be more entertaining, and just possibly mildly useful, if you knew WTF you're talking about. The USPS page doesn't cite the actual law, but the applicable US Code title and section is:
Specifically: "(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender."
The US Code " is what applies equally to all people [in the US], and you should learn it".
In related news, regulators are moving to ban water testing, soil pH testing, and Radio Shack multimeters on the grounds that stupid effing regulators are incapable of properly understandin g test results. Meanwhile the Department of Education is evaluating the possible effects on Common Core testing, as they are unsure which group they should consider idiots: students, teachers, parents, or themselves.
Digression: Do I understand correctly that K-man calls himself "Dr. Chaps", a monicker which -- given the homosexuality subcontext -- immediately brought to mind the Village People's gay, chaps-clad cowboy?