so someone needs to mirror all of the CC content and make sure a free repository for it continues to exist
Actually, your previous sarcastic post is very on-topic, here. It should be perfectly legal for someone at an academic institution which pays Elsevier's blackmail money for this journal to run an automated process which downloads the articles of the journal (which were published by Wiley under a CC license) and puts them up for free on a competing website.
This whole thing smells of complicity between academic publishers to try to undermine the open access trend via "journal swapping". Or maybe... "journal evergreening"?
Similarly, you have the right to the fair use of copyrighted materials. You can fairly use copyrighted materials all you like. That's the point of your fair use rights.
How does this jive with the legality of DRM and the DMCA? Seems to me that either DRM would be illegal as violating my fair use "rights", or fair use isn't really a right.
Or is my fair use right the right to use the copyrighted material even if for all practical purposes it is impossible for me to do so --- kind of like Eldred where indefinite extension, even if it for all practical purposes contradicts "for a limited time", since it doesn't literally then it's OK?
Personally I like actual rights, not fictions thereof.
> doesn't change the nature of that very thing's molecules, or the law.
My reading of the post you are replying to is that FedEx is not refusing to ship it because it is illegal. This is merely a business decision: FedEx is refusing to ship it in order to reduce its chance it will be sued (or be hurt by negative PR) over a subsequent shooting incident.
If the other AC is correct, however, that FedEx has no problem with shipping actual firearms and ammunition, then this looks like a really strange business decision...
The duty associated with the fair use right would, like the duty to not trespass, be the duty to not sue, seek injunctions, or demand payment or takedown of any work that falls under fair use.
The sticker in this is "that falls under fair use". Since copyright law did not deign to explictly define what uses are "fair use", only a court can decide that, in which case either the copyright holder is being denied "due process" since he is effectively denied the possibility of taking the actions you have listed, or the "right" of fair use has been effectively castrated.
Right... from Intel, Bosch, and Panasonic... we certainly can trust them to both not actively cooperate with national intelligence agencies, and be competent to defend themselves against active attack by said agencies (like Sony!)...
Did that 16 kg. of meth somehow make its way to you?
Last time I checked, the Freenet protocol wasn't disguised. I see no reason it couldn't be blocked just as easily as VPNs. To get around this kind of censorship, you need something like a proxy which accepts HTTPS which is just disguised VPN traffic. I remember reading sometime in the last few years about a different protocol which used the HTTPS headers somehow to enable a kind of transparent redirection, but I cannot find it now.
Eventually if that falls through, there's always steganography. But the data rate for that sucks.
I'll have to add myself in as old and distrusting, but I have to also add that in this new day and age, I have the constant fear that as my own information source curator, I will eventually get stuck in a self-made bubble world.
I suppose that's better than being stuck in an externally imposed bubble world, though.
The product that is being stolen, the movies that are produced by Hollywood, is the exact same one that is in theaters.
Well, you've just shown that business savvy isn't exactly your strong point. Time and time again, I've witnessed arguments on the net concerning the "cinema experience" vs. the "personal viewing experience".