While it may be a professional courtesy, and he MAY have broken that professional courtesy, she has made accusations of theft in her commentary,...
No, she did not. She did not even, as Mike Masnick claims, make accusations of plagiarism. She used the subjunctive mood to express that since the story was not fiction, it was therefore not plagiarized.
... and certainly expressed ownership in the story.
All she did was express that she was the one who initially broke the story. Or do you think that all those news outlets who trumpet that they were the first to break a story also claim ownership of the story?
Breaking a story is a meaningful accomplishment when reporting news (the name "news" should serve as something of a giveaway), and worthy of recognition separate from any notion of ownership or copyright. The only impression I got from reading her article was her disappointment at not receiving that recognition. Whether she is deserving of being credited for breaking the story, I can not say, but any inferences that she was making claims beyond this are in my opinion a misreading of her words.
As an example, ripping a game or DVD or whatever that has DRM, and putting it on your own hard drive would appear to be okay. What if you upload it to a "backup" service? What if that "Backup" service allows others to access you files? At what point did it becoming infringing?
It's quite simple. If at some point the activity were infringing then at that point the circumvention (performed at an earlier point) would be in breech of 1201. While a bit awkward (but not without legal precedent), it makes more sense then prohibiting a legal activity based upon speculation that a later illegal action might possibly occur.
The group went beyond making there voice heard, and refusing to attend the showing, and tried to get the showing stopped, and prevent others from seeing the film.
So signing a petition asking that those who decided to show the film not do so is going too far? What would that make writing a blog article asking that those who sign such petitions not do so? Why should one be considered censorship and the other freedom of speech?
"What about the other students who are just fine with this? They pay tuition too, last I checked. If I was a student there, I wouldn't have a problem with the university showing this movie." And your freedom to voice your opinion about showing the movie should be recognized.
My opinion is that those who made the choice to show this movie showed very poor judgment. The movie was not being presented as a study in filmmaking or to prompt discussion of historical events -- it was chosen as entertainment for a social event "catering to the interests of a diverse student population". As such, it was an extremely poor choice for the program (especially when the university's campus is situated in a region that has the largest Moslem population in America).
Those who made the decision to show this movie have done a disservice to the university, to its "diverse student population", and to its host community. Hopefully in the future their decisions will be less inconsistent with the traditions of the university and the purported ambitions of the Umix program.
The point is that it IS a protest under the statute.
It seems obvious to me that the EFF wasn't filing a protest against the application. They did not serve notice to the patent applicant, they did not use the “Information Disclosure Statement" forms for filing a protest, they did not specify the filing date of the application, they did not declare that this was to be considered a first or subsequent protest, and they gave no indication that they expected their criticism of the application to be incorporated into the patent application's record.
In their submission, they took none of the necessary or recommended steps associated with filing a protest; they were merely responding to a request by the USPTO for public comments on the proposed guidelines and chose to criticize a particular application as an example case.
One of the things I don't understand with regard to Netflix is: last I checked, Netflix hosts their media files on Amazon Web Services, so why is it Netflix that is being blamed for excessive bandwidth usage? I should think it'd be Amazon, if anyone, who is the one directly culpable.
IIRC the relevant part is the bit where--before getting arrested--his network access had been revoked for previous shenanigans.
IIRC, his wireless access was blocked because he was using too much bandwidth. He then did what some might deem the courteous thing: he connected through a high-bandwidth landline so as to avoid causing problems for wifi users.
The problems with 2D pie charts are less important (though they do exist; do a web search on "pie charts suck" or somesuch), but 3D pie charts are almost always misleading.
First, when you map the chart to 3D, slices that are at the 6 o'clock position (for example) will have their angles increased and their length shortened. While slices at the 3 o'clock position retain their length but have their angles narrowed (here is an example). One can't map a pie chart to 3D with both the angles and the areas accurately representing the data, thus accurate comparison of the information being presented by the slices is a challenge.
Also, the color added to the "front" slices due to the thickness of the pie tends to exaggerate the size of those slices. In the case of the first pie chart in this article, the percentage of green is about 15% larger than the data dictates, while the amount of red, blue, and magenta shown is about 12% less.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that it was fifty years ago that the Free Speech Movement student protests took place at the University of California's Berkeley campus. Here is an interesting chronological description of events that appeared in the student newspaper soon after the event.
According to the linked article (I personally do not know the statistics), there have been that many months of jail time assessed by Obama's administration; and only 10 months of jail time assessed by all others.
Based on this, the Techdirt title, "Obama Administration Has Put Media Leakers In Jail For Nearly 50 Times As Long As All Other Administrations In History", is accurate.