The worst part of it is that there's not that many cameras. But the few cameras that are in use now are placed in public places where most of us demonstrate when we need to (specifically in front of very public government institutions like parliament and government dependencies). The only exception to that is Tigre, which is overpopulated with cameras everywhere.
BTW, I hate to be blunt but the Occupy movements are new an not very well organized. Here in Latin America we have a long history of public demonstrations (I'll say, over 60 years). Occupying public places is part of our democratic culture, and has always been.
Not being from the US, I always found it weird (and disturbing) that it's legal in the US to give any money to an elected official. Both Abramoff and Lessig seem to think that it's impossible that no money is given, but still that's the way it works almost everywhere else. The only reform needed is no money or perks of any kind (including employment) to anyone in an elected role, or their staff. Lobbying should be used to explain the problems, not to push for legislation. And officials should use this information to vote based on their beliefs and those of their constituents. I, being an outsider, don't see the problem with that.
It's really funny that the first line ends with " dándolas como propias"[.] " because there's a reference in wikipedia (obviously omitted in the text of the law). Also, this is a reform of the code to make the sentences longer, so he is probably violating a previous law (although which one is something that is better left to the reader).
BTW, the justification has nothing to do with the amendment to the article. The amendment reads: There will be 3 to 8 years prison to whoever commits fraud by using an assumed name, misrepresents quality, uses fake documents [translation note: specifically college degrees and such], misrepresented influence, abuse of confidence [I really can't understand what test is valid for this] or feigning to have property, credit, commission, enterprise or negotiation or who uses another sort of trick or misrepresentation.
So this is basically a law penalizing lying (and the college degree is kind of hot here right now because of opposing parties that are found not to have the title they say they have) and not a law about plagiarism.
It's also funny that this guy actually has a precedent of being suspect of smuggling counterfeit products himself (http://www.derf.com.ar/despachos.asp?cod_des=72815&ID_Seccion=34).
I don't get it (mainly because I'm not a lawyer ;)). You think that a federal court in Argentina has any say on what Facebook does? Or in the case the activity itself is deemed illegal, do you think that's actually good or enforceable? (you can answer in spanish if it's easier for you, I'll translate).
What I really think (and I didn't include in the submission) is that they're starting to realize that no political affinity is needed to build a demonstration/organization and they're really really scared.
BTW, even though politicians may be parroting the media I think I stated (and submitted) it incorrectly. The "great smoke of Mendoza" was coined by a conservative media representative. Media and politics is almost the same here anyway, so no big wrong.
Reminds me of the time when discussing cryptography was banned in the US. Security by obscurity is never a good idea, some hacker who really doesn't care for your rules will figure crack your stuff, and you'll be worse because you didn't get a bunch of smart people to discuss the best possible security. Not that this applies to DRM directly. DRM will always be lame.
Correlation and causality. Also, I think we both can name plenty of authors from before the copyright days, all european. And I think that you probably can't name any author from countries with extensive copyright law (like Albania, Argentina, Bulgaria, Colombia which has a copyright even longer than the US, Cote d'Ivoire, Mexico right beside your border, etc.)
I still have to find a proper answer to "how does copyright promote anything?". Study after study after study states that copyright doesn't help promoting but hinders progress. I think if your founding fathers new that "Right to Writings and Discoveries" didn't actual promote the progress of science and useful arts, they would never have written that. I wonder why the means is more important than the end in this case. That is, the end was always to promote. If the assumption that the means result in the ends is faulty, can the whole thing be revisited and declared null?
If freakonomics is right, file sharing in LSU will raise. First, they are making students aware that they can do it, and next the charge (when found) is relatively low. The next thing that will happen is the MAFIAA suing this students (I really really don't think they'll love the 50 bucks idea). So the students, who thought they had paid for their "crime" will face court charges, and then they'll be really pissed off.
It's interesting how I never once used Google to find Techdirt. I was referred here by a friend, and I mostly consume it via the RSS feed. So Google shouldn't be paying Techdirt for its content but it should be paying CJR?
On the other hand, Osnos say: "Proceeds go instead to those who sell advertising and other services while aggregating and/or lifting material they did not create". Newspapers have always been an ad supported service, so I don't really see the difference.
BTW, my nick is a play on the word "bear" in spanish. I didn't know about this Osnos guy until today.
I really don't think this is a grab for IP. With the copyright law as it stands, and the size of Google, it would be either a PR disaster or a huge waste of money in the court. I stay with my appreciation: this is trying to game the system to be positioned high in the page rank.
It's pretty obvious that this anonymous exec wants the algo so he can find how to game the system. Google has given us the basic rules of page rank many times (if you are linked to you're popular, if you're linked to from popular sites, you're more popular). But the specifics of the algorithm is what would make gaming it simpler. "Transparency" sounds really good when what you want is basically a way to cheat.
Oh, I get it. It's stated in the article that Google’s share of the total internet revenue opportunity may diminish. The fact I didn't see before is that there is a totally static "internet revenue opportunity" and it's important to have a big share of that. Apple apparently will seize part of the "internet revenue opportunity" by selling iPhones and Amazon by selling eBooks on the Kindle.
It's been stated already but, since when are Google, Apple and Amazon in the same camp?? I love some of the stuff Google creates, I use Amazon for almost all of my american book shopping and I think Apple has yet to come with a good product but I accept that they have a huge following... but I cannot think of one thing they have in common. Maybe google books and amazon's preview are similar in some way, but that's about it. This is like saying that once wikipedia and facebook start to charge, google is out of business. How does one thing compare with the other??
The other flawed comparison is "Google's share of total domestic online revenues could be at risk as user payments begin to match or exceed advertising". The money is not coming from the same pockets. Users don't decide between paying or advertising. Google may do worst than, say, Amazon. But that's not a failure IMHO, it's a completely different business. You can't start comparing yourself with just about everyone out there!