Or just do what we do on my block, leave the damned thing open. The way I think of it is like this, sure your sending a signal that your connection is open and less ethical people might sit there and watch my traffic getting bits of info from and might possibly steal my Identity (haha jokes on them!). But if they are already getting ready to steal my ID sitting in front of my house, what is stopping them from stealing everything else when they can clearly see me leaving my house.
Couldn't the hair dresser just have their regular customers 'buy' personal radios to play while they are getting their hair done. It seems radio stations could then sue prs and ppl for breach of contract considering private citizens would not be able to use the radio.
Isn't this the case where the officer paid his supervisor to use his pager/cellphone specifically for personal use and only after accepting money did the higher ups change their mind?
Most small businesses lose money for the first few year of their existence. So 1800 is just 1800 further in the red. No one is going to look at that and say yes I sell coffee i run a coffee shop and 1800 is worth spending on something that has nothing to do with either.
Maybe on the east coast you guys see lots of coffee shops with live music but on the west coast maybe 1 in 100 shops have a live band playing ever.
I have seen no explanation why any coffee shop would pay for live music over the many other things that 1800 a year would provide. thats three months pay of a part time employee, that employee can increase revenue. A band is a risk.
Has anyone ever tried a fair use defense? It seems to me even under the strictest conventions, that anything torrented would fall under Fair-Use due to the fact that when you download a torrent, the amount you actually download from each person would be considered a triffle of the overall copyrighted work. IE 256 kb of a 700 meg movie might only be a single frame. Which definetly falls under fair-use and is considered a triffle
from Wikipediea"Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."[13] In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, "the law does not care about trifles." "
your fail derives from the fact that you are using anecdotal evidence to counter empirical evidence.
Go to any newstand and count the number of magazines without adverts vs those with.
Count the number of channels with commercials vs the number of channels without.
And then you will be better prepared for your own question "Why should it be different for internet distribution?" the answer given based on data would be, that currently it is not. There are few paywall sites compared to the number of ad supported sites. However given the current state of the ad-based vs the subscruiption based business models then you can see that this is un-surprising, and changes nothing as media transforms from print to online.
I registered because of this article. Both sides of the argument are not only valid but make perfect sense.
On one hand we have the wealth of knowledge of The Internet that could help any juror come to a much more reasoned decision than they would be able to one their own. Not only that but as time progresses more and more people will be banking their knowledge on The Internet rather than keeping it stored in their head. Most people on this site do this already, as well as most tech orientated websites. If we do not know something then we just google it, look it up on wikipedia, search relevant websites etc... As we as a species become more and more reliant on the Internet we will memorize less and focus more on the abilities of finding the information needed. If we suddenly take that ability away from people not only will we have a group of the only people that could not get out of jury duty, but they will be a disabled group not able to get out of jury duty.
The other side of the argument is equally valid. Admissibility of Evidence and prevention of outside biased sources from contaminating the vacuum of the jury. As someone pointed out many jurors would just rely on the court of public opinion to make their decisions. Lets not forget the centuries of trial and error to used to create the system we have today. It is obviously not perfect but it took centuries to get it to this point, to start over now would be much worse than keeping the system in place.
The beauty of this article is both sides are absolutely correct. We use tech in our daily lives and to take that away would place us at a disadvantage. But the court system cannot be radically changed, because there is new technology.
However there is a solution, looking at the purpose of the vacuum that jurors are kept in along with why they would need the 'Net provides an obvious solution.
In a criminal trial limit the 'Net to what is not newer than the date of the crime.
In a civil case limit it to the date that papers were served.
This keeps out all information that could be about the trial, as well as public opinion about the trial.
Would it cost money? Sure but it would be cheaper than jailing innocent people.
Would it allow outside opinions into the case? Sure but no more so than what is already available at the time, anything that is on the internet at the date of the crime, or when papers are served could have reasonably already been viewed by any juror.
If my hypothesis of banked knowledge is correct this would be an even better solution than what is offered now. Jurors would have access to the worlds combined knowledge but be even less tainted by current public opinion.
no one is arguing that the argument is that you need a warrant. If your number is in a suicide bombers cell phone there are grounds for a warrant. If you new a guy who was related to a guy that went to high school with a chick thats 3rd cousin was a suicide bomber there is no reason to be watching you, and the gov't would not be able to get a warrant to do so. However currently you can be watched/listened too.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by sinrtb.
Re: Re:
Or just do what we do on my block, leave the damned thing open. The way I think of it is like this, sure your sending a signal that your connection is open and less ethical people might sit there and watch my traffic getting bits of info from and might possibly steal my Identity (haha jokes on them!). But if they are already getting ready to steal my ID sitting in front of my house, what is stopping them from stealing everything else when they can clearly see me leaving my house.
Couldn't the hair dresser just have their regular customers 'buy' personal radios to play while they are getting their hair done. It seems radio stations could then sue prs and ppl for breach of contract considering private citizens would not be able to use the radio.
Isn't this the case where the officer paid his supervisor to use his pager/cellphone specifically for personal use and only after accepting money did the higher ups change their mind?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most small businesses lose money for the first few year of their existence. So 1800 is just 1800 further in the red. No one is going to look at that and say yes I sell coffee i run a coffee shop and 1800 is worth spending on something that has nothing to do with either.
Maybe on the east coast you guys see lots of coffee shops with live music but on the west coast maybe 1 in 100 shops have a live band playing ever.
I have seen no explanation why any coffee shop would pay for live music over the many other things that 1800 a year would provide. thats three months pay of a part time employee, that employee can increase revenue. A band is a risk.
Fair Use?
Has anyone ever tried a fair use defense? It seems to me even under the strictest conventions, that anything torrented would fall under Fair-Use due to the fact that when you download a torrent, the amount you actually download from each person would be considered a triffle of the overall copyrighted work. IE 256 kb of a 700 meg movie might only be a single frame. Which definetly falls under fair-use and is considered a triffle
from Wikipediea"Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."[13] In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, "the law does not care about trifles." "
Re: Re: Re:
your fail derives from the fact that you are using anecdotal evidence to counter empirical evidence.
Go to any newstand and count the number of magazines without adverts vs those with.
Count the number of channels with commercials vs the number of channels without.
And then you will be better prepared for your own question "Why should it be different for internet distribution?" the answer given based on data would be, that currently it is not. There are few paywall sites compared to the number of ad supported sites. However given the current state of the ad-based vs the subscruiption based business models then you can see that this is un-surprising, and changes nothing as media transforms from print to online.
Re: Evidence admissibility
I registered because of this article. Both sides of the argument are not only valid but make perfect sense.
On one hand we have the wealth of knowledge of The Internet that could help any juror come to a much more reasoned decision than they would be able to one their own. Not only that but as time progresses more and more people will be banking their knowledge on The Internet rather than keeping it stored in their head. Most people on this site do this already, as well as most tech orientated websites. If we do not know something then we just google it, look it up on wikipedia, search relevant websites etc... As we as a species become more and more reliant on the Internet we will memorize less and focus more on the abilities of finding the information needed. If we suddenly take that ability away from people not only will we have a group of the only people that could not get out of jury duty, but they will be a disabled group not able to get out of jury duty.
The other side of the argument is equally valid. Admissibility of Evidence and prevention of outside biased sources from contaminating the vacuum of the jury. As someone pointed out many jurors would just rely on the court of public opinion to make their decisions. Lets not forget the centuries of trial and error to used to create the system we have today. It is obviously not perfect but it took centuries to get it to this point, to start over now would be much worse than keeping the system in place.
The beauty of this article is both sides are absolutely correct. We use tech in our daily lives and to take that away would place us at a disadvantage. But the court system cannot be radically changed, because there is new technology.
However there is a solution, looking at the purpose of the vacuum that jurors are kept in along with why they would need the 'Net provides an obvious solution.
In a criminal trial limit the 'Net to what is not newer than the date of the crime.
In a civil case limit it to the date that papers were served.
This keeps out all information that could be about the trial, as well as public opinion about the trial.
Would it cost money? Sure but it would be cheaper than jailing innocent people.
Would it allow outside opinions into the case? Sure but no more so than what is already available at the time, anything that is on the internet at the date of the crime, or when papers are served could have reasonably already been viewed by any juror.
If my hypothesis of banked knowledge is correct this would be an even better solution than what is offered now. Jurors would have access to the worlds combined knowledge but be even less tainted by current public opinion.
Re: Get over it
no one is arguing that the argument is that you need a warrant. If your number is in a suicide bombers cell phone there are grounds for a warrant. If you new a guy who was related to a guy that went to high school with a chick thats 3rd cousin was a suicide bomber there is no reason to be watching you, and the gov't would not be able to get a warrant to do so. However currently you can be watched/listened too.