Robert S. Litt, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said in a prepared statement that Alexander and other officials were speaking only about "raw" intelligence, the term for intercepted content that has not yet been evaluated, stamped with classification markings or minimized to mask U.S. identities. “We have talked about the very strict controls on raw traffic..." Litt said. “Nothing that you have given us indicates that Snowden was able to circumvent that in any way.”
Silly intelligence committee members. They should have specifically asked about access to processed content.
You would think by now NSA would be tired of looking foolish.
Lawyers get paid to do exactly that, and in this one respect, the stream of BS from Dershowitz did not disappoint; I expected no less from him. If he had been allocated 8 hours I'm sure he could have kept babbling nonsense to fill the time.
And how small the portions, they may have a point. I mean, it's not exactly like we need smell-a-vision or taste-a-vision to capture the recipes, a simple 2 dimensional graphic rendering of the appearance may suffice.
When my bespoke SoC internet thingy chips lead the 3D revolution to victory over the dark forces of organized manufacturing, testing and standardization. Long live The People's Anarchistia of Crapistian !!!!
So it's important to bring India to the WTO to force them to buy solar panels from a German company in the US to prevent Indians from making their own (and they live next to Muslim Pakistan, right?) and to keep the Chinese panels out of India and the USA with import duties.
I think there is a difference in how the law treats personal use of physical media or software of a work purchased for personal use (where artist/owners presumably receive a royalty) and how it treats "public broadcasting" for profit, where license fees are distributed on a pro rata or other formula by licensing bodies such as RIAA etc., where the owners DO receive royalties.
As far as I know, internet services such as Spotify are licensed as "broadcasters" and do pay these traditional bodies for use of the works. In fact one of the issues related to Apple's new broadcast service is the deal they cut (only in USA) achieves a lower effective royalty rate (as it was bundled with iTunes licensing for sales, apparently) .
Yes, we would like a media player with features that enable fair use, however, isn't the basic problem that a majority of existing media is owned by legacy companies that already have the law on their side and would be unlikely to license such a system?
So then you accomplish what?
Obviously many artists themselves might be interested to publish on such a system, in which case (eventually) there might be substantial libraries of media without the problem, but ....
.... I don't see how that is used as the basis to sue to change existing law, if that is the/one intent.
IOW, such a system I presume to have, in theory:
(a) DRM to prevent pirating (b) Features to allow at least one full personal copy (c) Features to allow sampling for fair use
Love it. Now, how do you use that to initiate a legal process to overturn the present law against hacking other DRM systems?