I didn't want to actually 'bash' anyone except those people oversimplifying the matter by putting Germany next to a socialist dictatorship because the limits of free speech are already codified by laws and at the same time falling for the illusion of unlimited free speech in the US just because the limits there aren't actual laws.

But in the end, the restrictions are more or less the same (With a few well known exceptions like the use of symbols of historical fascist groups), so we're talking about details here.

When I mentioned that this could lead to a situation where less rules could lead to a bit less freedom in the end may be partly bias partly gut feeling, but without a well defined framework, there is always the chance that some lawyer finds a way to convince a court why exactly your speech wasn't protected by free speech and you're to pay huge damages. This risk (Or some lawyer threatening with it - we're still talking about fringe cases...) might make people not use their right to speak freely.

On the other side, given definition of what is included by "free speech" and what not is simpler and eliminates surprising court rulings. It's easier for everyone to know how free speech works and claim that right because the limits define also what is inside the limit and therefore definitly protected.

For that to work, of course, the limiting laws themselves have to be insides the limits of a constitution that deserves the word "democratic". Without that limit, my line of reasoning may be used as an excuse for every dictator to kill fredom of speech.

Even more so. How to handle conflicting rights granted by the constitution is also part of the constitution. (And I met people here who consider that as limitation) but it's more straight forward than this absolut sounding "shall pass no law to restrict" while the restrictions are there anyway.

I agree that it isn't specifically "encouraging", but if it's evidence, it belongs onto a police or court file, not youtube.

That's the almost funny thing here.

The average American poster thinks of their "Free Speech" (other examples that follow the same pattern could be found too) right as a Holy Cow that is invincible, because it is protected by the constitution.

I had some posters here looking down on, say, Germany as an "undemocratic" country, because there are laws in place that actually limit free speech. (Which is protected by the constitution there, too)

But, at the bottom line, free speech in the US is even more limited, be it FCC rules, sue-trigger-happy lawyers, facebook EULAs, general politeness - anything down to school district regulations.

Isn't it part of the "powdered aclohol" thing that there isn't any flavour included? And hiding the taste of alcohol itself is easy: sugar. (That's why it's so easy to start your drinking career with Alcopops or Apfelkorn) Try for yourself: Mix Vodka (or Korn) and sugared Ice Tea. Even at 1:1 ratio you won't be able to taste any alcohol. Despite jugging down something with 25% pure alcohol content.

Someone once hammered really bad with that drink. I knew what I was drinking, but had no idea of how much alcohol I've been drinking in a really short time.

If you want something stronger than martini, then why just don't order something stronger?

All the stuff I read here (and in some other places) from snorting or eating the powdered version right down to the vodka tampax is just disgusting. If you don't want to drink, simply don't drink. It's not about getting plastered as fast as possible. It's about enjoying a good wine, beer or whisky, too.

But you won't need even water if you carry the alcohol in liquid form. That's even lighter as you don't need a filler!

Internet? facebook? come on, it has never been easier to find people sharing the same hobby!

Those people just shouldn't be deaf. Document that you acted responsible and were not plagiarizing on purpose.

How much money do you set aside for speeding tickets before you're driving to work? Just in case that actual speeding happens? Would a judge believe you that it was "accidental" if he finds out that you were actually saving money so you can speed?

Be honest to himself. Does his music sound exactly like some other song? Ask fellow musicians for their opinion. And for heavens sake NOT copy some other songs and hope that no one will notice. Or licence the use of the song. (Or don't use it if it's not in budget)

So that's the real problem then. When a party is caught overestimating the damage it's THEM that should be fined. Avoiding damage (or at least curbing it) in the first place is due diligence for both sides.

Following the above steps should be enough to minimize the risk of accidental plagiarism to a level where it is acceptable. as long as we are talking about amounts that won't drive peopel into banckrupcy.

But if you allow unrealistic damages as in this case, THAT's what will kill music composing. Or do you think that recording an even verbatim cover of a 70s song without any original parts would call up licence fees in the 7.5 Million range?

While it would be nice to see "pro bono" work protected from such liability, my suggestion wouldn't change a thing to the current status:

Say, someone makes a non-profit website, uses an image he received under the impression of being CC licensed, and a few months after it goes life, he receives a pretty nice bill from an image agency. There is nowhere the money for that is comming from, but that won't void that bill.

If I do something that costs something (or damages something), I have to pay for that. No matter if I that action will bring me in additional money. I don't see any problem with this as long as BOTH PARTIES comply with their duty of damage minimization. (Don't know if that's in the US civil code. Here it is)

Like, in your example, the developer should be allowed to remove the music if it is found to be not under some matching free licence. (Due to error or inspiration) Works as long as the right holder is not trying to sue him into bankrupcy with made up numbers "to set an example". (that's the idea behind punitive damage, not wrong but of no use when we're talking about accidental damage)

I'm afraid the difference between "inspired", "derived" and "copa&paste" will have to be decided on a per case base.

The logic behind this verdict (expert says too similar to be original work) is basically ok, too. It becomes a problem when the US punitive damage comes into the mix. As mentioned in the summary "subconscious plagiarism" may sound strange, but that's how creative minds work. Artists always worked with inspirations and derivations. Sometimes subconscious, sometimes on purpose. (Like when Dürer drew his self portrait in the style until then reserved for religious icons)

But it shouldn't be considered as a crime with huge fines. It's daily business. So take the usual cut or fee it costs to cover an existing song, double it for the additional work due to "forgetting" or "not realizing", and that's it.

Any machinery only works to a certain precision. The bigger the load (size or whatever) is, the lower is usually the precision. We can shoot electron beams at single atoms and build cranes that lift trucks, but those will never be able to drop those trucks within âengstroms to a target. So not-exactness may be an additional hint for artificial origin.

Or it may be some more random noise with veeery low frequency.

Did that order at least contain instructions on what words to use instead? Or are they supposed to make up their own replacement-words?

Yeah... give the old euphemism-spiral a new spin....

According to TFS, Chrome will use OpenGL (ES). Which is quite a long way to pixel-handle the framebuffer.

Does the daily treadmill at the office also count?

Agree on that. I read another article about that issue today, and that guy indeed had a point. (if you can ignore that facebook and google have been included for attention whoring)

The problem he mentioned was that actual phone operators are for example required to build all kind of gouvernment required bells and whistles into their network (emergency calls, independant power supply, wiretapping access...) while Skype et.al. don't have to spend that money and therefore can undercut them.

That point of view is still up to discussion, but at least not plain wrong as "Deutsche Telekom wants Google to be regulated"