Feminist blogger? What does that even mean? You're defining something in a way that cannot possibly be correct, because you imply feminist bloggers are women. Your entire concept of "feminist blogger" is wrong. First: There are men who also push for women to have equal rights too.
Second: you've got it backwards. Most of the SJW's are men who say that they're being oppressed by "feminists", or women who push for equality.
Feminism becomes obsolete when women and men are treated equally and with equal privilege, something you very clearly do not understand.
meh, they have pretty solid reporting
Well, since you asked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64â"65[2][3] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States
I also love the "FOR THE CHILDREN" argument. To stop child porn, we need to outlaw all encryption. To protect our children from obesity, we have to outlaw fatty foods. Sheesh! Grow up!
Also, lots of children are killed by cars each year. Do you propose banning cars? How about a woman who scares off an intruder with her gun. Is her life and the lives of her children worthless? Put your agenda away and put on your thinking cap.
Why pay for TV when you can download the shows you care about?
TV is so terrible at catering to people who only want to pay for what they want to see, so you may as well get it when you want how you want - because they refuse to provide that.
Which is why they went from above the federal minimum of 3 seconds, to exactly the federal minimum and thus below said minimu. This has happened repeatedly.
I swear, most of the funniest laughs I've had on
And you showed nothing that describes dowloading. The owner of the server controls whether a copy is made or a file is transfered and is responsablty for the distribution.
Nope!
ReDigi was a company that claimed to sell used music files, just as a used bookstore sells books. It argued that it was protected under the 17 USC 109, the first sale exception, by claiming that copying then deleting files was a transfer. (Even they were not so stupid as to believe that it's possible to transfer a file over a network without copying in the process, even if this is not apparent to the user)
The court that heard the case shut them down:
Courts have consistently held that the unauthorized duplication of digital music files over the Internet infringes a copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce. However, courts have not previously addressed whether the unauthorized transfer of a digital music file over the Internet -- where only one file exists before and after the transfer -- constitutes reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The Court holds that it does.
You should read the whole thing: http://www.documentcloud.org/d...
It even points out, as I have, that this is unavoidable:
This understanding is, of course, confirmed by the laws of physics. It is simply impossible that the same "material object" can be transferred over the Internet. Thus, logically, the court in London-Sire noted that the Internet transfer of a file results in a material object being "created elsewhere at its finish." Because the reproduction right is necessarily implicated when a copyrighted work is embodied in a new material object, and because digital music files must be embodied in a new material object following their transfer over the Internet, the Court determines that the embodiment of a digital music file on a new hard disk is a reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act.
Case law is not law either.
It is in the US.
Judges have been wrong before and they will be wrong in the future.
What does that have to do with anything? You think that legislators are never wrong?
Look at the existing franchise laws and how they are being used. It's not really a question that bribes are occurring, it's what lobbying is by it's very definition.
Absolutely. You know why? Efficient taxation should result in more tax money coming in. If they can't do so, that's a fault of putting out inefficient taxes.
40% troll?
Slashdot^H^H^H^H^H humanity is broken.
brush up on your facts
just that the act of downloading a file is not magically illegal despite no law defining it so
Here are the laws that make unauthorized downloading of copyrighted works prima facie illegal in the US:
17 USC 501(a): "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122
17 USC 106: "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights
17 USC 101: "'Copies' are material objects
"A 'device', 'machine', or 'process' is one now known or later developed."
"A work is 'fixed' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is 'fixed' for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission."
If Alice has a file server on which are copyrighted works, and Bob, without permission from the copyright holder, downloads them, Bob causes his computer to fix those works in a tangible medium of expression (such as a hard drive), which creates new copies of those works. The copy is the tangible medium, again e.g. a hard drive, not the mere intangible files. By creating copies without permission, Bob has infringed on the exclusive right of the copyright holder to make new copies.
So, it's prima facie infringing.
You actually conceded this point earlier; you obliquely referred to 17 USC 117, which is an exception dealing with computer programs. Section 117 is completely unnecessary if no prima facie infringement occurs. Much in the way that you don't have to bother raising a defense to a charge of murder, like self-defense, if the supposed victim is still alive. Or if programming is more your thing, think of an if-then-else statement: if infringement occurs, then see if section 117 applies, else infringement has not occurred, so exit.
So you appear to agree that downloading is prima facie infringement, the question is simply whether the exception in 117 saves the downloader. It almost never will.
17 USC 117: "(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
(b) Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner."
17 USC 101: "A 'computer program' is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result."
This usually won't work because Bob, the downloader, almost certainly 1) isn't the owner of a copy prior to making a new copy, which is necessary in 117 to be allowed to make the new copy; 2) isn't making copies for archival purposes only; 3) most data, such as music, movies, etc. will not be treated as computer programs by courts, despite the broad language in section 101.
I mean, feel free to try it, but you have my guarantee that you'll not just lose, but be laughed at.
The theory that when you download you cause a copy to be made is erroneous because there are specifically outlined situations in law where a transfer in that way is legal and the onus rests on the server to be compliant- not the downloader.
Okay genius, I've cited the relevant statutes for making my argument. It's time for you to put up or shut up.
Remember to cite very specifically, and to look at definitions. You may also want to look at relevant caselaw.
Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.