Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score 1) 634

Oooo, a tone troll, how original. What's the real problem: that people are fed up with zombie lies, or that people keep repeating them now matter how many times they are debunked. Remember Republicans spending years blaming Clinton for Waco and Ruby Ridge, when the former happened five weeks into his presidency, and the latter happened before Clinton was elected, much less took office?

I can't state with any authority that this data is accurate, but it shows multiple scenarios, under which EITHER candidate may have won.

Do tell which scenario is more accurate than a state-wide recount. A state-wide recount that the press did after the election. A statewide recount which Gore won under any method chosen. Now, you were tonesplaining about something?

Comment Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score 1) 634

The recount that the Florida Supreme Court ordered was not in accordance with Florida law. Since the US Constitution specifically states that electors are chosen "as the state legislature directs", and existing US Supreme Court decisions makes that power plenary (not subject to ANY judicial review by ANY court for ANY reason) the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recounts were blatantly unconstitutional and illegal.

Nonsensical hand waving. What was the Florida supreme court following? State law, and the the state constitution.

It doesn't matter WHO was recounting the ballots - the recount was not per Florida law as passed by the Florida legislature.

Yeah. It was.

The fact that Democrats/leftists/liberals were and are willing to throw away the rule of law in order to win is downright fucking scary.

You mean what SCOTUS did, stopping a recount based on the prima-face-bullshit reasoning that different standards were being used in the recount. Because of course you're going to count op-scan ballots in a different way than punch-cards. The only standard that mattered, was determining the intent of the voter.

The standard used by the state supreme court.

Gore tried to unconstitutionally lawyer his way to the White House - and failed. Thankfully.

And as the Onion said, 'our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity' was over, dumbfuck.

Comment Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score 1) 634

They were, twice

What did I just say about delusional winger bullshit? SCOTUS stopped Florida from completing their statewide recount, so they were not counted until the press did their own recount after the fact.

in the timeframe allocated to do so

The only "timeline" involved was the January 20th date to swear in the next president. The state had more than enough time to complete a full recount. Hell, there was even precedent, when it took weeks to certify Hawaii's votes when it was Kennedy and Nixon. Maybe if Ginny's last name was Clinton, wingers would have noticed that, if only for a couple of seconds.

The result was certified by the Florida Secretary of State

Who happened to chair Bush's campaign in the state. No corruption or conflict of interest there. Nor in Scalia refusing to recuse himself despite his son working for Bush's campaign, nor Thomas's wife who was busy collecting resumes for a Bush Administration, over at the Heritage Foundation.

past the date the electoral college meets to cast their votes

Straw man and a non-response, all in a nice little package.

Trying to remove the effect of the votes of all the Florida voters is not "counting every vote".


State law defined the process that Gore was trying to get overridden by SCOTUS.

Is our children learning? I already said it was the the state of Florida performing the recount, not Gore's campaign. That is what was stopped by SCOTUS.

Yes, facts remain even when wingnuts try to make stupid stuff up.

So you're finally going to stop repeating made up wingnut stuff? What was stopping you before? At the end of the day, this isn't hard: do facts matter to you, or now? It's a fact that Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush. It's a fact that was the case even after Republicans counted illegally cast military ballots while kicking thousands of poor eligible voters off the rolls. It's a fact that if either justice with a conflict of interest had recused himself, the state supreme court would have been left in charge of the process, following state laws and the state's constitution.

Comment Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. (Score 1) 634

If a republican wins, she wears orange.

Right, just like how Reagan and H.W. Bush were fucked the second Clinton was elected president, and pressed forward with the Iran-Contra prosecutions.

Oh, wait, that's not what happened, because these fuckers all play for the same team. The Republicans don't give a shit about Hillary's indictable war/corruption crimes, because 1) they've committed those crimes themselves and 2) plan on committing them again.

Comment Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score 1) 634

It is a false urban myth that Gore would have won the recount.

Your urban myth. Fact is, press recounts showed Gore winning a state-wide recount under any scenario. Which means Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida, despite all the shenanigans like counting illegally cast military ballots (which helped Bush) and fraudulently baring poor (mostly black) voters from the polls (which hurt Gore).

Which means that the 2000 election was stolen, the wrong guy spent 8 years in the oval office, and that's just a fact that wingers will have to deal with.

Comment Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score 1) 634

They found one standard that if it had been applied in only the D heavy districts of Florida would have given the win to Gore. All other standards and recount areas gave the win to Bush.

Wingers, always pretending the facts meet their revisionist histories. Problem: the very press recounts you're talking about showed Gore winning a statewide recount under any scenario, which means Gore won the 2000 election, deal with it.

As to why he didn't ask for a recount, there's a simple answer for that as well, for simple people: because Florida law laid out a process where candidates could request a recount on a per-county basis, not state-wide.

Comment Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score 1) 634

Demanding a state-wide recount would not have changed the fact that Gore was trying to override the process already in place and agreed to, determined by the people who had the authority to determine the process, and would have pushed the second Florida vote certification past the date of the Electoral College. That would have disenfranchised every Florida voter.

Delusional winger bullshit. With the right to vote must come the right for your vote to be counted, hence determining the intent of the voter. As for the "process already agreed to", Gore was following state law, which laid out a process for per-country recounts, not state-wide. In any case, it was the state of Florida recounting the votes, not the Gore campaign.

To paraphrase NDT, the neat thing about facts is that they are true, whether or not wingnuts chose to ignore them.

Comment Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score 1) 634

No, he would have only won in some scenarios

Every scenario for a state-wide recount. Facts are stubborn things. The question as to why Gore asked for county recounts is an equally simple question with equally simple answers: because Florida state law allowed for country recounts, and because Gore went with the counties that had the highest margin of error. It's not his fault that, counter-intuitively, it was the more conservative counties that had sprung for the more accurate opt-scan ballots.

Comment Re:So why the secrecy (Score 1) 171

One must be able to go to where the assembly is taking place, if air travel is the only reasonably way to get there due to say time constraints, the government cannot prevent a citizen from traveling by air, without due process of law.

This seems like an arbitrary line to draw, especially as an example of why it is wrong to draw an arbitrary line counting privacy as part of the right. Surely requiring people have a driving license would breach your definition, how else could they reasonably reach a remote location within time constraints..

Only if you had to have a pilot's license before boarding a plane as a passenger.

Comment Re:Strange (Score 2) 133

Why couldnâ(TM)t they guarantee they wonâ(TM)t extradite to the US? For the reason you quoted: Swedish law doesnâ(TM)t allow rejecting an extradition request that doesnâ(TM)t exist and may not ever exist.

Willfully obtuse tautology. Cold Fascist's partner in propaganda, Rei, has even stated (between protesting that Sweden can't promise not to extradite) that Swedish law does not allow for extradition for intelligence crimes. So, yeah, Sweden can call Assange's bluff and make such a promise. They've been able to do it for years now - if this was actually about alleged rape. Same for Assange's offer to be interviewed by Swedish investigators in person or remotely - another offer that Sweden has refused, because reasons.

Which tells any person, that doesn't have a hole in their head, that this is not about rape and never has been.

Comment Re:SCOTUS unanimously says otherwise, Congress (Score 1) 228

That list looks familiar. You may not like the list, but it's the list that Congress put in the law. The list isn't comprehensive, but it is law - statutory federal law.

Yes, I know what you were referring to. My dislike for the list has nothing to do with what is and isn't in it; I dislike it because it section 107 is worded in a rather confusing way, and it often trips people up.

What it actually says, rearranged for clarity is:

[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright.

[To aid in the determination of] whether [a particular use] is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

[If the use is determined to be a fair use, by] consideration of all of the above factors[, it is irrelevant that the work] is unpublished.

[By implication, courts are free to also consider other factors to aid in the determination.]

[Although it is tautological to say it, fair use] for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research[, is ultimately fair use, and thus not infringing as per the above. However, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research which are not fair use, may be infringing.]

Thus, the list is bogus. It confuses people into wrongly thinking that the only uses which are fair are the ones on the list, and that if the use is on the list, it must be fair. Neither is true. They're just examples of things that might be fair use, or might not be fair use, depending on circumstances.

Unanimous SCOTUS opinion in Campbell vs Acuff-Rose "fair use is an affirmative defense".

And IIRC, that was not relevant to the case, which was actually about whether uses may be presumptively unfair, which the Court found was not so. Essentially it's dicta, and Harper & Row is even more so, as there was no mention of whether it was an affirmative defense until the opinion, and it too was not relevant to the case, which dealt with whether any of the uses on the list were presumptively fair, which the Court also found not to be so. In fact, I'd say that it's completely built on sand: The only mention of it being an affirmative defense comes from a cite to a 1967 House Report, which merely says that the pre-codification form of fair use was historically often raised as a defense. The report then goes on to say that it would be wrong to place the burden of proving fair use on either side, which directly undercuts the idea of it being an affirmative defense which must be raised by the defendant or else waived.

The better case to look at is Sony:

Moreover, the definition of exclusive rights in section 106 of the present Act is prefaced by the words "subject to sections 107 through 118." Those sections describe a variety of uses of copyrighted material that "are not infringements of copyright" "notwithstanding the provisions of section 106." The most pertinent in this case is section 107, the legislative endorsement of the doctrine of "fair use."

Indeed, the statute itself is the best support for the status of fair use as not being an affirmative defense: The grant of copyright itself in section 106 is limited in scope so as not to cover the territory taken out of copyright by section 107, among others. Although for reasons of judicial economy, there's no reason to even bother with fair use unless a prima facie infringement can be shown, the statute clearly states that fair uses cannot possibly be infringing, as the copyright just does not extend that far; there's no mention of whether it has to be shown or not. Hell, 17 USC 108(f)(4) actually refers to "the right of fair use as provided by section 107."

Happily, we're beginning to see some success in fixing the mistake perpatrated by Harper & Row and Campbell, with cases such as Lenz v. Universal Music. There's still a long way to go, but it's a start.

think you'll find that I don't shoot my mouth off without knowing what I'm talking about. When I say "the law is ...", I'm probably quoting either the statute or SCOTUS.

Even SCOTUS gets the law wrong with alarming frequency. It's a bad idea to treat what they say as gospel, and even they know this. My favorite example is from Lawrence v. Texas, where they said of their previous decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today."

Comment Re:fair use is criticism, not competition (Score 1) 228

Primary categories that -can- be fair use include

Your list is bogus. Any use "-can-" be a fair use. However, no use is necessarily a fair use. Certainly there have been uses which weren't types you listed, and there have been uses which did fall into the listed categories, but were determined not to be fair.

Note also that with regard to the classic four prong test, additional prongs may be added if helpful, and the test isn't mean to be applied mechanistically.

A professionally produced "Star Trek" film certainly COULD compete with Paramount's 2016 Star Trek Film, "Star Trek Beyond". In fact, if it's available on Amazon, consider someone tells their spouse or parents they want the Star Trek DVD for Christmas. It's entirely possible the gift-giver (who isn't a Star Trek fan) would buy the wrong one, buying the unauthorized movie rather than Paramount's official Star Trek.

This is unlikely. The question is essentially whether the use is a substitute for the original work. Mere confusion isn't really relevant; you're looking for people who say that because they got a copy of the work which is allegedly a fair use, they no longer have a need for the underlying work.

Note that fair use is a "defense".

No it's not. Fair use is an exception to copyright. However, the person engaging in the use is better able and better motivated to make the argument of fair use than the copyright holder trying to prohibit it. For this reason it is treated like a defense as a matter of procedure.

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.