Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:While I agree that anonymity is a good thing... (Score 1) 780

Yes you are free to do that all, and you are free FROM the chances that the government will retaliate for your opinion...

The government will NOT protect you from the consequences to your business of telling your customers that you think they should all be deported back where they came from.. or a politician from saying that his supporters are all fools and that he is only in it for the cash/perks from lobbyists.

The fact that you are trying to equate the middle eastern dictators with the US over this.. shows that you should have spent more time in what? 5th? 6th grade social studies?

Comment Re:While I agree that anonymity is a good thing... (Score 1) 780

Do you really think there are packs of gay marriage/civil union supporters getting ready to roll out nationwide in an effort to vandalize and stalk bigoted politicians and business owners? Or are you more concerned of the negative press that an organized group could accomplish such as P.E.T.A or Greenpeace or any other group manages to generate?

As to your posting that you would never vote for gay marriage, thats sorta what we are all arguing about right? You are owning your position on the subject.. i presume you are not telling a bunch of people that are important to either your political power/financial success that you totally support them and agree that they should have X right.. while posting this on slashdot? Its not about the opinion, but the hypocritical nature of holding one position "publicly" and another when you think noone is looking.

Comment Re:While I agree that anonymity is a good thing... (Score 1) 780

No there is a difference between a ballot and a petition..

The american system was founded on principles and ideals, as well as taking responsibility for ones actions.. anonymity was never really considered.. especially given the context of the time in which the country was founded.. a person was only the sum of his reputation and his word.. this is precisely *WHY* The Declaration was signed by the men who wrote it *AND* those who agreed with it.. It was lending the power of their own reputations to that which they believed in.. Had they wanted to be meek and anonymous, they would simply have signed it "the people"

Not sure what you think is undercutting .. as this is precisely the sort of "disagreement" that happens every day in every city/state/town.. people will still "fight side by side" for what they DO agree on.. while disagreeing on other issues such as this one.

Comment Re:While I agree that anonymity is a good thing... (Score 1) 780

No its not.. perhaps you lost the fact that there is no expectation of "secretly adding your vote to the list" ala a random poll.. when you "publicly sign your name to a petition saying I SUPPORT THIS!"

EVERY petition in every state is legally public record by design, and intent of the medium (petition rather than poll).. just because this has not been tested in court previously does *not* mean that anyone had any expectation of privacy when standing in the middle of a mall signing their name and address in public, on a piece of paper where the next 50 people will be able to read the name and likely anyone at all while the stack of sheets are on the clipboard they picked up.

The fact that noone cared prior to this does not mean that there was ever an expectation of privacy when signing a petition.

Comment Re:While I agree that anonymity is a good thing... (Score 1) 780

You mean intimidating and threatening to NO LONGER support politicians who are publically claiming to support X cause, and at the same time stating by signing a petition that you are actually against that cause? Or businesses claiming to be "friends" of a community turning around and secretly signing petitions that will cost them in many cases their entire business?

Thats not threats or intimidation its called consequences of poorly thought out decisions.

Comment Re:While I agree that anonymity is a good thing... (Score 1) 780

I think this is more about .. people feeling threatened that their business may be affected if for example.. all those they have been claiming to be supporting to get them to shop for years .. found out that they where signer number 7 on a hotly contested issue.

Its hypocritical all the way, but then so are many other issues.. If i am vehemently anti - whatever group happens to be on the petition for whatever reason.. I probably shouldnt be claiming to support them so they shop at my chain of shops.. or being their "political friend" when i need them to run for office.. and then turn around and secretly sign petitions that run counter to that.

Anything less devalues both of the viewpoints..

Comment Re:While I agree that anonymity is a good thing... (Score 1) 780

Because without transparency there is no way to take people to task for their actions.. you dont get to be a business that publically embraces say ... the immigrant community that keeps you in business, while at the same time signing petitions to get the borders closed and immigrants exported to another state, or deported.

Not to mention using "valid" names on petitions rather than mickey mouse names, which while they could be verified, would still be just as fake.. with no way of anyone knowing for sure if anyone on the list actually put themselves on the list.

Comment Re:If Apple has enforceable touchscreen patents... (Score 1) 263

You are quite wrong about UI patents not being tested in court..

The Apple UI patents where tested almost the day they where issued (see MS vs Apple over UI for windows and the resulting cross-licensing)

UI patents are NOT software patents.. oddly enough teh nokia patents are in fact about software.. just because its embedded on a chip does NOT make it any less onerous than a patent on an algorithm in a computer application.

So UI patent == "design" patent

OR "the windows start menu/taskbar combo" is equivalent to the "industrial design" of any other physical object such as the shape of a mouse, or the "look" of a laptop, etc.

Software patent / method patent are both crap, and unfortunately Nokia's patents are not for hardware innovation, they are for the *SOFTWARE* running within general purpose cpu's and DSP's within cellphones that make them GSM compatible.

If all it takes for slashdot to like software patents is to put them in a ROM or DSP, then the anti-software patent movement is doomed to fail.

Comment Re:I hope they win (Score 1) 263

Actually The real issue here is not android at all, it is HTC stepping on Apples patents not with "android" but rather with respect to touchflo and sense..

I rather think that 2 reasons prevented suit earlier when touchflo was windows only...

1) it was possibly covered under the cross-license deal between Apple and MS that dates to the 80s

2) it was such a small market segment that it didn't matter (a tiny portion of windows mobile phones from HTC actually had touchflo)

3) touchflo in its previous incarnations before sense was basically not close enough to the patents in question that they didnt feel a suit was needed

4) Apple was merely building its case since they hate to lose in court, and this was actually set in motion with touchflo 1.0

5) some combination of the above.

Point is.. this is *not* in any way relevant to the apple-nokia suit, nor does it relate in any way to "android as a whole" any more than it affects windows mobile devices as a whole, or "feature phones" as a whole.

As you point out nokia/apple suit will likely result in a cross-license deal of some sort, or one of them paying the other $$$ and a cross-license deal.. the same cannot be said of HTC-Apple.. since HTC owns nothing of interest patent wise.. and a loss in court could easily result in the company becoming non-viable (bankrupt) as a result.

Comment Re:ALL copyright is a restriction on free speech. (Score 1) 431

Free Speech is not limited to speech on the government. Pornography and KKK rallies have been protected by the first amendment, and speech that doesn't really need to be protected is also protected. In order to abridge ANY speech or press, you need a strong reason, typically the public welfare.

Reading is fundamental and I was the one who brought up the *other* forms of expression protected by free speech.. the problem is that they are ALL in relation to government intervention in preventing you from expressing those ideas.. in other words.. As the owner of a concert hall I can restrict your first amendment right to free speech and not allow a KKK rally on stage regardless of how much money you want to throw at me.. If instead we are talking about a publicly funded government operated venue.. then the content of your speech cannot be the reason why you are denied the right to speak their (with a very narrow scope of exceptions) opinions.

For it to be a FREE SPEECH issue, it has to involve the government infringing on the rights to express *your* opinions however unpalatable they may be.

o claim they are mutually exclusive is ridiculous. They are different concepts, but that doesn't mean that there is never any overlap.

There can be no overlap because they address completely different areas.. There is no way possible for any "free speech" violation to also affect copyright or patents.. I am not sure what the problem with understanding this is.. they are unique and separate issues.

A copyright violation involves someone who did not/does not qualify as the creator of a work or his or her heirs/assignees/agents using that work in a manner that is not authorized by the rights holder. This is invariably between 2 private parties or a private party and the government (such as attempting to reproduce documents produced by the government and the government suing to stop/prevent it under copyright law)

Would you care to cite an example of how congress can (or better yet has) somehow enact a law, that tries to prevent free expression of ideas, that somehow also is a copyright violation?

How about a situation where copyright law legitimately abridges free speech as defined by the supreme court of the united states over the last 200 or so years?

No, they can't. A law that is not for a limited time would not be constitutional, and if it doesn't benefit the public by promoting arts and sciences, a law could and should be declared unconstitutional, which is what I would argue is clearly the case here. The same would apply to copyright laws that somehow conflict with other parts of the constitution, including the first amendment and any other amendment.

You still seem to think that free speech/free press are somehow linked to copyright, but on the points you listed.. the duration being limited could be effectively indefinate 900 years? 9999 years? still limited still fits the letter if not the intent of the copyright clause.. "benefit the public by promoting the arts and sciences" is a lovely term, that could and has historically been interpreted to mean "benefits creators of the arts, and those who use the sciences.. more profits == more art and scientific advances right? this is precisely what got us where we are today.

A Law that "encouraged" IBM spending a huge % of its profits compared to other companies on Research is a good thing right? Similarly laws designed to make more people willing to devote their lives to writing, producing, and yes selling books, movies, tv, painting, sculpting, everything arts related are good things. And yet.. here we sit in 2010 with laws that seem absurd (the Mickey Mouse Protection Act for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act) and yet they are a completely legitimate area for congress to address.. we simply chose to let congress run rampant for many years creating these laws..

None of that makes this or any other copyright law a free speech issue (or first amendment in any way) remember copyright law also covers fair use which dated back as far as 1709 in england, was common law in the US was not codified until 1976 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use.

Which is all just a long way of saying "Free Speech" does not make it legal for you to copy/profit from other peoples work and avoid copyright. Even with sane terms on copyright (such as the author's lifetime, or X years in the case of production being owned by a company) or outlawing software patents entirely.. you would still be precluded from generic copying of works during the term of their protection.. and this is NOT AT ODDS with expressing your opinions under Free Speech or Freedom of the Press.

Comment Re:ALL copyright is a restriction on free speech. (Score 1) 431

You still do not get it do you? FREE SPEECH != anything to do with copyright they are mutually exclusive concepts..

Free speech is "expression of ideas contrary to the established government, or otherwise unpopular opinions"

Congress is NOT allowed to for example enact a law that makes it illegal to say that congress sucks.. because that would abridge your right to speak out against the government..

Congress may not make it illegal for a news agency to publish articles about congress getting caught doing naughty things.. that would abridge the freedom of the press.

Congress may not ban you and your friends from getting together and protesting their idiotic copyright laws as that would abridge your right of freedom of assembly..

congress can enact any law they want regarding copyright duration, revocation, reinstatement as this is all covered under the copyright clause and in no way affects anything under amendment 1

Comment Re:ALL copyright is a restriction on free speech. (Score 1) 431

Umm you seem to look at a random law and interpret it as "free speech", when in actual point of fact copyright law is what was modified to allow the exceptions and created fair use as a bridge between "copyright protection" and "public domain"

Free Speech is *not* copyright, fair use is a 1976 codification of US common law that existed back into at least 1709 in the UK.. (taken from the same article you pulled your quote from) this is still not a free speech issue, nor a freedom of the press issue.

Free Speech is about the GOVERNMENT not being allowed to restrict what people talk about, both privately and in public (with a few very VERY tightly controlled restrictions such as yelling fire in a theater) and is almost *always* interpreted as referring to the right to express unpopular opinions in general, and about the current or previous government in particular.

There is a vast difference between copyright/patent law.. and free speech/freedom of assembly.

Comment Re:ALL copyright is a restriction on free speech. (Score 1) 431

Again your wrong, as congress was given the power to do exactly that.. like it or not..

I do not *like* the way congress is behaving regarding copyrights, that does not mean that they are not the folks given that power by our constitution.

The 10TH amendment codifies what was not put into the original document (that anything congress is not allowed to do is the states job)

You are ignoring Section 8 which enumerates the powers of congress, I have inserted it below..

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

        To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

        To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

        To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

        To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

        To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

        To establish post offices and post roads;

      To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

        To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

        To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

        To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

        To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

        To provide and maintain a navy;

        To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

        To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

        To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

        To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 is the part you seem to be missing/ignoring.. its commonly referred to as "the copyright clause"

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

This explicitly gives the power to congress, and not the States, and therefore it is *not* a 10th amendment issue.

As I have said, I do not agree with the manner in which they are going about dealing with copyrights, that said they are the only ones able to do so under our constitution.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Working...