Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Big data is gonna kill small crime (Score 3, Insightful) 85

I'm seeing this is just about every form of crime outside of petty theft among the poor (e.g. when they keep it in their own neighborhood so nobody can be arsed to investigate). Give it another 10-20 years and the only crimes left will be the occasional breakin at some poor slobs apartment that nets $100 bucks worth of junk, a few crimes of passion and the legal crime Wallstreet does because we don't have the bollocks to regulate anymore.

Comment Re:Fair use (Score 1) 172

It would be fair use only if used infrequently. For example, if you want to quote someone else's article in your article, that's fair use. However, if your entire business is dependent upon making snippets from thousands of articles, that's no longer fair use, it's commercial use.

No, you're wrong.

First, fair use applies to both commercial and non-commercial uses. For example, when Mad Magazine did a movie parody, that would be fair use, even though the magazine us sold for an increasing cheap price and is a commercial venture.

Second, the previous poster didn't really explain it well. Fair use is when a copyrighted work is used without permission in a way that, but for fair use, would be infringing, but which is not infringing because it is in the general purpose of copyright to allow such a use. It's evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and is completely fact dependent. This, any particular use might be a fair use, but not just any use actually is.

There's a test for finding out whether a use is fair or not. It has four factors, though it isn't a matter of adding up how many factors go one way or another, and depending on the case, one factor might be treated as outweighing another. Plus, it's just a tool; other factors can be considered too.

The factors are: 1) the purpose and character of the use, such as whether the use is for profit or not, whether the use would advance the progress of knowledge by resulting in something new or otherwise helpful; 2) the nature of the work being used, such as whether it is fictional and therefore very creative and worth protecting, or factual, and therefore not worth protecting quite so much (how a work presents itself is also often relevant in copyright; if you claim that something is a fact, even though it's made up or is just a hypothesis, others may get to treat it as a fact) as well as whether the work being used has already been published or not; 3) the amount of the work used, and how important to the work that portion is; and 4) whether the use will have a negative effect on the value or market for the work (positive effects are not considered).

Snippets of this type -- in aggregate, mind you -- have repeatedly been found to be fair use in the US because for the first factor, although the use is commercial in nature, it provides a benefit to society in being able to search for this material (which of course requires as much material as possible to be used in constructing the index, even though the index itself, as opposed to the results of a search, is not made available), the second factor may weigh against the use depending on the material being indexed, but it is not treated as being very important, obviously the whole work must be used to make the index for the index to be useful, so the third factor doesn't matter, and for the fourth factor, it doesn't harm the market for news articles to be able to find them and to see in one or two lines why they match your search terms. It doesn't matter if that's the business model.

And if you think this is extreme, look at time shifting, which is bad on all of the first three factors, but is sufficiently successful on the fourth so as to be fair use (in a general way, since again it is highly fact dependent)

Comment There's plenty of demand (Score 1, Interesting) 391

the right wing in our nation spent billions wining local elections so they could take the state senates and then gerrymandered their way into the national house & senate. Progressives won the popular vote in the last 3 elections but still lost because of this. If nothing else that's why I want Hilary. She's likely to stack the Supreme court with left leaning candidates that'll shut gerrymandering down. Trump/Pence will do the opposite. Imagine a court with 3 Clarence Thomases on it...

Comment Re:Logic Says It Should Be Legal (Score 0) 391

Your resident crazy socialist here:

Just implement single payer already and fund the FDA enough that they can get generics approved. Problem solved (and in exactly the same way it's solved in the rest of the civilized world).

Importing drugs is difficult because the consumer doesn't have enough information to do it safely. Capitalism doesn't work for healthcare because it's an inelastic good. Anything more important than a twinkie shouldn't be left up to the free market.

Comment I think the difference is (Score 1) 131

they'd have to be rocking some capital (summary says $100k in gov't grants or $350k of their own money). This almost sounds like a really expensive way to buy yourself into America. Still, encouraging folks with resources to immigrate really is a good thing. It's the code monkeys I'd like to exclude.

Comment Meh, we'd still get an injection of capital (Score 1) 131

in the meantime. I'm all for curtailing the H1-B program. Screw that, just eliminate it. But assuming this program isn't yet another back door into more H1-Bs (e.g. cheap labor for mega corps) why wouldn't we want foreigners bringing lots and lots of capital into our country. $100-$350k seems too low though. Just getting into a McDonald's franchise starts at over $1 mil. I don't think you could get a subway for that. Also, given that 90% of businesses fail in 5 years what do we do with them when they fail? If we're giving them citizenship either way then it seems like this is just a really, really expensive way to buy a visa. Kinda f'd up if that's the case.

Comment Cable companies don't compete (Score 1) 141

with each other. They have exclusive franchises granted to them in exchange for paying for the infrastructure up front ( Yeah, I know they didn't really pay for it since they got tax credits almost immediately to offset it on top of tax cuts to further offset it, but hey, that's America for you).

Comment Democrate here (Score 2, Insightful) 526

we were thinking "How the _fuck_ are we suppose to create a viable progressive candidate when we've got to deal with the right wing in our party who think Jesus will somehow make Flint's water clean again?".

Hilary is a compromise between our right wing and our progressives. That's kinda the point of progressivism: Progress. Hilary is progress. Not a lot. Lots of us want more. But there's a _lot_ of aging baby boomers scared out of their wits right now who don't want _anything_ changed. Hilary's there for them. Bernie was there for the progressives, but we let him slide after he got some concessions out of the establishment because otherwise those boomers will stay home. They won't vote the big R. But they will stay home. Out of fear of Bernie the Big Bad (Democratic) Socialist. And we'll lose the election.

We did the same thing to get Mr Clinton in the Whitehouse. Worked then too. It'll probably work now. If Hilary was a man it'd probably be going smoother. Folks don't like Bossy chicks.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mommy, what happens to your files when you die?