Make egress filters mandatory. No ifs or buts. Make it law.
Make it law that I can disconnect any user who isn't egress filtering and is sending me shit.
Make it a law where? If it's just in the US, or just the US and the EU, then the law does no good. It would need to be a worldwide law, good luck getting such a law in every country.
In a thousand years we will be still serving God, and you will be at the bottom of the lake of fire. This is of course of your own choosing. There's still hope for you, you just have to repent.
Why would an omnipotent being need somebody to "serve" him or "glorify" him? Can't he serve himself?
There are two mitigating factors: USB-C allows analog audio output if the host devices supports it (as in, a passive adapter can be used without an additional DAC), and USB-C is a general standard and not proprietary.
As such, if I was given the choice between a Macbook with one USB-C port and one headphone jack, or a Macbook with two USB-C ports... I would take the one with two USB-C ports. It'd be annoying to lose the headphone jack, but overall it'd be a net gain in utility, since it'd enable things like charge-and-display-at-the-same-time without hubs.
Would it have killed them to put a picture of a mooncake in the article? Am I the only one who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about?
Another option is that if a company produces a lot of money with just machines, then the government need to tax heavily that company for one of two things: to decide to hire some people, or to collect the money for them to pay the people with intellectual or artistic based professions. And, to make a cultural revolution increasing the quantity of people on that area instead of promoting jobs that could be easily improved with machines.
But if the people who would make the laws to "tax heavily that company" are basically owned by that company (or at least "very good friends" with the company owners) then why would they make such a law? In the US, unless the campaign finance and voting laws are changed this will never happen -- the rich will keep getting richer and the poor will keep getting poorer.
Cue the endless discussion on the "Autopilot" name, rather than any discussions of the technical merits of the system or its implementation.
Your two statements are contradictory.
They're not. Holding a copyright on a work does not confer one with complete authority as to how that work may be used. The rights which comprise copyright are relatively few; further, they are themselves limited in a number of respects.
For example, copyright on a book does not include a right to prohibit other people from reading the book. The list of exclusive rights that together form a copyright can mostly be found at 17 USC 106. (Again, only for the purposes of US copyright law; I have no idea about foreign copyright law, and I don't care to)
And posting a picture on your website doesn't tell or demonstrate anything.
The conduct of doing so, assuming a website open to the public, is an implicit license to anyone to access and view it (and to make incidental copies in the process of doing so).
If I happen to know that the Mona Lisa hangs in the Louvre, there's nothing wrong with my telling people to go there to see it. And if I happen to know the URL of your picture, there's nothing wrong with my telling people to go there to see your picture; this is so whether I provide people with a link to be manually followed, or an embedded link to be automatically followed such that the picture appears in the web page. I'm not copying it onto my website or anything.
First sale is not profiting in a commercial sense.
It is absolutely that. A used book store will sell copies of works for a profit, because it is a commercial enterprise. It is totally reliant on the first sale doctrine. Ditto however many independent video stores still exist (since it's perfectly legal to rent lawfully made copies of movies that you own).
Commercial use is not fair use.
Well, where the hell were you when the Supreme Court needed your input in 1994 in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music?
There the Court not only found that a commercial use certainly could be a fair use, they even said that it is wrong to treat a commercial use as being presumptively unfair. Commerciality is just an element to be considered, and that's all:
If, indeed, commerciality carried presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the presumption would swallow nearly all of the illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph of Â 107, including news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research, since these activities "are generally conducted for profit in this country." Harper & Row, supra, at 592 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Congress could not have intended such a rule, which certainly is not inferable from the common-law cases, arising as they did from the world of letters in which Samuel Johnson could pronounce that "[n]o man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." 3 Boswell's Life of Johnson 19 (G. Hill ed. 1934).
But then I guess you already knew everything you wrong was wrong since you fell the need to try and make your point using an insult.
'Everything you wrong was wrong?' What the hell is that?
Anyway, I called you an idiot because you're clearly an idiot. It had nothing to do with my actual argument. But my advice to you is that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, at least within the context of US copyright law, and you would do yourself, and everyone else a great service if you'd shut the fuck up and learn something from a legitimate, neutral source before you next presume to talk about it.
The word is that Star Trek: Discovery may attempt to use Majel Barrett's voice for the computer, due to her having recorded a complete phonetic sample before she passed. If this really does outperform the best available TTS engines, then perhaps DeepMind would be a good fit to generate that for the show: since it's supposed to be a computer, it's not the end of the world if it doesn't sound completely human...
He started with cd
Yeah, and that's the only command that executes. The
Damn, there really needs to be a "-1 Wall of copypasta" mod.
I thought the PSA was "Only losers use drugs" which was quickly corrupted to "Only users lose drugs"
You still retain all rights to decide how people may use that photo.
No, you still retain whatever rights you had. You certainly don't have complete authority to decide how other people may use it. So long as other people use it in a manner which doesn't infringe on your copyright, you can't control them at all, in fact.
At no time does making something publicly available give a 3rd party ability to profit from it.
It does for first sale. It does for fair use, if the particular use happens to qualify (commercial uses are fully able to be fair uses). There's a number of other exceptions that can apply as well. For example, if you release a record, other people can record and sell cover versions of it, and the whole intent of this was to allow third parties the ability to profit without the permission of the copyright holder.
This sounds like a perfectly ordinary copyright ruling
In fact, this is an asinine ruling. The court got it right before, when it found that linking to a file which had been put up with authorization was not infringing (which the exact thing you've been claiming was infringing, idiot). Here, the difference was that the underlying files had been put up in an infringing manner. But, rather than tell the rights holder to go after the actual wrong-doer who put them up to begin with, they decided to shift liability to third parties who were not responsible for the underlying infringement. It's very reminiscent of the stupid 'right to be forgotten' cases, in that it tries to sweep things under the carpet by imposing liability on the wrong parties just because they're more convenient.
Commercial use is, and it always has been too. This isn't anything surprising to anyone who's done as much as first year of lawschool. There's a big difference between publishing content, even distributing it widely, and making a profit of the said content.
I have no idea about European copyright law, nor do I care, but in the US, there's not any significant difference.
Infringement is essentially any infringement of the rights granted to authors in section 106, which are subject to various exceptions and limitations.
Prima facie infringement makes no distinction between commercial and non-commercial use. That may be relevant in computing damages, but often isn't. A few of the exceptions to copyright may apply in certain circumstances that include non-commercial use, but others apply in any kind of use.
Since no one in the US studies copyright law in their first year of law school, I wouldn't worry too much about what some 1L thinks.
Also I think your hypo with the photograph is wrong. First, 'embedding' is not a right of the copyright holder. Copying is, but in the case of embedding, the Coca-Cola company has not engaged in copying; only you and the end user have. Distribution is, but in the case of embedding, they're not distributing anything; you are, if anyone is. Public display is your best bet, but again, they're not the ones displaying it, you are. Your problem is that you have set up your server to accept requests from users who are not viewing your site, but who may be viewing some other site that is embedding an image from you. That's your fault, and within your control. Your failure to prevent it can be viewed as an implicit license for users to view that material, which kills any argument at direct, and therefore secondary, infringement.
As for the model release, that's a whole different kettle of fish, but certainly wouldn't come back against you.
ASHes to ASHes, DOS to DOS.