Forgot your password?

Comment: Lets forget the 'right to be forgotten' (Score 3, Interesting) 128

by parodyca (#42051599) Attached to: Why Big Data Could Sink Europe's 'Right To Be Forgotten'
What about my right to control my server. I look at this 'right to be forgot' as the same sort of over reach which allows media companies to put DRM on my ebook reader or smartphone, then make it illegal for me to remove it. My equipment. My decision. You want to force be to keep or remove any software/data, then you get yourself a court order. I don't see why phantom Imaginary property rights seem to keep trumping rights over real property. Sheesh.

Comment: Re:Make it static. (Score 1) 586

by parodyca (#34447552) Attached to: WikiLeaks Starts Mass Mirroring Effort
"Lets tape all your private conversations with your lover, wife, friends, and acquaintances and post them on Wikileaks and see how they affect your relationships. Even if they taken in context, they will threaten your intimacy."

If I were purporting you represent you in these conversations with my lover, then I think you would have some right to know what I was saying. In democratic societies there are serious limits to what can be negotiated in private specifically because the population DOES have significant rights to know about them. That is how it should be. Too much has been negotiated in private. It is not right and it is time for that to stop.

Comment: Re:Is tecnically feasible? (Score 4, Insightful) 208

by parodyca (#31089582) Attached to: Italian Court Rules ISPs Must Block Access To Pirate Bay

Copyright infringement is already illegal, like murder.

This is more like thinking a ban on the sale of hunting knives will prevent murder. Actually it is a little more like telling the transit company that they can't have transit routes that pass by one store that sells knives, but doing nothing about people walking there or taking a taxi, or even the other stores.

Totally lame.

Comment: Re:TOR (Score 1) 643

by parodyca (#30155526) Attached to: Vulgar Comment On Newspaper Site Costs Man His Job

Your personal freedoms and right to anonymity end when you use equipment that is not your own (but your company) and you are doing it while on the clock for purposes other than those tasked to you while on the clock.


By that token, even your home computer can be censured by your ISP, because hey, you're using their equipment to transmit the message. You also need to be careful what you say on the phone at work, or who you talk to. even during your breaks because it is company equipment you know. This excuse for expunging peoples freedoms is used frequently and is often even promoted by many of the people on this site who otherwise are against unreasonable limitations of freedom. I don't buy it, and no one else should either.

My question is would he have been fired if the school knew what he was doing, but he posted a less offensive message?


+ - Company uses DMCA to take down second-hand softwar->

Submitted by
dreemteem writes "A judge Tuesday heard arguments in a dispute over software sales that could potentially have repercussions on the secondhand sale of virtually any copyright material.
The suit was filed by Timothy Vernor, a seller on eBay, after Autodesk, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, asked eBay to remove some of its software products that Vernor had listed for sale there, and later to ban him from the site.
Vernor had not illegally copied the software but was selling legitimate CDs of the products secondhand. For that reason, he argued, he was not infringing Autodesk's copyright.
Autodesk countered that because it licences the software, rather than selling it outright, a licensee does not have the right to resell its products."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:haha (Score 1) 319

by parodyca (#29259081) Attached to: Musician Lobby Terms Balanced Copyright "Disgusting"

do I believe that a person should have a monopoly over the products of the labor of his/her own mind? Absolutely. Society has no right to something that someone has created. It is the property of the person/company that created it.

That is only true for as long as the person who created it keeps it to themselves. As soon as they allow it to become part of the culture, then they have to be willing to give up some control over it, and eventually all control. When it becomes part of the culture it is no longer their sole possession, they have conceded to share it with the world, and they must therefore also concede some of the ownership rights too.

Once works become part of our culture people will naturally use those works to reinterpret that same culture. Witness YouTube. People have to be free to create derived works and share them otherwise we have what I guess could be referred to as cultural tyranny.

Comment: Re:haha (Score 5, Insightful) 319

by parodyca (#29255257) Attached to: Musician Lobby Terms Balanced Copyright "Disgusting"

You speak with sarcasm, but you are absolutely correct.

Society does have a need for music, and for more music (and other works to be produced) society NEEDs that music to enter the public domain at some point. The same holds true for pharmaceutical drugs as well. That is why copyright and patent protection are for limited times.

You make the common mistake of confusing real property rights with monopoly rights granted through copyright and patents. and the point you are trying to make illustrates where this analogy breaks down. I wish we user the term Intellectual Monopoly instead of property. It is more accurate and less likely to lead people to making these poor analogies.
