Did you know that librarians usually have a penis or a vagina? And the most horrible thing of all is that they bring it with them into the library! They jiggle it all around every time they go around putting books back in their order and such. It’s horrible. What kind of message are they trying to send?
I mean regardless of what sexually deviant thing they carry around between their legs, for sure, almost with a failure, with just a few exceptions, all of those deviants bring an anus with them where ever they go. And tits! They are gotta bring their tits like anyone is interested in those things. My God! We need to burn those places down!
But there’s a very clear distinction in the law. Libraries are covered under first sale doctrine. You can do effectively what you want with a physical object that contains copyrighted material placed there by the owner.
Digital anything is not covered by the first sale doctrine. Every individual loan is a copy. Every time a “copy” moves between devices is a copy. There is no legal framework for ownership of anything digital. It’s always a license, no matter what permissions that license grants you.
You have to pass new laws to match the digital world. Under the current laws, it’s extremely clear that lending unauthorized digital copies of a physical book is copyright infringement. Wholesale copies of a work aren’t even in the neighborhood of fair use, especially when you’re distributing a bunch of them. DRMing those copies is completely irrelevant legally.
I really don’t think anyone envisioned the way digital distribution would change when the DMCA was written.
But my point isn’t that there’s political will to make a change, but that the judiciary really doesn’t have the capacity to rule any other way than the obvious “you can’t do this”. It would be a completely wild precedent for this case to somehow result in a ruling that it’s fair use based on the actual law and the history of previous rulings.
Yep. Libraries can’t just buy an ebook like they can buy a book. They have to negotiate a contract with the copyright holder to be able to lend them out.
The IAs point is that they should not have to do that, partly because of first sale doctrine. They bought each ebook, and only lend out that copy, the exact same as libraries do now.
1 bought copy, 1 lend. That’s a fair and simple system that mimics hundreds of years of physical book lending.
Their other point is that the societal good of allowing anyone in the world to educate themselves for free far, far outweigh the value of monetary gain for publishers. Since copyright is intended to help society, their interpretation is the better application of it.
Then write new laws. Digitizing the book is already relying on fair use. Judges aren’t lawmakers, and this case doesn’t have the tiniest hint of the tiniest shred of a leg to stand on.
There is no first sale doctrine for digital. There is no such thing as ownership of a “digital copy” to begin with. The framework doesn’t exist. You have a license.
There’s no possible way to apply the law where the Internet Archive is permitted to do their lending program. It very clearly is illegal copyright infringement that does not come anywhere close to fair use.
The judges do not have the authority to completely overrule both the text of the law and the massive body of precedent. The Supreme Court could, except the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the right to regulate IP how they see fit, and the law is super clear that you can’t do anything that resembles what IA is doing in any way.
You can check an eBook out, but there are examples of issues, something like the library can only do it five times or whatever. It isn't treated like an actual book. I don't know the details but there are problems with eBook rentals.
Some digital libraries have systems set up to lend you a book for X number of hours for free, making it both limited and accessible at the same time. Are those treated as regular libraries?
I understand your point. But the archive isn’t giving you a copy. It will display 2 pages on your screen, using encryption, for up to 2 hours. You can turn pages and see a different 2 pages displayed, but that’s it.
Is this a significant distinction from a copy, I don’t know. But it does seem different as I cannot take that copy, I can only observe content and even then in a limited way.
The argument that a copy in your browser is legally defensible is the equivalent of claiming that sites can legally stream movies to you. It is a copy, both legally and in reality.
I can see where you are going with this. But there is NOT a copy in my browser. Only a representation of a fraction of the whole book at any given time. I cannot make a copy.
When I am viewing the section of the book, the rest of the book is “checked out”. No one else can look at it. Is this not how a library works? I check out an item, then I take it back? Are they not making the steps to make sure I can check it out, read it, and then I have to give it back?
Since libraries are allowed to loan from their collection, what makes digital any different? In the case of video, if the library wanted to check out a video and stream it to me, I see no difference than me checking it out myself. In fact libraries are granted the right to show videos to me and small groups, so why can’t I be farther away than in their building?
The current move of libraries to streaming services is exactly because of this. Now the library has a license, and cannot share the stream without the license. This is a move to remove physical items so that the possibility of streaming from a physical item is moot.
It doesn’t matter if the copy is all at once. Every bit of the file touching your computer involves multiple copies. It is fundamentally impossible to share any file without copies being made. The original digitization is already probably illegal because it’s for the purpose of distribution and not one of the fair use exceptions. Again, this is exactly identical to the claim that pirate sites providing streaming is legal.
Libraries do not make copies. Legally, it’s exactly that simple. There is no ambiguity in any way. It is copyright infringement under current law. It is not possible to defend this without throwing current law in the trash and starting over from scratch. If the judge did somehow rule in IA’s favor the Supreme Court could overrule him in about 30 seconds with basically no deliberation. Courts do not have the authority to change the law.
The Internet Archive had a system in place specifically to ensure that they had a legal license for each copy of the book loaded out digitally at any given time. This essentially made it a library.
During the lockdown, they intentionally stopped using this system and loaned out unlimited copies. They didn’t just violate copyright in accident, they willfully and intentionally disabled their own systems designed to preserve copyright.
I think the publishers suck too, but the Internet Archive humped the bunk on this one.
They really brought attention to themselves. But if I understand it the current discussion is about if all books need to be removed, or can they have controlled lending.
Correct, the entire concept of physically backed digital lending is being threatened, and many physical libraries contracted with IA to digitize their books and then facilitate digitally lending their physical copies to their patrons
The guy is an effective cheerleader for any cause he really believes in. I mean he almost singlehandedly extended benefits to 9/11 first responders on the strength of his eloquence.
Thing is he doesn’t want to do it. Which makes me want him to do it even more. Something about great leaders not seeking power but having it thrust upon them in times of need like a George Washington
I know he doesn’t want to run which just like you only makes me want him to run even more. He’s smart enough to know that he doesn’t know everything and never will.So he will surround himself with people who know what they’re talking about and listen to their advice.
I’m tempted to really believe in Biden taking the loss and just going absolutely balls to the walls with harsh ads aimed at the GOP and Trump, hitting dozens of speaker events at high levels of energy, and becoming what we wish the Democratic party would become to win this thing.
Realistically though, I’d prefer a sound, harder left leaning, less bipartisan nominee. It’s a safer and surer bet, unfortunately.
Stewart (and Colbert) are literally a clown (TV Comedian) who is refusing to ever make a serious political moves. Neither of them have any legislative experience or executive experience either.
The fact that modern people always choose TV Personalities (like Trump, Stewart and Colbert) is part of the same problem of ignorance of our Political system and what this job even freaken entails.
You have two counter examples, and one of them was incredibly successful, just for the side where success is bad for the country. Reagan wasn’t ineffective, he was effective for evil purposes.
Despite being the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, the President of the Constitutional Convention, and the first President of the United States, George Washington’s level of education was far lower than any of the other Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, he was often scorned by some of the other Founding Fathers for this inadequacy. However, this lack of education was not George Washington’s fault. Upon the death of George Washington’s father in 1743, George’s formal schooling ended. He is thought to have attended the nearby grammar school run by Reverend James Marye, the rector of St. George’s Parish, up until this time. Therefore, the extent of young George’s formal educational training was in basic mathematics, reading, and writing.
Although his older half-brothers had the opportunity to gain a formal education over in England at the Appleby School, George was required to take on the responsibility of running the family farm after his father’s death.
On this list, every ranking places him as the highest-ranked President to ever serve other than one that places him at #2 and one that places him at #3:
That was 200 years ago. I’m comparing Jon Stewart to one of his contemporaries, in the modern era.
This wasn’t about Stewart anyway. My point was that Al Franken is a bad example of an entertainer breaking I to politics, because with his background it was entertainment that was the abberation.
Born to a Ukrainian Jewish family, Zelenskyy grew up as a native Russian speaker in Kryvyi Rih, a major city of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in central Ukraine. Before his acting career, he obtained a degree in law from the Kyiv National Economic University. He then pursued a comedy career and created the production company Kvartal 95, which produced films, cartoons, and TV shows including the TV series Servant of the People, in which Zelenskyy played a fictional Ukrainian president. The series aired from 2015 to 2019 and was immensely popular. A political party with the same name as the TV show was created in March 2018 by employees of Kvartal 95.
EDIT: Darn, someone else apparently mentioned it as well, checking their link. I’m still gonna leave this text up, though.
If wielding power in our “democracy” is so complicated that we must exclude non-experts isn’t that an indictment of our democracy? What is it about the legislative and executive process that people are ignorant of?
While I am skeptical of the celebrity as politician trend which has been prominent over the last few decades; especially on the right. I don’t think lack of experience is the problem with the trend.
Put aside what you think about Trump’s political project for a moment. He was effective at giving conservatives what they wanted. Tax cuts and Supreme Court seats. Despite having zero legislative and executive experience. You could say the same thing about Reagan and perhaps Schwarzenegger.
I agree, expecting a strongman to come in and save us from all our political issues is problematic. We shouldn’t recreate feudalism. We need to learn to organize ourselves into a base of democratic power that we can wield towards our broad economic interests.
But at the same time our media apparatus runs on spectacle, it takes someone with the charisma of John Stewart to be taken seriously by mainstream power brokers. Perhaps he could breakthrough the spectacle and kickstart a new progressive era that could enable those democratic ends.
Because the alternative to charisma for gaining political legitimacy is going through the political system. And the longer you’re in that system the more time that system has to influence you towards ends that want to stop progress. Just look at Jamal Bowman and John Fetterman.
Modern? where do you think Reagan came from? At least Stewart and Colbert are versed in the political and policy stuff from having been immersed in it for decades.
Yes, indeed. So really what you need from a president is a trustworthy image and a baseline moral character, because all the actual governance minutiae is handled by the staff.
So why is it that all these people come out of the woodwork to insist the president NEEDS to be mired in one of the most corrupt political systems in the developed world?
I know he doesn’t want too which is another reason why I want him. He could announce himself right now and still pull tons of votes to be a threat to both parties.
When Biden seemed lost at the beginning, it was the Introitus.
When they were arguing about golf, it was the Confutatis.
When they were both responding to how to help Americans with addiction by talking about restricting fentanyl coming into the country, it was the Dies Irae.
The entire thing was underlined by the Lacrimosa.
The closing statements, the Kyrie. Lord have mercy.
Edit: (Obviously these are not in performance order.)
No, I mean both candidates sounded softer than normal. Like the sound was a bit muffled. It was most noticeable at the very beginning before they started talking louder.
At one point trump was talking forever. you could see even he was not sure what else to say but he kept plugging along. I was like. isn't his time up? aren't they supposed to mute the mics?
That's been a general movement away from rural America for decades (and people have been leaving the countryside to make their fortune in the big city for centuries). However, this line stood out to me because of the timeframe cited:
A whopping 81 percent of rural counties had more deaths than births between 2019 and 2023.
Maybe I'm just still bitter, but maybe they should have tried social distancing, wearing masks, and getting vaccinated.
Yeah, it is an interesting statistic, isn’t it? It definitely doesn’t seem like the kids moving away for better economic prospects is the only factor here.
This stood out to me as well, the conservative stance on C-19 and the resulting general negligence seems a very obvious major factor to the rural population decline in this timeframe.
We’ll probably live to see robot towns, where a small contingent of maintenence workers keep a huge fleet of automated farming/processing/shipping equipment operational. If they’re lucky Monsanto will buy a restaurant chain so there’s somewhere for them to eat nearby.
Honestly for as much “woe is me” that they crammed into this piece, my takeaway was mostly just, “Hmmm…good.”
Like…I love rural PA, I’m just not wild about a lot of the people who live there. They vote against my own interests (and theirs), disproportionately influence state government, and welcome corporations that proudly destroy the environment while taking a hostile stance toward anyone not like them.
This isn’t down to every last person, of course, but broadly speaking, the ones who aren’t fitting that template are also not the ones doing most of the dying.
So the piece is reading, to me, more as, “the people most responsible for keeping the shitty aspects of Pennsylvania shitty are dying faster than they’re breeding”…which is good news for the more reasonable residents of the state.
I can’t think of a more fitting punishment for all of those elderly MAGA boomers who have alienated their entire families by being hateful and disgusting dying because of a lack of good elder care due to their hatred of immigrants.
I would rather see them live, and suffer the constant knowledge that they can do nothing without the help of their immigrant caregivers; who I hope are LGBTQ as well.
Yeah I was about to say these people spent a lifetime using immigrant labor. They probably still get kicks out of having someone beneath them wipe their asses
On the contrary, they don’t have any cognitive dissonance, that’s why they’re not bothered—dissonance suggests they feel discomfort in holding their opposing views
On the contrary, they don’t have any cognitive dissonance, that’s why they’re not bothered—dissonance suggests they feel discomfort in holding their opposing views
Funny for us, maybe. I wouldn’t want to inflict them on the poor immigrant workers though. There’s only so much hate crime a 90 year old man can get up to but by gee by golly he’s gonna put the effort into it.
Rolling Stone’s Freedom of Information Act request, filed hours after the announcement of his death in November 2023, seeks expedited processing of FBI files related to the former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to President Nixon.
If this were anyone else I’d criticize Rolling Stone for acting like hungry vultures. But it’s Henry “War Criminal like ten times over” Kissinger. Have at him.
Yeah I’m pretty ok with violating Kissengers privacy, there’s exceptions to all rules and he’s fucking one of them on this front. Glad he’s fucking dead, I’m gonna get drunk today just to celebrate it… again
Gotta say, for a guy they keep presenting as a senile, barely-functional bumbling idiot, orchestrating a trial to throw your own son in jail just to generate a distraction is kinda badass.
Some real "getting captured was my plan all along" energy right there.
"That there was a craigslist ad" is evidence of absolutely nothing. Let's review that headline:
Election commissioner
Yup.
presents evidence
Nope.
that Trump
Nope.
caught
Nope.
paying people to attend rally
Yup.
So the somehow more accurate headline reads:
Election commissioner 'paying people to attend rally'
This article is bullshit propaganda. And before you cry foul, check my comment history. We should all demand accurate journalism about everything, and call it out when it's bullshit.
Propaganda news articles on Lemmy? shocked Pikachu
There’s pieces of shit on all sides. Of course, pieces of shit would never consider themselves pieces of shit. But being active in smear wars is a good indicator, whether politics, consoles, social issues, etc.
Here's what I did: Called out bullshit journalism, and because there's all sorts of propagandists floating around, made sure to distinguish myself from them.
Here's what you did: "aLl SiDeS-ed" it like a propagandist would do.
So, to sum up, from 2005 to 2012, the UK had a scheme (always love that word, neutral in most British dialects but delightfully menacing in American English) for certain repeat offenders where you would be sentenced to a minimum with no designated end date, just when the parole board thought you were sufficiently rehabilitated, though you remained on parole indefinitely as well.
When it was revoked, because “life but with the possibility of parole after two years” is a pretty bizarre idea and a palpably insane sentence for anything short of various homicide and sexual assault charges, it was only going forward. They didn’t retroactively cap the prisoners’ sentences.
Official figures published last week show 2,796 people given IPPs remain in prison today. Of those, 1,179 have never been released and 705 are more than 10 years beyond their original sentence.
I’m an American. Our system is, on the whole, obviously much worse, tragically worse, but this seems like an oddly Dickensian nightmare in a country that’s generally much more humane, though still struggling with a weird sort of muscularly classist paternalism.
[…] an oddly Dickensian nightmare in a country that’s generally much more humane, though still struggling with a weird sort of muscularly classist paternalism
You can add to that a very unhealthy admiration for the USA
I’ve lived in a couple of countries in Europe including the UK and the idea that the system in Britain is generally humane is pretty naive.
The Justice System in Britain is to a very large extent a tool to Keep People In Their Proper Place and like the Political system and other Power systems over there, the end result of uninterrupted centuries of maybe the most classist mindset in the whole of Europe and one of the lowest levels of social mobility in the continent.
Absolutelly, if you are wealthy or well connected the system will be very “humane” for you and if you’re Middle Class you’ll probably be alright. Poor people … well … as long as they only harm other poor people (or foreigners) they might be alright (hence the phenomenon of Hooliganism), otherwise the book will be thrown at them.
There really is quite the extraordinary “some people are inherently superior to other people” mindset going on in there and that’s reflected in the uneveness of the treatment given to people by the Justice System and the exceedingly cold and extremelly punitive sentencing reserved for “lesser” people.
The style of violence of the various British Power Systems reflects the style of violence of the Posh Elites: nothing so crude as physical violence involving guns, rather complex rule structures designed with enough flexibility to on one side let the “right people” through and on the other crush the “wrong people” in their machinery, as well as goon-like police force compose of people from a working class background who see themselves as above the common working class and can thus often behave with that very special kind of cruel obedience found in those who both think they’re now better than the place from where they came, yet fear they might fall back if they don’t execute their orders with gusto.
It’s not a significantly more humane society, it’s just inhumane in different ways than America and the Justice System there reflects that.
A system designed to slowly crush the less well off that “don’t know their place” for the rest of their lives might seem more humane than one were the police will just shoot them (especially if having the “wrong” skin color) but in terms of hurt inflicted the former might very well be worse than the latter because it’s basically lifelong torture. Also read all about Britain’s past: they got rid of Slavery and a few years later reinstated it as Indentured Servitude (and tell everybody they were the first country to outlaw Slavery, which is a pretty typical example of the local way in which bad things are just rebranded, not stopped and the rebranding is shamelessly used for image polishing purpose) plus had things like Workhouses all the way to the XX century - the Edwardian Era Britain (the real deal, were household servants were supposed to turn to the wall and look away when the master of the house was passing, not the hyper beautified version of British period series and movies) never got torn down by Revolution or anything similar, it just got buried under extra layers of social norms and a relentless cultural push to rewrite the common perception of it via deceitfully portraying it (such as in the above mentioned period series and movies).
The cruelty in such a system is much harder to spot than in the bloody police violence you see in America (and it’s so by design) so people outside Britain tend to have quite a rosy view of the place, which is only natural until you figure the culture and forms of the English upper classes not just in their exercise of power and authority but in the way they interact with the “lower” classes and even each other. Hence my use of the word “naive” (as in naive about Britain, rather than generally naive) which I expected to be not insulting (I supposed I could’ve used “interesting” or “curious”, and Brits would definitelly have got the implied insult).
Wouldn’t it be a hell of a thing if Biden could channel the vengeful spirit of Charles Sumner for just ten minutes on live TV during a debate? Class, open your history textbooks to chapter 11, The Caning of Trump.
Breathing heavily, dabbing sweat off his brow, Joe Biden finally stopped swinging the sledgehammer at the bloody pulp that was once a person, who was once Donald Trump, who was once a US president. Joe cleared his throat to signal to the crowd to end their “let’s go Brandon” chanting.
“My fellow Americans, by decree of executive order, and I urge Congress to pass legislation to issue permanence to it, a US president is not immune from prosecution, starting now.”
The students said there are attacks from the furries every day, but were unsure of how many furries there actually are at the school, shouting out numbers ranging from five to 100 students who identify as such.
The school’s “furry” population is accused of biting, scratching, spraying air freshener on, barking at and chasing other students.
My daughter was severely bullied at her middle school because they decided she was a furry. They also made those accusations about her- biting and barking and so on. Why? Because she likes punk and likes to wear leather chokers and one day a teacher called it her dog collar.
We had to take her out of the school because of this shit. Not surprised since Indiana, where we were, is a Midwestern Utah.
Thanks. It actually worked out for the best because she has a lot more self confidence and now that she’s in online school she’s getting the best grades of her life. We’ve had to go down to a single income so I can stay home with her and keep her on track, but it’s been worth it to see what a change it’s made.
Don’t forget to properly socialize her with peers. I have friends who were formally homeschooled and it fucked them up socially for a while. Game clubs might help.
It’s great that you were able to give up your job to take care of your daughter, and that she’s doing well now. But the fact that a bunch of asshole kids bullying her also had the knock-on effect of likely hurting your family’s long-term finances is annoying to hear.
Obviously the horrible shit they put your poor daughter through is the most important thing here. But this shows there are often other negative ripple effects impacting the whole family. Not to mention that most families don’t even have the option to give up an income source.
And all because some scummy kids decide it’s funny to make someone else’s life so miserable.
In high school I hung out with all the punks and skaters. A lot of them would wear the studded jackets with patches and stuff. I didn’t usually dress the part but I love punk music and I love the skate culture so I felt like I fit in there. We didn’t care what anyone else thought or said to us. Social media and cell phones also weren’t really a thing. Bullying is different now because of that and it’s a real problem in many places. I’m sorry you had to take your daughter out of that school. I hope she knows there are people like her, who like the same kinds of music or the same kinds of clothes and that she’s not a freak or a weirdo. School can be tough. Even as an adult people make jokes sometimes about the music I listen too, but you know what? I still don’t care! lol
Thanks. There are people like her in some ways, but she’s a unique person, which is what I love about her. She knows that kids into both the Dead Kennedys and Raggedy Ann doll collecting are not “normal” but she’s fine with not being “normal.” Really, I was the same way. I hung out with all the punks and skaters like you, but I was (and still am) more interested in 1930s and 1940s music. And her mom is similarly eccentric. So we knew she would always be a “weirdo.” We’ve taught her that she should be proud of who she is and that trying to fit in with the “normal” kids isn’t worth it.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.