A while back, attorneys for Apple concocted a creative argument for why jailbreaking your iPhone constituted an infringement of the copyrights in the device’s software, based on the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (more familiarly known as the “DMCA”). The Library of Congress (as the body that promulgates regulations for enforcement of the Copyright Act) has today proposed an exemption to liability that specifically puts the kibosh on Apple’s legal theory.
Anyone with a law school education knows that state action is required before anyone can whine about having their free speech rights taken away. Well, okay — you can whine about it, but that’s about it. You can’t get a court to step in and fix your problem, unless some government entity is involved. Not to go too far off track here, but this is the whole idea behind the Constitution. It’s a big long list of the things that government isn’t supposed to do, and a really short list of what it *may* do.
Enough 1790′s background; let’s talk 2010. If you’re a redneck (this is not necessarily a requirement, but it helps), and you decide to publish a “newspaper” (not sure what else to call it) that describes your political ideas, don’t get all uppity if the local KFC won’t let you put it on the take-one-free rack, between the Auto Trader and the Keels and Wheels. It’s not a constitutional issue.
The scary part of this story is that you have to wade two thirds of the way into this Fox News article before they reveal that little tid bit to the reader who isn’t in the know. How many of those readers have the kind of attention span necessary to make it that far? More than likely, the majority start seeing red after reading the headline, and three sentences in, they’re sputtering some nonsense about “they’re ruinin’ are country” and clicking over to something more soothing. Gold star for journalistic integrity to Fox News on this one!
Christopher Jorgensen, of JackassLetters.com infamy, has further demonstrated his complete lack of sensitivity, yet again, this past weekend. In an appalling display of callousness, he has posted a scanned image only of his latest letter response from Attorney Scott Greenfield, leaving text-only browser users completely in the dark. We here at GaneshaFish just won’t stand for that kind of discrimination. Anyone using a TRS-80, who was unable to enjoy the above-mentioned letter, take heart. We have provided a transcript below.
Dear Mr. Jorgenson [sic]:
Thank you for your letter explaining why you will not, and cannot, write to me. As you note, “no one ever reads the ‘FUQ‘ on your website.” It would be wrong of me to be the first, and I shall not demean the sanctity of your FUQs by reading them. While they may not remain virginal forever, I would feel dirty to be the first.
However, I remain confused about the reference in you letter (the one explaining why you will not write to me) about a “joke”. What joke would that be? I love jokes, and would very much look forward to reading one of your creation. Please let me know with greater specificity when and if you have a joke that I can enjoy. I so look forward to it.
Also, your being from Des Moines, would this be the first ever joke to come from there? If so, I would like to announce it, and perhaps get you the key to the City. It would be a great honor for you, but you deserve it if you can be the first from Des Moines to create a joke. Just so you know, I have eaten in Des Moines. It wasn’t very funny at all.
As I am not a comedian (and in fact, I am a lawyer), I promise not to steal your joke or use it without attribution. I really hope it’s a good one. Is Jorgenson [sic] a Jewish name?
A new law in Oklahoma requires women who seek an abortion — including when the pregnancy results from incest or rape — to (i) have an ultrasound performed; and (ii) have the fetus described to them (source). (Apparently, a few Oklahoma lawmakers have been watching too much television, where everyone goes all gooey as soon as the woosh-woosh-woosh noise starts and that unrecognizable, grainy image pops up on the tiny monitor. <cueViolins>”It’s a GIRL!”</cueViolins>)
“Don’t force your morality off on me! Or else I’ll squirt this gel all over you!”
Not particularly shocking news, coming from the buckle of the Bible Belt. I wonder, however, if anyone has considered the First Amendment implications. Can the state require an ultrasound tech to describe the fetus? Not if some pro-choice tech doesn’t want to.
Plenty of whiny types are up in arms over Facebook’s recent “personalization” improvements, which automatically link fan pages for companies, bands, television shows, etc. to users’ profiles, based on their self-proclaimed favorites. Also, when a user specifies their favorite music, movies, books, and the like, that information may now be accessed more readily by parties not in that users’ friend list.
No doubt these idiots are only responding to angry phone calls from their constituents, but how many votes would they really lose by explaining that this really isn’t the kind of thing the federal government should be getting involved in? Not everything that someone can gripe about should be the subject of a congressional investigation. If you don’t like the way Facebook treats its users, you don’t have to be a member.
Released today, BFMV’s third studio album is definitely worth a listen — especially if you like screamo that’s set against a decent melody. This album is chock full of signature sound, including plenty of double bass and thick harmonies. I’ve only listened to it twice through so far, but I’m definitely not disappointed with this purchase.
A while back, attorneys for Apple concocted a creative argument for why jailbreaking your iPhone constituted an infringement of the copyrights in the device’s software, based on the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (more familiarly known as the “DMCA”). The Library of Congress (as the body that promulgates regulations for enforcement of the Copyright Act) has today proposed an exemption to liability that specifically puts the kibosh on Apple’s legal theory.
