Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 163 posts

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#151

Post by wool_gather »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #145
wool_gather wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely true. Parent may just not understand all the details. One thing that can be slightly confusing w/r/t copyright and recorded music is that the there's a rule that automatically grants a license to produce a new recording of a piece, without the original author or the copyright holder even being consulted. This is called a "mechanical license"; you can perform your own version of any musical work as long as…

The US doesn't have a general concept of moral rights, though many countries do. Is there some moral right specifically applicable to those compulsory musical licenses?

You're right -- I don't remember the right term for this case, which is why I put it in quotes. I just know that you can get the license automatically, and do the recording, but that the original artist has some means to try to block you releasing the recording.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#152

Post by DrJones1098 »

squirrelicus wrote: post #74
DrJones1098 wrote: post #58

[flagged]

I just do not understand wild caricatures like this. Edit: spelling. TIL it's not spelled "characature".

How can you have every major conservative figure in politics having an outright attack on the press from the president on down...and call it a wild caricature I'll never understand.

Maybe it's fake news from conservatives themselves about the fake news?

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#153

Post by jkaplowitz »

wool_gather wrote: post #151
jkaplowitz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US doesn't have a general concept of moral rights, though many countries do. Is there some moral right specifically applicable to those compulsory musical licenses?

You're right -- I don't remember the right term for this case, which is why I put it in quotes. I just know that you can get the license automatically, and do the recording, but that the original artist has some means to try to block you releasing the recording.

Yeah, it's pretty confusing. I'm pretty sure the rules for performing covers are different from the rules for releasing recordings of covers, too. I think performance rights are more permissive.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#154

Post by garmaine »

logfromblammo wrote: post #136
garmaine wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially when it's in order to protect a corrupt dirtbag cop It was an order to protect his family from retribution from violent psychopaths that have in the past murdered not just informants / plea deal recipients, but their entire family in the most bloody way imaginable. I would not be surprised if the headline in a few days is about his wife and children dying in ways unfit to print. And it would be irrespons…

Wow. Your circle of acquaintances must be strongly against freedom of speech, then. You cannot create the Memory Hole by court order. LA Times has a constitutional right to print anything they obtain legally. They are not directly placing anyone's lives at risk by publishing. If anything, they could publish another article about how slipshod security practices in the court system leak sensitive information to the pub…

> They are not directly placing anyone's lives at risk by publishing.

Yes, yes they are. That is the entire point.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#155

Post by logfromblammo »

garmaine wrote: post #154
logfromblammo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Your circle of acquaintances must be strongly against freedom of speech, then. You cannot create the Memory Hole by court order. LA Times has a constitutional right to print anything they obtain legally. They are not directly placing anyone's lives at risk by publishing. If anything, they could publish another article about how slipshod security practices in the court system leak sensitive information to the pub…

> They are not directly placing anyone's lives at risk by publishing. Yes, yes they are. That is the entire point.

Any argument you can devise for this relies utterly on the critical step "a murderer acts on information in the article". The murderer was always the one placing people's lives at risk. And the murderer could also subscribe to the very same services which index public documents and court filings daily, that newspapers often use--like LexisNexis, for instance. Users can even be alerted on certain names and keywords. The LA Times article publication isn't even a critical step!

Even "a person is shocked/scared to death by the published information" would require some physiological condition that would enable someone to drop dead from an emotional response, such as heart disease with ventricular fibrillation, or organ failure due to chronic cortisol and adrenaline poisoning.

Perhaps publication of a paradox, like "This article contains no true statements," would kill an overly-logical AI?

The crime triangle of motive, method, and opportunity is closed by the criminal--the one with mens rea, the evil motive--not by anyone who produced any element of the opportunity.

Your assertion is completely unsupportable, and indirectly hostile to freedom of speech, by attributing imagined harms to speech, when their ultimate causes lie elsewhere.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#156

Post by tomjen3 »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #143
tomjen3 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is to stop me from not hiring someone based on his criminal background and just come up with a bogus excuse? Because frankly I wouldn't ever want to work with somebody who had raped a child.

That's a non-sequitor if Ive seen one. Sure theres no argument with someone who aims at pre-pubescent children. But those laws have themselves been perverted so that even a single picture between 2 17 year olds is this horrible felony that ends up ruining 2 lives. So yeah, its time to quit this Scarlet Letter for most "sex crimes" - cause its a gross miscalculation of justice and law.

I don't disagree, and obviously if I was taking the time to interview a candidate, I would also take the two minutes to look at what they were charged for.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#157

Post by lisper »

tomjen3 wrote: post #139
consp wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as an example: We have that here (Netherlands). You are under no circumstances allowed to not hire someone because of past failures if the statue if limitation has expired or the sentence has been served. There might be restrictions on what you can do after you have served, but it is not up to the company to judge on this. This is one of the reasons the "right to be forgotten" exists. You can however request a "…

What is to stop me from not hiring someone based on his criminal background and just come up with a bogus excuse? Because frankly I wouldn't ever want to work with somebody who had raped a child.

Not all child rapists are the same. If an eighteen-year-old has consensual sex with a seventeen-year-old, technically they have "raped a child". And yes, over zealous prosecutors do prosecute cases like this. There are people on the offender registry convicted of distributing child pornography because they sent someone a nude selfie when they were a teenager.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#158

Post by tomjen3 »

lisper wrote: post #157
tomjen3 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is to stop me from not hiring someone based on his criminal background and just come up with a bogus excuse? Because frankly I wouldn't ever want to work with somebody who had raped a child.

Not all child rapists are the same. If an eighteen-year-old has consensual sex with a seventeen-year-old, technically they have "raped a child". And yes, over zealous prosecutors do prosecute cases like this. There are people on the offender registry convicted of distributing child pornography because they sent someone a nude selfie when they were a teenager.

Not according to any reasonable interpretation of raped a child. You aren't the only one who assumed I would use the braindead US legal definition, so sorry for for not being clearer.

But if somebody rapes a five year old I don't want to work with them, don't want to be near them, etc. There are crimes that are impossible to rehabilitate from.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#159

Post by tomjen3 »

pm24601 wrote: post #147
tomjen3 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is to stop me from not hiring someone based on his criminal background and just come up with a bogus excuse? Because frankly I wouldn't ever want to work with somebody who had raped a child.

I am using 'X' to represent a conviction for a crime. I am using 'X' because I don't want anyone to think that I am condoning or justifying any particular crime. 1. How would someone else know that the person did X? 2. What if that crime had nothing had bearing on the position? 3. What about the concept of a sentence representing the 'complete payment to society'? Denying someone the ability to make a living turns a…

I appreciate your idea to remove any particular crime and consider them all, but to me what you did matter (also why). If somebody was guilty of embezzlement because they owed money to drug gangs I wouldn't be afraid to have them handle money (a majority would take embezzlement over murder). Heck I wouldn't have a problem hiring a murder, if the circumstances of the act was special.

But there can be no excuse to rape a five year old.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#160

Post by pm24601 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #159
pm24601 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am using 'X' to represent a conviction for a crime. I am using 'X' because I don't want anyone to think that I am condoning or justifying any particular crime. 1. How would someone else know that the person did X? 2. What if that crime had nothing had bearing on the position? 3. What about the concept of a sentence representing the 'complete payment to society'? Denying someone the ability to make a living turns a…

I appreciate your idea to remove any particular crime and consider them all, but to me what you did matter (also why). If somebody was guilty of embezzlement because they owed money to drug gangs I wouldn't be afraid to have them handle money (a majority would take embezzlement over murder). Heck I wouldn't have a problem hiring a murder, if the circumstances of the act was special. But there can be no excuse to rape…

Your response is exactly why I phrased my response the way I did.

You ignored the part where I said that if a person has served their sentence, this represents the end of the social punishment. If you want to argue for a life long sentence than do so.

In order for someone to function, they need a job. A convicted and released child rapist needs to pay rent. How would you propose housing, clothing this person so they are not homeless in front of your office?

Post reply on HN