James Grimmelmann

James Grimmelmann follows this style when writing obituaries; here's his obituary for Aaron. http://laboratorium.net/archive/2013/01/12/aaron_swartz_was_26

James Grimmelmann's got an excellent analysis of the Google Books opinion at http://laboratorium.net/archive/2011/03/22/inside_judge_chins_opinion

There’s a bunch of legal precedent - Zediva, Redd Horne, Aereo, Professional Real Estate Investors, etc. http://laboratorium.net/archive/2011/03/16/that_zediva_thing_its_so_no… I’m in the middle of writing to the EFF to see if they would clarify if this pertains to non-profit educational organizations employees/volunteers. E.g. if an organization of researchers are providing educational information about games, can they privately access the same physical copy remotely sitting in a drive somewhere. The rules from 2018 don’t appear to support this, unfortunately. A lot of research is currently restricted by the inflated cost of long out of print games. Dozens or hundreds of people might want to contribute, but if a non-EULA encumbered, physical copy costs hundreds of dollars it becomes harder to find people who both have copies and the skills or desire to do work as well.

> Those are the keys on the right side of the home row. Why would you want that alongside numbers which are either two rows up or to the side? Unless the keyboard was something like USPS’s which has numbers as an alternate mode on the home row, and thus made this layout sensible? But that would still make it a quirk of the system. Edit: yeah it was absolutely a quirk of the LPG-30, per a sibling comment: http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/04/28/a_few_facts_about_the_lgp30

I found this [0] which says that the layout of the LGP-30 Flexowriter (linked in the article) conformed to fgjkqw, so it may be related. [0] http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/04/28/a_few_facts_about_the_lgp30

Academic research isn't some magic word that you just need to invoke, particularly when it involves personal data. You need specific informed consent and the sign-off from an ethics committee on your study plan. To not ask that of someone pretending to use your data for academic research is willful ignorance. Of course, we are talking about Facebook, who have literally been in the news before for themselves running research experiments on uninformed, random users: http://laboratorium.net/archive/2014/06/28/as_flies_to_wanton_boys

I think it's more about this: http://laboratorium.net/archive/2014/06/28/as_flies_to_wanton_boys

We changed the url from http://laboratorium.net/archive/2014/09/23/facebook_and_okcupids_exper… which points to this longer piece.

That sounds exactly like an idea I had for a video rental service. I was thinking of having a virtual DVD drive connected to remote DVD's and renting things out for 48 hour time periods. Granted, I assumed you would be sued but I am currious why they lost. After looking into it you would either be making copy's of the content or have DMCA issues but this seems to come down to public preforamance issues. Edit: On second thought http://laboratorium.net/archive/2011/03/16/that_zediva_thing_its_so_no… suggests that http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6496522323472709052 is probably a limitation.

> Consent to "rank posts based on unknown criteria to maximize relevance" will incidentally, at least on some occasions, cause "emotional manipulation" in the consumers of the feed. Why is that automatically the case and how would the user know that? > So again, consent is already provided for the possibility of emotional manipulation. Giving consent for one specific form of emotional manipulation does not give blanket consent to all forms - especially not to deliberate acts. Using the same logic, a surgeon could argue: This patient asks me to fix his broken leg. To do this, I have to operate on him and create an incision. An incision is an instance of causing bodily harm. Therefore, the patient has given consent for me to cause him bodily harm. Therefore, I now have consent to punch the patient's face and steal his kidneys. See the problem? > What's the difference between accidental and scientifically valid emotional manipulation such that extra consent is needed? One is accidental, the other is deliberate. Also, that's not just my opinion. Just read the other guardian article linked from this one and the statements linked there: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-st… http://laboratorium.net/archive/2014/06/28/as_flies_to_wanton_boys http://www.maxmasnick.com/2014/06/28/facebook/

A few observations: 1. There are well-settled copyright principles that hold a viewing event to be a "public performance" even though a single person only is doing the viewing at any given time. A leading case involved a video-store owner who owned one copy of each film he had in stock and who set up private viewing rooms in his establishment in which he allowed a patron to view a film privately that the patron had rented from the store. This enabled the store owner to buy a copyrighted video once and to set up a business in which he repeatedly displayed that video to multiple members of the public, one at a time. In that case, the court held that the showing of the one copy of the film owned by the video store owner repeatedly to different members of the public constituted a "public performance" (the case, Columbia Pictures v. Redd Horne, may be found here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17139626668750628957). This case is offline law but the principle it articulates is clear. If copyright holders are in business to sell or license their copyrighted works, and if someone buys one copy of such work and sets up a business open to the public to make money from repeated showings of such work (albeit one at a time), the copyright owners are having the value of their works taken from them by the intermediary business owner, who gets to profit from such works without having obtained any right or license from the copyright owners to license such works to others. A…