> Most importantly Iran can't afford to keep the strait closed to enforce this. If they block shipping their own will be blocked as well - which hasn't yet happened, they were still allowed to ship oil.
Why do you say this? During the war they set up a checkpoint system so their ships and ships they allowed to pass could still pass through.
this would be a worse crisis than we've just had; it'd put China (if not all of Asia) directly against the USA and would put Australia in a very peculiar spot.
> There are no talks or anything. Iran has no incentive to negotiate with a party as unreliable as the US is under Trump. I would literally negotiate with a dead opossum before I would continue to negotiate with Witkoff and Kushner.
> Iran, while rejecting all the plans presented by the enemy, formulated a 10-point plan and presented it to the US side through Pakistan, emphasizing the fundamental points such as controlled passage through the Strait of Hormuz in coordination with the Iranian armed forces, which would grant Iran a unique economic and geopolitical position, the necessity of ending the war against all elements of the axis of resistance, which would mean the historic defeat of the aggression of the child-killing Israeli regime, the withdrawal of US combat forces from all bases and deployment points in the region, the establishment of a safe transit protocol in the Strait of Hormuz in a way that guarantees Iran's dominance according to the agreed protocol, full payment for the damages inflicted of Iran according to estimates, the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions and resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, the release of all of Iran's frozen assets abroad, and finally the ratification of all of these matters in a binding Security Council resolution. It should be noted that the ratification of this resolution would turn all of these agreements into binding international law and would create an important diplomatic victory for the Iranian nation.
> Now, the Honorable Prime Minister of Pakistan has informed Iran that the American side, despite all the apparent threats, has accepted these principles as the basis for negotiations and has surrendered to the will of the Iranian people.
> Accordingly, it was decided at the highest level that Iran will hold talks with the American side in Islamabad for two weeks and solely on the basis of these principles. It is emphasized that this does not mean an end to the war and Iran will accept an end to the war only when, in view of Iran's acceptance of the principles envisaged in the 10-point plan, its details are also finalized in the negotiations.
> These negotiations will begin in Islamabad on Friday, April 11, with complete distrust about the US side, and Iran will allocate two weeks for these negotiations. This period can be extended by agreement of the parties.
He said "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again." To me that sounds more like a threat to destroy a civilization than an announcement that the US will be targeting specific parts of Iranian infrastructure, but maybe you are better at reading between the lines than I am.
In case you're curious about US history and not just trying to make a point, "those people in the Apollo era" were the majority of Americans for most of the time the Apollo program was ongoing. Republicans argued that the large NASA budget was fiscally unwise and Democrats argued that the money would have been better used for social programs. The press referred to the program as the "Moondoggle". In 1962, the New York Times noted that the projected Apollo program budget could have instead been used to create over 100 universities of a similar size to Harvard, build millions of homes, replace hundreds of worn-out schools, build hundreds of hospitals, and fund disease research. The Apollo program's popularity hovered around 40% for most of the 1960s when it was underway. It peaked at 53% just after the moon landing, and by April 1970 it was back down to 40%. It wasn't until the mid-80s that the majority of Americans thought that the Apollo program was worth it.
"Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP"
There was a time when The Onion might have run a headline like "Concerned over low troop morale, President converts to Islam to inspire spirit of martyrdom". No more.
If you're going to judge people's quality of online commentary, I can think of a "bigger fish to fry" than myself. They're even quoted in this very thread!
Note that there's some patents that haven't yet expired, at least in the US. AFAIK this is because if there's delays in patent examination you get extra duration on your patent to compensate. Here's a list of the patents that were filed before High Profile was standardized and are still valid: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have_the_patents_for_H.264_M...
Of course MPEG-LA deliberately makes figuring out which patents cover which parts of H.264 (which is really a set of multiple standards spanning a 10+ year period) ambiguous and hard to determine in order to sell more licenses.
Why would they need to license the sample? You don't own the copyright for something just because you recorded it off the radio, that's silly. I looked it up and the station in question was operated by the Israeli government, so presumably they would be due the royalties. https://priyom.org/number-stations/english/e10
This reminds me of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel, which established that copying someone's photograph of a public domain painting is not a copyright violation, as the photograph is not copyrightable under US law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel....
Sure, but there's an element of creativity there (what parts to focus on, how much you zoom in, how closely you follow the motion) vs. simply turning a radio on and pressing record, with the intention of producing a 1:1 recording of what's being broadcast. All the creative parts of the Conet Project recording (the message to broadcast, the way it's formatted, the voice samples used, etc) were done by the Israeli government, not the Conet Project.
TLDR: you're basically applying the US standard to something that has been released worldwide, and US intellectual property law is known to be one of the most lax when dealing on derivatives (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.). Without saying that the original broadcaster/s do not held any copyright (because, of course, there is a reasonable claim for their copyright), there are two good candidates for the Conet Project's case, both hinging on European IP laws.
The first one is the "sweat of the brow" concept, where effort (not originality, or at least not significant originality) is the determiner. Because this was released in 2001, most European jurisdictions (like Britain's "skill and labour" and Germany's Leistungsschutzrecht) still had this concept. Because the collaborators of the Conet Project did exert significant effort here (they didn't just tune, but significantly denoised and made it reasonably intelligible), it could be argued that they held a new copyright on these works. New laws now significantly tilt towards the creativity/originality concept, but this is usually not a retroactive claim.
The second claim (and the reason that I said IP laws, not specifically copyright laws) is that Europe (incl. UK and Russia) has database rights which does not exist under US law (again, Feist v. RTS). Even if the Conet Project release is ineligible for copyright in most European jurisdictions (and I doubt it due to the non-retroactivity of these laws), they can still point out that the curation of the work provided for enforcement of database rights.
There is actually a third claim (although weak), based on the first publication of a recording of a performance (phonogram rights). This also exists under US laws, although I will be sure that the first "publication" is the broadcast, especially if it was also aimed in the US. (This is the reason why "sampling" some music is considered an IP infringement.)
P.S. If you think that US IP laws are bonkers, try to navigate European IP laws (it's not even harmonized inside EU). There's even a "Copyright in Typographical Arrangement" (UK) where even assuming that the text itself is not copyright, scanning the page might put you into a lawsuit (https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/copyright-typo...)
The CIA recruits a lot of Iranians to spy for them. Since the Internet is a thing, they typically communicate with them that way. For example, in the 2010s the CIA ran hundreds of fake news, sports, travel, religious, etc. websites, where typing a password into a search box or other text field would open a hidden message area where operatives could read messages from the CIA and send back information. This network was eventually destroyed and hundreds of sources were arrested because the CIA made the error of using the same few messaging scripts and hosting the sites from a few contiguous IP blocks, but it's a good idea of how they generally operate. See here for more info: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-spie...https://cirosantilli.com/cia-2010-covert-communication-websi...
However, since the US-Israeli bombing of Iran on Feb 28, the Iranian government has shut down the whole country's Internet access. This means that the CIA needs another way to send information out, hence the numbers station.
Why do you say this? During the war they set up a checkpoint system so their ships and ships they allowed to pass could still pass through.
reply