Why editorial? Isn’t it just a comment? I don’t think the editorial part adds anything to the discussion.
Anyway back to Fair Use, here is Title 17* § *107 of the copyright law in the US.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and [106A], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
While criticism and comment is clearly designated as not an infringement when covered by Fair Use, I think part (4) may be what Youtube’s prima facie case would center around to deny that it was Fair Use in the first place. (assuming of course part (1) is not the issue, i.e. not for commercial use)
Practically, there’s little chance they’d bother since it’s low profile. But also practically if somehow they did bother to sue or send cease and desist notice, it’d definitely not be worth defending against considering the costs even if successful.
Their crime grades do not square with every other similar website I’ve ever visited. Here’s an example: Irvine, CA. According to pretty much any other source it is one of the safest cities in the US. Yet crimegrade gives it an overall crime rating of F, where “The F grade means the rate of crime is much higher than the average US city. Irvine is in the 1st percentile for safety, meaning 99% of cities are safer and 1% of cities are more dangerous.” Having personally visited many Irvine neighborhoods and knowing a few residents, this assessment is beyond ridiculous. I think the single purpose of this website is to instill fear to upsell home security.
I think the problem is not with the data, but with its interpretation (color, grade) by the website.
That made sense to me, since they had ads related to home security systems. It appears, that they may be who they say they are - two brothers who saw a need and tried to fill it.
I had noticed the ads but didn’t think much of them because Google ads often are relevant to the page. I was thinking it was simple sloppiness but now I think you nailed it.
Please let us know a better website for crime statistics on a neighborhood basis. crime is a major problem here in California. Even my Silicon Valley neighborhood has seen a big uptick in car break-ins. The left-wing mayor of San Francisco is cracking down on crime in the “tenderloin” district of the city.
I can’t say Spotcrime provides stats on a neighborhood basis, but with their maps, you can view your neighborhood, or even look at all crime within n miles. Their data comes from PDs, so that it’s pretty accurate.
Also, Neighborhood Scout used to be pretty good, but is now subscription based.
As @scripta mentioned, City-Data also provides stats, but I’m not too sure of its timeliness.
I’m surprised they took it up honestly after lower courts ruled twice in favor of the universities. In both initial ruling and appeal, the courts reaffirmed that the behavior was consistent with SCOTUS precedents so the SCOTUS would either have to find that they disagreed with the consistency assessment or decide to contradict their own set precedent. Roberts may not have the tie-breaking vote this time around though.
I’m not entirely sure how I feel about it personally. It’d probably help my last kid’s chances if they prevented colleges from using race/ethnicity/gender in admissions. At our company (and I assume most companies), on resumes forwarded to us by HR, we don’t see name, gender, ethnicity, etc. Just qualifications, experience, recommendations, etc. But I guess it’s a bit different since eventually that’ll lead to interviews where race/ethnicity/gender will be obvious. So I feel that, at least at the earliest stage of selection, these factors shouldn’t enter in the decision.
But I could see after that where these factors could be used as tie breaker. Considering that for Harvard basically every applicant is top-notch, if they only selected randomly, they’d have a student population that is not as diverse which has been shown to not be optimal.
African-American and Hispanic students with PSAT scores of 1100 and up are invited to apply to Harvard , but white and Asian -American students must score a 1350
There is a big difference in the qualifications between the races and Hispanic status.
“not as diverse”
Is race and ethnic background all that counts for diversity? I think other factors such as political inclinations, hobbies, ambitions are much more important. if you’re going to choose something arbitrary like someone’s skin color why not choose their height or their weight?
Top notch maybe, but the standards on the SAT are hundreds of points lower for Blacks than Asians, like maybe 300 points lower. Of course they have stopped and will continue to avoid using the SAT so this evidence of illegal racial discrimination can’t be proven prospectively.
Harvard sends recruitment letters to African-American, Native American and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores, around 1100 on math and verbal combined out of a possible 1600, CNN reported.
Asian-Americans only receive a recruitment letter if they score at least 250 points higher — 1350 for women, and 1380 for men.
Students for Fair Admissions, the petitioner in both cases, says Harvard admits 56.1% of black applicants in the top academic decile, compared with 31.3% of Hispanics, 15.3% of whites, and 12.7% of Asians. A black applicant who’s in the fourth-lowest decile, it adds, “has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile.”
When I was an undergrad we had a black guy, Ed, included in the group I hung out with. Ed was a VERY intelligent guy, easily smarter than myself in almost everything. He helped me from time to time, something I appreciated as I was trying to keep up.
We had almost no black students where I did my undergrad work. Ed is the only one I remember, though there might have been a couple of others. It was very difficult to get into my school. Ed got in strictly on the merits and deserved 100% to be there with us.
I lost touch with Ed after graduation. But any company that hesitated to hire him thinking he might have been an “equal opportunity” student would have been committing the rankest form of discrimination. I would have hired him in an instant, and indeed years later when I had the chance I did recruit and hire a young black guy who worked out well. But I don’t think he was as smart as Ed.
Thanks for pointing the numbers out. I was not aware that they did take into account race as primary criteria. Then that does look more like racial discrimination. You’d typically not dream of asking about ethnicity on job applications, let alone move the bar for who gets an interview based on that alone.
The gap in scores seems significant. More so than on the graph actually where there is only 50 between top and bottom. I also don’t see why discriminate against people geographically. Previous SCOTUS rulings on this emphasized that race cannot be the dominant factor. That kind of difference in standardized scores looks pretty much like a dominant factor to me.
It’ll be interesting to see if the mood has changed from 2003. With this court I would not be surprised. Instead of test-blind, they should mandate admissions to be race/ethnicity/gender-blind.
I’m also curious how the test-blind thing is gonna pan out. Are they going to rely only on unweighted GPA, rank in school/school district, or just pick completely at random based on totally subjective factors?
P.S.: I take back the top-notch qualifier. 1100 SAT is garbage (59th percentile). Heck 1350 SAT is nothing special either IMO but I have only 2 empirical data points (third data point coming next year hehe).
I do wonder if there’s a bit of pandering going on, recruiting minorities with lower minimum scores, but generally not giving their subsequent application serious consideration? Letting more minorities say they were recruited by Harvard is more of a harmless feel-good achievement, if they werent actually admitted.
No, I am saying that an 1100 SAT score is not necessarily garbage if, for example, the test taker it is not a native English speaker and/or didn’t have enough time to learn what’s needed for the SAT. The sections should be judged separately (and within the context provided by other things, such as essay, interview, GPA, extracurriculars, or whatever) lest you miss out on the next math or language genius.
I beg to differ. 25 years ago, most Ivies, but particularly Harvard and Yale, wanted as many people as possible to apply. They could then say that they only accepted the top .X% percent of applicants. I admit that my recollection is pretty old, but it was accurate then. Presuming they still like to brag about that stat, it’s probably still the case.
