Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 October 5

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 5

Legality of using circumvention tools in the US

According to Ripping, the "manufacturing and distribution of circumvention tools was illegal, but use of those tools for non-infringing purposes, including fair use purposes, was not."

So does that mean it's legal for a person to download a circumvention tool (e.g. MakeMkv), and use it to rip a legally purchased DVD or Blu-ray, and watch it from his computer, even though the tool itself is illegal? Also, is personal use of the copy considered fair use? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We are not allowed to advise you on the legality or illegality of any actions in any jurisdiction. See above, where it clearly states that we will not be giving you legal advise. --Jayron32 01:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The RD is not allowed to explain to you what a sentence in a WP article means. That would be illegal. Basemetal 05:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious, but since when did you decide to become invisible ? I almost couldn't see you. Please switch the led garlands off!. --Askedonty (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean on? A fishy, fishy request... Basemetal 10:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

1975 Australian constitutional crisis

Why is there lingering outrage over this event? What Kerr did was force an election to resolve a deadlock over supply, and what the electorate delivered was an overwhelming rejection of Whitlam's Labor Party.

I've only been to Old Parliament House, Canberra once, as a school kid in 1992.

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sir John Kerr was coached by the Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Fraser i.e. the Governor-General took counsel from the Opposition instead of the Privy Council. Then Sir John made Malcolm Fraser head of the caretaker government instead of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam without a vote of no confidence in parliament. Sir John exceeded his power.
Sleigh (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Right Honourable Sir John Kerr and The Honourable Malcolm Fraser, MP were both traitors.
Sleigh (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget the role of Sir Garfield Barwick, whose advice to Sir John was controversial and not clearly within constitutional conventions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The loss of a supply vote is a no confidence vote in Westminster parliaments. DuncanHill (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The loss of a supply vote in the lower house would be. The House of Lords cannot block supply, so there is no "Westminster principle" from which to analogise to the Australian Senate. One school of thought is that, like the Lords, the Senate cannot block supply to a government that enjoys a majority in the lower house, given that there is strong convention that government is formed in the House not the Senate. Another school of thought is that the Senate, though not elected by proportionate constituencies, is nonetheless elected and is therefore entitled to block supply. This debate is still very much live. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

JackofOz can always be relied upon to give a helpful reply to questions on this issue. Until he shows up, here is one of his previous posts on the topic. --Viennese Waltz 15:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

To OP, you can probably see from the above that many of the questions that made the events controversial have still not been answered. That Kerr and others (allegedly) acted illegally and/or improperly to force the election and never had to answer for these acts offends the sense of justice for those who disagreed with their actions. That the electorate turned against Whitlam at the election does not absolve Kerr in their eyes, in the same way that, say, someone who commits arson is not excused just because the house would have burned down soon after anyway. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sir Garfield Barwick was completely blameless though in retrospect he should have refused to offer an opinion.
Sleigh (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's pretty hotly debated. Whitlam's view was that the GG takes advice only from his ministers (in this case, the PM), not from anyone else. And that's based on the established principles of Westminster responsible government that the king takes advice only from his ministers and does not maintain any sort of shadow government. It was well established even before 1975 that the GG could and did seek legal advice from the law officers - the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. There was some controversy about whether this could occur directly or via the government. But it was not established convention that the GG should seek advice from the chief justice. Add to this the fact that the Australian High Court, unlikely some other common law courts, does not give advisory opinions. While there was probably nothing formally illegal about Barwick giving advice to the GG, it was at least questionable whether it was in accordance with established constitutional convention. And you would expect Barwick, of all people, to know that what he was doing was at least questionable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's a serious case that the Kerr/Fraser side acted illegally. Everything they did seems to have been according to the letter of the law.

They also didn't act anti-democratically, given that as I understand it (and feel free to correct me here) the electorate was pretty clearly on the Liberal side at the time, not just at the later election. Whitlam had to oppose a double dissolution, because he knew he would lose.

So what Whitlam was really defending was neither black-letter law nor democracy, but rather certain unwritten traditions, "the privileges of this House", as Cromwell might have put it. I know those are taken pretty seriously in the Westminster world. But still, it's sort of a middle thing, neither legalism nor populism nor a priori principalianism. That's usually harder to get people excited about, unless they're just mad because their side lost. --Trovatore (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In the Australian context, where conventions are a crucial part of the constitution, for a high official to act against constitutional conventions is improper, and arguably unconstitutional and therefore illegal. The Constitution establishes a mechanism for choosing ("chosen directly by the people") and dismissing governments, Kerr's side argued he had an additional power to dismiss the government, but a lot of other people had thought such a power had long disappeared from Westminster constitutional conventions. The monarch had not dismissed a British prime minister since 1834, and constitutional conventions had by 1975 evolved significantly. Many governments become unpopular between elections, but (other than the claimed prerogative of the GG) it would be illegal for anyone other than the government to remove it, just because the polls have turned against it. So everything turns on whether you accept Kerr's argument that he had the power, and that was and is controversial. I don't think it is right to dismiss the lingering anger as people being mad that their side lost, I think the legal murkiness and lack of closure must have something to do with it. Afterall almost half of the electorate is on the losing side in every general election (in the 1998 election, more than half of the electorate was on the losing side) and you don't have the same anger lingering years after the fact. There is an established system of rules, people generally respect the rules, and if they lose according to the rules they tend to accept it. But if one thinks that someone came in and changed the rules mid-game, they would be a lot angrier than if they just lost according to the rules. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct and Gough Whitlam was correct. Sir John was at fault for seeking advice from Sir Garfield after Gough Whitlam refused to give permission to Sir John. Sir John went behind Gough Whitlam's back but Sir Garfield gave his free opinion or devil's advocate in private not as the Chief Justice but as a legal expert.
Sleigh (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The puppet master Malcolm Fraser manipulated Sir John. After he was dismissed, Gough Whitlam bit his tongue and didn't refer Sir John to the Plastic Fantastic for treason and let the electorate decide. The incumbent party gets a boost in an election. Sir John illegally dismissed the government and made the Opposition the incumbent party.
Sleigh (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that the Kerr/Fraser side acted illegally, but I will grant they acted underhandedly. However it's hard to have any sympathy at all for Gough Whitlam in the situation. He was trying to impose leftist reforms in a moderate country, with a shaky hold on government, construing every procedural rule to his own advantage while expecting the other side to keep the kid gloves on. In the runup to the crisis, he passed up compromises that might have eventually given him what he wanted, if he could convince the voters in the intervening months. When the crisis came, he was blindsided and outmaneuvered at every turn, which might make him seem taken advantage of if he'd been someone else, but in the actual context just made him look like an incompetent tactician. He overplayed a weak hand and bought himself a disaster. --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Having no sympathy for Gough Whitlam is valid.
Sleigh (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do people like certain keys?

I checked a ton of songs I like and they seem to correlate with minor keys that are around the lowest note letter I can whistle. Is that a thing? Does this mean the keys you like growing up track the fundamental frequency of your growing head? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. As long as they do not come out of your ears. Basemetal 20:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Our article Grasp says "the development of grasping is an important component of child development stages", and the same word can apply also to understanding. There is also Appropriation (art), and Appropriation (music). If it's a thing, it could probably lead to some conclusion regarding the adequation of one's self, in terms of psychological health, one's various ambitions, a.s.o. --Askedonty (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

If this is a serious questions it seems to me you are using a few technical terms incorrectly, but most importantly you are making a ton of weird assumptions. Why would your liking a song have anything to do with absolute pitch? If you like some song in the key of a minor I'd be willing to bet you'll like it also in the key of b minor a whole step higher or in the key of e minor a 5th higher. Why would the lowest note you can whistle have anything to do with the fundamental frequency of your head and what could that have to do with your liking a song? What can any of this have to do with minor keys? Do you only like songs in minor keys? And what on earth is a minor key that is "around the lowest note you can whistle". All minor keys and all keys for that matter go from very high all the way to very low notes. What does it mean that you like a key? How do you know what key you like to begin with? And on and on. If your basic question is "Why do I like the songs I like", I think this is a very difficult question to answer. The fact that some of the pitches of that song make your skull vibrate at a certain frequency is probably only a very very very tiny part of it. Basemetal 17:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I knew I must be using technical terms incorrectly. I can't think of a plausible mechanism for this either. The size of your head implication is kind of a joke. Maybe it's just coincidence the lowest note I can whistle is around C or D of one of the octaves and a lot of the songs I like are B minor, C minor, C# minor, D minor or D# minor. No, some of my favorite songs are in major keys but most aren't. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I am skeptical that those songs you say you like in B minor, C minor, C# minor, D minor and D# minor, you would suddently stop liking if they were transposed to another key. It would be the same song but transposed a bit higher or lower. Would that suddenly make you hate that song? Btw, how did you identify the keys of those songs? Basemetal 19:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No I wouldn't suddenly hate the song. I Googled [name of song] key. If a song's too non-mainstream I couldn't find it or only found contradictory keys (related to transposing instruments or something?). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think what's happening to you is like it is to me here: [1] (starting 25:35). Although my computer is away from the kitchen, I keep on smelling onions and other spices while that sequence is playing. Particularly when the leading voice says "chocolate", I'm smelling chocolate. I'm know for certain that my imagination is building differently feeling illusions when the leading voice is differently set. You can try it, using which software it takes, either accelerating or slowing the playback of the record, and play it with a different tonality. --Askedonty (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like Synesthesia. --Jayron32 13:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It does, although that version of the disease is easily cured with the sacrice of a cup of milk together with the adequate number of flavored biscuits ( cracker biscuits if the sacrifice is that of a bottle of beer ). Which from could be concluded that the tune you like is the one that represents you, with your desire fulfilled. There I see not much support to the idea that the precise key would be indifferent. As you listen, you follow, then in the end you'll be following a different lied. --Askedonty (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)