Slashdot Mirror

Your slippery slope argument is lame. You are assuming the laws he is breaking are just and thus should be followed.

Look here and tell me scociety will fail because a one arm piano player is charging cover in Iowa.

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but my friends and I used to have fun going through these. http://dumblaws.com/

There's an old law in Canada prohibiting just this.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws.php?site=laws&cid=31
(2nd one from top) /too lazy to log in...

Supposedly, this similar to how a lot of "dumb laws" get signed in. Someone wants to derail a piece of legislation, so they attach something ridiculous like requiring two trains approaching each other on the same track to both stop and wait for the other to pass. Texas law IIRC.

You might be surprised why many, many laws are on the books to begin with: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws.php?site=laws&cid=184

Killing children is something I personally believe I would choose not to do at any point (barring extreme circumstances, which I beleve makes anyone capable of anything) and no one I know (including my muslim friends) does it either--if one of them did, I'd really want to get inside their brains to know at what point they stopped being rational.

My hope is that all 3 bodies of law are smart enough to transcend their religious confictions and enact laws capable of outlawing things that make a society disfunctional. The Bible has no problem with rape--I however do. I can also see where laws governing monopolies, and driving under the influence have their place as well, but aside from modern cults, you won't see much of this in any religious doctrine.

That's all I'm saying. The moon is a bit past third quarter now. :D

Poetic justice based on hard Logic

Since when has the legal/justice system been logical?

Not being a lawyer, I can't say if there is or isn't a law other than what you present here that applies. Since this is /. and arguing without all the facts is standard, I'll take your word for it.

You rebutted yourself quite nicely on your first point, so I don't need to elaborate. I'll even agree that deleting the "intermediate" copy is a reasonable step, provided it isn't needed on the machine it was created.

I'll ignore the archiving argument because it's tangent to mine.

I replied to the GGrandparent because I disagreed with you and believed you were arguing with bad interpretations. All I did was argue with what I thought the bad interpretations were. It may have been best if I just stated why I disagreed with you.

Assuming this is the only law that applies, and assuming a judge agrees with your interpretation of it in a decision, it would seem that it truly is illegal to make copies of a CD. But guess what? I don't care. Why? Because I think its a bad law. And bad laws will be broken, fought, and eventually repealed because they are bad. Althought sometimes they're just ignored.

People don't work for the law, the law works for us. You can argue about how right an action is by how well it follows the law if you want. I'd rather argue how right a law is by how well it follows the desires of the people. The people, not the industries.

And that's enough preaching for me.

Might want to move to New Jersey, then.

Because it is WAY To broad. I mean check out dumb laws

ex. "Placing a postage stamp that bears the Queen (or King) upside down is considered treason."

So there are a ton of stupid laws so If you want to monitor someone you just need to sift threw the law books to find some law somewhere where the person is breaking.
As well for the individuals it is near impossible for a individual to know all the laws of their own area, so you try to make your best judgment and look it up if it seems like it could be used for criminal intent.. Now combine it with the rest of the world where there are different morality and cultures. Now that becomes impossible.

don't you think any body of laws represents a moral code?

That depends on what actions the laws are trying to prohibit, and whose moral code they're trying to support.

Laws are made by people and enforced to control people. And people have agendas. Sometimes these agendas are good and fair (ban murder), sometimes their purpose is entirely self-serving (ban oral sex), and sometimes they're just peculiar (banning taking lions to the movies).

Ask people how the laws should be changed, and you won't get just one or two answers. Many people will want new laws, many will want laws repealed, and most will want a combination.

(Do you know where I see this kind of argument the most? Freenet, where every kind of speech is possible but not all are welcome. Some speech, certain users argue, should not be allowed, but given the environment of free-wheeling and anonymity, it's awfully hard to define some of the "bad" forms, much less define them.)

The biggest problems arise when a coalition gets into government, or a government starts acting on the whims of a coalition. Suddenly laws and policies start serving one and only one group. The rest of the population becomes disenfranchised as the one group gleefully gives up everyone's right to do something that they never would do.

I won't say I'm religious, nor will I say I'm not religious, but this is the basis for my argument supporting the separation of church and state: the state can not afford to act in the interest of only one segment of the population, no matter how religious or righteous (or self-righteous) that one group may be.

Killing a man, stealing what he earned, etc are all wrong because we believe them to be morally reprehensible and thus created laws to punish those who do it.

That is the part that practically everyone will concede to. I believe in moral absolutes. I just believe in fewer moral absolutes than many.

Does the belief that gambling is a vice have to be predicated on religion in everyone's mind? It clearly has roots there, but not everyone who opposes its legalization is religious.

Like the fact that anyone who can figure a mathematical expectation won't touch the average gambling game with a ten-foot pole? Like the fact that online gambling can be too easily rigged in favor of the house or otherwise buggy? (Have you ever seen a perfect random number generator in a computer program? Funny, me neither.)

Frankly, I don't understand this mandate... except of course it's an internationalization of the state-by-state trend of introducing progressively more and more gambling games to the public. Horse racing seems noble enough, but then you get into paramutual betting, then you get lotteries, then slot machines will want to come in... Worst of all, it's all a symptom of a common condition: tax addiction. Most governments have it.

There are some collections of weird and stupid laws. One is at http://www.dumblaws.com/states/.

Anyone have more URLs for good collections like this?

There have also been a number of books published on the topic. I have a copy of The Trenton Pickle Ordinance, one of the classics, and it's pretty funny.

There have also been a number of articles written over the years explaining why, at least in most of the US, it's not logically possible to be law-abiding. Most places have a number of conflicting laws that can't all be followed simultaneously.

In one place that I lived, a lawyer friend liked to explain that, if you have no money in your pocket, you can be arrested for vagrancy. But if you do have money in your pocket, consider those coin- or dollar-matching games that you learned as a child? There was a local law against the possession of "gambling devices" which you'd be violating. So they had you whether or not you had currency on your person or not.

This is significant, of course. If you think that "Oh, they'd never enforce something that stupid" then you don't understand the meaning of the phrase "nuisance law".

The only reason she was charged was because the bar owner objected.

Ah, yes. Dumb, unenforced laws. Always good for a laugh.

Not in Pennsylvania (6th bullet point) it's against the Law.

Nuclear devices are legal already. You just have to be careful not to detonate them in Chico, or you'll face a 500$ fine ;)

While we're sharing sites, don't forget Dumb Laws.

>Though I disagree with the laws that are set forth in this country I still abide by them until they are seen for what they are and removed.

I wouldn't think that way if I were you.

In a city near where I live I'm not allowed to take a pee. God, that sucks. Fortunately, I don't have much reason to go there.

Not to mention in that guy's home city he's not allowed to eat Ice Cream on Bank Street on Sundays.

In case anyone cares: it's here

Just like the law that Arkansas passed setting a maximum flood height for the Arkansas River.

sex with the lights on

all positions except missionary

oral, anal, and any other kind of intercourse except vaginal

any sex outside of a legal marraige

This, obviously, means that all homosexual relations are illegal in the state of VA. In fact,
several years ago, a lesbian woman had her son taken away from her - because she was committing a crime (having sex with her partner), in the home the child was in. Apparently that sort of thing has changed a bit, and obviously these laws are rarely enforced, but they're still on the books.

For more stupid laws see: http://www.dumblaws.com/

My favorites:

• France: No pig may be addressed as Napoleon by its owner.
• Minnesota: A person may not cross state lines with a duck atop his head.
• Iowa: One-armed piano players must perform for free.
• South Carolina: It is a capital offense to inadvertently kill someone while attempting suicide.
• South Carolina again: When approaching a four way or blind intersection in a non-horse driven vehicle you must stop 100 ft from the intersection and discharge a firearm into the air to warn horse traffic.
• South Carolina again: Horses may not be kept in bathtubs.
• Texas: When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone.
• Texas again: A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed.
• The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.

Point number one:
Companies *should* have no political sway what so ever. They can not vote for a reason, they intrinsicly have no ethics. Some people have no ethics as well but presumably those of us that do, out number them (except obviously in congress). Companies are motivated by money and if they succeed in changing laws for their own profit we are all screwed.

Point number two:
The people do not want this law, or the DMCA, or a couple of others. What do you do when your country starts passing laws with no regard for its people? Are we becoming an oligopy ruled by corprations? If so how long do you think this will last?

Point number three:
This could be a somewhat futile attempt. What if it passes and every system as to be compliant and blah.. blah... blah. Now imagine everyone and their dog bypasses the mandated measures. The hardware police aren't going to put everyone behind bars. If a law is broken enmass, it mine as well not be a law (internet descency act anyone).

I dunno, maybe I'm just rambling.

This despite any effort to show that these invasions of our privacy will have any value in fighting terrorism or other crime: we must take for granted that if The Government asks for it, it must be for a good reason, and good citizens keep their damn mouths shut.

When pesky civil libertarians (either from the right or left) dare question the value of shredding the constitution to save it, the only response they deign give us is that if we don't commit any crimes, we have nothing to fear: this is the FBI, the CIA, DOJ... They don't make mistakes. DOH! except for that damn Chinese embassy, those 93 people since 1973 released from Death Row, Countelpro... Trust them, they're there to help.

Even so, even granting that these mistakes are in the past, at least yesterday, and today's law enforcement etc. is completely error free and will never wrongly punish the innocent, or at least not more so given greater reach, we are occasionally reminded that there are some laws that really shouldn't be enforced.

Lots of them really.

It is said that the Ion Mobility Spectrographs they use to sniff for explosives at the airport also detect trace amounts of drugs. They've been used in England to sniff (and arrest) clubgoers. The United States has a Zero Tolerance policy for illegal drugs crossing borders - that is even a single molecule is a crime. While it's not illegal to smoke marijuana in Holland, it's criminal to return to the US after having done so, and new technology will help law enforcement punish violators.

Enter the Republic of Texas and if the x-ray machine sees more than 6 dildos in your luggage you're guilty of a felony.

There's a nearly endless list of ridiculous laws, and I haven't even got into the bizarre and disturbing world of sodomy laws or IP laws; but if it's OK to use magic lantern to hunt for terrorists, why not also those evil criminals who violate the DMCA?

If you don't fight when they come for your neighbor, who will be left to fight when they come for you?

At least two major reformations in law are long overdue: we must return to the pre DMCA definition of criminal copyright violations. And we need a new amendment: (not that the constitution holds much weight anymore)

Congress shall make no law respecting the private actions of consenting adults.

First they make it illegal to pump gas into your own car. Now, this.

What's next? *sigh*

One other thing... wasn't Oregon the state that at some point had all of their DOL/DMV info available on the Internet, free-for-all?

Actually you are right. Off topic but right. As more proof that STUPID laws stick around, even though every reasonable person laughs at them, can be seen by the fact that there are dry cities (as in you can NOT buy alcohol) in TX. Before I moved to TX I lived in NY and never thought that there were parts of the US that were that backward, but there are.

Anyway, this should be paid attention to. I was one of many people who looked at the DCMA and laughed. I learned my lesson, I will be writing the proper government officials about this.

Off topic again, but if you want a good laugh at some of the stupid laws that have been passed then check out Dumb Laws.

for more stupid laws check
dumblaws:wq!

--

This is not the first time tools have been outlawed, wire cutters are illegal in Austin, Texas. Of course, it may very well be the first time it's illegal to make a tool.

Laws here don't apply around the world

As long as there is an anonymous proxy there'll be spam

This will be on DumbLaws in the future since no one entity can dictate what another country can or can't do.

• You are forbidden to spit on the ground within 5 feet of another person.
  
• It is illegal to own or sell "Silly String".
  
• It is illegal to posses, own or raise roosters.
  
• This is considered disturbing the peace.
  
• Cars are the only item allowed in a garage.
  
• It is illegal to curse on a mini-golf course.
  
• It is illegal for a man to beat his wife with a strap wider than 2 inches without her consent.
  
• You cannot bathe two babies in the same tub at the same time.
  
• You may not hunt moths under a street light.
  
• It is illegal to cry on the witness stand.
  
• Toads may not be licked.
  

then the laws stick around forever and are selectively enforced by the authorities whenever they feel like

Except authorities who enforce forgotten laws end up on DumbLaws.com and are embarrassed out of their... Next point?

there's nothing in the Constitution which says that laws which can't be enforced consistently will automatically expire.

In fact, there's nothing in the Constitution that requires copyright itself to expire. The "for limited times" in U.S. Const. 1.8.8 is relatively meaningless in the face of the Eldred v. Reno^H^H^H^HAshcroft decision, setting a precedent allowing for already nearly perpetual copyright to be extended even longer. This is a bad thing.

Now you can close your eyes and pretend the law doesn't exist because there is no way to enforce it.

Laws that are too much trouble to enforce either cease to be enforced or are repealed. This war on sharing is similar to the war on drugs and the old war on alcohol (Prohibition era); it just doesn't work. There are other other ways to compensate artists, such as the Street Performer Protocol in which the full version of a work is released if and only if enough paid orders for it are received.

At least the jurors don't get to set the value of Pi. openbear writes: "According to a story at c|net the jurors meant for MP3.com to pay $3 million and not $300,000 in the court decision made last week.

In Indiana, there used to be a law setting pi equal to 4 instead of the more common value of 3.141592653589793238462650133. It was repealed, though. More info here.

---
The AOL-Time Warner-Microsoft-Intel-CBS-ABC-NBC-Fox corporation:

Yes you can and no you don't. Part of being in a democracy means that the people effect the laws an policy in place. So you can cherry pick the good laws and get rid of or civily disobey the dumb ones. In fact, it's a patriotic duty.

There are a plethora of dodgey/contradictorary laws here (www.dumblaws.com) and this is a fine example of government hipocrasy. The article mentioned online gambling.. but forgot to mention the minister who enacted this owns a pub full of pokies.

At least you septics have a constitution! I think its still against the law to defame the queen, that bitch ;) -Auslander

Maybe this helps... http://www.dumblaws.com/states/

You're sixteen, huh? Bad luck. You get to vote at 18, but chances are you'll have to wait until you're 22 or so before you vote at your first state election, because the next state election is due in SA in the next 12 to 15 months, and you may not be of voting age then.

I think this law will make it onto the Dumb Laws website, http://www.dumblaws.com/. In fact, if I was you, I would send an e-mail and nominate this law as soon as it's passed.

--

The federal law treats all internet content as film, and requires material to be rated by the Office of Film and Literature Classification accordingly.

Sometime you have to wonder... do they actually know what the Internet is? Can someone tell me if South Australia is actually some kind of giant cave? There isn't enough censors on earth to go rate all the "interenet content" out there. Would it kill them to call it the Office of Internet, Film and Literature Classification since the Internet is such a menace.

Objectionable material includes items classifiable as X or RC, such as child pornography, and sites instructing in or inciting criminal activity," he said.

Child porn? Okay, I don't remember this kind of stuff NOT being mentioned everytime someone want to censor something. How about a site that teaches people to double park? And some other dumb laws!

This is a state where:
There is a state law prohibiting "corrupt practices of bribery by any person other than candidates."

If one is not married, it is illegal for him to have sexual relations.

You may not have oral or anal sex.

Citizens must honk their horn while passing other cars.

Children are not to go trick-or-treating on Halloween.

It is illegal to tickle women.

Now, granted that there are some whoppers here in my home state of Massachusetts, but ... I mean, take a persons ability to get their ya-ya's off at work? Hell, I could give up my 3 Guinness lunch, but give up my one-wank-coffee break?!?!

This is a state where:
There is a state law prohibiting "corrupt practices of bribery by any person other than candidates."

If one is not married, it is illegal for him to have sexual relations.

You may not have oral or anal sex.

Citizens must honk their horn while passing other cars.

Children are not to go trick-or-treating on Halloween.

It is illegal to tickle women.

Now, granted that there are some whoppers here in my home state of Massachusetts, but ... I mean, take a persons ability to get their ya-ya's off at work? Hell, I could give up my 3 Guinness lunch, but give up my one-wank-coffee break?!?!

Thank you for getting that in. I was about to say the same thing when I saw you'd got there first.

What the people in other countries don't understand when they get funny about TV licences is that the BBC is a publicly funded service and as such has (some) accountability to the public and what they want from it.

The BBC is also a big publisher of educational materials, and actually has a specific educational broadcasts slot each Sunday morning from the Open University (the main Campus of which is located in the city that I live in). I believe that, without the public funding, they would be less inclined to give back to the public in this way...

(I posted this on dumb laws in August, as a rebuttal that it was a 'dumb law', but no one came back to me: On their suggestions board )

www.dumblaws.com

What state are you from?

I'm also a resident of Indiana (although I spend a month each year in Budapest -- a long story.) I see a lot of people not born and raised here complain about it -- but I like Indiana. Our list of dumb laws is shorter than most states. After all, we don't have the DMCA on the docket. Ten Commandments? Pfft! So what? Public display of Holy Writ isn't going to affect my livelihood, but enforced EULAs, now that would be fish kettle of a different color... Although I will grant you that the northwest corner of Indiana contains some of the most hate-filled people on the planet. I think it's that whole Steel Belt thing. I suggest you either leave the state entirely or at least come down to Bloomington. But dude. Get over it. Indiana's a nice place to live and work.

Wow. I'm just amazed.

You can't argue with logic like that. You can point and laugh, but you can't argue with it.

Just for the record, in order to prove that it can be done, I deny them. I also deny your god. Please refrain from stating that it isn't possible, as it obvious is. Tell me again that I can't deny something, and I'm likely to do just that, if I want.

It is my belief that criminals can be caught and punished without breaking the law. It takes a little more work, but it's still possible.

Breaking the law in order to catch someone and punish them is a lot like the death penalty. Is it fair for me to assume that you don't agree with the death penalty?

"And as I believe I've said before, sin is sin, and trying to count the "amount" of sin is a foolish and pointless exercise. If you are guilty of a crime, you must be punished. It's as simple as that."

You seem to be confusing 'sin' with 'crime'. Crime is defined by society. 'Sin', for those who believe, is defined by some higher power.

the important point here is that society can, and often does, change the definition of crime. Drinking alcohol in the United States is a good example. It's legal. It's illegal. It's legal again. Of course, this caused some confusion.

It is my belief that there currently exist many laws which actively harm society. Society would be better off without some of the laws.

I'm willing to suppose it may be a bit of a leap for you to agree that some laws harm society. Let's see if we can agree that there are laws which are just downright silly, and don't need to exist.

Please refer to www.dumblaws.com and see if you can find even one law which makes something a crime when it need not be.

Failing that, please explain the ethics behind this law:

New Mexico, Las Cruces:
You may not carry a lunchbox down Main Street.

Is this a crime because The Lord told someone it should be?

Is it a sin?

Does it harm anyone?

Can you suggest any possible reason for this law?

Can you begin to understand how I might think that someone might be guilty of a crime yet still not need to be punished?

bear in mind the judicial system will only overturn an `illegal' law if that law is challenged.

this is the reason sites like this exist.

Ah.. this is it: .. Yes it's Oregon, not Washington ..

Dumb Laws - Oregon

You may not pump your own gas in service stations.

Weird.
--

IMHO, this what they did was wrong (they should have first asked) but the reaction (arresting? bail?) is dumb. Speaking of dumb (boy, what a segue), check out dumblaws Oklahoma's listing. What if this fine state university really enforced the laws that are in place. Let's see.

1) Oral sex is a no-no.
2) No tatoos (hey check out the OSU basketball players)
3) Spitting on sidewalks is banned.
4) No premarital sex

Does OSU enforce these laws? Probably not. One could argue that what these students did have financial implications (stealing services). OTOH, I from a legal basis, what is illegal is illegal. So you folks saying that what they did was illegal are correct. So why not also enforce the other laws?

I wonder how publishers of Macrovision-encoded VHS tapes account for fair use laws? Or perhaps they don't. If so, then fair use laws will have gone the way of city ordinances prohibiting the detonation of nuclear devices within city limits.

At least one state, Kentucky DOES have references to the actual written laws. The one about baby chicks is disturbing when you think that they actually had to ban painting small animals (I assume for Easter). Like many other people, probably including the creator of this web site, I used to have a book of these kinds of laws.

In my book, an explanation was given for some of the dumb laws. My favorite was the law in some city (in Indiana I think) that made it illegal to exclaim "Oh Boy!" on a city street. It seems that there was this old guy that used to get young lads to do yard work and other odd jobs by saying "Oh boy, can you come help" or "Oh boy, would you like to work for me". Two teenagers heard the guy and harrassed him by shouting "Oh Boy!" whenever they saw the man. The man had some clout with the lawmakers of this small town, and a law was written to make shouting a very common phrase illegal.

Kentucky Specific laws:
I used to live in Lexington and I've heard the ice cream cone in your pocket law since I was a kid, so it's either probably true, or a really popular urban legend. There is a statue of two little kids eating one ice cream downtown. I think of that law everytime I pass the statue. I think I might look up the law that says anyone who has been drinking is "sober" until he or she "cannot hold onto the ground." and file that one as a possible defense later in life. ;)