Slashdot Mirror

In California, where several episodes of To Catch a Predator were filmed, there is potentially a civil claim to be made if it is the case that the film crew divulged private facts about the predator. Additionally, there is also a potential harm in that the show may present the predator in a false light, i.e. they are implying that the predator's intent is different than his actual intent.

The other two torts regarding privacy aren't applicable, since the guy agreed to enter the house of someone else where the crew presumably got the permission of the owners to film. So, it seems that they do not specifically need permission from the people being filmed to air their faces if they're confident that the guy actually did it. Since they work with the cops, it's safe to assume they only show the guilty ones, so those found innocent aren't being misrepresented. This is completely ignoring the entrapment claim that could be made in the criminal courts, since the question asked was do they need express permission.

Relevant laws and cites include an RCFP advisory, and both Cal. Civ. Code  990, 3344 and Cal. Civ. Code  1708.8

And IANAL, nor do I claim any special knowledge of the law, but I'm taking my LSAT on Saturday, for whatever that matters.

But the publisher / author haven't included EULA terms to prevent you from changing your copy of the book and reselling it.

They used to, until the first sale doctrine was established against the practice.

First, IAAL, take it for what it's worth. Second, by saying the following, I am in no way attempting to disparage the welfare state, or suggest that it is unconstitutional. In fact, there is plenty of case law suggesting it is. (Google "Lochner Era" and "economic substantive due process" if you want to find it.

That said, your reading of the Constitution is wrong.

The Preamble neither limits or grants any power to any branch of the Federal government. The Supreme Court has read it that way for the last hundred years. Source.

Article I Section 8 only gives the Federal government power to tax and spend for the general welfare:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Any taxing and spending must be consistent with the rest of the Constitution. The clause does not give Congress any power to legislate any law it wants for the common welfare. Source.

Misinterpreting the efficacy of the preamble is understandable, even I had to look that up. But as for Art. I Sec. 8, if you are going to try to interpret the Constitution, at least read it! The limitations of the power are right in the text.

First, IAAL, take it for what it's worth. Second, by saying the following, I am in no way attempting to disparage the welfare state, or suggest that it is unconstitutional. In fact, there is plenty of case law suggesting it is. (Google "Lochner Era" and "economic substantive due process" if you want to find it.

That said, your reading of the Constitution is wrong.

The Preamble neither limits or grants any power to any branch of the Federal government. The Supreme Court has read it that way for the last hundred years. Source.

Article I Section 8 only gives the Federal government power to tax and spend for the general welfare:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Any taxing and spending must be consistent with the rest of the Constitution. The clause does not give Congress any power to legislate any law it wants for the common welfare. Source.

Misinterpreting the efficacy of the preamble is understandable, even I had to look that up. But as for Art. I Sec. 8, if you are going to try to interpret the Constitution, at least read it! The limitations of the power are right in the text.

What utter nonsense. It's not duplicating the application, its building an applicaton with the same functionality. By your standards, Linux should be illegal because it "duplicates" UNIX. Windows NT should be illegal because it "duplicates" VMS. Also, I'm getting the suspicion you need to read up on the definition of "trade secret," because you're using it much too broadly.

Linux wasn't implemented by someone that quit working for a UNIX company, to form there own company building and selling a functionally identical product, after having signed a contract stating that they wouldn't compete in exchange for access to the UNIX internals.

Again, nonsense. Anyone can start a business, and your ability to do so has nothing to do with whether or not a non-compete is unfair or unconscionable. Denying one a right to work in their chosen profession usually is looked upon as unconscionable, especially when you're not being paid to sit out. And yes, giving employers that much power is exteremly unfair. Workers rights were codified for a reason; because employers routinely abused their power.

You've obviously never operated a business. Your ability to open a business most definitely affects your bargaining power, and that's the basis for fairness. If you have the resources to be able to compete with the company you are going to work for, you have the resources to not be locked into an unfair contract. They're not denied the write to work in their chosen profession (software programming), they're denied their right to work in their chosen profession competing directly against the company that they are leaving, using information that they learned while employed at that company.

Say I have a million dollars, and I want to start a widget manufacturing company. I decide that the first thing I should do is take a job, and sign a non-compete, at a future competitor, to learn exactly how they manufacture widgets, everything they're doing right, and everything they're doing wrong. If I quit and start manufacturing my own widgets using the information I learned from them, they're well within their rights to put a stop to it.

No, I didn't. There's nothing special about the question that would lead me to believe this case is different. At any rate, the law in CA is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/bpc/16600-16607.html [findlaw.com]

The issue really isn't with the non-compete, as much as it is with the NDA. At the very least, the other company can and will bleed them until they give up.

It's not "domain knowledge". They want to duplicate their employers applications using "lessons learned" while working on the employers application (trade secrets), to compete against their employer. It's not just the same industry, it's the same application. There is no way in hell a non-compete wouldn't be upheld.

What utter nonsense. It's not duplicating the application, its building an applicaton with the same functionality. By your standards, Linux should be illegal because it "duplicates" UNIX. Windows NT should be illegal because it "duplicates" VMS. Also, I'm getting the suspicion you need to read up on the definition of "trade secret," because you're using it much too broadly.

You'll notice that the words are different and have different meanings, they're hardly contradictory. Presumably if you have the wherewithal to start a business and compete against your employer, you had the wherewithal to negotiate the contract with your employer, ergo the agreement is neither unfair or unconscionable.

Again, nonsense. Anyone can start a business, and your ability to do so has nothing to do with whether or not a non-compete is unfair or unconscionable. Denying one a right to work in their chosen profession usually is looked upon as unconscionable, especially when you're not being paid to sit out. And yes, giving employers that much power is exteremly unfair. Workers rights were codified for a reason; because employers routinely abused their power.

You missed the most important word in that sentence.

No, I didn't. There's nothing special about the question that would lead me to believe this case is different. At any rate, the law in CA is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/bpc/16600-16607.html

Please, point out the section I'm missing that would allow this non-compete in CA.

Did you even read my post? The non-competes are thrown out by the judges based on how the language is defined in the contract all the time. Good grief. I never said "many states do not allow non-competes." Read it before you reply.

http://library.findlaw.com/2006/Jul/13/246734.html

"Employers should carefully draft non-compete agreements to ensure that they comply with the standards for this recent case. Unless an employer can prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the restrictions are necessary to protect the employerâ(TM)s legitimate business interest, do not impose undue hardship on the employee, and do not injure the public, then the agreement will not be upheld. Employers are cautioned to consider which employees sign such agreements. In almost every case involving non-compete agreements, one finds the phrase âoeCovenants not to compete are disfavored by the law,â For this reason, employers should scrutinize existing agreements and prudently use them in the right situation to make sure they will hold up in court."

Anyone with a smattering of economics education would understand that these are markets with many participants, free exchange of information, and clear price signaling.

But the assertation was not that these are markets with many participants, free exchange of information, and clear price signaling. The claim was that government was not involved in them.

1) if you pitch your tent, you are trespassing. Do you want to do away with private property?

Property is defined by government force - if (and only if) you can get the state to protect your right to it, you own it. And this is an initial use of force; when I lay down on that golf course to take a nap, I'm not the one using force, the cops who drag me away are.

If one calls for "getting the government out of the economy" or for "no initial use of force", one is calling for the abolition of private property. Do you want to do away with private property? Or, are you willing to have the government initiate the use of force in order to enforce property rights?

Properly understood, property rights are not primary; they are a means of securing other rights. With no private property, no private choices are possible. On the other hand, when control of property is concentrated, then those without property cannot make private choices. Some degree of democratic control of certain types of property is needed to maximize the choices, the freedoms, of all.

The swoosh is a copyrighted trademark

You are speaking nonsense. A copyright and a trademark are completely different things. Both are artificial government creations, so the government is definitely involved there.

If you doubt a free and unregulated market in fishing tackle, please visit www.cabelas.com, www.llbean.comand report back on the limited offerings, fixed prices, and government control of the offerings.

I've already given you a citation of one state's regulation of fishing tackle.

The CPSC has issued recalls on fishing poles and worm probes. There is definitely government involvement in the market for fishing gear.

Your claim that the lack of limited offerings and fixed prices implies no regulation, rests on incorrect assumptions about the results of government intervention.

I fish with 8 to 16 ounce lead sinkers here in Washington.

Please stop polluting the environment we all share.

Women's clothing? You can even make this argument with a straight face? You need to increase your meds dosage.

Ad hominem attacks don't change the fact that the government interventions of copyright and trademark play a huge role in the fashion industry.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

a truly remarkable list of "present" votes in such a relatively short career

130 out of more than 4000, often as a strategic move, & something that is not uncommon in the Illinois state legislature.

For example, he has voted very consistently for increased gun and ammunition restrictions. Including openly supporting the DC ban and voting in favor of a similar ban in Chicago. Yet he stood behind a podium and said he believed the second amendment "must mean something" and was an individual right, rather than a collective.

He said "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" (like background checks), and "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution." Additionally there is ample discussion about how to interpret the 2nd, and case law that roams back and forth on the issue (and note, that Heller was a divided decision). So I don't think I totally buy your premise that to say the 2nd is an individual right requires that you not support local firearm regulations. Inconsistency would be to support incongruous sides of an argument, but to hold a consistent (if not extreme originalist/black-and-white) view doesn't qualify in my mind. In fact, I bet most people are somewhere in the middle and neither "AK-47s for everyone!" nor "Only squirt-guns allowed!"

An individual right != an unlimited right, note SCOTUS in Robertson v. Baldwin the late 1890s:

the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. [...] Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons

-Ted

The 7th circuit court of the USA disagrees with you. Click through licenses are valid legal contracts.

Please see ProCD v Zeidenberg

The point of the Liebeck case wasn't that the coffee was hot -- she expected that much -- but that it was significantly hotter than coffee is supposed to be. Coffee served at industry standard temperature can sit on bare skin for quite a while without causing more than a mild burn (redness and tenderness),

Not true.

whereas coffee served at the temperature that Ms. Liebeck's coffee was served at can cause third degree burns (requiring skin graft surgery) in as little as 2 seconds.

By her own admission, Ms. Liebeck sat in the coffee for 90 seconds. Should McD's put a "do not sit in coffee" warning on every cup?

If you want an intelligent discussion of coffee industry standards, read http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=974131

In other words, coffee is dangerous, but this coffee was significantly more dangerous, therefore she should have been warned.

She was warned. There was a "caution hot" warning on the coffee lid.

It will indeed be interesting to see how it plays out in court, if the issue reaches that point. I find it interesting that AOL said virtually the same thing as Sprint is saying now - they were approached by Cogent to run a peering trial, and when they didn't like the in/out balance of traffic, they pulled the plug. The end result is that each party goes back to its customer base and blames the other for the resultant connectivity problems. So either it's like you said and the "cartel" of ISPs are blackballing Cogent, or Cogent is using its position as the upstart competitor to shame the big boys into lowering their prices. Or both, who knows.

During wartime, a President has expanded powers. So it's convenient to pick a war against an enemy that can never surrender or offer terms, since they have no central government. Terrorism is an idea, not a government. It's not possible to bomb an idea into submission.

So in effect, we have entered a permanent state of war. Therefore any expanded wartime powers have become permanent, at least until we say we're not at war anymore. And that will pretty much depend on how things go Nov. 4.

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

Current copyright practice violates every amendment..

1. Used to quash free speech.
2. We need a violent overthrow of the RIAA.
3. The Sony root kit is like billeting soldiers on their war on copying in my house.
4. They have no respect for my privacy and all their searches are unreasonable.
5. They'd like you to believe that doing normal things with their products makes you a criminal.
6. There's no due process in civil cases.
7. The right to a jury trial in a civil matter is pointless, seeing as the judge instructs the jury to uphold the law even though the law is stupid and everyone knows it.
8. Oh, that's what the article is about, excessive stupidity.
9. like, say, the right to use my copy machines to copy whatever the fuck I want.
10. redundant much?
11. The TRIPS agreement and the Berne Convention are examples.
12. Lobbying undermines.
13. Without freedom to copy, we're all slaves.
14. Lobbying.
15. Criminal copyright infringement convictions (wtf? When did that happen?) means you can't vote.
16. No property tax for copyright?
17. Lobbying.
18. You have to be drunk to understand copyright law.
19. umm... err.. Lobbying, yeah.
20.Lobbying.
21.See 18.
22.Lobbying.
23.Lobbying.
24.Lobbying.
25.Lobbying.
26.Lobbying.
27.Did I mention Lobbying?

That's a legally questionable interpretation of the 5th amendment. They've ruled that way in Vermont, sure, but it's almost sure to be invalidated on appeal, and can't be relied on. Discussion here

Much as hashing all of your files and comparing them to a list of known hashes is searching, asking you to acquiesce to a lawful search isn't compelling you to give testimony. It's the same principle as making you open your door when there's a subpoena.

Also, your having encrypted the volumes and refused to comply with discovery on them will likely be seen as suspicious action, and be admissible as evidence itself.

I'm just amazed that a criminal organization would file a legal TRADEMARK.

Seriously. Were they going to SUE someone for infringement?

The Hell's Angels are notoriously vigorous trademark litigants, going so far as to sue Disney for using their symbols in "Wild Hogs"

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/disney/hamcdisney30806cmp.html

I did a modicum of research, and I still think using "piracy" to refer to copyright infringement is wrong. Wikipedia (where you linked) says

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy (an early reference was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel True-born Englishman : "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates". [3]

The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time.[4][5] Critics of the use of the term "piracy" to describe such practices contend that it unfairly equates copyright infringement with more sinister activity, though courts often hold that under law the two terms are interchangeable.[6]

However, a word search of DeFoe's document does not show the word "Pyrates" at all.

But the 1985 useage does indeed have "pirated":

We granted certiorari to resolve an apparent conflict among the Circuits 6 concerning the application of the statute to interstate shipments of bootleg and pirated sound recordings and motion pictures whose unauthorized distribution infringed valid copyrights. 469 U.S. 1157 (1985).

I still maintain that "piracy" is a bad term for copyright infringement, despite its use by copyright holders that started during my lifetime. Its use is as self-serving as the hijacking of the word "gay" by homosexuals (half of whom illogically attempt suicide) was. I have surrendered on that issue; "gay" has ironically become a pejorative used by youth. But it pales beside equating copyright infringement to murder and mayhem.

I don't call people who infringe my copyrights (and I have hundreds, two of which are registered) "pirates". I call them "plagiarists". How about we just expand the word "plagairism" to include any copyright infringement whether or not the infringer claims authorship (as they have with my work) and skip the childish "piracy" nonsense?

Lol.. And you know nothing. Nothing at all. I don't believe anything like that. I believe that if you can afford your own health care, then you should be paying for it, not some nanny state. I believe that just because you decided to skip out on your own health care obligations and opt for the Cell phones, the brand new cars, the recreational vehicles, the larger house, the luxury anything, or whatever, that you are not now all the sudden too poor to afford your own health care.

There is a difference that idiots like you will probably never see. It is called personal responsibility and if everyone would practice more of it, the world would be a better place. It would be better in many ways but most readily observable would be you pay would be higher because you wouldn't be distracted by all the bling surrounding you when your paying for your own health care instead of wasting what little money you make on a new Wii or the latest Xbox. You would see that your making peanuts and demand more money or maybe even trade more work for more money.

It isn't a Fuck you DIE, it is get a loan and pay for it yourself situation. If you weren't so damn selfish in the first place, you would have been paying for insurance instead of blowing your money on meaningless crap which would have covered your illness and it would make everyone else's insurance premiums cheaper in the process. I'm sick and tired of hearing people cry that they can't afford insurance when they spend $70 a week on smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day and half that or more in beer each week. I'm tired of watching people sit in front of their brand new plasma or big screen TV, flipping through the 25 some premium channels claiming they can't afford their own health care. I'm tired of people pulling up in their brand new cars telling me that the government should be paying for their health care because after their inflated payment and the full coverage car insurance that is hyped because they have speeding tickets, there just isn't enough left over to get insurance.

In 2004, the average employer health plan costs a whopping total of $12,100 a year, that's just over $3000 per person and the employer covers a sizable portion of that. A working family with two income earners can afford that pretty easily. The average single person coverage was around $4,400 a year. That comes out to around $360 a month or about $84 a week but the annual premium isn't that much in reality until people start reaching the ages of 55 or older. The $100 a month cell phone plan and $80 per month cable bill covers half of that easily and for the majority of people, would also cover their single coverage premiums.

And that doesn't start to count the programs already availible that cover a good portion of people making low incomes. In fact, National estimates claim that just over half of the children eligible for existing government paid health care programs are actually enrolled. There is a disturbing number of eligible people who don't take advantage of the existing programs for whatever reasons. And that isn't just limited to health care, you will find reports talking about food stamps and other government services too.

So lets recap, if you can afford it, pay for it. If you can't, take advantage of the existing programs. Once that happens, if the programs need to be expanded, then do so. But it is bullshit to lay claim to something that people can afford themselves if they would only chose to do so. There is no reason why the government should be responsable for paying something that most of us can more than afford. And no, that's not a let them DIE attitude, it's a take some fucking responsibility for your own life attitude.

Your a damn liar.

It is illegal for an emergency room to deny emergency medical treatment to anyone based on their ability to pay. This is part of the Hill-Burton laws that have been on the books forever and did not fade out in 97 with other provisions of it and was actually reinforced in 1987 with the EMTALA laws.

The fact that you brought up McCain in this matter makes me believe that your just trolling for political points. Here is a hint, learn a little about what the hell your trolling over. Even if the hospital couldn't treat the specific emergency condition your dieing friend had to a point that he/she would be stabilized, they are obligated by law to transport you to a facility that can and neither of them can deny this transportation or treatment based on your ability to pay.

BTW, the EMTALA laws are pretty clear, on this

if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either--
(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or
(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section.

I even defines stabilize and emergency and transport so it isn't up for wild interpretations or sadistic interpretations. You can and probably should read up on it more. You can do so here and of course you can find the law itself.

...encapsulated in one, simplistic know-it-all sentence.

The so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) no longer exists, and hasn't since 17 January 2007.

All surveillance was happening under the guise of the Protect America Act, which was designed exclusively to allow foreign intelligence collection without a warrant when the traffic travelled through the United States, whether incidentally or by design. Foreign intelligence collection is always allowed without court oversight; the changes explicitly allowed such collection on US soil as long as the target was reasonably believed to be a non-US person physically outside of the United States, regardless of the other end of the conversation.

Now the Protect America Act has expired with its automatic sunset, and all surveillance must again happen only via FISA, as amended.

Also, TSP, in its entirety, was never as clear cut as being simply "legal" or "illegal" (court decisions on individual aspects aside). Those who claimed that it was "illegal" did so largely for political reasons. The other mistake is equating "traffic that *could be* listened to" with "traffic that *is* listened to" -- unfortunately, they are not at all the same. This also ignores that to even determine whether traffic is subject to legal collection, it must -- to be blunt -- actually be able to be collected. Thus the things like "secret rooms" at telecom facilities.

Having the capability to instantaneously examine traffic of international origin, where one or both endpoints of a communication are international, necessitates such wholesale monitoring capability. However, such capability being present does not imply its use for all traffic.

There are two issues here:

1. Monitoring the contents of a communication

2. Monitoring the metadata or "envelope" (source and destination information) of a communication

The first is allowable without a warrant or court oversight when one or both endpoints of the communication are international, and when the target of such monitoring is a non-US Person outside of the United States. Such foreign signals intelligence collection does not require a warrant or court oversight.

The second point above has multiple functions. One is using advanced data mining techniques to look for troubling patterns in communications.

Such collection has been found to be legal without a warrant or court oversight by the US Supreme Court:

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Source: Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)

Courts have subsequently found that pen register statutes apply similarly to computer network addresses known as IP addresses, lists of web sites visited, and the "envelope" of an email message -- its To: and From: addresses and related information. The NSA itself has long understood that while the capture of the "metadata" of communications is fair game, the capture of the *contents* of the conversations of US Persons is not, without a warrant:

A former senior NSA official said that the agency also worried that because these groups understood privacy laws so well, they knew how to avoi

I don't understand, shouldn't any evidence obtained under a false warrant be unusable?

Sadly, not necessarily. The "good faith" doctrine says that evidence seized by officers relying on a facially valid warrant that turns out to later be invalid is still usable in court. The warrant must be issued by a neutral, third-party magistrate and the officers cannot have knowingly or recklessly (not negligently) given bad information for purposes of establishing probable cause, but the 4th Amendment is meant to shield against police misconduct and not simple error in the issuance of warrants.

See United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897 (1984) for the full, gory details. Additionally, the government in this case also relies on Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) which states, basically, that the exclusionary rule did not require suppression of evidence obtained through a police officer's good-faith reliance on an error made by a clerk of the court that had issued a warrant for a person's arrest.

I'm sad to say it, but that latter case is *really* on point for this issue, and EPIC does a miserable job of trying to argue against it. The quality of legal writing between the two briefs is night and day. One takes a line of nearly eighty cases and rigorously applies the facts of the case to the rules found therein, and the other references two cases (one only in the concurrence) and makes a bunch of policy arguments about database systems completely unrelated to that used by the sheriff's office in the case at hand.

EPIC fail.

What I asked originally is if you were considering the General Welfare Clause as an enumerated power as a small minority of constitutional scholars does. Most consider the General Welfare clause explanatory and the Taxing and Spending Clause as intended to fund the actual enumerated powers which immediately follow. That's why I asked where the Constitution authorizes the action since buying up toxic assets to improve liquidity isn't one of the enumerated powers.

Ah, I see what you are referring to. Unfortunately, you're wrong. United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936) is one of the last cases in modern jurisprudence to recognize the Tenth Amendment as a limitation on the enumerated powers, specifically the Taxation and Spending Clause. The Court found that regulation of agricultural production was not an enumerated power and thus was not allowed. While it's not generally considered good law on the Tenth Amendment anymore, since regulation of agriculture falls under the Commerce Clause since Wickard v. Filburn (1941), it was the first case to broadly recognize the General Welfare Clause as granting the Taxing and Spending Clause the authority to spend on matters outside of those enumerated below the clause:

"While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of section 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution." (Id. at 66, endorsing the Hamiltonian interpretation of the phrase.)

"When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress. How great is the extent of that range, when the subject is the promotion of the general welfare of the United States, we need hardly remark." (Id. at 67.)

In spite of such expansive recognition of General Welfare powers, the court struck down the act on the grounds that regulation of agriculture is something limited to the states, saying, "Hamilton himself . . . never suggested that any power granted by the Constitution could be used for the destruction of local self-government in the states." (Id. at 78.)

Keep in mind that this was the court that struck down several early New Deal efforts. While the Court over the next few years moved to more expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, more narrow interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, and a rejection of Lochner's economic substantive due process concepts, it never backed down from this interpretation of the Spending Clause and reiterated it several times. One notorious example would come the next year in Helvering v. Davis , 301 U.S. 619 (1937). There, the Court approved payroll taxes and Social Security as a constitutional expansion of taxing & spending power and backed up the point that the Courts were meant to defer to Congress "unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment." (Id. at 640.)

This is the modern standard. Legal scholars who believe that the Taxing and Spending Clause is limited to the enumerated powers below are either poor scholars of Supreme Court case law or just ideologues in denial. Even the "do it or we'll withhold federal funds" tack that Congress takes sometimes with the states was upheld under this same interpretation 50 years later in South Dakota v. Dole , 483 U.S. 203 (1987). This case

What I asked originally is if you were considering the General Welfare Clause as an enumerated power as a small minority of constitutional scholars does. Most consider the General Welfare clause explanatory and the Taxing and Spending Clause as intended to fund the actual enumerated powers which immediately follow. That's why I asked where the Constitution authorizes the action since buying up toxic assets to improve liquidity isn't one of the enumerated powers.

Ah, I see what you are referring to. Unfortunately, you're wrong. United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936) is one of the last cases in modern jurisprudence to recognize the Tenth Amendment as a limitation on the enumerated powers, specifically the Taxation and Spending Clause. The Court found that regulation of agricultural production was not an enumerated power and thus was not allowed. While it's not generally considered good law on the Tenth Amendment anymore, since regulation of agriculture falls under the Commerce Clause since Wickard v. Filburn (1941), it was the first case to broadly recognize the General Welfare Clause as granting the Taxing and Spending Clause the authority to spend on matters outside of those enumerated below the clause:

"While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of section 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution." (Id. at 66, endorsing the Hamiltonian interpretation of the phrase.)

"When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress. How great is the extent of that range, when the subject is the promotion of the general welfare of the United States, we need hardly remark." (Id. at 67.)

In spite of such expansive recognition of General Welfare powers, the court struck down the act on the grounds that regulation of agriculture is something limited to the states, saying, "Hamilton himself . . . never suggested that any power granted by the Constitution could be used for the destruction of local self-government in the states." (Id. at 78.)

Keep in mind that this was the court that struck down several early New Deal efforts. While the Court over the next few years moved to more expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, more narrow interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, and a rejection of Lochner's economic substantive due process concepts, it never backed down from this interpretation of the Spending Clause and reiterated it several times. One notorious example would come the next year in Helvering v. Davis , 301 U.S. 619 (1937). There, the Court approved payroll taxes and Social Security as a constitutional expansion of taxing & spending power and backed up the point that the Courts were meant to defer to Congress "unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment." (Id. at 640.)

This is the modern standard. Legal scholars who believe that the Taxing and Spending Clause is limited to the enumerated powers below are either poor scholars of Supreme Court case law or just ideologues in denial. Even the "do it or we'll withhold federal funds" tack that Congress takes sometimes with the states was upheld under this same interpretation 50 years later in South Dakota v. Dole , 483 U.S. 203 (1987). This case