Slashdot Mirror

Hear, here!

Declaration of Independence anyone?
The Constitution?
The Bill of Rights?



It's in there!!

Hear, here!

Declaration of Independence anyone?
The Constitution?
The Bill of Rights?



It's in there!!

Hear, here!

Declaration of Independence anyone?
The Constitution?
The Bill of Rights?



It's in there!!

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,

Section. 8.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States,

AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,

Section. 8.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States,

AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,

Section. 8.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States,

AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I know it's going out of style these days, but let's see what the consitution has to say on the matter of intellectual property.

This clause is varyingly known as the "copyright clause" or the "patent clause" depending on what kind of a lawyer you are. Either way, this is the exact wording in the Constitution (section 8) that provides for the creation of Intellectual Property.

It says:

The Congress shall have Power...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

It seems that the authors of the consitution had not intended in any way for Intellectual Property to be a financial protection in the way that it is currently interpreted. Seemingly in direct contradiction, the judge says:

Plaintiffs have invested huge sums over the years in producing motion pictures in reliance upon a legal framework that, through the law of copyright, has ensured that they will have the exclusive right to copy and distribute those motion pictures for economic gain.

(emphasis in both cases rather obviously mine)

Something smells fishy here...

Anthony

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"
-Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

I believe that this second quote can be attributed to Thomas Jefferson as well - "Those who would trade liberty for security shall have and deserve neither."

You'd think that if they passed a law requiring background checks on people who wanted to buy a gun, keeping criminals from buying said firearms, you'd be able to keep guns out of the hands of people who really shouldn't have them, and gun fatalities would go down. But according to this abcnews article (which has strangely disappeared since I read it last night) about a study of states that had to change their gun laws to comply with the Brady Bill, that hasn't been the case. When someone says "it's for your own good," I say that I'd rather take my chances.

Thank you! You posted almost verbatim what I was going to! I think a lot of people here on /. and on the Internet in general need to go back and READ the Constitution of the United States and the Federalist Papers. I think many people here only know what they're fed by media sound bites about the way our goverment used to and still should work. People who decry our goverment are obviously uneducated about the governmental and political process and also didn't pay attention past their 5th grade history class. The US is running headlong to disaster becuase people are not educated about how our government should work and therefore have no initiative to do anything about it. I think that the Internet "subculture" would actually be very pleased at what they would read in the writings of our Founding Fathers. Even if you're not a citizen of the US, I think these documents are worth the read for a perspective on a truly free government.

Also, not everyone here on /. is a raving libertarian. I'm very proud to be a conservative.

Your "since I can't make a difference, I won't bother trying" attitude is the reason why big business and special intrests have become so powerful. If you don't like the Democratic or Republican candidates, you don't have to vote for them; vote for a third-party candidate. Sure, you may think that you're throwing your vote away and many will agree with you. But you're not. You're sending a message that you don't like either of the major candidates. And while (your favorite third party here) might not even come close to winning, you're still sending that message. Alone, your one vote might not make much of a difference, but coupled with everyone else who votes for the same candidate, there is greater power.

Look back to the presidential election of 96... A third party candidate (Ross Perot) made a difference. He prevented President Clinton from winning a majority of the popular vote. The message came accross that a good number of Americans weren't satisfied with either Democrats or Republicans. The current governor of Minnessota is a in a third-party. Third parties are not as insignificant as you make them to be.

With your reference to revolutionary ideas, you should also remember that someone had to come up with those ideas and support them. Everyone didn't just wake up one day and collectively realize that slavery is wrong or that women should have equality. Long, tough battles were fought before peoples' minds were changed. This country fought a bitter civil war over slavery. Things didn't change just because time passed. It changed because people got involved and made those changes.

If you want some more reading material about getting involved to make changes, may I suggest a little essay by one Thomas Jefferson called The Declaration of Independence.

The Second Amendment, currently, is not interpreted to say the individuals have the unrestricted right to "bear arms".

First there is US v Miller which says that the second amendment is a State Right and not an Individual Right. The power to regulate militias is the right of the states. To this end the states have the right to arm their militias. Also this ruleing of the Supreme Court has been repeatedly upheld (mostly by denying cert, which is usually interpreted as a strong affirmantion of the earlier ruling). Here are some references.

What a militia is, and is not, is defined in US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13. By the way this excludes female US Citizens who are not a member of the National Guard.

Should you be inclined to argue that US v Miller is just a liberal court ruling which ignores the origional intent of the founding fathers; it would be good to remember that the Federalists won the big battles in the US Constitution. But the Jeffersonians wrote the Bill of Rights. I think the most direct source of the Bill of Rights is the Virginia Declaration of Rights; written by Thomas Jefferson as adopted on June 12, 1776 (3 weeks before the signing of Declaration of Independence). Please look at Section 13 which begins "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;"

None of this says that the US Congress or the States couldn't pass a law specifying that individuals have the right to own and carry small arms. Further the 9th and 10th amendments roughly state that rights and powers not specifically granted the Federal Government are retained by the States and/or people.

Further, much like the legalize drugs arguments the proponents of gun rights focus on small arms and not on shoulder launched Stinger Missles or Mustard Gas, which are clearly military arms. The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as a State Right allows the states to maintain fully armed militias.

Lastly, I personally think the argument that individuals should have to right to carry small arms, because the small arms could be used to defend ourselves from a Federal Government gone tyranical is a very weak argument. I think Afganistan is a good example of this. The Afgan freedom fighters were getting their asses kicked until the CIA began running Stinger Missles and anti-tank wepons to them. These wepons allowed the Afgan rebels to neutralize the HIND Helicopters and other Soviet heavy wepons. This made numbers matter, and they bled the Soviets into retreat. Simmilar lessons come from the US "Police Action" in Vietnam.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

I guess you're right, the pictures of the 8 year-olds in camo packing m-16s made me feel better when seeing their charred corpses pulled from the wreckage.

I've said it before (and linked before) but I guess you're a different AC. See #1 and #2.
--

People don't like drug laws and such and there have been many, many, many attempts to override them through similar attempts at civil disobedience; however all of these have failed

You forgot the 21st Amendment. There's you first failed assertion.

(then, from a later post in the thread)

I would rather have my pride/honor/respect/and freedom than play DVDs on unsupported OSs.

If you are prevented from doing what you will in the privacy of your own home, specifically as it regards watching a movie you've paid to be able to watch, haven't you actually lost (some of) your freedom? If you are unwilling to stand up for something you believe is important, haven't you relinquished your pride and honor? This would appear to be another failed assertion.

Based on these comments holding up so poorly to scrutiny, what exactly are you trying to say? That you don't mind being [Valenti|Gates|Eisner|CEOx]'s bitch because it doesn't hurt that much?

Corporations wage war on the people all the time. In this case the weapon they've chosen is knowledge/information and I'd like to think in that arena I (and my fellow /.ers, etc) am much more well-armed than Mr. Valenti and his celluloid minions and worldwide rent-a-cops. Yeah, it may still come down to money, but I can at least hope that a jury of my peers can still see (and still cares about) truth and freedom through the lawyer-induced fog of mis-/dis-information being slung about by the MPAA.

Just in case, slashdot-terminal, why don't you send 65 bucks to the EFF and we can all laugh about how frivolous this was a year from now?

Read your first sentence again, then read the first two amendments from here. BTW, how old are you? You've been very vocal today, and after reading quite a bit, I'm guessing 14.

IANAL, but if Northwest Airlines sues you, you are not protected by the 5th amendment. The 5th Amendment specifically applies to criminal cases, not your case, and you are bound by the rules of discovery and evidence for the appropriate jurisdiction (state or federal, depending where they sue you). So it is up to those rules, and your judge's interpretation of them, to determine how far the plaintiff can go in demanding evidence from you.

Generally speaking, I can't see a judge requiring you to turn over documents but not require you to provide a key for decryption. To run with your example, that would be like telling the judge, "my conversations with my broker are transcribed or recorded on papers or tapes in this here safe, and I choose not to give the court the combination." You'd be found in contempt of court, I expect. (And if you think the principle is worth it, go to jail for it.)

HOWEVER, if you're not talking about a few specific encrypted documents, but a complete hard disk, or a complete, unedited In-Box full of mail, the plaintiff and the court don't need all that stuff. They don't need your diary, love letters, purchases from fatbrain, or anything else irrelevant to the case.

The question then becomes, how does the court a) determine what the appropriate scope of evidence is, and b) become convinced that all appropriate evidence has been turned over? These questions exist whether the evidence is analog (paper or tape) or digital.

So, you lawyers out there, care to explain how discovery is generally scoped and operated? If someone sues Microsoft, isn't it up to Microsoft's own lawyers to collect and send over all evidence they believe relevant, under penalty of contempt of court? I don't belive Caldera gets to go over to Redmond and examine the hard drives and filing cabinet contents of all Microsoft employees. How is the procedure determined, please?

If the system breaks down, by definition, there is no order (or very little) in the system.

We're to shrug the law when it isn't convenient for us? Because it hinders *our* development? Tough cookies.

Our founding fathers had a dissenting opinion. I quote the Declaration of Independence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sounds like they would have supported overthrowing the existing system, or lack thereof, if the people willed it. I'd have to agree with them.

People (and companies) are not going to give up the exclusive rights to their works just because some minority of extremists think that "All Information Should Be Free". And yes, you are a minority.

Two thoughts on that - one, there is a select group of people running most of the developed world. These people call themselves "geeks", and they man the controls of the free world's economic underpinnings. Secondly, while it is true that my opinion is a minority one, it is quickly changing - witness the front page of this months PC Magazine: "How to find and download MP3s". Sounds like the masses don't mind violating copyright. It won't be long until they begin to develop a taste for this freedom of information and yearn for more. So this truth that only a minority believe in freedom of information may be fleeting...

Somehow I seriously doubt that you have ever read any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Somehow I seriously doubt you have any idea of my reading habits, or any habits, whatsoever. (outside the /. addiction)

from this site

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech

Now, IANAL ANWTB, nor am I a sitting judge or have experience interpreting 200 year old declarations. However, as a limiting of speech issue, I think this could fit. It could be argued convincingly that the University is abridging this right by requiring students to pay for something that is already offered as a free service using one of the other services they have already purchased. By controlling access to free (beer) speech, it could be argued that they are limiting the *freedom* of speech.

Of course, if the students agreed (After thouroughly reading, I'm sure) to be regulated, (against their best interests) then they have no leg to stand on. And I doubt that Clemson has to follow the same rules as Congress, so the constitutionality of this action in this context is probably not an issue.

I just don't like seeing Internet Providers try to dictate what traffic their paying customers use (outside of spam, and it's ilk). I also don't like seeing captive audiences forced to use passe technology when new, cheaper, and generally better solutions exists, especially with such an obvious profit motive. THe school should be trying to provide the best situation for its students, not trying to squeeze them for every extra penny.

So while it may be Constitutional is this context, it definitely wouldn't be in another, and regardless of either context it can't be defended morally or ethically.

You about someone's right to do this or that.
I believe there is no such things as rights. Except in the sense that " a right" is something that a person is willing to fight for.

IMO when the The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America says 'unalienable rights", it really meant issues the signers were willing to die for.

So in the context of discussion groups, your "right to free speech" is the same as your willingness to risk being flamed.
A community's "right to be flame free" is equal to its willingness to fight flamers.

A right is not something that is magically guaranteed or universally constant.

Furthermore are you sure you are willing for the countermeasures you describing to be applied to you.

The language quotes from the Declaration of Independence.

The second paragraph reads like this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Anyway, the idea espoused here (and later in the US Bill of Rights) is that these rights are not things granted by governments, but that the rights are natural and that Governments are just gangs of humans getting together to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake.

This is amplified by the next sentence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Anyway, he was just saying that corporatations, while looking similar to individuals in some legal senses, only look like that because governments say so. Corporations cannot vote, they do not pay personal income tax, and can't apply for welfare (at least not the sort that people can).

The US switched to the Metric system in the year 1866

Here are links to the appropriate legal documents:

Metric Act of 1866 page 1

Metric Act of 1866 page 2

You can get a chronology of the metric system here:

Timeline

The US switched to the Metric system in the year 1866

Here are links to the appropriate legal documents:

Metric Act of 1866 page 1

Metric Act of 1866 page 2

You can get a chronology of the metric system here:

Timeline

My arguement against voting, period, is that it can be unreliable and fudged.

For example, there was recently a big problem when thousands of voter ballots were found thrown out behind some building and after investigating, they apparently found that they were never even counted! On the Internet, if I vote -- some spooge can't just throw my ballot in the garbage and some geezer with four-inch-thick glasses can't lose count as she's thumbing threw the stacks.

In the three years I've been able to vote, I've not done so, unless the issue was directly regarding First, Second or Fourth Amendments. Partially because of inconvenience as I do not drive and spending and hour or two on a bus just to spend an hour or two in a voting-line is rediculous after a hard day's work.

The other reason, aside from the fact that I'm skeptical of all politicians and have never known someone I wanted to vote for, is that I'm not going out of my way to vote on some obscure measure that I've never heard of and have little knowledge of.

If one could just log-in to some government site and register their votes, a larger number of people would vote on a larger number of issues -- and probably be better educated on them, too.

Every year, voter turn-out is lower and lower in this state. If going on-line can encourage more people to participate, then by god why aren't we doing it? This seems the best example of what the Internet is supposed to offer in the first place!

Overall, this state actually has more active voters than the National average, which shows that in 1996, only 49% of all Americans over the age of 18 bothered to vote (compare this to the 73 percent in 1960!). That means that 51% of the country's adults did not give a damn. Less than 96-million voters out of a country that has some 300-million residents.

I suppose you can't blame people and where they've gone in the last three decades, though. When the leading candidate has $40-million in campaign contributions a year and a half before the election even begins and you know that your vote is as influential as pissing into a lake considering the whole "Electoral College", it's easy for someone who really wants their vote to matter to be overwhelmed by.

Of course, that's why we have MTV and the combined intellect of Hollywood stars to tell us how to align ourselves, politically.

Resources:
Voter Registration and Turnout - 1996
International Voter Participation Figures
2000 Elections Candidate Financial Reports
Electoral vs. Popular Voting History
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com

It's time to go back to basic sources. The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, states:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; ....

It's not about an inventor's ownership---there is no ownership of ideas, nor even any limits on use except as society has decided it's to its advantage to allow such.

The advantage posited is that if society offers remuneration to those who come up with new ideas, we'll get more such ideas, and civilization will advance that much more rapidly. (I'm all in favor of penicillin and contact lenses, myself.) The remuneration is in the form of a monopoly on use of the idea (for a limited time), allowing the thinker to make money on it before others get a shot at copying it.

This was a Good Thing for ideas that took years of sweat, tons of metal, and a lot of limited and expensive resources to develop, like, say, Bessemer furnaces, safety pins, and leading-shoe brakes. If the idea wouldn't be implemented without a pay-back for the thinker, society was less likely to reap its benefits. So, we say (for patents) ``Here, tell us what your idea is, document it for all to see, and in return for that openness we'll help you make money from it---not because you have any ownership of an idea, but because we'll get the benefit of having it sooner, and letting other thinkers build on it.''

The vital concept here is that patents are for the good of society, not the person with the idea. If an idea is most likely going to be developed anyway, there's no social benefit to limit use of it. Further, software is one of the most likely areas for ideas to be developed without monopoly, simply because coding is cheap, attracts thousands (millions?) of people, and is the most fun you can have with your clothes on. If one hacker doesn't generate a given idea, there'll be another one along in a minute.

Unfortunately, over the decades, people got (remained?) greedy, and specialized enough to have never studied their own history, and so began to think that an idea, of all things, could have an owner, and that it was their right to have a monopoly and control access to the idea.

Look back on the development of software: in the past 60 years is there any evidence that its progress has been hampered by people afraid to develop ideas for lack of protection? Hah! Never in the history of technology has a field advanced so rapidly or been so fecund, and most of it has been due to the open availability of ideas. Until the 1980s no one could patent software, and copyright seemed to work quite nicely, thank you. Now, unfortunately, we have people who think that because they spent a year or two on an idea, they should be allowed to prohibit anyone else from using the idea, even though it's hardly novel, or even notably hard---tedious in reducing to a useful form, but no more.

So, someone building a virtual machine (which IBM made mega-bucks on in the '60s and '70s [and may be still, for all I know]) cannot be allowed to say ``I'm the only person who can use this idea for the next 17 years'' (or is it up to 20 now?) when the same idea has occurrred to anyone who's written an emulator.

Applying protection to ideas that would be developed anyway is a net loss (it slows, not speeds technical advances) and thus is not intended by patent law. For more background and analysis, check out the League for Programming Freedom's web site, and remember---you can't own an idea, and you can't even limit its use unless society thinks it'll get something back for allowing such limits.