Slashdot Mirror
Universal Music Hit with Anti-Piracy Suit
prostoalex writes "Remember Bon Jovi trying to fight piracy with individual PIN numbers that legitimate buyers could get off the CD? DownloadCard, who claims to have invented the technology, filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group saying the music execs stole the technology and trade secrets from the company. Yahoo! Launch headline suggests that Bon Jovi album might be delayed because of the lawsuit."
That's the best news I've heard all day...
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Megacorp gets sued by a smaller company for infringement... ROFL
Karma whorin' since 1999
You can't ignore other people's intellectual property, damnit. Only pirates would do that kind of stuff.
Ha ha!
</nelson>
Should've run a patent search, no?
Well, maybe not. Theft of trade secrets suggest that this isn't a patent issue.
Fuck it.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Patents suck Patents suck Patents suck... er... hello what's this?
Yahoo! Launch headline suggests that Bon Jovi album might be delayed because of the lawsuit."
Yay for patents! Yay for patents! Yay for patents!
NO CARRIER
More IP BS, this time entirely between those that abuse such laws regularly.
Money gets shifted around, and we, the consumers, get screwed like usual. The *only* outcome I see from this involves the album coming out late, and the lawsuit justifying yet more "cost-added" excuses on the part of the recording industry.
I'll care more when 72 minutes of pure audio doesn't cost 50% more than 2 hours of high quality movie footage with soundtracks in three language plus bonus material, AND I can legally (and easily) store what I buy on my file server. Until then, the MPAA and RIAA can collectively "bite me".
Somebody go get a bunch of patents on anti-piracy googaws and then claim prior-art on all the companies attempting to put stuff like this in place. When it ends up costing them more money in legal fees than they would allegedly recoop from the stop of piracy, they'll just give up. Hopefully.
Yes, I know it's a pipe dream. So what.
That while this may be targetting 'the enemy', we need to consider other rammifications if this lawsuit succeeds. The 'PIN' idea seems rather, well, obvious (I'm not sure if DownloadCard was responsible for this, but Daft Punk did the same thing with their album 'Discovery'). While the DownloadCard is 'novel, original and unique' it doesn't mention that it is patented.
In the same sense, you shouldn't support the US government's attack on Microsoft just because you don't like Microsoft.
Big companies and greedy SOBs trying to be big have wanted this patent nonsense; maybe they will regret getting what they asked for. Maybe, just maybe, when enough of these ridiculous patent fights take up so much of their time and resources, really innovative people will be able to get on with their lives, and common sense will be restored. Maybe. Someday.
Infuriate left and right
Did I miss something? I thought the Bon Jovi thing was just like printing a unique serial on the booklet or a piece of paper that comes with the thing, or something.
How the hell is that technology, or more to the point, patentable?
get 0wned. irc.w30wnzj00.com
It's kind of sad, actually. A plan was finally put into use that 'accepts' the trading of mp3s, giving more incentive to buy the actual album. If this goes through, I sincerely doubt the record companies are going to try that hard to come up with better plans.
Oh please! While the RIAA has policies many of us disagree with, I'm sure that it would do an excellent job of keeping this data safe. Can you imagine the outcry if it was hacked?
Scaremongering like this is just pathetic.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Why is this a novel technology? Sure, it's never been done by the music industry, but the commercial software folks have been providing "registration keys" for decades now.
This just doesn't strike me as something that should be patentable. Of course, that seldom impedes the patent process.
Bon Jovi rocks! Peace, out.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
This just underscores the need for a new, novel, music distribution system that allows the music conglomerates to receive money for sales of the songs their artists record & sing. The PIN system is nothing new... this gimmick has been around for quite some time. All that most of us want is to be able to buy the songs we like with the FREEDOM to use the music as we like (computer, mp3 player, car stereo, home entertainment centre, etc.).
Unfortunately, the result of this infringement will likly just cause the music industry to go back to their pet senators for exceptions or maybe even buying out the patent rights so that they can perpetuate the crap system that exists today.
The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. -- Calvin & Hobbes
PIN number? Come on, you are saying, "Personal Identification Number number."
What is better: to be pedantically correct, or to be understood? "PIN" by itself looks like I'm shouting the English "pin" rather than using an acronym. It's easier to understand an acronym that sounds like an English word if the acronym is followed by a generic noun.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Now lets see how long it takes Hillary Rosen to go after Universal for piracy...now holding breathe.. ah turning blue..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Great! They tried to use some technology to prevent piracy, and they're getting SUED! Bwaaaahaaaahaaahaahahahah!!! That's what the evil recording industry deserves!
This seems very silly. Should I be worried that my ATM card will no longer work, or that I will no longer have access to my Ameritrade account? Both of those things use PIN's. PIN's aren't a technology. I get so sick of people misusing the term technology. Clicking a mouse button isn't technology either, but that didn't stop amazon from getting a patent. One arsehole even has a patent on waving a laser in front of a cat for chissakes!
You have no privacy rights pertaining to private companies and individuals in The Constitution. The only privacy right granted to you by The Constitution is that of right of protection from search and seazure of your person and your home unless duly athorized by a court of law, or if a crime is in progress.
I'd really like to know (in the U.S.) where this notion of universal provacy came from. Whene people say "They violated my privacy", exactly what laws are they referring to?
Unless you stay in your home with the windows covered, you have no resaonable expectation of privacy.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
The delaying of a Bon Jovi album?
I sense a great disturbance in the force, as if the state of New Jersey is crying out in pain..
did they use hospital corners when they made their bed?
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Really, the best news i've heard in a while. Anti-piracy efforts being slapped down by anti-piracy efforts. The MAN is attacking the MAN.
So, suddenly IP is a real thing and patent suits are great?
/. crowd get's a bit narrow sighted.
/.ers (or just a few) listens to BonJovi (I don't) which automatically means that he's a crappy, bad sounding, commercial doll, which again means that everything he (or those who really control him) does is bad.
/.y principal suit.
/.ers) would like.
/. is not the center of the world. Even though we dislike something/someone doesn't mean that others have to dislike it/them too.
It seems to me that somethimes the
Here are the facts:
1. No
2. Universal can be regarded as big and bad.
3. DownloadCard is David fighting Goliat for the money. It's not a
4. Universal is making an honest attempt to fight piracy without crippeling user rights. They are trying to make the CDs you purchase more like DVDs, with extra stuff BonJovi fans (not
Belive it or not,
Look a monkey!
let the games begin!
I really can't possibly see this lawsuit winning. This is the same model of registration that the software industry has been using for years.
If this isn't an example of prior art, then I don't know what is. Once again, the consumer is getting screwed while the lawyers cash in....
Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
Last Post! (Unless you want to beat me and post after this!)
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
Um, Universal is a customer of Downloadcard, which you find out if you read the article. Maybe they're having a tiff or something, but look here, and see: "Cards manufactured in English, French and German offer several exclusive Universal Records rock tracks to fans in many foreign territories."
I think what has acutally happened is that Downloadcard is mad that Universal is taking their toys and going home and not using their service anymore.
The Constitution does NOT grant rights to the people. The government has no power (authority) to grant rights! The powers of government are explicitly stated in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and expanded on by a few of the Amendments.
The people inherently have rights, and the Constitution establishes that the people grant the government certain powers, but that those powers are limited and the government is not permitted to take away the rights of the people. Certain of those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. However, carefully read the Ninth Amendment:
Thus the fact that a right to privacy is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does NOT mean that the people don't have that right, or that the government has the power to take away that right from the people.The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that the people do have a right to privacy.
However, as with all rights, there are some limitations. It is not possible to grant an absolute right without simultaneously taking away another right. For instance, you have the right to swing your fist, but that right ends where my nose begins.
Back to your posting:
Actually, the Fourth Amendment doesn't say anything about a crime in progress. It says: Note that this doesn't even say that the police can conduct a search without a warrant if they have probable cause. It says that if they have probably cause, and give an Oath or affirmation, a warrant shall issue. This is possibly the most-trampled of the enumerated rights.Remember seeing the Martrix, and other SciFi flicks where people swap and sell disks like it was crack? Well, once again SciFi predicts the future. But who ever though that it would turn out to be MUSIC and MOVIES on those disks! Listen, pundints and nay-sayers can bitch al they want, but once I have a little hollogram cube that is black market, so it can hold it's 10 petabytes without needing MS Palladium v4, you can hold EVERY SONG EVER MADE and EVERY MOVIE EVER MADE in your pocket. TEll me agian why a distribution channel for anything that can be stored digitally should even be a business model?
I'm sure once there was a great business where for a few pennies you could get your loom repaired, or the cotton gin fixed. Those days are gone, and so are the music and movie distrubtors. If any artist wants my cash, I will gladly fork it over for a LIVE performance only. So Brittney, bring some kneepads, otherwise you will never get my $16 sweetie.
Damnit! Release a new bon Jovi song. I'm sick of the only damn radio station in my BFE town playing the same Bon Jovi song from the mid 80's. Maybe they'll play a new bonjovi song with the old one and double the damn playlist.
(Watch, I'll be modded as troll/offtopic while others that say "not releasing Bon Jovi is good" will not be modded as redundant.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
Hmm... I really like peter. Every time I get spam from now on and there is an "opt-out" option where I can go on their web page and make sure they don't send me more spam... I think I will make sure that I put peter's email in there to make sure he doesn't ever get spam from the same people I did. I usually whois the domains of the urls listed in the spam and make sure the domain contacts are added to the nospam lists also. No one should have to suffer.
Umm it's a PIN for crying out loud. Banks have been using this same system for ages, not to mention about a billion other business. I mean really whats the diff between this technology wise than with a CD key for winxp?
All it is, is a number that allows you to access a service or feature. I could do this with pen and paper if I wanted too.
Maybe i'm not understanding their "technology", so feel free to correct me.
"I will gladly fork it over for a LIVE performance only"
Lots of very talented artists don't/can't perform live. Take Enya for example, she writes and records everything herself. Want her to stand on a stage by herself performing? that wouldnt be a very good show.
Where do you think they get the money to put on the show in the first place? FROM THE ALBUM SALES.
Just because you can transfer music and movies over a digital connection doesn't mean you have a right to. I can crawl through your bedroom window at night, but that doesn't make it legal.
Grow up. Pay some respect to the authors of the arts you admire. Art appreciation in the country has gone to shit. Artists don't owe YOU anything. Get over yourself
And by the same token, one should not withhold support from the US Government's prosecution of Microsoft just because one likes Microsoft.
Now that we have that minor little point sewen up... mind if we remain focused on the topic at hand?
The thing about patent law is that you can get a patent for just about anything and the patent office generally won't bother to check if you really deserve the patent or not. They have too many requests to do such a thing. The process of determining your right to a patent is relinquished to the already overburdened justice system when someone decides to use their patent against an allegedly infringing company.
The patent office is merely a way of getting a record saying "I had [this idea] on [this date]".
Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
I thought that the pin approach was a rather good idea. The pin is only for EXTRA stuff that you normally don't get with a CD. Like concert tickets, unreleased songs or whatever. It would've been a standard CD, with the PIN as a bonus! Why is everybody so happy that Universal is getting sued because of it?
Um... I didn't do it!
"The proprietary DownloadCard Technology is novel, original and unique."
Just like that claim itself.
Table-ized A.I.
Suprisingly, you were modded down as a troll! Apparently Bon Jovi has mod points....
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Once again, it is demonstrated that corporations and attorneys know what is best for the people.
This sig no verb.
"The RIAA has released a new set of statistics showing a distinct drop in filesharing of MP3's in P2P networks upon the release of Bon Jovi's latest album."
Anybody who writes the term 'PIN Number' cannot be taken seriously.
I'm not exactly sure how Bon Joni's pin number idea works, but The Tragically Hip's (A well-known Canadian band) latest cd that came out quite a few months ago comes with a membership card in it. By going to the membership site and using the id number that comes with the CD you get access to exclusive news and media. Its a great way to get people to acutally by the cd, without using DRM.
I.P. laws are, after all, the only thing that keeps megacorps from stealing all the little guys' work.
Bon Jovi album delayed!?? Now I'm mad!
I just noted a -1, Troll mod on this, and can't see why. This is a really interesting idea...
A while back I read an article by an environmental group discussing using funds to out-n-out purchase environmentally valuable lands, and then putting them in a trust. From that point on, you don't have to worry about regulations or which way the political wind blows, the land is simply administered according to the trust.
This is the same idea, but for intellectual property. It has its problems -- it only works as long as the property laws are applicable, it takes money to stake out the claim and administer it, and finally, it lends some legitimacy to what may be illegitimate processes. The best thing, though, is that you don't have to wait to change the world before you get to protect something important.
There ought to be more people doing this...
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
HAH HAH!
Visit www.seriouslythough.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So I'm guessing Universal picked Bon Jovi to debut this technology for a reason. If the suit against them has any merit, then Universal knew it was in the wrong and decided to try to use this PIN stuff anyway. I assume that Bon Jovi's fan base is no longer what it was, so perhaps Universal picked a band that wouldn't lose them huge amounts of money if it was delayed?
Not exactly a vote of confidence in ol' Bon Jovi, ya ask me! ^_^
Someby may have said it already, but as soon as the album is released, PIN numbers will be spreading all over the Internet.
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
Shot through the wallet, and you're to blame!
You give piracy, a bad name!
And where do I think artists get money from? NOT THE CD, BUDDY! Use a little google action and see just how much artists get from CD sales. Apart from mega-star contracts (ala N'Sync) an artist can owe money, even after going gold. Read up. Artists keep their largest chunk of change from Live performances.
You do post an intersting question about Enya, which can be transposed to say, Techno artists who make sweet mixes and pre-mix everything in a studio. No, they won't perform live. So how do they get paid? I don't know...
Point is this: As long as there is a massive, fraudulat abuse of power to keep crappy music (Brittney, NSync) at a high price ($16+) on an obsolete medium (CD) all the artists can starve for all I care. I'm not out to fix the world. I would gladly pay for recorded works ONLY if I can put them where I want (car, iPod, etc). If a music company tells me I can only listen to my music on my living room Palladium controlled X-Box2, I say FUCK THEM and FUCK YOU TOO and FUCK THE ARTISTS. I'm not going to be forced to pay outragous money for crap music on an ***obsolete medium*** like CD's.
Bwahaha! I like it. Of course, spammer's domain contact emails are usually routed to /dev/null. Better to use the Reply-To addresses (of the ones that request replies). This way, their business will be less likely to be interrupted by unwanted email after you opt them all out :).
I mean, could it get any better than one group wanting to screw fair use rights going after another?
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
The state of NJ is perpetually crying out in pain.
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
They should be giving out the PIN numbers to pay to have it turned off, not on. I think they'll make a lot more money that way.
Thanks for the construcive comments. I am intimately familliar with the Bill of Rights, I read it several times a year.
If you read article four, the tone is generally that of preventing the government from snooping in your private life wihtout cause. Have you ever heard of someone being sued or charged under the fourth amendment for breaking and entering? I haven't.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Now piracy fighters accuse piracy fighters of piracy.
It would be nice if they would do that full-time.
Any patents based on what's described should be readily breakable.
Just as well because I'm thinking of using this one of these days on a music project I'm involved with.
Tech Public Policy stuff
First of all, I agree with you. I really posted that message as sort of devils advocate, I tend to get flamed when I post a messge along the lines of "you have the right to everything".
An example I use is that you have the right to commit muder. The society also has the right, through laws, to make that act illegal and thus apprehend, charge, try and punish you for exercising your right to murder. It's a matter of whose rights take precedence. In this case a person's right to live is stronger than your right to kill them.
The supreme court, and many other courts have also ruled that you generally have no reasonable expectaion of privacy in an public place, or in your workplace. Pretty much that means that the only place you can reasonably expect privacy is in your own home(s) or the homes of others.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Put all the legal teams in a cage and give them knifes. The legal team still standing at the end gets $1 million, and their client wins. (Appeals could be handled by pistols at 20 paces).
The outcome would stand about the same as the current way our courts work, just faster and far more entertaining.
The Internet is generally stupid
It only makes sence that most of the obveous and commen prior art type methods of controlling content is a patent.
The type of person who thinks about content control would say "patent it" no matter how obveous it is.
With the music industry running in the whole (knownladge as propety) croud it's only a matter of time before a music industry stunt was patented. I wouldn't be supprised if the preveous stunts did have rejected patent applications from a time when you had to earn a patent award not just buy it.
I don't actually exist.
>I'd really like to know (in the U.S.) where this notion of universal provacy came from
Here.
It's a good read.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Police officers don't have the authority to issue warrants. This is a function of the courts. The Fourth Amendment requires that judges not issue warrants if there is not an oath or affirmation of probable cause.
Presumably the way the system has gotten perverted into the state it's in is that people have said "well, getting a warrant is too much trouble, and if we have probable cause, we'll get one anyhow, so we'll just skip that step or do it later, since that is easier and faster." But the fact that it is easier and faster doesn't make it legitimate.
A policeman's job is only easy in a police state. -- Orson Welles
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if someone calls the police and reports that she sees their neighbor beating his wife that the police can't act on that until a judge grants a warrant? In such a scenario the police would just be garbage collectors, documenting crimes that have already been permitted.
I am not a Constitutional scholar but I read that text as two separate points:
1. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
This talks about the right of the person against unreasonable search and seisure.
2. and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This talks about something not happening in real-time, and indicates the requirements for issuing a warrant. I don't see this second part being conditions on the police to act in real-time, as long as they can show that they acted reasonably based on what they considered a reasonable and reliable belief of a crime in progress. If they didn't, bad cops, and they need to be sued.
I really don't think the founding fathers had an impotent police force in mind that were not able to act on crimes in-progress. That itself enters into the realm of "unreasonable."
Well yeah, but PINs on products have been in use for years, for example on Microsoft Windows CDs. I think it's amazing how many people try to patent technology without having invented it. For example the whole auction system on eBay... Wasn't that really invented by the stock market? And btw, I just invented washing machines with stickers on them and fridges with stickers on them. So if you have those, please remove the machines and buy new ones from me, as they're my invention. If you want your personal stickers on them, please subscribe to mySticker and I'll attach the stickers you send me in the mail.
...is if they came across DownloadCard's idea out there on Kaaza and just helped themselves...
There's not much they can do about the Bounce album now because I've seen copies of it in the shops already. If they prevented anyone else using this again that would be good but intelectual property laws can't really stop a product that's been mass produced, released into shops and then sold to consumers. I also don't think they can get much or any money from the album because it was a widely known fact that the album was being released with this mechanism enabled so they should have raised the fact before it was released. Come on the littly guy!
You are making the same lame point that constitutionalists and libertarians make.
Actually, scratch that "lame" bit. It's a good point, but it has nothing to do with reality.
Reality: Power derives from a willingness to use force and destroy.
Reality: Rights exist only insofar as people require them, either through voting with their feet, or through their own exercise of power.
Reality: Wars exist when group A comes in contact with group B, or group A comes in contact with another group A, or even when group B comes in contact with another group B.
Reality: Smart people vote with their feet while they can.
Our government hasn't paid attention to its Constitution since the civil war. Sometimes, it happens to approximately follow the Constitution, but only incidentally, and not because it is its "contract of governance". When its actions follow the Constitution, it is because the Constitution does give a pretty good path to follow, so as not to degenerate into constant fighting.
That said, there are always groups that want to seize more power, and sometimes they are in the government. When they try to seize to much power, they abandon their responsibilities, and chaos follows.
Let's just say that the Constitution was a statement of good faith by the men who purposed to rule the new nation of the USA. They did a pretty good job, and a lot of men tried to keep faith with that statement. Today, a few of them still do; many really don't care.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Trade secret falls into the commercial law. Patents fall into the Intelectual Property law. Cheers...
The following are the intellectual property of Downloadcard, and Universal may not use them: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
You article is interesting. I do find it interesting that it mentions early on the nevessity of religous tolerance and that this is not a christian nation, yet proceedes to use christian morals as the norm. Often in the text morals are compared agains actions.
Morals are personal, any given act may be moral or immoral depending on the interpriter of the action. The article tends to enforce a notion of global morality that simply does not exist.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
No disagreements on the faux pas on morals the author has committed, but nevertheless, a good read for when you're sitting at work and just don't have anything to do. Plus your boss might reconsider getting angry at you next time if he sees you reading that... :-)
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
If we challenge the abuses, some of them will be curbed. But to mount an effective challenge against anything, you need citizens who are aware that there is a problem. Educating citizen as to how the goverment is supposed to work is essential. The fact that it doesn't actually work that way in practice much of the time is why we need to educate them, not a reason to let it slide.
The very purpose of a warrant is to authorize search or seizure. Are you arguing that the only time a warrant is necessary is when there is no probable cause? That would flatly contradict the explicit statement. You can't have it both ways. Either probable cause is necessary to issue a warrant, and a warrant is necessary to conduct a search/seizure, or there's no rationale for having warrants.
How can people be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and at the same time give the police the power to break down their door at any moment for the slightest flimsy excuse?
From experiences of close friends, I know that the police often cannot be trusted to make a reasonable determination as to what constitutes "probable cause". This is why it is supposed to be determined by a court.I also don't trust my neighbors to sic the cops on me only when I'm beating my wife, and not when they have some other personal vendetta against me. The neighbor claiming that I'm beating my wife is not sufficient as probable cause if there is no other evidence.
Allowing the police to determine when there is probable cause is hardly better than not requiring warrants at all.
"A policeman's job is only easy in a police state." -- Orson Welles
It is clear that historically it was expected that people defend themselves against criminals, using force as necessary. If you expect the police to do it for you, prepare to be disappointed, and quite possibly dead.You: One might ask, then, why you think they put it in the same sentence? If it's as unrelated as you claim, surely it would have been written as a separate sentence?
They both involve matters that involve search and seizure, although I still believe they aren't tightly linked except for that they share that similarity.
Why in the 7th ammendment dos it read: "In suits at common law, where the value in controvery shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwised re-examined in any Court of the United States..." What does the right to a trial by jury and the fact that the conclusion cannot be re-examined have to do with each other? What does 20 dollars have to do with it? They're all related to trials, but there is no overwhelming link between the clause about 20 dollars, the clause about my right to a trial by jury, and the fact that the decision can't be re-examined.
Run-on sentences were very prevalent in old English. If you read the Constitution check out how many paragraphs consist of just one sentence. It is also interesting how many times the word "and" and "but" in the Constitution imply the beginning of a new sentence, although they are actually preceeded with a semicolon or comma.
The very purpose of a warrant is to authorize search or seizure. Are you arguing that the only time a warrant is necessary is when there is no probable cause?
No, I'm arguing that a warranty is necessary when there is no reason to believe that a crime is currently in-progress, but there is reason to believe that evidence of a crime will be obtained if permission (warrant) is granted to enter a location and search for that specific evidence.
I.e., if the police think the murder weapon for some crime is in my house, they need to convince a judge of their reasoning. If he agrees, the warrant is issued and they can search the specified location for that weapon. There is no probable cause that the crime is in-progress, but there presumably the police have provided the judge with a reasonable explanation of why they think they will find the murder weapon at my house.
How can people be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and at the same time give the police the power to break down their door at any moment for the slightest flimsy excuse?
If the excuse was flimsy, sue the police department or the officers involved. Sue the person that intentionally gave a false tip.
I also don't trust my neighbors to sic the cops on me only when I'm beating my wife, and not when they have some other personal vendetta against me. The neighbor claiming that I'm beating my wife is not sufficient as probable cause if there is no other evidence.
I'd say that someone reporting a beating in-progress is sufficient reason for the police to act. If they find out that it was a lie, then they should haul your neighbor with a vendetta to jail for filing a false report.
It is clear that historically it was expected that people defend themselves against criminals, using force as necessary. If you expect the police to do it for you, prepare to be disappointed, and quite possibly dead.
I fully support the right to bear arms. I even support the right to carried concealed weapons. If 1 out of 4 citizens carried concealed weapons I think current crime would go down; on the other hand, I can't ignore the fact that road rage could become more deadly if everyone carried guns.
This isn't the wild west. While I support the right to bear arms, I also recognize that many people don't want to bear arms. These people deserve to be secure as well and the police provide that protection. Sure, someone can break in and kill me before the police arrive. Those of us that don't have weapons in the house evaluate the risks. But the great majority of those that don't carry arms get through life without being physyically threatened by either crminals or the police. If you are harassed by either some neighbor or the police it is almost always because you've pissed someone off--and you, too, should evaluate the risks of pissing anyone off, be it a police, neighbor, drug dealer, or unknown stranger who many be any of the above. Everything has consequences, and it really isn't that hard to get along with everybody.
Sure, the police should respect your rights. But at the same time, is there any particular reason you should taunt someone in such away that provokes them to violate your rights?
In general, the government does not have the power to grant any rights, except those powers explicitly stated in the constitution, of which copyright is a good example.
People keep talking about the brilliant idea of value-added incentive to buy CDs.
While it's probably a good idea in the long-run to get people to buy MUSIC CDs because of their frills, anybody who needs incentive beyond THE MUSIC itself is buying MUSIC CDs for the wrong reason.
You want frills? Go to their goddamn website; that's what websites are for.
McCallum
Music wants to be free.
I have a switch in my apartment that doesn't do anything. Every once
in a while I turn it on and off. On and off. On and off. One day I
got a call from a woman in France who said "Cut it out!"
-- Steven Wright
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...