Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Rules Against RIAA in DMCA Subpoena Case
JohnTheFisherman writes "My Way News is reporting that a Federal appeals court ruled that the RIAA can't compel the ISP to provide the name of the downloaders in their case against Verizon. In fact, the court said that one of the arguments the RIAA used 'borders upon the silly.' I believe most here will agree that this is great news." We've been following this case for a while.
This isn't an issue of being gay or not, it's an issue of giving everyone equal rights.
Why does it bother YOU if gay people can get married? It's not like they're trying to pass a law that says "straight people can no longer get married; only gays can." Rather, they are trying to give the same rights (mostly financial issues for couples) to gays that straight people currently have.
For the record, I'm straight. I do, however, have several gay friends and will support all types of equal rights legislation. Don't be a closed minded homophobic freak; get to know a gay person. Most of them are nice people.
Other than the social stigma, the main harm in marrying relatives is the health of offsprings. Since gay couples are not likely to procreate any time soon, it's not really a fair comparison.
how about we abolish marriage all together? Animals were never meant to have life long partnerships mandated by law.
If you want to live your life with someone, so be it, there's no one stopping you... If you want to have 1000 girlfriends, woo for you.
It would end multi-marriages (either from religion or deception). It would end divorce. It would end indiscretion as we see it today.
No one cares about the vows anyway, what's the difference?
You want to preserve marriage? Outlaw divorce. And start by arresting all the members of congress who've had affairs or divorces.
Finally, someone on the left who gets it!
I consider myself pretty conservative on most things, but couldn't give a rat's ass if gay guys and gals get a civil union with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. As a Catholic, I'm against it. But as an American, I firmly believe the government has no place legislating with regards to religion. And *all* of the arguments against gay marriage are religious!
And like you imply, ready made divorces do more harm to the institution of marriage than gay marriage ever will.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
whoa there tonto.
staying out all night with the guys is a crime?
so you are saying that if theres a big fight and a guy and his buddies leave their wives behind for the night, drive into the city, go to the fight, and crash at a hotel nearby rather than drive home drunk, they committed a crime?
yes, it is a bad thing to spend all your time away from your spouse, especially if that time is spent doing things like drinking, carousing, etc, but you need a reality check here. you cannot make a blanket law like that, you would make criminals of a great deal of good husbands/wives. for that matter, why must it be a sexist law in the first place, is it ok for someone to be out all night with the girls in your ultra-right wing world? assuming of course there is no flirting.
you cannot criminalize thoughts and such, you cannot legislate how people will live thier lives, that is criminal.
i for one think marraige has become a joke, something that people need 3 tries to get right, without much regard for kids/family/property disrupted along the way. forever has become more like "till death do us part...or after 3-5 years when i can no longer tolerate they way he drives/leaves the seat up/etc...i do" heh
now, should marraiges be unbreakable? no i dont think so, should they require fair cause for termination yes. abuse, neglect, REAL criminal actions, adultery, etc should all be just cause to end a marraige.
as for adultry being a crime, well...it may be a crime against marraige, but i hardly think putting people in jail for it will solve any problems, aside from the problems of enforcing such a law...and of course, to you arrest both parties, or only the married ones? ie if its a married woman and the single pool boy, did he commit a crime boinking her? what if its someone who doesnt know the other is married? good luck with that law. =P
get back to reality and remember that america is supposed to be the land of the (mostly) free.
gg with the ac post too, really shows your support of such a position.
Congratulations: you're clueless.
That happens now. It's called a "marriage of convenience". Maybe we should mandate that people can only get married if they "love" each other, hmmm? Maybe you'd like to build the "love" detector to enforce this? Get the fuck out with this "life partners" bullshit. Either everyone has a right to marry, or nobody does OR marriage is for love / godliness / what-the-fuck-ever only and NOBODY gets any special secular benefits like lower insurance, healthcare, etc.
I know you haven't said anything about it so I'm not laying into you personally on this next point, but this goes hand in hand: the idea that we should amend the constitution to ban gay marriages.
What the fuck? We should amend the CONSTITUTION to DISCRIMINATE against people? How convenient! While we're at it, I'd like to amend it so that anybody with an IQ of less than 130 can't vote. I'd also like to see an amendment that anybody who has a religious affiliation can't be part of the government or have any say in it. I'm sure the backers of this amendment idea are all going to jump right up and support me, right? What's that? It wouldn't be fair to discriminate against people based on their choices or on the way they were born? Oops.
Congratulations to all the people who support this ridiulous amendment notion: you're all idiots.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Oh, I'm not exactly a lefty - I'm a very conservative protestant - and I've gotten it for a long time.
(I was thinking - "Wow, a 'righty' who gets it!" *grin*)
It just seems there are a few - well, perhaps more than a few - nutcases who simply want to substitute the "Christian Right" for the Taliban. What kills me, is how they gnash their teeth about the Taliban, but work as hard as possible to introduce the same system here - just with different base values for oppression.
Sheesh.
Kudo's to you sir!
Greg
Just gonna do a little devil's advocating, even though we're getting further and further off topic.
The primary purpose of a marriage is to grant legal status to a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage.
What about hetero couples who choose not to have children? Should they not be allowed to marry?
Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
Gay sex and marriage are immoral, as are divorce and infidelity. It's no surprise that a place which has one type of immorality has another. So there may be general society problems causing both, it may not be gay marriage itself destroying values.
Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
Customs and traditions change as society changes. Why should this one be different than any others?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
And, by extension, couples who cannot reproduce and those who do not wish to reproduce should not be entitled to the protections of marriage or the legal benefits.
Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
And these ease of getting married and divorced in this country doesn't hurt the 'specialness' more? I know of more than a few people that didn't put a whole lot of thought into getting married, and didn't think it was all that special. By contrast, I don't see how letting gay people get married destroys the marriage covenant. Are divorce rates going to be any higher among gays? Are gays automatically predisposed to infidelity? Since some heterosexual people like to swing and have open marriages, should they not be allowed to marry either?
Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
This is somewhat true, in the case of a marriage in a church. I don't think any (or very few) gay people are saying that their church should recognise their marriage. I sincerely hope mine doesn't. However, a whole raft of legal benefits have been tacked onto the concept of marriage or 'union' with another. It is simply not right to allow one group to marry and deny that fact to another.
To put your argument another way, Christians should be allowed to marry because they have a tradition or custom of getting married, but Pagans should not, because they follow a different concept of marriage.
-------------------------------------------------
Courts ruled progressively on gay marriage, and now the RIAA is put in its place. Strike down the Patriot Act and the good old USA is almost back on track. Gotta love that glimmer of hope.
Ruling for gay marriage is progress? Being able to marry anything you want is a glimmer of hope? I assume now that marriage (at least in MA) doesn't have to apply to JUST a man and a woman that you intend to marry your hamster next spring? That's what it's going to mean, that you can marry anything you want. Marriage won't be any special, sacred institution anymore between a man and a woman. I've always felt that only the good ol' US of A can let gay and lesbians (a minority mind you) force the creation of new laws in this country regardless of the standards and morals of the majority.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address