Slashdot Mirror
PRO-IP Act Passes Judiciary Committee
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Pro-IP Act has passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously, thanks to the support of committee chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). We've discussed this before — it's the same bill which would create copyright cops with the power to seize computers, when powers like that have been systematically abused in other areas. But, apparently, they think the bill is just wonderful now, simply because they cut the provision that would've increased statutory damages while keeping the rest. This is the same bill that William Patry called the 'most outrageously gluttonous IP bill ever introduced in the US.'"
While we're on the subject of intellectual property, Canadian law professor Michael Geist gave a talk on Monday about "copyright myths."
I mean the secret police worked out well for Nazi Germany right?
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
I think I speak for everyone here when I say...
"Awwwww, fuck."
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Just like in the war on drugs and the war on terror, right?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Before we have a bill like this passed and then a bunch of 'ip cops' running around ripping ipods out of your children's hands, and following you home after buying a pack of recordable CDs to search your home.
Either will legally become "probable cause" and justification of an instant warrantless search/seizure/detainment.
Freedom and privacy is screwed and our founding fathers are spinning in their grave.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Nope, its just you.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I saw one 3:Funny over in the Fossett search article.
I guess the modpoint well done gone and ran dry.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
When a fed comes to your door, I have three words for you. Headshots headshots headshots. They wear armored vests and helmets so aim for the eyes. (paraphrased)
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
but some IP is more equal than other IP.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
I'm sorry, have you been paying attention recently? That's how things are supposed to be. If things were how they were supposed to be according to the constitution 99% of this bullshit wouldn't even be getting heard by congress.
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
Since when do any cops have to follow due process
--
There is only one truth -- There is no Sig.
Actually, I have the same problem (although the modifiers are working)
I'm saddened that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) doesn't represent my district so I can't try to get him recalled. At the same time, I'm glad I didn't elect him to office.
As for the bill, there is nothing to be glad for there.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
I propose that we call this bill the "Anti-Consumer" bill. Maybe the media would pick up on something that seems a bit more sinister and threatening. After all fear seems to be their calling card these days.
no mod points for me either.
I prefer the political puppet on the right.
Well, I prefer the puppet of the left.
Hey, the same guys are controlling both puppets! We're fucked!
The war on copyright infringement is not a sane way to spend the governments money... i mean come on, we're almost at 10 trillion in national debt and now they want to create an organization, with a 7 figure salary guy at the top that seizes computers that jimmy made mp3s on from his cd collection, not knowing that one of those cds had a rootkit that monitored this and turned him in to this organization?!?
WTF like we need a new agency sucking 20-40 million a year just harassing computer users who went on kazza once, not knowing what it was and deleting it when they saw all the pedo crap on it..
Is a corrupt piece of crap who should be behind bars.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Because that's how you gain power. By making criminals of your subjects, you gain power over them - the power to threaten them with fines, imprisonment, or death. How can your government control you if you've broken no law? It can't -- at least, not reliably -- so it makes up laws that are impossible to follow or interpret, and in so doing, forces us to jump through its hoops to avoid imprisonment. It doesn't matter whether they catch all the "criminals", only that they catch enough to make examples of. Eventually, you find yourself complying, if for no other reason than that you're afraid that someday you might be picked as the "example".
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
And for those who automatically reject everything Rand wrote (because they don't like some of what Rand wrote), how about a former Attorney General and US Supreme Court Justice?
"With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him." - Robert H. Jackson, 1940
And then your Federal overlords would threaten to withhold highway funding, and your state legislature would cave.
Yet there is an epidemic of abuse of the legal system by the RIAA and MPAA. This is yet another corporate giveaway. It's about protecting the profits of corporations, not defending the public interest. As usual. Welcome to capitalist "democracy."
So-called "due process" is a joke in a nation with 1% of its population behind bars and proven racial disparities in sentencing.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The problem being this, copyright infringement is NOT a criminal offence. It's a civil matter. No one, not one single person is in prison for the crime of "copyright infringement", at all.
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
idiot to jump on an internet fad to harass a valid analogy.
Read radical news here
"Due process - isn't that how they make Velveeta?" - Bull
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Now all we have to do is look at who sponsored this bill and we can find out who is taking bribes seeing as this has absolutely nothing to do with America but only lining the pockets of the great John Conyers!
Here's the PERFECT solution to showing those politicians in Washington just how fucked up the patenting system is: patent "The act of participating and voting in a Presidential election in the United States", then sue the government for copyright violations! Or better yet, patent "The act of holding a Congressional session"
If they unfairly seize a Linux box, and that seizure is proved in court to be unconditional, could one demand compensation for the value of everything lost? I understand the Red Hat source code is worth ~$5.5 billion...
The PRO-IP act would change that.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Boot the rascals out. All of them. Even the ones that vote against it will do so because passage of this evil plan is a foregone conclusion and so the powerful puppetmasters will vote against it to a negotiated victory for the plan. Out with them. All of them.
If you give a damn about liberty and privacy boot the rascals out.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
They can seize all of your assets by claiming that they were involved in a crime. Then, suddenly, your "due process" rights are defended by a public defender because you are dirt poor. "Due process" on property rights was largely destroyed because of the asset forfeiture laws and a bunch of motherfucking judicial scumbags who like to split hairs about issues like whether or not it is really a violation of your constitutional rights to allow the police to "charge your property" with a crime instead of charging **you** with a crime.
Seed cops; Those seeds are copyright - you cannot plant them/you violated copyright by planting them
IP cops; thank you for welcoming us to your business, we will now audit all of your computer systems
RIAA cops; thank you for welcoming us to your home, we will now audit all your media for copyright violations
MPAA cops; You know when you pirate a movie a small child dies in a third world country, you should be ashamed of yourself
And of course the "say goodbye to innovation cops", these guys will be the thought police come to audit your head for having ideas that just happened to already be copyright.
Big Mother in sooo many ways.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You can't, it has never happened.
Copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a criminal offense.
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
No it doesn't, please read the act.
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
According to the various sources you read, everything on my blog/forum comments/youtube uploads is mine via copyright. Will these "cops" protect me too and seize every computer they can find wth a copy (cache) of my flickr photos?
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
The copyright vans drive out in the a.m.
The ip's are real and have real people, with real hd's.
Courts know nothing about "routers" or 'wi fi"
The ip's will have connected to the
server and may have copyright files.
You sit down with a free defence lawyer who just
graduated from real estate and law night school.
A quick look into your hd's finds 'files'.
Time to look at the offer - sign right now and get 15 years.
You must also talk about a few of your friends.
Sign now.
The other option is to face court.
Every file is worth 15 years.
Two new words: consecutive and concurrent.
How many people will get to face court and have a
real computer expert talk about 'routers'?
Best just to sign.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Don't get me wrong, I think this is insane, and I hope it goes the way of similar bills before it, but the tighter the so-called "content cartels" grip on their copyright, the more persuasive the arguments for Creative Commons, GPL (v2 or v3), and other similar copyright-related social movements become. The same laws that protect the iron grip of Disney on Mickey Mouse for as long as they can legislate it, also protect those who participate in the Creative Commons (like Nine Inch Nails to take a totally non-random example) from the Disneys, the Time Warners, and the Sonys of the world. They can only be the gatekeepers of "the culture" if YOU choose to pay the entry fee. There's plenty enough out there that they don't control, that they CAN'T control anymore. All this sound and fury is trying to make people focus on them instead of looking for alternatives. There's no such thing as bad publicity, and all that.
The onus is on those who claim that art should be for love and not money to put up or shut up. If you're an artist, go make some art under something like Creative Commons that both allows you to make money off it when someone else is making money off it (and sue the pants off them if they don't pay you for it), and allows people who aren't making money off it to spend as much money as they want spreading the word about how awesome you are. If you're not an artist, don't forget that artists need to eat as much as you do. Actually reach into that wallet and give money to artists that take a chance and produce work that you like under a Creative Commons license (or some other license with terms that aren't crazy) and be as generous as you can afford. Every Tom, Dick, and Sally that releases something under Creative Commons isn't worth supporting just because they're releasing as Creative Commons. There is a TON of freely distributable junk out there. However there ARE people out there that every one of us reading this story would feel comfortable supporting, and rather than shovel money on a monthly basis into Comcast's, or Sirius', or Time Warner's or whomever's bank account for content that isn't worth using as toilet paper, a small fraction of that money could make a world of difference for one of the people that IS taking a risk and releasing good content under terms that are reasonable.
Where the hell is the Creative Commons Foundation of the Arts, taking donations and patronizing quality artists that release work under the Creative Commons like the foundations supporting free software? Do you think this stuff grows on trees?
Let me ask you something - if everyone is guilty of something, how do government officials stay in the office? Either they can be found just as guilty of something, and then everyone's on the same footing - and Ayn Rand falls flat on her face. Or they are exempt from laws that affect the regular plebeians, and then the issue is with a complete lack of government control and rule of law - and Ayn Rand falls flat on her face. Either the problem she mentions doesn't exist, or there's a far more significant problem at hand.
And if we're looking not at an abstract concept, but at the reality of government, that idea falls even more apart. Yes, there is a reality that there are currently far more laws than necessary on the books. To attribute that to farsightedness and a long-term power grab is to attribute qualities to politicians that I have barely ever seen.
I find this quote to be one of her more ridiculous assertions. It baffles me why it keeps being trotted out.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Sure, use present tense, and say copyright infringement instead of DMCA violation, and no one can say you're wrong. But still, shit happens.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Somehow I find Jackson's statement by far the more chilling of the two. Thanks for the cite.
Oh, fixed link, I hope: http://roberthjackson.org/
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
And when will that right get taken away?
Twinstiq, game news
No mod points? A sudden burst of unfiltered posts. An unbiased reflection of the vast mediocrity of mankind with all its inanity. Or is it a haystack full of golden needles? Ouch! These stupid analogies are beginning to hurt.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
The copyright cops have to follow due process and you have the right to a jury tail.
My goodness, what a protected life you must lead.
The reality is that cops follow procedure when and if they feel like it. Furthermore, merely being accused of a crime is a punitive action in this country (taken before you even get your due process and your jury trial.) Getting arrested is no fun, especially if you haven't done anything. Then you have the joyful experience of defending yourself before said jury, and when you lose because the copyright owners have unlimited funds and you do not, you're life is thoroughly trashed. That's even more true when you're fighting for your rights in a criminal court, versus a civil one.
So be very, very careful of accepting any newfound powers our government arrogates to itself, especially those granted at the behest of the private sector.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Bad analogy: There are exactly zero US citizens held on drug charges without access to courts and lawers. There is exactly one (1) US citizen being held without trial on terrorism charges.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Very correct, thank you for reminding us. We should all remember this, sadly I had nearly forgotten.
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
Bad analogy: There are exactly zero US citizens held on drug charges without access to courts and lawers. There is exactly one (1) US citizen being held without trial on terrorism charges.
Well, one held without trial on terrorism charges that we know about. I would be surprised if there weren't more.
Any suggestions for effective ways American citizens can push against this legislation? Somehow I feel emailing my congresswoman doesn't really do much (and Pelosi probably opposes it anyway, I hope...).
Howabout non-us citizens (i.e. my French and Canadian friends) anything productive they can do?
closed minded is as closed minded does
in http://copywrite.org/2008/01/30/pro-ip-act-of-2007-h-r-4279/ (text of the act as of january), the only place seizure of equiment is mentioned is section 321 a.7.A.iv which reads
"Protecting intellectual property rights overseas by working with other countries to ensure that such countries provide for the seizure of property used to produce pirated and counterfeit goods;"
IANAL but to me it seems that a)it is not the seizure of equipment receiving pirated goods, its the equipment used for duplication, so its the sender not the receiver which would lose the equipment. b) this section isn't talking about actions by american forces against american people, it is talking about american political encouragement towards overseas countries in order to get them to seize equipment also.
Can someone point out to me where generic seizure of computer equipment in copyright violation cases is mentioned?
What are you, stupid? They're not exempt from the laws; they're exempt from the enforcement. In other words, they decide who gets investigated, so they simply decide that it won't be them!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You do realize you won't have access to this service, right?
I'm afraid xkcd inches ever closer to reality:
http://xkcd.com/344/
Let us hope Ninja Stallman can defend us, because so far it's only looking like him, NewYorkCountryLawyer, and Lawrence Lessig are on our side.
I am officially gone from
it didnt start with killing. first it started with intimidation, censoring and oppression.
Read radical news here
Dude, police appropriate goods that are "believed" to have been purchased with drug money all the time. It's up to the owner to prove that they were not. If that's not a violation of due process (innocent until proven guilty?) then what is?
How we know is more important than what we know.
No, but there are lots of people who have lost much valuable property because they were accused of breaking drug laws.
Basically in civil forfeiture the government sues your property, accuses it of being involved in breaking the law and seizes it.
Good luck proving otherwise.
Quick overview, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forfeiture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Hear hear. I couldn't agree more.
While I understand the need for law and order, I also realize that law enforcement and courts are already stretched thin. Our incarceration rate is also unacceptably high.
Turning a civil offense into a criminal offense while creating a new police agency and granting new powers to law enforcement is not a wise move. New powers are always used in unexpected ways, and the original intent and spirit of these new powers are often stretched beyond acceptable limits.
-Turkey
(Article here, many others).
It's not merely the DMCA that is criminal. The N.E.T. act in fact turned a substantial percentage of the entire U.S. population into felons. In particular essentially everyone who has ever used P2P at all - tens of millions of people right there - are felons. And it goes beyond that. Two elementary school children who swap oldskool audiocassette tapes are felons. And more.
The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. -- The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
Title 17 United States Code
Section 506 Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. --
(1) In general. -- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed --
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
So under section (A) it is Criminal Infringement if you infringe and have "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works", criminalizes ANY P2P use if you upload some much as a single file and download so much as a single file. Or if you exchange some much as a an audiocassette mix tape, or almost anything else.
Under section (B) "reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000 pretty well covers any nontrivial uploading anywhere or almost any sort of nontrivial distribution at all, even if you never receive anything at all.
Section (C) criminalizes any "pre-release" leak whatsoever. Note that later text "clarifies" that a movie released to movie theaters is still in "pre-release", so any leak of a movie running in theaters but "has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility" is criminal.
Prison sentence:
Up to 10 years for a second offense.
Up to 5 years for "the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500". (Which would cover moderate P2P usage.)
Up to 1 year "in any other case". (Covering effectively anyone who has ever touched P2P at all, any anyone who has done any of a number of other trivial things such as swap mix tapes.)
I figure the US population is currently subject to well over a hundred million person-years in prison.
And for bonus points, I love the way industry lawyers pulled off most of this insane law by slipping an innocent looking sentence into the DEFINITIONS section of law, and advertising their beloved bill as merely updating copyright law to properly deal with commercial criminal infringement operations. That's the typical sort of thing that goes on when you literally allow industry lawyers to write the laws we pass.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Oops, the some text got botched in my above post. It should have read:
Title 17 United States Code
Section 101 Definitions
The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Usually I find John Conyers to be one hell of a stand-up American. It's really unfortunate that on this issue he's either allowed himself to be bought or duped.
+++ATH0
It's the same thing as other bosses of criminal gangs (and don't kid yourself that the democrats/republicans aren't criminal gangs). 1) they never expect to get caught because they're calling the shots and are on the offensive 2) they think they're a lot smarter than they are so they never anticipate getting caught at all 3) Yes, they can be found just as guilty of something and everyone should be on the same footing. However, the legal system is intertwined with the politicians. Do you bite the hand that feeds you? Only if you have a very good chance of winning, so the occasional politician that screwed up his corruption attempt gets caught and the rest essentially remark "heh...moron, I'm glad I'm never going to get caught"
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
>No, but there are lots of people who have lost much valuable property because they were accused of breaking drug laws.
So the smart growers rent.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I have a picture for you. Look familiar? Killed in captivity. He entered that death camp alive and in good health. There's another death camp down in Cuba. We're lobbing missles at civilians with impunity in Somalia and carting off "terror suspects" to more death camps in Ethiopia. You have citizens disappearing off the street, being held in secret and tortured, with no trial or charges for years. Tell me, when does it get to be Nazi enough for you??
A) Who is they? I was talking about lawmakers - do you think they decide who gets investigated? I thought that was the domain of law enforcement.
B) What's the difference between being exempt from a law and being exempt from the enforcement? Sounds like it's very much the same.
Not sure what you got your panties all up in a bunch about.... sounds to me like what you're describing is indeed a situation where a segment of the population is above the law - and as I said, that to me is far more dangerous than a situation where everyone is a criminal. That's because that means that there is effectively no rule of law, just arbitrary application of power by those who are in power.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
That's just insane. I hadn't heard about that. Note to self: avoid Australia as much as possible.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The fact of the matter is, they weren't charged because that's what the prosecutor decided to do. That's how the Anglo-Saxon system of laws works and, although it is far from ideal (and I don't think anyone defending it claims it is), I'm quite certain that you don't want to live in a society where the prosecutor must bring every allegation to trial. Someone must make a decision as to what charges are serious enough (and the evidence strong enough) to take to trial. If it's not the prosecutors, then it will be the police that refer charges to the prosecutor to file (assuming she has no discretion).
No one would doubt, for instance, the right of a civil litigant to withdraw his case if he feels that pursuing the case is not in his best interest. The prosecutor fulfills the exact same role except that she represents the State in the proceedings and is expected to act according to the State's best interest. If you don't approve of her decisions, you are perfectly free to elect a new government.
Here's the cliff's notes version of prosecutorial discretion: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Prosecutorial-Discretion.topicArticleId-10065,articleId-10015.html
I think if we all let out reps know whats on our minds, maybe the lobbying groups wouldn't have as much power. But it's probably all in my head.
So, the US "war on IP" is now going to invade Sweden, because they have "weapons of mass distribution AKA The Pirate Bay"...
Love this wonderful ideas that come from genius people.
once he realizes this fact he will resort to masked IP vigilantism.
Balderdash!
Want a puppy? Ask for a horse.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Keep in mind that it has been decided by the Supreme Court that you're only entitled to a jury trial if you're charged with something that carries at least a six-month prison term. Oh, and that has to be within a single charge - they've already ruled that if you face 100 counts of a 1-month sentence that you don't get a jury trial.
Oh, and if the evidence is flimsy they might not charge "you" at all - they'll just charge your stuff. The constitution provides no protections for your stuff - so in a hearing that is basically just a formality it gets confiscated. You don't have any standing to be involved in the trial.
I'm not quite sure where you find any of that in the constitution, but it happens...
But isn't that barely preferable to the usual first posts?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Oh good. This means we are that much closer to being completely 100% fucked.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
No, it's how they make Mountain Due.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
This is the kind of hypocrite double-standard law system the anglo-saxons are so fond of that gives such a corrupt reputation to anglo-saxon countries.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I'd be interested to see their reasoning
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
Reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olm7xC-gBMY
Surely, there must be a connection here. FPS games are merely training tools for violent copyright infringement terrorist.
I lost my sig.
seriously, what the fuck does this have to do with anything? isn't ANYONE here slightly concerned we're taking the first steps to forming our very own thought police??? this entire bill reeks of something out of a Philip K. Dick story, all we need is some guy running
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. so I guess that means that the supreme court has decided that 6 months in jail is worth $20.00 but 5.9 months is only worth $19.99
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
A phone rings at KGB headquarters:
"Hello?"
"Hello, is this the KGB?"
"Yes. What do you want?"
"I`m calling to report my neighbor Yankel Rabinovich as an enemy of the State. He is hiding undeclared diamonds in his fire wood."
"This will be noted."
The next day, the KGB visit Rabinovich`s house. They search the shed where the fire wood is kept, break every piece of wood there, but find no diamonds. They swear at Yankel Rabinovich and leave.
The phone then rings at Rabinovich`s house.
"Hello, Yankel! Did the KGB come?"
"Yes."
"Did they chop up your firewood?"
"Yes, they did."
"Okay, now it`s your turn to call. I need to have my vegetable patch plowed."
But you forget the power of numbers. The moment government looks wrong enough to everyone is the moment government is gone. As long as people can be made to look like bad guys to the rest of the general public, the rest of the general public doesn't DO anything about the laws that make everyone a criminal. Thus, the very position of power which makes those lawmakers above the law is maintained by the public and the laws that make everyone a criminal.
Never underestimate the stupidity and laziness of society as a whole.
Menus: Linux=function, Windows=vendor, OS X=as little as possible. Makes a statement, don't you think?
Well, you thought wrong: it's supposed to be the domain of law enforcement, but in reality the politicians, judges, and prosecutors have a "good ol' boys network" and look out for each other.
Exactly. The only difference is that being exempt from the law requires writing it into the law, and those pesky plebs might actually notice that (maybe).
I don't think the situation is that much more dangerous... besides, talking about that is like arguing about whether Hitler or Stalin was the more evil dictator; it doesn't really matter because they're both so far off the end of the scale already.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
They don't just say I think you used drug money to pay for this so we are taking it. They have to work out a formula that takes your normal income into consideration and the probability of being able to afford it considering your lifestyle and legit income. That would be due process according to the law.
If this isn't happening, then yes, there is a serious violation of due process and anyone effected by it could sue on those grounds. However, in every case that I know of, the formula has worked out pretty well and there has been no succesful challenges to the process. As for material that is mobile, the police take custody of it so it doesn't disappear which would be no different then suspected stolen property. Again, part of due process.
Unfortunately, Due Process isn't something defined by the constitution. It is left to be defined by the legislature and the courts. This means what you think is "due process" can actually change over time and still be "due process".
The above post is sad but true.
I'll draw on a third author for that: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- Orwell
Considering that most courts value a hard-working member of society's time at about $5/day for jury duty, I'm not surprised that they value the time of a felon so lowly!
But yes, I find it ironic that you can get a jury if you sue your neighbor for $500, but you can't get one if you face 4 months in federal prison and a stiff fine. The $20 guideline only applies to civil suits...
This is the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.
They even had a Congress. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats.
Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of the United States and maybe you'll see that they weren't any different than we are.
Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws--that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds--so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort.
All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats.
Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said:"The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.
And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat.
You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.
Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Communist! Lock him up!"
So they put him in jail.
The television will not be revolutionized.