Slashdot Mirror
DoJ Defends $1.92 Million RIAA Verdict
Death Metal points out a CNet report saying that the Justice Department has come out in favor of the $1.92 million verdict awarded to the RIAA in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case. Their support came in the form of a legal brief filed on Friday, which notes, "Congress took into account the need to deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe that they will go unnoticed." It also says, "The Copyright Act's statutory damages provision serves both to compensate and deter. Congress established a scheme to allow copyright holders to elect to receive statutory damages for copyright infringement instead of actual damages and profits because of the difficulty of calculating and proving actual damages."
Obama hates pirates. Arrr!
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
You voted affirmative action and now the nigger is fucking you up the ass with his big black cock and you still pretend it's better than George Bush fucking you up the ass with his puny white cock.
Awesome! Way to go new administration, hand the legal system over to the corporations. I'm sure they have my best interest in mind. "Change you will be forced to believe in"
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
So you're saying that when I quoted you here, since that was an act of copying, I stole from you?
It could easily be characterized as such, if not for the simple fact that it's quoting in furtherance of a discussion.
Therefore, if 'stealing' is not a term of art, and if it is unclear what it does mean, exactly (I for one don't agree with your definition, and I know others who don't either)
It's not a matter of debate. It's right there in the dictionary.
It's quite clear what stealing means: ask any four-year-old. You are attempting to split hairs where there are none to be split. "Stealing" encompasses any act
and where the term is pretty clearly an appeal to emotion
I reject the premise. Copyright infringement is stealing.
Whether you consider it to be wrong or not, it is what it is. Denying it is a contortionist expression of guilt. Not all stealing is illegal, and certainly not all stealing is wrong. Theft, it is generally regarded, is both unlawful and wrong, but that's why stealing and theft are not the same.
Is conversion always wrong? Is trespass to chattels? No. Is calling them stealing an appeal to emotion? No.
If you're a real lawyer, you certainly seem to have missed some classes in law school.
Let me make a suggestion to you instead: When discussing legal issues, we should all avoid ambiguous and inappropriate terminology,
Agreed. Which is why stealing, which is neither ambiguous nor inappropriate, is perfectly suitable.
Theft, on the other hand, is not.
Great, then let's all agree to stop using 'stealing' or 'stole' or the like when discussing copyright.
A pointless limitation that does nothing to advance any discussion. Infringement is stealing. There's nothing confusing or inaccurate about it.
You argue for precise terminology, and yet you don't know what the words mean, habitually and inexcusably conflating stealing with particular embodiments of the term. Stealing and theft are not the same thing, and have never been the same thing.
You can't honestly say that you've never heard someone say, "I stole that idea" or "He's stealing my land" in a property dispute (where no actual theft occurred". You also can't honestly expect anyone to believe that you went through law school without taking property and criminal law, or without reading copyright opinions that regularly use the verb 'steal' with no legal consequence.
You want accuracy, fine. You can call it infringement. But it's false pedantism to correct someone and say "infringement isn't stealing", and then build the straw man case of 'infringement isn't THEFT' and think that case supports your argument. It does not.
frankly, I doubt it fulfills its supposed purpose at any length.
Your post is a perfect example of what happens when someone bases their entire opinion on anecdotal evidence and things that they believe to be true, without bothering to actually verify them. If you look around you will see very many cases of work being created because of the profit incentive, which is possible because of copyright. Go to Barns & Nobles sometimes and count the number of books that you think wouldn't have been written if it weren't for the profit motive. There are a lot of them. And some of them are actually quite good.
I will give as an example, Born to Run. It is an excellent book and the best book about running I have ever read (although frankly, the quality of a book is quite often a subjective matter). In the back, the author states quite clearly that wouldn't have been able to write it without support (financial and otherwise) from Men's Health magazine. There are many more examples. Do research before forming your opinions, it will make you sound a lot smarter.
Qxe4
This person may need it - there's many reasons why, ignorant AC.