Let me put it to you this way: Can you name a single government program that returns a good service or solution to a given problem? Cost effective and of high quality as well? Can you name one.
Like you said given time I could probably name one or two. For the most part, the federal government is a complete waste of our tax dollars.
Do not confuse Greed and the profit motive with fraud.
I didn't. Ford Motor Co = profit motive & growth & return on investment
WorldCom = CEO's greed & no growth & no return on investment
Why? Because one CEO wanted to grow his company in order to "build" something that would last. The second CEO wanted to build his own portfolio even if it meant breaking the law.
Greed is bad. It tends to blind the everyday person from reality. Capitalism and "profit" are good and have certainly been good to a lot of people here in the states.
That is the liberal propaganda I find so repugnant. That just because there are criminals who used accounting tricks to steal money, all of us should give up human rights and join hands in a collective workers paradise?
I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't think we should punish everyone because of the actions of a few. I think you tend to generalize and label too much. But that is just my opinion.
Oh, and the only way parents can take an active role in education is by paying for, and thus demanding, good educational service. By putting their kids in the school of their choice, and by choosing themselves how their kids will be educated. Not be a state run monopoly on schools designed to reward mediocrity and conformity and punish excellence.
I think that's kind of a cope out. Money will not solve our educational problems. Sending your children to the school of your choice will not solve the problem. Parents have to involve themselves beyond writing a check. But that is a much LONGER discussion than/. allows room for.
The financially ignorant, credit card debt having, stock market avoiding, liberal idiots who love this tax system so much are the ones who end up paying the most taxes- cause they can't be bothered (or think its "immoral") to legally avoid those taxes.
I still get a kick out of your never-ending "liberal = bad" and "conservative = good" rhetoric. I mean it astounds me that you can honestly sit and spew forth the same garbage that the liberals are to blame for the economy and the government is "solely" to blame for the current education debacle. (I do agree with your stance on taxation.)
The education system in this country has failed, not because of government, but because of PARENTS. Parents are too busy working 60/70 hours a week in order to afford digital cable, jet skies, SUVs, health club membership, cleaning services, bottled water, dinner out, DVDs, cosmetic surgery, etc... To blame the government is a cope out. Blame yourself and blame me. We, the parents, need to take an ACTIVE interest in our children: find out and get involved in their interests, habits, friends, etc... And we need to take an ACTIVE role in who and what is in our local schools. Meet with your children's teachers and coaches and mentors. If you don't, then Britney Spears, Eminem, and MTV will raise your children.
And the debacle known as the current economy has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has everything to do with greed. I will freely admit that the current administration made good headway in bringing the economy back from a recession; however it was the greed of corporate America and the stupidity of stockholders and board members that brought it all crashing down. $9 billion in accounting errors? $500 million "golden parachutes"?
The issue isn't "bad" liberals, making bad decisions. The issue is how did corporate America arrive at the level of deceit and greed we see now? Was it Reagan and de-regulation? Was it Bush, Sr and his further de-regulation and favoritism? Was Clinton and his lack of leadership and direction? Yes. It was all of the above. It was 20 years of administrations and business leadership that worked only to make themselves richer.
The movie: Wall Street is an excellent representation of 1980s corporate America. I think it's still an excellent representation of corporate America 15 years later.
As far as taxation: I do agree that we, as a nation, do not receive a good return on our investment (i.e. Taxes). I have always supported the abolition of the IRS and a return to the original economic model of the United States: states with legislative power and tax revenue and the Federal Government with Judicial Power and Defense. But, that will never happen without another "revolution."
I spent 4 hours creating a MIR space station costume: complete with burned out sections, dented and broken antennae and dishes, fluid and gas/vapor leaks, and little "Russian" cosmonauts.
It looked awesome (and wasn't too difficult to maneuver around in).
At the end of my Halloween party I climbed the roof, lit MIR on fire, and chucked it.
Instead of spending billions to perfect a safe, efficient delivery method why not just unravel the world's largest rubber band ball; tie them all together; and shoot the boy bands (one at a time for greater distance) into space?
A Russian cracker, tricked by the FBI into visiting the US on the pretext of a job interview, has been sentenced to three years in jail.
Vasiliy Gorshkov, 27, was also ordered to pay $690,000 in compensation for his crimes by Federal District Court Judge John Coughenour, who took his family's medical and financial problems into account in sentencing the Russian to serve far less time than the 16 years demanded by prosecutors.
Last October, Gorshkov was convicted of 20 counts of conspiracy, various computer crimes, and fraud against online banks and e-commerce operations. His co-accused, Alexey Ivanov, 20, pleaded guilty in August to similar charges along with five counts of extortion, Reuters reports. He is currently in custody, awaiting sentencing.
The circumstances surrounding the November 2000 arrests of the pair put the spotlight of FBI tactics used in the case and prompted Russia's counterintelligence service, the FSB, to take the unprecedented step of charging FBI Agent Michael Schuler with hacking.
Schuler was praised by US authorities for an elaborate ruse that resulted in the arrests of Gorshkov and Ivanov. The operation arose out of a nationwide FBI investigation into Russian computer intrusions against e-commerce sites, and online banks which identified Gorshkov and Ivanov as prime suspects.
It was suspected the pair cracked into victims' computers to steal credit card information and other financial information, prior to attempting to extort money from the victims with threats to expose the sensitive data to the public or damage the victims' systems. Gorshkov and Ivanov were also suspected of defrauding PayPal through a scheme in which stolen credit cards were used to generate cash and to pay for computer parts.
The FBI lured the two to the US by posing as representatives of the fictional 'Invita' security firm, and offering the dynamic duo good jobs if they could prove their skills.
Of course the Feds set up a box rigged with a key logger and then set the pair to work demonstrating their amazing prowess. When they accessed their machines back home, the Feds recorded the login info, and later returned to root the boxes.
Having placed the pair in handcuffs, the FBI obtained a wealth of evidence from the compromised machines.
All perfectly above-board a judge said, ruling that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions. Russia disagreed and, anxious to assert its sovereignty, filed a complaint against Schuler to the US Department of Justice.
No further news of that as yet. The case will probably die a quiet death with some form of diplomatic compromises and vague promises from the FBI to work more closely with the Russians in future.
Rather, we will try him in a Court of Law using Norwegian Law.
I hope so. The US Justice Department has a funny way of changing it's mind about respecting another country's laws. One minute the Justice Dept says: go ahead, do it yourself. Next thing you know their crying that you are not doing enough, the threat to the US is now greater, and they want to take over.
WTO agreements are definitely a good source. You may want to check out: 1) NATO agreements, 2) INTERPOL agreements and procedures, and 3) whatever extradition treaties the US may have with Norway.
"The core meaning of this provision, plainly enough, is that the owner or operator of a store, hotel, restaurant, dentist's office, travel agency, theater, Web site or other facility (whether in physical space or in electronic space) that is open to the public cannot exclude disabled persons from entering the facility and, once in, from using the facility in the same way that the nondisabled do," Posner wrote in Doe et al. v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.
That's the bottom line. If you are open to the public, then you may not exclude any group of people (i.e. women, disabled, homosexuals, etc). Hanging a sign that reads: whites only is the same as not laying down a piece of plywood, creating wheelchair access. Discrimination, be it overt or by chance is still discrimination.
One can only wonder whether there was some clause in the guy's plea bargain or whathaveyou that forces him to keep saying "piracy is bad", "stealing is wrong", without any mitigation. Why is he a "sell-out" for taking responsibility for his actions? He freely admits that what he was doing, other than chatting with his friends, was illegal.
He states very clearly: You shouldn't feel sorry for me. I committed crimes that I shouldn't have committed. I stole from innocent companies and now I am feeling the repercussions. I am not asking for pity nor am I looking to be put up on a pedestal for what I have done. I am simply here to tell people what happened and that it can happen to anyone who takes part in this type of thing. In other words, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. And right now, software piracy is illegal. If you don't like it, then change the law. Go to school and get a law degree. Or simply vote.
Quite aside from the arguments as to whether piracy *really* costs anyone all that much, and about whether the industry grossly inflates the figures of the costs of piracy (hint: they do) What makes you think for a moment that software piracy doesn't cost a company $$$? How do you come to the figures that a company can research and develop a software release, then create a marketing campaign, and then release it with some support, only to have 300 to 400 copies pirated. Or in the case of PhotoShop: tens of thousands of copies.
Piracy costs $$$. Don't kid yourself or me.
the punishment is ridiculously out of proportions with the crime. There are people who torture animals or beat their wives getting smaller sentences. You're right. Go ask Kevin Mitnick how he feels about the justice system in this country. Again, if you have a problem, vote or get involved. The laws in this country are not going to change if we pirate more software. The laws will only change if we get involved and change them ourselves!
The fact is that most people dealing in warez aren't making any money from it. They're often not stealing things, which they would otherwise buy. They're not causing anyone any physical pain. They're not taking money directly from anyone's wallet. If Adobe fails to meet their sales figures because people are simply downloading pirated copies of PhotoShop, then you take money out of my pocket in the form of salary, benefits, or stock.
If I come to your house and take your car, I'm not really hurting you, because you can still theoretically walk to work.
But can anyone really endorse having _two years_ of someone's life being taken from them for the sake of something which almost everyone is doing? Just because "everyone is doing" doesn't justify it. I can hear it even now: "if everyone was jumping off a cliff would you?"
Wrong is wrong. Illegal is illegal. If you believe a law to be unjust, then stand up and change it.
Yes, when you download a song from the Internet and "use" it, you are cheating the artist out of money.
Yes, when you download a "cracked" copy of Adobe "Anything," you are cheating Adobe out of $299.
Whether or not the artist, label, or software company is "over-charging" for their product; or the MPAA or RIAA are justified in their attacks on P2P; or Microsoft, et al are justified in their attacks on Open Source is a red herring and not relevant.
Stealing is stealing, whether you're Martha Stewart, Bill Gates, or geek from any town USA.
Ever since the days of the caveman and the invention of the fire and wheel by the First Geek, Man has been arguing and warring. All arguments are based on misunderstandings, which indicates that two suitably intelligent people would always get along. For too long we have been trying to educate the stupider among us to reach this ideal state and I say that now is the time to give up.
I'm not sure that would be enough to motivate the public.
People gladly pay:
12 different taxes for telecommunications
7 different taxes for gasoline
4 different taxes on cigarettes
4 more on alcohol
Contrast that to many other government regulations, which impose costs on businesses, but generally to help protect the public. All of the above taxes are regulation fees or fees paid for "public" services.
I apologize for the cynicism of this post, but honestly the telecommunications and software/hardware industry will figure out a way to word the tax to sound like it is protecting the public.
Pretty close... If the women had noticed that the two men were filming them and asked/demanded they stop; AND the men continued filming, then you have a case for harrasment. Better yet, the law they were convicted of would have stood the test.
A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films another person, without that person's knowledge and consent, while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. RCW 9A.44.115(2) (emphasis added). The statute defines a place where a person 'would have a reasonable expectation of privacy' as either '{a} place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another;' or '{a} place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.' RCW 9A.44.115(1)(b)(i), (ii). Both Glas and Sorrells contend that the voyeurism statute was misapplied in their respective cases because the victims were in public places and therefore did not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy. In Glas, both women were employees working in the public area of a shopping mall, while in Sorrells, the woman was standing in a concession line at the Bite of Seattle at the Seattle Center. Although Glas' and Sorrells' actions are reprehensible, we agree that the voyeurism statute, as written, does not prohibit upskirt photography in a public location.
Sometimes a Judge or Lawyer must protect or affirm a law or defendent that is reprehensible in order to protect ourselves.
Let's take a little bit of personal responsibility here folks.
Personal responsibility is not an ideal most Americans practice.
Contribution List for Fritz Hollings
on
Fritz's Hit List
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Reported contributions list Top 3 Industries (PACs and Individuals): 1 Lawyers/Law Firms $1,463,550 2 Communications & Electronics $698,958
PAC Contributors:
Walt Disney Co $6,000
AOL Time Warner $5,083
National Assn of Broadcasters $5,000
Comcast Corp $2,500
Motion Picture Assn of America $3,000
ASCAP $1,000
Cablevision Systems $1,000
Charter Communications $1,000
Sony Pictures Entertainment $1,000
Universal Studios $1,000
Viacom Inc $2,000
3 Financial & Investment $404,349
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The world's five largest music companies and the three largest music retailers will pay $143.1 million to settle a CD price-fixing case launched by New York and Florida two years ago, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said on Monday.
In August 2000, most U.S. states joined in a lawsuit alleging that an industry practice called "minimum advertised pricing" (MAP) artificially inflated the price of CDs between 1995 and 2000, violating federal and state antitrust laws.
Under MAP, the labels subsidized advertising for retailers that agreed not to sell CDs below a certain price.
The five record labels -- Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group, Sony Corp ( news - web sites).'s Sony Music, Bertelsmann AG ( news - web sites)'s BMG Music Group, Warner Music Group, a division of AOL Time Warner Inc. and EMI Group Plc ( news - web sites) -- and the three retailers, Musicland Stores Corp., Trans World Entertainment Corp. and Tower Records, agreed to stop using MAP policies as part of the settlement.
The companies, which did not admit any wrongdoing, will pay $67.4 million in cash to compensate consumers who overpaid for CDs between 1995 and 2000. The companies also agreed to distribute $75.7 million worth of CDs to public entities and nonprofit organizations throughout the country.
"This is a landmark settlement to address years of illegal price fixing," Spitzer said in a statement. "Our agreement will provide consumers with substantial refunds and result in the distribution of a wide variety of recordings for use in our schools and communities."
Re:The secret of ./'s success....
on
Slashdot Turns 5
·
· Score: 2
My bad. Many apologies for the slip. Wasn't thinking about the html code being visible.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me put it to you this way: Can you name a single government program that returns a good service or solution to a given problem? Cost effective and of high quality as well? Can you name one.
/. allows room for.
Like you said given time I could probably name one or two. For the most part, the federal government is a complete waste of our tax dollars.
Do not confuse Greed and the profit motive with fraud.
I didn't.
Ford Motor Co = profit motive & growth & return on investment
WorldCom = CEO's greed & no growth & no return on investment
Why? Because one CEO wanted to grow his company in order to "build" something that would last. The second CEO wanted to build his own portfolio even if it meant breaking the law.
Greed is bad. It tends to blind the everyday person from reality. Capitalism and "profit" are good and have certainly been good to a lot of people here in the states.
That is the liberal propaganda I find so repugnant. That just because there are criminals who used accounting tricks to steal money, all of us should give up human rights and join hands in a collective workers paradise?
I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't think we should punish everyone because of the actions of a few. I think you tend to generalize and label too much. But that is just my opinion.
Oh, and the only way parents can take an active role in education is by paying for, and thus demanding, good educational service. By putting their kids in the school of their choice, and by choosing themselves how their kids will be educated. Not be a state run monopoly on schools designed to reward mediocrity and conformity and punish excellence.
I think that's kind of a cope out. Money will not solve our educational problems. Sending your children to the school of your choice will not solve the problem. Parents have to involve themselves beyond writing a check. But that is a much LONGER discussion than
The financially ignorant, credit card debt having, stock market avoiding, liberal idiots who love this tax system so much are the ones who end up paying the most taxes- cause they can't be bothered (or think its "immoral") to legally avoid those taxes.
I still get a kick out of your never-ending "liberal = bad" and "conservative = good" rhetoric. I mean it astounds me that you can honestly sit and spew forth the same garbage that the liberals are to blame for the economy and the government is "solely" to blame for the current education debacle. (I do agree with your stance on taxation.)
The education system in this country has failed, not because of government, but because of PARENTS. Parents are too busy working 60/70 hours a week in order to afford digital cable, jet skies, SUVs, health club membership, cleaning services, bottled water, dinner out, DVDs, cosmetic surgery, etc...
To blame the government is a cope out. Blame yourself and blame me. We, the parents, need to take an ACTIVE interest in our children: find out and get involved in their interests, habits, friends, etc...
And we need to take an ACTIVE role in who and what is in our local schools. Meet with your children's teachers and coaches and mentors.
If you don't, then Britney Spears, Eminem, and MTV will raise your children.
And the debacle known as the current economy has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has everything to do with greed. I will freely admit that the current administration made good headway in bringing the economy back from a recession; however it was the greed of corporate America and the stupidity of stockholders and board members that brought it all crashing down. $9 billion in accounting errors? $500 million "golden parachutes"?
The issue isn't "bad" liberals, making bad decisions. The issue is how did corporate America arrive at the level of deceit and greed we see now? Was it Reagan and de-regulation? Was it Bush, Sr and his further de-regulation and favoritism? Was Clinton and his lack of leadership and direction? Yes. It was all of the above. It was 20 years of administrations and business leadership that worked only to make themselves richer.
The movie: Wall Street is an excellent representation of 1980s corporate America. I think it's still an excellent representation of corporate America 15 years later.
As far as taxation:
I do agree that we, as a nation, do not receive a good return on our investment (i.e. Taxes). I have always supported the abolition of the IRS and a return to the original economic model of the United States: states with legislative power and tax revenue and the Federal Government with Judicial Power and Defense. But, that will never happen without another "revolution."
to have security in your software in order to charge for it?
I spent 4 hours creating a MIR space station costume: complete with burned out sections, dented and broken antennae and dishes, fluid and gas/vapor leaks, and little "Russian" cosmonauts.
It looked awesome (and wasn't too difficult to maneuver around in).
At the end of my Halloween party I climbed the roof, lit MIR on fire, and chucked it.
MIR, RIP.
Sounds like an average Friday in the Castro.
Instead of spending billions to perfect a safe, efficient delivery method why not just unravel the world's largest rubber band ball; tie them all together; and shoot the boy bands (one at a time for greater distance) into space?
A Russian cracker, tricked by the FBI into visiting the US on the pretext of a job interview, has been sentenced to three years in jail.
Vasiliy Gorshkov, 27, was also ordered to pay $690,000 in compensation for his crimes by Federal District Court Judge John Coughenour, who took his family's medical and financial problems into account in sentencing the Russian to serve far less time than the 16 years demanded by prosecutors.
Last October, Gorshkov was convicted of 20 counts of conspiracy, various computer crimes, and fraud against online banks and e-commerce operations. His co-accused, Alexey Ivanov, 20, pleaded guilty in August to similar charges along with five counts of extortion, Reuters reports. He is currently in custody, awaiting sentencing.
The circumstances surrounding the November 2000 arrests of the pair put the spotlight of FBI tactics used in the case and prompted Russia's counterintelligence service, the FSB, to take the unprecedented step of charging FBI Agent Michael Schuler with hacking.
Schuler was praised by US authorities for an elaborate ruse that resulted in the arrests of Gorshkov and Ivanov. The operation arose out of a nationwide FBI investigation into Russian computer intrusions against e-commerce sites, and online banks which identified Gorshkov and Ivanov as prime suspects.
It was suspected the pair cracked into victims' computers to steal credit card information and other financial information, prior to attempting to extort money from the victims with threats to expose the sensitive data to the public or damage the victims' systems. Gorshkov and Ivanov were also suspected of defrauding PayPal through a scheme in which stolen credit cards were used to generate cash and to pay for computer parts.
The FBI lured the two to the US by posing as representatives of the fictional 'Invita' security firm, and offering the dynamic duo good jobs if they could prove their skills.
Of course the Feds set up a box rigged with a key logger and then set the pair to work demonstrating their amazing prowess. When they accessed their machines back home, the Feds recorded the login info, and later returned to root the boxes.
Having placed the pair in handcuffs, the FBI obtained a wealth of evidence from the compromised machines.
All perfectly above-board a judge said, ruling that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions. Russia disagreed and, anxious to assert its sovereignty, filed a complaint against Schuler to the US Department of Justice.
No further news of that as yet. The case will probably die a quiet death with some form of diplomatic compromises and vague promises from the FBI to work more closely with the Russians in future.
Rather, we will try him in a Court of Law using Norwegian Law.
I hope so. The US Justice Department has a funny way of changing it's mind about respecting another country's laws. One minute the Justice Dept says: go ahead, do it yourself. Next thing you know their crying that you are not doing enough, the threat to the US is now greater, and they want to take over.
WTO agreements are definitely a good source. You may want to check out:
1) NATO agreements,
2) INTERPOL agreements and procedures, and
3) whatever extradition treaties the US may have with Norway.
It is a good salesman which restricts every question into just 2 options ...
Bravo. Excellent observation.
"The core meaning of this provision, plainly enough, is that the owner or operator of a store, hotel, restaurant, dentist's office, travel agency, theater, Web site or other facility (whether in physical space or in electronic space) that is open to the public cannot exclude disabled persons from entering the facility and, once in, from using the facility in the same way that the nondisabled do," Posner wrote in Doe et al. v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.
That's the bottom line. If you are open to the public, then you may not exclude any group of people (i.e. women, disabled, homosexuals, etc). Hanging a sign that reads: whites only is the same as not laying down a piece of plywood, creating wheelchair access. Discrimination, be it overt or by chance is still discrimination.
One can only wonder whether there was some clause in the guy's plea bargain or whathaveyou that forces him to keep saying "piracy is bad", "stealing is wrong", without any mitigation.
Why is he a "sell-out" for taking responsibility for his actions? He freely admits that what he was doing, other than chatting with his friends, was illegal.
He states very clearly:
You shouldn't feel sorry for me. I committed crimes that I shouldn't have committed. I stole from innocent companies and now I am feeling the repercussions. I am not asking for pity nor am I looking to be put up on a pedestal for what I have done. I am simply here to tell people what happened and that it can happen to anyone who takes part in this type of thing.
In other words, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. And right now, software piracy is illegal. If you don't like it, then change the law. Go to school and get a law degree. Or simply vote.
Quite aside from the arguments as to whether piracy *really* costs anyone all that much, and about whether the industry grossly inflates the figures of the costs of piracy (hint: they do)
What makes you think for a moment that software piracy doesn't cost a company $$$? How do you come to the figures that a company can research and develop a software release, then create a marketing campaign, and then release it with some support, only to have 300 to 400 copies pirated. Or in the case of PhotoShop: tens of thousands of copies.
Piracy costs $$$. Don't kid yourself or me.
the punishment is ridiculously out of proportions with the crime. There are people who torture animals or beat their wives getting smaller sentences.
You're right. Go ask Kevin Mitnick how he feels about the justice system in this country. Again, if you have a problem, vote or get involved. The laws in this country are not going to change if we pirate more software. The laws will only change if we get involved and change them ourselves!
The fact is that most people dealing in warez aren't making any money from it. They're often not stealing things, which they would otherwise buy. They're not causing anyone any physical pain. They're not taking money directly from anyone's wallet.
If Adobe fails to meet their sales figures because people are simply downloading pirated copies of PhotoShop, then you take money out of my pocket in the form of salary, benefits, or stock.
If I come to your house and take your car, I'm not really hurting you, because you can still theoretically walk to work.
But can anyone really endorse having _two years_ of someone's life being taken from them for the sake of something which almost everyone is doing?
Just because "everyone is doing" doesn't justify it. I can hear it even now: "if everyone was jumping off a cliff would you?"
Wrong is wrong. Illegal is illegal. If you believe a law to be unjust, then stand up and change it.
Don't get me wrong, piracy is basically theft.
No. Wrong. Piracy IS theft.
Yes, when you download a song from the Internet and "use" it, you are cheating the artist out of money.
Yes, when you download a "cracked" copy of Adobe "Anything," you are cheating Adobe out of $299.
Whether or not the artist, label, or software company is "over-charging" for their product; or the MPAA or RIAA are justified in their attacks on P2P; or Microsoft, et al are justified in their attacks on Open Source is a red herring and not relevant.
Stealing is stealing, whether you're Martha Stewart, Bill Gates, or geek from any town USA.
Ever since the days of the caveman and the invention of the fire and wheel by the First Geek, Man has been arguing and warring. All arguments are based on misunderstandings, which indicates that two suitably intelligent people would always get along. For too long we have been trying to educate the stupider among us to reach this ideal state and I say that now is the time to give up.
:)
No you're wrong.
I would think this would be the type of case the folks at EFF would love to work. Yet, I don't see any mention of their involvement... kinda curious.
I'm curious as to what will happen when Mr. Novak adds /. to his ever growing list of defendants.
I guess it's just a matter of taste.
Good point. Correction made.
I'm not sure that would be enough to motivate the public.
People gladly pay:
12 different taxes for telecommunications
7 different taxes for gasoline
4 different taxes on cigarettes
4 more on alcohol
Contrast that to many other government regulations, which impose costs on businesses, but generally to help protect the public.
All of the above taxes are regulation fees or fees paid for "public" services.
I apologize for the cynicism of this post, but honestly the telecommunications and software/hardware industry will figure out a way to word the tax to sound like it is protecting the public.
I bet a few of the webmasters of the seedier sites(the one's I've never even seen...*cough*) are breathing sighs of relief at this.
Only those sites hosted in Washington State. I'd hate to try and test this in... any of the MidWest or Southern States.
Pretty close... If the women had noticed that the two men were filming them and asked/demanded they stop; AND the men continued filming, then you have a case for harrasment.
Better yet, the law they were convicted of would have stood the test.
Straight from the opinion:
Washington's voyeurism statute provides:
A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or
gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views,
photographs, or films another person, without that person's knowledge and
consent, while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a
place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
RCW 9A.44.115(2) (emphasis added). The statute defines a place where a
person 'would have a reasonable expectation of privacy' as either '{a}
place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe
in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being
photographed or filmed by another;' or '{a} place where one may reasonably
expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.' RCW
9A.44.115(1)(b)(i), (ii).
Both Glas and Sorrells contend that the voyeurism statute was misapplied in
their respective cases because the victims were in public places and
therefore did not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy. In Glas,
both women were employees working in the public area of a shopping mall,
while in Sorrells, the woman was standing in a concession line at the Bite
of Seattle at the Seattle Center. Although Glas' and Sorrells' actions are
reprehensible, we agree that the voyeurism statute, as written, does not
prohibit upskirt photography in a public location.
Sometimes a Judge or Lawyer must protect or affirm a law or defendent that is reprehensible in order to protect ourselves.
Let's take a little bit of personal responsibility here folks.
Personal responsibility is not an ideal most Americans practice.
Reported contributions list
Top 3 Industries (PACs and Individuals):
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $1,463,550
2 Communications & Electronics $698,958
PAC Contributors:
Walt Disney Co $6,000
AOL Time Warner $5,083
National Assn of Broadcasters $5,000
Comcast Corp $2,500
Motion Picture Assn of America $3,000
ASCAP $1,000
Cablevision Systems $1,000
Charter Communications $1,000
Sony Pictures Entertainment $1,000
Universal Studios $1,000
Viacom Inc $2,000
3 Financial & Investment $404,349
Additional PAC contributions here.
Personal Finances are here.
Others who sit on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
If you think he's bad, check out Boxer.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The world's five largest music companies and the three largest music retailers will pay $143.1 million to settle a CD price-fixing case launched by New York and Florida two years ago, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said on Monday.
In August 2000, most U.S. states joined in a lawsuit alleging that an industry practice called "minimum advertised pricing" (MAP) artificially inflated the price of CDs between 1995 and 2000, violating federal and state antitrust laws.
Under MAP, the labels subsidized advertising for retailers that agreed not to sell CDs below a certain price.
The five record labels -- Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group, Sony Corp ( news - web sites).'s Sony Music, Bertelsmann AG ( news - web sites)'s BMG Music Group, Warner Music Group, a division of AOL Time Warner Inc. and EMI Group Plc ( news - web sites) -- and the three retailers, Musicland Stores Corp., Trans World Entertainment Corp. and Tower Records, agreed to stop using MAP policies as part of the settlement.
The companies, which did not admit any wrongdoing, will pay $67.4 million in cash to compensate consumers who overpaid for CDs between 1995 and 2000. The companies also agreed to distribute $75.7 million worth of CDs to public entities and nonprofit organizations throughout the country.
"This is a landmark settlement to address years of illegal price fixing," Spitzer said in a statement. "Our agreement will provide consumers with substantial refunds and result in the distribution of a wide variety of recordings for use in our schools and communities."
My bad. Many apologies for the slip. Wasn't thinking about the html code being visible.
Mod me down, down, down.