Now, I will be the last person who believes that Rand Paul is doing something for any reason other than his own advancement and publicity, but... I've gotta say... This is actually a legitimate and valid reason for holding up a confirmation hearing. The guy being confirmed has some controversial viewpoints about American law? That's directly relevant to whether or not he should be on the bench. I assumed this was more stupid Republican hostage-taking, but it's actually relevant. Go stopped clocks!
Historically, black markets have not been used for banned books. Tell me honestly - do you think "purchasing banned books" will be a thing that will ever happen on DarkMarket?
You disagree with a law doesn't give you a moral right to break it.
I like that you're not even bothering to argue that the law is unjust or unfair - just that you don't like it. While I appreciate the honestly, I don't think this counts as a legitimate use.
Plus, it's not like either of those things are even vaguely difficult to get.
Also, I seriously doubt you actually like either Cuban rum or cigars.
Nice, Bodhammer - that's a really interesting example. But the thing is, it's still an example of a "harmful illegal drug" that some people want to opt out of the regulations of, and assume the risk of any damage that happens. So it's not that different from pot or LSD, for instance - and while I'm in favor of legalization I'm generally not in favor of large black markets. Or dudes whose goal is to circumvent FDA trials because they think they can make a quick buck off of a bunch of desperate and dying people. (Remember, if AZT was in trials during the time period - if it had been found to have fatal side effects, there wouldn't be an oscar-winning movie about the guy... or if there were, he would be the bad guy. He wanted to make money, he got lucky. It happens.)
Unless, of course, you meant the MOVIE Dallas Buyer's Club - you know, the one whose owners are trademark trolling and actively looking for venues with judges who don't understand modern IP law or the internet so they can most effectively push their MPAA tactics... THAT I would buy over a digital black market rather than paying them:-)
Exactly, it requires the delivery person to know that what he does is shady, and can be illegal. This is not possible in a market where both legal (weed is pretty common in these markets and pretty much legal) and illegal stuff can happen.
Can you please reread what you said? I really think you need to. You are saying that, in a market where the goods range from "of dubious legality" (weed) to "absolutely illegal", it is "not possible" to know that what you're doing "can be illegal"? I think you might be stepping on your own toes.
Thank you for making my point so effectively, I guess?
It depends - does the guy work for UPS? Probably not.
Does the guy work for "DARK SHIPMENTS ANONYMOUS - ANYTHING DELIVERED ANY TIME OF DAY TO ANYWHERE, BUT NOTHING ILLEGAL, HEH HEH HEH Incorporated"? If he does, there's a pretty easy case that he's an accessory.
1. This is "discussing things with humans 101". If the first part of your argument is so stupid that it makes people STOP READING WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, you are making a BAD ARGUMENT.
2. If you're claiming that your TL;DR contains an entirely different point than what you state above, you're using TL;DR wrong.
3. Protip - "Uncle Sam has no business in my business" is pretty damn asinine. Because it's pretty clear that he DOES, especially if your business is selling illegal weapons, murder, kidnapping, etc.
So leaving my house, traveling to a public area, which requires changing rooms my house doesn't need, cleaning to a level my house doesn't require, etc., etc., somehow takes less resources?
Don't be stupid. If you can't come up with analogies that make a lick of sense, don't use analogies.
There are a number of things that the Slashdot community - full of nerds and techies - is just stupid and naive about. This is clearly one of them.
So, defenders of this idea. Mr. "Well, you wouldn't shower in public, so why should your transactions be public," and all people with similar viewpoints - What are the circumstances where you feel that something like this would be useful/necessary?
And it's not enough to say "I want the gub'ment out of mah bidness!" Because you are not stupid, and you know just as well as I do that there has never been a "black market" in the history of the world that was a force for righteousness and truth. You don't buy a black market gun in the US because you're law-abiding. You know, just as well as I do, that the main reason people will use this is to buy things that are illegal, for uses that are likely to cause harm to someone. So it needs a reason for a reasonable society to allow it to exist.
This is an honest question and I'm really interested in the discussion. Why should this exist?
Wait, you think that the NRA is a democratic institution which listens to the voice of "the little people"? Let me guess - you joined the NRA about the time I did (early 80s) and you have paid absolutely no attention to anything it's done in the last 20 years. Here's a hint - The NRA isn't the organization it was 30 years ago, or even 20 years ago. It doesn't give a crap about our gun rights. It's a bunch of Washington fatcats, and they'll tell you whatever you want to hear so that they can keep getting your money, and go on being the most powerful lobbyists in the country.
Brother, I love you. Shine on, you crazy diamond. Also, keep on talking about "the pundits on the left". Wayne LaPierre loves folk like you.
Huh - that's really interesting... I didn't realize that the organization I joined as a kid was already rotting by the time I joined it. I had thought that all started in the early 90s, when they made LaPierre (their chief lobbyist) the head of the organization, but it actually was the culmination of a power struggle within the organization that started in the late 70s. Oh well - I learned to shoot and how to safely use a rifle. Back then those things were still important to them.
But still - keep sending them those nickels and votes. You may want to go to one of the other fine organizations that promotes responsible gun ownership to teach your kids, though.
I was really on the fence, teetering into anti-Snowden territory... but this gave me a really strong push. SO - is Snowden:
1. So blinded by his hatred for America that Russia actually seems better to him? Or 2. So stupid that he went to Russia not realizing that he'd be forced at gunpoint into becoming a tool of Putin?
Honestly, Ed - thanks for the disclosure, it was something that we really needed. But you did it for the wrong reasons, made some incredibly stupid choices, and I look forward to when you're spending the rest of your life in a tiny cell. Maybe you can share a room with Assange.
Judges should NOT start being proactive. THAT'S NOT WHAT JUDGES DO. That shouldn't EVER be what judges do. Legal systems where judges are allowed to be proactive are, in many cases, scary places to live.
In the US, at least, judges are - per the US constitution - reactive. They respond to things that have already happened, and tell people how to interpret the law. That is the main check on the power of judges. Unlike the President or Congress, within their domain, judges' powers are virtually unlimited - so that domain is made as small as possible.
At very least, allowing judges to be proactive would require a massive rewriting of laws, starting with the constitution and working your way down.
But aside from that, I'm not going to lie - in a lot of ways, you are absolutely right. Lawyers designed the system, and we designed it so that we would always have a place in it where we got to make enormous amounts of money without having to lift any heavy items.
But you know what? The whole system is worth it because the lawyers who DO actually commit themselves to do good do so much good, for so many people, that I think sometimes it's hard for people to understand. Who were the attorneys in Loving v. Virginia? (Striking down laws against interracial marriage.) I have studied the case extensively, and I have no clue. Miranda v. Arizona? Brown v. Board? (Well, okay, I know that one, it was Thurgood Marshall, at least in the 2nd part of the case.)
The people who did these things did tremendous amounts of public good, for little compensation. It's worth the dead-weight loss lawyers build into the rest of the system to get these people.
No offense, but I think you're misreading both the article and the law pretty seriously. You're confusing it with a previous article about the guy who made the lower receiver for an AR-15 on a printer - that's not what Distributed Defense's goal is, and not what this article was about. (But you're definitely correct about the previous one.) Distributed Defense's stated goal (http://defensedistributed.com/proofgun-2/) is "a fully-printable gun comprised of near 100% printable parts."
Also, the law doesn't say anything about a complete firearm undetectable by x-rays - the law I quoted is very specific, that it has to be at least as detectable as the security exemplar.
Also, I didn't say that he had violated the law - just that he was clearly INTENDING to (although almost certainly not knowingly) violate it - if he had succeeded in his goal.
So while I'm glad you're a lawyer familiar with firearms laws - I'm definitely not - I'm clearly a lawyer more familiar with reading the article:-)
The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 USC 922(p)(1)) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm -
(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar;
A Security Exemplar is a 3.7 ounce hunk of stainless steel in the shape of whatever gun you want to test, for the purposes of calibrating metal detectors.
(This bill was passed in 1988, with a ten year sunset; it was not renewed in 1998, but WAS renewed in 2003, also with a 10-year sunset. I imagine the actions of Cody Wilson will make it an absolute certainty that it will get renewed in 2013.)
In other words, if you "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer" a gun (let's say, one made of printed thermoplastic) which isn't as detectable by a metal detector as a few ounces of stainless steel of the same shape, you are violating this law. It doesn't look like DESIGNING such a gun is illegal per se - but you don't do design work on a 3-d printer, you manufacture, possess, etc. With a federal firearms manufacturer's license, though, or a contract from one, it IS legal to design a weapon to see if it meets the specs of the law - although this might be an exception, as no such weapon could comply with the law.
If Distributed Defense succeeds, they are liable for as much as five years in jail. If they fail... well, I don't know if "designing and prototyping" counts as "manufacturing". Actually, no, it doesn't - interestingly, the law doesn't contemplate "hobbyists designing a new type of weapons technology." So they're arguably not engaged in business (the law requires profiting from the sale or distribution) which means they're not manufacturing. So, if you're willing to put your freedom on the line, it MAY be legal to design and prototype a highly illegal gun. In the end, I think that Stratasys did Wilson a HUGE favor by forcing him to get his legal ducks in order before he moved forward with this.
You promise that you will support - and do your best to encourage - a return to some historical copyright term. Something sub-50 years - I could live with a 49-year copyright. In return, I will support - and do my best to encourage - the legal purchase of music as opposed to the downloading of it, and I will go back and make sure I have the legal right to every song on my various devices.
I think that seems fair, don't you? Internet? Could you deal with that trade? A return to copyright sanity, in return for a return to purchasing sanity?
Sorry, dude. Copyrights and trademarks are property. Assassinating those owners won't dissolve the copyrights any more than it will make their houses dissolve.
You... did read the article, right? You know that, as per standard procedure, they're paying for the laptop, right?
I mean, I don't want to let the facts get in the way of your anti-Israel rant, but still. Although I guess you are right, in a way - there is no way she'd get anywhere in court. Then again, most people who don't have a cause of action generally don't, either.
Because these are ISRAELI border guards. If they wanted to destroy a laptop that included sensitive information, they're smart enough to know to shoot the hard drive. See the million posts above on why the guards would have shot a potential bomb in this way.
Correct, someone WOULD (sue, not arrest) you. Once you burn copies, you're violating copyright, even if you didn't sell any. This ruling doesn't apply to you at all; anyone who comes to your stand can see proof of your illegal activity.
It does, however, apply to the defendant in this case. The reason the RIAA needed the "making available" theory is because they did not have any actual proof that their copyright had been violated. If I've got an MP3 in a public folder, what have I done? Have I illegally copied anything? Doesn't seem like it. Have I created a derivative work? Arguably, if I ripped the MP3, but maybe I downloaded it, and ripping a CD I own is almost certainly fair use anyway. Have I distributed it? Well, if the RIAA has proof of me distributing it to someone, they've got me. Obviously, in this case, they don't have proof of that. All they see is that MP3, so the "making available" theory says that, even in the absence of proof that their rights have been violated, they should be able to sue people.
What happens if you leave a DVD on your front lawn, I come along with my laptop, rip and burn it? THAT is what this case is talking about. Have you broken the law by leaving that DVD on the lawn? I clearly have, by copying it... the RIAA thinks that you have, too. The judge, luckily, knows the law a little bit better. You have proof, or you have nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I will be the last person who believes that Rand Paul is doing something for any reason other than his own advancement and publicity, but... I've gotta say... This is actually a legitimate and valid reason for holding up a confirmation hearing. The guy being confirmed has some controversial viewpoints about American law? That's directly relevant to whether or not he should be on the bench. I assumed this was more stupid Republican hostage-taking, but it's actually relevant. Go stopped clocks!
Just to give people something to fling tomatoes at?
Yawn. "Should be" is not a recognized scientific or legal term.
Historically, black markets have not been used for banned books. Tell me honestly - do you think "purchasing banned books" will be a thing that will ever happen on DarkMarket?
You disagree with a law doesn't give you a moral right to break it.
I like that you're not even bothering to argue that the law is unjust or unfair - just that you don't like it. While I appreciate the honestly, I don't think this counts as a legitimate use.
Plus, it's not like either of those things are even vaguely difficult to get.
Also, I seriously doubt you actually like either Cuban rum or cigars.
Nice, Bodhammer - that's a really interesting example. But the thing is, it's still an example of a "harmful illegal drug" that some people want to opt out of the regulations of, and assume the risk of any damage that happens. So it's not that different from pot or LSD, for instance - and while I'm in favor of legalization I'm generally not in favor of large black markets. Or dudes whose goal is to circumvent FDA trials because they think they can make a quick buck off of a bunch of desperate and dying people. (Remember, if AZT was in trials during the time period - if it had been found to have fatal side effects, there wouldn't be an oscar-winning movie about the guy... or if there were, he would be the bad guy. He wanted to make money, he got lucky. It happens.)
Unless, of course, you meant the MOVIE Dallas Buyer's Club - you know, the one whose owners are trademark trolling and actively looking for venues with judges who don't understand modern IP law or the internet so they can most effectively push their MPAA tactics... THAT I would buy over a digital black market rather than paying them :-)
Exactly, it requires the delivery person to know that what he does is shady, and can be illegal. This is not possible in a market where both legal (weed is pretty common in these markets and pretty much legal) and illegal stuff can happen.
Can you please reread what you said? I really think you need to. You are saying that, in a market where the goods range from "of dubious legality" (weed) to "absolutely illegal", it is "not possible" to know that what you're doing "can be illegal"? I think you might be stepping on your own toes.
Thank you for making my point so effectively, I guess?
It depends - does the guy work for UPS? Probably not.
Does the guy work for "DARK SHIPMENTS ANONYMOUS - ANYTHING DELIVERED ANY TIME OF DAY TO ANYWHERE, BUT NOTHING ILLEGAL, HEH HEH HEH Incorporated"? If he does, there's a pretty easy case that he's an accessory.
Dude.
1. This is "discussing things with humans 101". If the first part of your argument is so stupid that it makes people STOP READING WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, you are making a BAD ARGUMENT.
2. If you're claiming that your TL;DR contains an entirely different point than what you state above, you're using TL;DR wrong.
3. Protip - "Uncle Sam has no business in my business" is pretty damn asinine. Because it's pretty clear that he DOES, especially if your business is selling illegal weapons, murder, kidnapping, etc.
So leaving my house, traveling to a public area, which requires changing rooms my house doesn't need, cleaning to a level my house doesn't require, etc., etc., somehow takes less resources?
Don't be stupid. If you can't come up with analogies that make a lick of sense, don't use analogies.
There are a number of things that the Slashdot community - full of nerds and techies - is just stupid and naive about. This is clearly one of them.
So, defenders of this idea. Mr. "Well, you wouldn't shower in public, so why should your transactions be public," and all people with similar viewpoints - What are the circumstances where you feel that something like this would be useful/necessary?
And it's not enough to say "I want the gub'ment out of mah bidness!" Because you are not stupid, and you know just as well as I do that there has never been a "black market" in the history of the world that was a force for righteousness and truth. You don't buy a black market gun in the US because you're law-abiding. You know, just as well as I do, that the main reason people will use this is to buy things that are illegal, for uses that are likely to cause harm to someone. So it needs a reason for a reasonable society to allow it to exist.
This is an honest question and I'm really interested in the discussion. Why should this exist?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Wait, you think that the NRA is a democratic institution which listens to the voice of "the little people"? Let me guess - you joined the NRA about the time I did (early 80s) and you have paid absolutely no attention to anything it's done in the last 20 years. Here's a hint - The NRA isn't the organization it was 30 years ago, or even 20 years ago. It doesn't give a crap about our gun rights. It's a bunch of Washington fatcats, and they'll tell you whatever you want to hear so that they can keep getting your money, and go on being the most powerful lobbyists in the country.
Brother, I love you. Shine on, you crazy diamond. Also, keep on talking about "the pundits on the left". Wayne LaPierre loves folk like you.
Huh - that's really interesting... I didn't realize that the organization I joined as a kid was already rotting by the time I joined it. I had thought that all started in the early 90s, when they made LaPierre (their chief lobbyist) the head of the organization, but it actually was the culmination of a power struggle within the organization that started in the late 70s. Oh well - I learned to shoot and how to safely use a rifle. Back then those things were still important to them.
But still - keep sending them those nickels and votes. You may want to go to one of the other fine organizations that promotes responsible gun ownership to teach your kids, though.
I was really on the fence, teetering into anti-Snowden territory... but this gave me a really strong push. SO - is Snowden:
1. So blinded by his hatred for America that Russia actually seems better to him? Or
2. So stupid that he went to Russia not realizing that he'd be forced at gunpoint into becoming a tool of Putin?
Honestly, Ed - thanks for the disclosure, it was something that we really needed. But you did it for the wrong reasons, made some incredibly stupid choices, and I look forward to when you're spending the rest of your life in a tiny cell. Maybe you can share a room with Assange.
Case and controversy clause - Article III, Section 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause
It's baked in.
Please think about what you just said.
Judges should NOT start being proactive. THAT'S NOT WHAT JUDGES DO. That shouldn't EVER be what judges do. Legal systems where judges are allowed to be proactive are, in many cases, scary places to live.
In the US, at least, judges are - per the US constitution - reactive. They respond to things that have already happened, and tell people how to interpret the law. That is the main check on the power of judges. Unlike the President or Congress, within their domain, judges' powers are virtually unlimited - so that domain is made as small as possible.
At very least, allowing judges to be proactive would require a massive rewriting of laws, starting with the constitution and working your way down.
Yes - high-speed traders.
But aside from that, I'm not going to lie - in a lot of ways, you are absolutely right. Lawyers designed the system, and we designed it so that we would always have a place in it where we got to make enormous amounts of money without having to lift any heavy items.
But you know what? The whole system is worth it because the lawyers who DO actually commit themselves to do good do so much good, for so many people, that I think sometimes it's hard for people to understand. Who were the attorneys in Loving v. Virginia? (Striking down laws against interracial marriage.) I have studied the case extensively, and I have no clue. Miranda v. Arizona? Brown v. Board? (Well, okay, I know that one, it was Thurgood Marshall, at least in the 2nd part of the case.)
The people who did these things did tremendous amounts of public good, for little compensation. It's worth the dead-weight loss lawyers build into the rest of the system to get these people.
No offense, but I think you're misreading both the article and the law pretty seriously. You're confusing it with a previous article about the guy who made the lower receiver for an AR-15 on a printer - that's not what Distributed Defense's goal is, and not what this article was about. (But you're definitely correct about the previous one.) Distributed Defense's stated goal (http://defensedistributed.com/proofgun-2/) is "a fully-printable gun comprised of near 100% printable parts."
Also, the law doesn't say anything about a complete firearm undetectable by x-rays - the law I quoted is very specific, that it has to be at least as detectable as the security exemplar.
Also, I didn't say that he had violated the law - just that he was clearly INTENDING to (although almost certainly not knowingly) violate it - if he had succeeded in his goal.
So while I'm glad you're a lawyer familiar with firearms laws - I'm definitely not - I'm clearly a lawyer more familiar with reading the article :-)
The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 USC 922(p)(1)) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm -
(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar;
A Security Exemplar is a 3.7 ounce hunk of stainless steel in the shape of whatever gun you want to test, for the purposes of calibrating metal detectors.
(This bill was passed in 1988, with a ten year sunset; it was not renewed in 1998, but WAS renewed in 2003, also with a 10-year sunset. I imagine the actions of Cody Wilson will make it an absolute certainty that it will get renewed in 2013.)
In other words, if you "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer" a gun (let's say, one made of printed thermoplastic) which isn't as detectable by a metal detector as a few ounces of stainless steel of the same shape, you are violating this law. It doesn't look like DESIGNING such a gun is illegal per se - but you don't do design work on a 3-d printer, you manufacture, possess, etc. With a federal firearms manufacturer's license, though, or a contract from one, it IS legal to design a weapon to see if it meets the specs of the law - although this might be an exception, as no such weapon could comply with the law.
If Distributed Defense succeeds, they are liable for as much as five years in jail. If they fail... well, I don't know if "designing and prototyping" counts as "manufacturing". Actually, no, it doesn't - interestingly, the law doesn't contemplate "hobbyists designing a new type of weapons technology." So they're arguably not engaged in business (the law requires profiting from the sale or distribution) which means they're not manufacturing. So, if you're willing to put your freedom on the line, it MAY be legal to design and prototype a highly illegal gun. In the end, I think that Stratasys did Wilson a HUGE favor by forcing him to get his legal ducks in order before he moved forward with this.
You promise that you will support - and do your best to encourage - a return to some historical copyright term. Something sub-50 years - I could live with a 49-year copyright. In return, I will support - and do my best to encourage - the legal purchase of music as opposed to the downloading of it, and I will go back and make sure I have the legal right to every song on my various devices.
I think that seems fair, don't you? Internet? Could you deal with that trade? A return to copyright sanity, in return for a return to purchasing sanity?
Yeah! You're right! The JUDGE should be the ones deciding which claims are legitimate or not!
Jesus. Half the country wants to burn the government, the other half wants to give it ten times as much power...
Sorry, dude. Copyrights and trademarks are property. Assassinating those owners won't dissolve the copyrights any more than it will make their houses dissolve.
Wow... this IS insightful. A post about a game using so much in-game speke that I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Well done!
You... did read the article, right? You know that, as per standard procedure, they're paying for the laptop, right?
I mean, I don't want to let the facts get in the way of your anti-Israel rant, but still. Although I guess you are right, in a way - there is no way she'd get anywhere in court. Then again, most people who don't have a cause of action generally don't, either.
Because these are ISRAELI border guards. If they wanted to destroy a laptop that included sensitive information, they're smart enough to know to shoot the hard drive. See the million posts above on why the guards would have shot a potential bomb in this way.
Correct, someone WOULD (sue, not arrest) you. Once you burn copies, you're violating copyright, even if you didn't sell any. This ruling doesn't apply to you at all; anyone who comes to your stand can see proof of your illegal activity.
It does, however, apply to the defendant in this case. The reason the RIAA needed the "making available" theory is because they did not have any actual proof that their copyright had been violated. If I've got an MP3 in a public folder, what have I done? Have I illegally copied anything? Doesn't seem like it. Have I created a derivative work? Arguably, if I ripped the MP3, but maybe I downloaded it, and ripping a CD I own is almost certainly fair use anyway. Have I distributed it? Well, if the RIAA has proof of me distributing it to someone, they've got me. Obviously, in this case, they don't have proof of that. All they see is that MP3, so the "making available" theory says that, even in the absence of proof that their rights have been violated, they should be able to sue people.
What happens if you leave a DVD on your front lawn, I come along with my laptop, rip and burn it? THAT is what this case is talking about. Have you broken the law by leaving that DVD on the lawn? I clearly have, by copying it... the RIAA thinks that you have, too. The judge, luckily, knows the law a little bit better. You have proof, or you have nothing.