The actions of the one made possible the actions of the 9,999.
They are jointly and severally liable and you can go after ANY of them. For each sharing, you can go after either the person who downloaded it OR the person who uploaded it.
You just can't go after both of them for the same copy.
The one guy who gets stuck with the whole thing might be able to seek indemnification from the people he uploaded to if he can find them.
Like a single match that kindles a whole forest fire or one hygiene naysayer that spreads an epidemic, many a lost sale can result from the seed of one single upload.
If you say guilt is just like a gun, then I'd also say that gaming the system by paying off politicians to make rules in your own favor is just as much like a gun.
Number 1 is not any use because the fat cats can out vote Joe Q Public and his buddies any day. Plus with them able to get federal reserve loans at zero percent, and make infinite money by lending them out at exorbitant rates, they can always get more.
I propose number 3: Stop using credit.
A big source of the 1 percent's lifeblood is interest revenue on credit that the 99 percent are using.
But have people tighten their own belts and stop letting interest bleed them dry while the corporate vampires just get fatter, and you'll see change.
If you want the enemy to starve, the last thing you do is let them milk your cows.
Regarding number 3, they've already confiscated dump trucks full of personal property and sent out "notices on where you can pick it up" in not only a blatant violation of the 4th amendment rights against search and seizure, but by holding their property hostage they are attempting to run rambo over their 1st amendment rights by forcing them to abandon their posts if they want their stuff back. After which they will find the park conveniently locked and themselves unable to return.
If that isn't illegal I don't know what is.
As for number 2, the media isn't covering it because the police won't allow it. News choppers are being kept at bay by police choppers. Someone above the cops doesn't WANT media coverage. To be blunt, the 1 percent has something to hide and they're not afraid to use the cops as mercenaries.
Not only that, but the cops, in addition to telling news crews to stay out and not cover the situation, are stonewalling the protesters when they ask for help. Refusing for example to assist if they get raped, assaulted, and so on.
And as for number 1, we've already lost. The rich know damn well they've got our government by the balls and they are NEVER going to let go. The fact that cops are blatantly trampling the rights of the protesters and getting away with it just shows me how deeply entrenched, stubborn, and when threatened, vicious the 1 percent really is.
That doesn't count when they abuse their "we reserve the right to decide to fuck you in the ass later" clause to backdoor privacy violations but don't give you a chance to opt out of their services.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the key then was would what they did have been legal if they'd purchased the software legitly first?
Calling people who disagree with you morons only works if you are a genius.
Unless the prosecutor asks about it during voir dire.
And since the prosecutor is on the government payroll, no, jury nullificiation is only illegal if the government wants it to be.
Having a jury nullify a just conviction because they don't like the victim is no different from a judge doing it.
If society itself is biased you're going to have a hard time getting justice.
Not to mention verdicts might actually start making sense if we let geniuses sit on the juries.
There's a reason lawyers don't like geniuses on juries...they're better at seeing through smoke screens.
Campaign contributions speak louder than pleas from constituents.
Especially when the corporations threaten to take their ball to the other party's court.
"Support us and we pay you. Snub us and we pay your opponent."
The actions of the one made possible the actions of the 9,999.
They are jointly and severally liable and you can go after ANY of them. For each sharing, you can go after either the person who downloaded it OR the person who uploaded it.
You just can't go after both of them for the same copy.
The one guy who gets stuck with the whole thing might be able to seek indemnification from the people he uploaded to if he can find them.
It's their foot to shoot.
Like a single match that kindles a whole forest fire or one hygiene naysayer that spreads an epidemic, many a lost sale can result from the seed of one single upload.
Why don't statutory damages apply?
Or maybe two different bosses telling you conflicting things on what to do was a setup to get you nailed for insubordination.
I keep my passwords safe by not bragging about my selection strategies on slashdot.
At most it's good for piling on a perjury charge.
Remember that they got capone on tax evasion, not racketeering.
If you say guilt is just like a gun, then I'd also say that gaming the system by paying off politicians to make rules in your own favor is just as much like a gun.
I find it interesting that you seem to approve of the mac getting stolen.
Stealing is still stealing no matter who the victim is.
As far as taking money, accepting donations is miles apart from being robbed.
If Facebook's "all your base are belong to us" TOS doesn't nail them first.
Number 1 is not any use because the fat cats can out vote Joe Q Public and his buddies any day. Plus with them able to get federal reserve loans at zero percent, and make infinite money by lending them out at exorbitant rates, they can always get more.
I propose number 3: Stop using credit.
A big source of the 1 percent's lifeblood is interest revenue on credit that the 99 percent are using.
But have people tighten their own belts and stop letting interest bleed them dry while the corporate vampires just get fatter, and you'll see change.
If you want the enemy to starve, the last thing you do is let them milk your cows.
Speaking of which, how long until some corporate overlord has a personal nerve struck and plants a TOS violation on these guys to get them removed?
It won't work.
First of all, you need to rub elbows with the media to get the air time you need for votes. And said media reserves the right to refuse anyone.
Second, said media is owned by the same corporate bastards responsible for the crap the protesters are fighting against.
How much air time do you think a tea partier is really going to get before their corporate overlords have them dumped?
And good luck setting up your own station. The pocket dwelling politicians won't let the FCC give you a license.
Or maybe because the media they wanted attention from got strangled by law enforcement on orders from the people they were protesting against.
Regarding number 3, they've already confiscated dump trucks full of personal property and sent out "notices on where you can pick it up" in not only a blatant violation of the 4th amendment rights against search and seizure, but by holding their property hostage they are attempting to run rambo over their 1st amendment rights by forcing them to abandon their posts if they want their stuff back. After which they will find the park conveniently locked and themselves unable to return.
If that isn't illegal I don't know what is.
As for number 2, the media isn't covering it because the police won't allow it. News choppers are being kept at bay by police choppers. Someone above the cops doesn't WANT media coverage. To be blunt, the 1 percent has something to hide and they're not afraid to use the cops as mercenaries.
Not only that, but the cops, in addition to telling news crews to stay out and not cover the situation, are stonewalling the protesters when they ask for help. Refusing for example to assist if they get raped, assaulted, and so on.
And as for number 1, we've already lost. The rich know damn well they've got our government by the balls and they are NEVER going to let go. The fact that cops are blatantly trampling the rights of the protesters and getting away with it just shows me how deeply entrenched, stubborn, and when threatened, vicious the 1 percent really is.
By posting it she gave them an implicit license under that copyright.
She's boned most likely because of the site's terms of service which give them omnipotent editorial prerogative.
You can actually sue twice for the same thing if you have different reasons.
That doesn't count when they abuse their "we reserve the right to decide to fuck you in the ass later" clause to backdoor privacy violations but don't give you a chance to opt out of their services.
Sounds like it's more yet another case of a site taking advantage of their retention prerogative to make written words haunt her forever.
I would love to be her future boss...err...EX-future boss.