Did you know that many blind people actually have jobs? Just down the hall from me is a purchasing agent who handles literally millions of dollars of purchase orders each year. He is blind. Guess how much business would get sent to a company such as yours.
Radiohead is a crappy example, and for some reason is the only one people ever bring up. Radiohead did, in fact, use the label route to get famous. They used all the marketing that labels provide. They used the money that labels provide. Then they ditched the label and made a big deal of saying 'see we don't need them'. Now let's see someone achieve the success of that Radiohead album WITHOUT using the labels first.
Also, one album doesn't prove anything at all. How many people that paid for that album did so just because it was novel, or just because they wanted to skew the stats to show that it could work? When many people with many albums over a long period of time show that it can be sustained, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.
That makes perfect sense. They can't make a product worth purchasing, but you will spend endless hours whining about laws that prevent you from stealing stuff (that purportedly you don't even want). If you don't want them to exist (which is fine), why do you want their product? Just pretend they don't exist, and don't use any of their product, at all, by any means. You are perfectly free to get all of your entertainment from YouTube, etc, with no need to pirate anything, so why are you pirating?
Bullying and coercion? I can't remember ever being bullied or coerced by the RIAA or MPAA. I don't recall ever being forced to purchase a single movie or song. Care to provide an example of how you are being bullied and coerced?
What? The DMCA does not say content can be taken down by the owners. It says that IF the owners request content to be removed, AND THE SITE DOES IT, then the site can not be charged with copyright infringement.
I still can't see any reason why any of those companies care about for-profit copyright infringement. Do you actually think a significant portion of their business is commercial copyright infringers?
Let's see, the top 10 tech companies are: Samsung, HP, Hitachi, IBM, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, Dell, Foxconn, Nokia. The only one of them that would seem to have any interest at all in this would be Sony, and I don't think they will be pressing for the things you want.
Why does the government get involved in auto theft? Why does the government get involved in fraud? Why does the government get involved in assault? Why does the government get involved in trespassing? Do you want to be responsible for the full cost of tracking down and prosecuting someone who committed any of those crimes against you?
Incorrect. You can not tell ripeness of an orange by it's color. Color is affected mostly by climate. You can tell the ripeness of a picked orange by weight and firmness. Oranges are dyed precisely because people like you think that color actually means something.
What 'knowledge' do you use to tell if an orange is a good one to buy or not? How it feels (perception)? How it smells (perception)? How it looks - bruises, etc (perception)? Or do you just buy any old orange, secure in your knowledge that they are all exactly the same, and there is no such thing as under-ripe, over-ripe, damaged, rotten, etc?
Personally, if given the choice between oranges that are dyed and oranges that cost twice as much because half of them won't be sold, I'll stick with the dye.
Apparently the bail was enough to keep him in jail, so why should it have been any more? How high do you think it should have been? Sure, he stole $200K, but where is it? They're not going to let him out of jail so he can go dig up some of his money and come back with the cash to pay his bail. And he can't really ask his wife to go get it for him, because he ditched her as soon as he stole the money.
The one thing a bank offers to it's checking/savings account customers is trust. If word gets out that a given bank can not be trusted with your money (they give you counterfeit money and make it your problem), that bank will quickly find itself with no account holders.
OK, you have revealed yourself to be a complete moron. The Congress has NO POWER over the President (except the right to impeach). The President has NO POWER over the Congress (except the right to veto). Neither one has any power over the judiciary. The judiciary has no power over Congress or the Presidency (except the right to strike down laws as unconstitutional). That means they are all "free from the influence" of each other. It is also the separation of duties you claim to know so much about. Of course the functioning of the government is dependent on all three, but nobody said otherwise.
Next, you might want to re-examine the Constitution to find out who has power over civil law (which this whole discussion is about). Here's a hint - it's not Congress. You won't find a single word of contract law in the US Code.
If the words (like "Congress shall...") in the Constitution have no meaning, why are they there? Just to make the document look pretty? Why do some amendments (like the first) specifically mention Congress, and others (like the fifth) don't? Just the whim of the writers? Maybe, just maybe, it is because that is what the writers actually intended. Maybe, just maybe, the writers had enough brains to realize that sometimes secrets ARE important, and if someone voluntarily gives up his right to speak about something, he can be held to that.
Again, I challenge you to find a SINGLE case in the last 220 years where a legally issued judicial gag order, or a case involving state secrets, or any NDA type situation was overturned because it was a first amendment violation. Let me guess, 220 years of the judiciary have gotten in wrong every time, and only you, the super-genius Constitutional scholar, know what was really intended.
Do you know what the word 'create' means? The Constitution CREATED the judiciary. It did not exist prior to the Constitution, and did after the Constitution. However, it only had one court (the Supreme Court). Congress was authorized to EXPAND the judiciary, as it has done several times. Congress is not authorized to change the powers of the judiciary, because the powers of the judiciary are stated in the Constitution. For example, the very act cited had part of it struck down as unconstitutional because Congress overstepped the authority it had (which it could not do if creation of the judiciary was by Congress).
I have no idea what the phrase 'the Constitution can't be used as authorization to do something that's unconstitutional' is supposed to mean. If the Constitution authorizes it by definition it is Constitutional. The only time this would not be true is in cases where there is a conflict in the Constitution itself, and those have been pretty much worked out by now.
Of course the executive and judicial branches can't violate your Constitutional rights. No-one is claiming otherwise. However, your First Amendment rights (free speech) are only that CONGRESS can't restrict them. It says nothing about the judiciary or executive branches restricting them. And they do restrict them, all the time (think court gag orders, military and state document classification systems, client-attorney privilege, etc). And they have not been found to be in violation of the Constitution. On the other hand, things like the fourth and fifth amendments are not limiting Congress' power, they are limiting the government's power. Thus no-one in any branch can violate them.
Uh, no, I'm not. That act just sets up the structure of the court system (how many justices, where they are, what kind of cases each court will hear, etc). That is what Congress was authorized to do under the Constitution. The judiciary itself, and the power granted to it, come directly from the Constitution (Article III), not Congress.
Quit using the phrase 'the government', as it is entirely misleading. 'The government' is NOT prevented from restricting your speech, CONGRESS is. And the same document that takes that power away from congress gives the power over civil court to the JUDICIARY. And the police who come to take your things away are under the EXECUTIVE branch, which again has no such restrictions. Congress is the only body prevented from restricting your speech, and congress is not involved in civil proceedings or the enforcement thereof at all.
Your interpretation is entirely incorrect. The Constitution says that the JUDICIARY's (not Congress') powers extend to 'all cases at Equity' (contract law). The Judiciary (and Executive) branches get their power from the Constitution, just like Congress does. Your earlier assertion that 'congress created the judiciary' is entirely false.
The First Amendment says, specifically and clearly, that CONGRESS can not create a law abridging freedom of speech. It places no such restrictions on the other two equal branches of the government. Congress has nothing to do with contract law or the enforcement thereof - that is the judiciaries power. And before you say 'but the police will enforce the court's ruling', the police are part of the Executive branch, so again Congress is not involved.
When you have a few hundred years of case law involving restrictions of speech (state, military, and industrial secrets, court gag orders, doctor/patient privilege, etc) and not one of them supports what you claim is an obvious position, it is pretty safe to bet that you are wrong.
No, it does not state that at all. What it states extremely clearly and plainly is that CONGRESS shall not abridge your freedom of speech. It places no such restrictions on the other two-thirds of the government (judicial and executive). Guess which branches contract law come under (per the constitution) - judicial (where contract law is made and cases are tried), and executive (police enforcement of court rulings if required).
Your understanding of civics is appalling. The law is not some hierarchical scheme where cases just bubble up until they hit a match. Individuals are not bound by the Constitution. Period. Individuals are bound by laws. If there were no laws against slavery then you could sell yourself into slavery.
If you want to refute that, find a single case in the last 200+ years where an individual was convicted of violating the constitution, or was prevented from doing something because it would be a violation of the constitution.
Completely incorrect. The "document that governs the government" clearly outlines three independent branches of the government, free from each others influence: legislative (congress), judicial, and executive (president). Furthermore, the judicial branch is explicitly given responsibility for "... all Cases, in Law and Equity...". Civil proceedings are 'cases in Equity'.
Now for the First Amendment (where your supposed absolute right to free speech comes from): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What is the very first word of that statement? Is it 'The government'? Is it 'No-one'? Is it 'no branch of the government'? No, it is CONGRESS. Exactly one-third of the GOVERNMENT is prohibited from passing a law abridging your freedom of speech.
Your ridiculous assertion would mean that there could be no state, military, or industrial secrets. It would be perfectly legal for your doctor or lawyer (or anyone else) to discuss your case on the evening news. Anyone at all could say absolutely anything at all about you with no opportunity for redress. The idea that the founders ever intended anything like that is ludicrous. You may have heard of a guy named Benedict Arnold who was not exactly hailed by the founders as being a hero for exercising his free speech rights.
The judiciary enforces the contract, as specified in the Constitution. Congress did not create the judiciary. Congress did not create contract law (the judiciary does that). The First Amendment says 'CONGRESS shall make no law...', not 'the JUDICIARY shall enforce no contract...'. Your position is based on nothing except wishful thinking. There have been many cases over the last 200 years of contracts preventing the parties from speaking about one thing or another, and not one of them has been overturned because it was unconstitutional.
There also would be no such thing as HIPAA, or libel or slander laws. There would be no penalties for disclosing any private information about you (it would all fall under 'free speech').
What are you talking about? First of all, you have NO 'constitutional rights' vis-a-vis any non-governmental entity. The constitution regulates the government, not the people. So you did not in any way 'waive' a constitutional right.
Second, the point about the police is entirely immaterial, because they ARE the government, and thus bound by the constitution.
The government has not set up a system by which it can limit your free speech (which would be unconstitutional), it has set up a system where you can be held to your word. If your word is 'I will voluntarily limit my speech', then you can be held to it. If your word was 'I will mow your lawn for $20', the government is neither enforcing lawn care nor the price to be paid for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you know that many blind people actually have jobs? Just down the hall from me is a purchasing agent who handles literally millions of dollars of purchase orders each year. He is blind. Guess how much business would get sent to a company such as yours.
Radiohead is a crappy example, and for some reason is the only one people ever bring up. Radiohead did, in fact, use the label route to get famous. They used all the marketing that labels provide. They used the money that labels provide. Then they ditched the label and made a big deal of saying 'see we don't need them'. Now let's see someone achieve the success of that Radiohead album WITHOUT using the labels first.
Also, one album doesn't prove anything at all. How many people that paid for that album did so just because it was novel, or just because they wanted to skew the stats to show that it could work? When many people with many albums over a long period of time show that it can be sustained, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.
That makes perfect sense. They can't make a product worth purchasing, but you will spend endless hours whining about laws that prevent you from stealing stuff (that purportedly you don't even want). If you don't want them to exist (which is fine), why do you want their product? Just pretend they don't exist, and don't use any of their product, at all, by any means. You are perfectly free to get all of your entertainment from YouTube, etc, with no need to pirate anything, so why are you pirating?
Bullying and coercion? I can't remember ever being bullied or coerced by the RIAA or MPAA. I don't recall ever being forced to purchase a single movie or song. Care to provide an example of how you are being bullied and coerced?
What? The DMCA does not say content can be taken down by the owners. It says that IF the owners request content to be removed, AND THE SITE DOES IT, then the site can not be charged with copyright infringement.
I still can't see any reason why any of those companies care about for-profit copyright infringement. Do you actually think a significant portion of their business is commercial copyright infringers?
Let's see, the top 10 tech companies are: Samsung, HP, Hitachi, IBM, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, Dell, Foxconn, Nokia. The only one of them that would seem to have any interest at all in this would be Sony, and I don't think they will be pressing for the things you want.
Why does the government get involved in auto theft? Why does the government get involved in fraud? Why does the government get involved in assault? Why does the government get involved in trespassing? Do you want to be responsible for the full cost of tracking down and prosecuting someone who committed any of those crimes against you?
Incorrect. You can not tell ripeness of an orange by it's color. Color is affected mostly by climate. You can tell the ripeness of a picked orange by weight and firmness. Oranges are dyed precisely because people like you think that color actually means something.
What 'knowledge' do you use to tell if an orange is a good one to buy or not? How it feels (perception)? How it smells (perception)? How it looks - bruises, etc (perception)? Or do you just buy any old orange, secure in your knowledge that they are all exactly the same, and there is no such thing as under-ripe, over-ripe, damaged, rotten, etc?
Personally, if given the choice between oranges that are dyed and oranges that cost twice as much because half of them won't be sold, I'll stick with the dye.
Apparently the bail was enough to keep him in jail, so why should it have been any more? How high do you think it should have been? Sure, he stole $200K, but where is it? They're not going to let him out of jail so he can go dig up some of his money and come back with the cash to pay his bail. And he can't really ask his wife to go get it for him, because he ditched her as soon as he stole the money.
The one thing a bank offers to it's checking/savings account customers is trust. If word gets out that a given bank can not be trusted with your money (they give you counterfeit money and make it your problem), that bank will quickly find itself with no account holders.
OK, you have revealed yourself to be a complete moron. The Congress has NO POWER over the President (except the right to impeach). The President has NO POWER over the Congress (except the right to veto). Neither one has any power over the judiciary. The judiciary has no power over Congress or the Presidency (except the right to strike down laws as unconstitutional). That means they are all "free from the influence" of each other. It is also the separation of duties you claim to know so much about. Of course the functioning of the government is dependent on all three, but nobody said otherwise.
Next, you might want to re-examine the Constitution to find out who has power over civil law (which this whole discussion is about). Here's a hint - it's not Congress. You won't find a single word of contract law in the US Code.
If the words (like "Congress shall...") in the Constitution have no meaning, why are they there? Just to make the document look pretty? Why do some amendments (like the first) specifically mention Congress, and others (like the fifth) don't? Just the whim of the writers? Maybe, just maybe, it is because that is what the writers actually intended. Maybe, just maybe, the writers had enough brains to realize that sometimes secrets ARE important, and if someone voluntarily gives up his right to speak about something, he can be held to that.
Again, I challenge you to find a SINGLE case in the last 220 years where a legally issued judicial gag order, or a case involving state secrets, or any NDA type situation was overturned because it was a first amendment violation. Let me guess, 220 years of the judiciary have gotten in wrong every time, and only you, the super-genius Constitutional scholar, know what was really intended.
Do you know what the word 'create' means? The Constitution CREATED the judiciary. It did not exist prior to the Constitution, and did after the Constitution. However, it only had one court (the Supreme Court). Congress was authorized to EXPAND the judiciary, as it has done several times. Congress is not authorized to change the powers of the judiciary, because the powers of the judiciary are stated in the Constitution. For example, the very act cited had part of it struck down as unconstitutional because Congress overstepped the authority it had (which it could not do if creation of the judiciary was by Congress).
I have no idea what the phrase 'the Constitution can't be used as authorization to do something that's unconstitutional' is supposed to mean. If the Constitution authorizes it by definition it is Constitutional. The only time this would not be true is in cases where there is a conflict in the Constitution itself, and those have been pretty much worked out by now.
Of course the executive and judicial branches can't violate your Constitutional rights. No-one is claiming otherwise. However, your First Amendment rights (free speech) are only that CONGRESS can't restrict them. It says nothing about the judiciary or executive branches restricting them. And they do restrict them, all the time (think court gag orders, military and state document classification systems, client-attorney privilege, etc). And they have not been found to be in violation of the Constitution. On the other hand, things like the fourth and fifth amendments are not limiting Congress' power, they are limiting the government's power. Thus no-one in any branch can violate them.
Uh, no, I'm not. That act just sets up the structure of the court system (how many justices, where they are, what kind of cases each court will hear, etc). That is what Congress was authorized to do under the Constitution. The judiciary itself, and the power granted to it, come directly from the Constitution (Article III), not Congress.
Quit using the phrase 'the government', as it is entirely misleading. 'The government' is NOT prevented from restricting your speech, CONGRESS is. And the same document that takes that power away from congress gives the power over civil court to the JUDICIARY. And the police who come to take your things away are under the EXECUTIVE branch, which again has no such restrictions. Congress is the only body prevented from restricting your speech, and congress is not involved in civil proceedings or the enforcement thereof at all.
Your interpretation is entirely incorrect. The Constitution says that the JUDICIARY's (not Congress') powers extend to 'all cases at Equity' (contract law). The Judiciary (and Executive) branches get their power from the Constitution, just like Congress does. Your earlier assertion that 'congress created the judiciary' is entirely false.
The First Amendment says, specifically and clearly, that CONGRESS can not create a law abridging freedom of speech. It places no such restrictions on the other two equal branches of the government. Congress has nothing to do with contract law or the enforcement thereof - that is the judiciaries power. And before you say 'but the police will enforce the court's ruling', the police are part of the Executive branch, so again Congress is not involved.
When you have a few hundred years of case law involving restrictions of speech (state, military, and industrial secrets, court gag orders, doctor/patient privilege, etc) and not one of them supports what you claim is an obvious position, it is pretty safe to bet that you are wrong.
No, it does not state that at all. What it states extremely clearly and plainly is that CONGRESS shall not abridge your freedom of speech. It places no such restrictions on the other two-thirds of the government (judicial and executive). Guess which branches contract law come under (per the constitution) - judicial (where contract law is made and cases are tried), and executive (police enforcement of court rulings if required).
Your understanding of civics is appalling. The law is not some hierarchical scheme where cases just bubble up until they hit a match. Individuals are not bound by the Constitution. Period. Individuals are bound by laws. If there were no laws against slavery then you could sell yourself into slavery.
If you want to refute that, find a single case in the last 200+ years where an individual was convicted of violating the constitution, or was prevented from doing something because it would be a violation of the constitution.
Completely incorrect. The "document that governs the government" clearly outlines three independent branches of the government, free from each others influence: legislative (congress), judicial, and executive (president). Furthermore, the judicial branch is explicitly given responsibility for "... all Cases, in Law and Equity ...". Civil proceedings are 'cases in Equity'.
Now for the First Amendment (where your supposed absolute right to free speech comes from): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What is the very first word of that statement? Is it 'The government'? Is it 'No-one'? Is it 'no branch of the government'? No, it is CONGRESS. Exactly one-third of the GOVERNMENT is prohibited from passing a law abridging your freedom of speech.
Your ridiculous assertion would mean that there could be no state, military, or industrial secrets. It would be perfectly legal for your doctor or lawyer (or anyone else) to discuss your case on the evening news. Anyone at all could say absolutely anything at all about you with no opportunity for redress. The idea that the founders ever intended anything like that is ludicrous. You may have heard of a guy named Benedict Arnold who was not exactly hailed by the founders as being a hero for exercising his free speech rights.
The judiciary enforces the contract, as specified in the Constitution. Congress did not create the judiciary. Congress did not create contract law (the judiciary does that). The First Amendment says 'CONGRESS shall make no law...', not 'the JUDICIARY shall enforce no contract...'. Your position is based on nothing except wishful thinking. There have been many cases over the last 200 years of contracts preventing the parties from speaking about one thing or another, and not one of them has been overturned because it was unconstitutional.
There also would be no such thing as HIPAA, or libel or slander laws. There would be no penalties for disclosing any private information about you (it would all fall under 'free speech').
Eh, no. It is a violation of his CIVIL rights, not his Constitutional rights.
It couldn't be more plain: the Constitution regulates the government, not the people. Period.
What are you talking about? First of all, you have NO 'constitutional rights' vis-a-vis any non-governmental entity. The constitution regulates the government, not the people. So you did not in any way 'waive' a constitutional right.
Second, the point about the police is entirely immaterial, because they ARE the government, and thus bound by the constitution.
The government has not set up a system by which it can limit your free speech (which would be unconstitutional), it has set up a system where you can be held to your word. If your word is 'I will voluntarily limit my speech', then you can be held to it. If your word was 'I will mow your lawn for $20', the government is neither enforcing lawn care nor the price to be paid for it.