If I had the skills to work on defense contracts, I would do it in a heartbeat. I don't understand why I shouldn't work to defend the country I love.
This is money that is spent on causes that are worthwhile. The government wastes lots of money on things that are just junk. However, defending our country from people who hate us and wish nothing less then taking away our liberties and even our lives is not one of those things.
Sure is the original file still under copyright but not the two file that are spread around.
Huh? I don't understand. So, if I printed a Stephen King novel in the middle of my thesis on cryptography, I am not breaking any copyright laws by then distributing the whole work?
Depending on the keyfile, you could reconstruct a blockbuster movie as well as your personal photo album. What do you think?
That's ridiculous. You can't null a copyright by just doing some hokey-pokey. That song, or movie, or ebook still has the same copyright no matter what you try to manipulate the bits into along the way.
A threat is a different matter, that is a federal crime.
Duh! You didn't specify that you were talking about commiting a state crime, but not being caught in that state. I guess I'm still not convinced that if I rob a gas station, and flee across the border, that no charges will be able to be pressed against me.
Or that I can slander someone as much as I want as long as I am not in their state. There are probably rules that define where a charge can be filed against be, but not immunity.
neither Arkansas nor Texas could bring me up on obscenity charges because I'm safely in another state. The fact that people from Arkansas and Texas may see this post doesn't make a difference.
Can't you be extradiated?
Furthermore, I don't think that if I make a threat against the President that I will be able to escape charges just because I was in a different state.
Shouldn't they need some sort of indication of wrongdoing before gaining that information?
I don't think so. After all if they get the information, and it proves that she is not guilty, that just proves that the system works. And that's the result we want in the legal system, right? Guilty people found guilty and innocent people found innocent.
But that is the point of a subpoena. To *get* proof. So the subpoena are due process. If she isn't guilty, then the subpoena will prove that. If she is guilty, the subpoena will allow the RIAA to
get the proof to file charges.
That is what due process is all about. Finding proof before finding guilt. Not the other way away. Which seems to be what you want, since you don't want the RIAA to be able to find proof before filing charges.
They are trying to get her information from Verizon without serving her directly.
No, they are trying to get Verizon's account information. The subpoena was served to Verizon, not to her.
Due process is a process of finding guilt. She's not being denied due process at all because she hasn't been found guilty yet without evidence. the RIAA is collecting evidence legally, through a subpoena to accertain her guilt.
That doesn't make sense because subpoena is part of the due process of law. So have can a subpoena *violate* due process of law? It is the other way around. If there was no subpoena, that would violate the right to due process of law.
Because larger majorities are rejecting the other candidates?
Huh? They aren't rejecting other candidates, their candidate just didn't do as well as they would have liked. Tough luck. We don't just shut down democracy because your guy didn't get the most votes.
have the list of candidates in case of recall include him, so the people who don't want him out can still re-vote for him
But if he's been recalled, what is the sense in being re-elected? Shouldn't the marjority rule? Why should a minority be able to override the mandate of the majority?
Requiring 50% to keep Davis seems unfair, when a replacement candidate could be elected with only 15%.
Yes, requiring 50% for a yes/no vote seems unfair when a new candidate will win with only 15%. We should only require 15% for recall Davis. Then it is even, right?
On the other hand, if there are ~135 candidates, I think, and the votes were spread out evenly, instead of 50%, a plurality would be more then 0.75% of the vote, right? But we don't like pluralities in votes.
So what is fair? 60%, 40%, 75%? If the people of California who voted for him decide that they made a wrong decision, shouldn't they be able to legally recall Davis? What if they don't want Davis to continue to destroy California for another 3 years? Isn't a legal recall fair?
-Brent
Re:The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy.
on
Joining the ACLU?
·
· Score: 1
I don't know about you, but when I was 15, the last people to whom I wanted to talk about sex issues were my parents!
Tell me, why didn't you want to talk to your parents about sex?
-Brent
Re:The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy.
on
Joining the ACLU?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Unfortunately, it doesn't work - there's plenty of online porn that kids can access. Worse, it actually protects kids from information that they might need - if you're 15, and wondering if having sex with your boyfriend can get you pregnant the first time, now you can't get information about it.
Why don't they just ask their parents? I'm sure their parents know whether a girl can get pregnant the first time she has sex. The information will probably be more credible then what one could turn up on the internet anyways.
-Brent
Re:Don't ya just hate em?
on
RIAA Quashed
·
· Score: 1
If the popcorn is $5 at all of the places, it means only either collusion or monopoly. Take your pick...
If someone is willing to pay $5 for a bucket of popcorn, it is going to be $5 everywhere because every movie theater is going to want to make the most profit they can.
-Brent
Re:Don't ya just hate em?
on
RIAA Quashed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Capitalism is FREE MARKET. That means that I should have the choice of going to a movie theater where the popcorn costs less. Is there one? No.
No, that's not what capitalism means. Capitalism means, for one thing, that the moview theater can't take $1 from 5 people who don't get popcorn to give to you for $1 intead of $5.
It also doesn't mean that you get to pay what you want for something. It means that the seller and the buyer meet at a point where a transaction takes place. So if that point is $5 for popcorn, but you aren't willing to meet at that point, then you don't get to make a transaction. There's no right in capitalism for paying what you want.
Think of the stock market. I want to pay $5 a share for MSFT, but I get no sellers. Is that unfair?
-Brent
Re:Don't ya just hate em?
on
RIAA Quashed
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
These industries are collectively nothing more than robber barrons of yore. What they need to do is pay actors a living wage, and that's it. Drop the profits and lower ticket prices. Drop the CD prices.
What's wrong with capitalism? If you don't like the price of popcorn, don't buy it. If you can't afford the cost of a CD, spend your money someplace else. Why shouldn't actor's be paid $25 million a money if they can get it?
All of a sudden it's so much worse to steal digital information than physical property.
It is so much worse, because it is a much bigger problem. The bigger the problem, the bigger the consequence.
I'm not saying that you should steal songs in the first place, but to deter infringement by practically ruining some of these people's lives is just wrong.
It's not just arbitrarily ruining peoples lives. Those people *choose* to steal music, and software, and movies. If you don't want your life ruined, you choose not to steal. It is a black and white issue.
Through the use of a computer, people can steal much more then Jesse James, and others did robbing banks back in the heyday. Is it right to just give the perpetuators of these crimes a slap on the wrist? No, the consequence should greatly outweigh the crime.
Many people steal music and movies and software because they feel there is no penalty to doing this. This must change, and it must be done by hitting the biggest offenders with serious penalties.
Do they think we're all millionaires who can afford to throw around $250k for every single frickin' song we've ever downloaded?
No, that's why you should just buy the song on CD for $15 or whatever it is in the first place.
They're making examples of the first few they've caught by charging them extravagent amounts of money when the RIAA wouldn't have brought in that much money from the original sale in the first place. Wouldn't something like this fall under cruel and unusual punishment?
No, punishment is supposed to be greater then the crime. If the punishment to stealing songs was just that you had to pay for them when you got caught, then everyone would just steal the songs. If they were caught, they just pay what they would have had to pay anyways. If they aren't caught, it is free music. WooHoo!!
Punishments for stealing music needs to be great enough to make others think twice about doing the same thing.
What can I say? I'm overwhelmed. Microsoft must be taking this SCO business seriously. They already have a SCO license.
Notice that Microsoft limits their liability to actual lawsuits. Not bugs, or security holes, or any type of damages that you may assess running their software. In that case, you are still stuck.
And I doubt even SCO is dumb enough to try to sue anyone because they are running MS software. That's to big of a opponent for them.:)
Moreover the hard lesson artists have learned from the Dixie Chicks is that you'd better not dissent from the prevailing view of ClearChannel or other media moguls, or risk returning to obscurity as your works are pulled from exposure.
I don't have a problem with that. Big or small, if I own a media outlet, I choose what goes. It's my ball. You take yours and go home.
Your need for exposure should not trump my constitutional right of a free press. As far as I'm concerned, that's the bottom line.
This is particularly worrisome as a democracy relies on freedom of expression, and of particular, the press.
My understanding is that the consitutional protection of a free press means that the press owners have a constitutional right to say what they want, aside from libel and slander, without government intervention.
Your understanding seems to be that a free press means that the government should tightly control what the press says so that things like the Dixie Chicks debacle don't happen again.
Might I suggest that your vision of the constitution greatly scares me? I'd rather have a free press that allows anyone to say what they want, rather then what the government wants them to say.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had the skills to work on defense contracts, I would do it in a heartbeat. I don't understand why I shouldn't work to defend the country I love.
This is money that is spent on causes that are worthwhile. The government wastes lots of money on things that are just junk. However, defending our country from people who hate us and wish nothing less then taking away our liberties and even our lives is not one of those things.
-Brent
Huh? I don't understand. So, if I printed a Stephen King novel in the middle of my thesis on cryptography, I am not breaking any copyright laws by then distributing the whole work?
-BrentThat's ridiculous. You can't null a copyright by just doing some hokey-pokey. That song, or movie, or ebook still has the same copyright no matter what you try to manipulate the bits into along the way.
-BrentDuh! You didn't specify that you were talking about commiting a state crime, but not being caught in that state. I guess I'm still not convinced that if I rob a gas station, and flee across the border, that no charges will be able to be pressed against me.
Or that I can slander someone as much as I want as long as I am not in their state. There are probably rules that define where a charge can be filed against be, but not immunity.
-BrentCan't you be extradiated?
Furthermore, I don't think that if I make a threat against the President that I will be able to escape charges just because I was in a different state.
-BrentI don't think so. After all if they get the information, and it proves that she is not guilty, that just proves that the system works. And that's the result we want in the legal system, right? Guilty people found guilty and innocent people found innocent.
-BrentBut that is the point of a subpoena. To *get* proof. So the subpoena are due process. If she isn't guilty, then the subpoena will prove that. If she is guilty, the subpoena will allow the RIAA to get the proof to file charges.
That is what due process is all about. Finding proof before finding guilt. Not the other way away. Which seems to be what you want, since you don't want the RIAA to be able to find proof before filing charges.
-BrentIf the judge says it does, it does. End of story.
-BrentNo, they are trying to get Verizon's account information. The subpoena was served to Verizon, not to her.
Due process is a process of finding guilt. She's not being denied due process at all because she hasn't been found guilty yet without evidence. the RIAA is collecting evidence legally, through a subpoena to accertain her guilt.
-BrentI am pretty sure that the legal definition of a subpoena is very solid.
-BrentThat doesn't make sense because subpoena is part of the due process of law. So have can a subpoena *violate* due process of law? It is the other way around. If there was no subpoena, that would violate the right to due process of law.
-Brent
Huh? They aren't rejecting other candidates, their candidate just didn't do as well as they would have liked. Tough luck. We don't just shut down democracy because your guy didn't get the most votes.
-BrentYes, because the majority rejected him. Why should the minority be able to override the will of the majority to reelect him?
-BrentBut if he's been recalled, what is the sense in being re-elected? Shouldn't the marjority rule? Why should a minority be able to override the mandate of the majority?
-BrentYes, requiring 50% for a yes/no vote seems unfair when a new candidate will win with only 15%. We should only require 15% for recall Davis. Then it is even, right?
On the other hand, if there are ~135 candidates, I think, and the votes were spread out evenly, instead of 50%, a plurality would be more then 0.75% of the vote, right? But we don't like pluralities in votes.
So what is fair? 60%, 40%, 75%? If the people of California who voted for him decide that they made a wrong decision, shouldn't they be able to legally recall Davis? What if they don't want Davis to continue to destroy California for another 3 years? Isn't a legal recall fair?
-BrentTell me, why didn't you want to talk to your parents about sex?
-BrentWhy don't they just ask their parents? I'm sure their parents know whether a girl can get pregnant the first time she has sex. The information will probably be more credible then what one could turn up on the internet anyways.
-BrentIf someone is willing to pay $5 for a bucket of popcorn, it is going to be $5 everywhere because every movie theater is going to want to make the most profit they can.
-BrentNo, that's not what capitalism means. Capitalism means, for one thing, that the moview theater can't take $1 from 5 people who don't get popcorn to give to you for $1 intead of $5.
It also doesn't mean that you get to pay what you want for something. It means that the seller and the buyer meet at a point where a transaction takes place. So if that point is $5 for popcorn, but you aren't willing to meet at that point, then you don't get to make a transaction. There's no right in capitalism for paying what you want.
Think of the stock market. I want to pay $5 a share for MSFT, but I get no sellers. Is that unfair?
-BrentWhat's wrong with capitalism? If you don't like the price of popcorn, don't buy it. If you can't afford the cost of a CD, spend your money someplace else. Why shouldn't actor's be paid $25 million a money if they can get it?
-BrentIt is so much worse, because it is a much bigger problem. The bigger the problem, the bigger the consequence.
I'm not saying that you should steal songs in the first place, but to deter infringement by practically ruining some of these people's lives is just wrong.It's not just arbitrarily ruining peoples lives. Those people *choose* to steal music, and software, and movies. If you don't want your life ruined, you choose not to steal. It is a black and white issue.
Through the use of a computer, people can steal much more then Jesse James, and others did robbing banks back in the heyday. Is it right to just give the perpetuators of these crimes a slap on the wrist? No, the consequence should greatly outweigh the crime.
Many people steal music and movies and software because they feel there is no penalty to doing this. This must change, and it must be done by hitting the biggest offenders with serious penalties.
-BrentNo, that's why you should just buy the song on CD for $15 or whatever it is in the first place.
They're making examples of the first few they've caught by charging them extravagent amounts of money when the RIAA wouldn't have brought in that much money from the original sale in the first place. Wouldn't something like this fall under cruel and unusual punishment?No, punishment is supposed to be greater then the crime. If the punishment to stealing songs was just that you had to pay for them when you got caught, then everyone would just steal the songs. If they were caught, they just pay what they would have had to pay anyways. If they aren't caught, it is free music. WooHoo!!
Punishments for stealing music needs to be great enough to make others think twice about doing the same thing.
-BrentWhat can I say? I'm overwhelmed. Microsoft must be taking this SCO business seriously. They already have a SCO license.
:)
Notice that Microsoft limits their liability to actual lawsuits. Not bugs, or security holes, or any type of damages that you may assess running their software. In that case, you are still stuck.
And I doubt even SCO is dumb enough to try to sue anyone because they are running MS software. That's to big of a opponent for them.
-Brent
I don't have a problem with that. Big or small, if I own a media outlet, I choose what goes. It's my ball. You take yours and go home.
Your need for exposure should not trump my constitutional right of a free press. As far as I'm concerned, that's the bottom line.
-BrentMy understanding is that the consitutional protection of a free press means that the press owners have a constitutional right to say what they want, aside from libel and slander, without government intervention.
Your understanding seems to be that a free press means that the government should tightly control what the press says so that things like the Dixie Chicks debacle don't happen again.
Might I suggest that your vision of the constitution greatly scares me? I'd rather have a free press that allows anyone to say what they want, rather then what the government wants them to say.
-Brent