While I completely advocate for net neutrality, a reading of the amendment will show that the limiting of funds only applies to those funds appropriated in HR3082. Since HR3082 relates to Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, this amendment realistically has little impact on the issue of net neutrality. When congress proposes a bill preventing the FCC from using its own funds to force net neutrality, that will be the time to create an uproar.
Wouldn't this be the same juror who has been thoughtful enough to give several in-depth answers to us/.ers? Is it suddenly news that someone picked up on a/. article and requested an interview where the juror repeated what has been discussed at great length here?
I have read many of your responses, and understand that under the letter of the law he was guilty. I also empathize with those who are preaching jury nullification, as I have been a victim of prosecutor over-reaching in the past as well. Personally, I have no problem being convicted of something that is fair and just. Up to five years and a felony charge in this situation would be and is, IMHO, not an acceptable verdict. However, I do not believe that he should not be convicted at all.
This leads me to question (simply for my own curiosity): Was there a lesser charge that was included? Could have the jury found him not-guilty of the felony offense, but found him guilty of a misdemeanor?
Look, there's a reason that Google dominates the search market despite the large number of alternatives
True you are... Just to help with your point to others: Even when AltaVista was THE search engine, you still said you were going to search AltaVista for something. You would tell someone to go to Yahoo and search for foobars. Google has created such a magnificent product that it became a verb. Very few brands throughout history have been able to achieve that, and if I am not mistaking, they are all still around today. They might have their competitors. They might even have lost their top spot in the market. But these brands have not (and probably will not) fail.
A little late to the party, but here are the answers...
Google Voice IS NOT VOIP. Google voice is simply a "cloud" number that supports call forwarding. When you make a call using the Google Voice app, the app calls YOUR Google Voice number, which then forwards the call to your intended destination. It works the same for receiving calls. When a person calls you, the call is then forwarded to your actual phone number.
Therefore, as long as you get free calls to/from your Google Voice number, all calls (to any number) are free. Assuming you use Google Voice exclusively for incoming and outgoing calls, that is.
@Dun - Google Voice can not and will not use only a data connection to make outbound calls. Try removing all available networks (cell networks, not wifi) in your settings. This will disable the reception (your T-Mobile service) for your phone while leaving the rest of the phone operable. Then try to use Google Voice (make sure that you are connected to another data source, such as wifi). Google Voice will not work. If it wasn't dependent upon "plan minutes" it would work under this scenario.
I know of a few theaters that already block reception... I'm not sure what technique they use to do it, but in many theaters (in CA anyway) using a cell can't be done. I'm sure this will become the norm... One remodel at a time.
Bottom line is this: Technically, it is not illegal to download copyrighted music. It is illegal to listen to, distribute, posses (for any length of time), etc. In fact, you can duplicate copyrighted material if used specifically for education, religion, and other purposes. Everybody automatically has deniability... "I didn't know that the file was a copyrighted song. As soon as I found out, I deleted it." Therefore, feds either need to catch you in the act of sharing, or find the music on your system. In the event that they find music on your system, it is also legal to have a backup copy of your music (there are exact amounts that you can copy, etc. to be legal). That's somewhat easy to get away with too... "I own every CD that this music is on, but I keep my CDs...enter location here..." The feds must then PROVE that you don't actually own the CDs. In the time that it takes them to make that case you could, if you have to, go buy all the CDs.
I'm not sure why more people don't fight the feds (or rather the RIAA). There are endless "loopholes".
One more thing: In order to be prosecuted for any crime, there is required to be a complainant. You can not be prosecuted for downloading music unless the label (or whoever owns the rights) wishes you to.
For the record: All music that I listen to (every artist, every label) actually PROMOTES you to download their music. They have always been about singing what they are thinking, and want to "share" their thoughts with those that will listen. They have never been about money. For this reason (among others), I am dedicated to their "cause", and will support it however I can. I might copy a friends CD IF I AM BROKE when it comes out, but I have always went and bought the CD the next time I had a few bucks. I have every CD released by the label, bought and paid for, in my collection -- virtually all CDs coming from the label's online store.
Slashdot Mirror
While I completely advocate for net neutrality, a reading of the amendment will show that the limiting of funds only applies to those funds appropriated in HR3082. Since HR3082 relates to Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, this amendment realistically has little impact on the issue of net neutrality. When congress proposes a bill preventing the FCC from using its own funds to force net neutrality, that will be the time to create an uproar.
Wouldn't this be the same juror who has been thoughtful enough to give several in-depth answers to us /.ers? Is it suddenly news that someone picked up on a /. article and requested an interview where the juror repeated what has been discussed at great length here?
I have read many of your responses, and understand that under the letter of the law he was guilty. I also empathize with those who are preaching jury nullification, as I have been a victim of prosecutor over-reaching in the past as well. Personally, I have no problem being convicted of something that is fair and just. Up to five years and a felony charge in this situation would be and is, IMHO, not an acceptable verdict. However, I do not believe that he should not be convicted at all.
This leads me to question (simply for my own curiosity): Was there a lesser charge that was included? Could have the jury found him not-guilty of the felony offense, but found him guilty of a misdemeanor?
Look, there's a reason that Google dominates the search market despite the large number of alternatives
True you are... Just to help with your point to others: Even when AltaVista was THE search engine, you still said you were going to search AltaVista for something. You would tell someone to go to Yahoo and search for foobars. Google has created such a magnificent product that it became a verb. Very few brands throughout history have been able to achieve that, and if I am not mistaking, they are all still around today. They might have their competitors. They might even have lost their top spot in the market. But these brands have not (and probably will not) fail.
A little late to the party, but here are the answers... Google Voice IS NOT VOIP. Google voice is simply a "cloud" number that supports call forwarding. When you make a call using the Google Voice app, the app calls YOUR Google Voice number, which then forwards the call to your intended destination. It works the same for receiving calls. When a person calls you, the call is then forwarded to your actual phone number. Therefore, as long as you get free calls to/from your Google Voice number, all calls (to any number) are free. Assuming you use Google Voice exclusively for incoming and outgoing calls, that is. @Dun - Google Voice can not and will not use only a data connection to make outbound calls. Try removing all available networks (cell networks, not wifi) in your settings. This will disable the reception (your T-Mobile service) for your phone while leaving the rest of the phone operable. Then try to use Google Voice (make sure that you are connected to another data source, such as wifi). Google Voice will not work. If it wasn't dependent upon "plan minutes" it would work under this scenario.
I know of a few theaters that already block reception... I'm not sure what technique they use to do it, but in many theaters (in CA anyway) using a cell can't be done. I'm sure this will become the norm... One remodel at a time.
Bottom line is this: Technically, it is not illegal to download copyrighted music. It is illegal to listen to, distribute, posses (for any length of time), etc. In fact, you can duplicate copyrighted material if used specifically for education, religion, and other purposes. Everybody automatically has deniability... "I didn't know that the file was a copyrighted song. As soon as I found out, I deleted it." Therefore, feds either need to catch you in the act of sharing, or find the music on your system. In the event that they find music on your system, it is also legal to have a backup copy of your music (there are exact amounts that you can copy, etc. to be legal). That's somewhat easy to get away with too... "I own every CD that this music is on, but I keep my CDs ...enter location here..." The feds must then PROVE that you don't actually own the CDs. In the time that it takes them to make that case you could, if you have to, go buy all the CDs.
I'm not sure why more people don't fight the feds (or rather the RIAA). There are endless "loopholes".
One more thing: In order to be prosecuted for any crime, there is required to be a complainant. You can not be prosecuted for downloading music unless the label (or whoever owns the rights) wishes you to.
For the record: All music that I listen to (every artist, every label) actually PROMOTES you to download their music. They have always been about singing what they are thinking, and want to "share" their thoughts with those that will listen. They have never been about money. For this reason (among others), I am dedicated to their "cause", and will support it however I can. I might copy a friends CD IF I AM BROKE when it comes out, but I have always went and bought the CD the next time I had a few bucks. I have every CD released by the label, bought and paid for, in my collection -- virtually all CDs coming from the label's online store.
Welcome to the internet... Where the men are men, the women are men and the children are FBI agents.