The slave trade has always been blamed on Europeans and African slavetraders as well. One of the reasons America gets the lion's share of the blame is because we took so long to actually abolish it.
We have something called "sovereign immunity", which is the same thing. The difference is in the US Congress and the Courts have carved out broad exceptions to it, by either a) explicitly waiving the immunity in a statute (for example, the Tucker Act allows persons who create contracts with the federal government to sue under contract law in disputes), or b) where the Courts will construe a statute to effectively waive it.
However, you do provide an excellent illustration of one of the main points of the problem-this attitude that anyone who is dissatisfied or disillusioned simply needs to "grow up". Tell me again, what was Ben Franklin's age at the time of the American Revolution? Jefferson? Adams? Payne? Should they have just "grown up" and accepted that oppression is "just the way it is"?
What they didn't do was complain about the oppression then blame it on their fellow colonists for accepting it. They got together, they tried to create an alternative form of government, they agitated for change, they put their lives on the line. And when they asked their fellow colonists to put their lives on the line as well they raised themselves an army.
So yes, I'm going to agree with the poster you're criticizing. Looking down on the rest of humanity and blaming them for your problems is a fundamentally immature philosophy. So he really should "grow up", because anyone who detests that many people just either hasn't been around too long or hasn't really experienced much of life.
No, you have skilled trial advocates who actually win trials do it. The problem with the EFF is they're way too emotionally involved with the issues, and it makes lousy lawyering. We need more people who know how to win cases and less ideologues.
Re:Master of the obvious!
on
Mitnick on OSS
·
· Score: 1
" So many clever comments disguising so much . . . well . . . envy."
Envy of what? I don't think parent wished he were a convicted felon too.
I hate the "reason an amendment" was created line-of-logic. It's always used by the people who want to restrict said freedoms.
You're the one who seems to be wanting to restrict.
You say:
To the government: Stop trying to second guess the "intentions" of the founders (with your biases interpreting things in your favor) and just read what the Constitution says. If the intentions behind it were super-important, well guess what, it should have been included in the amendment.
The First Amendment reads:
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 you're saying is the president or judicial branch should be allowed to restrict speech as much as they want.
You're using "willful" and "intentionally" interchangeably. Willfull in terms of criminal law can mean (but doesn't always, I'll admit) that you knew of the law and broke it intentionally. It depends on the context of the case, and the courts haven't been especially clear on it, but they frequently do it when dealing with laws regulating complicated subjects, like tax or copyright.
Since when has ignorance of the law been a valid defence?
Can't speak for the UK, but in the US is applies if an element of the crime requires a certain state of mind. If the law requires that an action be taken "willfully" in order to be prosecuted, ignorance of the law may protect you.
I don't have TV so I can't speak to that part of its marketing, but I know that for months beforehand almost every movie I saw at the theater had a Serenity trailer.
If the point to all of the *AAs' huffing and puffing is the financial gain of the people doing any sort of copying
No, that's never been their point. Their point has always been their own financial loss. They know perfectly well that the majority of pirated movie distributors don't make money off them.
Unless you're talking about whether the copier has the authority to make the copy or not, then no, the copyright owner doesn't have a say.
If I can make a backup copy under fair use, the copyright owner can't step forward and say "oh, I'm going to overrule the courts on this one, fair use doesn't apply". Why do you think they could? That makes no sense.
Well copyright law doesn't begin and end with the DMCA, it usually only applies if some sort of copyright prevention method is bypassed. So if you say backup a DVD under fair use, if you didn't break the encryption to do so (like if it was unencrypted or you simply ran a cable from your video card's output to input and recorded) the DMCA doesn't enter the picture.
So? Either they're legally allowed to have made the copy, or they're not. In either case whether or not the copyright order explicitly said they couldn't is completely irrelevant.
`(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
Unless they make an argument that what they did was illegal, in which case some sort of estoppel might apply if they're prosecuting someone. Othewise it's completely irrelevant to any future litigation.
I disagree strongly. If someone wants to cheat, they'll find a way, whether the exam is in-class or take-home. It's not the professor's fault for expecting his students to exhibit a tiny bit of integrity.
Many, many, *many* are in it for the money, or because people keep telling them computers are the place to be. I'm in computer engineering myself, but I've had to take up through jr level comp sci courses, and in each and every one I see people who fail to exhibit basic programming knowledge, or only a middling skill level in using the computer in general.
And a lot of them are just mildly ok at math and figure you have to major in SOMETHING. I mean a lot of them wouldn't feel passionate about anything, but you have to pick a major, so why not computer science? Why does everyone here think that computer science is a field of study so noble, so exalted, that it and only it should escape the mediocre masses that muddle along in any other field? I mean, plenty of those English majors don't read books outside of school, and plenty of those engineering majors never even looked at a schematic they weren't assigned in class, and plenty of those astronomy majors don't even own telescopes. Just have to learn to deal with the mediocre people instead of urging them to go infest another field.
Slashdot Mirror
My hovercraft is full of eels.
The slave trade has always been blamed on Europeans and African slavetraders as well. One of the reasons America gets the lion's share of the blame is because we took so long to actually abolish it.
We have something called "sovereign immunity", which is the same thing. The difference is in the US Congress and the Courts have carved out broad exceptions to it, by either a) explicitly waiving the immunity in a statute (for example, the Tucker Act allows persons who create contracts with the federal government to sue under contract law in disputes), or b) where the Courts will construe a statute to effectively waive it.
However, you do provide an excellent illustration of one of the main points of the problem-this attitude that anyone who is dissatisfied or disillusioned simply needs to "grow up". Tell me again, what was Ben Franklin's age at the time of the American Revolution? Jefferson? Adams? Payne? Should they have just "grown up" and accepted that oppression is "just the way it is"?
What they didn't do was complain about the oppression then blame it on their fellow colonists for accepting it. They got together, they tried to create an alternative form of government, they agitated for change, they put their lives on the line. And when they asked their fellow colonists to put their lives on the line as well they raised themselves an army.
So yes, I'm going to agree with the poster you're criticizing. Looking down on the rest of humanity and blaming them for your problems is a fundamentally immature philosophy. So he really should "grow up", because anyone who detests that many people just either hasn't been around too long or hasn't really experienced much of life.
What is the alternative? Just let it happen?
No, you have skilled trial advocates who actually win trials do it. The problem with the EFF is they're way too emotionally involved with the issues, and it makes lousy lawyering. We need more people who know how to win cases and less ideologues.
" So many clever comments disguising so much . . . well . . . envy."
Envy of what? I don't think parent wished he were a convicted felon too.
I hate the "reason an amendment" was created line-of-logic. It's always used by the people who want to restrict said freedoms.
You're the one who seems to be wanting to restrict.
You say:
To the government: Stop trying to second guess the "intentions" of the founders (with your biases interpreting things in your favor) and just read what the Constitution says. If the intentions behind it were super-important, well guess what, it should have been included in the amendment.
The First Amendment reads:
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 you're saying is the president or judicial branch should be allowed to restrict speech as much as they want.
aren't just businessmen with suits and a book
You mean Mormons?
You're using "willful" and "intentionally" interchangeably. Willfull in terms of criminal law can mean (but doesn't always, I'll admit) that you knew of the law and broke it intentionally. It depends on the context of the case, and the courts haven't been especially clear on it, but they frequently do it when dealing with laws regulating complicated subjects, like tax or copyright.
Since when has ignorance of the law been a valid defence?
Can't speak for the UK, but in the US is applies if an element of the crime requires a certain state of mind. If the law requires that an action be taken "willfully" in order to be prosecuted, ignorance of the law may protect you.
I don't have TV so I can't speak to that part of its marketing, but I know that for months beforehand almost every movie I saw at the theater had a Serenity trailer.
We don't know whether it constitutes fair use or not.
If the point to all of the *AAs' huffing and puffing is the financial gain of the people doing any sort of copying
No, that's never been their point. Their point has always been their own financial loss. They know perfectly well that the majority of pirated movie distributors don't make money off them.
Unless you're talking about whether the copier has the authority to make the copy or not, then no, the copyright owner doesn't have a say.
If I can make a backup copy under fair use, the copyright owner can't step forward and say "oh, I'm going to overrule the courts on this one, fair use doesn't apply". Why do you think they could? That makes no sense.
Well copyright law doesn't begin and end with the DMCA, it usually only applies if some sort of copyright prevention method is bypassed. So if you say backup a DVD under fair use, if you didn't break the encryption to do so (like if it was unencrypted or you simply ran a cable from your video card's output to input and recorded) the DMCA doesn't enter the picture.
What are you talking about? The DMCA is criminal law, so all you need is for the FBI to take an interest in things.
The DMCA creates both criminal penalties as well as civil causes of action. You can be arrested by the FBI then sued for damages as well.
So? Either they're legally allowed to have made the copy, or they're not. In either case whether or not the copyright order explicitly said they couldn't is completely irrelevant.
The DMCA explitly retains fair use:
`(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
Unless they make an argument that what they did was illegal, in which case some sort of estoppel might apply if they're prosecuting someone. Othewise it's completely irrelevant to any future litigation.
Understand perfectly now thank help.
I understood maybe every third word of that post. Maybe.
That didn't require decoding, that's plainly what the phrase meant.
Yeah I didn't want the sciences to feel left out. I should have used pre-med bio major drones instead.
I disagree strongly. If someone wants to cheat, they'll find a way, whether the exam is in-class or take-home. It's not the professor's fault for expecting his students to exhibit a tiny bit of integrity.
Many, many, *many* are in it for the money, or because people keep telling them computers are the place to be. I'm in computer engineering myself, but I've had to take up through jr level comp sci courses, and in each and every one I see people who fail to exhibit basic programming knowledge, or only a middling skill level in using the computer in general.
And a lot of them are just mildly ok at math and figure you have to major in SOMETHING. I mean a lot of them wouldn't feel passionate about anything, but you have to pick a major, so why not computer science? Why does everyone here think that computer science is a field of study so noble, so exalted, that it and only it should escape the mediocre masses that muddle along in any other field? I mean, plenty of those English majors don't read books outside of school, and plenty of those engineering majors never even looked at a schematic they weren't assigned in class, and plenty of those astronomy majors don't even own telescopes. Just have to learn to deal with the mediocre people instead of urging them to go infest another field.