The question is are 6 A, B, and C logical 'ands' or 'ors.' Just because the language is phrased similarly to other such legislation doesn't mean it has legal indentity.
Questions like this end up in the prosecution of blatently innocent people.
Indeed, and anyone who wants to take the radical step of actually *reading* the act can find it here:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa. ht ml
Note also that while obviously directly targeted at "dirty pictures" it isn't restricted to such and explicitly applies to all "material that is harmful to minors."
Now as defined by " community standards."
There are those that would honestly claim that telling little Jimmy that there is no Santa Claus is harmful to him. There are, in fact, actual communities founded on the principle that knowledge of the existence of the Theory of Evolution is harmful to minors.
The COPA has nothing to do with child porn. It restricts *adult* material that *may* be viewed by a minor. In other words, " dirty pictures."
By applying " community standards" bikini pinups could be all that is needed to invoke prosecution under COPA.
It's the disturbing sort of law that makes it illegal to distribute the sort of material it's perfectly legal for the intended recipient to possess, even under the standards of the supposed "community."
The single largest problem with your argument is that the constitution itself * explicitly * states that rights are *not* granted but are presumed.
In fact, this is the single fundamental point at the center of all American law and politics and if you don't understand that you understand nothing of our legal society.
What's more, the constitution is document that not only reserves *all* rights to the people but exists almost entirely to define the *restrictions* on the action of the government, *not* the people!
So what am I supposed to be doing to help the economy today, producing, or spending my income on leisure consumer goods? You can't have it both ways boys and girls.
Hey, I've got a neat idea. I'll just * do what I want.* I think there's a term for that:
Democratic Free Market
Man, we don't want anything like *that* getting lose in the American economy!
Paul F. Stack Member Stack & Filpi, Chartered Suite 411, 140 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60603-5298 (Cook Co.) Telephone: 312-782-0690 Facsimile: 312-782-0936
Here's his email addy. AOL, kinda figures, don't it?
I don't know Dave but I know his writing. Good man Dave.
Non carborundum illigimatus Tom.
... ---...
The above message is digitally encoded. Use of any software or device to decode it is in violation of the DMCA. We'll be around to suck out your illegal brain later.
And the reason guns are protected under the constitution? You won't find it in the constitution, but you'll find it in the Federalist Papers.
It's to protect yourself against an over zealous * government.*
Nope, don't see no over zealous government around here. Move along people.
( P.S. I'm not a "gun nut." I hate the things and not only haven't ever owned one, I've never fired one. That doesn't preclude me from understanding their legal function under American political philosophy)
Well think about this. MS even has a monopoly of certain apps run on Apples. Like Office.
For those that do not believe that MS has a monopoly because they don't have %100 of the market I'd note that even AT&T never actually had such a monopoly, and monopoly isn't defined by having %100 of the market.
It is defined as having enough of the market to * be able to apply illegal monopolistic practices.*
Nor is having a monopoly illegal. Only applying that power in illegal ways, such as extortion, is illegal.
MS has used illegal extortion, even against end users * who are not MS customers!* They have been found guilty of it by *every* judge who has reviewed the facts of the case.
They are not guilty of having a monopoly, they are guilty of *racketeering.*
isn't because the speach isn't protected, it is because a crime against, and involving the *participation* of an actual child is required to produce it!
( And as an aside this is *exactly* why it has not yet been possible to ban porn staring "actresses" who are actually of age but merely LOOK like they could be younger, or animations of "apparent" minors)
The judge has a couple of other problems with this ruling, which if upheld could have unintended consequences. Video games are protected by *copyright,* a right of distribution accorded to orginal works of * art and literature.*
Think about it.
The copyright protection extends to *board games* which ARE, indeed, protected by constitutional free speach rights.
So are sports for that matter, although this connection is a bit more abstract, being analogous to the right to burn a flag as speach, as well as having the additional constitutional protection of freedom to assemble, which would also apply to LAN parties.
The truely ironic thing is that if the judge had ruled video games WERE more analogous to movies he could have simply pointed to the existing restrictions minors endure with regards to gaining access to movies, and his decision would probably stand.
You see, minors inherently *don't have* full constitutional rights. That is part of the very *definition* of minor.
So is this ruling bad? As an individual ruling it sucks monkey balls. It's so bad as to approach bizarre, BUT. . . it will end up with a formal declaration by the Supreme Court that games are a protected form of speach. ( Or the SC could bounce it back to the lower court for further consideration, which would then support the ban using actual legal means).
This, in the end, is a good thing, and the way our mucked up legal system works.
I can go down to my local mom and pop newstand here in upstate NY and get my local paper AND the NY Times, AND the Boston Globe, AND the London Times, AND. . . on, and on, and on.
Not to mention all kinds of magazines from all kinds of origins.
The statement as written not only makes little sense, but appears to contradict itself.
As it stands Satellite is regulated into a distinct competitive disadvantage to cable, which the cable companies are trumpeting all over. . . local channel advertisting.
It looks like a pretty straightfoward concept to me. Which part of it don't you understand?
Porsche intentionally and deliberately chose not to fight Peugot in court. They did so for financial, rather than legal, reasons, much as I once took a plea bargain on an undeserved speeding ticket, but they, and I, did so " voluntarily."
I'd also note that most people understand that my putting it quotes implies irony at the least, and outright sarcasm at the most.
I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. Peugot has often *claimed* to won those numbers, but they certainly don't. In the case of Porsche they decided they couldn't afford to fight Peugot in court and "voluntarily" acquiesed.
What's more you are under the impression that trademark is intellectual property. It isn't. It is association in the public's mind, and if the public loses that association you lose the right to the exclusive right to use the mark, as in Band-Aid and Kleenex.
As such, in a very real and legal way, a trademark is the "intellectual property" of the public!
A trademark is an item that can be uniquely identified with a business. A company is granted the "temporary" right to the exclusive use of the mark only so long as it is, and remains, a unique indentifier.
As it happens a car model number with zero in the middle does *not* uniquely identify a Peugot, and "Yoga Inside" does NOT conjur up images of computer chips.
Not only is there not one grand perfect interface for the desktop but different apps will need vastly different interfaces.
Going along with the car analogy there is a great difference in the interfaces of a car and a backhoe, and yet they are both more similar than they are to a 747.
The needs, thought and work patterns of a graphic artist are different than those of novelist, whose needs are a bit different than a short essay writer.
The one grand UI is a chimera, and I hope it stays that way.
Landlords have always been a bit iffy on the conept of "supply and demand" and tend to actually believe their properties are "worth" some fixed amount.
What has always amazed me is not so much that, but the fact that many of them take so long to fail to catch on that they lose nearly the entire capital value of the property as well by letting the building fall into a hole in the ground, rather than renting them for what they could actually get.
Slashdot Mirror
Pythagoras, or, as I have had occasion to hear many physicists of more modern times state it:
The only reality is number.
KFG
go read George Washington's farewell address to Congress anyway.
It'll answer your question.
KFG
is not about the 'efficient' distribution of information.
In fact, it's my advice to read a novel at no greater speed than it took to write it.
Otherwise Romeo and Juliet becomes 'effciently distributed' as:
" They fell in love and they died."
The End
KFG
The question is are 6 A, B, and C logical 'ands' or 'ors.' Just because the language is phrased similarly to other such legislation doesn't mean it has legal indentity.
Questions like this end up in the prosecution of blatently innocent people.
KFG
Indeed, and anyone who wants to take the radical step of actually *reading* the act can find it here:
. ht ml
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa
Note also that while obviously directly targeted at "dirty pictures" it isn't restricted to such and explicitly applies to all "material that is harmful to minors."
Now as defined by " community standards."
There are those that would honestly claim that telling little Jimmy that there is no Santa Claus is harmful to him. There are, in fact, actual communities founded on the principle that knowledge of the existence of the Theory of Evolution is harmful to minors.
KFG
The COPA has nothing to do with child porn. It restricts *adult* material that *may* be viewed by a minor. In other words, " dirty pictures."
By applying " community standards" bikini pinups could be all that is needed to invoke prosecution under COPA.
It's the disturbing sort of law that makes it illegal to distribute the sort of material it's perfectly legal for the intended recipient to possess, even under the standards of the supposed "community."
KFG
Someone who doesn't *need* a cop just to tell him what to do.
KFG
The single largest problem with your argument is that the constitution itself * explicitly * states that rights are *not* granted but are presumed.
In fact, this is the single fundamental point at the center of all American law and politics and if you don't understand that you understand nothing of our legal society.
What's more, the constitution is document that not only reserves *all* rights to the people but exists almost entirely to define the *restrictions* on the action of the government, *not* the people!
KFG
as Nike *has already done,* is not the same thing as saying you aren't responsible for what you say.
KFG
we'd all be walking on streets paved with gold.
While hallucinating from lack of sleep.
So what am I supposed to be doing to help the economy today, producing, or spending my income on leisure consumer goods? You can't have it both ways boys and girls.
Hey, I've got a neat idea. I'll just * do what I want.* I think there's a term for that:
Democratic Free Market
Man, we don't want anything like *that* getting lose in the American economy!
KFG
Paul F. Stack
Member
Stack & Filpi,
Chartered
Suite 411, 140 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603-5298
(Cook Co.)
Telephone: 312-782-0690
Facsimile: 312-782-0936
Here's his email addy. AOL, kinda figures, don't it?
pstack7901@aol.com
KFG
I don't know Dave but I know his writing. Good man Dave.
...
Non carborundum illigimatus Tom.
... ---
The above message is digitally encoded. Use of any software or device to decode it is in violation of the DMCA. We'll be around to suck out your illegal brain later.
KFG
And the reason guns are protected under the constitution? You won't find it in the constitution, but you'll find it in the Federalist Papers.
It's to protect yourself against an over zealous * government.*
Nope, don't see no over zealous government around here. Move along people.
( P.S. I'm not a "gun nut." I hate the things and not only haven't ever owned one, I've never fired one. That doesn't preclude me from understanding their legal function under American political philosophy)
KFG
When she was in sight, my eyes were full?
KFG
Well think about this. MS even has a monopoly of certain apps run on Apples. Like Office.
For those that do not believe that MS has a monopoly because they don't have %100 of the market I'd note that even AT&T never actually had such a monopoly, and monopoly isn't defined by having %100 of the market.
It is defined as having enough of the market to * be able to apply illegal monopolistic practices.*
Nor is having a monopoly illegal. Only applying that power in illegal ways, such as extortion, is illegal.
MS has used illegal extortion, even against end users * who are not MS customers!* They have been found guilty of it by *every* judge who has reviewed the facts of the case.
They are not guilty of having a monopoly, they are guilty of *racketeering.*
KFG
"even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows"
This is part of their *defense* against punishment for illegally using monopolistic powers?
KFG
isn't because the speach isn't protected, it is because a crime against, and involving the *participation* of an actual child is required to produce it!
( And as an aside this is *exactly* why it has not yet been possible to ban porn staring "actresses" who are actually of age but merely LOOK like they could be younger, or animations of "apparent" minors)
The judge has a couple of other problems with this ruling, which if upheld could have unintended consequences. Video games are protected by *copyright,* a right of distribution accorded to orginal works of * art and literature.*
Think about it.
The copyright protection extends to *board games* which ARE, indeed, protected by constitutional free speach rights.
So are sports for that matter, although this connection is a bit more abstract, being analogous to the right to burn a flag as speach, as well as having the additional constitutional protection of freedom to assemble, which would also apply to LAN parties.
The truely ironic thing is that if the judge had ruled video games WERE more analogous to movies he could have simply pointed to the existing restrictions minors endure with regards to gaining access to movies, and his decision would probably stand.
You see, minors inherently *don't have* full constitutional rights. That is part of the very *definition* of minor.
So is this ruling bad? As an individual ruling it sucks monkey balls. It's so bad as to approach bizarre, BUT. . . it will end up with a formal declaration by the Supreme Court that games are a protected form of speach. ( Or the SC could bounce it back to the lower court for further consideration, which would then support the ban using actual legal means).
This, in the end, is a good thing, and the way our mucked up legal system works.
KFG
The games industry already voluntarily rates video games, just as the movies do.
They have done their bit, it's now up to the retailers.
KFG
You mean just as ad space in the London Times might compete for advertising dollars with my hometown rag?
KFG
Nevermind.
KFG
And what has it got to do with newspapers?
I can go down to my local mom and pop newstand here in upstate NY and get my local paper AND the NY Times, AND the Boston Globe, AND the London Times, AND. . . on, and on, and on.
Not to mention all kinds of magazines from all kinds of origins.
The statement as written not only makes little sense, but appears to contradict itself.
As it stands Satellite is regulated into a distinct competitive disadvantage to cable, which the cable companies are trumpeting all over. . . local channel advertisting.
Go figure.
KFG
voluntary Pronunciation Key (vln-tr)
adj.
Law.
Done deliberately; intentional: voluntary manslaughter.
It looks like a pretty straightfoward concept to me. Which part of it don't you understand?
Porsche intentionally and deliberately chose not to fight Peugot in court. They did so for financial, rather than legal, reasons, much as I once took a plea bargain on an undeserved speeding ticket, but they, and I, did so " voluntarily."
I'd also note that most people understand that my putting it quotes implies irony at the least, and outright sarcasm at the most.
KFG
I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. Peugot has often *claimed* to won those numbers, but they certainly don't. In the case of Porsche they decided they couldn't afford to fight Peugot in court and "voluntarily" acquiesed.
What's more you are under the impression that trademark is intellectual property. It isn't. It is association in the public's mind, and if the public loses that association you lose the right to the exclusive right to use the mark, as in Band-Aid and Kleenex.
As such, in a very real and legal way, a trademark is the "intellectual property" of the public!
A trademark is an item that can be uniquely identified with a business. A company is granted the "temporary" right to the exclusive use of the mark only so long as it is, and remains, a unique indentifier.
As it happens a car model number with zero in the middle does *not* uniquely identify a Peugot, and "Yoga Inside" does NOT conjur up images of computer chips.
Thus neither is a valid trademark.
KFG
Not only is there not one grand perfect interface for the desktop but different apps will need vastly different interfaces.
Going along with the car analogy there is a great difference in the interfaces of a car and a backhoe, and yet they are both more similar than they are to a 747.
The needs, thought and work patterns of a graphic artist are different than those of novelist, whose needs are a bit different than a short essay writer.
The one grand UI is a chimera, and I hope it stays that way.
KFG
Landlords have always been a bit iffy on the conept of "supply and demand" and tend to actually believe their properties are "worth" some fixed amount.
What has always amazed me is not so much that, but the fact that many of them take so long to fail to catch on that they lose nearly the entire capital value of the property as well by letting the building fall into a hole in the ground, rather than renting them for what they could actually get.
KFG