What is the reasoning behind his claim that you ignore petitions if they request justice? Isn't Obama ultimately in charge of the Department of Justice?
Take it suddenly, with no warning. Make him prove that the item you took really is his, then give it back two weeks after he provided proof. If he gets mad about it because it screwed him at work, tell him that it's no fault of your own. You believed in good faith that the item is yours and you get no repercussions whatsoever for your actions.
Now ask him if he thinks it's a good idea to give media companies the power to veto anything they see as competition.
Science needs to make it a top priority figure out a way to keep our consciousnesses around forever, or at least a very long time. Mortality is a cruel reset button.
Stop trying to cure diseases and work toward getting rid of the flesh, perhaps.
The court requested evidence from her (a hard drive).
She provided the evidence. Now the court wants her to assist the prosecution in making sense of the evidence so that it may be used against her.
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" should get an amendment.
I propose this: "A defendant shall not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor will he be compelled to assist the court in the organization of evidence against himself."
This kills the fifth amendment, and the NDAA killed the first, fourth, and sixth amendments. The second amendment has been dead for decades. I think only the 21st amendment is safe in the entire constitution.
It was clear to everyone that Lightsquared had no chance. I think everyone knew what the outcome of this "study" was going to be. Incumbent telecoms have too much pull with regulators.
"We Will Be Demonized For No Good Reason By The Existing Telecoms In This Town, You Just Watch Communications". That way, the townspeople will know why my business is portrayed as puppy kickers and municipal water poisoners.
I can think of a better way:
Make the duration of copyright five years, so creative people don't make one work and then sit on their asses for for a hundred. You want to encourage people to make new works? A century of copyright certainly won't encourage them.
The point of copyright is to expand public domain
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
And this is a great reason why everything should return to public domain within a few years. We, the public, provided an automatic monopoly on an idea with the expectation that it would be returned to the public in a few years. A FEW. Not 90. Not 100.
The entire point of copyright is to encourage works to be contributed to the public domain. Kinda nullifies public domain when the duration of copyright is almost half as long as America has existed. Let's turn back the clock on copyright duration. Make it 5-7 years. If that was long enough to exploit one's works in the 1600s, it would certainly be adequate today with the speed of digital distribution.
What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.
I'm thinking the same thing goes on in government. They do something that has people breaking out their guillotines so they can do juuuuuuust slightly less than that.
Copyright is an artificial right that has been granted by the public to encourage the creation of works, with the understanding that those works will be contributed to the public domain in a reasonable amount of time. It is a bargain between creators and the general public.
We've lost the plot somewhere. 5-year copyright swelled to 7, 14, 28, 50, 75, 90, 120 years...
With each increase of copyright duration, the copyright lobbies have robbed the public of that much more creative works. We, the public, have fulfilled our end of the bargain, and we have granted a monopoly to the rights holders. They taken a tool we bought them, purchased with our tax dollars and our court system, and they have turned it into a weapon of control against us.
We have the power to take this weapon away from them any time we want--lobbyists and politicians be damned. Do not give these companies one cent. They are using what we gave them to exert ultimate control over us. Until they start giving back to the public domain, feel free to add "torrent" to any search for their creative works.
It would sting the corporations a lot more than it stings me. As it stands now, I can't buy laws, but they can. If it was all illegalized, neither of us could.
Slashdot Mirror
And the internet is very serious business.
But that's never stopped us before!
If people don't want to look at porn, why don't they just not look at porn? Why do they have to tell someone else that they can't look at porn either?
Microsoft has a habit of doing this. They skipped 359 numbers going from their first console to their second.
Paulo Coelho would tend to agree with them, even taking it a step further. He's joined up with Pirate Bay as part of an arts promotion program.
What is the reasoning behind his claim that you ignore petitions if they request justice? Isn't Obama ultimately in charge of the Department of Justice?
Name one case in which a media corporation representative was found guilty of perjury in a bad takedown notice.
Take it suddenly, with no warning. Make him prove that the item you took really is his, then give it back two weeks after he provided proof. If he gets mad about it because it screwed him at work, tell him that it's no fault of your own. You believed in good faith that the item is yours and you get no repercussions whatsoever for your actions.
Now ask him if he thinks it's a good idea to give media companies the power to veto anything they see as competition.
Science needs to make it a top priority figure out a way to keep our consciousnesses around forever, or at least a very long time. Mortality is a cruel reset button.
Stop trying to cure diseases and work toward getting rid of the flesh, perhaps.
Or is this the FBI saying everyone is a suspect in their books?
Totally agree, man. As long as the rape of the Constitution isn't too widespread, it's ok. It's just a little rape.
The court requested evidence from her (a hard drive).
She provided the evidence.
Now the court wants her to assist the prosecution in making sense of the evidence so that it may be used against her.
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" should get an amendment.
I propose this:
"A defendant shall not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor will he be compelled to assist the court in the organization of evidence against himself."
This kills the fifth amendment, and the NDAA killed the first, fourth, and sixth amendments. The second amendment has been dead for decades. I think only the 21st amendment is safe in the entire constitution.
It was clear to everyone that Lightsquared had no chance. I think everyone knew what the outcome of this "study" was going to be. Incumbent telecoms have too much pull with regulators.
"We Will Be Demonized For No Good Reason By The Existing Telecoms In This Town, You Just Watch Communications". That way, the townspeople will know why my business is portrayed as puppy kickers and municipal water poisoners.
I can think of a better way: Make the duration of copyright five years, so creative people don't make one work and then sit on their asses for for a hundred. You want to encourage people to make new works? A century of copyright certainly won't encourage them.
And this is a great reason why everything should return to public domain within a few years. We, the public, provided an automatic monopoly on an idea with the expectation that it would be returned to the public in a few years. A FEW. Not 90. Not 100.
The entire point of copyright is to encourage works to be contributed to the public domain. Kinda nullifies public domain when the duration of copyright is almost half as long as America has existed. Let's turn back the clock on copyright duration. Make it 5-7 years. If that was long enough to exploit one's works in the 1600s, it would certainly be adequate today with the speed of digital distribution.
Why do a few corporations supporting it have equal influence to thousands of individuals corporations? Are we just not paying the right people?
Nice to see that our lawmakers are happy to modify a extremely ludicrous law and exchange it for a very ludicrous one.
What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.
I'm thinking the same thing goes on in government. They do something that has people breaking out their guillotines so they can do juuuuuuust slightly less than that.
Copyright is an artificial right that has been granted by the public to encourage the creation of works, with the understanding that those works will be contributed to the public domain in a reasonable amount of time. It is a bargain between creators and the general public.
We've lost the plot somewhere. 5-year copyright swelled to 7, 14, 28, 50, 75, 90, 120 years...
With each increase of copyright duration, the copyright lobbies have robbed the public of that much more creative works. We, the public, have fulfilled our end of the bargain, and we have granted a monopoly to the rights holders. They taken a tool we bought them, purchased with our tax dollars and our court system, and they have turned it into a weapon of control against us.
We have the power to take this weapon away from them any time we want--lobbyists and politicians be damned. Do not give these companies one cent. They are using what we gave them to exert ultimate control over us. Until they start giving back to the public domain, feel free to add "torrent" to any search for their creative works.
I'm for it.
It would sting the corporations a lot more than it stings me. As it stands now, I can't buy laws, but they can. If it was all illegalized, neither of us could.
You want corporate censorship? You got it. Be careful what you wish for.
I'd like that with a side of golden goose, please.
The whole country is criminals. Put everyone in prison to stop the piracy!