But I "derived the benefit" of the music by listening to it, and I haven't paid for it. This was your complaint - you wrote "You want the benefit of something that isn't yours without paying for it[.]" I didn't pay for it! It doesn't matter if the radio station did, from your perspective (again, based entirely on what you yourself wrote).
I didn't write that. But RIAA is failry (per their dfinition) compensatated for your listening. They get to decide what's fair, because that is their copyright.
That 7 digit number you are dialing doesn't necesarrily ring in the same place as 911, and it doesn't send the same information. Sucks to be you if you have an emergency and aren't able to speak to the operator.
What's the difference between this and borrowing a friend's CD and listening to it a bunch of times before buying it? I used to do that all the time before the advent of p2p.
Is that a serious question? The obvious difference is that you and your friend cannot both have the purchased CD at the same time. Your friends license allows him to lend you the CD. It also allows him to invite you over to listen to it. He can't have a public performance, nor can he give away copies.
Furthermore, should I feel guilty for listening to a song on the radio without buying the single? Or does that also count as having "derived the benefit of it" without paying?
No. The radio station pays for the right to play the song, so you shouldn't feel guilty in the least. Their license allows them to do so.
I guess since I answered your questions, you'll admit that you're wrong and stop illegally downloading music. But I'm not holding my breath.
The reasoning was that Miller did not demostrate (because he never showed up in court apparently) that sawed-off shotguns were then used by the United States Army infantry, their benchmark.
Almost any round in.223 or 7.62x39 will go through any soft body armor. Kevlar generally only offers protection against handgun and shotgun rounds. Without hard plates, you aren't going to be stopping rifle rounds. The term Armor Piecing Ammo when used with respect to this ammunition is a an misnomer, and is only used by those intending to spread FUD.
Prepped for a week?!?!?! Even the Supreme Court Justices (who some would consider "scholars") take months of research and debating (and extensive staffs) to render opinions. You think lay people could do better in a week? There's a huge difference between what the Supreme Court does, and what juries do. For the most part, juries wade through evidence and make determinations of [i]fact[/i]. It actually requires very little knowledge of the law, and they certainly have no power to change or interpret the law.
It isn't really fair to say that the conservative judges would oppose emminent domain for any reason. Emminent domain is preserved in the Constitution, but it is very likely that the "conservative" justices would construe it more narrowly.
It's only ironic in the sense that it's another example of the liberal chickens coming home to roost. Souter was specifically chosen because he was palatable to the liberals after Bork was, erm, borked.
Well, you got that exactly backwards. A public good is by definition non-excludable and non-rivalrous. National defense, for example, is a public good because you can't defend the borders for just some people. Some parts of the Internet may be considered public goods, and therefore, free riderism is most definitly a problem.
You have it backwards. What would be illegal is if MS put hooks in their monopoly product (Windows) so that you had to buy their AV software. There is nothing which says MS has to sell AV software which works with everything.
That article isn't about PATRIOT II, despite the title. It's about a finance bill that included an expansion of the definition of "financial institution". Care to try again?
The age limit for buying a knife will rise from 16 to 18. Anyone selling a knife to someone under 18 faces up to six months in jail and a fine of up to £5,000. Couples who marry under 18 or students on catering courses will have to ask adults to buy knives for them.
Giving head teachers the power to search children they suspect of having weapons in schools was criticised by teachers unions, which said that school staff must not be expected to search teenagers for knives.
Power is a corrupting influence everywhere. Those in government want more of it, no matter what side of the Atlantic they are on. If our European friends would spend more time fighting the infringements going on in their own countries, than worrying about ours, we might have some good examples of government to point to.
Ah yes, if you want a lecture about Constitutional law, ask a librarian. Even better, ask a librarian union.
From the ALA's statement: Over the past two years, Americans have been told that only individuals directly involved in terrorism need be concerned. This is not what the law says. The act lowers the legal standard to simple relevance rather than the higher standard of probable cause required by the Fourth Amendment.
Really? When did Congress get the power to amend the Constitution with a simple bill? The fact is that the fourth amendment has never required probable cause to look at library records because there is no expectation of privacy in records maintained by someone else. To be perfectly clear, if the fourth amendment had ever required probable cause to look at library records, then nothing that Congress could do, short of amending the Constitution, could change that.
want those bastards to know what I read, and that I disagree with their policies.
Who are "those bastards" and why would they care what you read?
Do you really think that John Ashcroft was personally going to libraries and collecting records? Do you have so little faith in the honest men and women (of all political affiliations) who actually enforce the laws that you think they're going to track everything you do in spite of a lack of criminal activity?
Or even more appropriately Fahrenhype 9/11. Michael also does stupid things like ask Congressman why they haven't sent their kids to war. As usuall missing several obvious points which should be apparant to anyone: No one can make someone else enlist, There's no draft, and the children of Congress are actually represented in the armed forces at about the same rate as the rest of the population.
What the hell does a British citizen know about freedom? Aren't they trying to ban kitchen knives over there? People go to jail fir threaten someone who is beating them, and the cops best advice is "Do not resist when attacked." The UK is a shining beacon of how great democratic socialism can be.
So, how much do you know about other than it's bahhh, bahh, bad? Like what specific provisions of the Act do you object to, and please explain how they changed the status quo.
Nope sorry, they are allowed to postpone notice as long as a court believes it is reasonable. And sneak and peak warrants have been in use by the feds since at least the 1980's. Furthermore, they have been held to be Constitutional by at least two federal circuits. All the PATRIOT Act did was codify this into the US Code. Arguably, this is a "good thing" because it means that the requirements are established by Congress instead of Judges, and they will not vary between jurisdictions.
National Security Letters were not created by the PATRIOT Act, neither were sneak and peak warrants. Some techinicalities of their operation (like expanding pen registers to include email headers instead of just phone numbers) were changed by the PATRIOT Act, but these legitimate tools have been around for a long time.
AFAIK, it is only illegal for competitors to collude to fix prices. It would be stupid though. Apple can charge Dell whatever they want, and Dell can set their profit margin to whatever they want, resulting in a certain retail price point. Setting minimum advertied prices (MAPs) is also a common practice by manufacturers because it's necccesary to protect small retailers who get lower discounts from big distrubutors undercutting all of their sales.
Slashdot Mirror
But I "derived the benefit" of the music by listening to it, and I haven't paid for it. This was your complaint - you wrote "You want the benefit of something that isn't yours without paying for it[.]" I didn't pay for it! It doesn't matter if the radio station did, from your perspective (again, based entirely on what you yourself wrote).
I didn't write that. But RIAA is failry (per their dfinition) compensatated for your listening. They get to decide what's fair, because that is their copyright.
That 7 digit number you are dialing doesn't necesarrily ring in the same place as 911, and it doesn't send the same information. Sucks to be you if you have an emergency and aren't able to speak to the operator.
What's the difference between this and borrowing a friend's CD and listening to it a bunch of times before buying it? I used to do that all the time before the advent of p2p.
Is that a serious question? The obvious difference is that you and your friend cannot both have the purchased CD at the same time. Your friends license allows him to lend you the CD. It also allows him to invite you over to listen to it. He can't have a public performance, nor can he give away copies.
Furthermore, should I feel guilty for listening to a song on the radio without buying the single? Or does that also count as having "derived the benefit of it" without paying?
No. The radio station pays for the right to play the song, so you shouldn't feel guilty in the least. Their license allows them to do so.
I guess since I answered your questions, you'll admit that you're wrong and stop illegally downloading music. But I'm not holding my breath.
The reasoning was that Miller did not demostrate (because he never showed up in court apparently) that sawed-off shotguns were then used by the United States Army infantry, their benchmark.
He didn't show up because he was dead.
Almost any round in .223 or 7.62x39 will go through any soft body armor. Kevlar generally only offers protection against handgun and shotgun rounds. Without hard plates, you aren't going to be stopping rifle rounds. The term Armor Piecing Ammo when used with respect to this ammunition is a an misnomer, and is only used by those intending to spread FUD.
Prepped for a week?!?!?! Even the Supreme Court Justices (who some would consider "scholars") take months of research and debating (and extensive staffs) to render opinions. You think lay people could do better in a week? There's a huge difference between what the Supreme Court does, and what juries do. For the most part, juries wade through evidence and make determinations of [i]fact[/i]. It actually requires very little knowledge of the law, and they certainly have no power to change or interpret the law.
It isn't really fair to say that the conservative judges would oppose emminent domain for any reason. Emminent domain is preserved in the Constitution, but it is very likely that the "conservative" justices would construe it more narrowly.
It's only ironic in the sense that it's another example of the liberal chickens coming home to roost. Souter was specifically chosen because he was palatable to the liberals after Bork was, erm, borked.
Is your .sig supposed to be ironic, or are you just an idiot?
Well, you got that exactly backwards. A public good is by definition non-excludable and non-rivalrous. National defense, for example, is a public good because you can't defend the borders for just some people. Some parts of the Internet may be considered public goods, and therefore, free riderism is most definitly a problem.
No, the bottom line is that MS hasn't done anything to interfere with anyone else's ability to make and sell AV for *NIX.
You have it backwards. What would be illegal is if MS put hooks in their monopoly product (Windows) so that you had to buy their AV software. There is nothing which says MS has to sell AV software which works with everything.
He's a Lamarck fan.
That article isn't about PATRIOT II, despite the title. It's about a finance bill that included an expansion of the definition of "financial institution". Care to try again?
This for example is not a US source. Neither is this. Or this. Here's another good one:
And a stunning example of British freedom of speech.
Power is a corrupting influence everywhere. Those in government want more of it, no matter what side of the Atlantic they are on. If our European friends would spend more time fighting the infringements going on in their own countries, than worrying about ours, we might have some good examples of government to point to.
Ah yes, if you want a lecture about Constitutional law, ask a librarian. Even better, ask a librarian union.
From the ALA's statement:
Over the past two years, Americans have been told that only individuals directly involved in terrorism need be concerned. This is not what the law says. The act lowers the legal standard to simple relevance rather than the higher standard of probable cause required by the Fourth Amendment.
Really? When did Congress get the power to amend the Constitution with a simple bill? The fact is that the fourth amendment has never required probable cause to look at library records because there is no expectation of privacy in records maintained by someone else. To be perfectly clear, if the fourth amendment had ever required probable cause to look at library records, then nothing that Congress could do, short of amending the Constitution, could change that.
want those bastards to know what I read, and that I disagree with their policies.
Who are "those bastards" and why would they care what you read?
Do you really think that John Ashcroft was personally going to libraries and collecting records? Do you have so little faith in the honest men and women (of all political affiliations) who actually enforce the laws that you think they're going to track everything you do in spite of a lack of criminal activity?
Removing the thing will restore the constitution to its original rule-set.
The PATRIOT Act didn't modify the Constitution, so repealing the Act won't unmodify it. I direct your attention to Article V.
Or even more appropriately Fahrenhype 9/11. Michael also does stupid things like ask Congressman why they haven't sent their kids to war. As usuall missing several obvious points which should be apparant to anyone: No one can make someone else enlist, There's no draft, and the children of Congress are actually represented in the armed forces at about the same rate as the rest of the population.
What the hell does a British citizen know about freedom? Aren't they trying to ban kitchen knives over there? People go to jail fir threaten someone who is beating them, and the cops best advice is "Do not resist when attacked." The UK is a shining beacon of how great democratic socialism can be.
So, how much do you know about other than it's bahhh, bahh, bad? Like what specific provisions of the Act do you object to, and please explain how they changed the status quo.
Nope sorry, they are allowed to postpone notice as long as a court believes it is reasonable. And sneak and peak warrants have been in use by the feds since at least the 1980's. Furthermore, they have been held to be Constitutional by at least two federal circuits. All the PATRIOT Act did was codify this into the US Code. Arguably, this is a "good thing" because it means that the requirements are established by Congress instead of Judges, and they will not vary between jurisdictions.
Read this.
National Security Letters were not created by the PATRIOT Act, neither were sneak and peak warrants. Some techinicalities of their operation (like expanding pen registers to include email headers instead of just phone numbers) were changed by the PATRIOT Act, but these legitimate tools have been around for a long time.
So, what was the bill number of this PATRIOT Act II?
AFAIK, it is only illegal for competitors to collude to fix prices. It would be stupid though. Apple can charge Dell whatever they want, and Dell can set their profit margin to whatever they want, resulting in a certain retail price point. Setting minimum advertied prices (MAPs) is also a common practice by manufacturers because it's necccesary to protect small retailers who get lower discounts from big distrubutors undercutting all of their sales.