"Persons." "Houses." "Papers." "Effects." Whereabouts of vehicles, wherein the vehicles are registered to the government, the privilege of driving said vehicles is granted by government, and in a country in which the vehicles are driven on roads built by the government and maintained by the government.
One of these things is not like the other. One of these things does not belong.
Privacy is dead. Get over it. But if you don't like it, don't look to the constitution for a right to it, because it ain't there.
I'm afraid that it isn't quite so cut-and-dry. This is not a matter of following a suspect, or even telling everyone that they're getting a Big-Brother surveillance device in their car. They covertly planted an electronic surveillance device on an unsuspecting citizen (who is, by constitutional law, presumed innocent) without a warrant. I believe that under the logic that you just used, any conversation that takes place in a car (provided that it is on a public road) can be recorded secretly. I simply don't buy it.
Furthermore, when the device was planted, was it planted while the car was on public roads, or on private property (such as a residence or place of business)? (It was never said whether or not the device was planted at the airport.) Finally, the car is private property, which was accessed without permission from the owner. Therefore, by tampering with his car, police officials may have been trespassing.
I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. Just becuase you're on public property, police power still has limitations (and IMO, should continue to have limitations).
I've never played this game, and know little about it...but if I'm understanding this correctly, some people used some cheats in a video game, and a developer is insinuating criminal repercussions? Is it safe to assume that there were no real monetary losses?
Yeah. I'll believe that the federal government will actually prosecute when pigs fly.
Inmate 1: What are you in for?
Inmate 2: First degree murder, but I'll be out in 4 more years. What about you?
Inmate 1: I cheated in a video game, which was technically misusing US Army property. I'll be in here for a long time.
Inmate 2: Daaaaaaaaaaamn.
Priorities matter. Getting police involved in copyright infringement cases that do not involve financial gain (or intent of financial gain, for those enterprises that go broke) is a misallocation of what are often scarce resources.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I'd agree if it were something totally dumb and victimless like J-walking. This is not, however, victimless. It is diluting the value of their copyright, regardless of intent to sell. If I printed counterfeit money, I would be a counterfeiter -- regardless of whether I used it, sold it, or gave it away. I put it into circulation, so it devalues the dollar. Fair use is what it is, but P2P fileswapping is a flagrant violation. You sound like someone who feels entitled to free stuff. Now, in the previous story about this (about the site that was actually raided, I don't remember which), they were raided and it was considered criminal because they had accepted donations for their site. The donations for their site changed the nature of what they were doing. If you and I got together and created a tracker site just for fun -- we would not be held criminally liable as they were in...what country was it? The Netherlands? Anyway, as long as it did not generate any kind of revenue, it would not be a criminal case.
Your point on homicide departments is a false dichotomy.
No, it's not. Don't discredit it just because it's not congruent with your beliefs. Nobody shut down a homocide department for this...plain and simple. You mention unsolved murders (aside from rapes and assults) -- which are solved by homocide departments, which generally operate on their own budgets. The point is that this is not something that happens all over the world, in every department...in fact, this is an isolated incident. I seriously doubt that any department has shut down or pulled funding from any other group to start up a IP crimes division. Those cops were doing their job.
Until recently, copyright law in the US was a purely civil matter (I cannot speak for other nations).
AFAIK, the law was not changed to make it a criminal matter, it was always a criminal matter, and the police just didn't care. Every VHS tape I've ever watched had that FBI warning. It may have been an empty threat, but they define the criminal code in there. Whether it's right or wrong is another discussion that I'm not goign to have, but the law was always there. All it took for law enforcement to act was rampant illegal activity over a long period of time, with vocal "victims". Insert any other situation and you will see similar action from law enforcement.
As far as what the police should and shouldn't be doing...I've said this before: I doubt that homocide departments were shut down in order to hunt down copyright violators. Furthermore, how would you feel if a crime were commited against you and the police told you that they had better things to do than arrest and charge the perpitrator(s)?
I do not feel that the government should have any more than the most cursory involvement in the issue. Any involvement they should have should concentrate more on the original inventors and creators and less on he who holds the legally tendered rights.
We've been over the "it's the law" part of this, and I understand that you feel it shouldn't be...but right now, that's the way it is. When the government has enough interested parties pushing for it to act when those laws are broken -- law enforcement will ultimately become involved. This goes for all of our government...local, state, and federal. The interested parties may be lobbies representing corporations, unions, or other political organizations (MADD, ACLU, Christian right groups, etc). Sometimes politicians will champion causes (some pet issue) on their own...but I think that we're both cynical enough to sense that this doesn't happen much in the real world. In the end, I think that we'll both agree that the federal government have overstepped their boundaries. On the issue of where the overstepping happens; I think that we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. It boils down to a philosophical disagreement with thousand-year-old roots, and it's highly unlikely that it can be settled over a/. discussion.:)
It is completely ignorant of the powerful force that financial impact has. Let's stick with reality.
I'd like to understand where you're coming from on this one -- I'm reading that as a statement that artists/inventors are unable to resist easier financing by selling rights instead of raising their own capital(?).
Two hundred years ago when you bought land you put out stakes and said,"This is mine.". Now, even when you buy the land, even when you've paid every dollar on the mortgage, there is still some megacorp which holds the final title deed to the land as issued and recognized by other organizations which have all their own rules and conditions and channels and RED TAPE for denying you the right to own your land.
Interesting -- I haven't heard of this. Who holds the title/deed? In some cases title searches show old liens and chains of "invalid" ownership (for lack of a better term), but those are a matter of public record. I'm looking forward to reading what you know about this. Any links? Wiki?
you'd have to shut off at least 2, most likely 3 satellites to stop them determining the position. Those 3 satellites would cover a huge area, considering there is only 26 to cover the entire planet.
An excellent point...and the article is not clear on how they intend to disable GPS...in fact, it says that much of the plan is classified. The only detail that I was able to gather was that they were not going to crank selective available back up. They also want to boost signal strength to prevent jamming.
Now, this is largely speculative, but I have a suspicion that the plan is to somehow disable only civilan GPS availability (likely including the EU's Galileo), since during any terrorist attack, the national guard will likely use their systems. Of course, I'm not sure how this would be done without selective availability. Maybe they will use it -- IIRC, it was designed to be totally encrypted so that civilian GPS could be shut off entirely (makes sense, since it can be used against us in a battlefield right now). Maybe they're not being 100% honest and part of the (secret) contingency plan is to use selective availability in certain areas. But back to the EU system...if we shut off GPS, Galileo will still be operative. This means that in order for it to be effective, the options are: A. Partenership with EU to turn off certain sattelites whenever we ask. or B. Jam 'em (with strawberry...LONE STAR!).
I'd be interesting in reading the declassified parts of the plan. Have you seen it?
A few thousand geiger counters, a dozen sattelites, and some infra-red googles for border guards are all it would take to keep a truck with a nuclear bomb from entering the country. However, a supersonic, intercontinental missile is much harder to stop, and most nukes are currently attacked to just such devices.
Agreed. And you make an excellent point about the border. Have we done just that? Or are we instead concentrating funds on ICBM's, and letting this other stuff fall by the wayside? And also important, is this all just political?
I don't know if it's leftover election rhetoric, partisan BS, or legitimate concern...however, what concerns me now is our port security. What does it take to do that at our ports? I assume that it's considerably more difficult than the borders, since we tend to import quite a few goods. If funding is holding it back, would it be reasonable to scale back what we put into our anti ballistic missile program, since it's not as imminent a threat as a WMD/terror situation (similar cost to the nation, just balancing the threat based on this)?
Office of Homeland Security, newly created security czar, airport checkpoints, increased security at ports, war in Iraq etc.
I didn't cite those because I was only discussing one example -- you filled in the blanks with something that I never said, or even implied.
You've lied and obfuscated because you have a dogma to protect. What is to be gained from having a discussion with you when you're going to make shit up?
I have no dogma to protect. I actually try to be pretty open minded about this stuff (or at least understand things from all perspectices). I would have been glad to have a discussion with you, but you had to get childishly emotional and make some pretty wild accusations...either that or you actually believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar. You lose...from your (over)reaction, it's clear to me that you are a single-minded asshole -- from this, I don't think that we would have been able to have a productive discussion had you not run your mouth. In any case, thank you for sparing my time by showing your true colors.
As far as the rest, why can't several different systems be developed to counter different threats?...Of course you do, you just wanted to bolster your argument by drawing a false dichotomy.
That's a great question, and I'll turn it around, why can't we? (You know, since we aren't). And it's not a false dichotomy, because we're doing one and not another. We are in trouble with our current budget defecit, and we do have finite resources. Scanning all cargo at our ports is simply too expensive, so we do it selectively. A weak security model, given our current concerns and threat probability.
When that threat is the total destruction of the US, then yes we throw whatever we need to at it.
So where are the plans for an anti-meteor and anti-mega-tsunami system? Or since those are remote threats (when that threat is total destruction of the US), they're on the far back burner, if they even exist...This is the crux of what I'm saying. Prioritize based on probability of need for such systems. We need to protect our ports, because it's the easiest way to sneak a weapon of mass destruction into our country. We're not doing this...instead, we're protecting ourselves from incoming ICBM's, which are a lesser threat than WMD delivered via other methods. It doesn't necessarily have to be one and not the other...but that's what we're doing. If funding is an issue, I say that we should scale back the program addressing the lesser threat, and focus funding on the more imminent threat...but you are right, in that they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Do you really think file-sharing warrants jail time?
Not necessarily...as an example, however, it warrants some consideration. What if this is the only way to make it clear that the government is serious about protecting copyrights? I'm not for taking a hard line against this stuff, but while we're discussing hypotheticals, wouldn't you stop if there was a real threat of jailtime?
If you want to enforce the rights of the inventors and creators, how about removing the laws which make it legal for corporations to hold those inventors and creators in a paycheck to paycheck stranglehold?
Nobody is holding a gun to the heads of creators and inventors. They don't have to have their ideas financed by a business...it's just an easy way to get in than raising the capital themselves. But it's just a farce that behind every great of idea or art, there must be an existing major business behind it. That's the choice of the creator/inventor. I'd prefer that people have that choice, as well as doing it themselves. Some things, such as video games are major productions that a group of people may own cooperatively (you know, a corporation). I don't see a problem with that -- it's part of our freedom to do business. (Yes, it's not perfect, I know -- I make no claims of perfection or even that it's good enough).
I believe that Internet is an excellent medium for doing it yourself. It cuts out the distributor as a middle man and as a major cost. The problem is that you don't have a major corporation behind you to promote whatever it is that you're selling...so you're on your own for marketing. This is fine. It's the choice of the IP owner to do this.
My feeling is that you seem to think that every owner of IP is being forced to sign away their IP. People are smart enough to realize what they're doing. Why not leave that choice in their hands? Is it because they're not making the decision you would prefer? Are they going after the fast cash instead of going the more hard work route? Again, shouldn't that be their decision?
Their hands are pretty strong when they find in favor of click-through EULAs and gargantuan employee agreements. That's all about intellectual property.
Patience. Now is not the time to throw in the towel in exasperation. Our government has always been, and always will be (I really hope) a work in progress. The fact is that you're "in the know" with some of this stuff. The majority of people writing letters and complaining are not "in the know", and the people writing the legislature are also (generally) not "in the know". This is one of the arenas where we may need some federal oversight, which will likely begin by attempting to address issues of malware. It will likely fail at first, and with any luck, the root problem may be addressed...which is click-through licensing, and illegally restrictive EULA's.
However, remember that nobody is forcing anyone to accept these crappy licenses. You seem to be "in the know" enough to use things like f/oss effectively...anyway, work calls
The amount of systems which use GPS in some way nowadays is mindboggling and if it was shutdown entirely I'm sure that a hell of a lot of problems would arise.
Any government-ordered shutdown or jamming of the GPS satellites would be done in ways to limit disruptions to navigation and related systems outside the affected area, the White House said.
Why would you expect it to defeat these threats? It wasn't designed to defeat them. You wouldn't expect a calculator to do the job of a blender would you? Well, maybe you would...
I think that the point is that SLBMs (whatever those are), low flying cruise missiles, or trucks (imo, especially trucks) seem to be a more likely delivery method of WMD's to the US. Do we throw billions at a very remote threat, or do something about a more likely threat? Which seems more effective, actually screening incoming international cargo for "bad things" or building a missile defense system that may or may not work, for an attack which is far from imminent?
I'm not going to say that I don't like a warm and fuzzy feeling of protection for every forseeable threat...but we have a finite amount of resources to develop such systems. I'd prefer having a system that:
A. Works
and
B. Addresses the most realistic threat(s) first.
This system does neither...it just lets some of sleep better...beleiving that we're safer, but does little to actually protect us from a credible threat.
If 9/11 really changed everything, we should have acted like it and reprioritized this, allowing for a better use of our limited defense/security resources.
Copying a product should not be a felony if physical destruction of the property isn't even a misdemeanor. It's as simple as that.
I think that destruction of property and will piracy are two different things...and remember our (lameass) laws about stuff like website defacing. They'll throw the book at you for stuff like that.
Personally I feel we'd be better off with a system that tells us to police ourselves. It would minimize abuse and would encourage only the truly talented and devoted people to succeed. The rest would become discouraged and quit.
Yeah -- I'm all about self-policing. Problem is that sometimes large groups of people can take advantage of that. I believe that in this case, our government is being pretty hands off...and it's being taken advantage of. Do you really think that if there were a genuine threat of jail time for file sharers, they'd still share? Honestly, I've been inside of enough jails (only one prison) to know that I absolutely do not want to be incarcerated, and it would likely deter me. OTOH, it hasn't stopped me from smoking pot. I just know the law, accept the potential consequences of my actions, am relatively careful, and have a small legal slush fund just in case.
However the infringement must be "willful" meaning the violator must have knowledge of the laws they are violating (in this case the NET Act). So ignorance of the law is a defense in this case. Probably a good reason why we rarely see this law enforced against file sharers.
Aww, you bastard! Now that I know about the NET Act, my IP crimes are willful and I'm a felon.;)
But copyright---control over dissemination of information---is a much more artificial right than ownership---based on physical possession.
Agreed. However, just because it's an abstraction, does it make it illegitimate? I mean, currency is an abstraction. I guess that people need to believe in that abstraction in order for it to work (ala Cryptonomicon)...but just the same, it's not too hard for any of us to understand. It seems pretty logical to me, although I'll admit that it's gone farther than I'd prefer.
Not in the US. Why not? Because no one ever drew a line on the limits and no one bothers to adhere to the original rulebook.
Well, here's the deal...with new technology comes new rules. History has taught us this over and over again. It has to be sorted out in the courts. When P2P came out, IP owners argued that stretched pretty far beyond the limits of fair use. Just becuase you're not charging money for it doesn't mean that it dilutes the value of the product by giving it away for free. The economics of it are so simple that even I can understand it...how can you possibly compete with free? I really want to be able to say that it doesn't hurt anyone and copy away. I'd have a much clearer conscience, but this is not the case. (My shit stinks just as much as anyone else's...I pirate too). Let me put it this way. If you counterfeit money and give it away for free, you're still a counterfeiter, right? (They throw the book at you for this). I just think that it's important to understand both sides of the equation here -- this is about more than just money grubbing assholes. It's the entire IP industry...I think they have a right to exist, and their copyrights deserve limited protection. You clearly think that copyrigts deserve absolutely no merit and should never be treated as a commodity.
There is no legal empowerment to hunt down file-sharers or music traders. The legal empowerment is to protect original inventors and creators, not the mega-corp that bought the first copy.
I think that you're failing (or refusing) to make an abstraction from an abstraction. If people can own intellectual property, and treat is as a commodity, that means that people can trade their rights to that property as they see fit. We're not talking about a child/slave labor here. Sometimes, people make royalty agreements in exchange for someone else financing their idea. Sometimes that's what it takes to make money. It's not that different from business startup financing. Don't want to play that way with your IP, fine -- do it your way...but why whould that stop people from doing it their way? Personally, I want as many options at my disposal as possible.
Typical drivel which comes from people who are jealous because they rely on someone else to take care of them
Are you kidding me? Well, I do depend on my government for protection, if that's what you mean (interesting how we disagree the other way about the strongest guy being right -- I like that brute muscle doesn't declare the winner...are we agreeing throughout all of this and just disagreeing for the hell of it?)...I also depend on them to look out for the value of my currency (although that's largely market driven). It's also pretty cool to have someone trying to keep foreign invaders out. In any case, I'm not going to respond to that by pointing fingers.
I think you're the one being idealistic now.
Perhaps I am, you're right. However, there are lobbies that are fighting for our rights...the EFF, ACLU, etc. I donate to them, and in that sense, I'm voting with my dollar and making sure that my values are accounted for. It's not ideal, but I think it's something & feel pretty good about it. They make a difference.
I'm saying that 99.99% of the laws passed every year are passed under a false pretense of authority and empowerment.
Does this mean that we should be able to break them, consequence free? Because we don't agree with the logic? It's all about compromise.
The most important thing a politician can say is,"We're sorry. That's _NOT_ our job." In America they've forgotten how to do that.
Amen to that brutha. Once again, we're back in agreement. Problem is that in this sense, we're an outspoken minority. Most people want our
Let's be perfectly honest, then. This is the way our system works,"You're the weak and I am the tyranny of evil men." Make all the pretty political speeches you want--our system is a cartel that is no different from any other third world gang of thugs except that ours has the biggest nukes on the planet.
Amen, brother! Now we're speaking the same language. Our government is the largest corporation in our country...and they have the guns to back it up -- and that's all she wrote.
That being said, we do have certain guarantees under law (things like due process). This allows for us to have a stable and free economy, and also allows for international trade. Countries that don't have these guarantees have trouble trading in international markets...especially with free market countries.
Our current implementation of the concept of copyright has no Constitutional empowerment.
Perhaps you're replying to another post that didn't have this in it...but copyright enforcement does have Constitutional backing, and I'd appreciate it if this were the last we rehashed this facet of the greater discussion. (And I hear where you're coming from...you're talking to someone who has some pseudo-libertarian leanings and would like to see less involvement from the federal government). The Commerce Clause in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 allows for federal regulation of copyright. It's not explicit, but IMO, this is exactly the kind of thing that the federal government is supposed to regulate.
Maybe your book sucks and nobody cares about it.
I'm sure that if I wrote a book, it would suck...and under our current system -- regardless of how good or bad it is, it is protected by copyright law as long as it's copyrighted. Here's the thing -- this does not guarantee me any profits...not a cent. Some poor jackass still has to buy my sucky book.
So you form a cartel of book writers, get them all pumped up on this straw man of some nerd with a Xerox machine, and get them to march on Washington to place government a federal officer next to every Xerox machine in the nation. You know what? The cost of paying those federal officers far outweighs any benefit your book has.
See -- here's where we converge back into agreement. I think that DRM sucks. I think that businesses have overstepped the boundaries of reasonable copyright protection. I think that they failed to innovate (or even listen to the market in time) with digital music distribution. I think that instead of doing the right thing right away by rushing internet distribution of music, they tried to lobby the federal government for more regulation. I'm totally against big brotherish type legislation. Furthermore, I'm against doing what Canada did and just puy a levy on all recording media. There's gotta be a middle ground, and there's gotta be a market-based solution. I think that we're halfway there with music. Now onto movies and TV.
I think that those people are making the same mistake that the music industry made (specifically, the MPAA). They're trying to put the cat back into the bag (mostly by rattling cages and sending a strong message). They're also focusing efforts on legislature to protect their assets. They needed a new business model long ago, and I think that they could have done it without any middleman (probably wreaking havoc on distributor agreements in the process, but it's necessary nonetheless). But I'm with you, I do not want...and I don't think that we need big brother-type legislation.
Since you're incapable of drawing a line anywhere you're incapable to speak on anything of "law". In your eyes, the law goes as far as you want it to when you want it to.
Come on. It's not like that. You're making sweeping claims that copyright is completely inval
The reason for cutting the ads is that they can increase the size of the resulting file by around a third. Also they are likely to be of little interest to anyone doing the downloading. After removing promotion of other programmes on the same (or related) channels; time specific advertising and geographic specific advertising (which includes ads mentioning prices) all that would be left is advertisments of the "brand awareness" type for globally sold products.
I'm aware of the practical reasons (size, and nobody wants to watch ads)...even so, the network owns the content, and making ads relevant is their problem (since they are the sole owners of the distribution rights). They license some of those rights out to local affiliates for network and cable. Those affiliates decide how to insert geographically relevant ads. This is another reason why TV torrents are illegal. It's their content, and they can do what they want with it. If you don't like it, it's your right not to watch it.
And it's also not the same as stealing or destroying an actual physical product. You will never be able to say anything which will convince anyone that there's more damage done in copying than in actual destruction. Unless the destruction of a videotape is a felony then copying should not be. It's as simple as that.
OK -- we're getting into this argument...that physical property and IP are different and thus theft if physical property and IP aren't the same. I totally agree with you. My example with physical theft from your house and a store were analogies (and you then took them out of context...my example showed how property owners can press criminal charges for theft). So theft of IP and theft of physical property are different. Where your logic completely falls apart is back to the if !A then B. If physical property theft is not the same as IP theft -- the concept of IP theft must be a total farce. This is not right.
So there's no lost inventory. So what? By making a zillion copies of a DVD, you dilute the value of a movie. If I steal stock from a company, that is just IP by printing duplicate certificates. There is likely no Constitutional law dealing with this...but it dilutes the value of someone else's commodity. Pirating movies is no different. We're not talking about personal use here...we're talking about distribution. We keep moving off of this track. Problem is that P2P has made them very similar.
Under what authority is that law enforced? Again, the Constitution only identifies inventors or creators, not the corporations who buy the first copy.
Again, Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. Nobody is disregarding any rulebook here. You're just not reading it (or possibly reading it selectively).
That's a loss of physical property. Again. Destroy a tape, pay $16. Copy a tape, return the original, go to prison. It makes no sense.
It does make sense...you're diluting the value of a commodity. Think of it this way...the US dollar is a commodity. Destroy it, you're out a buck. Steal it, it's a misdemeanor. Copy it, and go to prison. It makes total sense, because you're diluting the value for everyone. What copyright law does is allows for ownership (and transfer of, as well as licensing of for certain things) of IP, and allows the owner to value that at anything the owner wants. The market can choose to bear the cost or choose not to. The government offers protection to those who own the copyrights.
Because of profit. But don't think it's stopping there. The *AA is going after anyone they can.
I'll half agree with you again. I think it's a farce that they went after those guys. I'm not convinced that they did anything illegal by pointing to people distributing files. Now, there were some semantics in TFA that suggest that they did a few things that were enough on the fringe to warrant an investigation (nobody has been arrested yet). However, I think it's the the MPAA being lazy. It's expensive to sue every file swapper (it's expensive to sue anyone), so they went after an easy target...the enabler. Even if they win, we both know that P2P won't go away. But really, they should be going after the people who break the law. Not the people who point to illegal stuff.
Remember, just because you don't agree with the law doesn't give you a right to break it. Many people make the same mistake and find themselves in unpleasant situations.
Under what authority is it a felony? I can rent a tape, mangle it, and toss it over the freeway. That's LEGITIMATE loss, and it's not a felony. However, if I take a tape and copy it, that is a felony.
It seems as clear as it's always been. Copying for personal use usually fits in under fair use. As I've been saying over and over again, distribution is a felony. That means that nobody will care about what you do in your own house for personal use. However, if you buy 4 dozen recorders and start duplicating like crazy and selling them...that's distribution and thus a felony. Offering them for public download is also distribution. Just because it's easy to do doesn't make it any less a violation of the law.
Where do you draw the line? Under that sort of sentiment we do not live in a democratically elected Constitutional republic. If our laws are not based on the feelings of right and wrong within society, then we have nothing more than a cartel government similar to the Taliban enforcing their own personal agendas on the people within their geographical reach.
Couple of points here. Just because you don't agree with the law, doesn't mean that it's not fair. There are plenty of laws that don't fall within my sense of right and wrong. My choices are to either follow the law, or prepare to accept the consequences of not doing so. It's very simple. Part of the deal with a representative democracy is that we elect people to interpret the issues and make appropriate decisions for us. I'll agree that there's probably a better way, but unlike you, I don't think it's a travesty. If you had it your way, we would only be in a cartel enforcing your own agenda and sense of right and wrong and it's abundantly clear...you seem to think that your sense of right and wrong is "the way". Obviously, I disagree with you, and the recording industry certainly disagrees with you. If I'm wrong (and I hope I am wrong about you, because you seem like a pretty smart fellow), where are you willing to compromise on this issue?
So are spammers and malware writers. Where do you draw the line?
I draw the line at being a public servant. If the police were writing malware and spamming, I'd have a problem with it. The job of the police is to just enforce the law. In terms of the law, everyone gets their word in...the political groups representing you and I (ACLU, EFF, etc), lobbists who support the interests of businesses (which, unfortunately, are a necessary evil), and politicians who make deals with others to add pork onto their bills. Are you suggesting that businesses should get absolutely no say in how the law is written? If that were the case, people would screw businesses out of everything...and that would destroy our way of life.
Copyright law is a farce. It's a product of lobbyists. Call it idealism if you think that living in a police state is an acceptable alternative to idealism.
OK...I think that you need to take a civics course. Just about every law is a product of lobbyists in one sense or another. You are distorting how things really work.
Yes, they do. The Constitution empowers the federal government. The government is free to ignore the Constitution...Every day they ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments with impunity. A few more years and the ACLU will be nothing but a coffee club for people who vaguely remember freedom, liberty, and the values that our soldiers have fought and died for over the last 200 years.
I really don't think that you've done your homework on this. The a Commerce Clause in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) about exactly this. It has certainly been stretched out a little, and I wouldn't have a hard time finding abuses. But you are simply not being realistic about this. Just because there are abuses of this, does not mean that the whole thing is a farce. It also does not mean that copyrights have no place within the law. If I write a book, you'd better believe that I want some protection from you and your sense of entitlement to other people's creative works. I want to be able to sell it for whatever price I want. And I certianly want you to have the right to not own my book. More importantly, it's your right to write a creative work and release it to the public domain. I simply don't see a problem with that. Without copyrights, there would be no GPL. Frankly, I like the GPL.
Call it idealism if you think that living in a police state is an acceptable alternative to idealism.
We don't live in a police state. Go to a police state, then come back here and tell me that. I have no idea who you are, or anything about you, but it is becoming very clear that you have very little perspective. I just want to point this out as modern logic that just doesn't work: You're using an if !A then B logic. Like Bush's reply to criticism about Iraq...something like "I don't know any sane person who thinks that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power". That's an excellent example of if !A then B logic. If you don't agree with him, then you must think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. You are saying if !idealism then police state. I disagree. What about using a little pragmatism here?
Copying your friends work (eg. cheating on tests) has been, at most, something that gave you 30 minutes after school writing on the chalkboard.
...and unauthorized redistribution is not the same as copying off of someone's test in school. It's not even close. It's not even in the same ballpark -- not even the same sport. The reason the penalties are so high? Well, first of all, it's hard to catch a violator (so when someone is finally caught, they very much want to make sure that person doesn't do it again), and secondly, it undermines the entire copyright system. Fair use is what it is. Copying a friends tape...nobody will turn any stones up for you. But widespread distribution (ala BitTorrent et al) certainly does undermine that system. You may be idealisticly right...but in the eyes of the law, you're just wrong. The law couldn't give a shit about you and your ideals...and if you screw up, your ideals likely won't mean much to you from a prison cell.
Even outside of this...a store can press misdemeanor charges for theft too. Who cares? The police are henchmen because you don't think it should be a felony? Oh please. Anyhow, I guess we're both pretty OT, since this didn't happen in the US, and US case law doesn't mean a thing in Finland. The translated article explains exactly how and why it has become a felony case.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid that it isn't quite so cut-and-dry. This is not a matter of following a suspect, or even telling everyone that they're getting a Big-Brother surveillance device in their car. They covertly planted an electronic surveillance device on an unsuspecting citizen (who is, by constitutional law, presumed innocent) without a warrant. I believe that under the logic that you just used, any conversation that takes place in a car (provided that it is on a public road) can be recorded secretly. I simply don't buy it.
Furthermore, when the device was planted, was it planted while the car was on public roads, or on private property (such as a residence or place of business)? (It was never said whether or not the device was planted at the airport.) Finally, the car is private property, which was accessed without permission from the owner. Therefore, by tampering with his car, police officials may have been trespassing.
I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. Just becuase you're on public property, police power still has limitations (and IMO, should continue to have limitations).
I've never played this game, and know little about it...but if I'm understanding this correctly, some people used some cheats in a video game, and a developer is insinuating criminal repercussions? Is it safe to assume that there were no real monetary losses?
Yeah. I'll believe that the federal government will actually prosecute when pigs fly.
Inmate 1: What are you in for?
Inmate 2: First degree murder, but I'll be out in 4 more years. What about you?
Inmate 1: I cheated in a video game, which was technically misusing US Army property. I'll be in here for a long time.
Inmate 2: Daaaaaaaaaaamn.
You must be one of the people who doesn't think that the world is better off with out Saddam Hussein in power.
;P
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I'd agree if it were something totally dumb and victimless like J-walking. This is not, however, victimless. It is diluting the value of their copyright, regardless of intent to sell. If I printed counterfeit money, I would be a counterfeiter -- regardless of whether I used it, sold it, or gave it away. I put it into circulation, so it devalues the dollar. Fair use is what it is, but P2P fileswapping is a flagrant violation. You sound like someone who feels entitled to free stuff. Now, in the previous story about this (about the site that was actually raided, I don't remember which), they were raided and it was considered criminal because they had accepted donations for their site. The donations for their site changed the nature of what they were doing. If you and I got together and created a tracker site just for fun -- we would not be held criminally liable as they were in...what country was it? The Netherlands? Anyway, as long as it did not generate any kind of revenue, it would not be a criminal case.
No, it's not. Don't discredit it just because it's not congruent with your beliefs. Nobody shut down a homocide department for this...plain and simple. You mention unsolved murders (aside from rapes and assults) -- which are solved by homocide departments, which generally operate on their own budgets. The point is that this is not something that happens all over the world, in every department...in fact, this is an isolated incident. I seriously doubt that any department has shut down or pulled funding from any other group to start up a IP crimes division. Those cops were doing their job.
AFAIK, the law was not changed to make it a criminal matter, it was always a criminal matter, and the police just didn't care. Every VHS tape I've ever watched had that FBI warning. It may have been an empty threat, but they define the criminal code in there. Whether it's right or wrong is another discussion that I'm not goign to have, but the law was always there. All it took for law enforcement to act was rampant illegal activity over a long period of time, with vocal "victims". Insert any other situation and you will see similar action from law enforcement.
As far as what the police should and shouldn't be doing...I've said this before: I doubt that homocide departments were shut down in order to hunt down copyright violators. Furthermore, how would you feel if a crime were commited against you and the police told you that they had better things to do than arrest and charge the perpitrator(s)?
We've been over the "it's the law" part of this, and I understand that you feel it shouldn't be...but right now, that's the way it is. When the government has enough interested parties pushing for it to act when those laws are broken -- law enforcement will ultimately become involved. This goes for all of our government...local, state, and federal. The interested parties may be lobbies representing corporations, unions, or other political organizations (MADD, ACLU, Christian right groups, etc). Sometimes politicians will champion causes (some pet issue) on their own...but I think that we're both cynical enough to sense that this doesn't happen much in the real world. In the end, I think that we'll both agree that the federal government have overstepped their boundaries. On the issue of where the overstepping happens; I think that we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. It boils down to a philosophical disagreement with thousand-year-old roots, and it's highly unlikely that it can be settled over a /. discussion. :)
I'd like to understand where you're coming from on this one -- I'm reading that as a statement that artists/inventors are unable to resist easier financing by selling rights instead of raising their own capital(?).
Interesting -- I haven't heard of this. Who holds the title/deed? In some cases title searches show old liens and chains of "invalid" ownership (for lack of a better term), but those are a matter of public record. I'm looking forward to reading what you know about this. Any links? Wiki?
An excellent point...and the article is not clear on how they intend to disable GPS...in fact, it says that much of the plan is classified. The only detail that I was able to gather was that they were not going to crank selective available back up. They also want to boost signal strength to prevent jamming.
Now, this is largely speculative, but I have a suspicion that the plan is to somehow disable only civilan GPS availability (likely including the EU's Galileo), since during any terrorist attack, the national guard will likely use their systems. Of course, I'm not sure how this would be done without selective availability. Maybe they will use it -- IIRC, it was designed to be totally encrypted so that civilian GPS could be shut off entirely (makes sense, since it can be used against us in a battlefield right now). Maybe they're not being 100% honest and part of the (secret) contingency plan is to use selective availability in certain areas. But back to the EU system...if we shut off GPS, Galileo will still be operative. This means that in order for it to be effective, the options are: A. Partenership with EU to turn off certain sattelites whenever we ask. or B. Jam 'em (with strawberry...LONE STAR!).
I'd be interesting in reading the declassified parts of the plan. Have you seen it?
Agreed. And you make an excellent point about the border. Have we done just that? Or are we instead concentrating funds on ICBM's, and letting this other stuff fall by the wayside? And also important, is this all just political?
I don't know if it's leftover election rhetoric, partisan BS, or legitimate concern...however, what concerns me now is our port security. What does it take to do that at our ports? I assume that it's considerably more difficult than the borders, since we tend to import quite a few goods. If funding is holding it back, would it be reasonable to scale back what we put into our anti ballistic missile program, since it's not as imminent a threat as a WMD/terror situation (similar cost to the nation, just balancing the threat based on this)?
I didn't cite those because I was only discussing one example -- you filled in the blanks with something that I never said, or even implied.
I have no dogma to protect. I actually try to be pretty open minded about this stuff (or at least understand things from all perspectices). I would have been glad to have a discussion with you, but you had to get childishly emotional and make some pretty wild accusations...either that or you actually believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar. You lose...from your (over)reaction, it's clear to me that you are a single-minded asshole -- from this, I don't think that we would have been able to have a productive discussion had you not run your mouth. In any case, thank you for sparing my time by showing your true colors.
That's a great question, and I'll turn it around, why can't we? (You know, since we aren't). And it's not a false dichotomy, because we're doing one and not another. We are in trouble with our current budget defecit, and we do have finite resources. Scanning all cargo at our ports is simply too expensive, so we do it selectively. A weak security model, given our current concerns and threat probability.
So where are the plans for an anti-meteor and anti-mega-tsunami system? Or since those are remote threats (when that threat is total destruction of the US), they're on the far back burner, if they even exist...This is the crux of what I'm saying. Prioritize based on probability of need for such systems. We need to protect our ports, because it's the easiest way to sneak a weapon of mass destruction into our country. We're not doing this...instead, we're protecting ourselves from incoming ICBM's, which are a lesser threat than WMD delivered via other methods. It doesn't necessarily have to be one and not the other...but that's what we're doing. If funding is an issue, I say that we should scale back the program addressing the lesser threat, and focus funding on the more imminent threat...but you are right, in that they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Not necessarily...as an example, however, it warrants some consideration. What if this is the only way to make it clear that the government is serious about protecting copyrights? I'm not for taking a hard line against this stuff, but while we're discussing hypotheticals, wouldn't you stop if there was a real threat of jailtime?
Nobody is holding a gun to the heads of creators and inventors. They don't have to have their ideas financed by a business...it's just an easy way to get in than raising the capital themselves. But it's just a farce that behind every great of idea or art, there must be an existing major business behind it. That's the choice of the creator/inventor. I'd prefer that people have that choice, as well as doing it themselves. Some things, such as video games are major productions that a group of people may own cooperatively (you know, a corporation). I don't see a problem with that -- it's part of our freedom to do business. (Yes, it's not perfect, I know -- I make no claims of perfection or even that it's good enough).
I believe that Internet is an excellent medium for doing it yourself. It cuts out the distributor as a middle man and as a major cost. The problem is that you don't have a major corporation behind you to promote whatever it is that you're selling...so you're on your own for marketing. This is fine. It's the choice of the IP owner to do this.
My feeling is that you seem to think that every owner of IP is being forced to sign away their IP. People are smart enough to realize what they're doing. Why not leave that choice in their hands? Is it because they're not making the decision you would prefer? Are they going after the fast cash instead of going the more hard work route? Again, shouldn't that be their decision?
Patience. Now is not the time to throw in the towel in exasperation. Our government has always been, and always will be (I really hope) a work in progress. The fact is that you're "in the know" with some of this stuff. The majority of people writing letters and complaining are not "in the know", and the people writing the legislature are also (generally) not "in the know". This is one of the arenas where we may need some federal oversight, which will likely begin by attempting to address issues of malware. It will likely fail at first, and with any luck, the root problem may be addressed...which is click-through licensing, and illegally restrictive EULA's.
However, remember that nobody is forcing anyone to accept these crappy licenses. You seem to be "in the know" enough to use things like f/oss effectively...anyway, work calls
You read it before sounding off, right?
I don't know about being a cynic, but as far as only dealing in absolutes -- he's certainly got the Commander in Chief in his corner.
I think that the point is that SLBMs (whatever those are), low flying cruise missiles, or trucks (imo, especially trucks) seem to be a more likely delivery method of WMD's to the US. Do we throw billions at a very remote threat, or do something about a more likely threat? Which seems more effective, actually screening incoming international cargo for "bad things" or building a missile defense system that may or may not work, for an attack which is far from imminent?
I'm not going to say that I don't like a warm and fuzzy feeling of protection for every forseeable threat...but we have a finite amount of resources to develop such systems. I'd prefer having a system that:
A. Works
and
B. Addresses the most realistic threat(s) first.
This system does neither...it just lets some of sleep better...beleiving that we're safer, but does little to actually protect us from a credible threat.
If 9/11 really changed everything, we should have acted like it and reprioritized this, allowing for a better use of our limited defense/security resources.
I hope it means that they should keep not collecting data.
I think that destruction of property and will piracy are two different things...and remember our (lameass) laws about stuff like website defacing. They'll throw the book at you for stuff like that.
Yeah -- I'm all about self-policing. Problem is that sometimes large groups of people can take advantage of that. I believe that in this case, our government is being pretty hands off...and it's being taken advantage of. Do you really think that if there were a genuine threat of jail time for file sharers, they'd still share? Honestly, I've been inside of enough jails (only one prison) to know that I absolutely do not want to be incarcerated, and it would likely deter me. OTOH, it hasn't stopped me from smoking pot. I just know the law, accept the potential consequences of my actions, am relatively careful, and have a small legal slush fund just in case.
Aww, you bastard! Now that I know about the NET Act, my IP crimes are willful and I'm a felon. ;)
Agreed. However, just because it's an abstraction, does it make it illegitimate? I mean, currency is an abstraction. I guess that people need to believe in that abstraction in order for it to work (ala Cryptonomicon)...but just the same, it's not too hard for any of us to understand. It seems pretty logical to me, although I'll admit that it's gone farther than I'd prefer.
Well, here's the deal...with new technology comes new rules. History has taught us this over and over again. It has to be sorted out in the courts. When P2P came out, IP owners argued that stretched pretty far beyond the limits of fair use. Just becuase you're not charging money for it doesn't mean that it dilutes the value of the product by giving it away for free. The economics of it are so simple that even I can understand it...how can you possibly compete with free? I really want to be able to say that it doesn't hurt anyone and copy away. I'd have a much clearer conscience, but this is not the case. (My shit stinks just as much as anyone else's...I pirate too). Let me put it this way. If you counterfeit money and give it away for free, you're still a counterfeiter, right? (They throw the book at you for this). I just think that it's important to understand both sides of the equation here -- this is about more than just money grubbing assholes. It's the entire IP industry...I think they have a right to exist, and their copyrights deserve limited protection. You clearly think that copyrigts deserve absolutely no merit and should never be treated as a commodity.
I think that you're failing (or refusing) to make an abstraction from an abstraction. If people can own intellectual property, and treat is as a commodity, that means that people can trade their rights to that property as they see fit. We're not talking about a child/slave labor here. Sometimes, people make royalty agreements in exchange for someone else financing their idea. Sometimes that's what it takes to make money. It's not that different from business startup financing. Don't want to play that way with your IP, fine -- do it your way...but why whould that stop people from doing it their way? Personally, I want as many options at my disposal as possible.
Are you kidding me? Well, I do depend on my government for protection, if that's what you mean (interesting how we disagree the other way about the strongest guy being right -- I like that brute muscle doesn't declare the winner...are we agreeing throughout all of this and just disagreeing for the hell of it?)...I also depend on them to look out for the value of my currency (although that's largely market driven). It's also pretty cool to have someone trying to keep foreign invaders out. In any case, I'm not going to respond to that by pointing fingers.
Perhaps I am, you're right. However, there are lobbies that are fighting for our rights...the EFF, ACLU, etc. I donate to them, and in that sense, I'm voting with my dollar and making sure that my values are accounted for. It's not ideal, but I think it's something & feel pretty good about it. They make a difference.
Does this mean that we should be able to break them, consequence free? Because we don't agree with the logic? It's all about compromise.
Amen to that brutha. Once again, we're back in agreement. Problem is that in this sense, we're an outspoken minority. Most people want our
Amen, brother! Now we're speaking the same language. Our government is the largest corporation in our country...and they have the guns to back it up -- and that's all she wrote.
That being said, we do have certain guarantees under law (things like due process). This allows for us to have a stable and free economy, and also allows for international trade. Countries that don't have these guarantees have trouble trading in international markets...especially with free market countries.
Perhaps you're replying to another post that didn't have this in it...but copyright enforcement does have Constitutional backing, and I'd appreciate it if this were the last we rehashed this facet of the greater discussion. (And I hear where you're coming from...you're talking to someone who has some pseudo-libertarian leanings and would like to see less involvement from the federal government). The Commerce Clause in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 allows for federal regulation of copyright. It's not explicit, but IMO, this is exactly the kind of thing that the federal government is supposed to regulate.
I'm sure that if I wrote a book, it would suck...and under our current system -- regardless of how good or bad it is, it is protected by copyright law as long as it's copyrighted. Here's the thing -- this does not guarantee me any profits...not a cent. Some poor jackass still has to buy my sucky book.
See -- here's where we converge back into agreement. I think that DRM sucks. I think that businesses have overstepped the boundaries of reasonable copyright protection. I think that they failed to innovate (or even listen to the market in time) with digital music distribution. I think that instead of doing the right thing right away by rushing internet distribution of music, they tried to lobby the federal government for more regulation. I'm totally against big brotherish type legislation. Furthermore, I'm against doing what Canada did and just puy a levy on all recording media. There's gotta be a middle ground, and there's gotta be a market-based solution. I think that we're halfway there with music. Now onto movies and TV.
I think that those people are making the same mistake that the music industry made (specifically, the MPAA). They're trying to put the cat back into the bag (mostly by rattling cages and sending a strong message). They're also focusing efforts on legislature to protect their assets. They needed a new business model long ago, and I think that they could have done it without any middleman (probably wreaking havoc on distributor agreements in the process, but it's necessary nonetheless). But I'm with you, I do not want...and I don't think that we need big brother-type legislation.
Come on. It's not like that. You're making sweeping claims that copyright is completely inval
I'm aware of the practical reasons (size, and nobody wants to watch ads)...even so, the network owns the content, and making ads relevant is their problem (since they are the sole owners of the distribution rights). They license some of those rights out to local affiliates for network and cable. Those affiliates decide how to insert geographically relevant ads. This is another reason why TV torrents are illegal. It's their content, and they can do what they want with it. If you don't like it, it's your right not to watch it.
OK -- we're getting into this argument...that physical property and IP are different and thus theft if physical property and IP aren't the same. I totally agree with you. My example with physical theft from your house and a store were analogies (and you then took them out of context...my example showed how property owners can press criminal charges for theft). So theft of IP and theft of physical property are different. Where your logic completely falls apart is back to the if !A then B. If physical property theft is not the same as IP theft -- the concept of IP theft must be a total farce. This is not right.
So there's no lost inventory. So what? By making a zillion copies of a DVD, you dilute the value of a movie. If I steal stock from a company, that is just IP by printing duplicate certificates. There is likely no Constitutional law dealing with this...but it dilutes the value of someone else's commodity. Pirating movies is no different. We're not talking about personal use here...we're talking about distribution. We keep moving off of this track. Problem is that P2P has made them very similar.
Again, Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. Nobody is disregarding any rulebook here. You're just not reading it (or possibly reading it selectively).
It does make sense...you're diluting the value of a commodity. Think of it this way...the US dollar is a commodity. Destroy it, you're out a buck. Steal it, it's a misdemeanor. Copy it, and go to prison. It makes total sense, because you're diluting the value for everyone. What copyright law does is allows for ownership (and transfer of, as well as licensing of for certain things) of IP, and allows the owner to value that at anything the owner wants. The market can choose to bear the cost or choose not to. The government offers protection to those who own the copyrights.
I'll half agree with you again. I think it's a farce that they went after those guys. I'm not convinced that they did anything illegal by pointing to people distributing files. Now, there were some semantics in TFA that suggest that they did a few things that were enough on the fringe to warrant an investigation (nobody has been arrested yet). However, I think it's the the MPAA being lazy. It's expensive to sue every file swapper (it's expensive to sue anyone), so they went after an easy target...the enabler. Even if they win, we both know that P2P won't go away. But really, they should be going after the people who break the law. Not the people who point to illegal stuff.
Remember, just because you don't agree with the law doesn't give you a right to break it. Many people make the same mistake and find themselves in unpleasant situations.
It seems as clear as it's always been. Copying for personal use usually fits in under fair use. As I've been saying over and over again, distribution is a felony. That means that nobody will care about what you do in your own house for personal use. However, if you buy 4 dozen recorders and start duplicating like crazy and selling them...that's distribution and thus a felony. Offering them for public download is also distribution. Just because it's easy to do doesn't make it any less a violation of the law.
Couple of points here. Just because you don't agree with the law, doesn't mean that it's not fair. There are plenty of laws that don't fall within my sense of right and wrong. My choices are to either follow the law, or prepare to accept the consequences of not doing so. It's very simple. Part of the deal with a representative democracy is that we elect people to interpret the issues and make appropriate decisions for us. I'll agree that there's probably a better way, but unlike you, I don't think it's a travesty. If you had it your way, we would only be in a cartel enforcing your own agenda and sense of right and wrong and it's abundantly clear...you seem to think that your sense of right and wrong is "the way". Obviously, I disagree with you, and the recording industry certainly disagrees with you. If I'm wrong (and I hope I am wrong about you, because you seem like a pretty smart fellow), where are you willing to compromise on this issue?
I draw the line at being a public servant. If the police were writing malware and spamming, I'd have a problem with it. The job of the police is to just enforce the law. In terms of the law, everyone gets their word in...the political groups representing you and I (ACLU, EFF, etc), lobbists who support the interests of businesses (which, unfortunately, are a necessary evil), and politicians who make deals with others to add pork onto their bills. Are you suggesting that businesses should get absolutely no say in how the law is written? If that were the case, people would screw businesses out of everything...and that would destroy our way of life.
OK...I think that you need to take a civics course. Just about every law is a product of lobbyists in one sense or another. You are distorting how things really work.
I really don't think that you've done your homework on this. The a Commerce Clause in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) about exactly this. It has certainly been stretched out a little, and I wouldn't have a hard time finding abuses. But you are simply not being realistic about this. Just because there are abuses of this, does not mean that the whole thing is a farce. It also does not mean that copyrights have no place within the law. If I write a book, you'd better believe that I want some protection from you and your sense of entitlement to other people's creative works. I want to be able to sell it for whatever price I want. And I certianly want you to have the right to not own my book. More importantly, it's your right to write a creative work and release it to the public domain. I simply don't see a problem with that. Without copyrights, there would be no GPL. Frankly, I like the GPL.
We don't live in a police state. Go to a police state, then come back here and tell me that. I have no idea who you are, or anything about you, but it is becoming very clear that you have very little perspective. I just want to point this out as modern logic that just doesn't work: You're using an if !A then B logic. Like Bush's reply to criticism about Iraq...something like "I don't know any sane person who thinks that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power". That's an excellent example of if !A then B logic. If you don't agree with him, then you must think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. You are saying if !idealism then police state. I disagree. What about using a little pragmatism here?
Even outside of this...a store can press misdemeanor charges for theft too. Who cares? The police are henchmen because you don't think it should be a felony? Oh please. Anyhow, I guess we're both pretty OT, since this didn't happen in the US, and US case law doesn't mean a thing in Finland. The translated article explains exactly how and why it has become a felony case.