Yep. That's how I feel about horse-back riding myself — why can't the government provide the nice stables and other infrastructure necessary for easier travel in a saddle?
Back to "telegraph"... One of our family's numerous grandfathers, himself Internet-literate, used to "share" Internet-articles by printing them and mailing the print-outs to his computer-illiterate friend in a different city... For better or worse, there is no such option in any of the "social" <div>s and <span>s out there...
I guess, the costs of maintaining the wires and the rest of the land-line infrastructure are largely fixed. So, as people — primarily younger ones, according to TFA — drop their traditional land lines entirely, the remaining customers see their fees increased.
Nothing to see here, nothing to do about it. Whoever feels sufficiently compassionate to "do something about it" can subsidize their favorite senior(s) directly — or help them switch to a cell-phone, etc.. I've switched two elderly couples I feel responsible for to IP-telephony years ago — they had mobile phones already — and now they don't even know, their "regular" phones use Internet...
As for producers not owing anything [...] you know nothing of copyright history.
Alright, what do Quentin Tarantino and Clint Eastwood owe you?
I'll be continuing the civil disobedience
OMG, you really do equate your "civil disobedience" fighting for your "right" to free entertainment with that of Rosa Parks fighting racial discrimination... You want to steal — fine, live with it. But your desire to clean up your conscience and appear righteous leads to hilariously idiotic statements...
return the content to us as the laws require
Please, cite the law entitling you to the content other people created?
We're a Republic for the exact reason of "the people are stupid"
Very interesting... Could you elaborate on how Republic — and not a Democracy or Theocracy or whatever — is especially well-suited for the dumb population?
cannot be trusted to protect their own interests
Trusted by who? For better or worse, we certainly trusted ourselves and picked a man, everyone of our "betters" was telling us not to elect.
That man is now doing, what his voters wanted — wow!
My comma-usage was developed while studying Ukrainian and Russian grammars, which do require commas just as I used them. Your nit-picking needs a trigger-warning, you English-centric bully!!!!!
So Americans, go look in the mirror and consider that this budget, as a nation, reflects you.
Yep. As we've been saying for 150 years: Government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.
Maybe, other nations prefer to be governed by the benevolent and omniscient elites, who know, what's good for their subjects better, than the subjects themselves do. But we here prefer the government, that follows the will of the people, however dumb.
None of which mention anything about making available.
You really want to split hairs and be formal about it — fine. You aren't sold a piece of entertainment. What you get for your money is a right (a license) to enjoy it. One of the conditions of that license is that you do not make it available to anyone else. By making it available you violate the contract — knowingly and willingly — and should be screwed to the wall for it.
right next to Rosa Parks cheering
Ha-ha! Rosa Parks was actually breaking a law — an unjust one. The "pirates" — as you yourself pointed out — enter into a contract voluntarily, then renege on it. Not buying the license you consider overly restrictive is a valid form of protest. Violating the contract is not.
who is actually doing the thieving
You are the thief. The movie-makers don't owe you anything. If you don't like their movies — or the conditions under which they distribute them — you don't have to partake of any of it. It is not even food or shelter or anything required for survival.
Yeah, but a 1990's style flaw in 2017? It's like they're not even trying.
No one is trying, it seems. Except Amazon — the only online seller I know, with advanced features like order-correction after placement, etc.
Maybe, Samsung really should quit trying — stick to manufacturing, which is their area of expertise, and leave retail sales to professionals in that area.
An example of why this is broken is that the term "made available".
It is illegal to be making such copies available — because duly-elected lawmakers decided to illegalize it. The judge(s), who are supposed to interpret the law, did interpret it...
Show me the economic damages that specific person caused
I don't have to show you anything. It is illegal to allow others to copy the media, period. But, interestingly, your argument is similar to something, spammers would claim: "just press Delete — you haven't lost anything".
THAT is how law-abiding society is supposed to work.
No, that's a society of thieves you are talking about.
How, then, has the court heard both sides of the case?
Informally, this is hardly a unique situation — in many cases lawsuits are filed against parties unknown at the time of filing, their very identities subject to discovery. See also "John Doe".
Formally, the two sides, obviously, are the ISP and the (supposedly) injured party. Once the user-identities are known, separate suits will be filed against them and the court will hear their side, no doubt.
"There is probable cause of infringement of copyright in the films in that they were unlawfully made available to the public via file sharing networks," the Court wrote in its judgement.
It would've been understandable, if the users were deanonymized by police or other parties directly — such as through bullying of some kind.
But this is a court's decision — the judge(s) heard both sides and rendered judgment. This is how a law-abiding society is supposed to work...
I am saying that it's rational, when denied of living, to try to kill and steal to get it.
Oh, this is awesome! So, refusing to buy something — such as labor — from you justifies theft and even murder, in your opinion? This is the only interpretation of the quoted sentence, that makes sense in the context of the employment-discrimination...
I know that libertarians think that somalia is an utopia
No, we don't. This is a stupid meme invented by Illiberal morons, who project their own flaws on others and fail to recognize assholes of their own kind. Somalia was a Collectivist "paradise" — and that is, what lead to its current state. The path, I might add, Venezuela — a darling of Socialists world-wide — is now walkingdown on as well.
prefer to actually have a society where everyone can survive, even without working
If you wish to support those, who can not support themselves, you are welcome to share your own earnings with them. But there is no moral/ethical justification to compel the rest of us — at the government's gun-point, which is how taxes are collected — to help anyone.
Whether they are destitute through no fault of their own or otherwise, the rest of us do not owe them anything. You can appeal to us to help those, you deem worthy of helping, but you must not be able to force us.
rather than face a much higher level of crime.
Ah! So it is not the benevolence, that drives you to help others out, but simply fear of criminals? Nice, for a second there I thought, I'm talking to Mother Theresa (reincarnated). Well, here are some numbers for you... The total cost of crime in the US is about $200 bln/year. The annual cost of the "War on Poverty" is four times that. So, if we eliminate those expenditures entirely — and the crime-levels as much triple, we'd still be saving a few hundred billion dollars a year.
That said, this has nothing to do with discrimination — real or imagined — so let's not get sidetracked.
Is it really wrong to call you a nazi at this point?
National Socialist? You really are in denial about your own self. Those Collectivists also — like you — worshiped the State and expected it to provide them with everything: Education, Healthcare, Pensions... Unlike Socialists — of all stripes — Libertarians advocate for the Individual, however cantankerous, above the Collective, however Glorious.
So far, we've established, that you are a Socialist and that you approve of killing, when people don't want to hire you or otherwise supply you with "living". If you want to see a Nazi, look into a mirror...
We lost that ground, when you implied, somebody owes you a living... That's simply not true — if you can't find something to do, that somebody else is willing to pay for, then you aren't useful on this Earth...
they can look at individual apartment buildings and decide that the demographic living in that building is too poor, or too likely to chose the competition
Well, that would seem like a perfectly normal line of reasoning — why sue them over it?
But I doubt, that's the full reason. In the suburbs of NYC they are perfectly willing to hook-up individual standalone houses — a proposition that seems costlier, than wiring even a small share (like 10%) of apartments in a building. They are willing compete with other providers too. Indeed, my monthly FiOS fee is the same today as it was 6 years ago, but the throughput is up from 35Mbps up/down to 75Mbps — because they are well aware of the "introductory offers" I am getting from Comcast.
So, why are they willing to "leave the money on the table" in NYC? I think, this story indicates, there is no money on the table there — that the city's regulatory climate is so suffocating, only the highest-paying customers get served. This explanation would be consistent with what we already know about the culpability of local governments for the dearth of Internet-service options, and with Google Fiber's unwillingness to touch NYC and other large (hence corrupt) cities with a 10-feet pole...
contends he was discriminated against because the company "requires its male employees to be the stereotypical male breadwinner"
Voila — a perfectly legal dismissal becomes an issue of "equality". The lawyer, obviously, studied "Social Justice" better than the Law. And Social Justice is to Justice, what Guinea Pig is to Pig...
raises interesting questions, such as whether employment law requires corporations to have the sort of common decency we expect from individuals
It is not an "interesting question", because the answer is an obvious "No".
What is interesting, however, is that though we may expect it, we do not legally require such decency from individuals. Anybody advocating for making it mandatory for corporations, should try it on themselves first.
If a girl can spurn 4 Black guys and go out with an Asian without fear of being prosecuted for racial discrimination, no employer should fear such prosecution either.
That's an argument to repeal the 26th Amendment and allow the states to up the voting age back to where it was before Vietnam War. Back then it was lowered under the questionable argument "Old enough to die, old enough to vote."
However invalid it always has been, that argument is simply moot now that there is no military draft... Of course, the Illiberal kind want the voting age lowered even further — to 16 and even 14.
The truth is, age should not be the deciding factor — as it is a poor indicator of maturity. Pompey celebrated his first triumph before qualifying to sit in the Senate...
With my proposal, we could eliminate it altogether — whoever can do those two things I listed, gets to vote even if they were just born (or, Heaven forfend, aborted).
Citations? Comey didn't offer a break-down... Because it is irrelevant.
were not put there by her - they were sent to her by others.
At her obvious behest. BTW, did you know, you can be prosecuted for possession child pornography, for example, if such is simply found in your e-mail? That you didn't put it there — and it was sent to you by others will not save you...
Y'know, like the one that brought Flynn down
An attempt to change subject detected and crushed.
deliberate took pictures of equipment he was specifically prohibited from photographing with intent to distribute the pictures to people who were not cleared to see them
Citation needed. AFAIK, he took the pictures solely as personal mementos — without "intent distribute". Indeed, no such intent. Still illegal, of course...
Hillary, on the other hand has been crucified because she received several emails that contained, improperly marked, classified information over the course of her four years at the State Department.
"Several", huh? Why would you lie on something so easily verifiable? Let's see:
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
And there could have been more — we do not know for sure, because she ordered her e-mail server purged upon receiving a subpoena. The purging was not entirely successful, and the FBI found a few more among those, that it was able to obtain despite Hillary's best efforts of destroying evidence:
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.
Now "crucified"? Drama Queen much? She was not even prosecuted — much less convicted and punished. Don't you think, "crucified" is a bit of an overstatement? I mean, the term means death penalty — by very painful and slow means...
Material that the State department is on record saying it does not believe should have ever been classified.
First, the claims such as yours, are meaningless without a citation of that alleged "record".
Second, even if there were, in fact, on such a record, it would hardly be vindicating, that the State Department still headed by a Democrat would say anything else to help the Democratic nominee for President.
Because everyone who isn't blinded by partisanship does.
That reliably excludes present company, does not it?
But, yes, I do see the difference — a sailor is facing 5-7 years in prison for a few photographs that no enemy ever saw. Clinton is "crucified" by nothing for making thousands of classified messages (with different levels of classification) accessible to enemies. The opportunity they, most likely, have used:
we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of
Millions of people have personal and work e-mails. That's perfectly normal. We can even use the personal ones for work-related issues, as our work and personal lives are often intertwined.
Hillary Clinton's crime was in using her unsecured server for classified information — in willful and reckless disregard of the law and the security requirements.
If storing the classified material on her private server was not a "conscious, voluntary act,"
Begging the question, aren't you? That's a giant "if"... And the answer to the question you are begging is, "no". Because it was a "conscious, voluntary act" by Hillary Clinton.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. That's how I feel about horse-back riding myself — why can't the government provide the nice stables and other infrastructure necessary for easier travel in a saddle?
Back to "telegraph"... One of our family's numerous grandfathers, himself Internet-literate, used to "share" Internet-articles by printing them and mailing the print-outs to his computer-illiterate friend in a different city... For better or worse, there is no such option in any of the "social" <div>s and <span>s out there...
Translation: The political system is broken, because my candidate lost. FTFY...
I guess, the costs of maintaining the wires and the rest of the land-line infrastructure are largely fixed. So, as people — primarily younger ones, according to TFA — drop their traditional land lines entirely, the remaining customers see their fees increased.
Nothing to see here, nothing to do about it. Whoever feels sufficiently compassionate to "do something about it" can subsidize their favorite senior(s) directly — or help them switch to a cell-phone, etc.. I've switched two elderly couples I feel responsible for to IP-telephony years ago — they had mobile phones already — and now they don't even know, their "regular" phones use Internet...
Alright, what do Quentin Tarantino and Clint Eastwood owe you?
OMG, you really do equate your "civil disobedience" fighting for your "right" to free entertainment with that of Rosa Parks fighting racial discrimination... You want to steal — fine, live with it. But your desire to clean up your conscience and appear righteous leads to hilariously idiotic statements...
Please, cite the law entitling you to the content other people created?
Very interesting... Could you elaborate on how Republic — and not a Democracy or Theocracy or whatever — is especially well-suited for the dumb population?
Trusted by who? For better or worse, we certainly trusted ourselves and picked a man, everyone of our "betters" was telling us not to elect.
That man is now doing, what his voters wanted — wow!
My comma-usage was developed while studying Ukrainian and Russian grammars, which do require commas just as I used them. Your nit-picking needs a trigger-warning, you English-centric bully!!!!!
Yep. As we've been saying for 150 years: Government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.
Maybe, other nations prefer to be governed by the benevolent and omniscient elites, who know, what's good for their subjects better, than the subjects themselves do. But we here prefer the government, that follows the will of the people, however dumb.
You really want to split hairs and be formal about it — fine. You aren't sold a piece of entertainment. What you get for your money is a right (a license) to enjoy it. One of the conditions of that license is that you do not make it available to anyone else. By making it available you violate the contract — knowingly and willingly — and should be screwed to the wall for it.
Ha-ha! Rosa Parks was actually breaking a law — an unjust one. The "pirates" — as you yourself pointed out — enter into a contract voluntarily, then renege on it. Not buying the license you consider overly restrictive is a valid form of protest. Violating the contract is not.
You are the thief. The movie-makers don't owe you anything. If you don't like their movies — or the conditions under which they distribute them — you don't have to partake of any of it. It is not even food or shelter or anything required for survival.
No one is trying, it seems. Except Amazon — the only online seller I know, with advanced features like order-correction after placement, etc.
Maybe, Samsung really should quit trying — stick to manufacturing, which is their area of expertise, and leave retail sales to professionals in that area.
It is illegal to be making such copies available — because duly-elected lawmakers decided to illegalize it. The judge(s), who are supposed to interpret the law, did interpret it...
I don't have to show you anything. It is illegal to allow others to copy the media, period. But, interestingly, your argument is similar to something, spammers would claim: "just press Delete — you haven't lost anything".
No, that's a society of thieves you are talking about.
Informally, this is hardly a unique situation — in many cases lawsuits are filed against parties unknown at the time of filing, their very identities subject to discovery. See also "John Doe".
Formally, the two sides, obviously, are the ISP and the (supposedly) injured party. Once the user-identities are known, separate suits will be filed against them and the court will hear their side, no doubt.
It would've been understandable, if the users were deanonymized by police or other parties directly — such as through bullying of some kind.
But this is a court's decision — the judge(s) heard both sides and rendered judgment. This is how a law-abiding society is supposed to work...
It can't be copyrighted, and it is not (any longer) private information either... Is there a torrent or something?
Oh, this is awesome! So, refusing to buy something — such as labor — from you justifies theft and even murder, in your opinion? This is the only interpretation of the quoted sentence, that makes sense in the context of the employment-discrimination...
No, we don't. This is a stupid meme invented by Illiberal morons, who project their own flaws on others and fail to recognize assholes of their own kind. Somalia was a Collectivist "paradise" — and that is, what lead to its current state. The path, I might add, Venezuela — a darling of Socialists world-wide — is now walking down on as well.
If you wish to support those, who can not support themselves, you are welcome to share your own earnings with them. But there is no moral/ethical justification to compel the rest of us — at the government's gun-point, which is how taxes are collected — to help anyone.
Whether they are destitute through no fault of their own or otherwise, the rest of us do not owe them anything. You can appeal to us to help those, you deem worthy of helping, but you must not be able to force us.
Ah! So it is not the benevolence, that drives you to help others out, but simply fear of criminals? Nice, for a second there I thought, I'm talking to Mother Theresa (reincarnated). Well, here are some numbers for you... The total cost of crime in the US is about $200 bln/year. The annual cost of the "War on Poverty" is four times that. So, if we eliminate those expenditures entirely — and the crime-levels as much triple, we'd still be saving a few hundred billion dollars a year.
That said, this has nothing to do with discrimination — real or imagined — so let's not get sidetracked.
National Socialist? You really are in denial about your own self. Those Collectivists also — like you — worshiped the State and expected it to provide them with everything: Education, Healthcare, Pensions... Unlike Socialists — of all stripes — Libertarians advocate for the Individual, however cantankerous, above the Collective, however Glorious.
So far, we've established, that you are a Socialist and that you approve of killing, when people don't want to hire you or otherwise supply you with "living". If you want to see a Nazi, look into a mirror...
We lost that ground, when you implied, somebody owes you a living... That's simply not true — if you can't find something to do, that somebody else is willing to pay for, then you aren't useful on this Earth...
Well, that would seem like a perfectly normal line of reasoning — why sue them over it?
But I doubt, that's the full reason. In the suburbs of NYC they are perfectly willing to hook-up individual standalone houses — a proposition that seems costlier, than wiring even a small share (like 10%) of apartments in a building. They are willing compete with other providers too. Indeed, my monthly FiOS fee is the same today as it was 6 years ago, but the throughput is up from 35Mbps up/down to 75Mbps — because they are well aware of the "introductory offers" I am getting from Comcast.
So, why are they willing to "leave the money on the table" in NYC? I think, this story indicates, there is no money on the table there — that the city's regulatory climate is so suffocating, only the highest-paying customers get served. This explanation would be consistent with what we already know about the culpability of local governments for the dearth of Internet-service options, and with Google Fiber's unwillingness to touch NYC and other large (hence corrupt) cities with a 10-feet pole...
Indeed, but why? NYC is a very thickly settled area — which is normally a dream for Internet-service providers. The high population density is usually cited as the reason for better Internet-service options.
So, why is NYC an exception?
Well, they entered into it under an obvious duress — so I wouldn't blame them too much.
Oh yeah?..
WTF does this have to do with anything? Non sequitur much?
Another non sequitur...
Better not entrust this goal to the government — or it will never be achieved.
In Soviet New York, evil greedy KKKorporation$ do not want your money.
I wonder, why...
Voila — a perfectly legal dismissal becomes an issue of "equality". The lawyer, obviously, studied "Social Justice" better than the Law. And Social Justice is to Justice, what Guinea Pig is to Pig...
It is not an "interesting question", because the answer is an obvious "No".
What is interesting, however, is that though we may expect it, we do not legally require such decency from individuals. Anybody advocating for making it mandatory for corporations, should try it on themselves first.
If a girl can spurn 4 Black guys and go out with an Asian without fear of being prosecuted for racial discrimination, no employer should fear such prosecution either.
That's an argument to repeal the 26th Amendment and allow the states to up the voting age back to where it was before Vietnam War. Back then it was lowered under the questionable argument "Old enough to die, old enough to vote."
However invalid it always has been, that argument is simply moot now that there is no military draft... Of course, the Illiberal kind want the voting age lowered even further — to 16 and even 14.
The truth is, age should not be the deciding factor — as it is a poor indicator of maturity. Pompey celebrated his first triumph before qualifying to sit in the Senate...
With my proposal, we could eliminate it altogether — whoever can do those two things I listed, gets to vote even if they were just born (or, Heaven forfend, aborted).
Citations? Comey didn't offer a break-down... Because it is irrelevant.
At her obvious behest. BTW, did you know, you can be prosecuted for possession child pornography, for example, if such is simply found in your e-mail? That you didn't put it there — and it was sent to you by others will not save you...
An attempt to change subject detected and crushed.
Citation needed. AFAIK, he took the pictures solely as personal mementos — without "intent distribute". Indeed, no such intent. Still illegal, of course...
"Several", huh? Why would you lie on something so easily verifiable? Let's see:
And there could have been more — we do not know for sure, because she ordered her e-mail server purged upon receiving a subpoena. The purging was not entirely successful, and the FBI found a few more among those, that it was able to obtain despite Hillary's best efforts of destroying evidence:
Now "crucified"? Drama Queen much? She was not even prosecuted — much less convicted and punished. Don't you think, "crucified" is a bit of an overstatement? I mean, the term means death penalty — by very painful and slow means...
First, the claims such as yours, are meaningless without a citation of that alleged "record".
Second, even if there were, in fact, on such a record, it would hardly be vindicating, that the State Department still headed by a Democrat would say anything else to help the Democratic nominee for President.
That reliably excludes present company, does not it?
But, yes, I do see the difference — a sailor is facing 5-7 years in prison for a few photographs that no enemy ever saw. Clinton is "crucified" by nothing for making thousands of classified messages (with different levels of classification) accessible to enemies. The opportunity they, most likely, have used:
Millions of people have personal and work e-mails. That's perfectly normal. We can even use the personal ones for work-related issues, as our work and personal lives are often intertwined.
Hillary Clinton's crime was in using her unsecured server for classified information — in willful and reckless disregard of the law and the security requirements.
Begging the question, aren't you? That's a giant "if"... And the answer to the question you are begging is, "no". Because it was a "conscious, voluntary act" by Hillary Clinton.
Here is a guy prosecuted for a much less-important violation of the same: http://legalinsurrection.com/2...