I see. You just hoisted yourself on your own petard.
If U.S. copyright law does not have a democratic background, then no law in the United States of America has a democratic background because it is the Constitution which provides for both the copyright law and the Congress that makes said law.
In essence you are saying that the United States of America is not a democratic republic and so all it's laws are invalid.
No, it is not semantics. He only found it offensive because he was trying to use public space for private activity.
Would he have found it offensive if he had not been performing a private act? No, he would not have even noticed the camera was there. He only cared when he felt it invaded his (non-existent) privacy.
That is not the same thing. In those action, the SWAT teams were attempting to serve a warrant to known armed and violent people. They went to the wrong house and something unfortunate happened. But, and this is the important part, the SWAT team was not serving a warrant on non-violent person.
You are a stupid, lying sack of shit for trying that one, asshole.
I guess that you believe it is acceptable for guilty people to kill innocent people and the police.
Yes, those people you capture on your cameraphone are choosing to share their actions with others when you put it on YouTube.
Your argument fails because you assume that people are only putting up video of themselves doing things. You forget about the people who film others and about those who film themselves doing things to others and put the video on the internet without those others' consent.
I see you don't have a clue about the origin of copyright. Copyright didn't come into being because it was hard to make copies. It came into being because the creative act itself was and is hard.
Nice of you to equate allowing someone to profit from his work to ancient laws allowing a "lord" to rape women. It shows exactly how much of a lying shit you really are. Why don't you equate denying people the right to rape children with denying people the right to own property?
That system has been used to get the populace comfortable with constant surveillance. Prove that.
Like all the Cops like shows that make it seem perfectly fine, ordinary and routine that full SWAT teams are used to serve warrants for lots of non-violent crimes. Prove this. Every time I have seen a SWAT team used to serve a warrant, it was to serve a warrant on a known to be armed, violent offender, normally a drug dealer and/or gang member.
You are an idiot, a paranoid idiot actually. Please grow up and take your meds.
I have however had one objection; I caught one blatantly checking me and one ex-girlfriend "making out" (let's say) in a park once. I guess you shouldn't have been "making out" in a public place. You had no expectation of privacy, so you have no reason to be upset.
Re:Surveillance isn't really an impediment on free
on
CCTVs Don't Work in the UK
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Americans are really big on the right to privacy, so being recorded as soon as you step outside your house is a huge loss of freedom for us. As an American, I call bullshit on you. If we Americans thought being recorded was a "huge loss of freedom", then we would not be running around with camcorders and cameraphones posting videos on YouTube and MySpace and everywhere else on the Internet.
No, Americans' big problem with being recorded has nothing to do with liberty and freedom. It has everything to do with being a record of their stupidity, bad behavior, and criminality. And, even then, most people only care about it if it impacts them negatively.
So, it is your contention that if someone is physically attacked and incapacitated but not robbed, finding that person and gathering the evidence at the scene will not help solve the crime.
The consequences of the government invading an individual's privacy is the destruction of the foundation of our entire government. No, it is not, because the foundation of our entire government is not total privacy for all. The foundation of our entire government is liberty and freedom for all. One does not necessarily need total privacy to have liberty and freedom.
To dismiss the car analogy, people complain all the time about cars that are "lemons" and cars that don't hold their value, and cars that have poor layouts, uncomfortable seats, rust easily.
While all cars can all drive on the same roads, not all cars can pull a boat, or go fast safely, or hold six adults comfortably, or use diesel. Also, it may not be able to get an option or accessory available on one car model for a different car make or model. This boils down to roads==internet or roads==electricity.
All cars are not built to be compatible. Just try to bolt on some Chevy parts to a Ford or Toyota.
And, it is easy, if possibly expensive, to move from one car to another. The same can not be said of computer operating systems. This is because even if one bought a new computer, one would need copy over all one's data, get the same programs for that computer/OS or get a replacement program and convert the data to a format suitable for said replacement. And even then, one will have to learn to use the O/S and program, essentially having to learn to drive all over again.
Slashdot Mirror
I see. You just hoisted yourself on your own petard.
If U.S. copyright law does not have a democratic background, then no law in the United States of America has a democratic background because it is the Constitution which provides for both the copyright law and the Congress that makes said law.
In essence you are saying that the United States of America is not a democratic republic and so all it's laws are invalid.
That makes you a fool.
You are yet another person who is completely ignorant and tries to change the meaning of words to suit their argument.
Kind of like the creationist death cultists.
It is not name-calling if it is the truth. When it is the truth, it is merely a statement of fact.
And you seem to think that nothing should be done if there is a possibility of a mistake.
To err is human.
The only way such a mistake will never happen is to never serve a warrant or to allow the police to be gunned down while serving warrants.
Which do you choose?
I can just hear them now:
"This is not for researching pollution! They are secretly equipped with spy gadgets to watch everyone! They even have guns to secretly kill people!"
I will not stand for you trying to lie in your arguments.
The warrants are being served on the violent offenders. The warrants are being served at the wrong location.
Try not to be a worthless misrepresenting liar.
No, it is not semantics. He only found it offensive because he was trying to use public space for private activity.
Would he have found it offensive if he had not been performing a private act? No, he would not have even noticed the camera was there. He only cared when he felt it invaded his (non-existent) privacy.
And, I guess you believe that people shouldn't be allowed to defend their rights when said rights are violated, right?
After all, if copyright holders do not have the right to defend their rights, why should you, or anyone else, have the right to defend your rights?
Oh, wait, that would effect you and not someone else so you must believe that is wrong. Isn't that correct, you hypocrite?
That is not the same thing. In those action, the SWAT teams were attempting to serve a warrant to known armed and violent people. They went to the wrong house and something unfortunate happened. But, and this is the important part, the SWAT team was not serving a warrant on non-violent person.
You are a stupid, lying sack of shit for trying that one, asshole.
I guess that you believe it is acceptable for guilty people to kill innocent people and the police.
Yes, those people you capture on your cameraphone are choosing to share their actions with others when you put it on YouTube.
Your argument fails because you assume that people are only putting up video of themselves doing things. You forget about the people who film others and about those who film themselves doing things to others and put the video on the internet without those others' consent.
It was not it's presence he found offensive, but rather it's use to observe his public, and arguably illegal, sexual encounter.
I see you don't have a clue about the origin of copyright. Copyright didn't come into being because it was hard to make copies. It came into being because the creative act itself was and is hard.
Nice of you to equate allowing someone to profit from his work to ancient laws allowing a "lord" to rape women. It shows exactly how much of a lying shit you really are. Why don't you equate denying people the right to rape children with denying people the right to own property?
You are an idiot, a paranoid idiot actually. Please grow up and take your meds.
Hi, you are a dumb-ass.
Fair use is one of the limits on the right built into the law that granted the right.
Now please, shut the fuck up before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.
No, Americans' big problem with being recorded has nothing to do with liberty and freedom. It has everything to do with being a record of their stupidity, bad behavior, and criminality. And, even then, most people only care about it if it impacts them negatively.
Please show where this system has been used to oppress the populace.
Please show where this system has been used to violate the rights and liberty of the populace?
Their worry is people like you violating their rights.
Because so many people do not respect the rights of others, specifically the copy rights of others.
Copyright is a legal right granted by the government. Making an unauthorized copy is a violation of the copyright holders rights.
The NEETS books are also available B&N and Borders. I think Dover publishes them.
So, it is your contention that if someone is physically attacked and incapacitated but not robbed, finding that person and gathering the evidence at the scene will not help solve the crime.
Exactly how do you think crimes are solved?
To dismiss the car analogy, people complain all the time about cars that are "lemons" and cars that don't hold their value, and cars that have poor layouts, uncomfortable seats, rust easily.
While all cars can all drive on the same roads, not all cars can pull a boat, or go fast safely, or hold six adults comfortably, or use diesel. Also, it may not be able to get an option or accessory available on one car model for a different car make or model. This boils down to roads==internet or roads==electricity.
All cars are not built to be compatible. Just try to bolt on some Chevy parts to a Ford or Toyota.
And, it is easy, if possibly expensive, to move from one car to another. The same can not be said of computer operating systems. This is because even if one bought a new computer, one would need copy over all one's data, get the same programs for that computer/OS or get a replacement program and convert the data to a format suitable for said replacement. And even then, one will have to learn to use the O/S and program, essentially having to learn to drive all over again.
Your analogy fails miserably.
The problem comes up when one is trying to separate the good from the bad and the best from the good.
Or even trying to choose between the lesser of 5 or 10 evils
Having more choices is not necessarily a good thing.