The phone is mine and what happens to it is something I should have control about. This is an issue of privacy and personality rights. I have the right not to be harrassed in my home. Even if I don't answer the phone, it's still going to ring and interrupt whatever I am doing at that moment to find out who it is that's calling.
I should have every right to call you for any purpose
No, you shouldn't have the right to call me for a certain purpose if I specifically state that I do not want to be called for that certain purpose. In the case of the DNC list, that certain purpose is the establishment of a sale.
FCC rules alread prohibit any telemarketer from calling your cell phone precisely because you are paying for the call. If this happens to you again, I would suggest a complaint with the BBB or FTC.
They are losing the kind of "customers" that don't really want to buy anything but will anyway just to get them off their back. That number of people is frighteningly high.
Personally, I don't think the RIAA or MPAA lawyers have any position on this subject whatsoever. I'd rather imagine them to be of whatever position their clients are. The legal opinions of lawyers are of no significance if they are working to represent their clients.
This is a world-shattering, watershed event, yet has the poorest investigative climate I've ever seen for a major issue (vs. Lewinsky for instance).
This is what bugs me the most. Six years ago we spent millions of dollars on an investigation concerning whatever sexual relations the president did or did not have and which ones he did or did not lie about. Yet, when there's over 3,000 casualties, we get an investigation that's even less supported both by finances as well as by personnel than what we spent on trying to find the Oklahoma bomber. It's nuts. And if there's somebody out there who doesn't think there's something shady going on here, he must have the famous "sh*t for brains".
Really? So you and I shouldn't be able to make whatever agreement between us we want as long as it doesn't affect any third party who is not a willing participant?
Exactly. There are situations where the positions of the two parties to a contract are highly disparate. If, for example, all commercial airlines to tape the insides of their planes and kept the tapes for ten years, there's not much you as an individual you can do about it. Your bargaining power is considerably lower than that of the airline companies which make more money in a year than most people in their life.
Is that fair? No. Is that right? No, not at all. You referred to situations where such contracts come to be voluntarily, but an instance like this is not strictly voluntary. If you are in Miami and need to get to Denver by the next day, you don't really have much of a choice than fly. The airline companies would be taking advantage of your little bargaining power and it's the government's job to prevent that.
This is the same reason that you can expect to get your damages reimbursed, when you use your lawn mower as instructed and it explodes in your face. Even if the manufacturer expressly stated in its T&C that they are not liable for any damages their products cause with no exception, they are still held liable--and rightly so.
I think people missed the whole point of these cameras intirely. By having cameras if and when something happens there is something to show what heppened. As it was i was thinking the other day they need cameras with live feeds to the ground and a screen in the cockpit. If someone tries to do something both the pilots know and the ground.
There's a big difference between taping the inside of an airplane and keeping the same tapes for ten years. Why is there a need to keep them that long?
Why must people turn everything into a privacy invasion when it's not anything close to being that and is simple a good thing.
Because nobody else does. The US government certainly does not seem to be too concerned with privacy. There's such a thing as informational self-determination. That concept says that I as an individual should be the owner of all information about me and that, as such, I should have the absolute right to determine what happens with said information (short special government purposes like crime investigation). As a result, there should be no SSN used by virtually everybody for purposes of identification and there should be no sharing of non-anonymous data between companies unless I expressly agree to that. And there should be nobody making pictures or other records of me that can be directly traced back to me without my permission. It's a fairly simple concept, really. Privacy is not about "what do you have to hide" but it's a precursor to personal liberty.
They can draw and sketch anything they want except for stuff about me. All information about me belongs to me and except for some designated government purposes (like prosecution in a crime or taxes), I should have every right to determine what happens with that information. What I want other people to know about me is purely my decision and nobody else's.
You have no right to privacy on someone elses private property, except where excluded by law.
Yeah, you're probably right here. But where I do have a right of privacy is outside of that private property. And while they might have the right to observe me on the plane, they have no right to keep documentation of that observation once I leave the plane.
There is a little more to it than that. If you read all the way to the end, you will see that the state employee also mentions, that the content of the book may violate German law.
For all intents and purposes, distributing unambigiously neo-nazi and fascist material with the intent of removing the basic democratic order, whether expressed or implied, is illegal and will be punished by the courts. That's not a new thing. It's actually been that way since 1949. And, personally, I don't mind it.
Um, that first line was a quote from the posting right above mine. I thought I put it in the right tags but it didn't turn out right. Either way, my posting was supposd to rebut that statement. I agree with what you saying absolutely.
Do we really want the government to say that we don't have the *freedom* to make such binding contracts and promises?
This is already the case in many non-US jurisdictions. German law, for example, does not allow you to sign away your copyright to anything you create. Copyrights are never transferrable but, of course, you can get a license to use the material. Similarly, you can't give away your right to a court hearing (making binding arbitration an impossibility in such a jurisdiction).
I think that some stuff you ought not be able to give away. Otherwise, you as an individual might find yourself at a disadvantage at the bargaining table. If, for example, software company A had a large market share and as part of its sales agreements stipulates that everything you create with that software automatically belongs to company A, you wouldn't have much power to bargain here. Either you accept the terms or your don't use the product. That kind of unfair advantags is what such legal restrictions are supposed to prevent.
It is illegal to abuse the legal system to cause damage to legal entities by filing suits with no merit. That's why a class action law suit may actually have a chance in this case.
Because you have to prove that he was indeed planning to steal the satellite signal. How DirecTV plans to do that escapes me.
Personally, I don't believe that there's any merit in these cases. DirecTV knows that too but is obviously willing to take advantage of the current FUD around piracy and copyright infringement. I wouldn't be surprised if more people like Sosa decided to cough up the $3500 instead of defend against the claims and cough up the most likely much higher legal fees.
Copyright terms are practically infinite at this time. Every time the copyrights of certain pieces of art were close to expiration, Congress has been lobbied--successfully--that copyright terms be extended. The Sono-Bono-Act was the most recent example of that. There have been no additions to the public domains due to copyright expiration since the mid 20th century. So, for all intents and purposes, copyright is indeed perpetual.
Meanwhile, creating a concerto (or even a hair-band rock ballad, *sigh*) requires hours of effort, gobs of money, and it belongs to the people who create it. They get to determine how its distributed.
...for a limited time. The idea was that the public would grant the creator of a piece of art (including music) the exclusive right to distribute it for a limited amount of time. That's not true anymore.
They just do, mostly out of respect for the union. There haven't really been any instances where the member states refused to pay fines levied against them. However, I am not knowledgeable enough to say whether there are any other sanctions or not and how they are enforced.
No. There are no provisions for a country to leave the European Union. The usual consequence for uncompliance are hefty fines in the range of 9 digits.
Slashdot Mirror
The phone is mine and what happens to it is something I should have control about. This is an issue of privacy and personality rights. I have the right not to be harrassed in my home. Even if I don't answer the phone, it's still going to ring and interrupt whatever I am doing at that moment to find out who it is that's calling.
I should have every right to call you for any purpose
No, you shouldn't have the right to call me for a certain purpose if I specifically state that I do not want to be called for that certain purpose. In the case of the DNC list, that certain purpose is the establishment of a sale.
FCC rules alread prohibit any telemarketer from calling your cell phone precisely because you are paying for the call. If this happens to you again, I would suggest a complaint with the BBB or FTC.
They are losing the kind of "customers" that don't really want to buy anything but will anyway just to get them off their back. That number of people is frighteningly high.
What exactly do you mean by "miranda stuff"?
Personally, I don't think the RIAA or MPAA lawyers have any position on this subject whatsoever. I'd rather imagine them to be of whatever position their clients are. The legal opinions of lawyers are of no significance if they are working to represent their clients.
This is a world-shattering, watershed event, yet has the poorest investigative climate I've ever seen for a major issue (vs. Lewinsky for instance).
This is what bugs me the most. Six years ago we spent millions of dollars on an investigation concerning whatever sexual relations the president did or did not have and which ones he did or did not lie about. Yet, when there's over 3,000 casualties, we get an investigation that's even less supported both by finances as well as by personnel than what we spent on trying to find the Oklahoma bomber. It's nuts. And if there's somebody out there who doesn't think there's something shady going on here, he must have the famous "sh*t for brains".
Really? So you and I shouldn't be able to make whatever agreement between us we want as long as it doesn't affect any third party who is not a willing participant?
Exactly. There are situations where the positions of the two parties to a contract are highly disparate. If, for example, all commercial airlines to tape the insides of their planes and kept the tapes for ten years, there's not much you as an individual you can do about it. Your bargaining power is considerably lower than that of the airline companies which make more money in a year than most people in their life.
Is that fair? No. Is that right? No, not at all. You referred to situations where such contracts come to be voluntarily, but an instance like this is not strictly voluntary. If you are in Miami and need to get to Denver by the next day, you don't really have much of a choice than fly. The airline companies would be taking advantage of your little bargaining power and it's the government's job to prevent that.
This is the same reason that you can expect to get your damages reimbursed, when you use your lawn mower as instructed and it explodes in your face. Even if the manufacturer expressly stated in its T&C that they are not liable for any damages their products cause with no exception, they are still held liable--and rightly so.
I think people missed the whole point of these cameras intirely. By having cameras if and when something happens there is something to show what heppened. As it was i was thinking the other day they need cameras with live feeds to the ground and a screen in the cockpit. If someone tries to do something both the pilots know and the ground.
There's a big difference between taping the inside of an airplane and keeping the same tapes for ten years. Why is there a need to keep them that long?
Why must people turn everything into a privacy invasion when it's not anything close to being that and is simple a good thing.
Because nobody else does. The US government certainly does not seem to be too concerned with privacy. There's such a thing as informational self-determination. That concept says that I as an individual should be the owner of all information about me and that, as such, I should have the absolute right to determine what happens with said information (short special government purposes like crime investigation). As a result, there should be no SSN used by virtually everybody for purposes of identification and there should be no sharing of non-anonymous data between companies unless I expressly agree to that. And there should be nobody making pictures or other records of me that can be directly traced back to me without my permission. It's a fairly simple concept, really. Privacy is not about "what do you have to hide" but it's a precursor to personal liberty.
They can draw and sketch anything they want except for stuff about me. All information about me belongs to me and except for some designated government purposes (like prosecution in a crime or taxes), I should have every right to determine what happens with that information. What I want other people to know about me is purely my decision and nobody else's.
You have no right to privacy on someone elses private property, except where excluded by law.
Yeah, you're probably right here. But where I do have a right of privacy is outside of that private property. And while they might have the right to observe me on the plane, they have no right to keep documentation of that observation once I leave the plane.
There is a little more to it than that. If you read all the way to the end, you will see that the state employee also mentions, that the content of the book may violate German law.
For all intents and purposes, distributing unambigiously neo-nazi and fascist material with the intent of removing the basic democratic order, whether expressed or implied, is illegal and will be punished by the courts. That's not a new thing. It's actually been that way since 1949. And, personally, I don't mind it.
Um, there're really just 16.
Um, that first line was a quote from the posting right above mine. I thought I put it in the right tags but it didn't turn out right. Either way, my posting was supposd to rebut that statement. I agree with what you saying absolutely.
This is already the case in many non-US jurisdictions. German law, for example, does not allow you to sign away your copyright to anything you create. Copyrights are never transferrable but, of course, you can get a license to use the material. Similarly, you can't give away your right to a court hearing (making binding arbitration an impossibility in such a jurisdiction).
I think that some stuff you ought not be able to give away. Otherwise, you as an individual might find yourself at a disadvantage at the bargaining table. If, for example, software company A had a large market share and as part of its sales agreements stipulates that everything you create with that software automatically belongs to company A, you wouldn't have much power to bargain here. Either you accept the terms or your don't use the product. That kind of unfair advantags is what such legal restrictions are supposed to prevent.
It is illegal to abuse the legal system to cause damage to legal entities by filing suits with no merit. That's why a class action law suit may actually have a chance in this case.
Because you have to prove that he was indeed planning to steal the satellite signal. How DirecTV plans to do that escapes me.
Personally, I don't believe that there's any merit in these cases. DirecTV knows that too but is obviously willing to take advantage of the current FUD around piracy and copyright infringement. I wouldn't be surprised if more people like Sosa decided to cough up the $3500 instead of defend against the claims and cough up the most likely much higher legal fees.
Copyright terms are practically infinite at this time. Every time the copyrights of certain pieces of art were close to expiration, Congress has been lobbied--successfully--that copyright terms be extended. The Sono-Bono-Act was the most recent example of that. There have been no additions to the public domains due to copyright expiration since the mid 20th century. So, for all intents and purposes, copyright is indeed perpetual.
...for a limited time. The idea was that the public would grant the creator of a piece of art (including music) the exclusive right to distribute it for a limited amount of time. That's not true anymore.
Good morning. They are both the same thing.
Thank you. And here I was afraid thinking that I'm the only who thought of this as a prviacy problem.
They just do, mostly out of respect for the union. There haven't really been any instances where the member states refused to pay fines levied against them. However, I am not knowledgeable enough to say whether there are any other sanctions or not and how they are enforced.
No. There are no provisions for a country to leave the European Union. The usual consequence for uncompliance are hefty fines in the range of 9 digits.
References have many good uses outside of argument lists. I wouldn't want to miss them.
This is a mutuallly dependent process. Java and C# got large parts of their syntax and semantics from C and C++.