While I suppose that can't hurt, I know that if I worked for one of those modern-day Pinkertons, I'd hire people to work from home and use plain old consumer cable modem and DSL connections.
It's something else to add to the list of charges if you're caught. Even if the copyright holder isn't interested in pursuing a criminal prosecution, a bought and paid-for district attorney can use this statute against you and the label/studio endures no bad publicity (a la Adobe).
The laws are wrong. They shouldn't move in and disregard the laws of China--but they should forgo business there rather than obey them. Of course, the bottom line is more important than human rights, so that will never happen. They're no better than war profiteers.
Yes, we do have the right. They're an American company and should be held to American standards. If they want to do business the Chinese way, they should start a Chinese company with seperate governance and seperate financials. That way, Americans who want to own stock in a treasonous enterprise can buy it (because it is unfortunately not illegal to invest in oppression), but those who don't can buy the U.S. stock.
Accomodating the PRC's censorship regime doesn't do one bit of good for the Chinese in the long run--isolating China and letting the PRC be replaced by its people was the correct path, but it wasn't very good for corporate bottom lines, so they're a "Most Favored Nation" while they censor what their people can read, torture Christains, and oppress the Falun Gong.
Since they use censoring proxies, they should be able to get by on just a few static IPs. And as the other posted pointed out, if they had created the network, they'd have gotten more addresses.
I like the idea of only natural persons, with strict limits, and auditability (i.e. if your employees all miraculously had the maximum amount to give and gave to the same politician, I'd better see your employees living large when I come to audit).
Perhaps even (up to the nominal maximum) a statutory limit on the donation amount based on income. For example, let the maximum individual donation be $1,000 per candidate per year, and be phased down for reported incomes of less than $50,000. That would help prevent the "I give you a $1,000 bonus for writing a $900 check to my 'friend's' campaign" scenario.
Sure, China and Korea would like billions upon billions of addresses, but that's because they've spammed their IPv4 address space into every blacklist on Earth.
Why not? The movie industry already claims you ownly have a license, and that if you own a Macrovisioned, CSSd, or other copy inhibited medium, that they won't provide a backup.
. . . the DRM components and the secret file format parsers. Besides, all those governments, if they're that paranoid, should each worry about the other twenty-nine governments that will all have access to the supposed source.
I'll believe it when the government of Randomistan announces that they received the source code and build tools, and have compiled a version that bit-for-bit matches the retail CD.
If this had been some kind of corporate "content," the guy who found and posted these pictures would already be in pre-trial detention and the skids for his trip to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison would be being greased. But the amateur photographer's copyright isn't worth the paper the Draconian DMCA, et al. are written on.
The newspaper editor isn't spending any money for his speech--it's an editorial. If an objective third party finds his editorial to have crossed the line into advertising, he will have been breaking the law. I've answered this a few times now:)!
I don't have a problem with an owner of a TV station doing a clearly marked editorial spot in favor of his favorite politician, either. Of course, if he runs a commercial, that's a contribution, and if his editorial spots have the flavor of a commercial, then he's afoul of the law or required to give equal time, or both. Those with the bucks shouldn't be free to completely saturate media they own with love for one candidate or party--in this case, the public interest trumps their ownership. That, and commercials or free coverage in the form of an "excessive" editorial would constitute an illegal campaign contribution as much as one in cash would.
Do I think such a proposal has a chance? Only if the current politicians wish to vote themselves out of power:).
Heh, but if you sell the editorial page, it's not an editorial page anymore. Laws don't have to be parseable to the letter--there can be commissions, etc. set up to apply common sense, and to determine the difference, say, between our hypothetical true editorial or an advertisement in disguise.
No, because it didn't involve you spending money on Tim's behalf or giving it to Tim's campaign. Anything past an editorial page (e.g. an advertising section) would be an in-kind contribution, though--as would a TV spot.
Tim is free to grant the meeting or not, with the distinct possibility of the money spigot drying up if he doesn't. It's still bribery and should still be banned, and doesn't affect "free speech" one iota. Money as speech is a corporate end run around democracy.
First amendment, my ass. Let them talk all they want--but make the bribery, a.k.a. campaign contributions, illegal. Money is not speech, it's grease on the gears of corruption.
Direct employee/employer negotiations destroys the illusion that the manna comes from the union.
Direct employee/employer negotion also allows the employer to take advantage of the inherent asymmetry of power of the employer-employee relationship. Unions take some of that asymmetry away, which is why employers hate them so.
This is similar to the shortage of programmers in 1999, and the shortage of engineers in 1989. Both have been rectified by outsourcing/H-1B. Let's hope nursing's licensure requirements are enough of a barrier to entry against legions of "guest workers" with nursing degrees from *istan.
If gcc-4.0 makes your source unusable, will you patch the compiler?
Maybe, maybe not. But while my chances of being able to fix gcc-4.0 may be infintessimal, they're infinitely higher than the (zero) chance of my being able to fix icc (legally).
Slashdot Mirror
While I suppose that can't hurt, I know that if I worked for one of those modern-day Pinkertons, I'd hire people to work from home and use plain old consumer cable modem and DSL connections.
It's something else to add to the list of charges if you're caught. Even if the copyright holder isn't interested in pursuing a criminal prosecution, a bought and paid-for district attorney can use this statute against you and the label/studio endures no bad publicity (a la Adobe).
Now all the Overpeers, Cyveillances, BayTSPs, and other black-helicopter traitor-to-freedom companies will be out in force on eMule.
The laws are wrong. They shouldn't move in and disregard the laws of China--but they should forgo business there rather than obey them. Of course, the bottom line is more important than human rights, so that will never happen. They're no better than war profiteers.
Accomodating the PRC's censorship regime doesn't do one bit of good for the Chinese in the long run--isolating China and letting the PRC be replaced by its people was the correct path, but it wasn't very good for corporate bottom lines, so they're a "Most Favored Nation" while they censor what their people can read, torture Christains, and oppress the Falun Gong.
Their executives should have a proper trial someplace like The Hague and if found guilty be hanged until dead for crimes against humanity.
Since they use censoring proxies, they should be able to get by on just a few static IPs. And as the other posted pointed out, if they had created the network, they'd have gotten more addresses.
Perhaps even (up to the nominal maximum) a statutory limit on the donation amount based on income. For example, let the maximum individual donation be $1,000 per candidate per year, and be phased down for reported incomes of less than $50,000. That would help prevent the "I give you a $1,000 bonus for writing a $900 check to my 'friend's' campaign" scenario.
Don't go confusing people's perceptions with actual references from the book :).
Sure, China and Korea would like billions upon billions of addresses, but that's because they've spammed their IPv4 address space into every blacklist on Earth.
Why not? The movie industry already claims you ownly have a license, and that if you own a Macrovisioned, CSSd, or other copy inhibited medium, that they won't provide a backup.
Whatever--you know you're twisting the idea around. In the world you advocate, only the rich have any real voice, so what would the difference be?
I'll believe it when the government of Randomistan announces that they received the source code and build tools, and have compiled a version that bit-for-bit matches the retail CD.
If this had been some kind of corporate "content," the guy who found and posted these pictures would already be in pre-trial detention and the skids for his trip to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison would be being greased. But the amateur photographer's copyright isn't worth the paper the Draconian DMCA, et al. are written on.
The newspaper editor isn't spending any money for his speech--it's an editorial. If an objective third party finds his editorial to have crossed the line into advertising, he will have been breaking the law. I've answered this a few times now :)!
Do I think such a proposal has a chance? Only if the current politicians wish to vote themselves out of power :).
Heh, but if you sell the editorial page, it's not an editorial page anymore. Laws don't have to be parseable to the letter--there can be commissions, etc. set up to apply common sense, and to determine the difference, say, between our hypothetical true editorial or an advertisement in disguise.
No, because it didn't involve you spending money on Tim's behalf or giving it to Tim's campaign. Anything past an editorial page (e.g. an advertising section) would be an in-kind contribution, though--as would a TV spot.
Tim is free to grant the meeting or not, with the distinct possibility of the money spigot drying up if he doesn't. It's still bribery and should still be banned, and doesn't affect "free speech" one iota. Money as speech is a corporate end run around democracy.
First amendment, my ass. Let them talk all they want--but make the bribery, a.k.a. campaign contributions, illegal. Money is not speech, it's grease on the gears of corruption.
Yup. On the left side, above and to the right of the Sun box.
I don't know which is worse--all the beer bottles, or that I noticed the VT-220 before noticing the beer bottles.
Direct employee/employer negotion also allows the employer to take advantage of the inherent asymmetry of power of the employer-employee relationship. Unions take some of that asymmetry away, which is why employers hate them so.
This is similar to the shortage of programmers in 1999, and the shortage of engineers in 1989. Both have been rectified by outsourcing/H-1B. Let's hope nursing's licensure requirements are enough of a barrier to entry against legions of "guest workers" with nursing degrees from *istan.
Maybe, maybe not. But while my chances of being able to fix gcc-4.0 may be infintessimal, they're infinitely higher than the (zero) chance of my being able to fix icc (legally).