...and the 'First Sale Doctrine' is basically what enables all of these "CD Trading" and "Used CD" shops.
Essentially it says that the copyright owner is entitled to compensation for the first sale ONLY. After that, they are not entitled to compensation every time thereafter the legal copy of that work changes hands.
I am sure you can Google "US Copyright Law First Sale Doctrine" and dig up the actual case briefs on this.
The right of integrity -- the author's right to prevent, in the words of Article 6bis of the Berne Convention -- the "distortion, mutilation, or any other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to [his or her] work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation" -- is a reflection of an important principle.
You can look for other posts by me on the subject.
I think the silent lobbyists pushing this are actually an arm of the brick and mortar casinos attempting to stifile competition. Remember big business likes big government because big government can legislate in favor of big business. This is why we need small and limited government.
You do realize that Congress has every right as laid out in the Constitution to award copyrights if they so choose to, right? They can also choose to make all copyrights void and null of they want to as well.
Congress is not guilty of violating the Constitution in this case. In my opinion however I think they are guilty of violating the 'spirit' of the Constitution. Copyright terms of "Infinity -1" is absurd in my opinion and goes against the direct intent of the Founding Fathers when setting up the government.
I think there is a careful balance that should be in place, and we are WAAAAAY unbalanced at this point in time. I think 10-25 years should be the max that a copyright should be exploitable before it enters the public domain. At that point it is either a part of our culture, or was a flop, so there is no need to hold onto it.
I took copyright law in college because I came up studying the recording industry (I am an audio engineer). There is something in US Copyright law called "right of integrity [of a work]". This is the legal ground that the plantiffs are using in this case I bet.
"The right of integrity -- the author's right to prevent, in the words of Article 6bis of the Berne Convention -- the "distortion, mutilation, or any other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to [his or her] work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation"
The right of integrrity is closely linked to the right of attribution. Feel free to Google for more information.
I think you fail to understand that under libertarian philosophy that one's rights end where another's begin. In other words, I can do whatever I want so long as I do not infringe on anyone else's rights of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. In other words, I have the right to become addicted to any drug I want, but I don't have the right to steal from you in order to support that addiction.
The problem is that those in government are not keeping the integrity to not be influenced by powerful lobbies. The problem isn't wealth. The problems isn't corporations. The problem is the culture of unethical, and amoral politicians who lack integrity. These are people who do NOT uphold the principals of the Constitution and the founding fathers' ideals of government. These are people who are in it for themselves, to gain more power, or to gain money. Some of them have good intentions (Al Gore), but simply wish to expand government to accomplish their own 'righteous' goals.
Ross Perot was close. However these days the Libertarians have the best shot at truly limiting the size and power of the government. Next up is the Constitution Party. Other than that, there is no other fiscally conservative party anywhere on the political landscape.
It was written by the L.A. Times which is hardly an unbiased source. The author obviously has an agenda or opinion on this issue and they have allowed it to enter into their writings. I personally agree that the gov should not ban Internet gambling, but one has to admit that this article is hardly unbiased.
Besides, I think the silent lobbyists pushing this are actually an arm of the brick and mortar casinos.
Actually the copyright case isn't as clear as you might think.
In your examples of how things affect others, you were all correct except for the abortion statement. After the first trimester of pregnancy the child is an individual and in the US is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Prior to the first trimester is a grey area since there is no heartbeat or brain waves.
I am a Christian and I do not think my morals should be legislated. If I am able to legislate my beliefs because I hold the majority, what happens when the Muslims hold the majority? Or the Jews? Or the Catholics? Or the Wiccans? The best policy is for the government to stick to its minimal and fundamental functions as set forth in the Constitution and DoI.
People should be able to ingest whatever drugs they want whenever they want so long as they do not infringe on other people's freedoms. I am a libertarian. Victimless crimes aren't. I wish more Christians (and everyone else for that matter) would see things my way and quit trying to use the government to push their ideas, rules, and special interests on everyone else. A limited government can't do that. Only big government can regulate and legislate in favor of special interests.
In the US one has natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is sovereign individualism at its most basic level. After the first trimester of pregnancy the group of cells inside of a woman is a separate individual and not a part of the mother any longer. It has a heart beat and brainwaves. In other words, it can sustain life therefore has a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. No one has the legal right to deprive the unborn child of those natural rights except in extreme cases (safety of the mother) after the first trimester.
I personally believe that abortions prior to the first trimester are wrong, however logically it is a grey area for those that do not share my personal beliefs. After the first trimester there is no logical, legal, or ethical excuse.
Yes I realize that there would probably never be a situation for it to be used "fight to the death" and all. But, if one had to kill themselves in space, personally a pill that slips one into a deep sleep and then death in my opinion would be a lot more respectable in my opinion, more peaceful, and a hell of a lot less violent and painful than simply exposing oneself to a vacuum.
Having my blood boil, my skin shrink, and my lungs explode doesn't sound like a good way to go.
There have been rumors that the astronauts have suicide pills on them in case of an incident like this. I don't think this has ever been verified, and absolutely never been published.
You are correct. I was a teenager then and couldn't remember the details. Regardless, I agree with you, it was an asinine situation. The ignorance of others should not affect one's vocabulary.
We should treat those that are no longer children as adults. The idea that an unincarcirated citizen has "less rights" or "limited" rights of that than every other normal citizen is absurd. This combined with truancy laws makes government schools essentially a prison system.
Or even more logical and practical; can the government stop the parents of these kids and search their cell pohone without a warrant or probable cause? NO! And since currently we legally treat teenages as an extension of their parents and not as individuals, then the government has NO RIGHT to search the kids cell phone without either a warrant, probable cause, or the parents permission.
Can you believe a guy actually got fired from the City of New York for using that term correctly because the majority of the people don't know the difference between "nigger" and "niggard". By the way, the first "offensive" version has origins in French/Latin, while the second word is from Scandanavia.
First off, big business LIKES big government. Big government has a lot of power to legislate IN FAVOR of big business. Why do you think the tax laws are so convoluted? Copyright laws? SEC regulations? I could go on and on. They are all very complicated and complex due to the lobbying of interest groups, trade lobbies, and multinational corporations.
An example would be oil companies. There is plenty of oil here in the US. Mom and Pop can't start their own oil company because they do not have a myriad of attorneys and accountants to wade through the federal regulations. Nor do they have enough money behind them to lobby the politicians to get legislation passed in their favor. The BIG corporations do. Big business uses big government to stifle competition. Look at the phone companies. Look at the power companies. There are a million examples.
With a corporation you have a choice. You can buy their product/services, or you can go to their competition. Or in a free market without government intervention, you can EVEN START YOUR OWN COMPANY TO COMPETE!
There are such things as anti-competitive practices, or predatorial monopolies. Both of these actions infringe on the right of the players in a free market. Most libertarians are not opposed to the government intervening only when a firm is anti-competitive or predatorial. The basis of libertarianism is "your rights stop where another person's rights begin". This would obviously apply to the market as well.
The countries in Africa you referred to in your example are not democratic, nor are they free societies in which life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are valued. I also think you are confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarianism is limited government, only the absolute minimum necessary to maintain peace and order. Anarchy is no government at all.
Libertarianism is closely related to Locke and Jefferson. Advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person. *this would obviously include killing another individual*
Libertarians such as Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard view the rights to life, liberty, and property as natural rights, i.e., worthy of protection as an end in themselves. Their view of natural rights is derived, directly or indirectly, from the writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Ayn Rand, another powerful influence on libertarianism, despite rejecting the label, also viewed these rights as based on natural law.
If you would care to back up your statements with some sort of intelligent citations instead of hate-filled ignorant rantings, I would be interested in reading them.
Ha ha... If I had any money I'd invest in the futures market myself.
And yes, they are having problems getting a net return of energy but there are modifications being made to work on this. A few mechanical engineers should be able to help with this.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had many girls tell me that protien makes their eyes sting. It can't be good for 'em. This is news? ;-)
...and the 'First Sale Doctrine' is basically what enables all of these "CD Trading" and "Used CD" shops.
Essentially it says that the copyright owner is entitled to compensation for the first sale ONLY. After that, they are not entitled to compensation every time thereafter the legal copy of that work changes hands.
I am sure you can Google "US Copyright Law First Sale Doctrine" and dig up the actual case briefs on this.
Here are the legal grounds:
The right of integrity -- the author's right to prevent, in the words of Article 6bis of the Berne Convention -- the "distortion, mutilation, or any other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to [his or her] work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation" -- is a reflection of an important principle.
You can look for other posts by me on the subject.
I think the silent lobbyists pushing this are actually an arm of the brick and mortar casinos attempting to stifile competition. Remember big business likes big government because big government can legislate in favor of big business. This is why we need small and limited government.
I am a libertarian as well.
You do realize that Congress has every right as laid out in the Constitution to award copyrights if they so choose to, right? They can also choose to make all copyrights void and null of they want to as well.
Congress is not guilty of violating the Constitution in this case. In my opinion however I think they are guilty of violating the 'spirit' of the Constitution. Copyright terms of "Infinity -1" is absurd in my opinion and goes against the direct intent of the Founding Fathers when setting up the government.
I think there is a careful balance that should be in place, and we are WAAAAAY unbalanced at this point in time. I think 10-25 years should be the max that a copyright should be exploitable before it enters the public domain. At that point it is either a part of our culture, or was a flop, so there is no need to hold onto it.
I took copyright law in college because I came up studying the recording industry (I am an audio engineer). There is something in US Copyright law called "right of integrity [of a work]". This is the legal ground that the plantiffs are using in this case I bet.
"The right of integrity -- the author's right to prevent, in the words of Article 6bis of the Berne Convention -- the "distortion, mutilation, or any other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to [his or her] work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation"
The right of integrrity is closely linked to the right of attribution. Feel free to Google for more information.
I think you fail to understand that under libertarian philosophy that one's rights end where another's begin. In other words, I can do whatever I want so long as I do not infringe on anyone else's rights of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. In other words, I have the right to become addicted to any drug I want, but I don't have the right to steal from you in order to support that addiction.
You're missing the point.
The problem is that those in government are not keeping the integrity to not be influenced by powerful lobbies. The problem isn't wealth. The problems isn't corporations. The problem is the culture of unethical, and amoral politicians who lack integrity. These are people who do NOT uphold the principals of the Constitution and the founding fathers' ideals of government. These are people who are in it for themselves, to gain more power, or to gain money. Some of them have good intentions (Al Gore), but simply wish to expand government to accomplish their own 'righteous' goals.
Ross Perot was close. However these days the Libertarians have the best shot at truly limiting the size and power of the government. Next up is the Constitution Party. Other than that, there is no other fiscally conservative party anywhere on the political landscape.
How is this relevant?
It was written by the L.A. Times which is hardly an unbiased source. The author obviously has an agenda or opinion on this issue and they have allowed it to enter into their writings. I personally agree that the gov should not ban Internet gambling, but one has to admit that this article is hardly unbiased.
Besides, I think the silent lobbyists pushing this are actually an arm of the brick and mortar casinos.
H.R.4777 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act - Actual bill text is here:l
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h4777_ih.xm
Actually the copyright case isn't as clear as you might think.
In your examples of how things affect others, you were all correct except for the abortion statement. After the first trimester of pregnancy the child is an individual and in the US is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Prior to the first trimester is a grey area since there is no heartbeat or brain waves.
I am a Christian and I do not think my morals should be legislated. If I am able to legislate my beliefs because I hold the majority, what happens when the Muslims hold the majority? Or the Jews? Or the Catholics? Or the Wiccans? The best policy is for the government to stick to its minimal and fundamental functions as set forth in the Constitution and DoI.
People should be able to ingest whatever drugs they want whenever they want so long as they do not infringe on other people's freedoms. I am a libertarian. Victimless crimes aren't. I wish more Christians (and everyone else for that matter) would see things my way and quit trying to use the government to push their ideas, rules, and special interests on everyone else. A limited government can't do that. Only big government can regulate and legislate in favor of special interests.
In the US one has natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is sovereign individualism at its most basic level. After the first trimester of pregnancy the group of cells inside of a woman is a separate individual and not a part of the mother any longer. It has a heart beat and brainwaves. In other words, it can sustain life therefore has a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. No one has the legal right to deprive the unborn child of those natural rights except in extreme cases (safety of the mother) after the first trimester.
I personally believe that abortions prior to the first trimester are wrong, however logically it is a grey area for those that do not share my personal beliefs. After the first trimester there is no logical, legal, or ethical excuse.
Well... apparently the cop must've shared one of his glazed donuts with her. As she drove away she had a lot of the glaze all over her face. ;-)
... I didn't RTFA... well, not all of it anyway.
Yes I realize that there would probably never be a situation for it to be used "fight to the death" and all. But, if one had to kill themselves in space, personally a pill that slips one into a deep sleep and then death in my opinion would be a lot more respectable in my opinion, more peaceful, and a hell of a lot less violent and painful than simply exposing oneself to a vacuum.
Having my blood boil, my skin shrink, and my lungs explode doesn't sound like a good way to go.
There have been rumors that the astronauts have suicide pills on them in case of an incident like this. I don't think this has ever been verified, and absolutely never been published.
Anyone have any info?
See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anything_into_oil
I think you'll find it interesting and relevant..
See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anything_into_oil
I think you'll find it interesting and relevant..
You are correct. I was a teenager then and couldn't remember the details. Regardless, I agree with you, it was an asinine situation. The ignorance of others should not affect one's vocabulary.
We should treat those that are no longer children as adults. The idea that an unincarcirated citizen has "less rights" or "limited" rights of that than every other normal citizen is absurd. This combined with truancy laws makes government schools essentially a prison system.
Or even more logical and practical; can the government stop the parents of these kids and search their cell pohone without a warrant or probable cause? NO! And since currently we legally treat teenages as an extension of their parents and not as individuals, then the government has NO RIGHT to search the kids cell phone without either a warrant, probable cause, or the parents permission.
Can you believe a guy actually got fired from the City of New York for using that term correctly because the majority of the people don't know the difference between "nigger" and "niggard". By the way, the first "offensive" version has origins in French/Latin, while the second word is from Scandanavia.
You need some education.
First off, big business LIKES big government. Big government has a lot of power to legislate IN FAVOR of big business. Why do you think the tax laws are so convoluted? Copyright laws? SEC regulations? I could go on and on. They are all very complicated and complex due to the lobbying of interest groups, trade lobbies, and multinational corporations.
An example would be oil companies. There is plenty of oil here in the US. Mom and Pop can't start their own oil company because they do not have a myriad of attorneys and accountants to wade through the federal regulations. Nor do they have enough money behind them to lobby the politicians to get legislation passed in their favor. The BIG corporations do. Big business uses big government to stifle competition. Look at the phone companies. Look at the power companies. There are a million examples.
With a corporation you have a choice. You can buy their product/services, or you can go to their competition. Or in a free market without government intervention, you can EVEN START YOUR OWN COMPANY TO COMPETE!
There are such things as anti-competitive practices, or predatorial monopolies. Both of these actions infringe on the right of the players in a free market. Most libertarians are not opposed to the government intervening only when a firm is anti-competitive or predatorial. The basis of libertarianism is "your rights stop where another person's rights begin". This would obviously apply to the market as well.
The countries in Africa you referred to in your example are not democratic, nor are they free societies in which life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are valued. I also think you are confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarianism is limited government, only the absolute minimum necessary to maintain peace and order. Anarchy is no government at all.
Ok. Congrats, you are ignorant.
Libertarianism is closely related to Locke and Jefferson. Advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person. *this would obviously include killing another individual*
Libertarians such as Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard view the rights to life, liberty, and property as natural rights, i.e., worthy of protection as an end in themselves. Their view of natural rights is derived, directly or indirectly, from the writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Ayn Rand, another powerful influence on libertarianism, despite rejecting the label, also viewed these rights as based on natural law.
If you would care to back up your statements with some sort of intelligent citations instead of hate-filled ignorant rantings, I would be interested in reading them.
Ha ha... If I had any money I'd invest in the futures market myself.
And yes, they are having problems getting a net return of energy but there are modifications being made to work on this. A few mechanical engineers should be able to help with this.