After the police dropped the charges they turned over all the computer equipment to FACT, even though FACT is not a government agency, didn't own the equipment, and the owners were not being charged with a crime. The couple sued to get their computers back in 2009 and won in the lower courts, but lost in the upper courts. So, in GB it is now legal for the police to seize your computer equipment without filing charges and turning the equipment over to FACT without compensation. crazy.
This 600k is going to get reduced to something under 100k and probably under 50k. This case was to prove a point to consumers; "If you pirate the songs we can get large judgments against you."
I agree the amounts are excessive, $22k is excessive, but the fact that jurors agreed to this is worth noting. The jury room is one place people do have the power to stand up these laws. Somehow a jury decided that downloading 30 songs was worth nearly half of what one of them will make in a lifetime. That blows my mind. How could 12 reasonable people all come to that conclusion. Is it education? media? fear of authority? The most troubling aspect of this to me, is it's one more example of people's inability to reason. These are the same people going to the polls and that makes me very pessimistic about America's future.
A jury decided on the $600,000, not the judge or the industry trade association. They could have stuck him with as little as $22,000 under the law or as much as $4.5 million. Apparently, the jury selected for his trial didn't possess significant common sense.
Where would he go? He has no assets so the State would need to support him. He is fresh out of college so he doesn't have many marketable skills yet. His problem would be getting a visa to live and work in another country given his dire financial situation.
This begs the question; when should they maximize profits, short-term or long-term? Long term shareholders don't care about the next quarter. They want to see money reinvested, talent retained, and the user base satisfied. Short-term shareholders want to see money paid out, staff fired, and the user base squeezed for the maximum amount today. These two interests are directly at odds in all companies. Therefore, "profit maximization" is really not possible for all shareholders.
As for the law, they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize only long-term profits (in ways not in violation of their charter). If Facebook argued that by respecting the privacy of their users, they are preserving their user base and enhancing their long-term viability, I can't see a court in the United States ruling against them. That said, all companies face competing interests between long and short term shareholders. It does seem like the short-term shareholders get a lot more attention from the board these days.
I don't have to subscribe to view a public billboard. There is at least some constriction from being as purely public as a billboard. He is making tweets with the expectation of communicating with a certain subset of those subscribers. Is the difference between public and private the intention, the medium of communication, the likelihood of further dissemination?
Putting that aside for the moment, the government is also after his private tweets. The internal tweet information they want also provides additional information about him (such as ip addresses, who he is associating with, etc) which were not made public in the first place (although this information would probably be accessible with the subpoena). Would you draw a line between public and private tweets (Twitter direct communication)? If my account mixes public and private communications, can the government obtain only that communication that I send out to all subscribers or is all Twitter communication public?
With a warrant, the bank just drills the lock, so the bank can have access as well. Or, if you like, how about securing an item in their vault. The bank now has unfettered access, but a warrant is still necessary for the government to seize the goods.
I would disagree that licensing to redistribute dismantles any expectation of privacy. The government must still act within the established law. In this case the Stored Communications Act. This act allows the government to seize things such as email contents, etc and was the law used by the government in this case to issue the subpoena.
This SCA offers a lower than warrant standard called "D" subpoenas for information about an account, but not the contents of the "stored" communication which still require a warrant. This is where it gets tricky. The government in most of the country doesn't count communications that have already been transmitted or viewed by the recipient as any longer being "stored" for the purposes of the act. However, in Theofel v. Farey-Jones, the Ninth Circuit expanded the meaning of "stored" to include such things as read emails, etc. In this case they ruled that personal emails (presumably regardless of number of recipients) were protected and required more than just a "D" subpoena. Now, you can argue that a tweet is fundamentally different from a email to a million people and I would consider this a reasonable enough question for a court to address. This is why Twitter wants this whole thing moved to California, where the courts would have to follow the precedent of the Ninth Circuit. It is also why the government brought the suit in another district.
I would agree that freer markets exist, but even your examples are constrained. For example, can I sell my own homemade tablet at flea market and call it an Apple iPad. If not, then Apple has been granted a monopoly on that trademark, which is a restriction. Is the price for cocaine at a bazaar set by supply and demand or is it above that price due to its illicit stature? Instead of selling the goods for cash, could I sell them for a small payment now and a usurious interest rate moving forward? If not, then this is another legal constraint.
I am not arguing that constraints on the free market a bad. I believe they are necessary. For example, without the government granted monopoly of trademark, any website could call itself Facebook, which would have a significant impact on the value of that company.
First, per the Twitter terms of service, all communication is the property of the user and NOT Twitter. Twitter is arguing that it can't surrender what it doesn't own without a warrant. Think of it like this. I open a safe deposit box at my local bank. If the government wants access to property in the box, then is a subpoena to the bank enough? Twitter is in essence claiming they are like the bank; a repository and conduit, nothing more. (for safe deposit boxes, a subpoena will get you the paperwork about the box, but not inside it)
Secondly, Twitter is saying that the government needs a warrant for this information under the Fourth Amendment.
Third, Twitter is saying that if New York prosecutors want access to Twitter information, they need to file in Twitter's home state of California.
There is a lot of unsettled law in moving from the physical to the digital world. The government is arguing that many rights from the physical world don't translate to the digital one, Twitter disagrees.
I completely agree. I don't expect Linux to compete with Windows for the average computer user. Actually, I expect the average computer user to buy Windows for exactly the reasons you mention. Also, I am comfortable with Linux being a system for power users and I think it strikes a good balance for me.
(car analogy commence)
My brother-in-law likes fast cars and is constantly tweaking and modifying his car, which inevitably causes something to break (usually electrical). I like a car that "just works" and I am a pretty slow driver. We own different cars for just this reason.
Ok, let's examine this analogy more. I have two cars, Windows and Linux. Linux requires me to consult a mechanic for purchase and for many potential upgrades. Windows works the day I drive it off the lot and is designed for nearly any upgrade to be a trivial matter that I can do myself. While the Linux car might have better performance, which car would be better for someone not mechanically inclined and without mechanics in their social network?
From my example from above. Adding a Wacom tablet on Windows is about as difficult as changing the air freshener in a car. Are you suggesting that I should have to consult a mechanic to change the air freshener in my car? It turns out that on Linux, if I want to add this particular air freshener, I have to first overhaul the engine. Furthermore, this is a unique air freshener without a more Linux compatible substitute.
The point of all this is that while difficult jobs should be handled by experts, what constitutes a difficult job is not the same on Windows and Linux.
I run Linux, I love using Linux, but I never recommend Linux to people without significant computer knowledge or interest, lest I have to constantly play the role of the expert (wife and kids excluded).
While I agree with you in this case. Let me point out a contradiction in your post. You mention that the companies have profits and then state it is a free market. If the market is indeed perfectly free, then there are no profits. Companies have no interest in a free market. They are trying to form monopoly positions to extract maximum profits. This leads to a never-ending struggle between government (i.e. the people) trying to preserve free markets and corporations trying to destroy them.
While there is certainly something repugnant about it, shovelware on Linux could make the hardware vendors even more money. In a commodity market such as computer hardware, not paying Microsoft, but still being able to use crapware would really help margins I would think.
Many people also have very little hardware knowledge and are intimidated by the technical aspects of computers. Furthermore, for even veteran Linux users, compatibility is not always clear. I agree with your post in principle, but it feels a little like a fantasy world instead of reality.
For example, a couple of years ago my wife got a Wacom Tablet to play with and wanted it on her Linux system. I struggled with that thing for hours on Debian until I gave up. I moved to my Gentoo server, recompiled the kernel, built a module and it worked fine. I have been using Linux exclusively for 10 years and I still run into problems like this every now and then. Had I not done this, she simply would have switched back to Microsoft just to get her tablet working.
If GNU/Linux wants wider adoption, hardware compatibility and the concept of "it just works" is still a major problem.
They don't actually cite any authorities, but make the nebulous statement "the scientific community", which is what makes it a fallacy. It is sometimes also called Appeal to Anonymous Authority. Furthermore, if they are just repeating what someone told them, then it could also be Appeal to Rumor. The important take away is that their argument was not based upon evidence or logic.
I believe science should be objective. It should hold out the possibility of being wrong. Given how little we know, how little data we have collected in terms of the length of climate events, and the fact that most of our predictions are based on computer models which pose many of their own problems (lack of enough computing power, design of programs can influence the results, floating point calculations can be tricky, particularly in feedback systems, etc). I am dumbfounded by the level of certainty being displayed both by some scientists and many posters here.
On a gut level, I actually agree with their conclusions, but I find the hubris disturbing.
This seems to be prevalent on both sides of the climate debate. The problem is that climate is a system about which we understand very little. The data we have collected is immensely small in comparison to the timescales of many climate patterns and our ability to analyze that data relies on computing power that is not only much too small, but fundamentally flawed due the feedback nature of climate (computers have a difficult time doing very accurate mathematical calculations in a feedback loop).
Personally, I see both sides as religious zealots. Good Science maintains the possibility that it is wrong. It should be able to make predictions that can are provable and disprovable. Both sides seems to clutch to the faith they are correct and search for Science that will confirm or deny their theories.
All that said, I think it would be prudent to hope for the best, but plan for the worst. That means changing our interaction with the environment.
"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community." This is my problem with climate change. While I believe that the Earth is warming. I believe it is prudent to work toward limiting our impact in the event we are causing drastic change. But most people I talk to about climate change have based their entire belief on a logical fallacy ( in this case Appeal to Authority). True or not this isn't science, it is religion.
I respectfully disagree. While the system is not perfect, the flaws are at the fringes and because of lack of resources for enforcement. The grandiose claims common in the 19th century are largely gone.
Regarding late night weight loss commercials, the FTC has filed more than 80 cases against companies for false advertising in the last decade (the FTC has several white papers on their website). The FTC launched "Operation Waistline" in 1997 to crack down on false claims for weight loss and "Operation Workout" for exercise equipment companies. Disclaimers did not protect companies in these cases, including 4 rulings against NordicTrack (the only company I recognized).
The notion that a disclaimer creates a situation of caveat emptor is patently false.
I wonder how much of the changes in look and feel came down to technology. The fact that the LG Prada and the iPhone look so similar and were being actively developed at the same time (although the LG was the first to market) suggests to me that technology, such as capacitive touch screens, smaller batteries, etc. were driving the look and feel, not the companies themselves.
After all, Apple's actively tries to create purely functional designs and functional designs are driven by the technology that's in them.
I guess I don't see this as black and white. To me, this is a matter of scale and industry. If I am a teenager mowing lawns on the weekend, I shouldn't be held to the same standards as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
For example, I don't expect that the teen from down the street who mows my lawn has a grasp of his liabilities, options for lack of payment, reporting requirements, if any, etc. Does that mean he shouldn't be mowing lawns? I fixed people's computers for money when I was his age. I couldn't have answered these questions either at the time.
My experience is that government requirements can be opaque and down right byzantine. I worked for a Fortune 1000 finance company out of college. We would submit requests to the SEC and, at the time, NASD to determine the legality of new products or business decisions. I can't remember a single instance of getting a definitive answer. It always came down to how much would a potential lawsuit cost and what was the likelihood of losing. There is a reason that our society requires experts on matters of regulation, tax, legal requirements, etc.
In a perfect world, sure, people should understand all aspects of what they do. We don't live in a perfect world.
Perhaps reading up on advertising and business practices that led to our current laws might be enlightening for you. I'm all for personal responsibility, but businesses have responsibilities as well. The force that ensures businesses live up to their responsibilities is government.
If this is related to the emailing of bombing threats, then the emails are in plaintext (because the recipient won't have the key). I am guessing the encrypted part is information about the origin of the email. Potentially the remailer encrypted the email when passing between remailers or perhaps they use an encrypted tunnel or something to communicate. The FBI probably needs information from their servers to determine who was the last remailer in the chain. The FBI will probably need to seize the records of several companies to ultimately track back the email's origin.
I don't know much about this business, though, so this is pure speculation on my part.
Step right up, step right up. Let me present to you my famous Python Oil home remedy. This will cure headaches, nausea, the flu, impotence, and all forms of cancer all for just $49. Now, I am not a doctor and I have no medical training of any kind, but this remedy has worked for me and countless others. Cash only if you please.
The problem is that business were abusing the concept of free speech to lie to potential customers, so things like truth in advertising laws etc. were passed. Coca Cola for instance, used to advertise their product as curing headaches, impotence, and morphine addiction. Do you believe that businesses should be able to make any claims about their products or services they desire?
Just for clarification, the person does not lose any rights, but when acting as an agent of the business, then they are no longer simply a person sharing an opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
After the police dropped the charges they turned over all the computer equipment to FACT, even though FACT is not a government agency, didn't own the equipment, and the owners were not being charged with a crime. The couple sued to get their computers back in 2009 and won in the lower courts, but lost in the upper courts. So, in GB it is now legal for the police to seize your computer equipment without filing charges and turning the equipment over to FACT without compensation. crazy.
This 600k is going to get reduced to something under 100k and probably under 50k. This case was to prove a point to consumers; "If you pirate the songs we can get large judgments against you."
I agree the amounts are excessive, $22k is excessive, but the fact that jurors agreed to this is worth noting. The jury room is one place people do have the power to stand up these laws. Somehow a jury decided that downloading 30 songs was worth nearly half of what one of them will make in a lifetime. That blows my mind. How could 12 reasonable people all come to that conclusion. Is it education? media? fear of authority? The most troubling aspect of this to me, is it's one more example of people's inability to reason. These are the same people going to the polls and that makes me very pessimistic about America's future.
A jury decided on the $600,000, not the judge or the industry trade association. They could have stuck him with as little as $22,000 under the law or as much as $4.5 million. Apparently, the jury selected for his trial didn't possess significant common sense.
Where would he go? He has no assets so the State would need to support him. He is fresh out of college so he doesn't have many marketable skills yet. His problem would be getting a visa to live and work in another country given his dire financial situation.
This begs the question; when should they maximize profits, short-term or long-term? Long term shareholders don't care about the next quarter. They want to see money reinvested, talent retained, and the user base satisfied. Short-term shareholders want to see money paid out, staff fired, and the user base squeezed for the maximum amount today. These two interests are directly at odds in all companies. Therefore, "profit maximization" is really not possible for all shareholders.
As for the law, they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize only long-term profits (in ways not in violation of their charter). If Facebook argued that by respecting the privacy of their users, they are preserving their user base and enhancing their long-term viability, I can't see a court in the United States ruling against them. That said, all companies face competing interests between long and short term shareholders. It does seem like the short-term shareholders get a lot more attention from the board these days.
I don't have to subscribe to view a public billboard. There is at least some constriction from being as purely public as a billboard. He is making tweets with the expectation of communicating with a certain subset of those subscribers. Is the difference between public and private the intention, the medium of communication, the likelihood of further dissemination?
Putting that aside for the moment, the government is also after his private tweets. The internal tweet information they want also provides additional information about him (such as ip addresses, who he is associating with, etc) which were not made public in the first place (although this information would probably be accessible with the subpoena). Would you draw a line between public and private tweets (Twitter direct communication)? If my account mixes public and private communications, can the government obtain only that communication that I send out to all subscribers or is all Twitter communication public?
With a warrant, the bank just drills the lock, so the bank can have access as well. Or, if you like, how about securing an item in their vault. The bank now has unfettered access, but a warrant is still necessary for the government to seize the goods.
I would disagree that licensing to redistribute dismantles any expectation of privacy. The government must still act within the established law. In this case the Stored Communications Act. This act allows the government to seize things such as email contents, etc and was the law used by the government in this case to issue the subpoena.
This SCA offers a lower than warrant standard called "D" subpoenas for information about an account, but not the contents of the "stored" communication which still require a warrant. This is where it gets tricky. The government in most of the country doesn't count communications that have already been transmitted or viewed by the recipient as any longer being "stored" for the purposes of the act. However, in Theofel v. Farey-Jones, the Ninth Circuit expanded the meaning of "stored" to include such things as read emails, etc. In this case they ruled that personal emails (presumably regardless of number of recipients) were protected and required more than just a "D" subpoena. Now, you can argue that a tweet is fundamentally different from a email to a million people and I would consider this a reasonable enough question for a court to address. This is why Twitter wants this whole thing moved to California, where the courts would have to follow the precedent of the Ninth Circuit. It is also why the government brought the suit in another district.
I would agree that freer markets exist, but even your examples are constrained. For example, can I sell my own homemade tablet at flea market and call it an Apple iPad. If not, then Apple has been granted a monopoly on that trademark, which is a restriction. Is the price for cocaine at a bazaar set by supply and demand or is it above that price due to its illicit stature? Instead of selling the goods for cash, could I sell them for a small payment now and a usurious interest rate moving forward? If not, then this is another legal constraint.
I am not arguing that constraints on the free market a bad. I believe they are necessary. For example, without the government granted monopoly of trademark, any website could call itself Facebook, which would have a significant impact on the value of that company.
First, per the Twitter terms of service, all communication is the property of the user and NOT Twitter. Twitter is arguing that it can't surrender what it doesn't own without a warrant. Think of it like this. I open a safe deposit box at my local bank. If the government wants access to property in the box, then is a subpoena to the bank enough? Twitter is in essence claiming they are like the bank; a repository and conduit, nothing more. (for safe deposit boxes, a subpoena will get you the paperwork about the box, but not inside it)
Secondly, Twitter is saying that the government needs a warrant for this information under the Fourth Amendment.
Third, Twitter is saying that if New York prosecutors want access to Twitter information, they need to file in Twitter's home state of California.
There is a lot of unsettled law in moving from the physical to the digital world. The government is arguing that many rights from the physical world don't translate to the digital one, Twitter disagrees.
I completely agree. I don't expect Linux to compete with Windows for the average computer user. Actually, I expect the average computer user to buy Windows for exactly the reasons you mention. Also, I am comfortable with Linux being a system for power users and I think it strikes a good balance for me.
(car analogy commence)
My brother-in-law likes fast cars and is constantly tweaking and modifying his car, which inevitably causes something to break (usually electrical). I like a car that "just works" and I am a pretty slow driver. We own different cars for just this reason.
Ok, let's examine this analogy more. I have two cars, Windows and Linux. Linux requires me to consult a mechanic for purchase and for many potential upgrades. Windows works the day I drive it off the lot and is designed for nearly any upgrade to be a trivial matter that I can do myself. While the Linux car might have better performance, which car would be better for someone not mechanically inclined and without mechanics in their social network?
From my example from above. Adding a Wacom tablet on Windows is about as difficult as changing the air freshener in a car. Are you suggesting that I should have to consult a mechanic to change the air freshener in my car? It turns out that on Linux, if I want to add this particular air freshener, I have to first overhaul the engine. Furthermore, this is a unique air freshener without a more Linux compatible substitute.
The point of all this is that while difficult jobs should be handled by experts, what constitutes a difficult job is not the same on Windows and Linux.
I run Linux, I love using Linux, but I never recommend Linux to people without significant computer knowledge or interest, lest I have to constantly play the role of the expert (wife and kids excluded).
"Perfectly free markets" was obviously meant as sarcasm. AC's point was that free markets are a panacea, my point was that free markets don't exist.
While I agree with you in this case. Let me point out a contradiction in your post. You mention that the companies have profits and then state it is a free market. If the market is indeed perfectly free, then there are no profits. Companies have no interest in a free market. They are trying to form monopoly positions to extract maximum profits. This leads to a never-ending struggle between government (i.e. the people) trying to preserve free markets and corporations trying to destroy them.
While there is certainly something repugnant about it, shovelware on Linux could make the hardware vendors even more money. In a commodity market such as computer hardware, not paying Microsoft, but still being able to use crapware would really help margins I would think.
Many people also have very little hardware knowledge and are intimidated by the technical aspects of computers. Furthermore, for even veteran Linux users, compatibility is not always clear. I agree with your post in principle, but it feels a little like a fantasy world instead of reality.
For example, a couple of years ago my wife got a Wacom Tablet to play with and wanted it on her Linux system. I struggled with that thing for hours on Debian until I gave up. I moved to my Gentoo server, recompiled the kernel, built a module and it worked fine. I have been using Linux exclusively for 10 years and I still run into problems like this every now and then. Had I not done this, she simply would have switched back to Microsoft just to get her tablet working.
If GNU/Linux wants wider adoption, hardware compatibility and the concept of "it just works" is still a major problem.
They don't actually cite any authorities, but make the nebulous statement "the scientific community", which is what makes it a fallacy. It is sometimes also called Appeal to Anonymous Authority. Furthermore, if they are just repeating what someone told them, then it could also be Appeal to Rumor. The important take away is that their argument was not based upon evidence or logic.
I believe science should be objective. It should hold out the possibility of being wrong. Given how little we know, how little data we have collected in terms of the length of climate events, and the fact that most of our predictions are based on computer models which pose many of their own problems (lack of enough computing power, design of programs can influence the results, floating point calculations can be tricky, particularly in feedback systems, etc). I am dumbfounded by the level of certainty being displayed both by some scientists and many posters here.
On a gut level, I actually agree with their conclusions, but I find the hubris disturbing.
This seems to be prevalent on both sides of the climate debate. The problem is that climate is a system about which we understand very little. The data we have collected is immensely small in comparison to the timescales of many climate patterns and our ability to analyze that data relies on computing power that is not only much too small, but fundamentally flawed due the feedback nature of climate (computers have a difficult time doing very accurate mathematical calculations in a feedback loop).
Personally, I see both sides as religious zealots. Good Science maintains the possibility that it is wrong. It should be able to make predictions that can are provable and disprovable. Both sides seems to clutch to the faith they are correct and search for Science that will confirm or deny their theories.
All that said, I think it would be prudent to hope for the best, but plan for the worst. That means changing our interaction with the environment.
"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community." This is my problem with climate change. While I believe that the Earth is warming. I believe it is prudent to work toward limiting our impact in the event we are causing drastic change. But most people I talk to about climate change have based their entire belief on a logical fallacy ( in this case Appeal to Authority). True or not this isn't science, it is religion.
I respectfully disagree. While the system is not perfect, the flaws are at the fringes and because of lack of resources for enforcement. The grandiose claims common in the 19th century are largely gone.
Regarding late night weight loss commercials, the FTC has filed more than 80 cases against companies for false advertising in the last decade (the FTC has several white papers on their website). The FTC launched "Operation Waistline" in 1997 to crack down on false claims for weight loss and "Operation Workout" for exercise equipment companies. Disclaimers did not protect companies in these cases, including 4 rulings against NordicTrack (the only company I recognized).
The notion that a disclaimer creates a situation of caveat emptor is patently false.
I wonder how much of the changes in look and feel came down to technology. The fact that the LG Prada and the iPhone look so similar and were being actively developed at the same time (although the LG was the first to market) suggests to me that technology, such as capacitive touch screens, smaller batteries, etc. were driving the look and feel, not the companies themselves.
After all, Apple's actively tries to create purely functional designs and functional designs are driven by the technology that's in them.
I guess I don't see this as black and white. To me, this is a matter of scale and industry. If I am a teenager mowing lawns on the weekend, I shouldn't be held to the same standards as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
For example, I don't expect that the teen from down the street who mows my lawn has a grasp of his liabilities, options for lack of payment, reporting requirements, if any, etc. Does that mean he shouldn't be mowing lawns? I fixed people's computers for money when I was his age. I couldn't have answered these questions either at the time.
My experience is that government requirements can be opaque and down right byzantine. I worked for a Fortune 1000 finance company out of college. We would submit requests to the SEC and, at the time, NASD to determine the legality of new products or business decisions. I can't remember a single instance of getting a definitive answer. It always came down to how much would a potential lawsuit cost and what was the likelihood of losing. There is a reason that our society requires experts on matters of regulation, tax, legal requirements, etc.
In a perfect world, sure, people should understand all aspects of what they do. We don't live in a perfect world.
Perhaps reading up on advertising and business practices that led to our current laws might be enlightening for you. I'm all for personal responsibility, but businesses have responsibilities as well. The force that ensures businesses live up to their responsibilities is government.
If this is related to the emailing of bombing threats, then the emails are in plaintext (because the recipient won't have the key). I am guessing the encrypted part is information about the origin of the email. Potentially the remailer encrypted the email when passing between remailers or perhaps they use an encrypted tunnel or something to communicate. The FBI probably needs information from their servers to determine who was the last remailer in the chain. The FBI will probably need to seize the records of several companies to ultimately track back the email's origin.
I don't know much about this business, though, so this is pure speculation on my part.
Step right up, step right up. Let me present to you my famous Python Oil home remedy. This will cure headaches, nausea, the flu, impotence, and all forms of cancer all for just $49. Now, I am not a doctor and I have no medical training of any kind, but this remedy has worked for me and countless others. Cash only if you please.
The problem is that business were abusing the concept of free speech to lie to potential customers, so things like truth in advertising laws etc. were passed. Coca Cola for instance, used to advertise their product as curing headaches, impotence, and morphine addiction. Do you believe that businesses should be able to make any claims about their products or services they desire?
Just for clarification, the person does not lose any rights, but when acting as an agent of the business, then they are no longer simply a person sharing an opinion.