Why do you think that shutting down theives is the same thing as shutting down newspapers?
Seriously, the depth of cluelessness that surrounds this issue is abyssal.
The government protects MPAA and RIAA members against torrent sites. Given.
But if you were ever so industrious as to write something that was worth something, the government would protect you from the MPAA, the RIAA, and itself.
If you run a business that aids criminal activity, and you don't do anything to police that activity, then why would you be surprised when the authorities get themselves involved in your business to police the criminal activity?
The individual of course. If enough individuals object to an unjust law
You contradict yourself.
Law isn't about individual. It's about what ~individual will do to individual if individual breaks the law.
If enough individuals object to an unjust law, that is the political juice I mentioned, and it will be superseded or rescinded, not overturned. To get a law overturned you need a court. Courts don't bow to sudden popular outcry, they bow to law and history. So to get a law overturned you need the juridical juice I mentioned: either the facts and skill to argue in such a way that the court must overturn the law, or a judge in your pocket.
If you think that breaking the law in a certain way will create political juice before something undesirable happens to you, then civil disobedience may be your course of action. But civil disobedience rarely works, and especially not when the disobedience involves self-enrichment or harm to others, as wikileaks' certainly does.
Of course I'm absolutely right. It's how employers think. They want you to be loyal and come to them with problems, not a mole who airs the company's issues in public first. Even if they're the government they're right to hire people who follow the law rather than throwing their employer under the bus. Otherwise there'd be no secrets at all, and that would only see the US government decline and the nation quickly overrun by people who truly don't give a shit about your rights or the difference between a proper secret and the coverup of genocide.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
-– Thomas Jefferson
Thing is, who decides if it's unjust? Unless you've got the political or juridical juice to get the law rescinded or vacated, it's the government, which is bound to follow the law regardless of a defendant quoting platitudes from the Founding Fathers in impassioned tones.
And is it unjust? The laws regarding classified information include definitions of improper classification (which includes classifying information merely to cover up wrongdoing or embarassing situations) which make improper classification illegal, and procedures and requirements for properly declassifying information that's improperly classified, such that it still protects the portions that are properly classified. Because of that, the laws requiring safeguarding of classified information regardless of its appearance in public are just, because there is a just method for revealing it.
I suggest you learn the distinction between the New York Times and a graduate student who wishes to work for the State Department.
It is now illegal to classify information merely to keep it from the press, even if you're the President (which is redundant since all authority to classify information is explicitly delegated from the President). It is also illegal to release it to people who aren't cleared to receive it, even if the press has already published it and that's where you got it. Those hiring for cleared positions have the right to vet your trustworthiness, and that means they can refuse to hire you or to allow you to have a clearance to work with classified information anywhere else. And they don't have to tell you why.
Here, you dropped this out of your mouth: "troll". Go bury it somewhere if you don't want to choke on it now.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think that shutting down theives is the same thing as shutting down newspapers?
Seriously, the depth of cluelessness that surrounds this issue is abyssal.
The government protects MPAA and RIAA members against torrent sites. Given.
But if you were ever so industrious as to write something that was worth something, the government would protect you from the MPAA, the RIAA, and itself.
Horseshit. They weren't taken down for things they said. They were taken down for stealing things other people said.
Stop voting for Republicans.
Let's stop stealing copryghted material and gain the moral high ground, first.
If you run a business that aids criminal activity, and you don't do anything to police that activity, then why would you be surprised when the authorities get themselves involved in your business to police the criminal activity?
if you have power over me you require effective oversight,
and previously
The Supreme Court has generally backed them up on this
so are you saying the Supreme Court is not effective oversight, or are you just contradicting yourself?
"Stealing is illegal."
Find another way to fight the power. Cribbing a copy of Toy Story 3 is not the same as throwing the tea into the harbor.
If it's got the same IP and the same license key, how does the server know it's a different copy?
The individual of course. If enough individuals object to an unjust law
You contradict yourself.
Law isn't about individual. It's about what ~individual will do to individual if individual breaks the law.
If enough individuals object to an unjust law, that is the political juice I mentioned, and it will be superseded or rescinded, not overturned. To get a law overturned you need a court. Courts don't bow to sudden popular outcry, they bow to law and history. So to get a law overturned you need the juridical juice I mentioned: either the facts and skill to argue in such a way that the court must overturn the law, or a judge in your pocket.
If you think that breaking the law in a certain way will create political juice before something undesirable happens to you, then civil disobedience may be your course of action. But civil disobedience rarely works, and especially not when the disobedience involves self-enrichment or harm to others, as wikileaks' certainly does.
If so, that means there are likely way more copies than they counted, due to the widespread use of NAT.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Unless what they've really done is to abrogate their copyright. Then their response to it has been suicidal.
The Vatican has very deep pockets and its argumentative strategies are generally a leap of faith.
You'd think they'd get sued a lot more often.
That's next.
Of course I'm absolutely right. It's how employers think. They want you to be loyal and come to them with problems, not a mole who airs the company's issues in public first. Even if they're the government they're right to hire people who follow the law rather than throwing their employer under the bus. Otherwise there'd be no secrets at all, and that would only see the US government decline and the nation quickly overrun by people who truly don't give a shit about your rights or the difference between a proper secret and the coverup of genocide.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
-– Thomas Jefferson
Thing is, who decides if it's unjust? Unless you've got the political or juridical juice to get the law rescinded or vacated, it's the government, which is bound to follow the law regardless of a defendant quoting platitudes from the Founding Fathers in impassioned tones.
And is it unjust? The laws regarding classified information include definitions of improper classification (which includes classifying information merely to cover up wrongdoing or embarassing situations) which make improper classification illegal, and procedures and requirements for properly declassifying information that's improperly classified, such that it still protects the portions that are properly classified. Because of that, the laws requiring safeguarding of classified information regardless of its appearance in public are just, because there is a just method for revealing it.
I suggest you learn the distinction between the New York Times and a graduate student who wishes to work for the State Department.
It is now illegal to classify information merely to keep it from the press, even if you're the President (which is redundant since all authority to classify information is explicitly delegated from the President). It is also illegal to release it to people who aren't cleared to receive it, even if the press has already published it and that's where you got it. Those hiring for cleared positions have the right to vet your trustworthiness, and that means they can refuse to hire you or to allow you to have a clearance to work with classified information anywhere else. And they don't have to tell you why.
Here, you dropped this out of your mouth: "troll". Go bury it somewhere if you don't want to choke on it now.
Tell it to the judge. And then to your cellmates.
They can get jobs as public defenders.
The people who follow the law can get jobs in the foreign service.
No, the message here is that nobody reads TFA.
So that, what, the State Dept would have to start hiring lesser-qualified people to work on foreign relations?
Is that supposed to help?
I forget. Was that before or after he blew up her planet?
No, they're seeking out people who follow the law, not people who react to illegal activity by joining in.
It's been superseded by "if you have no warrant, I can hide anything I want."
The processors in PS3 were developed in the USA. I have little doubt that Sony has to adhere to ITAR when making and selling them.