I really don't care about the terms, just make one civil and one religious, with legal issues pertaining to one and conditions within the church pertaining to the other.
They already are. Civil marriage is what the state deals with, it is subject to the 14th Amendment, and it is what the pro-marriage-equality people are working on.
Religious marriage is whatever the religion in question wants to do. Some already recognize same sex marriages, some don't. Some are polygamous, some aren't. Some require consent, some don't. Adherents of religion A don't have to recognize the marriages performed by the heretics of religion B, and vice versa.
And the state doesn't recognize religious marriages at all. Religion C might be fine with marrying three people, but the state doesn't care. Religion D might not recognize divorce, and thus refuse to marry two divorcees, but the state doesn't care. Religion E might only marry E-ists, and not recognize marriages involving anyone else, but the state doesn't care.
About the only involvement between the state and religions for marriages is that religious officiants and the spouses to be may get the appropriate licenses from the state to perform and get married; this can be done as a part of a religious ceremony, but it doesn't have to be. It's equally fine for people to get married at City Hall, then later go to a church for a religious wedding. But if you do the religious wedding only, you're not married in the eyes of the state, and this can be a problem for various legal matters.
They just happen to both be called marriage. For most people this doesn't seem to be too confusing.
For a long time, everyone kept saying that the fines were too high. And they were right. So now the fines are reasonable and people are still complaining.
The fines are higher now, actually; the copyright holders didn't give up their right to sue. They don't even have to wait, they can do so at any time, if they've got enough reason to. The six strikes thing is not instead of litigation, it is in addition to litigation.
I like a functioning Hollywood where the actors, writers, directors and production crew are paid. That money has to come from me and the other viewers. If the other viewers aren't pulling their weight because they're sucking down a torrent stream, well I've got to pay more or the production quality drops.
I'd like a pony. Their business model is not my problem. I say let the production values drop. They can fall a long, long way before it's a problem.
In the US at least, you can see the main exclusive rights that comprise copyright at 17 USC 106; for a third party to do one of these things to a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder is infringing. The two that are usually implicated in matters of online piracy are reproduction of a work and distribution of a work.
Downloading is reproduction: the downloader fixes the work into a new copy on his end (usually a hard drive). Uploading is treated as distribution (although technically it doesn't quite fit): the uploader distributes the work to the downloader, who as mentioned, fixes it into a copy. This was all established a long time ago; it was old hat by the time Napster came down, and gave us a clear restatement of this:
Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders' exclusive rights: the rights of reproduction, Â 106(1); and distribution, Â 106(3). Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs' distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs' reproduction rights.
You also said,
"Making available" or sharing the copyrighted work is the only infringement that is a violation
Which is ironic as there's been a longstanding debate as to whether or not making available without actually distributing counts as distributing.
And anyway, other than the weirdness of the AHRA, all infringements are actionable, which is what I expect you mean by "violations."
No, in civil cases the plaintiff still bears the initial burden of proof. The standard of proof is lower, which is what you may be thinking of, but one does not simply walk into Mordor, accuse someone, and win without presenting any evidence whatsoever. The burden of proof is that you have to show enough evidence to support your claim.
Seriously, what would be a better way to handle this? I pirate stuff from time to time, and I would rather get a $35 dollar ticket to encourage me to stop, rather than a $5000 dollar extortion fee.
It's not "rather than." The decision as to whether or not to sue remains in the hands of the copyright holder. They haven't waived it. If they have a case against you, they can sue at any arbitrary time within the statute of limitations. 'Strikes' don't matter. It's just a way to wring money out of people and deter infringement without the publishers having to put up with that pesky due process. It is not an alternative enforcement system, it's an additional one, on top of all the crap we've had to put up with already.
WHAT IS YOUR BETTER PLAN IF THIS ONE IS SO HORRIBLE, ffs, answer that question. How should copyright holders enforce their rights?
Legalize (or at least make non-actionable) otherwise infringing activity by natural persons if noncommercial in nature. Then much of what they're upset about would not be illegal (at least not meaningfully so).
Because who says that their rights are written in stone?
If the word marriage, as used in the context of a civil marriage as it is today, is important, then same sex couples should have an equal right to use it as anyone else. If it is not important, then there is no reason to change it so that anti-marriage-equality avoid feeling butthurt.
To try to change the terminology used merely because a group that you dislike is finally being treated equally is childish spoilsportism. I see no reason to indulge it for it for an instant.
In this case though, the voters approved a constitutional amendment
They approved an amendment to the state constitution, which, according to the supremacy clause of the federal constitution, is inferior to the federal constitution. This means that if it conflicts with the federal constitution, it will be overturned as (federally) unconstitutional.
In no portion of the US constitution is any mention of marriage made
So? It's very vague about almost everything. That's never been a problem before. Nowhere in the federal Constitution is there any mention of the Internet. Yet, if the federal government attempted to censor you, you'd pretty certainly claim that you were protected by the first amendment guaranteed of free speech.
Here, the issue is that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment by treating same sex couples differently than opposite sex couples, as well as the due process clause of the 14 amendment by denying to same sex couples a fundamental right without any good reason to do so.
And they're right. And the federal trial and appeals courts have both agreed. We're still waiting for the Supreme Court opinion, but I'm optimistic.
All Americans are equal when it comes to marriage. All citizens have the legal right to marry a member of the opposite sex.
Yes, in the aptly-named Loving case, the state of Virginia argued that a ban on interracial marriage satisfied the requirement of equal protection, because it affected all races equally. It was utterly unconvincing, and the ban was overturned.
So I don't think you'll get far with that crap. I'd say it was a nice try... but it really wasn't.
Yes it is. When the majority of voters reject something, and a Judge allows it, then the judge needs to removed from the bench, and sent to prison for breaking the law.
The Supreme Court said:
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
What you described is exactly the situation as it stands in the US, except that the word marriage is used for what you propose calling a civil union. That is, 'marriage' has two contexts, one civil and one religious, and they don't precisely overlap, nor do they need to.
But this isn't enough, for the anti-marriage-equality folks. They want to control the use of the word 'marriage' because they believe it has magical properties or something.
I like that, except it was built in the late 80s, when it was fairly obvious that a nuclear war with the USSR was unlikely. Plus I think those were usually built at ground level in that neck of the woods, then covered with dirt to make a mound like a barrow, and there would've been dirt; there's a pool. But I've never seen one in person.
Anyway, it's a square about 3-4 feet on a side; perhaps the blueprints for the house were originally in the wrong unit, a la spinal tap, and the slab was poured before anyone noticed.
That's been the best guess, but it's no pit; just a slab on the ground. And no scorch marks or other indications that it was ever used for that as I recall.
And a fat lot of good that did. Anyone who wanted to drink it wound up doing business with someone who made it and sold it.
I remember my Grandmother telling me about how convenient it was where she grew up; the local sheriff's office was the distributor, so you could call them up and they'd deliver.
Note that "ultimately led to a frickin' constitutional amendment being ratified!" wouldn't have been possible without the previous Amendment, which also got the required votes in Congress and the various State Legislatures.
Yes; people legitimately thought it would be a good idea at the time. Lots of people, in fact. But it didn't take too long for that to all fall apart.
To bring the conversation back, I think something similar is going on with copyright; people thought it was a legitimately good idea (and there is the kernel of a good idea in there, IMO) but it's kept expanding and expanding like some sort of terrible blob monster. Instead of merely expanding to the greatest extent that can be gotten away with (such as the post-prohibition landscape where alcohol is regulated but not illegal nationwide) it's going too far and will produce a backlash that may leave the copyright maximalists worse off than if they had left well enough alone.
I am reminded of the Frederick Douglass quote: The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose.
There was a large detached garage, so not a shed. And there was a hot tub on the patio adjacent to the house; the pad was in the middle of a lawn behind the patio, about 20-30 feet from anything.
I refute your claim that I infringed on your copyright simply by reading your poem.
No, not reading. Copying. You downloaded it as a necessary step before you possibly could read it. Check out the case I provided a link to a few posts ago; the opinion discusses how it works, and itself provides citations to other cases that provide the precedents it builds on.
I find that people generally are ignorant as to what copyright law actually is. They've got an idea which is not too objectionable, so they don't speak up. Having been informed as to what it really is, they tend to recognize it as crazy, and that's progress toward reforming the law, IMO.
In fact, there is an abundance of precedent that the mere act of USING a copyrighted work, even if it somehow makes a copy, does not, by itself constitute copyright infringement.
Great, can you provide me with the cites? I'd love to read them.
If it did, then even the act of memorization would be illegal, since that is making a copy in somebody's head.
So far it hasn't gotten that bad, but in any case I merely said that you made a copy on your computer.
I use email to keep in touch with people that I personally know, I read and participate in assorted legitimate online forums and discussions, such as slashdot, stackoverflow, and others
What this means is, if you, mark-t, are reading this post, you've necessarily reproduced my awful, awful, but entirely copyrightable and copyrighted poem. There's no other way that you could have gotten it into your web browser other than by reproducing it. And while much reproduction of this sort is implicitly licensed, I've at least made a colorable argument that no such license was granted to you, or to anyone to extend to you. The fact that you didn't know it was going to happen, and couldn't possibly have taken reasonable steps to avoid it, is of no matter. And it's certainly not my fault, for I didn't make you read the post.
So welcome to infringement land, population: you. If you're reading this -- and I suspect with all the certainty that of Jack Valenti that VCRs will kill the movie industry, that you are -- I am curious as to whether you think I should register my copyright and sue you. I could at the very least seek an injunction against you downloading the copyrighted part of this post in the future, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, the impounding and destruction of the computer you used to do the deed, and of course, actual damages and profits.
Had I taken the time to apply for the registration of the poem before submitting the post, I could even pursue statutory damages of no less than $750 (or if you can prove that you were an innocent infringer -- not easy, btw -- then the damages are no less than $200). But I'm feeling a bit lazy today, so you're in luck.
I could've just said that receiving email can make you an infringer, or looking at the wrong web page can make you an infringer, and that you can't even trust professionals in the field of video (IIRC there was an incident where some copyrighted art showed up in the background of The Cosby Show and due to legal issues, was ultimately removed because there was at least a colorable claim that this was infringement), or audio (Remember George Harrison getting sued over 'My Sweet Lord?') or elsewhere.
It's a minefield in large part due to the lack of a mens rea requirement for infringement. And no matter how lily-white you may think you are, you're probably not. All that's saving you are the transactional costs to plaintiffs. Make it easier for them, and you just make it worse for everyone.
Most houses in Florida, particularly outside of the panhandle, are just concrete slabs poured on level ground. There's a bit of a trench to anchor it in, but no foundation like you're thinking of. Hardly anyone has a basement. Maybe if they live on the side of a hill, one story will be dug into the hill on one side.
This is because the ground usually doesn't freeze, it's cheaper, easier, and faster. Most of the state was developed after the war and after home air conditioners became affordable. So crappy tract housing had become the norm.
I grew up in a house like that -- it had been previously owned by the builder, who had a concrete business. Therefore there was a huge concrete patio, big driveway, and some sort of slab in the middle of the yard, which we never really figured out the purpose of. And on the inside, the floor consists of some carpet on a carpet pad on the slab. Or tile on the slab. Or wood flooring on plywood on the slab.
Areas that get a lot of water from hurricanes, however, may have houses built on columns -- you park the car below and the house starts a story above the ground.
Since copyright (in the US at least) is a strict liability statute, it doesn't matter how diligent you are. Even if you take all reasonable care and are not even so much as negligent, even if you are tricked into it, infringement is still infringement and you're liable for it. And due to how a computer works, you can't read, see, or hear a damn thing on the Internet without having necessarily made some sort of copy in the process.
So aside from simply not using the Internet, I'd be impressed to know how you accomplish such a thing.
Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if people who infringe on copyright could be reasonably held accountable for their actions. You certainly can't argue that it's even a remotely unusual thing for many people in our society to do today.
And therein lies the problem. If so many people do it (you yourself estimate that 75% of the population does) then why should it be illegal at all?
Most people probably break the speed limit whilst driving, but at least there is a real safety issue involved. And if enforcement became total, I doubt that the penalties would be allowed to remain substantial for violations of 5-10 mph over the limit -- the public outcry would be too much.
And during prohibition, most people who wanted to drink managed to anyway. And the negative effects of enforcement efforts, up to and including the rise of organized crime and widespread violence and corruption, ultimately led to a frickin' constitutional amendment being ratified!
If copyright were really important, like desegregation, then I could see pushing it down the throats of an unwilling and unruly populace. But it's not. Infringement isn't even wrong, copyright being an amoral issue. (Though if morality were a factor, surely it would not favor copyright holders who seek to lock up knowledge out of mere greed)
If everyone is breaking the law, and we intend to live in a place where the legitimacy of the government comes from the consent of the governed, then the correct choice of action is to legalize what those people are doing, absent a really important reason to do otherwise. And the more that enforcement of the current law is stepped up, the more likely it becomes that people will flock to a reform effort that could easily result in the copyright maximalists winding up worse off than if they had just ignored it.
Yeah, I'm saving about a dollar a month, but I suppose that's better than giving them a dollar a month for no good reason. (Haven't even turned the tv on in over half a year)
Well... I think it had a lot more to do with NASA knowing that they'd never get the Nixon White House and OMB to sign off on it unless the Air Force was involved, giving the Shuttle a customer. But the Air Force wanted those stupid polar launches from VAFB to put up spy satellites on almost no notice, so that meant a big cargo bay, greater cross range, and the other various compromises that led to the crappy Shuttle we got.
If you haven't read it, Jenkins' Space Shuttle book is the definitive resource. (Sadly the most recent edition ends slightly before the Columbia accident; I assume a final edition is in the works) Also there are some hella good classroom lecture videos from an MIT course on the Shuttle, which featured guest speakers from NASA such as Chris Kraft. You can see them here: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/video-lectures/
Yeah, I had to get their most basic cable package (didn't even include CSPAN!) to get a small discount on Internet service. But recently the rates changed and it would've been more expensive to also have TV service, so I canceled it. I have rabbit ears and almost never watch TV so it's no trouble.
No, that's not true. No one can own a work of music itself (if it were possible, we wouldn't need copyrights to simulate it). But a copy of a work -- i.e. a tangible object in which a instance of the work is fixed -- is easily ownable. And that's usually how it is done. When you buy a wax cylinder, or 8 track, or minidisc or whatever, there's no license. You just own it. And you can do whatever you want with it, so long as it's not illegal. Copyright doesn't give the copyright holder a right to prohibit others from private performances of musical works or sound recordings. Thus, listening to them is not only legal, it is something that the copyright holder cannot license you to do, because he has no pertinent rights to license to begin with.
This idea that licensing is normal is the fault of the software industry, which traditionally has been unusual in doing this (even though it is not necessary for most users) and it is alarming that the practice is spreading.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't care about the terms, just make one civil and one religious, with legal issues pertaining to one and conditions within the church pertaining to the other.
They already are. Civil marriage is what the state deals with, it is subject to the 14th Amendment, and it is what the pro-marriage-equality people are working on.
Religious marriage is whatever the religion in question wants to do. Some already recognize same sex marriages, some don't. Some are polygamous, some aren't. Some require consent, some don't. Adherents of religion A don't have to recognize the marriages performed by the heretics of religion B, and vice versa.
And the state doesn't recognize religious marriages at all. Religion C might be fine with marrying three people, but the state doesn't care. Religion D might not recognize divorce, and thus refuse to marry two divorcees, but the state doesn't care. Religion E might only marry E-ists, and not recognize marriages involving anyone else, but the state doesn't care.
About the only involvement between the state and religions for marriages is that religious officiants and the spouses to be may get the appropriate licenses from the state to perform and get married; this can be done as a part of a religious ceremony, but it doesn't have to be. It's equally fine for people to get married at City Hall, then later go to a church for a religious wedding. But if you do the religious wedding only, you're not married in the eyes of the state, and this can be a problem for various legal matters.
They just happen to both be called marriage. For most people this doesn't seem to be too confusing.
they're just asking that people respect their fences
And I don't care. I think that we ought to reassess where those fences are, exactly, regardless of whether they're keen on the idea or not.
For a long time, everyone kept saying that the fines were too high. And they were right. So now the fines are reasonable and people are still complaining.
The fines are higher now, actually; the copyright holders didn't give up their right to sue. They don't even have to wait, they can do so at any time, if they've got enough reason to. The six strikes thing is not instead of litigation, it is in addition to litigation.
I like a functioning Hollywood where the actors, writers, directors and production crew are paid. That money has to come from me and the other viewers. If the other viewers aren't pulling their weight because they're sucking down a torrent stream, well I've got to pay more or the production quality drops.
I'd like a pony. Their business model is not my problem. I say let the production values drop. They can fall a long, long way before it's a problem.
In the US at least, you can see the main exclusive rights that comprise copyright at 17 USC 106; for a third party to do one of these things to a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder is infringing. The two that are usually implicated in matters of online piracy are reproduction of a work and distribution of a work.
Downloading is reproduction: the downloader fixes the work into a new copy on his end (usually a hard drive). Uploading is treated as distribution (although technically it doesn't quite fit): the uploader distributes the work to the downloader, who as mentioned, fixes it into a copy. This was all established a long time ago; it was old hat by the time Napster came down, and gave us a clear restatement of this:
Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders' exclusive rights: the rights of reproduction, Â 106(1); and distribution, Â 106(3). Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs' distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs' reproduction rights.
You also said,
"Making available" or sharing the copyrighted work is the only infringement that is a violation
Which is ironic as there's been a longstanding debate as to whether or not making available without actually distributing counts as distributing.
And anyway, other than the weirdness of the AHRA, all infringements are actionable, which is what I expect you mean by "violations."
No, in civil cases the plaintiff still bears the initial burden of proof. The standard of proof is lower, which is what you may be thinking of, but one does not simply walk into Mordor, accuse someone, and win without presenting any evidence whatsoever. The burden of proof is that you have to show enough evidence to support your claim.
Seriously, what would be a better way to handle this? I pirate stuff from time to time, and I would rather get a $35 dollar ticket to encourage me to stop, rather than a $5000 dollar extortion fee.
It's not "rather than." The decision as to whether or not to sue remains in the hands of the copyright holder. They haven't waived it. If they have a case against you, they can sue at any arbitrary time within the statute of limitations. 'Strikes' don't matter. It's just a way to wring money out of people and deter infringement without the publishers having to put up with that pesky due process. It is not an alternative enforcement system, it's an additional one, on top of all the crap we've had to put up with already.
WHAT IS YOUR BETTER PLAN IF THIS ONE IS SO HORRIBLE, ffs, answer that question. How should copyright holders enforce their rights?
Legalize (or at least make non-actionable) otherwise infringing activity by natural persons if noncommercial in nature. Then much of what they're upset about would not be illegal (at least not meaningfully so).
Because who says that their rights are written in stone?
If the word marriage, as used in the context of a civil marriage as it is today, is important, then same sex couples should have an equal right to use it as anyone else. If it is not important, then there is no reason to change it so that anti-marriage-equality avoid feeling butthurt.
To try to change the terminology used merely because a group that you dislike is finally being treated equally is childish spoilsportism. I see no reason to indulge it for it for an instant.
In this case though, the voters approved a constitutional amendment
They approved an amendment to the state constitution, which, according to the supremacy clause of the federal constitution, is inferior to the federal constitution. This means that if it conflicts with the federal constitution, it will be overturned as (federally) unconstitutional.
In no portion of the US constitution is any mention of marriage made
So? It's very vague about almost everything. That's never been a problem before. Nowhere in the federal Constitution is there any mention of the Internet. Yet, if the federal government attempted to censor you, you'd pretty certainly claim that you were protected by the first amendment guaranteed of free speech.
Here, the issue is that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment by treating same sex couples differently than opposite sex couples, as well as the due process clause of the 14 amendment by denying to same sex couples a fundamental right without any good reason to do so.
And they're right. And the federal trial and appeals courts have both agreed. We're still waiting for the Supreme Court opinion, but I'm optimistic.
All Americans are equal when it comes to marriage. All citizens have the legal right to marry a member of the opposite sex.
Yes, in the aptly-named Loving case, the state of Virginia argued that a ban on interracial marriage satisfied the requirement of equal protection, because it affected all races equally. It was utterly unconvincing, and the ban was overturned.
So I don't think you'll get far with that crap. I'd say it was a nice try... but it really wasn't.
You said:
Yes it is. When the majority of voters reject something, and a Judge allows it, then the judge needs to removed from the bench, and sent to prison for breaking the law.
The Supreme Court said:
, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).
Also, in a common law country like the US, they can write new laws. Contracts and torts, for example, are mostly the creation of the judiciary.
What you described is exactly the situation as it stands in the US, except that the word marriage is used for what you propose calling a civil union. That is, 'marriage' has two contexts, one civil and one religious, and they don't precisely overlap, nor do they need to.
But this isn't enough, for the anti-marriage-equality folks. They want to control the use of the word 'marriage' because they believe it has magical properties or something.
I like that, except it was built in the late 80s, when it was fairly obvious that a nuclear war with the USSR was unlikely. Plus I think those were usually built at ground level in that neck of the woods, then covered with dirt to make a mound like a barrow, and there would've been dirt; there's a pool. But I've never seen one in person.
Anyway, it's a square about 3-4 feet on a side; perhaps the blueprints for the house were originally in the wrong unit, a la spinal tap, and the slab was poured before anyone noticed.
That's been the best guess, but it's no pit; just a slab on the ground. And no scorch marks or other indications that it was ever used for that as I recall.
I just think of it as the mystery square.
What was illegal was making it and selling it.
And a fat lot of good that did. Anyone who wanted to drink it wound up doing business with someone who made it and sold it.
I remember my Grandmother telling me about how convenient it was where she grew up; the local sheriff's office was the distributor, so you could call them up and they'd deliver.
Note that "ultimately led to a frickin' constitutional amendment being ratified!" wouldn't have been possible without the previous Amendment, which also got the required votes in Congress and the various State Legislatures.
Yes; people legitimately thought it would be a good idea at the time. Lots of people, in fact. But it didn't take too long for that to all fall apart.
To bring the conversation back, I think something similar is going on with copyright; people thought it was a legitimately good idea (and there is the kernel of a good idea in there, IMO) but it's kept expanding and expanding like some sort of terrible blob monster. Instead of merely expanding to the greatest extent that can be gotten away with (such as the post-prohibition landscape where alcohol is regulated but not illegal nationwide) it's going too far and will produce a backlash that may leave the copyright maximalists worse off than if they had left well enough alone.
I am reminded of the Frederick Douglass quote: The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose.
There was a large detached garage, so not a shed. And there was a hot tub on the patio adjacent to the house; the pad was in the middle of a lawn behind the patio, about 20-30 feet from anything.
I refute your claim that I infringed on your copyright simply by reading your poem.
No, not reading. Copying. You downloaded it as a necessary step before you possibly could read it. Check out the case I provided a link to a few posts ago; the opinion discusses how it works, and itself provides citations to other cases that provide the precedents it builds on.
I find that people generally are ignorant as to what copyright law actually is. They've got an idea which is not too objectionable, so they don't speak up. Having been informed as to what it really is, they tend to recognize it as crazy, and that's progress toward reforming the law, IMO.
In fact, there is an abundance of precedent that the mere act of USING a copyrighted work, even if it somehow makes a copy, does not, by itself constitute copyright infringement.
Great, can you provide me with the cites? I'd love to read them.
If it did, then even the act of memorization would be illegal, since that is making a copy in somebody's head.
So far it hasn't gotten that bad, but in any case I merely said that you made a copy on your computer.
I use email to keep in touch with people that I personally know, I read and participate in assorted legitimate online forums and discussions, such as slashdot, stackoverflow, and others
What this means is, if you, mark-t, are reading this post, you've necessarily reproduced my awful, awful, but entirely copyrightable and copyrighted poem. There's no other way that you could have gotten it into your web browser other than by reproducing it. And while much reproduction of this sort is implicitly licensed, I've at least made a colorable argument that no such license was granted to you, or to anyone to extend to you. The fact that you didn't know it was going to happen, and couldn't possibly have taken reasonable steps to avoid it, is of no matter. And it's certainly not my fault, for I didn't make you read the post.
So welcome to infringement land, population: you. If you're reading this -- and I suspect with all the certainty that of Jack Valenti that VCRs will kill the movie industry, that you are -- I am curious as to whether you think I should register my copyright and sue you. I could at the very least seek an injunction against you downloading the copyrighted part of this post in the future, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, the impounding and destruction of the computer you used to do the deed, and of course, actual damages and profits.
Had I taken the time to apply for the registration of the poem before submitting the post, I could even pursue statutory damages of no less than $750 (or if you can prove that you were an innocent infringer -- not easy, btw -- then the damages are no less than $200). But I'm feeling a bit lazy today, so you're in luck.
I could've just said that receiving email can make you an infringer, or looking at the wrong web page can make you an infringer, and that you can't even trust professionals in the field of video (IIRC there was an incident where some copyrighted art showed up in the background of The Cosby Show and due to legal issues, was ultimately removed because there was at least a colorable claim that this was infringement), or audio (Remember George Harrison getting sued over 'My Sweet Lord?') or elsewhere.
It's a minefield in large part due to the lack of a mens rea requirement for infringement. And no matter how lily-white you may think you are, you're probably not. All that's saving you are the transactional costs to plaintiffs. Make it easier for them, and you just make it worse for everyone.
Most houses in Florida, particularly outside of the panhandle, are just concrete slabs poured on level ground. There's a bit of a trench to anchor it in, but no foundation like you're thinking of. Hardly anyone has a basement. Maybe if they live on the side of a hill, one story will be dug into the hill on one side.
This is because the ground usually doesn't freeze, it's cheaper, easier, and faster. Most of the state was developed after the war and after home air conditioners became affordable. So crappy tract housing had become the norm.
I grew up in a house like that -- it had been previously owned by the builder, who had a concrete business. Therefore there was a huge concrete patio, big driveway, and some sort of slab in the middle of the yard, which we never really figured out the purpose of. And on the inside, the floor consists of some carpet on a carpet pad on the slab. Or tile on the slab. Or wood flooring on plywood on the slab.
Areas that get a lot of water from hurricanes, however, may have houses built on columns -- you park the car below and the house starts a story above the ground.
That said, however, I'm quite diligent when it comes to copyright.
Impressive. But quite difficult. Behold:
Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999) (You'll want to skip ahead to the bit that begins with "Do those who browse the websites infringe plaintidf's copyright")
Since copyright (in the US at least) is a strict liability statute, it doesn't matter how diligent you are. Even if you take all reasonable care and are not even so much as negligent, even if you are tricked into it, infringement is still infringement and you're liable for it. And due to how a computer works, you can't read, see, or hear a damn thing on the Internet without having necessarily made some sort of copy in the process.
So aside from simply not using the Internet, I'd be impressed to know how you accomplish such a thing.
Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if people who infringe on copyright could be reasonably held accountable for their actions. You certainly can't argue that it's even a remotely unusual thing for many people in our society to do today.
And therein lies the problem. If so many people do it (you yourself estimate that 75% of the population does) then why should it be illegal at all?
Most people probably break the speed limit whilst driving, but at least there is a real safety issue involved. And if enforcement became total, I doubt that the penalties would be allowed to remain substantial for violations of 5-10 mph over the limit -- the public outcry would be too much.
And during prohibition, most people who wanted to drink managed to anyway. And the negative effects of enforcement efforts, up to and including the rise of organized crime and widespread violence and corruption, ultimately led to a frickin' constitutional amendment being ratified!
If copyright were really important, like desegregation, then I could see pushing it down the throats of an unwilling and unruly populace. But it's not. Infringement isn't even wrong, copyright being an amoral issue. (Though if morality were a factor, surely it would not favor copyright holders who seek to lock up knowledge out of mere greed)
If everyone is breaking the law, and we intend to live in a place where the legitimacy of the government comes from the consent of the governed, then the correct choice of action is to legalize what those people are doing, absent a really important reason to do otherwise. And the more that enforcement of the current law is stepped up, the more likely it becomes that people will flock to a reform effort that could easily result in the copyright maximalists winding up worse off than if they had just ignored it.
Yeah, I'm saving about a dollar a month, but I suppose that's better than giving them a dollar a month for no good reason. (Haven't even turned the tv on in over half a year)
Well... I think it had a lot more to do with NASA knowing that they'd never get the Nixon White House and OMB to sign off on it unless the Air Force was involved, giving the Shuttle a customer. But the Air Force wanted those stupid polar launches from VAFB to put up spy satellites on almost no notice, so that meant a big cargo bay, greater cross range, and the other various compromises that led to the crappy Shuttle we got.
If you haven't read it, Jenkins' Space Shuttle book is the definitive resource. (Sadly the most recent edition ends slightly before the Columbia accident; I assume a final edition is in the works) Also there are some hella good classroom lecture videos from an MIT course on the Shuttle, which featured guest speakers from NASA such as Chris Kraft. You can see them here: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/video-lectures/
Yeah, I had to get their most basic cable package (didn't even include CSPAN!) to get a small discount on Internet service. But recently the rates changed and it would've been more expensive to also have TV service, so I canceled it. I have rabbit ears and almost never watch TV so it's no trouble.
No, that's not true. No one can own a work of music itself (if it were possible, we wouldn't need copyrights to simulate it). But a copy of a work -- i.e. a tangible object in which a instance of the work is fixed -- is easily ownable. And that's usually how it is done. When you buy a wax cylinder, or 8 track, or minidisc or whatever, there's no license. You just own it. And you can do whatever you want with it, so long as it's not illegal. Copyright doesn't give the copyright holder a right to prohibit others from private performances of musical works or sound recordings. Thus, listening to them is not only legal, it is something that the copyright holder cannot license you to do, because he has no pertinent rights to license to begin with.
This idea that licensing is normal is the fault of the software industry, which traditionally has been unusual in doing this (even though it is not necessary for most users) and it is alarming that the practice is spreading.