I can't really say that refusing to give root DNS over to ICANN is bad. The organization is incompetent and has regularly screwed up everything they've touched. The problem is with the rest of what the US said: they won't cede control to *any* organization.
In SP2 you must mean that spyware is just as easy to install. Close popup dialog, whoops you have spyware. Visit website, you have spyware. Stop using MSIE and you have a better chance, but still not perfect. No matter what you do, if people click that confirmation dialog, it's all for nothing.
Most people click the affirmative for every dialog that shows up.
OK, you've been very lucky. There are also people who drive drunk every day, and have been doing that for 25 years. Neither are an excuse for stupid behavior.
Pre-SP2 a Windows machine could be compromised with no user touching it. Post-Sp2.... same thing, just a different set of attacks. The firewall is only stopping it if the router is perfect. As soon as the computer requests data, the firewall is irrelevant. Now you would need a proxy server to try to do anything about it.
You don't seem to know a damned thing about security, so stop implying you do before you really screw someone over.
Don't be naive, that Linux box will likely be quickly compromised, too. You need to secure it just like anything else. It's just easier to do with Linux than it is on Windows.
"Here's all it takes to keep your Windows box safe: a router (or SP2) and Firefox. Oh, and enough common sense to not run any executable file sent to you by a stranger."
And then you're compromised. You're either a troll or some putz that helps everyone spread spyware and viruses. Don't help out your friends and family, you don't know anything about security.
Yes, spyware and viruses *CAN* install themselves. This is the whole problem, users who do nothing end up with a compromised machine. Users who actually use their computer end up with a heavily compromised machine.
Most of the adware/virus install happens by simply using a Microsoft email client or web browser. Whoops, an HTML renderer somehow allowed unauthorized executable content to run.
Windows machines do get regularly compromised behind well crafted firewalls. They still get compromised with AV software, malware protection, and MS service packs.
You deal with this the best you can by using all the protection you mentioned, and then not using MS application software to access the internet. The right way to describe your setup is "reasonably secure" and not simply "secure".
The only part of your post that is accurate is to not trust AV vendors.
Really though, I hope people don't actually belive that sort of thing. Just a cursory look at available information would disprove that sort of thing so easily. People are just completely brainwashed into believe whatever spews forth from the TV. Sort of depressing...
Apple is not some kind of perfection here. Their Windows software is terrible. They break their own UI conventions and make software that looks different from everything else. They clutter the screen with crap and make their software incredible heavy.
iTunes is a great example of this. It had more features a year ago than it does now. Taking stuff out because "the home market doesn't use it" is not a good idea for customers. Apple is not right for doing it. Apple is not what Slashdot pretends it is. It's just another company.
People don't bitch about WMP not having sharing because it never had it, and isn't intended to. You could always just share the folder and be done with it.
There are alternatives that do all the things that Apple removed. Most of them are better than iTunes. You can even do multicast audio out of some of them.
They're highly unlikely to ever power up that server. You may have a mechanism to destroy the data if some condition isn't met. They can't know that, so they might lose evidence.
If the police in that area are really so incompetent when it relates to computers, then they shouldn't be going on the raid. Send someone who knows what they're doing. Then you won't get people ripping things apart and chainsawing stuff from the floor.
You're lacking information as much as you claim the other poster is. Part of the problem with the global warming topic is that we aren't sure how *much* of an effect we're having. While we know our use of fossil fuels contributes to a climate change, how much of the observed change is the result of us? How long will the planet take to recover? Is ozone reduction natural and accelerated by our industry, or completely caused by industry?
There are many questions like this that are still in contention. There's evidence that we may still be emerging from an ice age. There's evidence some climate change could be resulting from distortions in the magnetosphere. There's evidence that ozone holes are cyclical and related to factors like solar radiation and its variation from flares and sunspots. These sorts of factors just keep coming up.
From what I read and hear, our best bet is to reduce our production of greenhouse gases, and then observe. We may need to do nothing for the planet to recover. We may find that further action is required to clean up our mess. We may even find that the climate and planet were changing naturally in a way adverse to humans. At some future point we can implement some way to alter the environment in a necessary way, if such a thing is required.
As for energy production, right now it would seem that the best course of action is to shut down as much coal prodution as possible and build nuclear infrastructure. It produces the least amount of hardful by-product compared to other methods. There is less radioactive waste than coal produces, and less impact to the environment than the same. Wind power is just not sufficient, and solar requires the production of cells, which is a very dirty and expensive process. This seems to be a good compromise while we research other options.
You are certainly right that there would be some short term pain in switching to nuclear. It doesn't help that somewhat fanatical groups work so hard to get rid of our more efficient energy production plants. There are major countries that have simply dropped nuclear power for completely ridiculous reasons. That needs to be overcome, or any usable alternative will fail.
I think part of the GP's point is that unless we have a comparable option to switch to, we can't really do much about it. Suggesting the use of unsuitable options does not fix the problem, it just creates another problem.
The second part is the veracity of information. While fossil fuels were a large contributing factor to climate change, they are by no means the only factor, nor are they the largest. By blindly believing information without seeing the work it is based on, you can't verify the accuracy. You have no way of knowing that your "facts" are actually correct. The GP was right in that the answer to most of the question on this topic should be "We don't know." because we don't know for sure yet. We need to keep studying and observing and theorizing. We getting better, but the signal to noise on the topic is quite low.
You can get a 90$ 200GB drive that is relatively unreliable, and IDE. It also means consumer grade quality. You get to deal with filesystems problems, the annoying low quality bus, etc.
Or you could do tape and it just works right. It also has longer lifespans and is more easily swapped, and more easily cataloged, and takes up less room.
If you encrypt the data, you can be compelled to furnish the key. If you destroy the data, then you cannot produce the data. They can use it against you by trying to show you had something to hide, but without supporting evidence, they can't really convict you on just that. If you refuse to turn over the key, things are worse for you. Then they have the data, but you *are* hiding something.
At once point when I was in high school, I was paranoid about my parents finding certain content. I'd set up a system that if you didn't do the right things and tried to forcibly mount the drive, it would destroy itself and run a DOD data wipe on it. This was made somewhat easy in that I used Stacker to compress the drive, and so I only had to erase one file. Norton Utilities came with the secure file eraser. Now, this wouldn't do much against a real data forensics person, since they wouldn't just boot the computer and see what happens.
I remember helping one friend from Texas learn to drive. She had a TX permit, and apparently they issue a license that has a restriction which means permit. MA didn't know this, apparently. She went in to deal with getting it converted to a MA permit, and they just issued her a license. All because the TX permit says license on it. It's never been noticed.
I was transferring my license from NY, and it's just as much work to get a license issued there as MA, as far as the requirements; NJ is similar. I'm not as sure about other states. You can get a Pennsylvania license that has no photo on it. NH used to be a laminated dot matrix printout, heh.
As for birth certificates... you could also easily forge one. The only special thing you would need is the Town seal to emboss the copy with. The Northeast states that I know about only mail you a real license. They'll give you the junk paper temporary at the DMV, and those include a B&W photo. However, they tend to be willing to mail a duplicate to the registered address by just having you pay a fee.
As messy as all the State things can be, it wouldn't be any better at the Federal level. I really don't want it there; it isn't their function, and it shouldn't start being so. Some of this is being done voluntarily by the states now, under the guise of anti-terrorism bills. I have a lot more reasons for that stance, but I also favor minimalist Federal, and that probably sums it up.:)
What state was that? What a horrible way of doing it! I'd wager that they've made it better since the early 90's, but probably not by a huge amount. Once you had that ID, you could've done a change of address. Then you could've had a new photo taken, and probably had a new signature put on the license.
Yup, I have done that a few times. When I first got my license it was almost as bad as you say. I needed to have a form of photo proof in addition to my SSN card. I just transferred my license to another state, and needed to supply these:
-SSN Card or US Passport -Document proving date of birth -Document proving signature -Document proving Massachusetts residency -Out of state license with Photo ID (One of the documents, other than a SSN card or passport, must be a Primary document)
They have more detail on primary and secondary documents for my state on www.massrmv.com.
Also, they will only mail you a replacement ID to the address registered with them. You can't get it in person from the RMV. So you would have to add the step of either getting to the address, or changing the address.
I don't disagree that not all states do this in a foolproof or even moderatly secure way. Just firm up the state requirements, though. I know I don't want the Federal doing ID cards. We already have a system in place, it just needs some upgrading.
It is unfortunate that the US system pretty much requires lawyers, but that stems from more than just legalese. Since we have so many levels a law can exist at, and so many things that reference each other, a profession was bound to pop up for people we just knew them already.
It is still possible to know and understand the law, but it is too difficult for the average person because there are simply too many laws. I think we both agree that this situation is a definite problem.
The last point I wanted to make about the definition topic is to agree that words change. If you codify a definition into law, or set it through case law and precident, it fixes the meaning. Since words change, you will end with legal definition mismatched from common definition. Piracy is just one of the many of these.
We already have things that can do that without robbing States' rights and futher bloating the Federal level. National IDs sound nice to some people, but there are many of us that scream and yell against the idea every way possible. We have State IDs and we have State drivers' licenses. You had to verify your identity to get those sorts of things. Coincidentally, unemployment comes from the State, which also issued the ID. If they were running the programs well, this would be no harder to deal with now than with a Federal ID. I guarantee you that the Federal will run an ID program any worse than a State. Just look at Social Security.
The courts use codified definitions so that things are exacting, fair, and not open to interpretation as much as possible. You wouldn't want the courts using vernacular because it would open up for tremendous abuse.
The piracy thing is one example, but there are many others. To illustrate, many young people now consider sex to only be vaginal intercourse, so oral/anal would not be sex. Would you want the courts to use that definition of sex? Perhaps abortion becomes first degree murder. Et cetera, ad infinitum.
Another more on topic one... the media equates copyright infringment to theft, which means many people believe it is. In your setup, that would mean that all copyright infringers could now be charged with theft.
The legal definitions of things are very important because it limits scope by creating more exacting boundaries.
Pasta sauce = 1$-2$ for 16oz Meat = 2$+/lb (most supermarkets are up to 4$+) Milk = 2.50$/gal (most are 3.25$+) Yogurt = 2$+/12oz Vegetable = avg 2$/lb
This is in central Massachusetts right now, and taking the lowest prices I can find. (Combination of wholesale club for most things, and convenience stores for milk.)
TV dinners cost a lot more than 1$ a piece. You can't even get chicken nuggets or fish sticks for that kind of price. Try more like 3.50$ a piece, and up from there. They aren't very healthy for you, either. If you want to be able to spend under 5$ for a decent meal, never move to the coasts because you will hate it. Even ground beef costs 2.50$ and up per pound right now, and the gas to get it to you is currently around 2.25$/gal.
I do think it's cool that you usually buy used. Reduces reliance on the overpriced industry, and gets more use out of the products. Never a bad thing to cut down on waste, be it trash waste, or waste of your wallet.
Eww. If you want to get ill, you can eat ramen every day. I think you will find yourself with serious health problems resulting from cholesterol and sodium intake.
The easier answer is to not pay the 20$ for some stupid DVD and just buy healthy food.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty. The cop executed you without proof of crime, and without a jury trial. He only has circumstantial evidence resulting from you running. I would allow the cop to fire on you in few circumstances, otherwise the gun is for intimidation.
In my opinion, unless you are an immediate danger to others, the cop murdered you. This is why so many cops never fire their weapons at anyone: it is so rarely necessary, and you might kill someone.
As for the drugs under the spare tire, well that's easy. People want the drugs, you're trying to provide them for profit. It is illegal to possess or sell drugs, so you hide them, just in case. You're right about some cops being able to tell when you're up to something. And if they can build *reasonable* suspicion, then the law gives them the ability to search you or your car. You being nervous is not reasonable suspicion, but maybe you said ok when the cop asked if he can look in the trunk. Many people are nervous when a 6'2" guy wearing dark cloths and carrying a gun walks up to them while they're sitting in an enclosed space and unable to get away.
On to definitions... common use definition of extortion does include gross overcharge. I don't know if that's part of the legal definition.
You're right on one thing though, most of this boils down to people not wanting to pay. Then again, we're talking about an industry repeatedly convicted of collusion and price fixing, so there's probably something to the price not being acceptable to the market. One could argue that this is a market force trying to balance out the price point. Unfortunately, you would probably just argue against those things and say people are stealing and it's theft and they should burn.
Even though individual people might just download because they don't want to pay, that doesn't make it not a market force. Consider how common P2P is, and then take a look at costs in the marketplace. As production costs went down, and distribution became easier... prices went up. As sales increased... prices went up. Perhaps the market really *won't* pay the price for the product.
Finally, local officials generally have little to do with sports stadiums. The only places that can afford giving money up for that are large cities and states. Otherwise, you're talking about breaks on tax levy, maybe convenient rezoning, etc.
Personal opinion is that helping fund a sport is just as inappropriate as forcing me to give money to someone else for food. If I had a choice, I would completely refuse to allow any of my money to be used for social programs. I would opt out of unemployment, I would use private disability insurance, etc. Here's an interesting one for you... social security (FICA) works so well that government employees don't have to pay into it. They get an independant pension.
Actually, no you didn't profit. Profit is financial gain that exceeds ones costs. It is part of your income and it is only monetary. The definition does not stand.
I'm not arguing that profit *can't* be just a gain of some type, just that in a case such as this, it must be monetary.
If you want to talk about civil and criminal infractions, you have to use legal definitions. Copyright and patent are two legal constructs, and so terminology used to discuss them should also be, to keep things consistent. As a result, profit is financial gain over costs.
You spent money infringing by attaining the work, duplicating it, and then selling it. The revenue over those costs are your profit. Since there is no revenue in P2P, and no expectation of revenue, it is very difficult to use the stated definition of piracy. So, simple copyright infringment does not meet the definition, and is not piracy.
You're discussing the nature of a crime. You are wrong to not use the legal definition! The legal definition of piracy is, in fact, exactly what was stated about the high seas. Copyright infringment is neither theft nor piracy. The legal term for it is, you guessed it, copyright infringment.
Up until recently, it wasn't exactly a crime, either. It was a civil infraction that you could be sued for. When I say recently, I do mean the last ten years.
In your one example, you could and likely would be charged with assault in that situation. Assault was the threat of violence, battery is the conduct of violence. You would have committed assault and battery; they are two seperate criminal acts.
As for the use of language, when someone calls someone a pirate, they mean the eyepatch, peg-leg, goes around on a ship kind. When they talk about pirating something, they're talking about copyright infringment. You could avoid the confusion by not using the terms the media conglomerates prefer, and starting to use the terms the legal system prefers. You would also avoid starting senseless arguments over which is the right one. The courts say "copyright infringment" is the right one.
The reason people get charged over the whole thing is because the companies that use terms like "IP theft" and "piracy" are the bloodsucking bastards that everyone hates. They're the companies that starve their industries, illegally price fix, screw content creators, get brought up on antitrust charges, etc. For all the supposed damage that they allege is done through infringment, no damage is actually done. We don't have less music, or less software, or less literature because people infringe. We have less because copyrights last 100+ years, unique content is expensive/difficult to bring to market, and the existing industries don't care about anything past their own greed. We have less because of the chilling effect of bad copyright/patent and the ridiculous terms of said.
To sum up, the dictionary agrees with you; the courts do not (and neither do I). Piracy is a word intended to get people up in arms, but has a specific legal meaning. Also, there is massive disagreement about whether "IP theft" can occur and whether copyright infringment should be a crime at all.
A basic economics thing: the market will find a way. Customers have shown that they were not happy with the prices in the market. They bought less of the product. The prices continued to rise, and the market found a way to lower prices to something people were willing to pay. In this case, the market found a way to make the price zero, and people like that price. When your choices for a given product are: zero dollars or > twenty dollars, the choice is easy.
Both 1 and 2 are an artificial barrier in the market. The will raise prices because they work to prevent access to the product and adjustment to the market. They will simply further strengthen the market leader position to the detriment of everyone else.
While you shouldn't threaten theft, you do need a way to force lower prices. In this case, you have a product that costs 20$. You have a method of duplicating the product and distributing it for 0$. This shows that there is a fundamental problem with the product pricing. (This is also why it isn't stealing.) There will still be industry support for at least 2 because it allows them to price gouge on a product with 0 cost to reproduce.
IOW: Very few people steal music.
DRM is still a bad idea.
Suing customers is bad press, and will reduce sales.
The market is finding a way to stabilize on a price people are willing to pay.
The industry in question is pricing in violation of: federal law, federal order, court rulings. They have been convicted of anticompetitive behavior including: monopistic practicies, price fixing, and industry collusion.
Copyrights should only last several years, not over a century. Sort of like how they were initially written to work.
I still don't think any of this makes infringing on their copyrights OK. I just don't really care about it happening in this particular industry. I would love to see the studios in question go belly-up and the execs making these decisions lose everything.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't really say that refusing to give root DNS over to ICANN is bad. The organization is incompetent and has regularly screwed up everything they've touched. The problem is with the rest of what the US said: they won't cede control to *any* organization.
In SP2 you must mean that spyware is just as easy to install. Close popup dialog, whoops you have spyware. Visit website, you have spyware. Stop using MSIE and you have a better chance, but still not perfect. No matter what you do, if people click that confirmation dialog, it's all for nothing.
Most people click the affirmative for every dialog that shows up.
OK, you've been very lucky. There are also people who drive drunk every day, and have been doing that for 25 years. Neither are an excuse for stupid behavior.
Pre-SP2 a Windows machine could be compromised with no user touching it. Post-Sp2.... same thing, just a different set of attacks. The firewall is only stopping it if the router is perfect. As soon as the computer requests data, the firewall is irrelevant. Now you would need a proxy server to try to do anything about it.
You don't seem to know a damned thing about security, so stop implying you do before you really screw someone over.
Don't be naive, that Linux box will likely be quickly compromised, too. You need to secure it just like anything else. It's just easier to do with Linux than it is on Windows.
"Here's all it takes to keep your Windows box safe: a router (or SP2) and Firefox. Oh, and enough common sense to not run any executable file sent to you by a stranger."
And then you're compromised. You're either a troll or some putz that helps everyone spread spyware and viruses. Don't help out your friends and family, you don't know anything about security.
Yes, spyware and viruses *CAN* install themselves. This is the whole problem, users who do nothing end up with a compromised machine. Users who actually use their computer end up with a heavily compromised machine.
Most of the adware/virus install happens by simply using a Microsoft email client or web browser. Whoops, an HTML renderer somehow allowed unauthorized executable content to run.
Windows machines do get regularly compromised behind well crafted firewalls. They still get compromised with AV software, malware protection, and MS service packs.
You deal with this the best you can by using all the protection you mentioned, and then not using MS application software to access the internet. The right way to describe your setup is "reasonably secure" and not simply "secure".
The only part of your post that is accurate is to not trust AV vendors.
Laugh, it's funny. ;-)
Really though, I hope people don't actually belive that sort of thing. Just a cursory look at available information would disprove that sort of thing so easily. People are just completely brainwashed into believe whatever spews forth from the TV. Sort of depressing...
Apple is not some kind of perfection here. Their Windows software is terrible. They break their own UI conventions and make software that looks different from everything else. They clutter the screen with crap and make their software incredible heavy.
iTunes is a great example of this. It had more features a year ago than it does now. Taking stuff out because "the home market doesn't use it" is not a good idea for customers. Apple is not right for doing it. Apple is not what Slashdot pretends it is. It's just another company.
People don't bitch about WMP not having sharing because it never had it, and isn't intended to. You could always just share the folder and be done with it.
There are alternatives that do all the things that Apple removed. Most of them are better than iTunes. You can even do multicast audio out of some of them.
They're highly unlikely to ever power up that server. You may have a mechanism to destroy the data if some condition isn't met. They can't know that, so they might lose evidence.
If the police in that area are really so incompetent when it relates to computers, then they shouldn't be going on the raid. Send someone who knows what they're doing. Then you won't get people ripping things apart and chainsawing stuff from the floor.
You're lacking information as much as you claim the other poster is. Part of the problem with the global warming topic is that we aren't sure how *much* of an effect we're having. While we know our use of fossil fuels contributes to a climate change, how much of the observed change is the result of us? How long will the planet take to recover? Is ozone reduction natural and accelerated by our industry, or completely caused by industry?
There are many questions like this that are still in contention. There's evidence that we may still be emerging from an ice age. There's evidence some climate change could be resulting from distortions in the magnetosphere. There's evidence that ozone holes are cyclical and related to factors like solar radiation and its variation from flares and sunspots. These sorts of factors just keep coming up.
From what I read and hear, our best bet is to reduce our production of greenhouse gases, and then observe. We may need to do nothing for the planet to recover. We may find that further action is required to clean up our mess. We may even find that the climate and planet were changing naturally in a way adverse to humans. At some future point we can implement some way to alter the environment in a necessary way, if such a thing is required.
As for energy production, right now it would seem that the best course of action is to shut down as much coal prodution as possible and build nuclear infrastructure. It produces the least amount of hardful by-product compared to other methods. There is less radioactive waste than coal produces, and less impact to the environment than the same. Wind power is just not sufficient, and solar requires the production of cells, which is a very dirty and expensive process. This seems to be a good compromise while we research other options.
You are certainly right that there would be some short term pain in switching to nuclear. It doesn't help that somewhat fanatical groups work so hard to get rid of our more efficient energy production plants. There are major countries that have simply dropped nuclear power for completely ridiculous reasons. That needs to be overcome, or any usable alternative will fail.
I think part of the GP's point is that unless we have a comparable option to switch to, we can't really do much about it. Suggesting the use of unsuitable options does not fix the problem, it just creates another problem.
The second part is the veracity of information. While fossil fuels were a large contributing factor to climate change, they are by no means the only factor, nor are they the largest. By blindly believing information without seeing the work it is based on, you can't verify the accuracy. You have no way of knowing that your "facts" are actually correct. The GP was right in that the answer to most of the question on this topic should be "We don't know." because we don't know for sure yet. We need to keep studying and observing and theorizing. We getting better, but the signal to noise on the topic is quite low.
You can get a 90$ 200GB drive that is relatively unreliable, and IDE. It also means consumer grade quality. You get to deal with filesystems problems, the annoying low quality bus, etc.
Or you could do tape and it just works right. It also has longer lifespans and is more easily swapped, and more easily cataloged, and takes up less room.
If you encrypt the data, you can be compelled to furnish the key. If you destroy the data, then you cannot produce the data. They can use it against you by trying to show you had something to hide, but without supporting evidence, they can't really convict you on just that. If you refuse to turn over the key, things are worse for you. Then they have the data, but you *are* hiding something.
At once point when I was in high school, I was paranoid about my parents finding certain content. I'd set up a system that if you didn't do the right things and tried to forcibly mount the drive, it would destroy itself and run a DOD data wipe on it. This was made somewhat easy in that I used Stacker to compress the drive, and so I only had to erase one file. Norton Utilities came with the secure file eraser. Now, this wouldn't do much against a real data forensics person, since they wouldn't just boot the computer and see what happens.
I remember helping one friend from Texas learn to drive. She had a TX permit, and apparently they issue a license that has a restriction which means permit. MA didn't know this, apparently. She went in to deal with getting it converted to a MA permit, and they just issued her a license. All because the TX permit says license on it. It's never been noticed.
:)
I was transferring my license from NY, and it's just as much work to get a license issued there as MA, as far as the requirements; NJ is similar. I'm not as sure about other states. You can get a Pennsylvania license that has no photo on it. NH used to be a laminated dot matrix printout, heh.
As for birth certificates... you could also easily forge one. The only special thing you would need is the Town seal to emboss the copy with. The Northeast states that I know about only mail you a real license. They'll give you the junk paper temporary at the DMV, and those include a B&W photo. However, they tend to be willing to mail a duplicate to the registered address by just having you pay a fee.
As messy as all the State things can be, it wouldn't be any better at the Federal level. I really don't want it there; it isn't their function, and it shouldn't start being so. Some of this is being done voluntarily by the states now, under the guise of anti-terrorism bills. I have a lot more reasons for that stance, but I also favor minimalist Federal, and that probably sums it up.
What state was that? What a horrible way of doing it! I'd wager that they've made it better since the early 90's, but probably not by a huge amount. Once you had that ID, you could've done a change of address. Then you could've had a new photo taken, and probably had a new signature put on the license.
Scary.
Yup, I have done that a few times. When I first got my license it was almost as bad as you say. I needed to have a form of photo proof in addition to my SSN card. I just transferred my license to another state, and needed to supply these:
-SSN Card or US Passport
-Document proving date of birth
-Document proving signature
-Document proving Massachusetts residency
-Out of state license with Photo ID
(One of the documents, other than a SSN card or passport, must be a Primary document)
They have more detail on primary and secondary documents for my state on www.massrmv.com.
Also, they will only mail you a replacement ID to the address registered with them. You can't get it in person from the RMV. So you would have to add the step of either getting to the address, or changing the address.
I don't disagree that not all states do this in a foolproof or even moderatly secure way. Just firm up the state requirements, though. I know I don't want the Federal doing ID cards. We already have a system in place, it just needs some upgrading.
It is unfortunate that the US system pretty much requires lawyers, but that stems from more than just legalese. Since we have so many levels a law can exist at, and so many things that reference each other, a profession was bound to pop up for people we just knew them already.
It is still possible to know and understand the law, but it is too difficult for the average person because there are simply too many laws. I think we both agree that this situation is a definite problem.
The last point I wanted to make about the definition topic is to agree that words change. If you codify a definition into law, or set it through case law and precident, it fixes the meaning. Since words change, you will end with legal definition mismatched from common definition. Piracy is just one of the many of these.
We already have things that can do that without robbing States' rights and futher bloating the Federal level. National IDs sound nice to some people, but there are many of us that scream and yell against the idea every way possible. We have State IDs and we have State drivers' licenses. You had to verify your identity to get those sorts of things. Coincidentally, unemployment comes from the State, which also issued the ID. If they were running the programs well, this would be no harder to deal with now than with a Federal ID. I guarantee you that the Federal will run an ID program any worse than a State. Just look at Social Security.
The courts use codified definitions so that things are exacting, fair, and not open to interpretation as much as possible. You wouldn't want the courts using vernacular because it would open up for tremendous abuse.
The piracy thing is one example, but there are many others. To illustrate, many young people now consider sex to only be vaginal intercourse, so oral/anal would not be sex. Would you want the courts to use that definition of sex? Perhaps abortion becomes first degree murder. Et cetera, ad infinitum.
Another more on topic one... the media equates copyright infringment to theft, which means many people believe it is. In your setup, that would mean that all copyright infringers could now be charged with theft.
The legal definitions of things are very important because it limits scope by creating more exacting boundaries.
Pasta sauce = 1$-2$ for 16oz
Meat = 2$+/lb (most supermarkets are up to 4$+)
Milk = 2.50$/gal (most are 3.25$+)
Yogurt = 2$+/12oz
Vegetable = avg 2$/lb
This is in central Massachusetts right now, and taking the lowest prices I can find. (Combination of wholesale club for most things, and convenience stores for milk.)
TV dinners cost a lot more than 1$ a piece. You can't even get chicken nuggets or fish sticks for that kind of price. Try more like 3.50$ a piece, and up from there. They aren't very healthy for you, either. If you want to be able to spend under 5$ for a decent meal, never move to the coasts because you will hate it. Even ground beef costs 2.50$ and up per pound right now, and the gas to get it to you is currently around 2.25$/gal.
I do think it's cool that you usually buy used. Reduces reliance on the overpriced industry, and gets more use out of the products. Never a bad thing to cut down on waste, be it trash waste, or waste of your wallet.
Eww. If you want to get ill, you can eat ramen every day. I think you will find yourself with serious health problems resulting from cholesterol and sodium intake.
The easier answer is to not pay the 20$ for some stupid DVD and just buy healthy food.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty. The cop executed you without proof of crime, and without a jury trial. He only has circumstantial evidence resulting from you running. I would allow the cop to fire on you in few circumstances, otherwise the gun is for intimidation.
In my opinion, unless you are an immediate danger to others, the cop murdered you. This is why so many cops never fire their weapons at anyone: it is so rarely necessary, and you might kill someone.
As for the drugs under the spare tire, well that's easy. People want the drugs, you're trying to provide them for profit. It is illegal to possess or sell drugs, so you hide them, just in case. You're right about some cops being able to tell when you're up to something. And if they can build *reasonable* suspicion, then the law gives them the ability to search you or your car. You being nervous is not reasonable suspicion, but maybe you said ok when the cop asked if he can look in the trunk. Many people are nervous when a 6'2" guy wearing dark cloths and carrying a gun walks up to them while they're sitting in an enclosed space and unable to get away.
On to definitions... common use definition of extortion does include gross overcharge. I don't know if that's part of the legal definition.
You're right on one thing though, most of this boils down to people not wanting to pay. Then again, we're talking about an industry repeatedly convicted of collusion and price fixing, so there's probably something to the price not being acceptable to the market. One could argue that this is a market force trying to balance out the price point. Unfortunately, you would probably just argue against those things and say people are stealing and it's theft and they should burn.
Even though individual people might just download because they don't want to pay, that doesn't make it not a market force. Consider how common P2P is, and then take a look at costs in the marketplace. As production costs went down, and distribution became easier... prices went up. As sales increased... prices went up. Perhaps the market really *won't* pay the price for the product.
Finally, local officials generally have little to do with sports stadiums. The only places that can afford giving money up for that are large cities and states. Otherwise, you're talking about breaks on tax levy, maybe convenient rezoning, etc.
Personal opinion is that helping fund a sport is just as inappropriate as forcing me to give money to someone else for food. If I had a choice, I would completely refuse to allow any of my money to be used for social programs. I would opt out of unemployment, I would use private disability insurance, etc. Here's an interesting one for you... social security (FICA) works so well that government employees don't have to pay into it. They get an independant pension.
Actually, no you didn't profit. Profit is financial gain that exceeds ones costs. It is part of your income and it is only monetary. The definition does not stand.
I'm not arguing that profit *can't* be just a gain of some type, just that in a case such as this, it must be monetary.
If you want to talk about civil and criminal infractions, you have to use legal definitions. Copyright and patent are two legal constructs, and so terminology used to discuss them should also be, to keep things consistent. As a result, profit is financial gain over costs.
You spent money infringing by attaining the work, duplicating it, and then selling it. The revenue over those costs are your profit. Since there is no revenue in P2P, and no expectation of revenue, it is very difficult to use the stated definition of piracy. So, simple copyright infringment does not meet the definition, and is not piracy.
You're discussing the nature of a crime. You are wrong to not use the legal definition! The legal definition of piracy is, in fact, exactly what was stated about the high seas. Copyright infringment is neither theft nor piracy. The legal term for it is, you guessed it, copyright infringment.
Up until recently, it wasn't exactly a crime, either. It was a civil infraction that you could be sued for. When I say recently, I do mean the last ten years.
In your one example, you could and likely would be charged with assault in that situation. Assault was the threat of violence, battery is the conduct of violence. You would have committed assault and battery; they are two seperate criminal acts.
As for the use of language, when someone calls someone a pirate, they mean the eyepatch, peg-leg, goes around on a ship kind. When they talk about pirating something, they're talking about copyright infringment. You could avoid the confusion by not using the terms the media conglomerates prefer, and starting to use the terms the legal system prefers. You would also avoid starting senseless arguments over which is the right one. The courts say "copyright infringment" is the right one.
The reason people get charged over the whole thing is because the companies that use terms like "IP theft" and "piracy" are the bloodsucking bastards that everyone hates. They're the companies that starve their industries, illegally price fix, screw content creators, get brought up on antitrust charges, etc. For all the supposed damage that they allege is done through infringment, no damage is actually done. We don't have less music, or less software, or less literature because people infringe. We have less because copyrights last 100+ years, unique content is expensive/difficult to bring to market, and the existing industries don't care about anything past their own greed. We have less because of the chilling effect of bad copyright/patent and the ridiculous terms of said.
To sum up, the dictionary agrees with you; the courts do not (and neither do I). Piracy is a word intended to get people up in arms, but has a specific legal meaning. Also, there is massive disagreement about whether "IP theft" can occur and whether copyright infringment should be a crime at all.
A basic economics thing: the market will find a way. Customers have shown that they were not happy with the prices in the market. They bought less of the product. The prices continued to rise, and the market found a way to lower prices to something people were willing to pay. In this case, the market found a way to make the price zero, and people like that price. When your choices for a given product are: zero dollars or > twenty dollars, the choice is easy.
Both 1 and 2 are an artificial barrier in the market. The will raise prices because they work to prevent access to the product and adjustment to the market. They will simply further strengthen the market leader position to the detriment of everyone else.
While you shouldn't threaten theft, you do need a way to force lower prices. In this case, you have a product that costs 20$. You have a method of duplicating the product and distributing it for 0$. This shows that there is a fundamental problem with the product pricing. (This is also why it isn't stealing.) There will still be industry support for at least 2 because it allows them to price gouge on a product with 0 cost to reproduce.
IOW: Very few people steal music.
DRM is still a bad idea.
Suing customers is bad press, and will reduce sales.
The market is finding a way to stabilize on a price people are willing to pay.
The industry in question is pricing in violation of: federal law, federal order, court rulings. They have been convicted of anticompetitive behavior including: monopistic practicies, price fixing, and industry collusion.
Copyrights should only last several years, not over a century. Sort of like how they were initially written to work.
I still don't think any of this makes infringing on their copyrights OK. I just don't really care about it happening in this particular industry. I would love to see the studios in question go belly-up and the execs making these decisions lose everything.