We cannot transfer the morals of one religion on to our society as a whole.
I totally agree. It's worth pointing out that we, as a society, do legislate morality all the time. In Religious Studies, you'll hear the term "Civil Religion" used to denote that body of beliefs and morals that we as a society have chosen to accept as core to our collective well-being. Murder and theft, for example, are against our shared civic morality, and we treat those acts thusly.
I would argue that including even the earliest forms of human life (embyos, fetuses, etc...) in the list of rights-protected entities would benefit us more than hinder us on the whole. I'd also argue that it is not the same as requiring, say, a Buddhist to respect the Sabbath or a Jew to pray to a cross. It's a hard line to define, and it hasn't ever been made clear legislatively, which is a shame. It'd make all this a great deal easier.
All that said, I don't harbor any illusions that my views will be made law. Even if Roe-v-Wade were overturned tomorrow, the outcry for formal legislation would be immediate and the right to an abortion would be reinstated in a New York minute. That is, to me, sad, but I respect the process enough not to step outside of it to accomplish my goals. Just as with the last election, while I did not vote for Bush, nor did I want him to be President for four more years, I concede that many people did want him as President, so I will tolerate that and wait til the next vote, where I will decide who should follow him in the Oval Office. Voting is all I can do.
Are you accepting of the fact that it's legal to do invitro fertillization.
I'd use the term 'tolerant' rather than 'accepting' but, yes. I'm not looking to go out and shoot anyone over it, if that's what you mean. That would be adding suffering to tragedy in my opinion. I would also never get in someone's face about IVF (unless they first got in mine). If asked, I offer my opinion, if the opportunity arises to do so politely, I offer it. Other than that, I'd rather lead by example. People learn far more from our actions than from our words. My wife taught me that.
I'm adopting a girl from China right now (Documents went to China less than an hour ago! W00t!). I could have kids on my own, so IVF wasn't needed, but were it, I'd do the same thing. Adoption is just a great choice, I think. The world has plenty of kids that need parents, and I was looking to be a parent, so the efficient programmer side of me was drawn to that solution.:)
do you think it should be banned?
Yes, but it won't be, so I'll just have to deal with the situation as it is rather than as I want it to be. I can do that. The world rarely bends to my will, much to my dismay.;-)
then what do you think about embryonic stem cells? Either way, embryos are being created and later destroyed.
Well, going under the realistic assumption that it won't be banned, I'd say that we still should bring them to term if possible. I am against any sort of destruction of human life (yes, that would include the death penalty, even if perfectly applied). I seriously doubt I'll ever get my way on this though. I truly wish there were a way to do this research without embryonic destruction, and I'd be all for if we could, but that isn't a choice we're given.:( I wish it were. Sometimes Progress steps on the Rights of Man and sometimes the Rights of Man step on Progress. Though I think this is a case where the latter should be true, the community as a whole thinks the former is the way to go. It won't be the first time I and the community have disagreed. It won't be the last. Despite disagreements, I think the community that governs itself progresses over time in most every way (morally, technologically, civily, etc...). So, while I don't agree with the decision, I support it's right to decide how it will govern itself.
This is such a heated topic that I hate to add to the noise. But this particular topic is important enough that serious discussion is warranted, so here goes....
A stem cell is called a cell for a reason. The human body sloughs off millions of cells a day.
True, but to harvest embryonic stem cells, you must kill embryos. That is a qualitative difference worth noting, no matter which side of the issue you stand on.
Are you against invitro fertillization?
I am. As for the original poster, I have no idea. Many people who are anti-abortion rights are not against it. I believe this is hypocritical and usually self-motivated. People want to give birth, so they ignore the realities of the procedure, which is that you fertilize many eggs and take only the best for implantation. The rest are killed off. I am, most definately, against this. What about people who can't have kids? See my earlier post on the topic.
Whats wrong with using any left over cells which cannot continue to exist and using them for research?
For me, the reason is that those ends do not justify these means. I believe it shows a lack of respect for human life and I beleive it is wrong to take human life, no matter the form that human life takes. Not everyone agrees with me, though, so it's legal to do so. We should not be creating throw-away human life, but we do. Since we do, it is my opinion (based on my religious beliefs) that we should bring it to term, not destroy it. Hence, I argue that embryonic stem cell research encourages and profits from something I consider morally wrong.
I hope you take this reply in the light in which is was intended (ie, to honestly answer the questions you asked under the assumption that they were not asked rhetorically).
I agree that Kyoto has problems, and I agree that we shouldn't be agreeing to it as it stands now.
I take exception, however, when the President just walks away. The problem is real. While the current proposed solution ain't perfect, that doesn't mean we walk away from the table. We need to offer a counter solution.
He hasn't done that. That is what I fault him for.
I wouldn't want to suggest that anyone, Bush included is all bad or all good. Just that he has a pattern of misinformation, that charitably is a sign of incompetance and uncharitably is a sign of deception. I suspect it's more deception that incompetence because, contrary to the popular opinion, I don't think he's incompetent. He strikes me a quite competent, just all too willing to see the world his own way and al to willing to get us onboard without concern for the means to that end.
The ambiguity surrounding his misinformation and the profundity of the consequences of that misinformation put me in an uncharitable mood. Add to that the campaign promises that were not followed through on (e.g. the Clean Air Act stuff) and I find that today I could not, in good conscience, vote for him again.
What part was lied about before the war? Be very specific about this, links would help.:)
No problem. (thanks belong to spinsanity.com for some details)
On Sept. 7, 2002, Bush said, "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2 002/09/2 0020907-2.html)
In that moment, President willfully implied that the IAEA report issued in 1998 (when the inspectors were "finally denied access") concluded that Iraq was within six months of developing a nuclear weapon. But the IAEA report released in that year actually said that Iraq was six to twenty-four months from developing a weapon before the Gulf War in 1991. In response to questioning, Bush spokesperson Scott McClellan claimed that the president was referring to an apparently nonexistant 1991 IAEA report (which the organization denies issuing) and suggested a reporter consult two newspaper stories that fail to corroborate Bush's statement. Then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told the Washington Post that the claim was based on US intelligence before finally stating that "it was in fact the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) that issued the report concluding that Iraq could develop nuclear weapons in as few as six months." However, the IISS report was issued on September 9, 2002 - two days after Bush's original statement - and does not mention any such six-month estimate.
A second claim that the Bush administration has made in its attempt to prove Iraq is building nuclear capability is that Iraq tried to buy anodized aluminum tubes that could be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. As the President stated in his speech to the United Nations last September 12, "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year." There is significant cause to doubt this claim, however. As recent pieces in the Washington Post and The New Republic noted, the IAEA found that the tubes Iraq attempted to purchase were "not directly suitable" for enriching uranium and IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said it was "highly unlikely" the tubes could be used for that purpose. Specifically, the tubes are the wrong size for uranium enrichment and the IAEA has secured extensive documentation proving that Iraq has been trying for years to purchase such tubes for use in artillery rockets.
The Bush administration has also cited documents that purportedly showed that Iraq tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger. But, again, as The New Republic and Washington Post, amongst others, have noted, the documents, which Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations in a February presentation, have also been found to be false by the IAEA. As Peter Beinart stated in The New Republic, the documents were in fact revealed to be "crude forgeries." Despite apparent concerns in the intelligence community over the authenticity of the documents, President Bush cited them in his State of the Union address in January as if they were fact, saying "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The Administration further deceived the American public when it implied an imminent threat from Iraq. Defenders argue that the president never actually said there was an imminent threat. I'd counter by say, firstly, his administration did indeed use those words more than once, and they agreed with those words embedded in press questions yet more often, and secondly, if his defense is that he only implied it without suggesting it, I'll remind him that the las
would you say I was going too far, stating things wrong?
There are two questions in that one sentence:
1) Are you stating things wrong? I don't know. If you say you hate him then I see no reason to dispute your claim. You hate him.
2) Are you going too far? In my opinion, yes. I don't have all the answers and I could be wrong, but from what I can see he truly believes that his ends are noble and his means justifiable. I wouldn't hate someone for that, but I would distrust him, and I would let that reality color my dealings with him in the future.
Hate is usually preceded by or proceeds a loss of personal control. People that hate tend to do extreme things to right the wrongs they've experienced.
Take this as advice, not criticism, when I say that you should let go of your hatred and focus on the future and on change and on what you can do to make this world better. Hate is a chain to the past and right now more than ever we need people looking to the future, not the past.
how does "hating" someone have any logical correlation with whether their positions or courses of action are appropriate or inappropriate?
I could not agree more. Saying you hate someone tells me something about you, not about the person you hate. People have somehow forgotten that.
In this election, the word hate is being bandied about on both sides way too much. It's a dangerous word for what it implies about the American people.
the US is in "Iraq" because it was an easy target in the region, period. [...] it is part of a comprehensive, omnibus strategy to bring free or quasi-free governments to the region, in the hopes that more of the same will be encouraged, even as organizations like al-Qaeda redouble their recruiting efforts.
Again, I could not agree more. However, it's worth pointing out that this is not the reason given to us. If it were, and if the American people still stood behind the reasoning, then there would be a lot fewer protests. The ends do not ever justify the means. This administration forgot that when they lied to get us behind them on this plan as you've described it above. I voted for Bush in 2000. I will not vote for him in 2004 because he does not represent my views on how the American system of government works.
I was raised to believe in an America that was literally for the people and by the people. I was raised to believe, however foolishly, that if we give people the power to govern themselves and set their own direction, they will progress as a community. When you take away that power (by taking away our ability to make informed decisions) you circumvent the people's will in favor of the will of the ruling class. I don't need a governmental father-figure. I need a government that facilitates my part in the "American experiment".
I still believe in our forefather's experiment, even with all its failings and problems. We've made progress, and I expect we will continue to do so, but not so long as our leaders feel the need to patronize us with lies to facilitate their own goals and plans. They work for us. Let us never forgot that.
Absolutely. I have no clue why people still feel this primitive need to 'clone' themselves when the world is alreayd overpopulated. There are no adults who need children but there are a shit-ton of children who actually do need parents.
And adoption is a less expensive proposition than IVF if you are not racialy motivated. Go to China, adopt a girl there. Total cost: less than $20,000.00. Tax credit in the US for doing it: $10,000.00. So $10,000.00 out of pocket. Other countries also offer tax credits and payback for international adoption. Not to mention the charities and other avenues available to prospective adoptive parents.
If you can't have children and really want one that badly, the only reason not to adopt from China is if you can't stand the idea that you child won't look just like you, in which case you have misunderstood the most important part of being a parent.
Sometimes life deals you a bad card. That's just the way it is.
I'd argue it isn't even a bad hand. There is no downside that I can see except in the minds of a few bigotted people who don't see adopted children as real children.
Before I get accused of being too harsh in my comments here, let me add that I've put my money where my mouth is. My adoption petition should be hitting the Chinese Consulate within a month.
The issue, boiled down, is whether a Russian compulsory license can authorize people in America to do things which otherwise infringe.
Case law is needed. I keep asking for it. Your claims are specific and pointed and for them to be valid, there would need to be case law agreeing with you. Is there any?
I'm very surprised to see someone be so confused about matters of national sovereignty as to think otherwise.
Argument Ad Hominem. Even if I were 'confused' it bears no weight on the argument. Only the logic of my claims should be addressed, not my state of being.
[...]will likely invalidate the compulsory license[...]
Assuming that Russian Vodka is illegal to buy in the USA on Sunday, but you buy the Russian Vodka in Moscow on Sunday, then you import it into the USA, you have done nothing wrong. Again, this assumes that 1) it is illegal to buy Russian Vodka on Sunday in the USA 2) it is legal in Moscow and 3) it is legal to import Russian Vodka.
If there is any case law that invalidates this analogy, I'm interested in reading it.
Your and my opinion on the matter means nothing in this context. Case law matters. The opinion of a judge matters. No judge has ruled it a violation yet and there seems to be no indication that one will in the near future. Indeed, that is why the IFPI is lobbying in Russia to change the law! They/know/ it's a valid loophole and they don't like it.
I appreciate your opinion, but your logic notwithstanding, I asked for a citing of case law. Your claims are extraordinary and I await proof outside of your own train of logic, which clearly not everyone agrees with.
Specific replies:
The copyright holder doesn't have a choice.
The copyright holder can choose not to do business in Russia. That is a valid choice excercised by several producers currently. The license restrictions set is Russia are entered into willingly and voluntarily by both parties. I cannot buy Nellie McKay from AllOfMP3.com yet. Why, becuase she has not yet agreed to the terms of Russian sale. She may in the future, but she hasn't yet. When she does it will be her choice...her *voluntary* choice.
US law says that that compulsory license is void.
US Law says that non-voluntary licensing is void. Artists needn't agree to sell music in Russia. That is their right. If they/do/ agree to do it, they do so in full understanding of the laws and licenses under which they are voluntarily placing their works.
Just cite case law that agrees with you on this matter. That's how you'll win the argument. There may be some. I dunno. But I've never seen it. If you have it, I'd be interested in reading it.
your rather specious arguments
An example of a specious argument would be an argument ad hominem. Ask yourself who has engaged is such a style of argument.
No, that's only in Russia. That license doesn't have any weight in the US. We've been over that too.
And I asked you to cite case law to that effect. You still haven't. I'm willing to change my mind if you can provide case law to contradict me. As it stands, the courts seem to agree with me. The conditions under which a product is made available in another country (so long as its legal in *that* country) do not seem to bear any weight on my ownership of it here. I look forward to case law that says otherwise.
Well, I have to point out that you are still not providing proof for your claim, Cpt Kangarooski.
Just as when we discussed this last time, you are making a great number of substantial claims, but I've yet to see you cite case law that pertains. Citing IR v ULV doesn't make it more correct than the last time you tried to use that case to prove your point. In that case, the person seeling the material did not have license to do so. Not the case here. AllOfMP3 has license to sell the material. You should learn from previous arguments. That case bears no weight on this matter, but you knew that before you citing it this time since you've already been corrected.
Also, stop calling people stupid. I can't stress enough how much this kind of thing produces the opposite of the intended result.
worked for an outfit here in Virginia Beach called "Galaxy Computers" about a decade ago.
Dude! I still use an old Galaxy Computers 486 under my desk as a server...to this day. The monitor was a total rip (hosed just after the return period) but the box kept on giving.:-)
The outfit was a little shady, but that box still works.
Google somehow (probably a though a CSS hack) manages to substitute a 1x1 white pixel.GIF file for the page if you try to print it or copy its location.
Yeah, pretty lame on their part. It's for that reason that I present the graphic they tried to obscure the link to:
As you suggested, they made the real image a background-image behind the cleardot.gif image using css. If anyone ever wants the real graphic for a page, just view source (ctrl-u in firefox) and get the url from the background-image:url css tag that immediately precedes the cleardot.gif image on the page.
WIPO agreements are enforceable in the U.S. thanks primarily to copyright holders that wanted to see their reach extend past our border. Russian law is WIPO approved.
It seems that every idiot that comes along saying that downloading from allofmp3 is legal cites a discussion located here indicating that
I can't speak to whether or not they are idiots, but you seem a little too willing to name them thusly. Either way, it bears no weight here as I have not cited that reference in my argument.
So when I see an entity authorized by Russian law to issue licenses, where that entity is NOT the copyright holder, I see a compulsory license.
The copyright holders may abstain from Russian law by not selling in Rusia. There is no compulsion. They choose to go after that market with full understanding of the rules in place. ROMS canot grab just any copyrighted material and license it out. It has to be a material for sale in Russia. Hence, it has to be a material that has fallen under their jurisdiction. If you don't sell in Russia, they cannot license your work out. That would be a violation of WIPO rules. They and we both agree to those WIPO guidelines and the IP holders are allowed to decide which market's laws are acceptable for their product. In this case, those IP holders are clearly choosing to accept those rules, since they sell within the Russian border.
Since the US has no provision allowing for compulsory licensing of sound recordings, they're per se illegal, regardless of Russian law.
You seem to be inventing this legal idea yourself. Again. Can you cite references for this claim or is it just your personal opinion?
You're saying that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has set policy on copyrights?
My bad. I meant the Copyright Office. Just a mental typo. They are tightly related in function...and both are conjoined to WIPO.
WIPO does no such thing. They're a trade treaty organization. They don't deign to to look at individual contracts.
Bad wording. The laws surrounding recording contracts are vetted by WIPO, not the contracts themselves. Same diff. the contracts, if they are legal in Russia, are legal in the eyes of the international community (those of them that respect WIPO, which includes the U.S.).
Where the fuck are you coming up with this crap?
Really, you should be more respectful of others opinions. This sort of attitude will alienate others from you.
Are you seriously telling me that you think that damn near every person with a US copyright on popular music just jumped at the chance to let a shady Russian music store sell lossless, non-DRMed music for a pittance? When no one else even has a thorough catalog?
Yes. If they want to sell in Russia (they could abstain, of course) then they must abide by the rules presented to then in Russia. This is one of them. Capitalism is a two-edged sword. They want the Russian market, but this comes along with it.
You must be pretty stupid to believe that.
I have a 167 I.Q. But then, I don't hold much stock in intelligence tests. Either way, most people would say I'm not stupid. Try to avoid insulting people in arguments it tends to have the opposite effect that you may have intended. That is just a friendly bit of advice.
allofmp3 appears to operate under a compulsory license. That means that, in the US, we wouldn't treat the copyright holder as having willingly permitted US downloads.
You appear to have made that idea up, whole-cloth. I know of no such precedent n the U.S. We enforce compulsory licensing in the U.S. in other cases. Is there some reasons we would disregard it here? Can you cite case law of is this just your personal opinion?
This works like the GPL. If they don't want to experience the downside to Russian sales, they can choose not to sell in Russia at all. That is their option. It's a valid option. Noone is putting a gun to Sony's head and telling them to sell in Russia. Nothing is done without consent. Sony offers it's works in Russia in full and explicit acknowledgement of the rules surrounding that offering. They can always leave that market. That is how capitalism works. Some artists/labels have chosen to abstain. Those artists aren't represented on AllOfMP3.
There are bans on it in 602(a) and (b)
we've already covered that those bans apply to illegally-gotten music. If the music was legally purchased, those bans do not apply. If I legally buy a CD in Russia, there exists no legal precedent of which I am aware to make that CD suddenly illegal in the U.S. Russia follows the rules of the WTC, as does the U.S., and it is a member nation of WIPO, which our own USPTO has conjoined with to set international policy on recorded works. No one in a position of authority thinks that anyone is doing anything illegal in this regard. The Russian recording contracts are vetted by WIPO for compliance. They comply, hence are enforceable in all WIPO member nations. We are one of those member nations.
They have finite resources, and use them in the most efficient manner.
And going after a single entity the size of AllOfMP3 would be a pretty efficient use of resources if they had a case.
But of course, downloading isn't importation.
You said that last time and cited a case that didn't relate. Is there another citation you can provide that makes your case? Is this just your personal opinion? Where did you get this fact from?
That means that unless the copies made would have been legal had US law applied at the place where they were made
(standard IANAL stuff applies)
Even under US Copyright law, these copies are legal. They are licensed under contract in a legitimately recognized sovreign nation that is an active and signifigant participant in the world community. Russian-born contracts are perfectly valid and enforecable across borders.
Facts:
1) The music was legally licensed in the nation where the sale is taking place.
2) There exosts no prohibition against sale in the legal license.
3) There exists no prohibition against sale accross borders once the music is legally licensed.
4) When the RIAA had legal grounds to injunct a music distribution method, they do so.
5) The RIAA has never made a single public mention of AllOfMP3, and there exists no evidence to suggest that AllOfMP3 is on their hitlist.
6) Copyright law allows me to purchase music in another country and bring it here, so long as the purchase was legal.
7) The sale of music by AllOfMP3 is legal.
Downloading is reproduction, not importation. Check it out: Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry,
I trust that you, also, are not a lawyer since you have taken IR v ULM way out of context.
1) In IRvULM, the hosting site did not have license to distribute. AllOfMP3 does.
2) In IRvULM, there is no mention whatsoever of the distinction between reproduction versus importation as an issue. Judge Campbell was ruling on the distinction between viewing and copying. The judge ruled that viewing a page constituted the illegal making of a copy, rather than a legal viewing (i.e., same as photocopying a book rather than same are reading it in the library) which has zero bearing on a case where the licensee has every legal right to sell copies of the material and is doing so under the auspices of a legally recognized government that engages and accepts the rules of the WTC, of which Russia is a member in good standing.
What, can't you read?
Though it's clear by this statement that you were being offensive in your reply, you'll note that I stuck to the facts and didn't engage in meaningless insult. Try doing that from now on and people will respond better to your arguments. and especially avoid being so cocky when you are wrong. It doesn't make you look so good.
Whatever happened to the idea that the Internet was a community of peers? I mean, my web browser doesn't care if the web site is registered with DNS or not. I can go to 125.10.233.5 as easily as I can go to linux.com. Likewise, my mail client doesn't care about DNS records. That used to be an optional part of the whole.
Looks like the days when every machine was a peer on the Internet is gone in favor of the day when every machine must register with a superpeer (like DNS) to be considered a valid endpoint.
Kinda sucks, if you ask me, to fight spam by ruining the best part of the Internet, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE BETTER ALTERNATIVES OUT THERE! Look at IM2000 or any similar idea. These would work just as well without requiring me to lose my status as valid endpoint and without me being forced to register with a superpeer, like DNS.:(
I wonder if you could legally view child pornography if you classified it as part of the belief of a religion.
Two hurdles.
1) Freedom of Religion is provisional in that you can practice religion freely so long as the government also agrees with you that what you are practicing is a religion. So you very likely could not start up some fake sick religion called ChildPornology and demand to be allowed to watch child porn. The government is perfectly within it's legal rights to deny you the status of religion.
2) Therefore you'd have to convince an existing religion to advocate it, since they have already been given legal religious status. Still, the government reserves the right clamp down on harmful practices. For example, exorcism is fine, but if your kid is sick and needs medical attention and you only allow exorcism as a treatment, you will be arrested for neglect. Likewise even if all of Judaism stood up tomorrow and said "we advocate child porn" the government is still within it's rights arrest every Jew who practices that aspect of his faith.
If you want HDTV there is really only one extant choice. Get Voom.
It's got many more HD channels than any competitor, good content, and the system is designed from the ground up to accomodate HD.
I had some installation problems (which are really the fault of the subcontractor who did the install) but once installed, I can now say that I wholeheartedly recommend them for anyone looking to have HDTV right now.
I love the Voom-specific channels. They basically get thier own HD content and make there own stations for content. You'd think it would suck, but they do stuff like broadcast good concerts in 5.1 HD, tour galleries in HD, play old (good!) movies in HD and stuff like that. It's great, dude.
Damn, I sound like a friggin' commercial. lol! Well, that's what a satisfied customer is supposed to sound like, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Soon it will incapacitate the entire crew of the Enterprise
Dude! ixnay on the anplay! Wesley might be listening in and he'll ruin our great idea and save damn day...again.
You demonstrate good and consistant morals.
:)
:)
;-)
:( I wish it were. Sometimes Progress steps on the Rights of Man and sometimes the Rights of Man step on Progress. Though I think this is a case where the latter should be true, the community as a whole thinks the former is the way to go. It won't be the first time I and the community have disagreed. It won't be the last. Despite disagreements, I think the community that governs itself progresses over time in most every way (morally, technologically, civily, etc...). So, while I don't agree with the decision, I support it's right to decide how it will govern itself.
Thanks.
We cannot transfer the morals of one religion on to our society as a whole.
I totally agree. It's worth pointing out that we, as a society, do legislate morality all the time. In Religious Studies, you'll hear the term "Civil Religion" used to denote that body of beliefs and morals that we as a society have chosen to accept as core to our collective well-being. Murder and theft, for example, are against our shared civic morality, and we treat those acts thusly.
I would argue that including even the earliest forms of human life (embyos, fetuses, etc...) in the list of rights-protected entities would benefit us more than hinder us on the whole. I'd also argue that it is not the same as requiring, say, a Buddhist to respect the Sabbath or a Jew to pray to a cross. It's a hard line to define, and it hasn't ever been made clear legislatively, which is a shame. It'd make all this a great deal easier.
All that said, I don't harbor any illusions that my views will be made law. Even if Roe-v-Wade were overturned tomorrow, the outcry for formal legislation would be immediate and the right to an abortion would be reinstated in a New York minute. That is, to me, sad, but I respect the process enough not to step outside of it to accomplish my goals. Just as with the last election, while I did not vote for Bush, nor did I want him to be President for four more years, I concede that many people did want him as President, so I will tolerate that and wait til the next vote, where I will decide who should follow him in the Oval Office. Voting is all I can do.
Are you accepting of the fact that it's legal to do invitro fertillization.
I'd use the term 'tolerant' rather than 'accepting' but, yes. I'm not looking to go out and shoot anyone over it, if that's what you mean. That would be adding suffering to tragedy in my opinion. I would also never get in someone's face about IVF (unless they first got in mine). If asked, I offer my opinion, if the opportunity arises to do so politely, I offer it. Other than that, I'd rather lead by example. People learn far more from our actions than from our words. My wife taught me that.
I'm adopting a girl from China right now (Documents went to China less than an hour ago! W00t!). I could have kids on my own, so IVF wasn't needed, but were it, I'd do the same thing. Adoption is just a great choice, I think. The world has plenty of kids that need parents, and I was looking to be a parent, so the efficient programmer side of me was drawn to that solution.
do you think it should be banned?
Yes, but it won't be, so I'll just have to deal with the situation as it is rather than as I want it to be. I can do that. The world rarely bends to my will, much to my dismay.
then what do you think about embryonic stem cells? Either way, embryos are being created and later destroyed.
Well, going under the realistic assumption that it won't be banned, I'd say that we still should bring them to term if possible. I am against any sort of destruction of human life (yes, that would include the death penalty, even if perfectly applied). I seriously doubt I'll ever get my way on this though. I truly wish there were a way to do this research without embryonic destruction, and I'd be all for if we could, but that isn't a choice we're given.
This is such a heated topic that I hate to add to the noise. But this particular topic is important enough that serious discussion is warranted, so here goes....
A stem cell is called a cell for a reason. The human body sloughs off millions of cells a day.
True, but to harvest embryonic stem cells, you must kill embryos. That is a qualitative difference worth noting, no matter which side of the issue you stand on.
Are you against invitro fertillization?
I am. As for the original poster, I have no idea. Many people who are anti-abortion rights are not against it. I believe this is hypocritical and usually self-motivated. People want to give birth, so they ignore the realities of the procedure, which is that you fertilize many eggs and take only the best for implantation. The rest are killed off. I am, most definately, against this. What about people who can't have kids? See my earlier post on the topic.
Whats wrong with using any left over cells which cannot continue to exist and using them for research?
For me, the reason is that those ends do not justify these means. I believe it shows a lack of respect for human life and I beleive it is wrong to take human life, no matter the form that human life takes. Not everyone agrees with me, though, so it's legal to do so. We should not be creating throw-away human life, but we do. Since we do, it is my opinion (based on my religious beliefs) that we should bring it to term, not destroy it. Hence, I argue that embryonic stem cell research encourages and profits from something I consider morally wrong.
I hope you take this reply in the light in which is was intended (ie, to honestly answer the questions you asked under the assumption that they were not asked rhetorically).
I agree that Kyoto has problems, and I agree that we shouldn't be agreeing to it as it stands now.
I take exception, however, when the President just walks away. The problem is real. While the current proposed solution ain't perfect, that doesn't mean we walk away from the table. We need to offer a counter solution.
He hasn't done that. That is what I fault him for.
same diff. :(
I don't disagree with anything you added.
I wouldn't want to suggest that anyone, Bush included is all bad or all good. Just that he has a pattern of misinformation, that charitably is a sign of incompetance and uncharitably is a sign of deception. I suspect it's more deception that incompetence because, contrary to the popular opinion, I don't think he's incompetent. He strikes me a quite competent, just all too willing to see the world his own way and al to willing to get us onboard without concern for the means to that end.
The ambiguity surrounding his misinformation and the profundity of the consequences of that misinformation put me in an uncharitable mood. Add to that the campaign promises that were not followed through on (e.g. the Clean Air Act stuff) and I find that today I could not, in good conscience, vote for him again.
What part was lied about before the war? Be very specific about this, links would help. :)
No problem. (thanks belong to spinsanity.com for some details)
On Sept. 7, 2002, Bush said, "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2 002/09/2 0020907-2.html)
In that moment, President willfully implied that the IAEA report issued in 1998 (when the inspectors were "finally denied access") concluded that Iraq was within six months of developing a nuclear weapon. But the IAEA report released in that year actually said that Iraq was six to twenty-four months from developing a weapon before the Gulf War in 1991. In response to questioning, Bush spokesperson Scott McClellan claimed that the president was referring to an apparently nonexistant 1991 IAEA report (which the organization denies issuing) and suggested a reporter consult two newspaper stories that fail to corroborate Bush's statement. Then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told the Washington Post that the claim was based on US intelligence before finally stating that "it was in fact the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) that issued the report concluding that Iraq could develop nuclear weapons in as few as six months." However, the IISS report was issued on September 9, 2002 - two days after Bush's original statement - and does not mention any such six-month estimate.
A second claim that the Bush administration has made in its attempt to prove Iraq is building nuclear capability is that Iraq tried to buy anodized aluminum tubes that could be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. As the President stated in his speech to the United Nations last September 12, "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year." There is significant cause to doubt this claim, however. As recent pieces in the Washington Post and The New Republic noted, the IAEA found that the tubes Iraq attempted to purchase were "not directly suitable" for enriching uranium and IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said it was "highly unlikely" the tubes could be used for that purpose. Specifically, the tubes are the wrong size for uranium enrichment and the IAEA has secured extensive documentation proving that Iraq has been trying for years to purchase such tubes for use in artillery rockets.
The Bush administration has also cited documents that purportedly showed that Iraq tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger. But, again, as The New Republic and Washington Post, amongst others, have noted, the documents, which Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations in a February presentation, have also been found to be false by the IAEA. As Peter Beinart stated in The New Republic, the documents were in fact revealed to be "crude forgeries." Despite apparent concerns in the intelligence community over the authenticity of the documents, President Bush cited them in his State of the Union address in January as if they were fact, saying "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The Administration further deceived the American public when it implied an imminent threat from Iraq. Defenders argue that the president never actually said there was an imminent threat. I'd counter by say, firstly, his administration did indeed use those words more than once, and they agreed with those words embedded in press questions yet more often, and secondly, if his defense is that he only implied it without suggesting it, I'll remind him that the las
would you say I was going too far, stating things wrong?
There are two questions in that one sentence:
1) Are you stating things wrong? I don't know. If you say you hate him then I see no reason to dispute your claim. You hate him.
2) Are you going too far? In my opinion, yes. I don't have all the answers and I could be wrong, but from what I can see he truly believes that his ends are noble and his means justifiable. I wouldn't hate someone for that, but I would distrust him, and I would let that reality color my dealings with him in the future.
Hate is usually preceded by or proceeds a loss of personal control. People that hate tend to do extreme things to right the wrongs they've experienced.
Take this as advice, not criticism, when I say that you should let go of your hatred and focus on the future and on change and on what you can do to make this world better. Hate is a chain to the past and right now more than ever we need people looking to the future, not the past.
how does "hating" someone have any logical correlation with whether their positions or courses of action are appropriate or inappropriate?
I could not agree more. Saying you hate someone tells me something about you, not about the person you hate. People have somehow forgotten that.
In this election, the word hate is being bandied about on both sides way too much. It's a dangerous word for what it implies about the American people.
the US is in "Iraq" because it was an easy target in the region, period. [...] it is part of a comprehensive, omnibus strategy to bring free or quasi-free governments to the region, in the hopes that more of the same will be encouraged, even as organizations like al-Qaeda redouble their recruiting efforts.
Again, I could not agree more. However, it's worth pointing out that this is not the reason given to us. If it were, and if the American people still stood behind the reasoning, then there would be a lot fewer protests. The ends do not ever justify the means. This administration forgot that when they lied to get us behind them on this plan as you've described it above. I voted for Bush in 2000. I will not vote for him in 2004 because he does not represent my views on how the American system of government works.
I was raised to believe in an America that was literally for the people and by the people. I was raised to believe, however foolishly, that if we give people the power to govern themselves and set their own direction, they will progress as a community. When you take away that power (by taking away our ability to make informed decisions) you circumvent the people's will in favor of the will of the ruling class. I don't need a governmental father-figure. I need a government that facilitates my part in the "American experiment".
I still believe in our forefather's experiment, even with all its failings and problems. We've made progress, and I expect we will continue to do so, but not so long as our leaders feel the need to patronize us with lies to facilitate their own goals and plans. They work for us. Let us never forgot that.
but I seem to recall [...] that you could "tie" components to the form so that they would grow and shrink as the form resizes.
In VB6 and earlier, it was not possible to do this, but as of VB.NET it is.
but 'needing' IVF is a subjective take on it
Absolutely. I have no clue why people still feel this primitive need to 'clone' themselves when the world is alreayd overpopulated. There are no adults who need children but there are a shit-ton of children who actually do need parents.
And adoption is a less expensive proposition than IVF if you are not racialy motivated. Go to China, adopt a girl there. Total cost: less than $20,000.00. Tax credit in the US for doing it: $10,000.00. So $10,000.00 out of pocket. Other countries also offer tax credits and payback for international adoption. Not to mention the charities and other avenues available to prospective adoptive parents.
If you can't have children and really want one that badly, the only reason not to adopt from China is if you can't stand the idea that you child won't look just like you, in which case you have misunderstood the most important part of being a parent.
Sometimes life deals you a bad card. That's just the way it is.
I'd argue it isn't even a bad hand. There is no downside that I can see except in the minds of a few bigotted people who don't see adopted children as real children.
Before I get accused of being too harsh in my comments here, let me add that I've put my money where my mouth is. My adoption petition should be hitting the Chinese Consulate within a month.
Anyone who has questions is free to ask them.
The issue, boiled down, is whether a Russian compulsory license can authorize people in America to do things which otherwise infringe.
Case law is needed. I keep asking for it. Your claims are specific and pointed and for them to be valid, there would need to be case law agreeing with you. Is there any?
I'm very surprised to see someone be so confused about matters of national sovereignty as to think otherwise.
Argument Ad Hominem. Even if I were 'confused' it bears no weight on the argument. Only the logic of my claims should be addressed, not my state of being.
[...]will likely invalidate the compulsory license[...]
/know/ it's a valid loophole and they don't like it.
Assuming that Russian Vodka is illegal to buy in the USA on Sunday, but you buy the Russian Vodka in Moscow on Sunday, then you import it into the USA, you have done nothing wrong. Again, this assumes that 1) it is illegal to buy Russian Vodka on Sunday in the USA 2) it is legal in Moscow and 3) it is legal to import Russian Vodka.
If there is any case law that invalidates this analogy, I'm interested in reading it.
Your and my opinion on the matter means nothing in this context. Case law matters. The opinion of a judge matters. No judge has ruled it a violation yet and there seems to be no indication that one will in the near future. Indeed, that is why the IFPI is lobbying in Russia to change the law! They
I appreciate your opinion, but your logic notwithstanding, I asked for a citing of case law. Your claims are extraordinary and I await proof outside of your own train of logic, which clearly not everyone agrees with.
/do/ agree to do it, they do so in full understanding of the laws and licenses under which they are voluntarily placing their works.
Specific replies:
The copyright holder doesn't have a choice.
The copyright holder can choose not to do business in Russia. That is a valid choice excercised by several producers currently. The license restrictions set is Russia are entered into willingly and voluntarily by both parties. I cannot buy Nellie McKay from AllOfMP3.com yet. Why, becuase she has not yet agreed to the terms of Russian sale. She may in the future, but she hasn't yet. When she does it will be her choice...her *voluntary* choice.
US law says that that compulsory license is void.
US Law says that non-voluntary licensing is void. Artists needn't agree to sell music in Russia. That is their right. If they
Just cite case law that agrees with you on this matter. That's how you'll win the argument. There may be some. I dunno. But I've never seen it. If you have it, I'd be interested in reading it.
your rather specious arguments
An example of a specious argument would be an argument ad hominem. Ask yourself who has engaged is such a style of argument.
No, that's only in Russia. That license doesn't have any weight in the US. We've been over that too.
And I asked you to cite case law to that effect. You still haven't. I'm willing to change my mind if you can provide case law to contradict me. As it stands, the courts seem to agree with me. The conditions under which a product is made available in another country (so long as its legal in *that* country) do not seem to bear any weight on my ownership of it here. I look forward to case law that says otherwise.
Well, I have to point out that you are still not providing proof for your claim, Cpt Kangarooski.
Just as when we discussed this last time, you are making a great number of substantial claims, but I've yet to see you cite case law that pertains. Citing IR v ULV doesn't make it more correct than the last time you tried to use that case to prove your point. In that case, the person seeling the material did not have license to do so. Not the case here. AllOfMP3 has license to sell the material. You should learn from previous arguments. That case bears no weight on this matter, but you knew that before you citing it this time since you've already been corrected.
Also, stop calling people stupid. I can't stress enough how much this kind of thing produces the opposite of the intended result.
worked for an outfit here in Virginia Beach called "Galaxy Computers" about a decade ago.
:-)
Dude! I still use an old Galaxy Computers 486 under my desk as a server...to this day. The monitor was a total rip (hosed just after the return period) but the box kept on giving.
The outfit was a little shady, but that box still works.
Google somehow (probably a though a CSS hack) manages to substitute a 1x1 white pixel .GIF file for the page if you try to print it or copy its location.
3 &img=1&q=mastering+digital+photography&sig=gv2nFpt Ef0dj7Gzb8eZ4U8UdtUo
Yeah, pretty lame on their part. It's for that reason that I present the graphic they tried to obscure the link to:
http://print.google.com/print?id=ULQSG0Zs7vcC&pg=
As you suggested, they made the real image a background-image behind the cleardot.gif image using css. If anyone ever wants the real graphic for a page, just view source (ctrl-u in firefox) and get the url from the background-image:url css tag that immediately precedes the cleardot.gif image on the page.
There's no agreement that's enforcable in the US.
WIPO agreements are enforceable in the U.S. thanks primarily to copyright holders that wanted to see their reach extend past our border. Russian law is WIPO approved.
It seems that every idiot that comes along saying that downloading from allofmp3 is legal cites a discussion located here indicating that
I can't speak to whether or not they are idiots, but you seem a little too willing to name them thusly. Either way, it bears no weight here as I have not cited that reference in my argument.
So when I see an entity authorized by Russian law to issue licenses, where that entity is NOT the copyright holder, I see a compulsory license.
The copyright holders may abstain from Russian law by not selling in Rusia. There is no compulsion. They choose to go after that market with full understanding of the rules in place. ROMS canot grab just any copyrighted material and license it out. It has to be a material for sale in Russia. Hence, it has to be a material that has fallen under their jurisdiction. If you don't sell in Russia, they cannot license your work out. That would be a violation of WIPO rules. They and we both agree to those WIPO guidelines and the IP holders are allowed to decide which market's laws are acceptable for their product. In this case, those IP holders are clearly choosing to accept those rules, since they sell within the Russian border.
Since the US has no provision allowing for compulsory licensing of sound recordings, they're per se illegal, regardless of Russian law.
You seem to be inventing this legal idea yourself. Again. Can you cite references for this claim or is it just your personal opinion?
You're saying that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has set policy on copyrights?
My bad. I meant the Copyright Office. Just a mental typo. They are tightly related in function...and both are conjoined to WIPO.
WIPO does no such thing. They're a trade treaty organization. They don't deign to to look at individual contracts.
Bad wording. The laws surrounding recording contracts are vetted by WIPO, not the contracts themselves. Same diff. the contracts, if they are legal in Russia, are legal in the eyes of the international community (those of them that respect WIPO, which includes the U.S.).
Where the fuck are you coming up with this crap?
Really, you should be more respectful of others opinions. This sort of attitude will alienate others from you.
Are you seriously telling me that you think that damn near every person with a US copyright on popular music just jumped at the chance to let a shady Russian music store sell lossless, non-DRMed music for a pittance? When no one else even has a thorough catalog?
Yes. If they want to sell in Russia (they could abstain, of course) then they must abide by the rules presented to then in Russia. This is one of them. Capitalism is a two-edged sword. They want the Russian market, but this comes along with it.
You must be pretty stupid to believe that.
I have a 167 I.Q. But then, I don't hold much stock in intelligence tests. Either way, most people would say I'm not stupid. Try to avoid insulting people in arguments it tends to have the opposite effect that you may have intended. That is just a friendly bit of advice.
allofmp3 appears to operate under a compulsory license. That means that, in the US, we wouldn't treat the copyright holder as having willingly permitted US downloads.
You appear to have made that idea up, whole-cloth. I know of no such precedent n the U.S. We enforce compulsory licensing in the U.S. in other cases. Is there some reasons we would disregard it here? Can you cite case law of is this just your personal opinion?
This works like the GPL. If they don't want to experience the downside to Russian sales, they can choose not to sell in Russia at all. That is their option. It's a valid option. Noone is putting a gun to Sony's head and telling them to sell in Russia. Nothing is done without consent. Sony offers it's works in Russia in full and explicit acknowledgement of the rules surrounding that offering. They can always leave that market. That is how capitalism works. Some artists/labels have chosen to abstain. Those artists aren't represented on AllOfMP3.
There are bans on it in 602(a) and (b)
we've already covered that those bans apply to illegally-gotten music. If the music was legally purchased, those bans do not apply. If I legally buy a CD in Russia, there exists no legal precedent of which I am aware to make that CD suddenly illegal in the U.S. Russia follows the rules of the WTC, as does the U.S., and it is a member nation of WIPO, which our own USPTO has conjoined with to set international policy on recorded works. No one in a position of authority thinks that anyone is doing anything illegal in this regard. The Russian recording contracts are vetted by WIPO for compliance. They comply, hence are enforceable in all WIPO member nations. We are one of those member nations.
They have finite resources, and use them in the most efficient manner.
And going after a single entity the size of AllOfMP3 would be a pretty efficient use of resources if they had a case.
But of course, downloading isn't importation.
You said that last time and cited a case that didn't relate. Is there another citation you can provide that makes your case? Is this just your personal opinion? Where did you get this fact from?
That means that unless the copies made would have been legal had US law applied at the place where they were made
(standard IANAL stuff applies)
Even under US Copyright law, these copies are legal. They are licensed under contract in a legitimately recognized sovreign nation that is an active and signifigant participant in the world community. Russian-born contracts are perfectly valid and enforecable across borders.
Facts:
1) The music was legally licensed in the nation where the sale is taking place.
2) There exosts no prohibition against sale in the legal license.
3) There exists no prohibition against sale accross borders once the music is legally licensed.
4) When the RIAA had legal grounds to injunct a music distribution method, they do so.
5) The RIAA has never made a single public mention of AllOfMP3, and there exists no evidence to suggest that AllOfMP3 is on their hitlist.
6) Copyright law allows me to purchase music in another country and bring it here, so long as the purchase was legal.
7) The sale of music by AllOfMP3 is legal.
Downloading is reproduction, not importation. Check it out: Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry,
I trust that you, also, are not a lawyer since you have taken IR v ULM way out of context.
1) In IRvULM, the hosting site did not have license to distribute. AllOfMP3 does.
2) In IRvULM, there is no mention whatsoever of the distinction between reproduction versus importation as an issue. Judge Campbell was ruling on the distinction between viewing and copying. The judge ruled that viewing a page constituted the illegal making of a copy, rather than a legal viewing (i.e., same as photocopying a book rather than same are reading it in the library) which has zero bearing on a case where the licensee has every legal right to sell copies of the material and is doing so under the auspices of a legally recognized government that engages and accepts the rules of the WTC, of which Russia is a member in good standing.
What, can't you read?
Though it's clear by this statement that you were being offensive in your reply, you'll note that I stuck to the facts and didn't engage in meaningless insult. Try doing that from now on and people will respond better to your arguments. and especially avoid being so cocky when you are wrong. It doesn't make you look so good.
Sing?
Dance?
Whatever happened to the idea that the Internet was a community of peers? I mean, my web browser doesn't care if the web site is registered with DNS or not. I can go to 125.10.233.5 as easily as I can go to linux.com. Likewise, my mail client doesn't care about DNS records. That used to be an optional part of the whole.
:(
Looks like the days when every machine was a peer on the Internet is gone in favor of the day when every machine must register with a superpeer (like DNS) to be considered a valid endpoint.
Kinda sucks, if you ask me, to fight spam by ruining the best part of the Internet, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE BETTER ALTERNATIVES OUT THERE! Look at IM2000 or any similar idea. These would work just as well without requiring me to lose my status as valid endpoint and without me being forced to register with a superpeer, like DNS.
I wonder if you could legally view child pornography if you classified it as part of the belief of a religion.
Two hurdles.
1) Freedom of Religion is provisional in that you can practice religion freely so long as the government also agrees with you that what you are practicing is a religion. So you very likely could not start up some fake sick religion called ChildPornology and demand to be allowed to watch child porn. The government is perfectly within it's legal rights to deny you the status of religion.
2) Therefore you'd have to convince an existing religion to advocate it, since they have already been given legal religious status. Still, the government reserves the right clamp down on harmful practices. For example, exorcism is fine, but if your kid is sick and needs medical attention and you only allow exorcism as a treatment, you will be arrested for neglect. Likewise even if all of Judaism stood up tomorrow and said "we advocate child porn" the government is still within it's rights arrest every Jew who practices that aspect of his faith.
If you want HDTV there is really only one extant choice. Get Voom.
It's got many more HD channels than any competitor, good content, and the system is designed from the ground up to accomodate HD.
I had some installation problems (which are really the fault of the subcontractor who did the install) but once installed, I can now say that I wholeheartedly recommend them for anyone looking to have HDTV right now.
I love the Voom-specific channels. They basically get thier own HD content and make there own stations for content. You'd think it would suck, but they do stuff like broadcast good concerts in 5.1 HD, tour galleries in HD, play old (good!) movies in HD and stuff like that. It's great, dude.
Damn, I sound like a friggin' commercial. lol! Well, that's what a satisfied customer is supposed to sound like, I guess.