Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2
No, but it has jurisdiction over anyone who has significant business contacts in the state of TN.
As the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again, the mere presence of customers in a state does not provide a sufficient nexus to override the dormant commerce clause which gives exclusive jurisdiction of interstate commerce to the federal government.
Now due to some quirky Supreme Court rulings some spam laws might slip in under the Pike balancing test, but merely "sending commercial mailings to multiple people [in a state]" does not in itself give that state jurisdiction.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2
I didn't want to read it, yet it still cost me.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 1
Using open relays is a whole different story.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2
In the case of snail mail and landline telephone, receiving the communication is free because the sender incurs the costs of communicating. Not so with your free email account.
I disagree. It most certainly costs money to send email.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2
Neither of which are necessary services for receiving US Mail.
So? There are free email providers as well. I've never paid for email.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 1
That's how forwarding services work. You can refuse to accept the mail, but you still have to pay for it.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2
In New York City, you have to have a license to sell things on the sidewalk. How is this any different?
The internet is a private system. Sidewalks are a public one.
Because Ms. Betterly's e-mails aren't, in the strictest sense, unsolicited, she doesn't consider them spam. So she isn't breaking any rules when she sends hundreds of thousands of messages through, say, WorldCom Inc., one of her many service providers.
What are they talking about? How is her spam not, in the strictest sense, unsolicited?
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 1
What she does is illegal in TN.
Too bad TN doesn't have jurisdiction over the internet. Umm...
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 1
Spam costs the recipient more than 99% of the transaction, and costs the sender less than 1%.
How much did this slashdot post cost you?
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2
She also doesn't pay for the consumed bandwidth of your ISP nor for the storage of her junk in your inbox, which means that in the end it's you that pays part of her six-bedroom house with pool on her 5000 square-foot property.
Snail mailers don't pay for my Mailboxes etc. account, nor the $1/pound forwarding charge.
Commercial speech has absolutely no freedom of speech protection
Nonsense, troll.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 2
If every business earned each dollar by leeching $100 of time and resources out of everybody else, this economy would grind to a halt in a week.
But that's exactly what every profitable business does. If they paid people their actual value, they would be making a profit.
A more apt analogy would be you, parking your car, locking it like you think you should, going inside, coming out the next day and finding it stolen. The thief broke in, hotwired it, and drove it away.
No no no, it's more like there being a lost key system that lets you open the car door and start it by entering a password (which defaults to 1234) on a panel underneath the drivers side door, then having a thief break in, start it, and drive away.
Sure, it's the thieves fault. But you should have known better, and your car manufacturer definately should have had that "feature" off by default.
If we have to pay shipping and tax I will never buy anything online ever again!
What's more likely to happen is that you will pay tax but you'll be able to pick the item up at a local store. Right now online companies are reluctant to open up lots of pickup locations, cause once they open one up they now have a nexus to be taxed in that state.
i've never liked the idea of phone line or power networking, simply because power lines and phone lines don't stop outside my house - they're connected to everyone.
Most phone line networks run over the second line, which isn't connected to everyone.
Well my point was that copyright infringement isn't the same as mugging or daterape. It's not even the same as theft. It's not even wrong. So your analogy is a poor one.
But good luck if you ever find yourself as a defendant in court facing serious copyright infringement charges, because what you believe happens to contradict with what current (US) law says...
I don't break copyright laws in serious ways. I make sure to stay under the magic $1000 per 90 day period limit. I also only break it in ways where I'm not going to get caught anyway, and most of the time I have a fair use defense. So really I'm not worried in the least about facing criminal charges.
The way I see it, the movie was "stolen" by the person with the camcorder in the theater. Like any stolen good, the person sells it/ gets rid of it, etc, through a "fence" or a distributor (aka The Black Market).
The way I see it, stealing means taking something away from someone.
Surely, you cannot seriously mean that any 13 year old kid have the means to get this movie in the blink of an eye has no effect on the distribution of this movie, and hence on lost income of the studios?
I'd guess the effect is extremely small, considering how ridiculously long it takes to download and how shitty the quality is.
Way to turn an interesting discussion into partisan politics. I wasn't talking about the election of 2000, I was talking about the election of 2004.
There are many ways to solve the problems of the election of 2000 while still leaving a paper trail. One method is to have a computer count the punch card ballot as it's cast. Have the person see what the computer is interpreting as his vote, so that he can change it before it's too late. Or even better, have the computer system simply create the paper trail. Let the person use the computer, and then they get a printed ticket which they can inspect and then place in the ballot box for use in the event of a manual recount.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but it has jurisdiction over anyone who has significant business contacts in the state of TN.
As the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again, the mere presence of customers in a state does not provide a sufficient nexus to override the dormant commerce clause which gives exclusive jurisdiction of interstate commerce to the federal government.
Now due to some quirky Supreme Court rulings some spam laws might slip in under the Pike balancing test, but merely "sending commercial mailings to multiple people [in a state]" does not in itself give that state jurisdiction.
I didn't want to read it, yet it still cost me.
Using open relays is a whole different story.
In the case of snail mail and landline telephone, receiving the communication is free because the sender incurs the costs of communicating. Not so with your free email account.
I disagree. It most certainly costs money to send email.
Neither of which are necessary services for receiving US Mail.
So? There are free email providers as well. I've never paid for email.
That's how forwarding services work. You can refuse to accept the mail, but you still have to pay for it.
In New York City, you have to have a license to sell things on the sidewalk. How is this any different?
The internet is a private system. Sidewalks are a public one.
Because Ms. Betterly's e-mails aren't, in the strictest sense, unsolicited, she doesn't consider them spam. So she isn't breaking any rules when she sends hundreds of thousands of messages through, say, WorldCom Inc., one of her many service providers.
What are they talking about? How is her spam not, in the strictest sense, unsolicited?
What she does is illegal in TN.
Too bad TN doesn't have jurisdiction over the internet. Umm...
Spam costs the recipient more than 99% of the transaction, and costs the sender less than 1%.
How much did this slashdot post cost you?
She also doesn't pay for the consumed bandwidth of your ISP nor for the storage of her junk in your inbox, which means that in the end it's you that pays part of her six-bedroom house with pool on her 5000 square-foot property.
Snail mailers don't pay for my Mailboxes etc. account, nor the $1/pound forwarding charge.
Commercial speech has absolutely no freedom of speech protection
Nonsense, troll.
If every business earned each dollar by leeching $100 of time and resources out of everybody else, this economy would grind to a halt in a week.
But that's exactly what every profitable business does. If they paid people their actual value, they would be making a profit.
A more apt analogy would be you, parking your car, locking it like you think you should, going inside, coming out the next day and finding it stolen. The thief broke in, hotwired it, and drove it away.
No no no, it's more like there being a lost key system that lets you open the car door and start it by entering a password (which defaults to 1234) on a panel underneath the drivers side door, then having a thief break in, start it, and drive away.
Sure, it's the thieves fault. But you should have known better, and your car manufacturer definately should have had that "feature" off by default.
Whatever... So when the 1 1/2 people who actually care about this call and complain, turn the port on for them.
If we have to pay shipping and tax I will never buy anything online ever again!
What's more likely to happen is that you will pay tax but you'll be able to pick the item up at a local store. Right now online companies are reluctant to open up lots of pickup locations, cause once they open one up they now have a nexus to be taxed in that state.
i've never liked the idea of phone line or power networking, simply because power lines and phone lines don't stop outside my house - they're connected to everyone.
Most phone line networks run over the second line, which isn't connected to everyone.
Well my point was that copyright infringement isn't the same as mugging or daterape. It's not even the same as theft. It's not even wrong. So your analogy is a poor one.
But good luck if you ever find yourself as a defendant in court facing serious copyright infringement charges, because what you believe happens to contradict with what current (US) law says...
I don't break copyright laws in serious ways. I make sure to stay under the magic $1000 per 90 day period limit. I also only break it in ways where I'm not going to get caught anyway, and most of the time I have a fair use defense. So really I'm not worried in the least about facing criminal charges.
As another post suggested, maybe it is technically "copyright infringement" and not "theft"; but either way, you still can't justify the crime.
Sure I can, because I don't agree that copyright infringement should be a crime.
The way I see it, the movie was "stolen" by the person with the camcorder in the theater. Like any stolen good, the person sells it/ gets rid of it, etc, through a "fence" or a distributor (aka The Black Market).
The way I see it, stealing means taking something away from someone.
And if you make $100,000/year then it's okay for someone to steal $100.
That would explain taxes :).
Judging from Taco's comments regarding Alterslash, I'd say he falls in the "against piracy" department.
Sorry, but theft is totally, entirely, and completely the fault of the THIEF, never the fault of the victim.
Sure, but what does this have to do with theft?
Surely, you cannot seriously mean that any 13 year old kid have the means to get this movie in the blink of an eye has no effect on the distribution of this movie, and hence on lost income of the studios?
I'd guess the effect is extremely small, considering how ridiculously long it takes to download and how shitty the quality is.
Way to turn an interesting discussion into partisan politics. I wasn't talking about the election of 2000, I was talking about the election of 2004.
There are many ways to solve the problems of the election of 2000 while still leaving a paper trail. One method is to have a computer count the punch card ballot as it's cast. Have the person see what the computer is interpreting as his vote, so that he can change it before it's too late. Or even better, have the computer system simply create the paper trail. Let the person use the computer, and then they get a printed ticket which they can inspect and then place in the ballot box for use in the event of a manual recount.
I did answer your question. A write in for "Joshua" would be kicked out and handcounted.
No, you didn't. Yes, a write-in for "Joshua" is kicked out and handcounted, but how do I know that nothing else happened?