And what's wrong with the government protecting my property? That's what my telephone, and my telephone line is, MY property.
I see nothing wrong with the government making it possible for me to put up "no trespassing" signs, nor for the government to either enforce those signs, or make it possible for me to enforce them.
"However, free speech is PRECISELY why the government has difficulty regulating how your mailbox can be used, and it is largely why you get so much junk mail. "
This *has* been decided in the Supreme Court re your snailmailbox. (See ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 (1970) 397 U.S. 728)
The Free Speech argument went down in flames.
Some relevant quotes:
The essence of appellants' argument is that the statute violates their constitutional right to communicate. One sentence in appellants' brief perhaps characterizes their entire position:
'The freedom to communicate orally and by the written word and, indeed, in every manner whatsoever in imperative to a free and sane society.'
Brief for Appellants 15. [397 U.S. 728 , 736] Without doubt the public postal system is an indispensable adjunct of every civilized society and communication is imperative to a healthy social order. But the right of every person 'to be let alone' must be placed in the scales with the right of others to communicate.
'it seems to us that a mailer's [397 U.S. 728 , 737] right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee.
'Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit
'The ancient concept that 'a man's home is his castle' into which 'not even the king may enter' has lost none of its vitality, and none of the recognized exceptions includes any right to communicate offensively with another.
'In effect, Congress has erected a wall-or more accurately permits a citizen to erect a wall-that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence.
'We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient.
I think that the reasoning behind this decision applies equally as well to telephone solicitation.
I hope the DMA spends a fortune on this suit, and that it crashes and burns simply by the defendents reference of Rowan vs US Post Office.
"Well *I* won't be satisfied until I see a VH1 behind the music in two years about how Hilary Rosen is in Soviet Russia selling her body for 8-tracks!"
And what will make that particularly poignant is that Hillary is rumored to be lesbian.
Just a note. According to the TCPA, if they *knowingly* send messages to your cell-phone against your wishes, triple damages apply. IOW, $1500 per message.
"I never understood and still don't get why people get their panties all in a bunch about a few emails from businesses that they have to read through and delete or whatever.
Say it with me -- it's called advertising."
Funny I never get telemarketing that comes collect, and I have to accept to get my other calls
I never get advertising from people who took over the newspaper printer and printed their ads on the newspaper's paper without paying for it
The television ads I get are from advertisers who help support the costs of running the program not people who freeload on the stations wavelength and add to the program's cost
Face it. Real advertising not only pays its own way, but reduces the cost of the media it uses. Spam is just theft.
And as for the companies whose million dollar ad campaigns get shut down by the spam filters, how do they have any more right to put their advertising on my computer without my permission than to come into my home to give me their speil without my permission?
My computer, my internet connection, my rules. If you don't like it f*** you, you damn commie.
>>Just try to get this information about any big public bridge. They'll say, "We can't tell you for security reasons."...just like certain software vendors we know.
That's factually wrong. The contract plans are usually available.
If you want to spend the money to get them, you usually can.
Now, some of the old stuff, the contract plans aren't around any more, but I'm talking 40 to 50 years old, and I'm talking about the relevent department didn't save it, not that they destroyed the plans for security reasons.
"You are seeking to make things like political speech=porn, which the Supreme Court already rejected years ago."
I certainly wouldn't make that mistake
After all, I never saw one porn company criticize another for *not* trying to water down the 1st Amendment, nor for not rushing to war, nor for not removing constitutional protections from the citizens.
--What if a U.S. state passes a law regulating what sort of material it is permissible to transmit to their citizens. Assuming the law were not struck down as unconstitutional, should everyone in the U.S. now have to follow this state law, to make sure that they don't accidentally transmit banned material to residents of that state (for example, by placing it on a website where a resident of that state could access it)? --
That should depend on whether someone *requested* it or not. If you go to a web site, or you *ask* to be e-mailed something, then it should be your responsibility to make sure it's legal in your state.
OTOH, if someone e-mails it to you, *without your asking*, then it should be *their* responsibility to make sure it's legal in your state.
>>One of the central tenets to the Christian faith is that the Bible was inspired by God, regardless of who put the actual words on paper. This is why evolution is incompatible with Christianity -- they directly contradict.>>
There is a difference between 'inspired by' and 'dictated by'. It's once you realize that, the supposed contradictions go away.
>>Here I'll give you an perplexing argument: It's funny how scientists can study life,earth,universe,etc. and then come to a grand conclusions that God doesn't exist, changes in species are due to random errors in reproduction, and therefore Darwin is right and everyone else is wrong.>>
The problem with your argument is that the existance or non existance of God has no part in the theory of evolution.
Some Scientists come to the conclusion that God does exist, and others come to the conclusion that God does not exist, but in both cases those are personal, not 'scientific' views.
>>Double standards annoy me as is. But to make a distinction between being perfectly legal and being an Osama Bin Laden in training just because of how much money you have is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard.
Especially since Osama Bin Laden had shitloads of money!
In other words, he not necessarily advocating blocking all copy-protection on CDs. He just wants to stop the music industry from passing off copy-protected CDs as regular copyable CDs. If the music industry agrees to label all copy-protected CDs as such, he'll still be happy.
Maybe not. Early this year, Boucher proposed
that copy protected CDs not recieve 'their share' of the Music CD tax.
Maybe if the 'CDs' were labeled as copy protected, and gave up their 'right' to the Music CD tax money he'd be happy.
For that matter, if the labels were conspicous and the anti-CDs didn't get the Music CD tax, I'd be satisified.
That's 'According to Blank and Kruger'
The law says different.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html
In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.
>They *CAN* be placed on books. They just can't >be placed on books by having a 'shrink-wrap' >agreement on them... which is the REAL problem >with software.
No. They actually *can't* be placed on books. That was actually tried, at about the beginning of the 20th century. The courts ruled that 'first sale doctrine' eliminated restrictions publishers could place on buyers (note, the restrictions that *copyright law* placed on buyers were still in place).
I don't know why the 'first sale doctrine' does *not* apply to software. In fact, I've read from a usually unreliable source, that as far as case law, it is unknown whether 'first sale doctrine' actually applies, and that the software companies are running a gigantic bluff, but then, that *is* from an unreliable source.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm failing to see the problem with that.
I thought the point of 'human shields' was to make people reluctant to bomb, not eager to.
And what's wrong with the government protecting my property? That's what my telephone, and my telephone line is, MY property.
I see nothing wrong with the government making it possible for me to put up "no trespassing" signs, nor for the government to either enforce those signs, or make it possible for me to enforce them.
I'd agree that the majority of CD-R's aren't used for data backup. They're used to make coasters.
"No matter how you hear a copyrighted musical work, it's still copyrighted."
Of course you could always use Beethoven and Motzart for your ring tones. They're not under copyright. (Until the next extension of copyright law.)
"However, free speech is PRECISELY why the government has difficulty regulating how your mailbox can be used, and it is largely why you get so much junk mail. "
This *has* been decided in the Supreme Court re your snailmailbox. (See ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 (1970) 397 U.S. 728)
The Free Speech argument went down in flames.
Some relevant quotes:
The essence of appellants' argument is that the statute violates their constitutional right to communicate. One sentence in appellants' brief perhaps characterizes their entire position:
'The freedom to communicate orally and by the written word and, indeed, in every manner whatsoever in imperative to a free and sane society.'
Brief for Appellants 15. [397 U.S. 728 , 736] Without doubt the public postal system is an indispensable adjunct of every civilized society and communication is imperative to a healthy social order. But the right of every person 'to be let alone' must be placed in the scales with the right of others to communicate.
'it seems to us that a mailer's [397 U.S. 728 , 737] right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee.
'Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit
'The ancient concept that 'a man's home is his castle' into which 'not even the king may enter' has lost none of its vitality, and none of the recognized exceptions includes any right to communicate offensively with another.
'In effect, Congress has erected a wall-or more accurately permits a citizen to erect a wall-that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence.
'We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient.
I think that the reasoning behind this decision applies equally as well to telephone solicitation.
I hope the DMA spends a fortune on this suit, and that it crashes and burns simply by the defendents reference of Rowan vs US Post Office.
"Well *I* won't be satisfied until I see a VH1 behind the music in two years about how Hilary Rosen is in Soviet Russia selling her body for 8-tracks!"
And what will make that particularly poignant is that Hillary is rumored to be lesbian.
Just a note. According to the TCPA, if they *knowingly* send messages to your cell-phone against your wishes, triple damages apply. IOW, $1500 per message.
Funny I never get telemarketing that comes collect, and I have to accept to get my other calls
I never get advertising from people who took over the newspaper printer and printed their ads on the newspaper's paper without paying for it
The television ads I get are from advertisers who help support the costs of running the program not people who freeload on the stations wavelength and add to the program's cost
Face it. Real advertising not only pays its own way, but reduces the cost of the media it uses. Spam is just theft.
And as for the companies whose million dollar ad campaigns get shut down by the spam filters, how do they have any more right to put their advertising on my computer without my permission than to come into my home to give me their speil without my permission?
My computer, my internet connection, my rules. If you don't like it f*** you, you damn commie.
"I don't know anyone who actually pays for a Hotmail account. Do you?
OTOH: The advertisers do pay. That makes them the customers."
Do you actually think that the *spammers* paid for the addresses?
Their business plan seems to be freeloading on anything they can get away with.
Paying for what they get isn't even on their horizon.
>>Just try to get this information about any big public bridge. They'll say, "We can't tell you for security reasons." ...just like certain software vendors we know.
That's factually wrong. The contract plans are usually available.
If you want to spend the money to get them, you usually can.
Now, some of the old stuff, the contract plans aren't around any more, but I'm talking 40 to 50 years old, and I'm talking about the relevent department didn't save it, not that they destroyed the plans for security reasons.
"You are seeking to make things like political speech=porn, which the Supreme Court already rejected years ago."
I certainly wouldn't make that mistake
After all, I never saw one porn company criticize another for *not* trying to water down the 1st Amendment, nor for not rushing to war, nor for not removing constitutional protections from the citizens.
And that's just one candidate!
In the tradition of Slashdot Microsoft bashing, shouldn't the above comment refer to Windows?
"But remember that with all software (even free as in speech software), if you don't accept the license you can't use the software."
Why do people keep repeating this FUD?
Read the F'ing GNU License!
You can *use* the software without accepting the license. What you can't do is copy, modify or distribute the program without accepting the license.
>>could not find any indication on google or usenet that he.net is spam-friendly.
That's funny, i did a google search on "he.net -repost: group:news.admin.net-abuse.email from May. 12, 2002 to today"
And got 277 results. Some off topic, but most showing that he.net *knowingly* hosts spammers, (and does not act on complaints.)
--What if a U.S. state passes a law regulating what sort of material it is permissible to transmit to their citizens. Assuming the law were not struck down as unconstitutional, should everyone in the U.S. now have to follow this state law, to make sure that they don't accidentally transmit banned material to residents of that state (for example, by placing it on a website where a resident of that state could access it)? --
That should depend on whether someone *requested* it or not. If you go to a web site, or you *ask* to be e-mailed something, then it should be your responsibility to make sure it's legal in your state.
OTOH, if someone e-mails it to you, *without your asking*, then it should be *their* responsibility to make sure it's legal in your state.
>>One of the central tenets to the Christian faith is that the Bible was inspired by God, regardless of who put the actual words on paper. This is why evolution is incompatible with Christianity -- they directly contradict.>>
There is a difference between 'inspired by' and 'dictated by'. It's once you realize that, the supposed contradictions go away.
>>Here I'll give you an perplexing argument: It's funny how scientists can study life,earth,universe,etc. and then come to a grand conclusions that God doesn't exist, changes in species are due to random errors in reproduction, and therefore Darwin is right and everyone else is wrong.>>
The problem with your argument is that the existance or non existance of God has no part in the theory of evolution.
Some Scientists come to the conclusion that God does exist, and others come to the conclusion that God does not exist, but in both cases those are personal, not 'scientific' views.
>>Double standards annoy me as is. But to make a distinction between being perfectly legal and being an Osama Bin Laden in training just because of how much money you have is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard. Especially since Osama Bin Laden had shitloads of money!
I have only one quibble with the previous post.
In his discussion of the RIAA he says
>>What they WILL do is loan money- at terms that
>would embarrass any self-respecting bank.
A more accurate description would be
'What they WILL do is loan money- at terms
that would make any self-respecting loan shark green with envy.
blocking all copy-protection on CDs. He just
wants to stop the music industry from passing
off copy-protected CDs as regular copyable CDs.
If the music industry agrees to label all
copy-protected CDs as such, he'll still be happy.
Maybe not. Early this year, Boucher proposed
that copy protected CDs not recieve 'their share'
of the Music CD tax.
Maybe if the 'CDs' were labeled as copy protected,
and gave up their 'right'
to the Music CD tax money he'd be happy.
For that matter, if the labels were conspicous
and the anti-CDs didn't get the Music CD tax, I'd be satisified.
That's 'According to Blank and Kruger'
The law says different.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html
In a case where the copyright owner sustains
the burden of proving, and the court finds,
that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may
increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.
>They *CAN* be placed on books. They just can't >be placed on books by having a 'shrink-wrap' >agreement on them... which is the REAL problem >with software. No. They actually *can't* be placed on books. That was actually tried, at about the beginning of the 20th century. The courts ruled that 'first sale doctrine' eliminated restrictions publishers could place on buyers (note, the restrictions that *copyright law* placed on buyers were still in place). I don't know why the 'first sale doctrine' does *not* apply to software. In fact, I've read from a usually unreliable source, that as far as case law, it is unknown whether 'first sale doctrine' actually applies, and that the software companies are running a gigantic bluff, but then, that *is* from an unreliable source.
Sorry. It's unpatentable. There's lots of examples of prior art.
Oops. Just remembered how the patent system actually works.
Nevermind.