Your opinion is not only flawed it is obviously the opinion of a lawyer.
The law is intended to protect the people.
Any law however well intentioned that subverts the liberties of the people of the united states is a bad law and any judge worth his salt would deny the party using this law to subvert said liberties to prevail should be and eventually will be found to be in error by his peers.
While I for one do not consider corporations citizens I do respect the rights of people to excersize and to defend their rights.
You work at an institution and must thereby adhere to its rules and procedures.
So what happens when information of any kind becomes to dangerous to release to the public. Well they will close all the schools because the "public" might misuse the information gleaned through such an institution. Then obviously someone will have to share this information with select individuals. Who decides?
Ever hear of civil rights friend? We all have the right to learn and share what we learn with each other. No matter how dangerous information is the lack of information is far worse.
The suppression of information is a sin against humanity.
Everyone knows that recording artists make more money touring than they do from royalties. Artist depend on producers/distributers only to get the word out that they are here and they are hot after that they could record there songs in the garage on an old tape recorder and still sell a million copies if they didn't get caught up in long term contracts with behemoth entities trying to bleed them dry. The day live concert experiences can be downloaded artists might have something to worry about. I personally dont care either way since I don't listen to music except during a long ride, but it's still the radio I listen to even though my car came with a seven CD changer player. So if the web makes you hot or the behemoths make you hot whats the difference to that artist?
How does going after an isp protect coptrights?
Did hollywood pay the computer industry for every product they sell in digital format?
They chose to put their product on digital media that they did not invent yet they expect the industry to impose restrictions upon the media and anything that can read or write to the media.
I cannot see holding an ISP responsable for the distribution of illigal copies any more than I could see the US mail being held resposnable for someone sending a copy through the mail.
We all know that rock stars make tons more money on a live tour than they ever make from royalties of cd sales and would be far for than compensated if they released their music for free on the internet in order to entice people to thier shows.
Movies? Well there lies the delemma. These folks want to steal your medium of choice and own it for themselves. They used to be the only game in town and now they are not, I say let them go back to beta.
Ok say person x buys a glock from company b. person z who happens to be officer z of the sfpd also buys a glock from company b. As fate would have it officer z attempts to serve a warrent to person x who in turn puts a big hole in officer z.
Should a company, corporation, inventor or retailer be held responsable for the actions of person x?
I say no. The demise of personal responsability will be the downfall of personal freedom.
Just because it would be harder to find and prosecute person x (since he's now on the lam) is harder than finding company b is no reason to erase the rights of people, companies, or corporations to sell a perfectly functional product.
Slashdot Mirror
No sound card,speakers,monitor, or keyboard? What kind of gaming can you do on that?
Because your not their customer?
Your opinion is not only flawed it is obviously the opinion of a lawyer.
The law is intended to protect the people.
Any law however well intentioned that subverts the liberties of the people of the united states is a bad law and any judge worth his salt would deny the party using this law to subvert said liberties to prevail should be and eventually will be found to be in error by his peers.
While I for one do not consider corporations citizens I do respect the rights of people to excersize and to defend their rights.
You work at an institution and must thereby adhere to its rules and procedures.
So what happens when information of any kind becomes to dangerous to release to the public.
Well they will close all the schools because the "public" might misuse the information gleaned through such an institution. Then obviously someone will have to share this information with select individuals. Who decides?
Ever hear of civil rights friend? We all have the right to learn and share what we learn with each other. No matter how dangerous information is the lack of information is far worse.
The suppression of information is a sin against humanity.
Everyone knows that recording artists make more money touring than they do from royalties. Artist depend on producers/distributers only to get the word out that they are here and they are hot after that they could record there songs in the garage on an old tape recorder and still sell a million copies if they didn't get caught up in long term contracts with behemoth entities trying to bleed them dry. The day live concert experiences can be downloaded artists might have something to worry about. I personally dont care either way since I don't listen to music except during a long ride, but it's still the radio I listen to even though my car came with a seven CD changer player. So if the web makes you hot or the behemoths make you hot whats the difference to that artist?
How does going after an isp protect coptrights? Did hollywood pay the computer industry for every product they sell in digital format? They chose to put their product on digital media that they did not invent yet they expect the industry to impose restrictions upon the media and anything that can read or write to the media. I cannot see holding an ISP responsable for the distribution of illigal copies any more than I could see the US mail being held resposnable for someone sending a copy through the mail. We all know that rock stars make tons more money on a live tour than they ever make from royalties of cd sales and would be far for than compensated if they released their music for free on the internet in order to entice people to thier shows. Movies? Well there lies the delemma. These folks want to steal your medium of choice and own it for themselves. They used to be the only game in town and now they are not, I say let them go back to beta.
Ok say person x buys a glock from company b. person z who happens to be officer z of the sfpd also buys a glock from company b. As fate would have it officer z attempts to serve a warrent to person x who in turn puts a big hole in officer z.
Should a company, corporation, inventor or retailer be held responsable for the actions of person x?
I say no. The demise of personal responsability will be the downfall of personal freedom.
Just because it would be harder to find and prosecute person x (since he's now on the lam) is harder than finding company b is no reason to erase the rights of people, companies, or corporations to sell a perfectly functional product.