Copyright infringement that is either for financial gain or in excess of $1000 in a 180 day period moves from a civil realm to a federal crime. 17 U.S.C. 506
That answers my first question, thank you. But I still have yet another.
Without indulging in my personal views about the actual use of copyright and licensing let's move into the realm of ideality for a moment.
When a person buys a CD they accept, knowingly or unknowingly, certain terms of the license agreement which dictate their use of the product. If, however, you receive an mp3 file from someone you are bound by no such licensing agreements.
Legally speaking, aren't the people who originally distributed the file to the servers the ones actually guilty of violating the license agreement and copyright infringement? The people operating the fileservers are never actively aware of any legal strings on the files which traverse their networks. If they were then ISPs might be liable as well for allowing the files to traverse their connections. This is no different than banks. Many banks do very little checking to determine where the money comes from and where it goes to. For the most part they really don't want to know. As long as the customer has a remotely legitimate business front then few questions are asked. The operators of these hubs would be like banks. All responsibility for the legality of the files should rest in the hands of the people making deposits.
Still, though, I think the **AA and the industry needs to quit whining about this. If they feel that the consumer, for once, is getting the best of them then they have the perfect ability to raise the price without making criminals of otherwise boring citizens. I also feel that holding people legally liable to a document which is never read is fundamentally flawed. It is not a secret. It is public knowledge that no one reads the licensing agreements. They constitute fraud by misrepresenting the context of a sale (transferral of ownership of the product, the box, and everything inside) as opposed to a rental (limits on terms of use and right of ownership).
You do not have an unalienable basic right as a human being to use someone else's airplane.
Guarding of private property is not a duty of the government.
Engaging in activity based upon suspicion is a not a call sign of a freedom oriented government. Any act of suspicion necessitates turning citizens into criminals and moving one step closer to guilty until proven innocent. A suspicious government will eventually imprison its people just as suspicious parents ground their children.
Amendment IX says that "Just because we've enumerated these rights does not mean that we have enumerated all the rights."
You _MUST_ be an attorney on the payroll of Congress. Once again, it says clearly: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Or, "Your interpretation of certain rights given to the Federal Gov't in the Constitution shall not be used or portrayed in a manner to be used to deny or limit rights which the people have."
Just because the Federal Government can do something does not give it the authority to deny a freedom of the people.
Amendment X is irrelevant -- it deals with the powers of the federal government, not with the rights of the people.
That's another bald-faced lie. Let's look at the official verbage again: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It says very clearly that if you can think of a right, and it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then it's reserved to the states. If the Constitution or the applicable state doesn't mention that right then it's reserved to the people. It also states that state law is more important in a state than federal law is in a state. That concept has also been ignored time and time again.
Your assertion that this is irrelevent is both obnoxious and abhorrent. Do you think the founding fathers risked their lives against British soldiers and British imprisonment so that they could include something "irrelevent"?
C) There may, or may not be, a right to privacy
Indeed. Since the Consitution does not specifically give the Federal Government the right to invade the privacy of a citizen at arbitrary times then the right to privacy is preserved by the citizens.
People always assume that Amendment IX automatically grants any right they wish. This is wrong
It is not wrong. It is perfectly correct. The founding fathers were sickened by the British government which exercised nearly arbitrary power over the American colonies and they wished to ensure that such a thing would not repeat itself on American turf. They wanted government which was small, limited, unobtrusive, and mostly irrelevent except when communication with foreign governments was necessary. They did not want a government which would actively police its population. That matter was rightly considered to be a responsibility shared by the local citizens.
The right of privacy has come about only through judicial and legislative action -- and may well go away from that same action.
That right exists naturally. Every young child is startled if someone walks into the bathroom while they're clearing their systems. Privacy is a natural concept. The only thing that judicial and legislative action has done is continually, bit by bit, encourage the government to spend more tax money thinking of new ways to turn Big Brother into Peeping Tom.
The only way you're going to win this is if you take the out provided to you in the 4th Amendment which secures persons from "unreasonable" search without a warrant. If everyone is subject to search or monitoring at all times then, it can be argued, it is no longer unreasonable.
And that, your honor, is where my opponent lost all credibility
Let's talk about credibility then. Take the credibility of the person extending the contract or agreement. From this point forth a contract shall denote either a contract or a legally binding agreement.
In the event that both parties fulfill their obligations of a contract then the contract stands and there is no nullification. Should one party breach the terms of the contract, however, then the contract is nullified and there may be damages to be paid or terms to be fulfilled. Next time you have a mind look over the contract for your vehicle. Look over the contract for your house. Look over the contract for your employment. These contracts outline in no short form the myriads of ways by which you, as the consumer, can break the contract and the other party assume total control of the contract--they can repossess your car, your house, or your employment.
Where, in any of those contracts, is there an indication for the responsibilities of the other party? Where are the terms by which they could break the contract and YOU could possess total control of the contract? Where are the terms by which the bank would forfeit your house or car to you through their wrongdoing? Where are the terms by which your employer is required to buy out your salary for a number of years due to their negligence?
There are never any such terms.
So in terms of credibility, at what age did you learn that the credibility of such a horrendously one-sided agreement was nonexistent? How old were you when you realized that "heads I win, tails you lose" is the mantra of the toothless carnival swindler? That we, as more or less enslaved citizens, have no positive choice but to accept the terms does not lend any additional credibility to the one-sided nature of these contracts. It only serves to illustrate just how warped this world is.
Perhaps you've heard of the concept of a "contract"?
I would just like to point out that, at the end of the day, a contract is an artificial club to be wielded by the wealthy. If you're not wealthy the contract will be used against you. If you are wealthy you will use the contract against others. If you are not wealthy and are the contract holder then you cannot afford to enforce the contract.
Screw contracts. I've never seen a single one that protected _MY_ interests without requiring first that I have $10k to retain legal counsel.
If you work but your employer fails to pay you, you can sue for those wages
My point exactly. If they don't pay you, how can you afford to sue? I'll cede that, in this extreme case, one could probably find a lawyer to pick up the case on credit since it'll be easy to prove. When was the last time you saw an employee agreement which outlined your rights as employee? NEVER. Everything in an employee contract has to do with the rights of the company.
I don't think you've thought your argument through enough to realize that simple fact
I understand that you're being idealistic about the way things should be but I don't think you've thought your argument through enough to see the way things ARE.
the big studios are banking more and more on the one profitable hit out of the ten movies produced and on DVD sales and rentals than ever
That sounds like the pharmaceutical industry. Maybe we'll get lucky and all of these carefully abstracted pyramid schemes will go belly up in rapid succession.
And what's with all this Orwellian "piracy" anyway
I'd like to know as well. If I sell a product to a person and that person uses that product in a fashion that I hadn't expected which renders my product obsolete, why is that the fault of the consumer? I, as the vendor, should have done my market research ahead of time and then charged an appropriate price to ensure my profit.
Let's face it. The big government and big industry conglomerates know that they're running an operation of greed. The only way that they can swing public opinion in their favor is to resort to childish name-calling.
The big movie industry needs to grow up. If it feels that it's not profiting fairly from the sale of DVDs it should raise the price. There is no secret that some people will copy the DVDs. There is no secret about how easy it is to copy the DVDs. There is no secret about how easy it is to distribute the DVD. Rather than turn customers into criminals perhaps the big industry should heed its own market research.
Can you imagine the uproar against MS when the yuppie soccer moms collectively find out that their online escapades away from their business straitjacket executive husbands have been captured for amateur pr0n?
The only reason why I pick on yuppies and soccer moms is that they're the only ones, in a significant majority, who are cute enough to make it worthwhile. Ugly pr0n just doesn't sell well except to a niche group of VERY sick individuals.
Hell.com had a web page which would capture and stream the user's webcam. I came across it while poking around their website. They had a chatroom type page and, if the user had a webcam, it would be displayed. I don't know how the functionality was available, if it was java script, a java applet (I don't remember clicking any acceptance box), or something else.
I often wondered, after that (circa 1999), how many other website administrators were happily scanning and capturing the webcams of users. Presumably, after a single visit to a page, the web cam connection could be preserved indefinitely.
Maybe it's better if the general public doesn't know these things. Can you imagine the uproar against MS when the yuppie soccer moms collectively find out that their online escapades away from their business straitjacket executive husbands have been captured for amateur pr0n?
The notion of "From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs" which is the core of Karl Marx's philosophy is also the core of Open Source ideals
I do not believe that you have the authority to speak for all of Open Source.
I have no illusions about Marxism and its inherent faults. I do not want to take from all programmers according to their abilities and give to all idiots according to their needs (wants). What I do want is for quality programmers to have the opportunity which is currently closed to them by the Microsoft monopoly. The Microsoft monopoly is not socially responsible. It fosters ignorance, it caters to insecurity, and it favors marketing quality over product quality.
Open Source ideals have more to do with fair and open capitalist competition and cooperation than any communal Marxist ideology. Open Source ideals have little to do with the aritificial subsidization of the illiterate except as a gesture of support. Open Source allows those who unknowledgeable to learn while closed source gives them so such opportunity. The question is whether they have the desire to learn or if their needs are as narrow as playing video games.
Indeed. With all of the remote vulns in IE coupled with the arbitrary code execution and terrible implementation of privelege separation on boxes running Windows I actually EXPECT that this has been useful for people for a long time.
The popular security media is just finally getting around to owning up to it now that SP2 is out. Can you imagine the looks of dismay if everyone across the nation realized how easy it has been for them to be spied on for so long? It's the origination of reality TV.
You actually cannot patent something that has been published by someone else, the USPTO does look into this sort of thing
Head out of clouds. Back to reality... They can, they have, and they will again. The only red herring is in the minutiae that Redmond uses to convince the USPTO that the specific points of the patent haven't been published by anyone else. The red herring, for example, that swam around sudo.
You are only agreeing with me by making sport of the current electoral system.
Ok, I'm game. What did that have to do with what you had quoted?
Silly troll. In the context of jury nullification you had queried how I would feel about a Neo-Nazi or some other fringe group having such power. My response is that, as long as they're repealing laws, that can only be a good thing for society.
in mine I have seen elections between people of very different political beliefs
I'm sure they do. You've demonstrated an enormous wealth of knowledge about the bread and butter workings of politics.
Second how is the fact that certain political views are so common within the population that a candidate going against them cannot win
We shall start with the economics of starting a viable candidacy. Then we will proceed through the logistical hurdles of gaining support. For example, Nader will not be on the ballot in many states. Then we will move on to the media misrepresentation of any topics which actually affect the daily lives of the commoner. Finally we will shift our focus to the demographic of people who actually make it to the polling booth. In all cases the wealthy and established ruling class have no reliance on the general public and are not given to considering what is best for the common good.
Only if the original rapist could prove that they had not GPL licensed the concept of a sex act from someone else. In the GPL case, the proper outcome is to rape God, teaching God the new position, and thus preserve the concept of ownership.
You've buttressed my point. You cannot sign away your rights to your inventions unless, of course, it is assumed by all concerned that you actually would own your inventions.
I've only encouraged you to recognize that social, financial, and political position are key considerations when the issue of "ownership" is considered.
The companies leverage their position to cheat the inventors. What is this but an example for the people?
then the bank should be dealt with by the proper authority
Interesting concept. What private attorney is going to risk the forclosure of his house so that he can take on a bank? You do understand my point, don't you?
I think your problem is with the authorities, not the bank
My problem, in this case, is with the authorities executing entrapment. It is widely known that nobody reads the license agreement on a DVD or a CD when they purchase the media. For all practical purposes the person has bought that movie and now owns it. Knowing the prevalence of nobody reading the legal jargon the media industry inserts a number of clauses which a vast majority of people are going to violate by default due to the perception of ownership. It is fraud on the part of the media vendors. The truth of sale has been misrepresented and the industry then uses the crop of criminals to exact additional profit at their leisure.
I have a problem with fraud. I do not have a problem with authority.
Are you talking of the box in the personal prefs or the box in the posts? The end result is: I do not post with karma by default. The AC is implying that you do.
However, in reality every reputable poll taken has shown that the majority of the population do not feel copyright law is unjust
Preposterous. The majority of the population has little interest in copyright law. Everyone agrees that a person should be compensated for their labors. This does not equate with copyright law.
While you may like that when the radical is on your side, what if he is a neo-Nazi or Jack from the previous post?
There is no such thing as a good law. Every law will inevitably be manipulated primarily with those with the money to fund legal budgets.
n the polls voting for the legislators to write the law.
Due to the inequities of the system there is no difference between majority Candidates A and B. Voting for the lesser evil is a common notion. It follows that the laws have not been written with the people as the final authority, but rather with the people as a silent cosignatory. Similar to a battered spouse.
They could only patent their own proprietary extensions
Only a virgin to these things would think that they're not legally manipulated, extrapolated, and interpolated in the courtroom.
Of course, other distro vendors can do the same thing
They cannot ever hope to compete with the industry muscle, experience, and financial backing that Redmond can offer in a patent race.
If Linux moved to the BSD license, Microsoft would patent and buy Linux onto the hobbyists shelf and then resume bending the rest of the population over a barrel. End users would never grow up. Sysadmins would never get any better and SPAM would continue to flood the network.
No, but refusing the government is anarchistic by definition.
That's leaning towards a dictatorship, don't you think? In a democracy the individual has a right, nay, a DUTY, to refuse illegitimate government requests. In a dictatorship the dissenter is locked away under charges of being an anarchist.
Let us also get back to the original point:
Someone else: People who broke the law are forced to pay fines
me: This is a democracy. The final authority rests with the individual. I did not agree to that law nor do I consider that law right and just.
This is a democracy. I am not an anarchist. Myself and the MAJORITY of my peers (making us collectively, the people) feel that the alleged violations are only questionably violations and CERTAINLY NOT felonies.
I also called into question the right of jury nullification. This is the final power of the people: if a jury of your peers can find that the law is overstepping its legal boundaries. I did note in my post that:
Sadly most judges will dismiss juries if there's any talk of the right to jury nullification of a bad law.
Where is democracy now except tucked in the pocketbook of artificial personages known as corporations? I make no dance with anarchy. I am willing to see this matter through to the courts but I do allege that the courts are castrated lapdogs due to the absence of common knowledge of jury nullification.
By claiming that 1 in 4 internet users have committed a "crime", they'll (hopefully) make the Avg Joe realize that the "filthy" pirates are actually the next door Avg Smith or even the beautiful chick across the street being chased down and convicted in court.
We wish... now back to rounding up the 40% of the population which admits to smoking grass on a regular basis.
A bank can post record profits, but fraud against that bank is still wrong.
If the bank was committing fraud in the form of price fixing, or favoritism in home loans, or favoritism in business financing, then the "fraud" against the bank may not be fraud but may be perfectly legal exercision of higher authority rights. It's retroactive.
The fact that we've had a bad administration for the last 150 years does not further validate immoral practices, nor does it invalidate moral practices.
The only real question is "legality", and that's a load of hogwash.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright infringement that is either for financial gain or in excess of $1000 in a 180 day period moves from a civil realm to a federal crime. 17 U.S.C. 506
That answers my first question, thank you. But I still have yet another.
Without indulging in my personal views about the actual use of copyright and licensing let's move into the realm of ideality for a moment.
When a person buys a CD they accept, knowingly or unknowingly, certain terms of the license agreement which dictate their use of the product. If, however, you receive an mp3 file from someone you are bound by no such licensing agreements.
Legally speaking, aren't the people who originally distributed the file to the servers the ones actually guilty of violating the license agreement and copyright infringement? The people operating the fileservers are never actively aware of any legal strings on the files which traverse their networks. If they were then ISPs might be liable as well for allowing the files to traverse their connections. This is no different than banks. Many banks do very little checking to determine where the money comes from and where it goes to. For the most part they really don't want to know. As long as the customer has a remotely legitimate business front then few questions are asked. The operators of these hubs would be like banks. All responsibility for the legality of the files should rest in the hands of the people making deposits.
Still, though, I think the **AA and the industry needs to quit whining about this. If they feel that the consumer, for once, is getting the best of them then they have the perfect ability to raise the price without making criminals of otherwise boring citizens. I also feel that holding people legally liable to a document which is never read is fundamentally flawed. It is not a secret. It is public knowledge that no one reads the licensing agreements. They constitute fraud by misrepresenting the context of a sale (transferral of ownership of the product, the box, and everything inside) as opposed to a rental (limits on terms of use and right of ownership).
We have glorified hide and go seek which adults can play without looking like fools.
You do not have an unalienable basic right as a human being to use someone else's airplane.
Guarding of private property is not a duty of the government.
Engaging in activity based upon suspicion is a not a call sign of a freedom oriented government. Any act of suspicion necessitates turning citizens into criminals and moving one step closer to guilty until proven innocent. A suspicious government will eventually imprison its people just as suspicious parents ground their children.
Amendment IX says that "Just because we've enumerated these rights does not mean that we have enumerated all the rights."
You _MUST_ be an attorney on the payroll of Congress. Once again, it says clearly: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Or, "Your interpretation of certain rights given to the Federal Gov't in the Constitution shall not be used or portrayed in a manner to be used to deny or limit rights which the people have."
Just because the Federal Government can do something does not give it the authority to deny a freedom of the people.
Amendment X is irrelevant -- it deals with the powers of the federal government, not with the rights of the people.
That's another bald-faced lie. Let's look at the official verbage again: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It says very clearly that if you can think of a right, and it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then it's reserved to the states. If the Constitution or the applicable state doesn't mention that right then it's reserved to the people. It also states that state law is more important in a state than federal law is in a state. That concept has also been ignored time and time again.
Your assertion that this is irrelevent is both obnoxious and abhorrent. Do you think the founding fathers risked their lives against British soldiers and British imprisonment so that they could include something "irrelevent"?
C) There may, or may not be, a right to privacy
Indeed. Since the Consitution does not specifically give the Federal Government the right to invade the privacy of a citizen at arbitrary times then the right to privacy is preserved by the citizens.
People always assume that Amendment IX automatically grants any right they wish. This is wrong
It is not wrong. It is perfectly correct. The founding fathers were sickened by the British government which exercised nearly arbitrary power over the American colonies and they wished to ensure that such a thing would not repeat itself on American turf. They wanted government which was small, limited, unobtrusive, and mostly irrelevent except when communication with foreign governments was necessary. They did not want a government which would actively police its population. That matter was rightly considered to be a responsibility shared by the local citizens.
The right of privacy has come about only through judicial and legislative action -- and may well go away from that same action.
That right exists naturally. Every young child is startled if someone walks into the bathroom while they're clearing their systems. Privacy is a natural concept. The only thing that judicial and legislative action has done is continually, bit by bit, encourage the government to spend more tax money thinking of new ways to turn Big Brother into Peeping Tom.
The only way you're going to win this is if you take the out provided to you in the 4th Amendment which secures persons from "unreasonable" search without a warrant. If everyone is subject to search or monitoring at all times then, it can be argued, it is no longer unreasonable.
And that, your honor, is where my opponent lost all credibility
Let's talk about credibility then. Take the credibility of the person extending the contract or agreement. From this point forth a contract shall denote either a contract or a legally binding agreement.
In the event that both parties fulfill their obligations of a contract then the contract stands and there is no nullification. Should one party breach the terms of the contract, however, then the contract is nullified and there may be damages to be paid or terms to be fulfilled. Next time you have a mind look over the contract for your vehicle. Look over the contract for your house. Look over the contract for your employment. These contracts outline in no short form the myriads of ways by which you, as the consumer, can break the contract and the other party assume total control of the contract--they can repossess your car, your house, or your employment.
Where, in any of those contracts, is there an indication for the responsibilities of the other party? Where are the terms by which they could break the contract and YOU could possess total control of the contract? Where are the terms by which the bank would forfeit your house or car to you through their wrongdoing? Where are the terms by which your employer is required to buy out your salary for a number of years due to their negligence?
There are never any such terms.
So in terms of credibility, at what age did you learn that the credibility of such a horrendously one-sided agreement was nonexistent? How old were you when you realized that "heads I win, tails you lose" is the mantra of the toothless carnival swindler? That we, as more or less enslaved citizens, have no positive choice but to accept the terms does not lend any additional credibility to the one-sided nature of these contracts. It only serves to illustrate just how warped this world is.
I guess that's how we know we're not in heaven.
Perhaps you've heard of the concept of a "contract"?
I would just like to point out that, at the end of the day, a contract is an artificial club to be wielded by the wealthy. If you're not wealthy the contract will be used against you. If you are wealthy you will use the contract against others. If you are not wealthy and are the contract holder then you cannot afford to enforce the contract.
Screw contracts. I've never seen a single one that protected _MY_ interests without requiring first that I have $10k to retain legal counsel.
If you work but your employer fails to pay you, you can sue for those wages
My point exactly. If they don't pay you, how can you afford to sue? I'll cede that, in this extreme case, one could probably find a lawyer to pick up the case on credit since it'll be easy to prove. When was the last time you saw an employee agreement which outlined your rights as employee? NEVER. Everything in an employee contract has to do with the rights of the company.
I don't think you've thought your argument through enough to realize that simple fact
I understand that you're being idealistic about the way things should be but I don't think you've thought your argument through enough to see the way things ARE.
the big studios are banking more and more on the one profitable hit out of the ten movies produced and on DVD sales and rentals than ever
That sounds like the pharmaceutical industry. Maybe we'll get lucky and all of these carefully abstracted pyramid schemes will go belly up in rapid succession.
And what's with all this Orwellian "piracy" anyway
I'd like to know as well. If I sell a product to a person and that person uses that product in a fashion that I hadn't expected which renders my product obsolete, why is that the fault of the consumer? I, as the vendor, should have done my market research ahead of time and then charged an appropriate price to ensure my profit.
Let's face it. The big government and big industry conglomerates know that they're running an operation of greed. The only way that they can swing public opinion in their favor is to resort to childish name-calling.
The big movie industry needs to grow up. If it feels that it's not profiting fairly from the sale of DVDs it should raise the price. There is no secret that some people will copy the DVDs. There is no secret about how easy it is to copy the DVDs. There is no secret about how easy it is to distribute the DVD. Rather than turn customers into criminals perhaps the big industry should heed its own market research.
Can you imagine the uproar against MS when the yuppie soccer moms collectively find out that their online escapades away from their business straitjacket executive husbands have been captured for amateur pr0n?
The only reason why I pick on yuppies and soccer moms is that they're the only ones, in a significant majority, who are cute enough to make it worthwhile. Ugly pr0n just doesn't sell well except to a niche group of VERY sick individuals.
Hell.com had a web page which would capture and stream the user's webcam. I came across it while poking around their website. They had a chatroom type page and, if the user had a webcam, it would be displayed. I don't know how the functionality was available, if it was java script, a java applet (I don't remember clicking any acceptance box), or something else.
I often wondered, after that (circa 1999), how many other website administrators were happily scanning and capturing the webcams of users. Presumably, after a single visit to a page, the web cam connection could be preserved indefinitely.
Maybe it's better if the general public doesn't know these things. Can you imagine the uproar against MS when the yuppie soccer moms collectively find out that their online escapades away from their business straitjacket executive husbands have been captured for amateur pr0n?
The notion of "From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs" which is the core of Karl Marx's philosophy is also the core of Open Source ideals
I do not believe that you have the authority to speak for all of Open Source.
I have no illusions about Marxism and its inherent faults. I do not want to take from all programmers according to their abilities and give to all idiots according to their needs (wants). What I do want is for quality programmers to have the opportunity which is currently closed to them by the Microsoft monopoly. The Microsoft monopoly is not socially responsible. It fosters ignorance, it caters to insecurity, and it favors marketing quality over product quality.
Open Source ideals have more to do with fair and open capitalist competition and cooperation than any communal Marxist ideology. Open Source ideals have little to do with the aritificial subsidization of the illiterate except as a gesture of support. Open Source allows those who unknowledgeable to learn while closed source gives them so such opportunity. The question is whether they have the desire to learn or if their needs are as narrow as playing video games.
What's the big deal?
Indeed. With all of the remote vulns in IE coupled with the arbitrary code execution and terrible implementation of privelege separation on boxes running Windows I actually EXPECT that this has been useful for people for a long time.
The popular security media is just finally getting around to owning up to it now that SP2 is out. Can you imagine the looks of dismay if everyone across the nation realized how easy it has been for them to be spied on for so long? It's the origination of reality TV.
You actually cannot patent something that has been published by someone else, the USPTO does look into this sort of thing
Head out of clouds. Back to reality...
They can, they have, and they will again. The only red herring is in the minutiae that Redmond uses to convince the USPTO that the specific points of the patent haven't been published by anyone else. The red herring, for example, that swam around sudo.
How did Nixon get elected...?
You are only agreeing with me by making sport of the current electoral system.
Ok, I'm game. What did that have to do with what you had quoted?
Silly troll. In the context of jury nullification you had queried how I would feel about a Neo-Nazi or some other fringe group having such power. My response is that, as long as they're repealing laws, that can only be a good thing for society.
in mine I have seen elections between people of very different political beliefs
I'm sure they do. You've demonstrated an enormous wealth of knowledge about the bread and butter workings of politics.
Second how is the fact that certain political views are so common within the population that a candidate going against them cannot win
We shall start with the economics of starting a viable candidacy. Then we will proceed through the logistical hurdles of gaining support. For example, Nader will not be on the ballot in many states. Then we will move on to the media misrepresentation of any topics which actually affect the daily lives of the commoner. Finally we will shift our focus to the demographic of people who actually make it to the polling booth. In all cases the wealthy and established ruling class have no reliance on the general public and are not given to considering what is best for the common good.
Is that about right?
Only if the original rapist could prove that they had not GPL licensed the concept of a sex act from someone else. In the GPL case, the proper outcome is to rape God, teaching God the new position, and thus preserve the concept of ownership.
You've buttressed my point. You cannot sign away your rights to your inventions unless, of course, it is assumed by all concerned that you actually would own your inventions.
I've only encouraged you to recognize that social, financial, and political position are key considerations when the issue of "ownership" is considered.
The companies leverage their position to cheat the inventors. What is this but an example for the people?
then the bank should be dealt with by the proper authority
Interesting concept. What private attorney is going to risk the forclosure of his house so that he can take on a bank? You do understand my point, don't you?
I think your problem is with the authorities, not the bank
My problem, in this case, is with the authorities executing entrapment. It is widely known that nobody reads the license agreement on a DVD or a CD when they purchase the media. For all practical purposes the person has bought that movie and now owns it. Knowing the prevalence of nobody reading the legal jargon the media industry inserts a number of clauses which a vast majority of people are going to violate by default due to the perception of ownership. It is fraud on the part of the media vendors. The truth of sale has been misrepresented and the industry then uses the crop of criminals to exact additional profit at their leisure.
I have a problem with fraud. I do not have a problem with authority.
how many people keep that box unchecked?
Are you talking of the box in the personal prefs or the box in the posts? The end result is: I do not post with karma by default. The AC is implying that you do.
However, in reality every reputable poll taken has shown that the majority of the population do not feel copyright law is unjust
Preposterous. The majority of the population has little interest in copyright law. Everyone agrees that a person should be compensated for their labors. This does not equate with copyright law.
While you may like that when the radical is on your side, what if he is a neo-Nazi or Jack from the previous post?
There is no such thing as a good law. Every law will inevitably be manipulated primarily with those with the money to fund legal budgets.
n the polls voting for the legislators to write the law.
Due to the inequities of the system there is no difference between majority Candidates A and B. Voting for the lesser evil is a common notion. It follows that the laws have not been written with the people as the final authority, but rather with the people as a silent cosignatory. Similar to a battered spouse.
Unfortunately, the cameras aren't all that effective at stopping crime
But they do provide a good amount of profit to the vendors. This, of course, illustrates the point of the whole thing.
They could only patent their own proprietary extensions
Only a virgin to these things would think that they're not legally manipulated, extrapolated, and interpolated in the courtroom.
Of course, other distro vendors can do the same thing
They cannot ever hope to compete with the industry muscle, experience, and financial backing that Redmond can offer in a patent race.
If Linux moved to the BSD license, Microsoft would patent and buy Linux onto the hobbyists shelf and then resume bending the rest of the population over a barrel. End users would never grow up. Sysadmins would never get any better and SPAM would continue to flood the network.
No, but refusing the government is anarchistic by definition.
That's leaning towards a dictatorship, don't you think? In a democracy the individual has a right, nay, a DUTY, to refuse illegitimate government requests. In a dictatorship the dissenter is locked away under charges of being an anarchist.
Let us also get back to the original point:
Someone else: People who broke the law are forced to pay fines
me: This is a democracy. The final authority rests with the individual. I did not agree to that law nor do I consider that law right and just.
This is a democracy. I am not an anarchist. Myself and the MAJORITY of my peers (making us collectively, the people) feel that the alleged violations are only questionably violations and CERTAINLY NOT felonies.
I also called into question the right of jury nullification. This is the final power of the people: if a jury of your peers can find that the law is overstepping its legal boundaries. I did note in my post that:
Sadly most judges will dismiss juries if there's any talk of the right to jury nullification of a bad law.
Where is democracy now except tucked in the pocketbook of artificial personages known as corporations? I make no dance with anarchy. I am willing to see this matter through to the courts but I do allege that the courts are castrated lapdogs due to the absence of common knowledge of jury nullification.
By claiming that 1 in 4 internet users have committed a "crime", they'll (hopefully) make the Avg Joe realize that the "filthy" pirates are actually the next door Avg Smith or even the beautiful chick across the street being chased down and convicted in court.
We wish... now back to rounding up the 40% of the population which admits to smoking grass on a regular basis.
Not exactly something you want to advertise if you're one of the folks screaming about the 'evils' of teen sex.
Egads Max! That sort of thing will land you in "poke me in the butt" prison!
A bank can post record profits, but fraud against that bank is still wrong.
If the bank was committing fraud in the form of price fixing, or favoritism in home loans, or favoritism in business financing, then the "fraud" against the bank may not be fraud but may be perfectly legal exercision of higher authority rights. It's retroactive.
The fact that we've had a bad administration for the last 150 years does not further validate immoral practices, nor does it invalidate moral practices.
The only real question is "legality", and that's a load of hogwash.