In fact the reason for $150k per violation is there to make sure that copyright infringement would not be just a bat that big guys are holding over the small guys. Such a large fine ensures that small guys can get adequate representation if their copyright is violated.
True. They only represent the interests of the copyright holders who are MPAA members. But since this would be a case deciding on the potency of copyright, I suspect they might want to weigh in with friend of the court brief. And I would suspect they would come on the side of the copyright holder. I am not a lawyer.
You have copyright on all content you produce as soon as you claim that copyright. You can register the content with the copyright office, but you really don't have to. In fact, those records would only be used if there is dispute as to who owns the copyright. Since there is no question as to who owns the copyright on the content produced by your phone, as soon as you claim that copyright it's yours. Moreover, since each instance of copyright violation carries huge damages and fines, I don't see any problem (but I am not a lawyer) with informing any policeman that you claim copyright on all content on the phone and explicitly forbid him from both copying and viewing that content. And at $150k per instance of copyright violation, I think you should have a pretty easy time finding a lawyer who'd sue the copyright infringing cops. Again, the copyright is yours. It's not like a patent. You don't need to have it approved in order for it to be yours. You just need to be the original creator.
at $150k per copyright violation, i doubt you'd have to look very long to find a lawyer to sue for violating your copyrights on the videos and images on your phone.
People should expect no right to do what's illegal. People do have a right to do everything else. Adultery is not illegal. You must have us confused with Saudi Arabia or Iran.
in most states you can be held on a blank suspicion of being suspicious for a short period of time. once you are held in administrative hold, they record and process it. which means they can create a full list of items found on you: your wallet and its insides, etc.... you see where this is going, right?
are you sure it applies to local governments? how local can a government be and still remain exempt? can it be sub-municipal government? can a member of a condominium board copy dvds in order to enforce bylaws of the said condominium? i am thinking that it only applies to the federal government. so michigan police is not exempt
Where is MPAA on this? This is a clear violation of copyright on videos held by video creators. And police are doing it without as much as a warrant? I assume MPAA will demand that Michigan police come into compliance and be fined $150K per instance of violation. Michigan police is not immune from FEDERAL copyright statues after all. In fact, if the phones are password protected, the police are also in violation of DMCA.
No, it should not be a thing the country should focus on at all. But until there is a resolution to this story, it will only go on. The mystery takes on life of its own as imaginations run wild. The problem is not that 40% have a problem with the President. The problem is that 40% think the country may have already been dismantled.
To be honest, even if he hasn't met the legal standard of having been born in the US and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, he'd remain the President. The Constitution provides for only 1 way of removing a President from power. And the standard for impeachment is "bribes, high crimes or misdemeanors." Lying about your place of birth doesn't rise up to any of these. Especially since it might not be lying, but could be a simple mistake. I know that most people assume that the legal system works in such a way that any mistake which is made must be immediately reversed, however, the way the Constitution is written, he couldn't become President, but once he did, he would not stop being President. For example, if the votes in Florida were privately counted and it turned out that Gore unequivocally won, Bush still would have remained the President despite the fact that in that hypothetical scenario he would have lost the election. Constitution provides no way for correcting this type of mistake after the fact.
I don't think he'd be brought up for impeachment on perjury charges. First, because one isn't a witness (noun) to one's birth. So one cannot witness (verb) to it. Second, because perjury had been shown not to rise to the standard of impeachable offense in Clinton's case.
My personal opinion on the matter is that he is keeping the document closed in order to deflect attention towards this minor controversy and away from larger problems that his administration is facing. But it's having a very heavy toll on the nation at large. People not liking a President doesn't cause them to view the country as having fallen apart. People thinking that the principles, the very principles on which the country is based, are no longer the relevant causes these people to completely (rather than partially) lose stake in national cohesion. The origin of the word "outlaw" is that it is someone who is outside of the social contract which is the law. This meme of the President not being legitimate hasn't had its time to ferment yet. If it does, it will cause grave damage to the national cohesion.
Lastly, now is the best time to actually take a position one way or another. To either release the document or to state that it isn't available. It will give enough time for it to blow over before the election. I don't want this to be an election issue. If he's beaten, it should be because the country takes a stand against his policies -- not because of a gimmick.
Let me actually say even more. Since 40% of the country doesn't believe that he can produce an actual birth certificate (I won't rehash why that's different from a certificate of live birth -- it may be sufficient legally, but it's not the same thing and that's that), that means that 40% of the country effectively believes that we are living under consequences of a coup de tat. Even if only half of those people (20%) make this connection, do you have any idea what that to voluntary law compliance? Removing reasons for such a large portion of the population to doubt legitimacy (not effectiveness, but legitimacy) of the government is probably something that should be considered part of proper leadership. So to sum up, not removing this doubt carries a huge cost for the country. The cost is expressed in reducing voluntary law compliance as well as deepening the belief that public officials do not have any checks or oversight. I ask you this, what is the cost of showing the certificate in a permanent manner (such as by putting it in national archives)?
Because it is no longer a legal question. It's become a question akin to Nixon's WH tapes. All the legal maneuvering Nixon did to try to limit access to them only reinforced the wide-spread belief that he was hiding something. If something like 40% of the nation is convinced that a document does not exist and the existence of that document is necessary for the President to be legitimate, it no longer matters if he fulfilled the minimum legal standard. This has now become a historical document. There is absolutely no arguing this point. And if it's a historical document, keeping it a secret creates an appearance of impropriety. He is not on trial here. The standard he has to satisfy is not the minimum legal standard. If he doesn't release the document into national archives, he will be remembered with mistrust for the next 50 years. I, for one, don't want to hear about it anymore. Both sides, as far as I am concern are correct here. The left is correct that he satisfied the legal standard and the right is correct that he has to go a step further to assuage curiosity (and more than occasional fears). He is not a private person. He is an elected public figure. So the public has a right to know more about him than it would about an ordinary person. By the nature of his position he has public trust. The public has a right to demand that he deserve that trust. Since, again, this document doesn't reveal any private information, not releasing it has a "let the public be damned" whiff about it.
Oh, I didn't see the unjustified rant after your question. It's not nonsense. It's basic economics. Money is being pumped into the economy without having any increased value to back it up. As it makes its way through the economy, it raises prices of goods. That's inflation. Since the deficit spending ($1.5 trillion) is roughly 10% of the GDP ($14 trillion), the fact that it causes roughly 10% inflation is actually not at all unexpected.
Too broad. The question was where do you get the 10% number from? It's easier to see where you get it from by looking for it. The question wasn't "is it really a justified number?" The search I gave answered the question more accurately.
First of all, the link you give is broken. And 2nd, enough playing of these games. He is not being asked to prove a negative (as you suggest). No one is asking him to provide evidence that he never molested children. Simply put the original of a historical document in national archives. It's not that big a request to produce that big a controversy.
Right. So wedding announcement is enough to file for divorce? Or do you actually need a legal document like a marriage certificate? How about posting a necrology in a newspaper? is that enough to claim an inheritance? Or maybe you should get a death certificate first? Most people do think he was born in Hawaii. What irritates people is this arrogant attitude that he is above the law. That he is special and doesn't have to show his papers. At least Bush and Clinton tried to claim executive privilege when they tried to hide documents. This guy is claiming nothing. He just doesn't think that millions of people deserve to have their question answered. Riddle me this: do you not think his birth certificate is now a national historical document? It doesn't contain any private information (no medical records, no legal records, etc.) So why not put a historical document in national archives. It's 1 piece of paper. I don't think giving up a piece of paper which of so little consequence is that much to ask of a President. Especially, since it puts him in a murky legal position. His lack of desire to be as clear and as transparent as possible is the most annoying thing about this whole "birther" issue. Oh, and before you try to assign some false claim to me, something along the lines of (he is just another birther), I am more certain that Obama was born in the US than that McCain was born in the US. Because McCain was born on a military base in Panama. But if we have an administration going around creating new national identification standards, the lease the President can do is lead by example and show his own paperwork.
as soon as you'll need to use it to pay taxes. Many of the taxes that are collected are collected not to keep revenue stream going but to ensure that the information records keep flowing. As soon as you can't pay your taxes online without one of these, it will be over. Since the burden of preparing taxes only keeps going up, most people will gravitate towards the electronic solutions which assist in tax-record preparation. Using this thing will be seen as just part of the cost of doing business.
I hope you meant to say "efficiencies" rather than inefficiencies. Financial sector is the AI forcing the society to run efficiently. That AI is still largely in progress. But increase in employment is actually an indication of an industry in active development. Once the industry matures, employment shrinks.
Not really. As bad as Hollywood is, it's able to reinvent itself much more rapidly than other movie industries. It does ride out formulas which work to the death, but it does experiment more and it does adapt much quicker.
First, collective bargaining is HOW union workers are able to have livable wages and humane working conditions. It's not something that is sought for it's own sake. (I seriously doubt that you knew this.)
How absurd! Low factory wages was a historical fluke. It was a temporally local condition which produced a bunch theories by people who, like all people, thought they were living at the end of history and that the world would never change in its technical abilities.
Industrial revolution is why slavery disappeared. Modern transportation system (which enabled replaceable parts) is why factories with back-breaking labor have disappeared.
Gains in efficiency arise out of massive endeavors. But they don't get a chance to happen when the size of endeavors are curtailed by ignoramuses such as yourself. At that point, since they can no longer compete with the endeavors which did get big and enjoyed the efficiency gains, they move their production oversees where work is cheaper and ignoramuses as yourself and not in charge yet.
Sometimes, they do stand up and fight, but the people who like building things are usually not the kinds of people who like fighting... at least not until they realize that ignoramuses such as yourself are a disease.
Don't fall into the trap of comparing relative evaluations with absolute evaluations. California is suffering losses (relative evaluation of California vs itself or vs Texas). California is in a better position than Ohio is an absolute evaluation which doesn't say much because they have different baseline. Reckless behavior is imprudent because it creates relative losses even if these relative losses don't push California below a baseline of some other place which started pretty low to begin with. But a loss is a loss is a loss. If you have a choice of behaviors, why pick the more destructive one? Comparing California to Texas is comparing 2 choices of behavior. Comparing it to Ohio is comparing 2 choices of circumstances so it doesn't say much about choices of behavior. And choosing what you will actually do is all you can do in life. Thinks which are out of your control are, by definition, out of your control.
Information gathering will remain a human endeavor until someone shows a way to make P=NP. Or until bureaucrats find a way to stifle technological progress in order to "save jobs". Information gathering ultimately pays for itself as a way to keep things which we use and which occur naturally from breaking. Things which occur in nature usually DON'T break by accident. Keeping them from breaking consistently is a human effort.
Americans have never attacked a country solely because it had oil. It has attacked oil exporters, but there was always a more compelling reason to attack that country. I will NOT rehash all the reason for going into Iraq, btw. Feel free to list your full gamut of right-on-cue taunts about the Bush administration. I don't care. This is not the topic of discussion. And I don't want it to disintegrate into that. It's 1999 today -- not 2003.
Market always corrects for such things. USD can be printed because it's backed by something. That something just happens to be oil. Since all oil sales must be settled in USD, without USD one cannot run a modern economy. But the value of the USD which comes from the petro-dollar cycle is not its full value. US is still the largest manufacturer in the world. 20% of all manufacturing is happening in the US. That number happened to be 50% 50 years ago. So in relative terms, USD has lost value.
USD is currently experiencing a 10% inflation. Since the bulk of inflationary pressures caused by the US Gov spending was expected to kick in throughout 2011, it's only expected to get worse.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact the reason for $150k per violation is there to make sure that copyright infringement would not be just a bat that big guys are holding over the small guys. Such a large fine ensures that small guys can get adequate representation if their copyright is violated.
True. They only represent the interests of the copyright holders who are MPAA members. But since this would be a case deciding on the potency of copyright, I suspect they might want to weigh in with friend of the court brief. And I would suspect they would come on the side of the copyright holder. I am not a lawyer.
You have copyright on all content you produce as soon as you claim that copyright. You can register the content with the copyright office, but you really don't have to. In fact, those records would only be used if there is dispute as to who owns the copyright. Since there is no question as to who owns the copyright on the content produced by your phone, as soon as you claim that copyright it's yours. Moreover, since each instance of copyright violation carries huge damages and fines, I don't see any problem (but I am not a lawyer) with informing any policeman that you claim copyright on all content on the phone and explicitly forbid him from both copying and viewing that content. And at $150k per instance of copyright violation, I think you should have a pretty easy time finding a lawyer who'd sue the copyright infringing cops. Again, the copyright is yours. It's not like a patent. You don't need to have it approved in order for it to be yours. You just need to be the original creator.
at $150k per copyright violation, i doubt you'd have to look very long to find a lawyer to sue for violating your copyrights on the videos and images on your phone.
People should expect no right to do what's illegal. People do have a right to do everything else. Adultery is not illegal. You must have us confused with Saudi Arabia or Iran.
in most states you can be held on a blank suspicion of being suspicious for a short period of time. once you are held in administrative hold, they record and process it. which means they can create a full list of items found on you: your wallet and its insides, etc.... you see where this is going, right?
are you sure it applies to local governments? how local can a government be and still remain exempt? can it be sub-municipal government? can a member of a condominium board copy dvds in order to enforce bylaws of the said condominium? i am thinking that it only applies to the federal government. so michigan police is not exempt
Where is MPAA on this? This is a clear violation of copyright on videos held by video creators. And police are doing it without as much as a warrant? I assume MPAA will demand that Michigan police come into compliance and be fined $150K per instance of violation. Michigan police is not immune from FEDERAL copyright statues after all. In fact, if the phones are password protected, the police are also in violation of DMCA.
No, it should not be a thing the country should focus on at all. But until there is a resolution to this story, it will only go on. The mystery takes on life of its own as imaginations run wild. The problem is not that 40% have a problem with the President. The problem is that 40% think the country may have already been dismantled.
To be honest, even if he hasn't met the legal standard of having been born in the US and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, he'd remain the President. The Constitution provides for only 1 way of removing a President from power. And the standard for impeachment is "bribes, high crimes or misdemeanors." Lying about your place of birth doesn't rise up to any of these. Especially since it might not be lying, but could be a simple mistake. I know that most people assume that the legal system works in such a way that any mistake which is made must be immediately reversed, however, the way the Constitution is written, he couldn't become President, but once he did, he would not stop being President. For example, if the votes in Florida were privately counted and it turned out that Gore unequivocally won, Bush still would have remained the President despite the fact that in that hypothetical scenario he would have lost the election. Constitution provides no way for correcting this type of mistake after the fact.
I don't think he'd be brought up for impeachment on perjury charges. First, because one isn't a witness (noun) to one's birth. So one cannot witness (verb) to it. Second, because perjury had been shown not to rise to the standard of impeachable offense in Clinton's case.
My personal opinion on the matter is that he is keeping the document closed in order to deflect attention towards this minor controversy and away from larger problems that his administration is facing. But it's having a very heavy toll on the nation at large. People not liking a President doesn't cause them to view the country as having fallen apart. People thinking that the principles, the very principles on which the country is based, are no longer the relevant causes these people to completely (rather than partially) lose stake in national cohesion. The origin of the word "outlaw" is that it is someone who is outside of the social contract which is the law. This meme of the President not being legitimate hasn't had its time to ferment yet. If it does, it will cause grave damage to the national cohesion.
Lastly, now is the best time to actually take a position one way or another. To either release the document or to state that it isn't available. It will give enough time for it to blow over before the election. I don't want this to be an election issue. If he's beaten, it should be because the country takes a stand against his policies -- not because of a gimmick.
Let me actually say even more. Since 40% of the country doesn't believe that he can produce an actual birth certificate (I won't rehash why that's different from a certificate of live birth -- it may be sufficient legally, but it's not the same thing and that's that), that means that 40% of the country effectively believes that we are living under consequences of a coup de tat. Even if only half of those people (20%) make this connection, do you have any idea what that to voluntary law compliance? Removing reasons for such a large portion of the population to doubt legitimacy (not effectiveness, but legitimacy) of the government is probably something that should be considered part of proper leadership. So to sum up, not removing this doubt carries a huge cost for the country. The cost is expressed in reducing voluntary law compliance as well as deepening the belief that public officials do not have any checks or oversight. I ask you this, what is the cost of showing the certificate in a permanent manner (such as by putting it in national archives)?
Because it is no longer a legal question. It's become a question akin to Nixon's WH tapes. All the legal maneuvering Nixon did to try to limit access to them only reinforced the wide-spread belief that he was hiding something. If something like 40% of the nation is convinced that a document does not exist and the existence of that document is necessary for the President to be legitimate, it no longer matters if he fulfilled the minimum legal standard. This has now become a historical document. There is absolutely no arguing this point. And if it's a historical document, keeping it a secret creates an appearance of impropriety. He is not on trial here. The standard he has to satisfy is not the minimum legal standard. If he doesn't release the document into national archives, he will be remembered with mistrust for the next 50 years. I, for one, don't want to hear about it anymore. Both sides, as far as I am concern are correct here. The left is correct that he satisfied the legal standard and the right is correct that he has to go a step further to assuage curiosity (and more than occasional fears). He is not a private person. He is an elected public figure. So the public has a right to know more about him than it would about an ordinary person. By the nature of his position he has public trust. The public has a right to demand that he deserve that trust. Since, again, this document doesn't reveal any private information, not releasing it has a "let the public be damned" whiff about it.
Oh, I didn't see the unjustified rant after your question. It's not nonsense. It's basic economics. Money is being pumped into the economy without having any increased value to back it up. As it makes its way through the economy, it raises prices of goods. That's inflation. Since the deficit spending ($1.5 trillion) is roughly 10% of the GDP ($14 trillion), the fact that it causes roughly 10% inflation is actually not at all unexpected.
Too broad. The question was where do you get the 10% number from? It's easier to see where you get it from by looking for it. The question wasn't "is it really a justified number?" The search I gave answered the question more accurately.
First of all, the link you give is broken. And 2nd, enough playing of these games. He is not being asked to prove a negative (as you suggest). No one is asking him to provide evidence that he never molested children. Simply put the original of a historical document in national archives. It's not that big a request to produce that big a controversy.
Right. So wedding announcement is enough to file for divorce? Or do you actually need a legal document like a marriage certificate? How about posting a necrology in a newspaper? is that enough to claim an inheritance? Or maybe you should get a death certificate first? Most people do think he was born in Hawaii. What irritates people is this arrogant attitude that he is above the law. That he is special and doesn't have to show his papers. At least Bush and Clinton tried to claim executive privilege when they tried to hide documents. This guy is claiming nothing. He just doesn't think that millions of people deserve to have their question answered. Riddle me this: do you not think his birth certificate is now a national historical document? It doesn't contain any private information (no medical records, no legal records, etc.) So why not put a historical document in national archives. It's 1 piece of paper. I don't think giving up a piece of paper which of so little consequence is that much to ask of a President. Especially, since it puts him in a murky legal position. His lack of desire to be as clear and as transparent as possible is the most annoying thing about this whole "birther" issue. Oh, and before you try to assign some false claim to me, something along the lines of (he is just another birther), I am more certain that Obama was born in the US than that McCain was born in the US. Because McCain was born on a military base in Panama. But if we have an administration going around creating new national identification standards, the lease the President can do is lead by example and show his own paperwork.
as soon as you'll need to use it to pay taxes. Many of the taxes that are collected are collected not to keep revenue stream going but to ensure that the information records keep flowing. As soon as you can't pay your taxes online without one of these, it will be over. Since the burden of preparing taxes only keeps going up, most people will gravitate towards the electronic solutions which assist in tax-record preparation. Using this thing will be seen as just part of the cost of doing business.
I hope you meant to say "efficiencies" rather than inefficiencies. Financial sector is the AI forcing the society to run efficiently. That AI is still largely in progress. But increase in employment is actually an indication of an industry in active development. Once the industry matures, employment shrinks.
But Nollywood and Bollywood are more fun!
Not really. As bad as Hollywood is, it's able to reinvent itself much more rapidly than other movie industries. It does ride out formulas which work to the death, but it does experiment more and it does adapt much quicker.
First, collective bargaining is HOW union workers are able to have livable wages and humane working conditions. It's not something that is sought for it's own sake. (I seriously doubt that you knew this.)
How absurd! Low factory wages was a historical fluke. It was a temporally local condition which produced a bunch theories by people who, like all people, thought they were living at the end of history and that the world would never change in its technical abilities.
Industrial revolution is why slavery disappeared. Modern transportation system (which enabled replaceable parts) is why factories with back-breaking labor have disappeared.
Gains in efficiency arise out of massive endeavors. But they don't get a chance to happen when the size of endeavors are curtailed by ignoramuses such as yourself. At that point, since they can no longer compete with the endeavors which did get big and enjoyed the efficiency gains, they move their production oversees where work is cheaper and ignoramuses as yourself and not in charge yet.
Sometimes, they do stand up and fight, but the people who like building things are usually not the kinds of people who like fighting... at least not until they realize that ignoramuses such as yourself are a disease.
Don't fall into the trap of comparing relative evaluations with absolute evaluations. California is suffering losses (relative evaluation of California vs itself or vs Texas). California is in a better position than Ohio is an absolute evaluation which doesn't say much because they have different baseline. Reckless behavior is imprudent because it creates relative losses even if these relative losses don't push California below a baseline of some other place which started pretty low to begin with. But a loss is a loss is a loss. If you have a choice of behaviors, why pick the more destructive one? Comparing California to Texas is comparing 2 choices of behavior. Comparing it to Ohio is comparing 2 choices of circumstances so it doesn't say much about choices of behavior. And choosing what you will actually do is all you can do in life. Thinks which are out of your control are, by definition, out of your control.
Information gathering will remain a human endeavor until someone shows a way to make P=NP. Or until bureaucrats find a way to stifle technological progress in order to "save jobs". Information gathering ultimately pays for itself as a way to keep things which we use and which occur naturally from breaking. Things which occur in nature usually DON'T break by accident. Keeping them from breaking consistently is a human effort.
Pick your favorite news source: http://www.google.com/search?q=us+inflation+10%25
Americans have never attacked a country solely because it had oil. It has attacked oil exporters, but there was always a more compelling reason to attack that country. I will NOT rehash all the reason for going into Iraq, btw. Feel free to list your full gamut of right-on-cue taunts about the Bush administration. I don't care. This is not the topic of discussion. And I don't want it to disintegrate into that. It's 1999 today -- not 2003.
Market always corrects for such things. USD can be printed because it's backed by something. That something just happens to be oil. Since all oil sales must be settled in USD, without USD one cannot run a modern economy. But the value of the USD which comes from the petro-dollar cycle is not its full value. US is still the largest manufacturer in the world. 20% of all manufacturing is happening in the US. That number happened to be 50% 50 years ago. So in relative terms, USD has lost value.
USD is currently experiencing a 10% inflation. Since the bulk of inflationary pressures caused by the US Gov spending was expected to kick in throughout 2011, it's only expected to get worse.