A lot of laws require not only the technical facts to be present, but the state of mind also.
A side note, I sort of have a personal experience with this where I was attempting to enable IPX on a Linux Box (to facilitate network authorization on a netware 3.5 boxen) and logged into the gateway by mistake enabling it for the gateway NIC. I ended up flooding the entire network as well as the internet. I in effect performed a denial of service to everyone on our side of the block. This went on for two hours before I noticed what happened and stopped it. I called the ISP and told them so they didn't waste resources trying to track it down. Everyone was fine with it, except I was sent a letter asking that it never happen again.
When you are in the back of D-wing with you new cell mate Bubba, who is 350 ponds of ass kicking muscle that stands almost 2 feet taller then you do, but wants to play house and asks you if you want to be the husband or the wife, and when you say husband because you don't want to take it and would rather be giving it, then he drops his panties, bends over, and says " Alrighty, eats my pussy then",
just remember, you asked for it because you know people are getting arrested for stupid shit like that. And sick shit like this happens sometimes in jail.
Well, they seize the computer and treat it as evidence and look for information contained on it that helps them show it was Bob who did it. This happens possibly while Bob has been arrested (because he lives by himself and swears that no one but him has access to the computer or the internet service he pays for). The authorities check and find nothing indicating Bob took part in this outside of Tor being installed. They release him, gather any information possible about the tor client connections and eventually give his computer back after a long wait and inconvenience.
Bob takes his story to the evening news claiming he thought that while he was evading spammers on the intertubes, he was helping US service men and agents communicate with government agencies because Tor was originally developed by the US navy for that purpose.
This has been hashed out about a decade or more ago. Abortion protesters were blocking access to abortion clinics and the courts rules that it wasn't free speech to do so. The protesters had to pay some restitution of lost business and clear a path large enough for employees and consumers to enter the premises unmolested if they chose to do so. Most of them gave up because the new rules made their protests a lot less effective as they previously where.
Here is the problem. No protest blocking the entry of a building or area for whatever purpose as the intent of the protest would be considered protected free speech. The abortion protesters found this out the hard way about a decade ago when they became not only liable for the lost revenue of the abortion clinics they blocked, but had to relocate in order to allow patients into the building without being directly harassed by them..
Um, I didn't misunderstand anything. A Court can't LEGALLY issue an Order to allow a PRIVATE COMPANY to come into your business and "Audit" or "Sieze" SHIT.
Do you REALLY think that a Court could issue an Order to allow ME to "audit" or "sieze evidence" from YOUR BUSINESS???
Guess what? Neither can the Court issue an Order to allow the BSA to act like LAW ENFORCEMENT, in ANY CAPACITY WHATSOEVER.
The BSA wouldn't be seizing it, the US marshal with them would be. A lawyer or representative from the BSA and a technical team capable of doing the audit would be there fulfilling the order. The order would be issued under http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#503 >existing copyright law
If the Congress decided the PEOPLE wanted a "Software Police", it would pass a LAW to create such an entity, and would grant it certain "Police Powers". Until then, you can safely tell the BSA to go pound sand. Congress hasn't empowered them to execute a Search Warrant, and a Court sure as hell can't, either. Oh, and there is simply no such thing as a "Search Warrant" that would allow for SEIZURE of ANYTHING in a CIVIL case.
Congress did pass that exactly when they gave the justice department the ability to conduct investigations into copyright violations and the courts the tools and powers to secure evidence.
Perhaps you should look into what is called an Anton Piller Order which is about the equivilent outside the US and US copyright law which allows it inside the US.
Remember, simply POSSESSING an "unauthorized copy" is NOT a violation of Copyright law. They have to prove DISTRIBUTION to someone else BY YOU. So "having a Federal Marshall along" is nothing more than a bullshit INTIMIDATION tactic. It's a CIVIL matter, NOT CRIMINAL! The Federal Marshall has ZERO power in that situation.
Well, you are getting the cart before the horse here. They have to prove a violation of copyright has taken place (which can be other then just distribution) if they are to be successful in their claims. But to get the proper orders which you seem to not understand, they only have to make a claim that is believable to the proper judge.
Criminal or civil, the courts can under law passed by the US government, impound as evidence, any and all material related to the alleged copyright violations before the csse goes to court in either a criminal or civil form.
To your first point, of course BSA only represents members of BSA. Did I say otherwise?
Actually, you did imply it. You certainly took no steps to limit your comments of what they can do to within the representation they proclaim.
To your second point, this is civil, not criminal. They don't have prove anything. Neither do you. The decision rests on the preponderance of evidence. They certainly can and will challenge the license for any BSA-member software found on your computers. Anything that you have that shows that you are properly licensed strengthens your case. Anything that you are missing strengthens their case. You should be safe if you have receipts. You're toast if you don't have any evidence of a valid license. If your only evidence of purchase is possession of manuals and media, you're at risk. You might win in court, but that misses the point. If you have proof of purchase, the BSA won't take you to court. If all you have is media, they will take you to court. Winning in court is better than losing, but best of all is avoiding court. If you want to stay out of court, you need to meet the BSA's criteria, not the court's. BSA wants proof of purchase.
Civil or criminal doesn't matter. They have to have a reason to go down that path. I cannot just say I think you are violating my license terms, I want proof that you are not, and expect any court of lawyer for that matter to take me seriously. Now, even if I know you are using my software, and you present a valid license, I cannot just demand receipts or PO numbers for their purchase claiming you might not have purchased it properly unless I have some reasonable and articulatory claim you did not. You simply cannot make baseless accusations against someone then claim those accusations give you standing. That is the point I was conveying.
Companies get in trouble when they assume that are safe because they didn't pirate anything. For example, Joe bought a new camera which came bundled with Photoshop Elements. He installs it on his company laptop. The company will now fail an audit. The company can't show that the company - not Joe, the company - purchased a license for something installed on a company computer. It may not be fair, it may not be reasonable, but that's the kind of thing that the BSA will decide to take to court. Joe probably has the receipt for the camera for the sake of the warranty, but the only item listed is the camera. It may be hard to prove that Elements was bundled with the camera, especially if it was a limited-time promotion. Rather than go to court, the company elects to settle with BSA, and buys another license. They didn't want that software, they didn't need that software, and they might have won in court. But it was cheaper to settle than to go to court. That's the BSA model you are up against. You don't win by going to court, you win by having BSA decide you aren't worth it. That means you have dated receipts in the company name for every piece of software found on any company computer. It doesn't matter that the software wasn't stolen; the only thing that matters is the BSA
This is a little different from what we were talking about now isn't it. I mean showing that you have a valid license but failing to provide a receipt is a completely different scenario then an employee installing personal software onto a company computer, isn't it.
ok, to your first point, if the court is involved, they have accused you of violating their copyright and the court would certainly have the authority to order the audit and allow them to seize evidence.
For your second point, I do believe that is what I was talking about. If I was somehow not clear, i apologize but at the same time, you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills a bit as I'm almost positive this is what I said.
As for your third point, most appropriately right. That is completely within your right. However, you have to be careful in how you go about it because interfering with the lawful execution of a court order, even if it's to exert the rights you just mentioned, can become a barrel of other charges against you if nt done properly.
However, it seems that the only thing we are in disagreement with here is your understanding of what I said.
First of all, the BSA can only challenge licenses in which it is held to either by ownership of copyright or contractual obligation. Otherwise it would be like me suing you for copyright infringement for using Adobe's software without a proper license even though I have no connections to adobe.
Second, they have to show that there is somehow doubt about the purchase of a license and media in order to bring it up. They cannot just walk up and say, hey, i see you got OEM versions of windows, prove that you bought them or pay a fine.
Finally, while you are right in the autodesk situation, it should be noted that the case is about the resale by a third party and not the use by a third party. It is a tad bit different in an audit situation because you are not attempting to sell the items. Of course if the software contained the non-transferable clauses and needs to be registered in order to work, there would be a record and this would be the evidence needed to address the second part of my reply. However, baring that, they still have to show some sort of doubt to the legitimacy of the purchase in order to make any response legally expected.
Well, this is sort of true. Courts can award them injunctions that warrant them the right to collect data from the premises as part of the discovery process. In this respect, they are still a private entity, but they have the backing of the court and generally a US marshal with them. Oh and they will be in possession of a court order at the same time.
The government and private charities. The draw back is that you need to seel off your assets and become poor. But chances are, if you are 45 years old and need a kidney with no insurance, you have done that long ago.
Medicaid and medicare do this all the time. Look at what happens when a 50 year old goes senile and needs to be placed into a nursing home but has no insurance.
The Mennonites are the wimpy ones that embrace modern gadgetry.
But neither reject modern medical treatment and the children aren't held to a strict lifestyle until the have their runabout and choose to come back. (at least in my area that is).
could be either unless they where driving the car/whatever. Then it would be Mennonites.
Treatment being paid for by some insurance company maybe but it's disingenuous to claim they receive no treatment at all because of it.
This is a lie created by political entities wanting to push legislation down your throat. If you are sick and cannot afford treatment, the government will step in with medicaid and medicare respectfully.
Amish or Mennonite? There is a difference. One is sort of the pussy version of the other.
But yes, Amish will participate in commercial businesses either being a consumer or owner when it is convenient for them. But they generally retain the ability to be self sufficient. I live in the middle of amish county in my state. It's interesting to watch.
Haven't you heard? the debate is over, the science is done. Global warming exists and nothing can change that now, the consensus is in.
Or at least that's what the politicians unveiling their plans for taxing the populous and grabbing more control while shoving kickbacks in the form of government grants and subsidies to companies they benefit from were saying just a few years back.
Wow, just Wow. Are you seriously saying that because people you don't like use ideas in ways you do not consider valid, that those ideas are no longer legitimate?
Um, yeah.. That's really scientific of you. Let's step away from the alter and think about this some more.
I was referring to a net tax rate increase. Should have reread that before submitting, got my words mixed up since I've seen both used in describing the position. As for the reference, it was from an interview with him on the radio several weeks ago. The interviewer asked him several questions about his position on this, and he boiled it down to no net increase in tax rates. So he was ok with closing some loopholes, but only if overall rates were lowered by at least the same amount. So, that doesn't seem to help much in reducing the deficit.
After a little searching, I see that he has since clarified more about this in the past week or so, which may give them more room. Haven't seen any real reaction from TP folks though.
Ok, as long as we are on the same page and understand what we mean. As for him restating that he would allow more room for tax increases, I seriously think the largest opposition to it right at the moment is the damaged economy would be even more damaged. Even the "I've Gotta Cut taxes" republicans of yesteryear was in favor of raising them to pay down the debt. If you remember right, the argument for tax cuts because of the so called surplus centered around the concept that if Washington kept it, they would spend it.
So I'm not so sure that anyone would appose moderate tax increases that specifically went to paying off the national debt assuming that no more debt was being incurred. But that's the biggest problem right now, Washington seems to have a need, either by law or inherent design, to spend every last dime it can and it doesn't really matter which political party is in charge when the opportunity comes around.
That estimate is based on what? Everyone has already accepted that we need cuts. All the plans so far, from both sides, include cuts. The difficulty is that the Republicans won't agree to ending any tax breaks or closing loopholes along with those cuts. Boehner simply can't get the TP group to agree to any such thing.
The quarter percent figure comes from media outlets like Charlie Rose, McLaughlin group, and others. I do not have cable (I gave it up willingly about 7 years ago) so I rely in PBS, CBS, Fox broadcast, and the internet for news and information.
As for the republicans not willing to increase taxes, they are right in not doing that. It will damage the already damaged economy. It will by necessity cause more people to rely on government services when they cannot find or keep jobs. The economy is way to fragile right now to impose new taxes on. Closing loopholes that are in effect targeted tax cuts put into the system at one point and time for a specific reason, will cause companies to move to other counties to do business. We need to wait until the economy is robust, then start with the tax increases. Like I said before, it doesn't have to all happen right now.
And you seem to have the same sort of bias against dems. I don't see how anything I've said is a "foaming at the mouth rant against the tea party". I think what they're doing is counter-productive and that they are potentially going to cause more problems than they solve. There's nothing irrational about it. If you're going to define disagreement with their position as that kind of irrational bias, then yeah, there's really no point in discussing it further.
I have a bias against them all. And yes, the majority of what you have posted has been a rant against the Tea Party members of congress. The fact that you don't see it is probably confirmation of the bias.
As far as you disliking what they are doing, that's fine and all, but I never spoke about what they were doing until you started ranting about them and brought it up. Remember, I started this off by stating that no one needs to go unpaid if the debt ceiling isn't raised this fiscal year unless the executive branch is completely incompetent or maliciously allowing it to happen for poli
The fact that you think we can just use some accounting gimmicks to prolong the period before default without suffering consequences is what makes me believe you're in favor of gambling with the economy. I'm not saying that you're a TP supporter, but just that you seem to share this lack of concern about the consequences of letting this drag out even longer.
It is completely true that we can pay our obligations throughout the existing fiscal year if the debt ceiling is not raised. That does not mean there won't be any consequences nor did I ever imply there would not be. I said the ggp was right in stating we couple pay our bills but added that it would be for a limited time.
I read it back when I was in school actually. I see what you're getting at, but I can't see how you figure they'll work their way through it. The TP congresspeople have intentionally put their backs to a cliff here. They've left themselves no options for negotiating anything that involves any net revenue increase. That's an extreme position, especially considering that tax rates are at historically low levels. The non-TP Republicans seem to be open to negotiating on the issue, and it even seemed like Boehner and Obama had been able to come to a deal, but Boehner couldn't get the TP people on board. Hell, he can't even get them on board with his own plan right now, let alone anything that seems like a workable compromise of any kind.
Forget about anything happening right now. That will all be forgotten about in the future when there is room to breath and negotiate. BTW, you can raise tax revenue without raising taxes.And if you listen to most of the tea party republicans, their opposition to raising taxes right now seems to be the adverse effects it will have on the economy. This does not mean they will not be open to tax increases in the future when the economy is more robust and people are back to work.
I've listened to Norquist about this as well. He's holding their feet to the fire. If they compromise in any way that results in a net revenue increase, he'll call them out and there will be a flood of money opposing them in the next election. They've got nowhere else to go. The Dems are already compromising significantly by including a lot of cuts that their base hates, including SS and Medicare cuts, on the table, as well as some real limits on revenue increases. I don't even know what they've gotten in the way of concessions from the Republicans for those things. Ultimately, I don't think it's doable to come out of this with no net revenue increase and have essentially only cuts. That's the only thing the TP will accept though.
Please cite this reference. If the economy simply recovers there will be a net revenue increase. Perhaps you are confusing revenue with taxes? Or perhaps you are just confused from listening to and reading liberal blogs.
We can accuse each other of bias all day long, but it accomplishes nothing. I'm at least willing to discuss the merits of our various options, which is more than Congress seems able to do right now. I'm certainly not in love with the Dems either. That's why I've always been an independent. I have to actually weigh the candidates based on their positions and the strength of those positions, since I don't agree with either side on all subjects, and even when they are saying the right things, it's still hard to know how they'll really act if elected. Obama is a perfect example. He's failed to deliver on a lot of things that he campaigned on, and essentially reversed positions on some things. I'm especially disappointed with the lack of progress in the transparency, ethics and lobbying areas, as well as the continuation of programs such as the warrant-less wiretapping of Americans that seem utterly unconstitutional, if anyone were actually allowed to bring suit against the government for it.
Imagine the horror I was in when I showed up for work to find 30 E-machines with windows Vista home premium on them and was told to connect them to the domain and start replacing the secretarial computers. I guess "a deal" is a deal regardless of how much of a downgrade something might be or extra costs might be associated with making it work.
Yes, I have ran into the same problems with the head of IT not being an IT person. the most painful part of that is that the volume licensing contract was purposely let to expire when windows XP was all the rage because "Every computer comes with it's own operating system, we don't need to pay for it again".
I guess that's what happens when the major qualification for a management position is being related to an owner and there is a family tree involved that doubles as a telephone pole.
I see your google fingers aren't broken, it's just your comprehension skills that are. I like the way you attempt to hide that by inserting what you think is a slam on my intelligence by associating my knowledge with that of the infamously evil Glenn Beck. Oh well, I guess this is why it's fun to watch the special Olympics.
Federalist wanted a stronger government then the articles of confederation allowed, but they were very much a practice of federalism which is focused more on the constitutional contract limiting government at the federal level focusing most of the rights over sovereignty with the states.
The anti federalist simply wanted to keep the Articles of confederation. They are not relevant to today's political realm at all because their opposition was to a constitutional government as apposed to the confederacy. To use it in the sense you did pretends that they are in practice today and we are still debating a constitution over the articles of confederacy. In fact, the federalism of today is actually more aligned with a strict adherence to the the US constitution which would require a smaller government and anything anti to that would be indicative of wanting a larger government.
If you would have made you comment 250 years ago, you would be somewhat right, yet still wrong if you consider the breadth of the US government today. It's the federalist who wanted a strong but limited government and we have went way beyond the constitutional role of government starting with the civil war and greatly exaggerated in the 1930s with FDR.
But go ahead, don't take my word for it, try reading up on federalism in the US, the federalist in the US, and the rest of the anti-federalist in the article you cited. You eventually will get a clue. And if you think that is something that someone who listens to Glenn Beck might know, it might do you some good to actually listen to him or something because that person would still have a better grasp on this then you seem to have.
but that you, like the Tea Party folks, are being entirely too flippant about the issue of a default.
What exactly have I said that would link me to the tea party of being flippant about the down side of a default? I'm willing to bet that you cannot find anything I have wrote that confirms your anxiety to support your political biases.
The Tea Party people have been adamant that compromise is not possible. They've signed oaths to that fact. Norquist will make sure that they are punished if they violate them. How could kicking the can down the road a few months possibly allow them to save face? I'm not seeing it.
Try reading the Art of War. Seriously, try reading just the cliff notes version of it. Right now, everyone involved has their backs against a proverbial wall. It's do or die trying. Give them room to work, and they can find ways to achive the proper goals without tarnishing their image. This doesn't have to be a your way or their way, in fact, both ways currently proposed seems to be anything as long as it's not the others ways.
Take the spotlight off them for a while, and they can find the third way, the way that accomplishes what is needed, even if it's spread over time with triggers or something to cause certain parts to kick in or wait until there's a more favorable economic climate to initiate them. Now neither side is breaking their promises and neither side loses.
This is not the same thing. This is money that's already been spent. Raising the debt ceiling is a necessary step, no matter what happens after that. The Republicans are just using it as leverage to get what they want, which I can understand. What I can't understand is their absolute insistence on getting exactly what they want, with no compromise possible. That's bullshit and I think more and more people on all sides are starting to see that, judging from how the polls have been going lately.
It is the same thing. the debt ceiling does need to be raised, but halting payments do not need to happen this fiscal year if it is not raised. You are so blinded by your political bias though, it's tough to have a competent conversation with you.
Of course the republicans are using it for political maneuvering. So are the democrats. That's the entire problem right now. If the debt ceiling isn't raised and seniors don't get SS checks, it will be pointed out loudly that it was purposely done by democrats because X, Y, and Z could have happened to make sure they got paid. X, Y, and Z, are all within the executive branch's authority- meaning that it's either calculated political maneuvering or complete incompetence.
Why you are willing to accept this from one side and not the other is a sign of a deeper problem though. Is it really ok for your favored side to be cut throat tools willing to screw the seniors and service people fighting in a war just to gain some political ground over your favored enemy in the political arena? IF you answer anything but no, it's not ok, you are nothing but a tool corrupted for use by these people for political gain. You are no better then the idiots you decry.
You really need to take the blinders off and look at the deuschbaggery all sides seem to be involved with here. Stop ignoring all the wrongs on one side while lambasting the wrongs on the other side. That is if you ever expect it to stop happening altogether.
Why don't you investigate into why there are these two systems you speak of. I'm willing to be once you find that answer, you will not only stop confusing federalism (federalist) but maybe support their ideas in the process.
And BTW, in case you are wandering, it's the federalist who what a smaller federal government, not anti-federalist which I think you just invented out of ignorance.
lol.. You are really invested in this concept that people won't get their gobernment checks aren't you.
What we will gain is the lack of political posturing which will allow congress to compromise without losing face. But, I did not say we should fail to raise the debt ceiling nor did I say we shiould ignore the problem. I specifically said that if people go unpaid as a result of failing to do either, it would be because of incompetence or political calculation from the executive branch.
So tell me this, if the debt ceiling is not raised, what possible gain would come from withholding social security checks, military pay, or a number of other things. It's like the schools in my area, they always want more money so they constantly put levies on the ballot. These levies fail and instead of cutting costs through staffing or whatever, they run first to end busing and do everything possible to make the parents uncomfortable. The next year, it passes. It's even happened 3 times in my adult life time when the school reported a surplus of funds at the end of the fiscal year.
It's just a political tool at this point being used to whip people into a frenzy. It's working especially well on you.
That page only looks at existing income. It does not in any way consider the accounting gimmicks mentioned by the op which would increase the income to levels beyond the deficit amounts needed to pay everyone.
Some of these gimmicks would be the fed buying back it's own securities by printing money to pay for it. It should be noted that the printing of capitol in this way would now lead to inflation if the money is removed from circulations once the repurchase is sold again. The government can also sell it's bond holdings within social security and a few other things. This issue is more about politics then anything.
You, like most Americans, are only getting part of the story in this. And the parts you are getting is largely influenced by political maneuvering. Again, we can last the rest of the fiscal year without the debt ceiling being raised and without anyone not getting paid, as long as policy makers do not act incompetently or politically and force it to happen.
You are right technically, but wrong in that the budget being talked about is considered balanced when it is proposed to law, not at the end of the year when we failed to meet its goals.
So the budget has been balanced as in, expected income matched expected spending. The biggest problem is that things didn't go as expected and we knew from the onset that there would be off budget expenditures that wouldn't be counted for on the budget. So a balanced budget has been proposed and passed into law, but that budget didn't remain balanced come year end.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the term you are looking for is called Mens Rea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
A lot of laws require not only the technical facts to be present, but the state of mind also.
A side note, I sort of have a personal experience with this where I was attempting to enable IPX on a Linux Box (to facilitate network authorization on a netware 3.5 boxen) and logged into the gateway by mistake enabling it for the gateway NIC. I ended up flooding the entire network as well as the internet. I in effect performed a denial of service to everyone on our side of the block. This went on for two hours before I noticed what happened and stopped it. I called the ISP and told them so they didn't waste resources trying to track it down. Everyone was fine with it, except I was sent a letter asking that it never happen again.
Well,
When you are in the back of D-wing with you new cell mate Bubba, who is 350 ponds of ass kicking muscle that stands almost 2 feet taller then you do, but wants to play house and asks you if you want to be the husband or the wife, and when you say husband because you don't want to take it and would rather be giving it, then he drops his panties, bends over, and says " Alrighty, eats my pussy then",
just remember, you asked for it because you know people are getting arrested for stupid shit like that. And sick shit like this happens sometimes in jail.
Well, they seize the computer and treat it as evidence and look for information contained on it that helps them show it was Bob who did it. This happens possibly while Bob has been arrested (because he lives by himself and swears that no one but him has access to the computer or the internet service he pays for). The authorities check and find nothing indicating Bob took part in this outside of Tor being installed. They release him, gather any information possible about the tor client connections and eventually give his computer back after a long wait and inconvenience.
Bob takes his story to the evening news claiming he thought that while he was evading spammers on the intertubes, he was helping US service men and agents communicate with government agencies because Tor was originally developed by the US navy for that purpose.
This has been hashed out about a decade or more ago. Abortion protesters were blocking access to abortion clinics and the courts rules that it wasn't free speech to do so. The protesters had to pay some restitution of lost business and clear a path large enough for employees and consumers to enter the premises unmolested if they chose to do so. Most of them gave up because the new rules made their protests a lot less effective as they previously where.
Here is the problem. No protest blocking the entry of a building or area for whatever purpose as the intent of the protest would be considered protected free speech. The abortion protesters found this out the hard way about a decade ago when they became not only liable for the lost revenue of the abortion clinics they blocked, but had to relocate in order to allow patients into the building without being directly harassed by them..
The BSA wouldn't be seizing it, the US marshal with them would be. A lawyer or representative from the BSA and a technical team capable of doing the audit would be there fulfilling the order. The order would be issued under http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#503 >existing copyright law
Congress did pass that exactly when they gave the justice department the ability to conduct investigations into copyright violations and the courts the tools and powers to secure evidence.
Perhaps you should look into what is called an Anton Piller Order which is about the equivilent outside the US and US copyright law which allows it inside the US.
Well, you are getting the cart before the horse here.
They have to prove a violation of copyright has taken place (which can be other then just distribution) if they are to be successful in their claims. But to get the proper orders which you seem to not understand, they only have to make a claim that is believable to the proper judge.
Criminal or civil, the courts can under law passed by the US government, impound as evidence, any and all material related to the alleged copyright violations before the csse goes to court in either a criminal or civil form.
Actually, you did imply it. You certainly took no steps to limit your comments of what they can do to within the representation they proclaim.
Civil or criminal doesn't matter. They have to have a reason to go down that path. I cannot just say I think you are violating my license terms, I want proof that you are not, and expect any court of lawyer for that matter to take me seriously. Now, even if I know you are using my software, and you present a valid license, I cannot just demand receipts or PO numbers for their purchase claiming you might not have purchased it properly unless I have some reasonable and articulatory claim you did not. You simply cannot make baseless accusations against someone then claim those accusations give you standing. That is the point I was conveying.
This is a little different from what we were talking about now isn't it. I mean showing that you have a valid license but failing to provide a receipt is a completely different scenario then an employee installing personal software onto a company computer, isn't it.
ok, to your first point, if the court is involved, they have accused you of violating their copyright and the court would certainly have the authority to order the audit and allow them to seize evidence.
For your second point, I do believe that is what I was talking about. If I was somehow not clear, i apologize but at the same time, you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills a bit as I'm almost positive this is what I said.
As for your third point, most appropriately right. That is completely within your right. However, you have to be careful in how you go about it because interfering with the lawful execution of a court order, even if it's to exert the rights you just mentioned, can become a barrel of other charges against you if nt done properly.
However, it seems that the only thing we are in disagreement with here is your understanding of what I said.
First of all, the BSA can only challenge licenses in which it is held to either by ownership of copyright or contractual obligation. Otherwise it would be like me suing you for copyright infringement for using Adobe's software without a proper license even though I have no connections to adobe.
Second, they have to show that there is somehow doubt about the purchase of a license and media in order to bring it up. They cannot just walk up and say, hey, i see you got OEM versions of windows, prove that you bought them or pay a fine.
Finally, while you are right in the autodesk situation, it should be noted that the case is about the resale by a third party and not the use by a third party. It is a tad bit different in an audit situation because you are not attempting to sell the items. Of course if the software contained the non-transferable clauses and needs to be registered in order to work, there would be a record and this would be the evidence needed to address the second part of my reply. However, baring that, they still have to show some sort of doubt to the legitimacy of the purchase in order to make any response legally expected.
Well, this is sort of true. Courts can award them injunctions that warrant them the right to collect data from the premises as part of the discovery process. In this respect, they are still a private entity, but they have the backing of the court and generally a US marshal with them. Oh and they will be in possession of a court order at the same time.
The government and private charities. The draw back is that you need to seel off your assets and become poor. But chances are, if you are 45 years old and need a kidney with no insurance, you have done that long ago.
Medicaid and medicare do this all the time. Look at what happens when a 50 year old goes senile and needs to be placed into a nursing home but has no insurance.
The Mennonites are the wimpy ones that embrace modern gadgetry.
But neither reject modern medical treatment and the children aren't held to a strict lifestyle until the have their runabout and choose to come back. (at least in my area that is).
could be either unless they where driving the car/whatever. Then it would be Mennonites.
Treatment being paid for by some insurance company maybe but it's disingenuous to claim they receive no treatment at all because of it.
This is a lie created by political entities wanting to push legislation down your throat. If you are sick and cannot afford treatment, the government will step in with medicaid and medicare respectfully.
Amish or Mennonite? There is a difference. One is sort of the pussy version of the other.
But yes, Amish will participate in commercial businesses either being a consumer or owner when it is convenient for them. But they generally retain the ability to be self sufficient. I live in the middle of amish county in my state. It's interesting to watch.
Haven't you heard? the debate is over, the science is done. Global warming exists and nothing can change that now, the consensus is in.
Or at least that's what the politicians unveiling their plans for taxing the populous and grabbing more control while shoving kickbacks in the form of government grants and subsidies to companies they benefit from were saying just a few years back.
Wow, just Wow. Are you seriously saying that because people you don't like use ideas in ways you do not consider valid, that those ideas are no longer legitimate?
Um, yeah.. That's really scientific of you. Let's step away from the alter and think about this some more.
Ok, as long as we are on the same page and understand what we mean. As for him restating that he would allow more room for tax increases, I seriously think the largest opposition to it right at the moment is the damaged economy would be even more damaged. Even the "I've Gotta Cut taxes" republicans of yesteryear was in favor of raising them to pay down the debt. If you remember right, the argument for tax cuts because of the so called surplus centered around the concept that if Washington kept it, they would spend it.
So I'm not so sure that anyone would appose moderate tax increases that specifically went to paying off the national debt assuming that no more debt was being incurred. But that's the biggest problem right now, Washington seems to have a need, either by law or inherent design, to spend every last dime it can and it doesn't really matter which political party is in charge when the opportunity comes around.
The quarter percent figure comes from media outlets like Charlie Rose, McLaughlin group, and others. I do not have cable (I gave it up willingly about 7 years ago) so I rely in PBS, CBS, Fox broadcast, and the internet for news and information.
As for the republicans not willing to increase taxes, they are right in not doing that. It will damage the already damaged economy. It will by necessity cause more people to rely on government services when they cannot find or keep jobs. The economy is way to fragile right now to impose new taxes on. Closing loopholes that are in effect targeted tax cuts put into the system at one point and time for a specific reason, will cause companies to move to other counties to do business. We need to wait until the economy is robust, then start with the tax increases. Like I said before, it doesn't have to all happen right now.
I have a bias against them all. And yes, the majority of what you have posted has been a rant against the Tea Party members of congress. The fact that you don't see it is probably confirmation of the bias.
As far as you disliking what they are doing, that's fine and all, but I never spoke about what they were doing until you started ranting about them and brought it up. Remember, I started this off by stating that no one needs to go unpaid if the debt ceiling isn't raised this fiscal year unless the executive branch is completely incompetent or maliciously allowing it to happen for poli
It is completely true that we can pay our obligations throughout the existing fiscal year if the debt ceiling is not raised. That does not mean there won't be any consequences nor did I ever imply there would not be. I said the ggp was right in stating we couple pay our bills but added that it would be for a limited time.
Forget about anything happening right now. That will all be forgotten about in the future when there is room to breath and negotiate. BTW, you can raise tax revenue without raising taxes.And if you listen to most of the tea party republicans, their opposition to raising taxes right now seems to be the adverse effects it will have on the economy. This does not mean they will not be open to tax increases in the future when the economy is more robust and people are back to work.
Please cite this reference. If the economy simply recovers there will be a net revenue increase. Perhaps you are confusing revenue with taxes? Or perhaps you are just confused from listening to and reading liberal blogs.
Ha.. you are not just whistling Dixie there..
Imagine the horror I was in when I showed up for work to find 30 E-machines with windows Vista home premium on them and was told to connect them to the domain and start replacing the secretarial computers. I guess "a deal" is a deal regardless of how much of a downgrade something might be or extra costs might be associated with making it work.
Yes, I have ran into the same problems with the head of IT not being an IT person. the most painful part of that is that the volume licensing contract was purposely let to expire when windows XP was all the rage because "Every computer comes with it's own operating system, we don't need to pay for it again".
I guess that's what happens when the major qualification for a management position is being related to an owner and there is a family tree involved that doubles as a telephone pole.
I see your google fingers aren't broken, it's just your comprehension skills that are. I like the way you attempt to hide that by inserting what you think is a slam on my intelligence by associating my knowledge with that of the infamously evil Glenn Beck. Oh well, I guess this is why it's fun to watch the special Olympics.
Federalist wanted a stronger government then the articles of confederation allowed, but they were very much a practice of federalism which is focused more on the constitutional contract limiting government at the federal level focusing most of the rights over sovereignty with the states.
The anti federalist simply wanted to keep the Articles of confederation. They are not relevant to today's political realm at all because their opposition was to a constitutional government as apposed to the confederacy. To use it in the sense you did pretends that they are in practice today and we are still debating a constitution over the articles of confederacy. In fact, the federalism of today is actually more aligned with a strict adherence to the the US constitution which would require a smaller government and anything anti to that would be indicative of wanting a larger government.
If you would have made you comment 250 years ago, you would be somewhat right, yet still wrong if you consider the breadth of the US government today. It's the federalist who wanted a strong but limited government and we have went way beyond the constitutional role of government starting with the civil war and greatly exaggerated in the 1930s with FDR.
But go ahead, don't take my word for it, try reading up on federalism in the US, the federalist in the US, and the rest of the anti-federalist in the article you cited. You eventually will get a clue. And if you think that is something that someone who listens to Glenn Beck might know, it might do you some good to actually listen to him or something because that person would still have a better grasp on this then you seem to have.
What exactly have I said that would link me to the tea party of being flippant about the down side of a default? I'm willing to bet that you cannot find anything I have wrote that confirms your anxiety to support your political biases.
Try reading the Art of War. Seriously, try reading just the cliff notes version of it. Right now, everyone involved has their backs against a proverbial wall. It's do or die trying. Give them room to work, and they can find ways to achive the proper goals without tarnishing their image. This doesn't have to be a your way or their way, in fact, both ways currently proposed seems to be anything as long as it's not the others ways.
Take the spotlight off them for a while, and they can find the third way, the way that accomplishes what is needed, even if it's spread over time with triggers or something to cause certain parts to kick in or wait until there's a more favorable economic climate to initiate them. Now neither side is breaking their promises and neither side loses.
It is the same thing. the debt ceiling does need to be raised, but halting payments do not need to happen this fiscal year if it is not raised. You are so blinded by your political bias though, it's tough to have a competent conversation with you.
Of course the republicans are using it for political maneuvering. So are the democrats. That's the entire problem right now. If the debt ceiling isn't raised and seniors don't get SS checks, it will be pointed out loudly that it was purposely done by democrats because X, Y, and Z could have happened to make sure they got paid. X, Y, and Z, are all within the executive branch's authority- meaning that it's either calculated political maneuvering or complete incompetence.
Why you are willing to accept this from one side and not the other is a sign of a deeper problem though. Is it really ok for your favored side to be cut throat tools willing to screw the seniors and service people fighting in a war just to gain some political ground over your favored enemy in the political arena? IF you answer anything but no, it's not ok, you are nothing but a tool corrupted for use by these people for political gain. You are no better then the idiots you decry.
You really need to take the blinders off and look at the deuschbaggery all sides seem to be involved with here. Stop ignoring all the wrongs on one side while lambasting the wrongs on the other side. That is if you ever expect it to stop happening altogether.
Why don't you investigate into why there are these two systems you speak of. I'm willing to be once you find that answer, you will not only stop confusing federalism (federalist) but maybe support their ideas in the process.
And BTW, in case you are wandering, it's the federalist who what a smaller federal government, not anti-federalist which I think you just invented out of ignorance.
lol.. You are really invested in this concept that people won't get their gobernment checks aren't you.
What we will gain is the lack of political posturing which will allow congress to compromise without losing face. But, I did not say we should fail to raise the debt ceiling nor did I say we shiould ignore the problem. I specifically said that if people go unpaid as a result of failing to do either, it would be because of incompetence or political calculation from the executive branch.
So tell me this, if the debt ceiling is not raised, what possible gain would come from withholding social security checks, military pay, or a number of other things. It's like the schools in my area, they always want more money so they constantly put levies on the ballot. These levies fail and instead of cutting costs through staffing or whatever, they run first to end busing and do everything possible to make the parents uncomfortable. The next year, it passes. It's even happened 3 times in my adult life time when the school reported a surplus of funds at the end of the fiscal year.
It's just a political tool at this point being used to whip people into a frenzy. It's working especially well on you.
That page only looks at existing income. It does not in any way consider the accounting gimmicks mentioned by the op which would increase the income to levels beyond the deficit amounts needed to pay everyone.
Some of these gimmicks would be the fed buying back it's own securities by printing money to pay for it. It should be noted that the printing of capitol in this way would now lead to inflation if the money is removed from circulations once the repurchase is sold again. The government can also sell it's bond holdings within social security and a few other things. This issue is more about politics then anything.
You, like most Americans, are only getting part of the story in this. And the parts you are getting is largely influenced by political maneuvering. Again, we can last the rest of the fiscal year without the debt ceiling being raised and without anyone not getting paid, as long as policy makers do not act incompetently or politically and force it to happen.
You are right technically, but wrong in that the budget being talked about is considered balanced when it is proposed to law, not at the end of the year when we failed to meet its goals.
So the budget has been balanced as in, expected income matched expected spending. The biggest problem is that things didn't go as expected and we knew from the onset that there would be off budget expenditures that wouldn't be counted for on the budget. So a balanced budget has been proposed and passed into law, but that budget didn't remain balanced come year end.