There is nothing over confident about that. Or do you have some inside knowledge that hasn't been shared with the rest of the world claiming that all hell will break lose on a certain date and all of the history of man to date is negligible in coping with it?
Reality is pretty much what doesn't disappear when you close your eyes. We have conquered things in the past, why do you think it all the sudden will stop or that it has to be a certain way- your way?
You sound like an outsider so I will pose this response in as clear and of modern of times as possible.
I certainly hope so! You guys need a complete remake. There are two things that Americans are obsessed for no apparent reasons: The constitution and the divine wisdom of the founding fathers. (Well, there are more then two but only those are relevant here)
The thing is that the constitution was drafted centuries ago. By people who lived centuries ago and were just normal (though perhaps clever) humans. The world has changed in pretty much every possible way. Whether it comes to issues about communication, privacy, immigration, economy, weapon rights... In every possible aspect there are numerous entirely new issues that was not even possible to foresee when the constitution was drafted. There have been new theories in economy, politics and philosophy and whole new concepts have came up in all the areas... In other words: The constitution of the USA is a completely obsolete document.
The obsession with the constitution is because it's a document that gives the federal government it's power. The federal government was originally designed to simple be a common head of state and to settle matters between the states. The constitution is divided into 3 sections, 2 of which are basically the same. The first section described the only power the federal government has, the rest is left to the states and to the people where it respectfully belongs.
The second part is called the bill of rights, this is the original 10 amendment (there was 12 originally but 2 of them took several decades after the constitution was ratified by all the states to be passed). These bill of rights do not give anyone any rights, they expressly forbid the government of the US or it's states from taking inherent rights away from us. Then there are the amendments. These are all the amendments after the first 10 which has been made for whatever reason as society deemed necessary. It requires a good deal of support in order to get an amendment passed and there was actually two amendments that would/could be unconstitutional (depending on the date passed).
Now, how this all sorts together in modern times, support the EU became some massive monolithic organization that was imposing it's will on all the member countries. Some say it already is, but suppose that over the next couple of years, the EU government took control of all the military forces of it's member states, started declaring what kind of health care they could have, what kind of elections they could have, who could become citizens of the member states and so on. Also suppose they started taxing individuals within each member state. Now suppose a bunch of radicals decided it would be easier to change policy in England or France by simply passing laws in the EU which England and France were bound by.
So you might say, but that will never happen, their charter doesn't permit it. Then someone comes along and says "the EU charter was drafted decades ago, by people who lived decades ago, it means nothing today because thigns have changed and aren't the same. I don't care that there is an amendment process to change the charter- it's simply too hard to get 3/4 of the people to agree on what I see needs changed". Now do you see where this is going? If the document that limits the power of government over the people is ignored for your convenience, it can be ignored for anyone else'. So why is there a document that limits the power of a governing body in the first place? Well, because people thought it would be good to limit that governing body's power to avoid certain things. Now we have to get into the founding fathers to find out what those things were and if it's a good idea or not. And no, this isn't limited to just the US, any country that has a constitution or charter or even the EU has founding fathers who directed the organization of that country or governing body certain ways for certain reasons. If those r
Under the law, copyright infringement is both criminal and civil. The law doesn't distinguish between the two except with remedies for the infringement. But here is why your attempt to break it down into criminal and civil laws fails. The law gives the federal government and it's agencies the power to investigate and confiscate infringing works without it ever falling under the criminal penalties category.
I suggest that when you are speaking about the law, you remain within the context of the law and possible learn something about the legal system first.
Did you even bother reading the part where their business model is not selling things but selling access to things? And yes, when you craft a model around providing access, anyone who gains access without payment does mean that they lose a sale. It doesn't matter if the poor person could afford it or not. Look up the legal term conversion. That is essentially theft without taking anything.
BTW, I didn't say I agreed with it or that I like it. I said it makes a logical connection when someone provides something for a fee and someone else take that without payment. In this case, it's access to copyright protected works but it's easily transferable to anything else.
Yawn.. I applaud your enthusiasm but you are simply wrong. Copyright infringement is a federal crime that carries both criminal and civil liabilities depending on the circumstances.
There is no confusion over theft or pirating or victim-hood here at all. There is a federal law, violating it is a crime that carries both criminal and civil penalties or both depending on the circumstances. Perhaps you are a victim of internet lawyers trying to tell you it's ok?
Your history is a little too molested for my taste. the real destruction of the US constitution started during the civil war time and really became institutionalized during FDR. You are at minimum 100 years off and generalship at least 30 years off the most noticeable disregard of it.
FDR said at a speech that the government shouldn't be involved welfare or social issues two years before he was elected president. He then did did an about face and trampled all over it. In 1930 FDR said:
As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.
This s[eech was given considering the Volstead Act. He states that he knows they need a constitutional amendment in order to act on matters of the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. Yet he totally ignores that two year later as president, creates a standoff with the supreme court in which they ended up backing down and bending the interstate commerce clause in order to save face, and this was the biggest disregard for the constitution by the government in recent times and it's still being conducted to this day. Why you just now think it's happening is a mystery to me. but it still happening is not surprising at all seeing how when you allow one infraction, others will follow.
This isn't really anything new. About the only reason it's news worthy today is because of all the "we are spending too much" and "Wikileaks is teh evil". It's happened in the past and I first remember hearing about it was back in 7th or 8th grade in US history class (circa 1984).
anyways, it seems this has happened in the past and my US history teacher made the same claim that laws concerning disclosure of national security and military secrets make it illegal for someone to publish a book like this so it has to be an obvious ploy to divert money to the former employee's pockets. Otherwise existing laws would allow them to swoop in on the writers and confiscate the books without payment as they would be violations of existing laws.
No. You need to stop casually conflating crimes with torts and ignoring the relevant boundary conditions.
No, I'm not casually or otherwise conflating crimes with torts.
As I stated in my comment above, it can be treated as a criminal or civil violation of the law depending on the circumstances which clearly distinguished between a criminal act and a tortuous act.
Why do you have such a hard time following the judge's logic? She is NOT saying that there is no expectation of privacy when you commit a crime. She is saying that there is no expectation of privacy when you subscribe to an ISP. THAT'S IT. No fucking crime needed.
Actually, a crime is needed. This ruling is over a rule 45 subpoena which can only be brought if there is enough evidence for the trial to commence. In other words, they have to show a reasonable likelihood to have cause and that the court in question has jurisdiction in order to get the subpoenas.
What was challenged here is provisions within rule 45 which allow the quashing of the subpoena if certain conditions exist (rule 45e or 45c3 I think). What the court rules was that there was no rule 45 expectation to privacy because previous courts have rules that once you give information to third parties, there is no controllable expectation of privacy. the court then lists 4 or 5 other cases to back this up that date back to 2000. You should be able to find more about it here.
I guess the article and the summery was over-inflated garbage as it didn't take the context correctly and present it as it's actually existing. the rules of the court still apply and there has to be a somewhat creditable allegation of crime in order to rule 45 to allow subpoenas for discovery in the first place.
Let me state it once again in case you missed it: the ONLY reason given for no expectation of privacy - THE ONLY REASON - is signing up for an ISP.
And let me state this once and for all, the court references 4 or 5 other cases dating back to 2000 which already established this. The case in question also only pertains to discovery subpoenas issued in accordance with court rules once a suit have been lodged. The summery and article should actually read, because you disclose information to and ISP, the expectation of privacy does not extend to a discovery subpoena issued in accordance with rule 45.
Would an analogy help? You're eating food, therefore I get to see your wife naked. See, no crime. How about: you like bubble gum, therefore I get to watch you have sex. Again, just an everyday ordinary action by you and the state gets to peek in your windows.
That's completely silly. I guess I can see where you might think that though, if all you had to go by was the article submitted. Follow the link above and you will see the entire ruling which will have a lot more detail and provide a proper context.
P.S. Maybe you're just trolling me. Kudos: I bit.
No, Not trolling. I just seem to of had a little more information on the subject then you originally did.
I do believe I'm still innocent until proven guilty?
Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that no one has the right to investigate you. It means that there has to be clear charges supported by oath or evidence and the burden is on the state or prosecuting party to prove your guilt. In this situation, an IP address sharing a copyrighted work without the permision of the copyright holder would be the "legal" cause of action in question and investigating whoever the IP was issues to wouldn't remove the innocent until proven guilty. Gaining access to your personal information is not in any way punitive or convicting you of anything. It's simply allowing due process to move forward.
To share this kind of information as soon as someone accuses me of doing something wrong is really bad. Especially considering all the frivolous DMCA-crap flying all over the place.
They aren't sharing it on a mear accusation. They are sharing it on the same requirements needed to get a warrant. This isn't a situation where someone say "I'm so and so with this company, I need the information on ip X.Y.Z.A and it's turned over to them. It's a situation where the company, or a representative of the company went to court, filed for a subpoena following the rules of the court and some company attempting to claim privacy matters was forced to give the information to them.
the company holding a movie copyright can subpoena the names of people who are accused of illegally downloading and distributing the film.
I fail to see where the crime was committed.
Maybe you should open your eyes. And yes, copyright infringement is a crime. A crime that carries criminal punishment as well as civil punishment depending on the seriousness of the infringement and circumstances surrounding it.
Perhaps you meant to say you "fail to see why it was or should be a crime". If so, I should then direct you to title 17 of the US code and request you petition your congress critter to get the changes you deem appropriate made.
One of the problems people like you have is that you think everything is somewhat static. We would have reached peak oil a long time ago if this was true. What is true in reality is that as producing oil becomes more expensive, development is done as a market force in order to contain that costs which in effect makes extracting the oil cheaper and easier.
In short, it's one of those things that can and most likely will be dealt with gradually over the time the necessity approaches. This also ties into global warming. No one is predicting over night drastic changes and none of the so called fixes to date do much to reverse the stated cause- they typically either artificially price necessities out of the hands of the poor or shift resources and money to other people (a redistribution of wealth). but in the end, the reality that holds true is that humans, particularly in first world countries, have a pretty good success rate at dealing with nature and the problems it throws at us. Sometimes this is better then others, other times it's disastrous but we prevail in the end.
What will happen with either is that people, probably the free market, will most likely deal with this in a way that won't be some major disaster as all the doom and gloom scenarios pretend it will be. Realizing this doesn't make be a denier, it makes me a realist, someone who is confident in the capabilities of man.
No, not really. Their business model isn't giving you something tangible, it's giving you access to something that can be tangible.
What I mean is, they have never sold the songs or music. They have always sold access to them whether by radio, record, tapes, CDs, mp3's or whatever. If you purchased a CD, you purchased the medium it was on but never the music or song itself. So it makes sense that they claim they lost money when you gained access to the work without payment. If this was a car world and not some made up property codified into law, the not buying argument would make more sense but the simple fact is, they have a right to control it's distribution and when you get a copy without paying the copyright holder, they lost money.
Actually, "downloading" something copyrighted isn't illegal unless you break a law in order to do so. What is illegal under the copyright laws is copying and distributing copyrighted materials without permission from the copyright holder.
You will probably find the same to be true in the UK too. The MPAA and RIAA seemed to have confused everything to the point that people think simply downloading something is illegal. However, it is not any more illegal then going to walmart and buying a CD that was pirated in China. Walmart is might be in trouble but the person who purchased the music wouldn't be.
Actually, all they need to do if the BMV will not release your name is to file a john doe suit and name the owners of the license plate number. If no one shows up to defend, then it wins by default which places a judgment on them. the judgment is just cause for the BMV to release your records.
Of course once you find you have been trialed in abstentia, you can petition to have the judgment thrown out and the trial will have to be held again.
Keep in mind, we are talking about a civil case and not a criminal one.
You never had a right to privacy when committing a crime. The mere act of hiding a person suspected of committing a crime can be a crime in and of itself. This happened long before 9/11 was more then a date in September.
Really, it does you no good to charge at windmills when your target is something else. That sort of cheer leading made for a fancy book but didn't provide anything else useful in reality. If you don't think persecuting someone for copyright infringement or that copyright in and of itself is flawed, why not attack those things instead of perpetuating some politically biased myth that 9/11 did more to your freedoms then make you pay attention to what you have verses what you think you had. You are no less free then you were before 9/11 unless you participate in criminal activities. Nothing in the US constitution or the Bill of Rights protects your ability to engage in criminal activities or the privacy in doing so, it only stops congress (and the states) from making certain activities criminal.
The MPEG-2 video spec, which is used on DVD discs, is an international specification that had participants on nearly every continent of the Earth... including Antarctica. The main repository was in Italy for the discussions, but meetings were held just about everywhere else. I suppose that "Hollywood" was involved in its creation as the intent for MPEG-2 was to display high resolution video on computers
Yep, and that was part of my point. The other part is that without movies being involved, a DVD would simply be an expensive storage medium for computers. It wouldn't be as common and everyday as it is now without that part of the development and use.
but it most certainly was not something invented by a bunch of software developers in Los Angeles County, California. That you might find a couple of developers there may be true, but many more were from Northern California (Silicon Valley) instead.
That wasn't the intent of my comment. Sorry that you took it that way. All I'm saying is that with Hollywood's involvement, which extends to the motion picture industry in other countries as well as the patents and lawyers, DVD (blue ray and other) use in today's style is shaped largely by American corporation's interests.
DVD as a data storage medium was only a secondary characteristic of the format and likely would never have been made except for the ability to use it as a delivery medium for movies. Iomega certainly was making competing storage devices at the time DVD was introduces, as were other concepts too. 4.77 GB of data (per side and not counting a dual layer DVD) was a whole lot of data to be delivered at once, so it certainly did have the advantage at the time for high density data storage, but it wasn't the only potential storage medium.
I think we are in agreement after all. It sounded first as if we weren't. Am I correct in that without movies, that you do not think DVDs would be a predominant as they are today?
IT depends on what was leaked and where it was leaked from in the US, but in the US, you can end up being executed too.
I believe that's probably what is going to ultimately happen to the manning guy as capitol punishment is a prescribed punishment for divulging information that could aid the enemy which most of these documents could end up doing even though the claims are that they are sanitized.
The place that houses the standards board on the compression used in video DVDs which is what is encrypted on a DVD which also was Hollywood created in order to use "their" works with the DVD.
If Hollywood and their collaborative partners in other countries wouldn't have got involved with the DVD, it would have likely remained just an expensive storage medium instead of the every day item on the set top of most TVs.
However he may or may not be allowed to exercise his right in a privately owned venue, which is what rackspace is. I sure as hell don't want him doing it in my house either. I don't want him doing it in front of my house either, but I couldn't stop him if he got the permits.
He could burn the books and protest in front of rackspace's headquarters if he wanted to, and got the permits. They can't stop him from exercising his right to free speech.
Right on man, and this private property right is so valid that the south still have the rules that blacks have to sit in the back of the bus or can't enter the diner through the same doors as the whites do, they have to eat in the back so the whites don't have to look at them, and some establishments simply don't serve anyone but whites.
I thought we have already been through this. If you want to keep your private property private, then do no open it to commerce with the public. When you do, some of those rights disappear just like the ability to discriminate does. This isn't about someone putting a sign in your yard, this is about you advertising that anyone can put a sign in your yard for a fee, then not allowing some for what appears to be no worse then what other signs have said.
In most countries, including the US, in order to incite a riot, you have to be encouraging the actions by not only supporting it, but taking action in a way that forwards it.
In other words, sitting on a stage saying "He is the murderer" then watching the lynch mob hang him wouldn't be enough to incite a riot even though one may have happened. but if you suggest the crowd should get him, or punish him, or take any action that would harm him, then it can be inciting a riot.
You see, with free speech, there will come offensive speech. Do you really think that an antiwar protester who is pointing out the logical fallacies and injustices surrounding the war should be cited for inciting a riot when some hard headed self proclaimed patriots start bashing all the supporters because they were offended? You actually have to do something to encourage or promote the riot other then speaking about something else.
Except that when you engage in commerce with the public, you have to have a valid reason for not associating with someone. As the Story submissions suggests, these reasons may not be valid or "chime" with previous examples that rackspace has allowed. An example of not being a valid reason might be because of someone's race or gender. Certainly it's not ok for a restaurant to not allow blacks or Mexicans to enter from the same door as whites and eat in the same area or forbid their entry altogether. So yes, there are limits, very valid limits at that, placed on your freedom of association when you engage in commerce with the public.
As the story submissions suggests, this speech is no more offensive as others that didn't create a problem so is there an underlying reason to it. If Rack space is scared that Muslim extremists will find another hosting provider while killing the management, that might be a legitimate concern. If it's seriously just about claiming that (talking about it to date) burning a book is some sort of hate speech, they may find themselves in a little hot water should the church choose to pursuit the matter more. Especially when they have allowed some of the religion bashing the story submission presents to stand and now all the sudden, don't like it when it either from a certain religion or directed to another religion.
Would you have the same stand if this story was about someone bashing the church of Scientology and Rack Space canceled their accounts claiming it was hate speech?
Lol.. I thought I was the only one who did that. I didn't bother with the flour as simply keeping the pages wet was enough to keep it together while it was needed.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing over confident about that. Or do you have some inside knowledge that hasn't been shared with the rest of the world claiming that all hell will break lose on a certain date and all of the history of man to date is negligible in coping with it?
Reality is pretty much what doesn't disappear when you close your eyes. We have conquered things in the past, why do you think it all the sudden will stop or that it has to be a certain way- your way?
You sound like an outsider so I will pose this response in as clear and of modern of times as possible.
The obsession with the constitution is because it's a document that gives the federal government it's power. The federal government was originally designed to simple be a common head of state and to settle matters between the states. The constitution is divided into 3 sections, 2 of which are basically the same. The first section described the only power the federal government has, the rest is left to the states and to the people where it respectfully belongs.
The second part is called the bill of rights, this is the original 10 amendment (there was 12 originally but 2 of them took several decades after the constitution was ratified by all the states to be passed). These bill of rights do not give anyone any rights, they expressly forbid the government of the US or it's states from taking inherent rights away from us. Then there are the amendments. These are all the amendments after the first 10 which has been made for whatever reason as society deemed necessary. It requires a good deal of support in order to get an amendment passed and there was actually two amendments that would/could be unconstitutional (depending on the date passed).
Now, how this all sorts together in modern times, support the EU became some massive monolithic organization that was imposing it's will on all the member countries. Some say it already is, but suppose that over the next couple of years, the EU government took control of all the military forces of it's member states, started declaring what kind of health care they could have, what kind of elections they could have, who could become citizens of the member states and so on. Also suppose they started taxing individuals within each member state. Now suppose a bunch of radicals decided it would be easier to change policy in England or France by simply passing laws in the EU which England and France were bound by.
So you might say, but that will never happen, their charter doesn't permit it. Then someone comes along and says "the EU charter was drafted decades ago, by people who lived decades ago, it means nothing today because thigns have changed and aren't the same. I don't care that there is an amendment process to change the charter- it's simply too hard to get 3/4 of the people to agree on what I see needs changed". Now do you see where this is going? If the document that limits the power of government over the people is ignored for your convenience, it can be ignored for anyone else'. So why is there a document that limits the power of a governing body in the first place? Well, because people thought it would be good to limit that governing body's power to avoid certain things. Now we have to get into the founding fathers to find out what those things were and if it's a good idea or not. And no, this isn't limited to just the US, any country that has a constitution or charter or even the EU has founding fathers who directed the organization of that country or governing body certain ways for certain reasons. If those r
Under the law, copyright infringement is both criminal and civil. The law doesn't distinguish between the two except with remedies for the infringement. But here is why your attempt to break it down into criminal and civil laws fails. The law gives the federal government and it's agencies the power to investigate and confiscate infringing works without it ever falling under the criminal penalties category.
I suggest that when you are speaking about the law, you remain within the context of the law and possible learn something about the legal system first.
Did you even bother reading the part where their business model is not selling things but selling access to things? And yes, when you craft a model around providing access, anyone who gains access without payment does mean that they lose a sale. It doesn't matter if the poor person could afford it or not. Look up the legal term conversion. That is essentially theft without taking anything.
BTW, I didn't say I agreed with it or that I like it. I said it makes a logical connection when someone provides something for a fee and someone else take that without payment. In this case, it's access to copyright protected works but it's easily transferable to anything else.
Yawn.. I applaud your enthusiasm but you are simply wrong. Copyright infringement is a federal crime that carries both criminal and civil liabilities depending on the circumstances.
There is no confusion over theft or pirating or victim-hood here at all. There is a federal law, violating it is a crime that carries both criminal and civil penalties or both depending on the circumstances. Perhaps you are a victim of internet lawyers trying to tell you it's ok?
You should probably reread title 17 of the US code again. It's a federal crime that consist of both criminal and civil penalties.
Your history is a little too molested for my taste. the real destruction of the US constitution started during the civil war time and really became institutionalized during FDR. You are at minimum 100 years off and generalship at least 30 years off the most noticeable disregard of it.
FDR said at a speech that the government shouldn't be involved welfare or social issues two years before he was elected president. He then did did an about face and trampled all over it. In 1930 FDR said:
This s[eech was given considering the Volstead Act. He states that he knows they need a constitutional amendment in order to act on matters of the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. Yet he totally ignores that two year later as president, creates a standoff with the supreme court in which they ended up backing down and bending the interstate commerce clause in order to save face, and this was the biggest disregard for the constitution by the government in recent times and it's still being conducted to this day. Why you just now think it's happening is a mystery to me. but it still happening is not surprising at all seeing how when you allow one infraction, others will follow.
This isn't really anything new. About the only reason it's news worthy today is because of all the "we are spending too much" and "Wikileaks is teh evil". It's happened in the past and I first remember hearing about it was back in 7th or 8th grade in US history class (circa 1984).
anyways, it seems this has happened in the past and my US history teacher made the same claim that laws concerning disclosure of national security and military secrets make it illegal for someone to publish a book like this so it has to be an obvious ploy to divert money to the former employee's pockets. Otherwise existing laws would allow them to swoop in on the writers and confiscate the books without payment as they would be violations of existing laws.
Yea, I guess preview would have been nice.
There are supposed to be a link to the term federal crime which is defined as any violation of federal law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_crime
No, I'm not casually or otherwise conflating crimes with torts.
As I stated in my comment above, it can be treated as a criminal or civil violation of the law depending on the circumstances which clearly distinguished between a criminal act and a tortuous act.
Actually, a crime is needed. This ruling is over a rule 45 subpoena which can only be brought if there is enough evidence for the trial to commence. In other words, they have to show a reasonable likelihood to have cause and that the court in question has jurisdiction in order to get the subpoenas.
What was challenged here is provisions within rule 45 which allow the quashing of the subpoena if certain conditions exist (rule 45e or 45c3 I think). What the court rules was that there was no rule 45 expectation to privacy because previous courts have rules that once you give information to third parties, there is no controllable expectation of privacy. the court then lists 4 or 5 other cases to back this up that date back to 2000. You should be able to find more about it here.
I guess the article and the summery was over-inflated garbage as it didn't take the context correctly and present it as it's actually existing. the rules of the court still apply and there has to be a somewhat creditable allegation of crime in order to rule 45 to allow subpoenas for discovery in the first place.
And let me state this once and for all, the court references 4 or 5 other cases dating back to 2000 which already established this. The case in question also only pertains to discovery subpoenas issued in accordance with court rules once a suit have been lodged. The summery and article should actually read, because you disclose information to and ISP, the expectation of privacy does not extend to a discovery subpoena issued in accordance with rule 45.
That's completely silly. I guess I can see where you might think that though, if all you had to go by was the article submitted. Follow the link above and you will see the entire ruling which will have a lot more detail and provide a proper context.
No, Not trolling. I just seem to of had a little more information on the subject then you originally did.
Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that no one has the right to investigate you. It means that there has to be clear charges supported by oath or evidence and the burden is on the state or prosecuting party to prove your guilt. In this situation, an IP address sharing a copyrighted work without the permision of the copyright holder would be the "legal" cause of action in question and investigating whoever the IP was issues to wouldn't remove the innocent until proven guilty. Gaining access to your personal information is not in any way punitive or convicting you of anything. It's simply allowing due process to move forward.
They aren't sharing it on a mear accusation. They are sharing it on the same requirements needed to get a warrant. This isn't a situation where someone say "I'm so and so with this company, I need the information on ip X.Y.Z.A and it's turned over to them. It's a situation where the company, or a representative of the company went to court, filed for a subpoena following the rules of the court and some company attempting to claim privacy matters was forced to give the information to them.
From the same summery you already quoted from
Maybe you should open your eyes. And yes, copyright infringement is a crime. A crime that carries criminal punishment as well as civil punishment depending on the seriousness of the infringement and circumstances surrounding it.
Perhaps you meant to say you "fail to see why it was or should be a crime". If so, I should then direct you to title 17 of the US code and request you petition your congress critter to get the changes you deem appropriate made.
One of the problems people like you have is that you think everything is somewhat static. We would have reached peak oil a long time ago if this was true. What is true in reality is that as producing oil becomes more expensive, development is done as a market force in order to contain that costs which in effect makes extracting the oil cheaper and easier.
In short, it's one of those things that can and most likely will be dealt with gradually over the time the necessity approaches. This also ties into global warming. No one is predicting over night drastic changes and none of the so called fixes to date do much to reverse the stated cause- they typically either artificially price necessities out of the hands of the poor or shift resources and money to other people (a redistribution of wealth). but in the end, the reality that holds true is that humans, particularly in first world countries, have a pretty good success rate at dealing with nature and the problems it throws at us. Sometimes this is better then others, other times it's disastrous but we prevail in the end.
What will happen with either is that people, probably the free market, will most likely deal with this in a way that won't be some major disaster as all the doom and gloom scenarios pretend it will be. Realizing this doesn't make be a denier, it makes me a realist, someone who is confident in the capabilities of man.
No, not really. Their business model isn't giving you something tangible, it's giving you access to something that can be tangible.
What I mean is, they have never sold the songs or music. They have always sold access to them whether by radio, record, tapes, CDs, mp3's or whatever. If you purchased a CD, you purchased the medium it was on but never the music or song itself. So it makes sense that they claim they lost money when you gained access to the work without payment. If this was a car world and not some made up property codified into law, the not buying argument would make more sense but the simple fact is, they have a right to control it's distribution and when you get a copy without paying the copyright holder, they lost money.
Actually, "downloading" something copyrighted isn't illegal unless you break a law in order to do so. What is illegal under the copyright laws is copying and distributing copyrighted materials without permission from the copyright holder.
You will probably find the same to be true in the UK too. The MPAA and RIAA seemed to have confused everything to the point that people think simply downloading something is illegal. However, it is not any more illegal then going to walmart and buying a CD that was pirated in China. Walmart is might be in trouble but the person who purchased the music wouldn't be.
Yes, they can.
Actually, all they need to do if the BMV will not release your name is to file a john doe suit and name the owners of the license plate number. If no one shows up to defend, then it wins by default which places a judgment on them. the judgment is just cause for the BMV to release your records.
Of course once you find you have been trialed in abstentia, you can petition to have the judgment thrown out and the trial will have to be held again.
Keep in mind, we are talking about a civil case and not a criminal one.
You never had a right to privacy when committing a crime. The mere act of hiding a person suspected of committing a crime can be a crime in and of itself. This happened long before 9/11 was more then a date in September.
Really, it does you no good to charge at windmills when your target is something else. That sort of cheer leading made for a fancy book but didn't provide anything else useful in reality. If you don't think persecuting someone for copyright infringement or that copyright in and of itself is flawed, why not attack those things instead of perpetuating some politically biased myth that 9/11 did more to your freedoms then make you pay attention to what you have verses what you think you had. You are no less free then you were before 9/11 unless you participate in criminal activities. Nothing in the US constitution or the Bill of Rights protects your ability to engage in criminal activities or the privacy in doing so, it only stops congress (and the states) from making certain activities criminal.
Yep, and that was part of my point. The other part is that without movies being involved, a DVD would simply be an expensive storage medium for computers. It wouldn't be as common and everyday as it is now without that part of the development and use.
That wasn't the intent of my comment. Sorry that you took it that way. All I'm saying is that with Hollywood's involvement, which extends to the motion picture industry in other countries as well as the patents and lawyers, DVD (blue ray and other) use in today's style is shaped largely by American corporation's interests.
I think we are in agreement after all. It sounded first as if we weren't. Am I correct in that without movies, that you do not think DVDs would be a predominant as they are today?
IT depends on what was leaked and where it was leaked from in the US, but in the US, you can end up being executed too.
I believe that's probably what is going to ultimately happen to the manning guy as capitol punishment is a prescribed punishment for divulging information that could aid the enemy which most of these documents could end up doing even though the claims are that they are sanitized.
The place that houses the standards board on the compression used in video DVDs which is what is encrypted on a DVD which also was Hollywood created in order to use "their" works with the DVD.
If Hollywood and their collaborative partners in other countries wouldn't have got involved with the DVD, it would have likely remained just an expensive storage medium instead of the every day item on the set top of most TVs.
Right on man, and this private property right is so valid that the south still have the rules that blacks have to sit in the back of the bus or can't enter the diner through the same doors as the whites do, they have to eat in the back so the whites don't have to look at them, and some establishments simply don't serve anyone but whites.
I thought we have already been through this. If you want to keep your private property private, then do no open it to commerce with the public. When you do, some of those rights disappear just like the ability to discriminate does. This isn't about someone putting a sign in your yard, this is about you advertising that anyone can put a sign in your yard for a fee, then not allowing some for what appears to be no worse then what other signs have said.
In most countries, including the US, in order to incite a riot, you have to be encouraging the actions by not only supporting it, but taking action in a way that forwards it.
In other words, sitting on a stage saying "He is the murderer" then watching the lynch mob hang him wouldn't be enough to incite a riot even though one may have happened. but if you suggest the crowd should get him, or punish him, or take any action that would harm him, then it can be inciting a riot.
You see, with free speech, there will come offensive speech. Do you really think that an antiwar protester who is pointing out the logical fallacies and injustices surrounding the war should be cited for inciting a riot when some hard headed self proclaimed patriots start bashing all the supporters because they were offended? You actually have to do something to encourage or promote the riot other then speaking about something else.
Except that when you engage in commerce with the public, you have to have a valid reason for not associating with someone. As the Story submissions suggests, these reasons may not be valid or "chime" with previous examples that rackspace has allowed. An example of not being a valid reason might be because of someone's race or gender. Certainly it's not ok for a restaurant to not allow blacks or Mexicans to enter from the same door as whites and eat in the same area or forbid their entry altogether. So yes, there are limits, very valid limits at that, placed on your freedom of association when you engage in commerce with the public.
As the story submissions suggests, this speech is no more offensive as others that didn't create a problem so is there an underlying reason to it. If Rack space is scared that Muslim extremists will find another hosting provider while killing the management, that might be a legitimate concern. If it's seriously just about claiming that (talking about it to date) burning a book is some sort of hate speech, they may find themselves in a little hot water should the church choose to pursuit the matter more. Especially when they have allowed some of the religion bashing the story submission presents to stand and now all the sudden, don't like it when it either from a certain religion or directed to another religion.
Would you have the same stand if this story was about someone bashing the church of Scientology and Rack Space canceled their accounts claiming it was hate speech?
Lol.. I thought I was the only one who did that. I didn't bother with the flour as simply keeping the pages wet was enough to keep it together while it was needed.