It's simple logic. Software as a service existed long before the GPL. If it isn't a shift, the GPL would have already covered it. What we had was N, what we have now is N+1.
I'm pretty sure it was. That or we had the very first version to be availible. It's been a while I must say.
If I remember correctly, the windows for work groups which was a little different then the regular windows 3.X, was designed specifically for the NT environment. Perhaps there was differing versions of hyperterminal? Anyways, I know I was using it by 1993 with telnet capabilities whether is was an add on or not. We had a menu driven screen sort of like with the early BBS's (tomcat or was it wildcat?) that allowed orders to be placed and warehouse data to be synced.
In a way, I'm glad those days are gone, but in a way, I wish they were still around.
No loopholes involved. software as a service has been around since before the GPL even existed. It's a shift in their mentality. They may be switching in their agenda but it's not a loophole.
Well, access to the code is not an automatic right from downstream users. The GPL, all versions require the code to be given to who you distribute it to, not who you got it from. If the FSF meant it any other way, then they should have explicitly made it so in the license.
Now giving back to upstream providers does happen a lot. I'm not saying it's wrong but it's also not anything explicitly stated or infered in any GPL license.
The way people access software has changed dramatically over the last twenty years. With so much software being deployed as web applications and services, it's easy to distribute open source software in a way that doesn't count as "distribution" under GPLv2. For many categories of software, this essentially renders the sharing provisions moot.
No, not really. Even when windows 3.1 came out (windows for work groups), it had hyperterminal by default because terminal services and remote networking was an essential part of how computing was done back when the original GPLv1 was created. Nothing has seriously changed since then other then the methods of access. IF I remember right, I was running a netware server on top of MS-DOS that three customers dialed into to synchronize warehouse data back in 1991 with the blazing fast 9600 baud modem.
Code signing as an anti-competitive tactic was also non-existent. It was just assumed that the person who received the executable could, given the source code, recompile a new version of the code and run it on the same computer. Code signing makes that impossible to do legally (DMCA, etc.). Hence, you can access the changes they've made to GPLed code, but can't really benefit from them as an end user.
If companies doing the code signing was actually selling computers or software for computers, I would have a lot more sympathy for this cause. As it turns out, they aren't selling computers, they are selling appliance devices that happen to be computers. I feel that's a distinct difference because they never intended to sell you a computer to do whatever you wanted to do, they sold you a device that did specific things and they have no obligation to allow more then that to happen. However, the DMCA does not make attempting to get more illegal, it makes distributing the ability illegal.
I think that the people who complain about "activism" are ignoring the fact that the GPL's protections have been eroding for years. GPL3 mostly just reasserts the rights that GPL2 no longer protects adequately.
The GPLv3 attempts to do things the GPLv2 never intended. Certainly conditions existed long before Tivo or the DMCA that would have alluded to those same issues. I mean I still have dongles and special serial adapters to chain several dongles together from software that was otherwise locked. That's about the equivalent of code signing for the most part. The thing is, I do not think the GPLv2 was ever intended to protect against those things as they were clearly present and a concern at the time. To say the GPLv2 no longer protects adequately is a little of a stretch on what the GPLv2 originally protected in the first place. The game has changed and it's the activism that changed it.
Well, first off, there always have been versions of client server computers so if it was a logical extension, then it probably would have been clearly outlined when the GPL was originally written as most computing at that time was done on terminal and mainframes and often involved servers hosted at other sites/companies.
The main activism that are different is the fight against the DMCA which didn't exist and the TIVO blunder it enabled. The GPLv3 went from being a free license to a retaliation tool and was even touted as one by many members of the FSF including you during the creation of it. What Tivo did wasn't right, but at the same time, neither is corrupting the GPL to strike back at them. Now the GPL attempts to force access to hardware where it previously was only concerned with software.
Well, no. You have to make availible to certain people is more appropriate and that's only if you distribute the changes. (IE, I have no obligation to contact you with my changes or even give them to you if your not a customer and I give the source with the binary).
Being free software does not mean you have access to it. It just means those who I distribute to have the same freedoms I had with it.
Anyways, I wasn't really looking to debunk or argue, I was just wanting to see where you were coming from with the use of the GPL. It seems that getting access to the code is more important then having the freedom of the code. That's not a right or wrong position, it's just something that motivates people and I was curious.
What gets me is that derivative works will be defined by law anyways. You can place anything you want in the GPL about derivative works but if the law doesn't support it, then it's not enforceable. This is because my use, regardless of what the license would say, wouldn't be otherwise prohibited by the law so I wouldn't have to agree to the license in the first place.
However, if I'm otherwise restricted by copyright law, then I have to follow the license in order to do whatever needs to be done. As the GPL gains it's power by the use of copyright law, then the law will ultimately define what power it has.
Nonsense. The GPL was written so that copyright did the heavy lifting. It's perfectly capable of dealing with the laws as they changed because it was never intended to be more then a contract license with the backing of copyright law for enforcement.
What changes with the GPLv3 is the activism behind the GPL. Instead of being a license, it turned into a platform for people to rail against what they didn't like about the changes in copyright laws. Nothing substantial needs to be changes in the GPLv2 in order to bring it up to date with changes in the laws, the difference is that the extra activism would not be there and I think that's something you do not like.
Which is more important to you. Having freedom or forcing someone to contribute code back to you?
I often see these discussions end up boiling down to "you have to give back" instead of freedom as the purpose of the GPL was originally supposed to be.
Well, stealing anything really. In the concept of RIAA, it's the right to control when and how your works are copied and distributed or implemented. The law gives the owners of copyright and patents that right, it's not some hidden principle or anything. And at a geek site, I'm not sure why the question of it was even asked.
Anyways, the point is not of theft, it's that theft is present should stand on it's own merit, not the fact that someone is a grandma. I understand that the Grandma the RIAA sued was innocent, and I also understand that the RIAA dropped their lawsuit on her. However, had the claims been valid, the merit of the claims should be what's important, not who or what she is.
With all due respect, I can't read your mind, and I don't necessarily know what you mean. all I have to go on is your words. I can make guesses and assumptions, but they are frequently wrong, doubly so when I'm posting on/. and doubly so again when talking to you, my friend. That's why I ask all these questions - to try and clarify what you do mean.
If your can't read minds, then do follow what I wrote. I stated several times, including with the discussion of unconscionable that I mean morality includes following the law not that the law is moral. In a more easier terms, a+b!=b+a.
That's not a definition I've found in any online dictionary. Being law abiding means following the law. Morality means doing what is ethical. Since it is entirely possible to draft a law that it would not be ethical to obey, it therefore follows that morality cannot mean "following the law" since that would be a contradiction.
Being ethical does mean following the laws and same sets of rules as everyone else. Let me ask you, is it ethical for a CEO to ignore the law and spend corporate money on himself or his family? Is it ethical for a company to ignore the no dumping hazardous waste laws in order to save a dollar on the disposal of dangerous chemicals? Of course not, it's only ethical for them to follow the law as it's written unless the law somehow is unconscionable. In short, it's not ethical to change the rules to suit your own or personal agenda while expecting everyone else to abide by them. That doesn't mean the laws or moral, it just means that you have to respect them or get them changes when playing the game on the same field.
Why of course I can. I just did. There's no point in getting into specific cases, because the general principle upon which your position is founded is logically inconsistent. I can understand how you might like to sidetrack the discussion into specific instances since that would allow you to avoid confronting this inconsistency.
Actually, no you did not. Every law will probably have some fringe example of where it was applied improperly or didn't account for a specific situation. Fringe cases is not what you need to present. You need to present why current laws are immoral and make the case for why you do not think they apply. You have not to this point done that, you have only said they were immoral. It's not a side track, it's pretty much the meat of your argument so you really should back it up.
Unconscionable rests on a personal and more importantly a community level.
Sure and both have bounds and limits prescribed within them. However, violating the law isn't automatically the moral thing to do, not participating can create a completely more moral choice unless the law is mandatory participation. A law like that might be one of the old Nazi Germany where it was illegal to aid a Jew or even pre civil war America where it was illegal to aid an escaped slave. But an immoral law like mandating everyone with a drivers license to become an organ donor would have an out of just not driving if it conflicted with you. You have yet to explain why taking copyrighted programs or music is more moral then either following the laws, paying people for their legal property, or just not using them.
If it is personal, then since no two people necessarily make the same judgement, you cannot then tell someone that they are behaving immorally solely because they are breaking the law. You can claim that the act they are performing is itself immoral, but you have to justify that on its own merits, and without reference to the law. The law in question may be genuinely unconscionable to the other person, something which you can never know for sure. If they do hold the law to be unconscionable then they are, by your own definition, morally entitled to disregard i
Perhaps I am being a bit more narrow then you. However, I want to stress that my point wasn't about being nice to republicans, it was about misrepresenting them which left democrats looking better then they deserved. I've seen too many people want to point the finger at one party or the other when the blame squarely lays in both.
I too am without cable. I gave it up about 5 or so years ago. I watch the local broadcast news though but get a lot of my information from the internet where I can look into more of the so called facts more. I listen to the radio a bit and I know it's predominantly republican biased but I often find myself in disagreement with the hosts. Again, my point wasn't about being nice to republicans, it was about not blaming the democrats too as they clearly had control of congress and a large enough majority that could have stopped the legislation or altered it to however they felt necessary. Indeed, it was a bipartisan blunder- a failure from both sides.
Actually, it's the same thing because neither one of us know who the other really is. Suppose the event is a costume party, we could still interact without knowing who each other are.
There are two goals of protective orders. It's to attempt to stop someone from threatening or harassing or dangerous behavior and to attempt to stop someone from from receiving that behavior. Those behaviors are unique in that people have to be aware of it happening. If I do not know who you are, I can't be doing something to you in violation of a court order. Once I find out who you are, then I have to make corrections in my behavior to be in compliance with the order.
Suppose we do go to a costume party. Suppose we meet each other and talk briefly by the punch bowl. Neither of us is in violation until one of us recognize the other person. If you have an order against me, you walk away, inform someone to explain you are there, and I must adjust my behavior. If I recognize you, I have to adjust my behavior. Online is the same way, if your concealing your identity, I do not know I'm in violation until I learn that you are who you are. At that point in time, I have to adjust my behavior or be in violation.
Most of this is uncommon in the real world because the order usually state places where you cannot go. These places are schools, homes, places of employment and so on. But the chances of running into someone isn't rare or unheard of, even if that encounter is just as anonymous as our identities are to each other right now. Suppose I change jobs and the different phones make my voice sound different. You call me for whatever I'm selling, I answer and sell you whatever, then realize who you are when payment or delivery information gets exchanged. If you have an order against me, we aren't in violation until I know who you are. At that point in time, I have to correct the situation. There are lots of real world scenarios that coexist with the anonymous online scenario you set out.
I can see the differences. Except that not all of RIAA's actions are against the law or disregard it. When RIAA sued the grandma, they didn't violate or disregard the law that I'm aware of. Whether grandma is stealing from you or RIAA, the fact that she is a grandma should be irrelevant. Grandmas do not get a pass just because they are grandmas.
Still, I think politics has a place in an economic discussion. After all, economic policy gets implemented by the use of some form of politics.
Politics do influence policy that influences economics. However, if they are brought into the discussion, I think it's imperative that they are accurately represented. As bush had a democrat controlled congress, I saw the reference to his support a little misleading obviously because democrats did too. It really wasn't needed in it's limited presentation and I think it distorted the truth of the situation. In other words, it didn't add anything but bias to the otherwise correct statements in a conversation.
As for the 5 million jobs, Yea, there are zealots on both sides and idiots in between. It's going to get worse and you can tell because even the current president has started defending his failures by referring back to G.W. Bush. It's the "I can't admit to making a mistake" that caused G.W.'s support to drop (or his opposition to strengthen)all over again. The more it happens, the more people will start blindly following.
No, I don't believe that is so. There's a moral case for being nice to your mother, but it is rarely enacted into law. Certainly there's a degree of overlap, but neither one is a subset of the other.
But it's illegal to kill or strike your mom. being moral would mean not doing that. Stop twisting what I said into the law is moral and take it as I mean, morality means following the law. They are not the same.
I ask a simple and unambiguous question and I get bombast. It seems as if you are the one who wishes to evade a point.
Your doing it again. What part of existing law is immoral and shouldn't be followed? If you can't present that, then you can't counter the point that morality means you follow the law.
Who is it, for you personally, who has to decide that a law is unconscionable in order that disregarding that law is no longer an immoral act? Your point hinges on unconscionablity - so how do you know when a law is unconscionable? The only abstractions in that question are ones that you introduced.
Unconscionable rests on a personal and more importantly a community level. The point of it is that you have to make a case for why the law shouldn't be followed. You have evaded making that point and we are three posts into your attempting to do it. Your doing nothing but claiming lawful doesn't mean moral and ignoring that morality means being lawful. So here is your chance, point to how the law is not moral and why it shouldn't be followed. If you can't, then it's probably time you let it go.
I think you are focusing too much on anonymous encounters. In order for someone to be in a violation of a court order, they have to have knowledge that they are in violation. A simple anonymous encounter that neither party knew of couldn't be in violation until at least one party was aware of the identity of the other party. This is because you have to knowingly violate the order and someone has to complain the order was violated. This is not unlike two people going to the same event and not knowing the other person was there. It's very much like an existing real world scenario.
I like the truth in his statement about not being able to recognize sarcasms any more. I almost responded with a "this would be great, I will never have to try and earn more then 70K" until I realized the sarcasm.
Unfortunately, there will be people out there who think it's a sound plan.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to inject politics into your economic discussion. It really has no place in it but hey, as long as the cat's crying then lets remind everyone that Bush Sr.'s idea was implemented by a democrat controlled house and congress.
Hows this for starters, the 100th congress between 1987-1989 the senate was 55D to 45R and the house was 258d to 177r. In the 101st congress from between 1989-1991, the senate remained the same, the house picked up two democrats for a balance of 260D to 175R. Today, the senate is 55d 41R with 2 independents and 2 vacant seats. The house is presently at 262d to 178r with one vacant seat. Hmm... it looks like the democrats were in control during those years you mentioned.
I believe that covers the years you were talking about so lets see if you understand that congress makes laws, not the president. The president can suggest laws but cannot prevent congress from changing them, making different laws, or even overriding his vetoes when congress disagrees with the president. IF you see those laws as a failure, then let the blame rest on bipartisanship where is squarely belongs. Politically blaming an administration who has the other party in power in congress is a bit asinine, inept, and shows only a distorted reality of the poster. You had a point until you polluted it with political bullshit and presented only half the story. Now I have to question your entire statement as being little more then politicking and AstroTurf.
Would society be better? Recently we had some grannies in my area get busted in a scam that milked million of dollars from people. They posed as cancer victims looking for donations and a couple ran scams for credit consolidation and counseling services as well as took charitable collections for made up causes.
In two of the scenarios, there isn't really a victim being harmed as the monies were donated. Should the grannies be sued for their actions or should they be let alone to continue them? Which would make society a better place and how would that differ from RIAA's lawyers taking action?
Suing an 80 year old lady isn't necessarily a good thing. But it at the same time isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Society is better off when justice prevails regardless of who it seeks in the process.
I think the parents point was more along the lines of why a lawyer generally doesn't represent himself as well as he could others not that there is no place for passion.
It's difficult to convey a complete thought when you are heavily invested in the outcome. What happens a lot of times is that key facts get over looked because emotions either already assume that others know it or you place emphasis on the effects without clearly demonstrating the causes.
It happens quite often even here when people start getting passionately involved with what they are writing about. With a certain amount of disconnect, a more complete story can be told and the chances of the jury or judge or other people can understand the position being argued much better.
This is often why even though a lawyer is capable of defending or prosecuting something for himself, they will often seek outside counsel to do it. They generally know their involvement jeopardizes their ability to do what they normally do.
So I'm guessing what Ray did was vexatious but apparently being vexatious isn't illegal (maybe being 'overly vexatious' is?).
If I remember right, vexatious means intending to harass. I think the proper interpretation of what the judge meant was that the effects of actions do not indicate the purpose or intent of the actions. RIAA's lawyers attempted to make the connection from what some would consider due diligence and the blog as harassment and then attempted to infer the intention. If the judge saw the connections as informative sort of like news reporting or as you mentioned posturing for political campaigns, then while the effect of the actions could have been harassment, no "intent to harass" was found and the extent of harassment was exaggerated.
That would clear up the distinctions between "vexatious" and 'overly vexatious' because without the intent, it doesn't really exist.
Isn't the exaggeration by RIAA's lawyers what got Ray to start the blog in the first place? I think this is a situation of life imitating art gone full circle with the bonus of proving the starting point in the end.
Oh I agree. There are some safe guards in place to stop unnecessary protective orders from being issued though. In most situations outside of obvious emergencies, the restrained person and their lawyer gets to answer the complaint requesting the protective order so fraudulent claims could surface at that stage. It doesn't always happen and orders are issued when they probably didn't need to be and there probably is something like what you mentioned going on.
But there are added benefits to people manipulating others that could expose that potential problem. Suppose an angry spouse is attempting to set someone up. Well, it would be a public place and there would be witnesses that could describe what went down and so on. Perhaps it would be enough to put the shoe on the other foot, or perhaps they are in on the trap too and burn you. If people are willing to lie to the cops and the court, then protective order or not, your getting screwed anyways.
Protective orders do not on their own keep people safe. It just adds a tool so the police can do something that wouldn't be available to them under normal circumstances. I would imagine that a lot of people who get killed or harmed after a protective order has been issued are people attempting to flaunt it in much the way you described. I would suggest that could be a form of candidate for the Darwin Awards where people find out the hard way that you do not poke an angry bear that just attacked you, in the eye with a stick.
Slashdot Mirror
It's simple logic. Software as a service existed long before the GPL. If it isn't a shift, the GPL would have already covered it. What we had was N, what we have now is N+1.
I'm pretty sure it was. That or we had the very first version to be availible. It's been a while I must say.
If I remember correctly, the windows for work groups which was a little different then the regular windows 3.X, was designed specifically for the NT environment. Perhaps there was differing versions of hyperterminal? Anyways, I know I was using it by 1993 with telnet capabilities whether is was an add on or not. We had a menu driven screen sort of like with the early BBS's (tomcat or was it wildcat?) that allowed orders to be placed and warehouse data to be synced.
In a way, I'm glad those days are gone, but in a way, I wish they were still around.
No loopholes involved. software as a service has been around since before the GPL even existed. It's a shift in their mentality. They may be switching in their agenda but it's not a loophole.
Well, access to the code is not an automatic right from downstream users. The GPL, all versions require the code to be given to who you distribute it to, not who you got it from. If the FSF meant it any other way, then they should have explicitly made it so in the license.
Now giving back to upstream providers does happen a lot. I'm not saying it's wrong but it's also not anything explicitly stated or infered in any GPL license.
No, not really. Even when windows 3.1 came out (windows for work groups), it had hyperterminal by default because terminal services and remote networking was an essential part of how computing was done back when the original GPLv1 was created. Nothing has seriously changed since then other then the methods of access. IF I remember right, I was running a netware server on top of MS-DOS that three customers dialed into to synchronize warehouse data back in 1991 with the blazing fast 9600 baud modem.
If companies doing the code signing was actually selling computers or software for computers, I would have a lot more sympathy for this cause. As it turns out, they aren't selling computers, they are selling appliance devices that happen to be computers. I feel that's a distinct difference because they never intended to sell you a computer to do whatever you wanted to do, they sold you a device that did specific things and they have no obligation to allow more then that to happen. However, the DMCA does not make attempting to get more illegal, it makes distributing the ability illegal.
The GPLv3 attempts to do things the GPLv2 never intended. Certainly conditions existed long before Tivo or the DMCA that would have alluded to those same issues. I mean I still have dongles and special serial adapters to chain several dongles together from software that was otherwise locked. That's about the equivalent of code signing for the most part. The thing is, I do not think the GPLv2 was ever intended to protect against those things as they were clearly present and a concern at the time. To say the GPLv2 no longer protects adequately is a little of a stretch on what the GPLv2 originally protected in the first place. The game has changed and it's the activism that changed it.
Well, first off, there always have been versions of client server computers so if it was a logical extension, then it probably would have been clearly outlined when the GPL was originally written as most computing at that time was done on terminal and mainframes and often involved servers hosted at other sites/companies.
The main activism that are different is the fight against the DMCA which didn't exist and the TIVO blunder it enabled. The GPLv3 went from being a free license to a retaliation tool and was even touted as one by many members of the FSF including you during the creation of it. What Tivo did wasn't right, but at the same time, neither is corrupting the GPL to strike back at them. Now the GPL attempts to force access to hardware where it previously was only concerned with software.
Well, no. You have to make availible to certain people is more appropriate and that's only if you distribute the changes. (IE, I have no obligation to contact you with my changes or even give them to you if your not a customer and I give the source with the binary).
Being free software does not mean you have access to it. It just means those who I distribute to have the same freedoms I had with it.
Anyways, I wasn't really looking to debunk or argue, I was just wanting to see where you were coming from with the use of the GPL. It seems that getting access to the code is more important then having the freedom of the code. That's not a right or wrong position, it's just something that motivates people and I was curious.
What gets me is that derivative works will be defined by law anyways. You can place anything you want in the GPL about derivative works but if the law doesn't support it, then it's not enforceable. This is because my use, regardless of what the license would say, wouldn't be otherwise prohibited by the law so I wouldn't have to agree to the license in the first place.
However, if I'm otherwise restricted by copyright law, then I have to follow the license in order to do whatever needs to be done. As the GPL gains it's power by the use of copyright law, then the law will ultimately define what power it has.
Nonsense. The GPL was written so that copyright did the heavy lifting. It's perfectly capable of dealing with the laws as they changed because it was never intended to be more then a contract license with the backing of copyright law for enforcement.
What changes with the GPLv3 is the activism behind the GPL. Instead of being a license, it turned into a platform for people to rail against what they didn't like about the changes in copyright laws. Nothing substantial needs to be changes in the GPLv2 in order to bring it up to date with changes in the laws, the difference is that the extra activism would not be there and I think that's something you do not like.
Which is more important to you. Having freedom or forcing someone to contribute code back to you?
I often see these discussions end up boiling down to "you have to give back" instead of freedom as the purpose of the GPL was originally supposed to be.
Well, stealing anything really. In the concept of RIAA, it's the right to control when and how your works are copied and distributed or implemented. The law gives the owners of copyright and patents that right, it's not some hidden principle or anything. And at a geek site, I'm not sure why the question of it was even asked.
Anyways, the point is not of theft, it's that theft is present should stand on it's own merit, not the fact that someone is a grandma. I understand that the Grandma the RIAA sued was innocent, and I also understand that the RIAA dropped their lawsuit on her. However, had the claims been valid, the merit of the claims should be what's important, not who or what she is.
If your can't read minds, then do follow what I wrote. I stated several times, including with the discussion of unconscionable that I mean morality includes following the law not that the law is moral. In a more easier terms, a+b!=b+a.
Being ethical does mean following the laws and same sets of rules as everyone else. Let me ask you, is it ethical for a CEO to ignore the law and spend corporate money on himself or his family? Is it ethical for a company to ignore the no dumping hazardous waste laws in order to save a dollar on the disposal of dangerous chemicals? Of course not, it's only ethical for them to follow the law as it's written unless the law somehow is unconscionable. In short, it's not ethical to change the rules to suit your own or personal agenda while expecting everyone else to abide by them. That doesn't mean the laws or moral, it just means that you have to respect them or get them changes when playing the game on the same field.
Actually, no you did not. Every law will probably have some fringe example of where it was applied improperly or didn't account for a specific situation. Fringe cases is not what you need to present. You need to present why current laws are immoral and make the case for why you do not think they apply. You have not to this point done that, you have only said they were immoral. It's not a side track, it's pretty much the meat of your argument so you really should back it up.
Sure and both have bounds and limits prescribed within them. However, violating the law isn't automatically the moral thing to do, not participating can create a completely more moral choice unless the law is mandatory participation. A law like that might be one of the old Nazi Germany where it was illegal to aid a Jew or even pre civil war America where it was illegal to aid an escaped slave. But an immoral law like mandating everyone with a drivers license to become an organ donor would have an out of just not driving if it conflicted with you. You have yet to explain why taking copyrighted programs or music is more moral then either following the laws, paying people for their legal property, or just not using them.
Perhaps I am being a bit more narrow then you. However, I want to stress that my point wasn't about being nice to republicans, it was about misrepresenting them which left democrats looking better then they deserved. I've seen too many people want to point the finger at one party or the other when the blame squarely lays in both.
I too am without cable. I gave it up about 5 or so years ago. I watch the local broadcast news though but get a lot of my information from the internet where I can look into more of the so called facts more. I listen to the radio a bit and I know it's predominantly republican biased but I often find myself in disagreement with the hosts. Again, my point wasn't about being nice to republicans, it was about not blaming the democrats too as they clearly had control of congress and a large enough majority that could have stopped the legislation or altered it to however they felt necessary. Indeed, it was a bipartisan blunder- a failure from both sides.
Actually, it's the same thing because neither one of us know who the other really is. Suppose the event is a costume party, we could still interact without knowing who each other are.
There are two goals of protective orders. It's to attempt to stop someone from threatening or harassing or dangerous behavior and to attempt to stop someone from from receiving that behavior. Those behaviors are unique in that people have to be aware of it happening. If I do not know who you are, I can't be doing something to you in violation of a court order. Once I find out who you are, then I have to make corrections in my behavior to be in compliance with the order.
Suppose we do go to a costume party. Suppose we meet each other and talk briefly by the punch bowl. Neither of us is in violation until one of us recognize the other person. If you have an order against me, you walk away, inform someone to explain you are there, and I must adjust my behavior. If I recognize you, I have to adjust my behavior. Online is the same way, if your concealing your identity, I do not know I'm in violation until I learn that you are who you are. At that point in time, I have to adjust my behavior or be in violation.
Most of this is uncommon in the real world because the order usually state places where you cannot go. These places are schools, homes, places of employment and so on. But the chances of running into someone isn't rare or unheard of, even if that encounter is just as anonymous as our identities are to each other right now. Suppose I change jobs and the different phones make my voice sound different. You call me for whatever I'm selling, I answer and sell you whatever, then realize who you are when payment or delivery information gets exchanged. If you have an order against me, we aren't in violation until I know who you are. At that point in time, I have to correct the situation. There are lots of real world scenarios that coexist with the anonymous online scenario you set out.
I can see the differences. Except that not all of RIAA's actions are against the law or disregard it. When RIAA sued the grandma, they didn't violate or disregard the law that I'm aware of. Whether grandma is stealing from you or RIAA, the fact that she is a grandma should be irrelevant. Grandmas do not get a pass just because they are grandmas.
Politics do influence policy that influences economics. However, if they are brought into the discussion, I think it's imperative that they are accurately represented. As bush had a democrat controlled congress, I saw the reference to his support a little misleading obviously because democrats did too. It really wasn't needed in it's limited presentation and I think it distorted the truth of the situation. In other words, it didn't add anything but bias to the otherwise correct statements in a conversation.
As for the 5 million jobs, Yea, there are zealots on both sides and idiots in between. It's going to get worse and you can tell because even the current president has started defending his failures by referring back to G.W. Bush. It's the "I can't admit to making a mistake" that caused G.W.'s support to drop (or his opposition to strengthen)all over again. The more it happens, the more people will start blindly following.
But it's illegal to kill or strike your mom. being moral would mean not doing that. Stop twisting what I said into the law is moral and take it as I mean, morality means following the law. They are not the same.
Your doing it again. What part of existing law is immoral and shouldn't be followed? If you can't present that, then you can't counter the point that morality means you follow the law.
Unconscionable rests on a personal and more importantly a community level. The point of it is that you have to make a case for why the law shouldn't be followed. You have evaded making that point and we are three posts into your attempting to do it. Your doing nothing but claiming lawful doesn't mean moral and ignoring that morality means being lawful. So here is your chance, point to how the law is not moral and why it shouldn't be followed. If you can't, then it's probably time you let it go.
I think you are focusing too much on anonymous encounters. In order for someone to be in a violation of a court order, they have to have knowledge that they are in violation. A simple anonymous encounter that neither party knew of couldn't be in violation until at least one party was aware of the identity of the other party. This is because you have to knowingly violate the order and someone has to complain the order was violated. This is not unlike two people going to the same event and not knowing the other person was there. It's very much like an existing real world scenario.
I like the truth in his statement about not being able to recognize sarcasms any more. I almost responded with a "this would be great, I will never have to try and earn more then 70K" until I realized the sarcasm.
Unfortunately, there will be people out there who think it's a sound plan.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to inject politics into your economic discussion. It really has no place in it but hey, as long as the cat's crying then lets remind everyone that Bush Sr.'s idea was implemented by a democrat controlled house and congress.
Hows this for starters, the 100th congress between 1987-1989 the senate was 55D to 45R and the house was 258d to 177r. In the 101st congress from between 1989-1991, the senate remained the same, the house picked up two democrats for a balance of 260D to 175R. Today, the senate is 55d 41R with 2 independents and 2 vacant seats. The house is presently at 262d to 178r with one vacant seat. Hmm... it looks like the democrats were in control during those years you mentioned.
I believe that covers the years you were talking about so lets see if you understand that congress makes laws, not the president. The president can suggest laws but cannot prevent congress from changing them, making different laws, or even overriding his vetoes when congress disagrees with the president. IF you see those laws as a failure, then let the blame rest on bipartisanship where is squarely belongs. Politically blaming an administration who has the other party in power in congress is a bit asinine, inept, and shows only a distorted reality of the poster. You had a point until you polluted it with political bullshit and presented only half the story. Now I have to question your entire statement as being little more then politicking and AstroTurf.
Would society be better? Recently we had some grannies in my area get busted in a scam that milked million of dollars from people. They posed as cancer victims looking for donations and a couple ran scams for credit consolidation and counseling services as well as took charitable collections for made up causes.
In two of the scenarios, there isn't really a victim being harmed as the monies were donated. Should the grannies be sued for their actions or should they be let alone to continue them? Which would make society a better place and how would that differ from RIAA's lawyers taking action?
Suing an 80 year old lady isn't necessarily a good thing. But it at the same time isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Society is better off when justice prevails regardless of who it seeks in the process.
I think the parents point was more along the lines of why a lawyer generally doesn't represent himself as well as he could others not that there is no place for passion.
It's difficult to convey a complete thought when you are heavily invested in the outcome. What happens a lot of times is that key facts get over looked because emotions either already assume that others know it or you place emphasis on the effects without clearly demonstrating the causes.
It happens quite often even here when people start getting passionately involved with what they are writing about. With a certain amount of disconnect, a more complete story can be told and the chances of the jury or judge or other people can understand the position being argued much better.
This is often why even though a lawyer is capable of defending or prosecuting something for himself, they will often seek outside counsel to do it. They generally know their involvement jeopardizes their ability to do what they normally do.
If I remember right, vexatious means intending to harass. I think the proper interpretation of what the judge meant was that the effects of actions do not indicate the purpose or intent of the actions. RIAA's lawyers attempted to make the connection from what some would consider due diligence and the blog as harassment and then attempted to infer the intention. If the judge saw the connections as informative sort of like news reporting or as you mentioned posturing for political campaigns, then while the effect of the actions could have been harassment, no "intent to harass" was found and the extent of harassment was exaggerated.
That would clear up the distinctions between "vexatious" and 'overly vexatious' because without the intent, it doesn't really exist.
Isn't the exaggeration by RIAA's lawyers what got Ray to start the blog in the first place? I think this is a situation of life imitating art gone full circle with the bonus of proving the starting point in the end.
Oh I agree. There are some safe guards in place to stop unnecessary protective orders from being issued though. In most situations outside of obvious emergencies, the restrained person and their lawyer gets to answer the complaint requesting the protective order so fraudulent claims could surface at that stage. It doesn't always happen and orders are issued when they probably didn't need to be and there probably is something like what you mentioned going on.
But there are added benefits to people manipulating others that could expose that potential problem. Suppose an angry spouse is attempting to set someone up. Well, it would be a public place and there would be witnesses that could describe what went down and so on. Perhaps it would be enough to put the shoe on the other foot, or perhaps they are in on the trap too and burn you. If people are willing to lie to the cops and the court, then protective order or not, your getting screwed anyways.
Protective orders do not on their own keep people safe. It just adds a tool so the police can do something that wouldn't be available to them under normal circumstances. I would imagine that a lot of people who get killed or harmed after a protective order has been issued are people attempting to flaunt it in much the way you described. I would suggest that could be a form of candidate for the Darwin Awards where people find out the hard way that you do not poke an angry bear that just attacked you, in the eye with a stick.