The city government is of, by, and for the people.
Those words do not mean what you think they mean. They have no basis in the founding of the country nor any city that I am aware of. The term was first phrased in Lincoln's Gettysburg address and were meant to reflect the founding of the nation.
he police work for the people collectively. The city government's right to exists at all is directly proportional to how well it serves the people. If the people collectively call for an officer's dismissal, he should be dismissed (and often will be). That is the founding principle of the U.S.
Wrong. The police work for the city which at one time was formed to take over certain functions that were deems difficult to pursue in a private individual basis. The people can call for the dismissal of an officer but nothing obligates that to happen. And that was the way this country was founded.
If I own enough stock in Walmart, the employee DOES work for me. If stockholders representing a majority tell the CEO "either Joebob Smith at the Podunk store goes or you go", guess what happens!
No they do not. They work for the company that you have a share or interest in. The only way they would work for you is if you were on the board of directors which means you would actually be working for the company too.
A big problem with government is that the people employed in it tend to forget who (collectively) works for who (collectively).
Your right, some have the misconception that they work for the people and that is just wrong. You mentioned the of for and by the people earlier. That does not mean what you think it means. The of the people means that the people in government were locals and not some king an entire ocean away or some company even further away as was with the colonies. The by the people means that we elect officials to represent us and for the people means give them our consent to make decisions for us. It in no way insinuates any obligation to the people outside that which would be needed to get elected.
That directly conflicts with your earlier claim that your copyright is somehow being "assumed" when it's infringed.
No it doesn't. The only way you can think that is if your refusing to see that copyright as well as land rights are comprised of several different rights over a certain thing. When you sell a copy of the copyrighted work, you don't sell you copyright, so why is it that when someone assumes the copyright in order to distribute the work (without permission) you insist that the entire piece disappear?
Reading comprehension issues. I'm saying that the very reason we are talking about "criminal conversion" is that it's not theft. If it was, then it'd be plainly called "theft" and no other term would be needed
Crinminal conversion is a class under theft as a legal concept. Infringement is the same. The only reason why it is called infringement is because it was codified that way. But that doesn't remove the element in which is resides.
So by that logic, trespassing is temporary theft of land? I'm sorry, but that's retarded.
No, it wouldn't it would be theft of your right to be on the land. And yes, squaters steal the land after taking your right to control who is on it away.
So why does it have a specific name, "criminal conversion"? If it was theft, then no new term for it would be needed. Sorry, won't agree with this.
Criminal conversion is not a new or specific name. It's a legal concept that has been around almost longer then our legal system. Just because this is the first you have heard of it does not make it new or special. Please don't argue, I didn't know about it so it doesn't count.
If you can't tell the difference, especially between what the press does and she did, then it's not worth trying to explain it to you.
Jesus Christ, you aren't going to explain it because there is no fucking difference. And no, we are not talking about the press, we are talking about individuals like the one who attempted to sue Obama for not being a US citizen.
RTFA, and you'll see how what she did could be considered stalking. The Secret Serice would probably take action against someone who tried the same to the president.
I read the article and see no difference. Tell me where it is or admit there is a double standard.
Straw man aside? I asked what the differences were, if it was a straw man that should be easy to point out. However, there is no real difference here. Lets take Obama for instance, people have tracked down his family and gave their addresses, people not in the press core follow his moves and report on them, they attempt to get his birth certificate, expose all the dirt on all his friends and so on in an attempt to harm him politically. Now why is that not harassment when this woman's actions are?
I don't think your website is the sole reason. What is the reason is that people agree with you and your website is influencing their votes which is the same as using your vote.
Of course I didn't mean the speech to others wasn't a valid was to address grievances but the end effect is still the vote. You either vote them out or scare them enough with the potential that they do something about it. You can't however demand them to do anything they don't want to. The best you can do is vote them out of office. There might be an exception to some of that in which a law or charter somewhere gives more rights or specified a certain action they are not taking and a court could compel it. But in the end, it's generally your vote (and your influence on others with their vote).
You are correct. Inciting to an action is a crime. Inciting on it's own isn't unless is compels an action.
To date, no one (that I'm aware of) has claims any actions happened because of the web page or that the web page encouraged any actions that would make it illegal.
Calling a back man a nigger is incitful but not illegal. Calling him that while stiking him is a hate crime, encouraging others to do it is the same. But being an inciter in and of itself is not a crime unless it encourages or causes an illegal action. And even there is gets shaky to if you knew or believed your comments would cause the action.
The deed to your house is most likely files with the country auditors office. Most of these are online so a search for your name will pull up your title which will list the plot number, address, the price you purchased it for, anyone who has a lien against it, the square footage of the land and buildings, the types of buildings and so on.
You might end up with multiple deeds with a name search and you would need to know the country in which you lived. The last part is somewhat easy if where you work can be derived or a contact number can be found. The rest would be just spending a day watching each address to narrow it down to the one that has someone looking like your picture.
You can also comb the birth records if you know the name and approximate age (again at the county office) to find information about relatives from genealogy sites. All you need it a your full name to find your birth parents listed on your birth certificate and then many public libraries have listings for genealogy purposed in the area as well as many web sites.
With you name and some small bits of information like where you work or live, you would be amazed in what someone can find - All with publicly available information. I used to repossess vehicles and did this to find people who had to move back in with family and to interview family members and friends to find out names of friends and such in order to find where the vehicles were hiding. OF course we only went this far on people who were 9 months or more out and couldn't be found. It used to pay good but doesn't anymore so I moved on to something else.
I wonder why Bush didn't have all his critics arrested and charged with harassment? Clinton probably had the same reasoning if he wanted to and it seems like Obama might be almost doing it with the "turn in people who don't push my agenda" website.
But wait, they are of public interest and the speech associated with them isn't subject to simple harassment charges. SO are the cops so why are the consequences there? Certainly telling people where the president is and inciting anger in the populous with charges and critiques of their policies places them in more danger then they would have been. I'm not really seeing the disconnect, can you explain it?
It puts the live in no more danger then it already was in.
You are missing the point that all this information is freely availible to the public anyways. Just because someone took that freedom and did something with it does mean they are in any more danger then they already were.
You seem to be arguing that the danger didn't exist before someone collected publicly availible information. The fact is, they are not cute little children snuggling teddy bears while sleeping in the comfort of their own bed without a care in the world. The amount of danger already exists and with laws designed to increase penalties if you know someone is a cop, they might even be in less danger once their status as being a police officer is know.
The real problem is their effectiveness to catch the smart criminals. They are the ones who would get this information anyways and start taking steps to clean up the operation so they don't get busted or get busted for less then they would have. Everyone knows that if you kill a cop, you will not only bring the entire force onto you, you will bring in the feds and other agencies who will either capture you or kill you in the process. And everyone knows that if a cop has infiltrated your organization, the other cops know about it and your harming them will only hasten the inevitable.
Maybe you are watching too many movies or something. Some criminals will kill cops, they have no reservations to killing people they don't know are cops either. The cops are in no more danger then they already were in.
No, I'm not assuming your copyright. I'm infringing on it.
If I were to somehow assume your copyright, I could go into court and sue people for infringement. But that clearly would be a very bad idea, me not having the copyright and unlawfully making copies of your stuff, and all.
If copyright is the only thing that allows permission to distribute copyrighted materials, then you must assume a copyright in order to distribute it. It's a temporary theft but it is there. You also do not have to act in a certain way or to the full extent of the right in order to take it.
It's not theft. Criminal conversion is criminal conversion. Theft is theft. They're separate.
No. Criminal conversion is theft, it's in the statutes regarding theft, is it theft.
Infringement is infringement. Criminal conversion is criminal conversion. Theft is neither of those.
They made choices on their own to do the work they do. No one forced them, no one lied to them, no one held a gun to their heads. They are not special in any way above and beyond the normal citizen. They need no special treatment that oridinary citizens require.
I too am around guns and bullets every day. My life is pretty dangerous at times. The only protection I get is the laws that might be violated and my ability to defend myself. Cops deserve no more protections then ordinary people, they are not royalty even though they act like it. As long as they retain their status and ability to do more then regular people when no on duty, they are effectivly on duty as far as I'm concerned.
Actually, she was outed by someone who put two and two together and simply asked a public question to a public official who was drunk at the time. Robert Novack asked who joe Wilson was and how he got to do the africa trip that let him publicly speak against the administration. Richard Armatage, a registered democrat said his wife got him the job and was in the CIA. The rest was put together by Wilson's own website claiming to be married to Plame (using her married name) with photos of vacations and so on.
That was not a case of leaked classified information and was the result of both publicly availible information, a release of government information which was more or less a rumor, and someone putting two and two together. It was exactly what you say it wasn't. Her classified status and so on is nothing but ancillary to the situation.
You watch to many movies. The likelihood of an officer being harmed outside of physical assault when their identity is discovered is no more then when they are conducting the opperation. In most cases, people are aware of the increased penalties if they know it is a police officer and that actually makes them safer then they already were.
What this is about is the police's effectiveness in committing the narcotics surveillance and potential for future arrest. What most criminals do when they know their is a cop looking at them, is run and attempt to cover their tracks by destroying evidence. The cop is outed everytime he makes an arrest because he has to testify at the trial and anyone connected will know he is a cop (or a stool pidgin). That exposure has not resulted in more cops being killed or harmed, it just keeps it the same.
Because our money pays for their work - we are their employer and as their employer we should have every right to monitor them to ensure they do the job we pay them to do
We are not their employer. Stop with that nonsense. They are employees of the city, state, or government and in some cases private companies contracted by those. You have no responsibilities over them as an employer would have, they have no responsibilities to you either. Their responsibilities are to the entity that employs them (*city) and the laws.
Yes, they do tax you, they do take this tax money to pay for the police equipment, salaries, buildings and so on. That doesn't make you their employer.
Now, we so have a right to monitor them because it is monitoring where public monies are being spent and a direct action of government. In my city, there is a law that says the law enforcement and public employees have to live within their own jurisdiction. So knowing where a cop lives might be of a public interest. All that makes it a matter of public interest and should make it news worthy to a degree well above tabloid journalism and their tracking of hollywood stars and such. While I wouldn't want someone doing that to me, I wouldn't want someone locked up for doing it if I have a public job either.
BTW, public servant is not someone who serves the public. It's a distinction between the private and public sectors of jobs that are often duplicated because of government service. A public servant is nothing more then a person working in the public service which has no default obligation to the people.
Off duty police officers also retain protections against their own violations of law and lawsuits to which an ordinary citizen doesn't.
If the playing field was level, I would understand but they are not the same. And yes, if an off duty fireman runs into a building that's on fire to save someone just like anyone else can do, they still retain their protections against lawsuits and personal liability and so on which ordinary people do not have. Well, at least in states without a "Good Samaritan" law.
They don't work for us, they work for the city that employed them. We may pay their salaries through taxes but we have absolutely no control over them, we cannot direct their investigations, we cannot dictate their patrol routs, we do not approve or disprove their hiring, raises, performance reviews, benefits package, vacations time or anything of the sort. Their work does have the public interest in mind but that doesn't mean they work for us. You certainly wouldn't think walmart employees work for you just because your puchases pay a portion of their salaries would you.
The city doesn't even work for you. They work for the city. The only control you have is your vote on a few elected officials who you hope will have your interest in mind when making decisions. However, there is nothing forcing them to hold your interest or even protect them.
Otherwise you're equating copyright infringement with unlawful transfer of copyright.
In a way, it is. You have no right to distribute my copyrighted works, when you do, you are in effect assuming the copyright for the purpose of distributing my copyrighted materials. What else give you the right? Keep in mind, we are talking about illegal acts that aren't already allowed by law or tort.
One means that somebody somewhere made a copy against your wishes. Your ability to continue producing is uncompromised, you're actually free to ignore the infringement if you so wish because you're not directly stopped from doing anything. Further, your right to control your design doesn't disappear when a single party infringes on it. You may ignore one party and go for another.
You don't need to be deprived of anything to have a theft occur. Seriously, look into the concept of Criminal conversion. You act as if I lost nothing that prevented me from doing anything, theft can't occur. That's simple incorrect.
If I did get your copyright somehow transferred to me, though, you'd lose the ability to legally make whatever you're making. That's a much, much bigger deal than some guy somewhere unlawfully using your picture in a page about his cat.
I agree, that's a bigger deal but it isn't the same thing. You do no need to lose property to have a theft.
The law clearly defines theft and copyright infringement as separate, and treats them differently. There's no arguing about this.
No it does not. Infringment is a parrent class of copyright violations. Within it, there are several classes of actions that cause the violation. Theft is one of them. Taking a right that does not belong to you is theft.
Their actions had an influence in the punishment handed down and possible appeals. That's weighing in one the case because it effects potential appeals from either side. The case isn't over until all appeals are exhausted or declared not to be pursued. That's called due process.
You mean like when I buy a book, and then without the consent of the copyright holder, I sell the used book to someone else, as the law permits me to do per 17 USC 109? Just because the copyright holder doesn't consent to something, that doesn't make it illegal.
Oh my god, are you serious? The law prived the exception. Copyright is entirely a legal construct, using what the law allows does not relate to a violation of the laws.
And even in the case where the distribution is infringing, yes, the right is intact. The right has not been taken away. The right has, however, been infringed upon.
SO when I am illegally distributing your copyrighted materials without your permission, your exclusive right to control the distribution is in tact. In other words, I didn't take you right to distribute the material for my own benefit, it remained exclusively yours and completely under your control when I distributed your copyrighted materials against your wished. Does up mean down today?
Actually, when copyright law talks of an exclusive right, it is a term of art. An exclusive right is a right to exclude others. Like if you own a piece of land, you have an exclusive right to it, which means you can tell other people not to trespass. If someone does trespass, this doesn't mean you don't own the land, or that the land has been taken away from you. It means that now you have to enforce your right by, e.g. calling the police to kick the trespasser out, going to court and suing for trespass, etc.
It also means that your exclusive right was taken from you while they were trespassing. Look into a legal concept called Conversion or Criminal conversion. The cliff notes version is theft without actually taking it from you. Look it up for a more comprehensive explanation.
If the right were taken away, then the copyright holder could not go to court to enforce it; since it wouldn't be his right anymore, and pretty much the first thing you have to prove in order to get to court in a copyright suit is that there is a registered copyright, and you have the copyright.
Here is some excepts from the front page in case you want to ignore the debate and present your opinion as fact.
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physicallycapable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.
(f)None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54
But I'm pretty sure that doesn't matter to you at all now does it. Why, because you know what the second amendment says and no one else right? Everyone else, even the supreme court must be presenting opinion as fact.
Fuck dude, don't sit there and tell me I don't know shit when you haven't even been paying attention in the last 2 years. This case got international coverage and was discussed everywhere, even here. There was even a poll on it which referenced the case directly.
No, if Alice has a copyright, and Bob infringes on it, Alice still has the right to license the copyright to Carol throughout the duration of Bob's infringement. Not one iota of the right 'disappears.'
Unless Bob licenses to Carol in which case Alice lost her exclusive right.
Infringement is a red herring here. we are talking about a theft of a specific right, not the entire work. To infringe means to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another, in this case, it was theft of a right by conversion. one doesn't negate the other but infringements can lack the theft. Copyright infringement does include theft and theft is what is happening when you take someone's exclusive right.
Compare this with when the copyright terminates, then the copyright disappears as a matter of law, and Alice does indeed lose the right to license to Carol. Not that Carol minds; once the copyright has terminated, the work is in the public domain, and she doesn't have to get a license from anyone to do as she likes with the work.
The difference is that this is built into the same legal construct that makes copyright in the first place. Without the law in effect, neither theft nor infringement would take place. It's like a lease on a car, you only have the rights to the car as long as the lease is valid.
I wrote it sort of sloppily in an attempt to mock the mods. I doesn't seem as clear as I thought it did at first so the confusion is probably my fault.
I find it funny when something like that is modded down and need to jump in to support the people. I have relatively good karma and it takes a couple more mod points to drop my posts into obscurity. I also like replying to the down modded points so as people will hit the parent button to see what the hell I'm talking about. That pretty much defeats the modded into oblivion problem and in a lot of cases ends up getting the parent post modded back up. I do have a few mod point trolls who will just mod every post down. Their favorite is overrated and they wasted about 9 points attempting to mod down a post about and all it's trailing comments I made about religion and science last week. I would classify myself as a troll, rather for standing up against the trolls.
Yes, unless the copyright owner decides not to enforce their copyright by taking legal action against the infringing party. The law (in this case) assigns rights and provides a way to enforce them, it does not alter reality to make those rights inviolable. If your right is infringed, it doesn't suddenly disappear. It is still there and fully functioning, allowing you to collect damages from the infringer for violating your right. No one in this thread (or at least this chain of the thread you are replying to) has suggested that no harm was done, only that nothing was stolen. If I'm a model and someone punches me in the face and I can't work due to the unsightly bruising, harm has been done, but I can't sue them for theft of my lost income. I can sue them for assault and for other damages related to the loss of my income, but I can't call it theft (if I want to be taken seriously in court).
Actually, the effect of the right disappears while the act is happening. Just because it reappears when the act stops doesn't dislocate it from theft. Look up the term criminal conversion. It suits the analogy well better then your beating models analogy.
This ruling by the DoJ is a travesty, to be sure. The RIAA is already suing people in civil court (as it is a civil matter) where the burden of proof is on the defendant rather than the plaintiff, making it significantly easier for them to win. There are already provisions for punitive damages in order to deter the public from breaking civil law, but these are only awarded in cases where the defendant's actions showed a flagrant and insidious disregard for the law. If this were a behavior that needed such an extreme example made in order to deter others, it should have been assigned as punitive damages, not statutory damages. Statutory damages are intended to be a way to ease the burden of proving something inherently difficult to prove, not to punish or make an example. However, in this case it should be quite easy to set an upper bound for distribution (outbound bandwidth, size of files, length of time since release, time online), and the award still greatly exceeds that. The DoJ is allowing the RIAA to have its cake and eat it too.
I do not disagree with this outside I believe that the damages were in effect punitive. The statutory damages were raised to punish (an action)willful violators, which makes it punitive for actions rather then statutory even though it was labels statutory.
Slashdot Mirror
Those words do not mean what you think they mean. They have no basis in the founding of the country nor any city that I am aware of. The term was first phrased in Lincoln's Gettysburg address and were meant to reflect the founding of the nation.
Wrong. The police work for the city which at one time was formed to take over certain functions that were deems difficult to pursue in a private individual basis. The people can call for the dismissal of an officer but nothing obligates that to happen. And that was the way this country was founded.
No they do not. They work for the company that you have a share or interest in. The only way they would work for you is if you were on the board of directors which means you would actually be working for the company too.
Your right, some have the misconception that they work for the people and that is just wrong. You mentioned the of for and by the people earlier. That does not mean what you think it means. The of the people means that the people in government were locals and not some king an entire ocean away or some company even further away as was with the colonies. The by the people means that we elect officials to represent us and for the people means give them our consent to make decisions for us. It in no way insinuates any obligation to the people outside that which would be needed to get elected.
No it doesn't. The only way you can think that is if your refusing to see that copyright as well as land rights are comprised of several different rights over a certain thing. When you sell a copy of the copyrighted work, you don't sell you copyright, so why is it that when someone assumes the copyright in order to distribute the work (without permission) you insist that the entire piece disappear?
Crinminal conversion is a class under theft as a legal concept. Infringement is the same. The only reason why it is called infringement is because it was codified that way. But that doesn't remove the element in which is resides.
Sure they are regulated enough. Making money is not a bad thing.
No, it wouldn't it would be theft of your right to be on the land. And yes, squaters steal the land after taking your right to control who is on it away.
Criminal conversion is not a new or specific name. It's a legal concept that has been around almost longer then our legal system. Just because this is the first you have heard of it does not make it new or special. Please don't argue, I didn't know about it so it doesn't count.
They were all theft.
Jesus Christ, you aren't going to explain it because there is no fucking difference. And no, we are not talking about the press, we are talking about individuals like the one who attempted to sue Obama for not being a US citizen.
I read the article and see no difference. Tell me where it is or admit there is a double standard.
Straw man aside? I asked what the differences were, if it was a straw man that should be easy to point out. However, there is no real difference here. Lets take Obama for instance, people have tracked down his family and gave their addresses, people not in the press core follow his moves and report on them, they attempt to get his birth certificate, expose all the dirt on all his friends and so on in an attempt to harm him politically. Now why is that not harassment when this woman's actions are?
I don't think your website is the sole reason. What is the reason is that people agree with you and your website is influencing their votes which is the same as using your vote.
Of course I didn't mean the speech to others wasn't a valid was to address grievances but the end effect is still the vote. You either vote them out or scare them enough with the potential that they do something about it. You can't however demand them to do anything they don't want to. The best you can do is vote them out of office. There might be an exception to some of that in which a law or charter somewhere gives more rights or specified a certain action they are not taking and a court could compel it. But in the end, it's generally your vote (and your influence on others with their vote).
You are correct. Inciting to an action is a crime. Inciting on it's own isn't unless is compels an action.
To date, no one (that I'm aware of) has claims any actions happened because of the web page or that the web page encouraged any actions that would make it illegal.
Calling a back man a nigger is incitful but not illegal. Calling him that while stiking him is a hate crime, encouraging others to do it is the same. But being an inciter in and of itself is not a crime unless it encourages or causes an illegal action. And even there is gets shaky to if you knew or believed your comments would cause the action.
The deed to your house is most likely files with the country auditors office. Most of these are online so a search for your name will pull up your title which will list the plot number, address, the price you purchased it for, anyone who has a lien against it, the square footage of the land and buildings, the types of buildings and so on.
You might end up with multiple deeds with a name search and you would need to know the country in which you lived. The last part is somewhat easy if where you work can be derived or a contact number can be found. The rest would be just spending a day watching each address to narrow it down to the one that has someone looking like your picture.
You can also comb the birth records if you know the name and approximate age (again at the county office) to find information about relatives from genealogy sites. All you need it a your full name to find your birth parents listed on your birth certificate and then many public libraries have listings for genealogy purposed in the area as well as many web sites.
With you name and some small bits of information like where you work or live, you would be amazed in what someone can find - All with publicly available information. I used to repossess vehicles and did this to find people who had to move back in with family and to interview family members and friends to find out names of friends and such in order to find where the vehicles were hiding. OF course we only went this far on people who were 9 months or more out and couldn't be found. It used to pay good but doesn't anymore so I moved on to something else.
I wonder why Bush didn't have all his critics arrested and charged with harassment? Clinton probably had the same reasoning if he wanted to and it seems like Obama might be almost doing it with the "turn in people who don't push my agenda" website.
But wait, they are of public interest and the speech associated with them isn't subject to simple harassment charges. SO are the cops so why are the consequences there? Certainly telling people where the president is and inciting anger in the populous with charges and critiques of their policies places them in more danger then they would have been. I'm not really seeing the disconnect, can you explain it?
It puts the live in no more danger then it already was in.
You are missing the point that all this information is freely availible to the public anyways. Just because someone took that freedom and did something with it does mean they are in any more danger then they already were.
You seem to be arguing that the danger didn't exist before someone collected publicly availible information. The fact is, they are not cute little children snuggling teddy bears while sleeping in the comfort of their own bed without a care in the world. The amount of danger already exists and with laws designed to increase penalties if you know someone is a cop, they might even be in less danger once their status as being a police officer is know.
The real problem is their effectiveness to catch the smart criminals. They are the ones who would get this information anyways and start taking steps to clean up the operation so they don't get busted or get busted for less then they would have. Everyone knows that if you kill a cop, you will not only bring the entire force onto you, you will bring in the feds and other agencies who will either capture you or kill you in the process. And everyone knows that if a cop has infiltrated your organization, the other cops know about it and your harming them will only hasten the inevitable.
Maybe you are watching too many movies or something. Some criminals will kill cops, they have no reservations to killing people they don't know are cops either. The cops are in no more danger then they already were in.
If copyright is the only thing that allows permission to distribute copyrighted materials, then you must assume a copyright in order to distribute it. It's a temporary theft but it is there. You also do not have to act in a certain way or to the full extent of the right in order to take it.
No. Criminal conversion is theft, it's in the statutes regarding theft, is it theft.
It's all of those.
They made choices on their own to do the work they do. No one forced them, no one lied to them, no one held a gun to their heads. They are not special in any way above and beyond the normal citizen. They need no special treatment that oridinary citizens require.
I too am around guns and bullets every day. My life is pretty dangerous at times. The only protection I get is the laws that might be violated and my ability to defend myself. Cops deserve no more protections then ordinary people, they are not royalty even though they act like it. As long as they retain their status and ability to do more then regular people when no on duty, they are effectivly on duty as far as I'm concerned.
Actually, she was outed by someone who put two and two together and simply asked a public question to a public official who was drunk at the time. Robert Novack asked who joe Wilson was and how he got to do the africa trip that let him publicly speak against the administration. Richard Armatage, a registered democrat said his wife got him the job and was in the CIA. The rest was put together by Wilson's own website claiming to be married to Plame (using her married name) with photos of vacations and so on.
That was not a case of leaked classified information and was the result of both publicly availible information, a release of government information which was more or less a rumor, and someone putting two and two together. It was exactly what you say it wasn't. Her classified status and so on is nothing but ancillary to the situation.
You watch to many movies. The likelihood of an officer being harmed outside of physical assault when their identity is discovered is no more then when they are conducting the opperation. In most cases, people are aware of the increased penalties if they know it is a police officer and that actually makes them safer then they already were.
What this is about is the police's effectiveness in committing the narcotics surveillance and potential for future arrest. What most criminals do when they know their is a cop looking at them, is run and attempt to cover their tracks by destroying evidence. The cop is outed everytime he makes an arrest because he has to testify at the trial and anyone connected will know he is a cop (or a stool pidgin). That exposure has not resulted in more cops being killed or harmed, it just keeps it the same.
We are not their employer. Stop with that nonsense. They are employees of the city, state, or government and in some cases private companies contracted by those. You have no responsibilities over them as an employer would have, they have no responsibilities to you either. Their responsibilities are to the entity that employs them (*city) and the laws.
Yes, they do tax you, they do take this tax money to pay for the police equipment, salaries, buildings and so on. That doesn't make you their employer.
Now, we so have a right to monitor them because it is monitoring where public monies are being spent and a direct action of government. In my city, there is a law that says the law enforcement and public employees have to live within their own jurisdiction. So knowing where a cop lives might be of a public interest. All that makes it a matter of public interest and should make it news worthy to a degree well above tabloid journalism and their tracking of hollywood stars and such. While I wouldn't want someone doing that to me, I wouldn't want someone locked up for doing it if I have a public job either.
BTW, public servant is not someone who serves the public. It's a distinction between the private and public sectors of jobs that are often duplicated because of government service. A public servant is nothing more then a person working in the public service which has no default obligation to the people.
Off duty police officers also retain protections against their own violations of law and lawsuits to which an ordinary citizen doesn't.
If the playing field was level, I would understand but they are not the same. And yes, if an off duty fireman runs into a building that's on fire to save someone just like anyone else can do, they still retain their protections against lawsuits and personal liability and so on which ordinary people do not have. Well, at least in states without a "Good Samaritan" law.
They don't work for us, they work for the city that employed them. We may pay their salaries through taxes but we have absolutely no control over them, we cannot direct their investigations, we cannot dictate their patrol routs, we do not approve or disprove their hiring, raises, performance reviews, benefits package, vacations time or anything of the sort. Their work does have the public interest in mind but that doesn't mean they work for us. You certainly wouldn't think walmart employees work for you just because your puchases pay a portion of their salaries would you.
The city doesn't even work for you. They work for the city. The only control you have is your vote on a few elected officials who you hope will have your interest in mind when making decisions. However, there is nothing forcing them to hold your interest or even protect them.
In a way, it is. You have no right to distribute my copyrighted works, when you do, you are in effect assuming the copyright for the purpose of distributing my copyrighted materials. What else give you the right? Keep in mind, we are talking about illegal acts that aren't already allowed by law or tort.
You don't need to be deprived of anything to have a theft occur. Seriously, look into the concept of Criminal conversion. You act as if I lost nothing that prevented me from doing anything, theft can't occur. That's simple incorrect.
I agree, that's a bigger deal but it isn't the same thing. You do no need to lose property to have a theft.
No it does not. Infringment is a parrent class of copyright violations. Within it, there are several classes of actions that cause the violation. Theft is one of them. Taking a right that does not belong to you is theft.
Their actions had an influence in the punishment handed down and possible appeals. That's weighing in one the case because it effects potential appeals from either side. The case isn't over until all appeals are exhausted or declared not to be pursued. That's called due process.
Oh my god, are you serious? The law prived the exception. Copyright is entirely a legal construct, using what the law allows does not relate to a violation of the laws.
SO when I am illegally distributing your copyrighted materials without your permission, your exclusive right to control the distribution is in tact. In other words, I didn't take you right to distribute the material for my own benefit, it remained exclusively yours and completely under your control when I distributed your copyrighted materials against your wished. Does up mean down today?
It also means that your exclusive right was taken from you while they were trespassing. Look into a legal concept called Conversion or Criminal conversion. The cliff notes version is theft without actually taking it from you. Look it up for a more comprehensive explanation.
Look above.
I think you are attempting to call pot black while your the kettle and there is no pot.
The supreme court has a good Idea of what the second amendment means and even said so in in the DC heller case. (PDF warning)
Here is some excepts from the front page in case you want to ignore the debate and present your opinion as fact.
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physicallycapable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.
(f)None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54
But I'm pretty sure that doesn't matter to you at all now does it. Why, because you know what the second amendment says and no one else right? Everyone else, even the supreme court must be presenting opinion as fact.
Fuck dude, don't sit there and tell me I don't know shit when you haven't even been paying attention in the last 2 years. This case got international coverage and was discussed everywhere, even here. There was even a poll on it which referenced the case directly.
Unless Bob licenses to Carol in which case Alice lost her exclusive right.
Infringement is a red herring here. we are talking about a theft of a specific right, not the entire work. To infringe means to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another, in this case, it was theft of a right by conversion. one doesn't negate the other but infringements can lack the theft. Copyright infringement does include theft and theft is what is happening when you take someone's exclusive right.
The difference is that this is built into the same legal construct that makes copyright in the first place. Without the law in effect, neither theft nor infringement would take place. It's like a lease on a car, you only have the rights to the car as long as the lease is valid.
I wrote it sort of sloppily in an attempt to mock the mods. I doesn't seem as clear as I thought it did at first so the confusion is probably my fault.
I find it funny when something like that is modded down and need to jump in to support the people. I have relatively good karma and it takes a couple more mod points to drop my posts into obscurity. I also like replying to the down modded points so as people will hit the parent button to see what the hell I'm talking about. That pretty much defeats the modded into oblivion problem and in a lot of cases ends up getting the parent post modded back up. I do have a few mod point trolls who will just mod every post down. Their favorite is overrated and they wasted about 9 points attempting to mod down a post about and all it's trailing comments I made about religion and science last week. I would classify myself as a troll, rather for standing up against the trolls.
Actually, the effect of the right disappears while the act is happening. Just because it reappears when the act stops doesn't dislocate it from theft. Look up the term criminal conversion. It suits the analogy well better then your beating models analogy.
I do not disagree with this outside I believe that the damages were in effect punitive. The statutory damages were raised to punish (an action)willful violators, which makes it punitive for actions rather then statutory even though it was labels statutory.