I don't even have cable. If you doubt me, just do a google search on the themes I outlined. Most of them are in major media outlets, the rest is just putting 2 and 2 together. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a theoretical physicist to figure out.
I probably completely watch less then 20 movies a year that aren't some rerun on TV or something. I don't have cable and get most of them from the internet. I do find quite a bit of independent films and out of about 50 a year, there is generally less then 10 I can watch completely though.
I guess I may have phrased that wrong, there are some excelent independent and foreign films, they are just few and far in between. I don't think my tastes are out of whack so it isn't me. As for the Hollywood films, I've sat through a lot of crap films, they just seem to stink a little less.
I think we are somewhat in agreement though. We don't need draconian copyright laws. But without copyright, we would be worse off.
First, I was comparing the usage of the car to the usage of the MP3. So there would be no neutral slams, not redlining it, not street light racing, or anything. Frankly, I'm surprised that people are actually looking at the extreme adverse of the situation in order to debunk it. Well, here is another example to look at.
Support you owned a drive in movie theater and charged $5 a head to get in. Now suppose that five people jumped the fence without doing any damage to it and went to a car that paid to get in to watch the movies. You should have received $25 ($5 each for five people) just because they are there and watching the movies. Now suppose they wouldn't have went to the movies if they had to pay. Your costs are no different with them there, but did you lose the profit on the admission fees they failed to pay? Of course you did because you have a right to control who accesses your property and to charge a fee for that. when someone assumes that right or ignores it but takes the advantage of it, you lost a profit from their actions.
As for your last point, I demand compensation, in the amount of $700 billion, for the time it has taken me to draft and submit the response. Failure to pay would constitute a lo... wait, what?
I was arguing a profit was lost. Not for excessive profits or outrageously high fees. Don't confuse my acknowledging that someone's illegal use of something means a lost profit to anyone's attempt to screw people.
The point being if you have the car, then it is quite literally impossible for anyone else to use it. This does not apply in the case of copyright infringement, where the status of the original (and therefore the ability to "use" it) remains unchanged.
Your implying they can't use the car which also implies that if they wouldn't use it anyways, it's ok. Suppose the rental company closes at 3pm on Friday and won't open again until 8 am on Monday and the use of the rental car was completely within that time? Whether or not they could use it is now irrelevant because we know they wouldn't be in a position to make use of it.
The point you seem to be missing, which is why comparing used of physical property to copyright infringement is fundamentally invalid, is that a piece of physical property has genuine and inherent scarcity. It cannot be used in multiple places at the same time and its utility can be trivially reduced and/or eliminated (accident, theft, breakdown, etc). No matter how many times you try to compare "borrowing" or "stealing" any form of physical property to copyright infringement, this fundamental flaw with the comparison will not change.
It took another thread for me to realize this but you seem to be focusing on the actual copyrighted material itself instead of a legal right granted to the creator/owner. The problem is that the actual copyrighted material is ancillary to the picture. It's the legal right that someone else assumes without consent that is where the lost profit comes in. If the law states that I am the only person who can do something, and I do that for a fee, then when you do it or whoever does it without my consent has taken a profit away from me. That fact that you now have and use the copyrighted material and obtained that material in a way I didn't consent to means that I lost a profit on you getting that material.
The car analogy doesn't quite illustrate this. So lets take it another direction. Suppose that You owned a drive in movie theater and charged 5 dollars a head to get in. Now I see a tree on the fence line that I can use to jump the fence without damaging anything. I have a friend with a car who pays to get in and parks near that spot on the fence. When I and 5 other people jump the fence without damaging anything, walk over and get into the car and watch the two feature films, have I denied you any profit? First, lets look at the situation a little more, had we not sneaked in, we never would have went to the movies. But the fact that we are inside the complex means that you should have received $5.00 from all five of us ($25 total). Your costs are not different with us there or not. But you can't deny the fact that your out $25 dollars by our trespassing and entering illegally.
The fact that something was pirated it basically the same thing. You had a right to control access to your property and charge a fee to it. When we violated that right, regardless of whether we would have shown up legitimately or not, you have lost the profit you should have had by us entering the property.
Hint: just because someone has taken a copy of something "for free", doesn't imply they would have paid for it otherwise. Further, copyright in no way grants a right to profit.
The problem isn't taking the copy for free. It's that certain rights are created by law and in order for you to get that copy for free, you have to take those rights from the owner under the law even if momentarily. Your use of their rights is no different then you taking someone's care for a joy ride or living in their rental house without their permission while they are trying to lease it to someone.
The law says a person who creates copyrighted works has control over the copying and distribution of those works outside of a narrow scope of exemptions to that rule. Your use doesn't take that right away unless you copy or distribute or cause it to be done on your behalf. The physical medium isn't what's at issue here, it's the right and control created by law that is.
If the law says you control your property, then me trespassing against your will is breaking the law. If your property is a gated amusement park or something that you charge entry to, you are entitled to that fee when I violate your rights by entering your property without paying. Even if I stay out of your road, don't cause any damage, and just watch the live performances happening there, you are still entitled to me entry fee. Am I right? Because I took nothing that would cause a reduction in your stock, outside you prosecuting me, I cause no monetary damages, displaced no one else, but my presence entitles you to profit because the law gives you a right to control who enters and stays on your property.
How much sooner will that MP3 need an oil change, a tune up, and a new set of tires, if I listen to it all weekend? Did I put undue wear on its transmission? What condition will the brakes be in when I return it?
You've simply left too many variables undefined for your argument to hold any water.
OK, let me define it then. the car is stolen from the lot and is gone for three days. It got driven less then one mile in a normal and reasonable manor to cause no undue stress or damage to it, and the person who stole it just wanted to look at how the steering assemble was put together in order to compare it to work he was doing on another car. No damage was done to the car.
What now? I know there are different levels of theft, in some cases, if you had the keys, joy riding is about the only charge you will get. The point is though, it's still a violation of the law and against the principle of controlling what you own when someone else takes your property without permission or any reason to believe they could or would have it. That's the point though, after they break the law and use the property for whatever reason that isn't exempt by the law, they have crossed into the arena where a profit is expected.
People can wander up and rent a car at any time. How can they know until after the fact whether or not the car will or won't be needed ?
First, I didn't support that claim or seriously imply you did, it was what you essentially said though. I'm sure your not suggesting that after the fact, if they didn't need the car it is perfectly ok then. If so, think about me coming over the next time your on vacation, taking your television and dirty books while you aren't needing them, and returning them before you get home. Somehow, without your permision, I think a law was/would be broken.
"Minimal" and "maybe" are still infinitely higher values than "none" and "never".
your right. however in the real world, we take wear and tear off of value and the amount of wear and tear for the usage I described wouldn't have an effect on the value or the life of the car. It's still insignificant.
So ? You should have kept on reading.
No, it does not (particularly in the context of copyright infringement). You are begging the question.Actually, yes it does. The law gives the copyright owner the sole rights to any copying and/distribution. For you to obtain the property, someone has to take that right away from them and assume it for themselves. You use means that they lost a profit when someone deprived the owner of the ability to profit from their exclusive rights.
Something that most people don't realize or understand is that ALL US copyright laws were made and changed pursuant to international treaties after the mid 1800's. There are a number of people who want to think it was because of Disney but the reality of the situation is different. Disney may have gotten the rest of the world to create and sign the treaties, they certainly encourages are participating in them, but with treaties in place, most of our laws will be honored in other countries.
BTW, thats one of the reasons why the US was able to convince the swedes to fuck with the Pirate bay and why we got someone extradited from Australia over copyright infringement. It's also why other countries attempt to implement DMCA style laws. The DMCA was modeled directly from the WCT and WPPT wipo treaties.
his point is that the government has been using the commerce clause to overstep the constitution and the limits within for a while now.
Congress made the law creating the copyright czar under the administration. The czar will have to follow the laws congress creates. and while the constitution does address copyright, it also leaves it to congress to implement which is where using the commerce clause comes back in.
The rental company cannot rent out the car if you've "borrowed" it for the weekend.
So then it would be ok if the rental company didn't have anyone wanting to rent the car? Somehow, I don't think that's what you meant. The point your missing is that you gained the use from it without reimbursing the owner/controller.
Your other two points are just as invalid. The wear and tear is minimal and the possibility of something doesn't mean it's there. Actually, I'm a bit surprised that you would actually bring up something that was possible but didn't happen (accident) in the course of an illegal act (theft, joy riding) as a way to invalidate the idea that something that was possible but didn't happen (compensation) because of an illegal act (copying and distributing copyrighted works without consent of the owner). I'm going to have to weigh that for a while.
Anyways, if your using the property, even though it's intangible, your still benefiting from it without compensating the owner. When the owner demands compensation, and you fail to provide it, your use means a lot profit.
First, capitalism did not implode. That's nothing more then a tired political line meant to confuse the masses so acceptance to crap we rejected years ago would happen. The banking mess happened because of improper government regulation and burdens placed on the financial markets, and the inept actions of the existing regulatory structure. And all that was amplified by artificially high energy costs.
Second, If your terrified by the deficit and can go to just the banking problems, then your in for a really rude awakening. The tarp and Stimulus bills aren't part of his budget and his budget alone is going to increase the deficit to levels relative to the economy not seen since WWII. You need to think about that. The billions and trillions just handed out don't count towards this budget deficit and it's as large of a difference between unfunded spending and the economy as when we were fighting a world war in two hemispheres of the globe. Your taxes are going up. Obama isn't technically raising them because he is letting the Bush tax cuts expire but we would have to be idiots to know know they are going up.
Finally, we are in for a decreased standard of living. That won't be because of the banks collapsing or the budget deficit however. It will be because of the regulation and tax schemes they are attempting to put onto energy right now. Your utility bills are expected to triple with the cap and tax or trade or whatever they are calling it now. They want to jack the cost of gas back up with burdensome taxes which means the cost if things like food and clothing will jump in price again too.
You know, I was watching Charlie Rose tonight and he had the mayor of New York City on discussing their new green initiatives. (this rant isn't really directed at you but it's going to illustrate some of what I just mentioned.) It sounds like this guy got his accounting skills from a 12 pack and a match book cover. Anyways, they just passed new legislation in NYC that will force almost 44 percent of all commercial property owners to upgrade everything and it creates a department to reevaluate building periodically for efficiency and fines the owners or forces them to improve it some how. He said that would create jobs, improve the value of the buildings, and make money for the owners. He said there is tech out there right now for furnaces (HVAC) that is 90 percent or more efficient then whats currently being used but they won't manufacture this stuff because there isn't a market. He said what they have done is effectivly created the market and everyone will benefit.
That sounds good and all until you examine some details. The reason there isn't a market for the super heaters is because it costs $70 to gain the efficiency savings of $20. At a point, it costs more then it saves and traditionally people attempted to get to the break even point in these terms. Now, the furnaces and/or other fixtures in the buildings have a life span on them too, throwing them out prematurely costs more money. This is what will be happening.
Now here is where he glossed over some finer points that effect us. He said that it would make a better building so the property owners could charge more for rent. But who actually pays the rent? You and me or the equivalent of you and me living in NYC either directly or indirectly when we use services or purchase something from someone paying the rent. Surely the property owners are going to have to raise the rent if only just enough to cover the loans needed to do all the retrofits and repairs necessary to gain compliance. So lets say this causes rent to double (I'm thinking a little more, it might be a little less), and lets say this will only effect businesses and not residential rentals. So when you go to the store, when you hire the lawyer or investment firm or whoever, they have to increase their fees and prices in order to pay the rent or they won't be there any more. This means you and me are paying for all this shit when we live our daily lives as no
Czars is more of an expression created by the news media. No official office uses the term.
It was used because we created cabinet positions appointed by but more or less independent from the administration to do certain things. These offices are not supposed to be political (pushing the administration's agenda) and are directed through passage of law. They aren't really Czars in the sense of a king or emperor.
I've seen foreign and independent films. Do you really want that?
Sure, Hollywood shovels crap at us, but at least most of us can tolerate sitting through the entire thing on most occasions. I can't say the same for most of the independent films I have watched.
I think the point, and you may have conceded it, is that you can listen to the music/videos/whatever in several completely legal ways instead of needing to rely on piracy or getting rid of copyright.
Maybe what is needed isn't to get rid of copyright but forced distribution with standardized fees to some extent. This would mean that if something Google couldn't get a license to allow songs to be posted on youtube or whatever, they could ask the government to create one in which they would pay the royalty to the artist/copyright holder through a government collection panel or something. We already have a model for it with how radio works.
Why wouldn't piracy be lost profits? I know that pirates may not purchase the material if they couldn't pirate but the point of copyright piracy is that someone was using the material anyways. It's still a lost profit if you steal a rental car for the weekend but never would have paid the rent on it. Like it or not, the law gives certain rights that imply certain value to the owners and creators of copyright.
wish the framers allowed the president and congress critters to be recalled if they pissed off the public.
Why would the framers want to do something like that? They set the government up specifically to avoid "Tyranny of the masses" and group stupidity.
What your seeing is exactly what they wanted. It may be being abused but it was the intent. The abuses seem more damaging now that people want to think the federal government is supposed to be over the people and not just a governing body for the states to control common business associated with the state.
That doesn't even parse! Are you stating that my advocacy would somehow be treason under my definition even though I have clearly stated that mere speech would NOT meet my definition of Treason?
The problem is that your not just saying the sky is blue. You are saying something that implies an action. That action is interpretation. You can say speech doesn't count all you want. But as soon as the speech causes the action to happen, you would have trapped yourself into your own interpretation. Now saying the constitution should be changed so that treason would include subverting the constitution is speech that is open from your logic. But saying that a phrase in the constitution means something other then it does is subverting the intent of the clause and the constitution itself. You would be in your own trap.
It's not so much the speech, but what the speech says.
I never claimed that death could not be the sentence for treason. I did imply that the many I was speaking of probably should not receive that level of penalty for their actions but SHOULD receive some penalty (perhaps even the minimum).
Lol... the we both heard wrong wasn't about those many people. It was about my assertion that treason was a capitol crime and you saying I was wrong. In short, we both were wrong because it's both depending on the aggravating factors.
In what way is subverting the one and only principle that grants the United States legitimacy to exist NOT giving aid to the enemies of the United States?
In what way is it? I mean do you fund terrorist organizations when you purchase a food item or something and that company donates a port of the profits to a charity that is unknowingly to them, funding terror groups? Does loaning a person a car to later find out that person used it in the commission of a crime like murder or robbery make you a conspirator of the crime, or a murderer?
The answer to that is that you need to have knowledge of your actions to the effect. You attempting to stretch the constitution's limits on treason to incorporate your agenda tears at the very same fabric. Are you giving aid and comfort to the enemies right now? Is that why you hold that position, to give aid and comfort to our enemies? Of course not, that's just silly but with out the knowledge and intent, you are essentially doing that within how you want to define treason.
So in order to be aiding and comforting our enemies, there has to be a thought component called intent. You exposing the government's illegal programs does not make it "giving aid and comfort" to our enemies unless your intent was to inform our enemies of the program (presumably for their protection). Even in your original statement that caused me to reply, you seem to have that down. I'm not really sure why you forgot it.
WHOOSH! Speech has nothing to do with it. You can say anything you care to, it's actions that may be the problem. Talk-action = not treason. Action-talk may be treason (depending on the action).
Speech has everything to do with it. Your advocating a specific act. Under your defined usage, it incorporates you too.
You said if the New York Times attempts to subvert the Constitution, it would be treason. Subverting the constitution isn't part of the legal definition of treason as stated in in the constitution. By making that claim, you are subverting (perverting) the constitution and are entrapped into your own statement.
You heard wrong
Actually, it seems that we both heard wrong. The death sentence can be used for treason depending on Aggravating Factors
The Constitution mentions Treason only to narrow it's definition down somewhat instead of allowing it to continue to be "whatever the King says it is" and set minimum requirements on conviction for it rather than "the King said so". It does not otherwise define it.
I understand why it is there. However, claiming that subverting the constitution would be treason in and of itself is subverting the constitution and taking the role of the king. That's the point, if you stray outside the constitutional definition and include subverting the constitution, you have in effect done the same in order to make that claim. You would then be looped into your own logic and be committing treason.
I'm sorry but that house analogy dcoesn't work for me, can you explain it using cars?
"they are allowed to sit outside (in a car) and record every person that comes and goes (in their own car) without a warrant, but if they want to know what was said by those people when they are inside (the car) they need a warrant."
So if she was on the committee (your link only says that she's on the committee now because she's Speaker) she would have known what was going on, but since the majority party also has the majority in pretty much every committee, I doubt she would have had the ability to do anything that the Republican majority disagreed with.
I think your looking too hard to give her a pass. In 2008- Pelosi was in the majority and was on the comity only because of the majority. The democrats were in control at this time not the republicans.
It really doesn't matter who's party was in the majority or when they were, she voted for it anyways.
I have no idea why you would draw free speech in to this? No where have I suggested that any sort of speech is treasonous.
Because speech and action are not separable. One leads directly to the other which makes it completely relevant. People don't just get up and say "I'm going to trash the constitution today", they formulate an opinion, then act on it and if that is what happens, then you have your results. In what you said, your advocating the legal classification of something specifically defined in the constitution which is your application is outside that definition, but the crux of it is that you want to claim that actions contrary to the defined constitutionally of the constitution and ou government is treason. So in effect, you are setting a definition for treason that includes you into that envelope.
Now, speech is where the founding fathers determined that you cannot be treasonous unless you do specific things with specific people. Redefining treason to match whatever your goals are at the time under the claim of it being against the constitution or the government as you envision is violating that specific intent. We are after all, talking about labeling someone with a legal term that involves capitol punishment as well as a hit to their reputation. You weren't just saying "i don't like the color of his socks", you were saying someone who does X as defined by you and not the constitution is Y criminal legally speaking.
You also appear to be deliberatly mis-understanding that there is a huge difference between fighting an enemy and fighting an enemy by burning your house down.
This isn't a matter of defined actions combined with intent. This is where you are attempting to classify both intent and action as something specific and separable. So in essences, you have stated that burning your neighbors house down as well as saying your going to burn the house down is X where X equals treason because it doesn't support your ideals. The problem is that we aren't talking about burning the house down, we are talking about a very strong and permanent legal definition placed inside the constitution of the united states. The constitutionally defined role of treason include intent within it's reach. So a more apt approach wouldn't be burning a house down, it would be akin to showing them were the troop are positioned as apposed to just just telling them over the phone.
There is also a significant difference between following a justifiable interpretation of the Constitution and acting blatantly against it.
ahh.. but there is when the constitution creates a situation specific to a set of events. Treason is a legal terms specifically defined by the constitution. Your attempts to expand it outside it's specific definition by your own rules of inclusion, violates the constitution. Now I'm not even going to get into the constitutionality or legality of any of the events in which you claim is blatantly against the constitution, what's important is that in order for you to make a claim, you end up pulling yourself into your own definition. This isn't about me saying the Constitution does X and being wrong, this is about you saying if anyone goes against X they are Y. But your failing to notice that your statement is going against X which by default of your own position makes you Y.
Now, I attempted to explain that, it doesn't surprise me that your not getting it or want to selectively place exclusions into it in order to coerce your statement into your reality. The problem is, neither exist in real life, all we have is article III section 3 and when you attempt to make the claim, your are actually in the results of your claim by making it. Again, we are talking about your claim, not the constitutionally defined version of treason.
Further, who says I don't think some of those people you mentioned acted treasonously? Certainly
What gets me is that your claim is a logic loop that entraps you into it. You are being treasonous with your own logic.
Why is this, because the constitution specifically says that treason shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The US government would have to declare someone/thing an enemy and in the constitutional context, it may actually take a hostile act towards the US in order for it to actually be close to an enemy for the purposes of treason. Going against the constitution itself isn't treason because the framers specifically allowed for it to be changed, allowed for the speech necessary for this to happen, restricted the government from acting to stop it in most cases, and exempted politicians from any punishment for any speech made on the floor of congress.
Anyways, the constitution which contained the only legal definition of treason does not contain an exception to aiding our enemies because the act defends your ideals. It does not contain anything about violations of constitutional acts, regulations, or whatever. In it's oaths and requirements for elected officials, it doesn't even prescribe punishment for violations of an oath. But your wanting to expand treason to beyond it's constitutional role and then limit the exposed effects against the NYT because it suits your ideals, make you in the process of committing treason in keeping your position which doesn't adhere to the constitution. Your stuck in a logic loop that incriminates yourself if we were to take you seriously.
But worse then that, according to you, all the democrats who supported gun bans and attempted to incorrectly interpret the second amendment as giving guns to hunters or making sure the military had weapons, they all would be treasonous and guilty of subverting the constitution right. All the people who supported the unconstitutional social programs instituted under Roosevelt that he knew full well was unconstitutional at the time, are treasonous right? Well, the answer is no because despite being inconstitutional, the founding fathers left speech and the ability to support something unpopular open and free and cared more about the constitution setting things right then prosecuting someone who may have passed a law in conflict with it.
BTW, the reference to Roosevelt was pulled from a speech he gave concerning the Volstead Act and appeared in the NYT on March 3, 1930. This was almost two years before he was ellected president and started regulating the workign hours of private citizens, created welfare and social security and quite a few other things that the federal government had absolutely no powers to do. In fact, at one point in time, the supreme court said the laws were unconstitutional and he basically replied with "so, do something about it" in which he knew the courts had no power to force a ruling. This is when the chief justice at the time expanded the interstate commerce clause and allowed some of the programs to exist because of a minor connection to interstate commerce.
Roosevelt said "As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Slashdot Mirror
I don't even have cable. If you doubt me, just do a google search on the themes I outlined. Most of them are in major media outlets, the rest is just putting 2 and 2 together. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a theoretical physicist to figure out.
Are you calling Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson fascist? DO you even know who they are?
I probably completely watch less then 20 movies a year that aren't some rerun on TV or something. I don't have cable and get most of them from the internet. I do find quite a bit of independent films and out of about 50 a year, there is generally less then 10 I can watch completely though.
I guess I may have phrased that wrong, there are some excelent independent and foreign films, they are just few and far in between. I don't think my tastes are out of whack so it isn't me. As for the Hollywood films, I've sat through a lot of crap films, they just seem to stink a little less.
I think we are somewhat in agreement though. We don't need draconian copyright laws. But without copyright, we would be worse off.
Lol..
First, I was comparing the usage of the car to the usage of the MP3. So there would be no neutral slams, not redlining it, not street light racing, or anything. Frankly, I'm surprised that people are actually looking at the extreme adverse of the situation in order to debunk it. Well, here is another example to look at.
Support you owned a drive in movie theater and charged $5 a head to get in. Now suppose that five people jumped the fence without doing any damage to it and went to a car that paid to get in to watch the movies. You should have received $25 ($5 each for five people) just because they are there and watching the movies. Now suppose they wouldn't have went to the movies if they had to pay. Your costs are no different with them there, but did you lose the profit on the admission fees they failed to pay? Of course you did because you have a right to control who accesses your property and to charge a fee for that. when someone assumes that right or ignores it but takes the advantage of it, you lost a profit from their actions.
I was arguing a profit was lost. Not for excessive profits or outrageously high fees. Don't confuse my acknowledging that someone's illegal use of something means a lost profit to anyone's attempt to screw people.
Your implying they can't use the car which also implies that if they wouldn't use it anyways, it's ok. Suppose the rental company closes at 3pm on Friday and won't open again until 8 am on Monday and the use of the rental car was completely within that time? Whether or not they could use it is now irrelevant because we know they wouldn't be in a position to make use of it.
It took another thread for me to realize this but you seem to be focusing on the actual copyrighted material itself instead of a legal right granted to the creator/owner. The problem is that the actual copyrighted material is ancillary to the picture. It's the legal right that someone else assumes without consent that is where the lost profit comes in. If the law states that I am the only person who can do something, and I do that for a fee, then when you do it or whoever does it without my consent has taken a profit away from me. That fact that you now have and use the copyrighted material and obtained that material in a way I didn't consent to means that I lost a profit on you getting that material.
The car analogy doesn't quite illustrate this. So lets take it another direction. Suppose that You owned a drive in movie theater and charged 5 dollars a head to get in. Now I see a tree on the fence line that I can use to jump the fence without damaging anything. I have a friend with a car who pays to get in and parks near that spot on the fence. When I and 5 other people jump the fence without damaging anything, walk over and get into the car and watch the two feature films, have I denied you any profit? First, lets look at the situation a little more, had we not sneaked in, we never would have went to the movies. But the fact that we are inside the complex means that you should have received $5.00 from all five of us ($25 total). Your costs are not different with us there or not. But you can't deny the fact that your out $25 dollars by our trespassing and entering illegally.
The fact that something was pirated it basically the same thing. You had a right to control access to your property and charge a fee to it. When we violated that right, regardless of whether we would have shown up legitimately or not, you have lost the profit you should have had by us entering the property.
The problem isn't taking the copy for free. It's that certain rights are created by law and in order for you to get that copy for free, you have to take those rights from the owner under the law even if momentarily. Your use of their rights is no different then you taking someone's care for a joy ride or living in their rental house without their permission while they are trying to lease it to someone.
Wow. Your making this way to complicated.
The law says a person who creates copyrighted works has control over the copying and distribution of those works outside of a narrow scope of exemptions to that rule. Your use doesn't take that right away unless you copy or distribute or cause it to be done on your behalf. The physical medium isn't what's at issue here, it's the right and control created by law that is.
If the law says you control your property, then me trespassing against your will is breaking the law. If your property is a gated amusement park or something that you charge entry to, you are entitled to that fee when I violate your rights by entering your property without paying. Even if I stay out of your road, don't cause any damage, and just watch the live performances happening there, you are still entitled to me entry fee. Am I right? Because I took nothing that would cause a reduction in your stock, outside you prosecuting me, I cause no monetary damages, displaced no one else, but my presence entitles you to profit because the law gives you a right to control who enters and stays on your property.
OK, let me define it then. the car is stolen from the lot and is gone for three days. It got driven less then one mile in a normal and reasonable manor to cause no undue stress or damage to it, and the person who stole it just wanted to look at how the steering assemble was put together in order to compare it to work he was doing on another car. No damage was done to the car.
What now?
I know there are different levels of theft, in some cases, if you had the keys, joy riding is about the only charge you will get. The point is though, it's still a violation of the law and against the principle of controlling what you own when someone else takes your property without permission or any reason to believe they could or would have it. That's the point though, after they break the law and use the property for whatever reason that isn't exempt by the law, they have crossed into the arena where a profit is expected.
First, I didn't support that claim or seriously imply you did, it was what you essentially said though. I'm sure your not suggesting that after the fact, if they didn't need the car it is perfectly ok then. If so, think about me coming over the next time your on vacation, taking your television and dirty books while you aren't needing them, and returning them before you get home. Somehow, without your permision, I think a law was/would be broken.
your right. however in the real world, we take wear and tear off of value and the amount of wear and tear for the usage I described wouldn't have an effect on the value or the life of the car. It's still insignificant.
Something that most people don't realize or understand is that ALL US copyright laws were made and changed pursuant to international treaties after the mid 1800's. There are a number of people who want to think it was because of Disney but the reality of the situation is different. Disney may have gotten the rest of the world to create and sign the treaties, they certainly encourages are participating in them, but with treaties in place, most of our laws will be honored in other countries.
BTW, thats one of the reasons why the US was able to convince the swedes to fuck with the Pirate bay and why we got someone extradited from Australia over copyright infringement. It's also why other countries attempt to implement DMCA style laws. The DMCA was modeled directly from the WCT and WPPT wipo treaties.
his point is that the government has been using the commerce clause to overstep the constitution and the limits within for a while now.
Congress made the law creating the copyright czar under the administration. The czar will have to follow the laws congress creates. and while the constitution does address copyright, it also leaves it to congress to implement which is where using the commerce clause comes back in.
So then it would be ok if the rental company didn't have anyone wanting to rent the car? Somehow, I don't think that's what you meant. The point your missing is that you gained the use from it without reimbursing the owner/controller.
Your other two points are just as invalid. The wear and tear is minimal and the possibility of something doesn't mean it's there. Actually, I'm a bit surprised that you would actually bring up something that was possible but didn't happen (accident) in the course of an illegal act (theft, joy riding) as a way to invalidate the idea that something that was possible but didn't happen (compensation) because of an illegal act (copying and distributing copyrighted works without consent of the owner). I'm going to have to weigh that for a while.
Anyways, if your using the property, even though it's intangible, your still benefiting from it without compensating the owner. When the owner demands compensation, and you fail to provide it, your use means a lot profit.
A few major points here.
First, capitalism did not implode. That's nothing more then a tired political line meant to confuse the masses so acceptance to crap we rejected years ago would happen. The banking mess happened because of improper government regulation and burdens placed on the financial markets, and the inept actions of the existing regulatory structure. And all that was amplified by artificially high energy costs.
Second, If your terrified by the deficit and can go to just the banking problems, then your in for a really rude awakening. The tarp and Stimulus bills aren't part of his budget and his budget alone is going to increase the deficit to levels relative to the economy not seen since WWII. You need to think about that. The billions and trillions just handed out don't count towards this budget deficit and it's as large of a difference between unfunded spending and the economy as when we were fighting a world war in two hemispheres of the globe. Your taxes are going up. Obama isn't technically raising them because he is letting the Bush tax cuts expire but we would have to be idiots to know know they are going up.
Finally, we are in for a decreased standard of living. That won't be because of the banks collapsing or the budget deficit however. It will be because of the regulation and tax schemes they are attempting to put onto energy right now. Your utility bills are expected to triple with the cap and tax or trade or whatever they are calling it now. They want to jack the cost of gas back up with burdensome taxes which means the cost if things like food and clothing will jump in price again too.
You know, I was watching Charlie Rose tonight and he had the mayor of New York City on discussing their new green initiatives. (this rant isn't really directed at you but it's going to illustrate some of what I just mentioned.) It sounds like this guy got his accounting skills from a 12 pack and a match book cover. Anyways, they just passed new legislation in NYC that will force almost 44 percent of all commercial property owners to upgrade everything and it creates a department to reevaluate building periodically for efficiency and fines the owners or forces them to improve it some how. He said that would create jobs, improve the value of the buildings, and make money for the owners. He said there is tech out there right now for furnaces (HVAC) that is 90 percent or more efficient then whats currently being used but they won't manufacture this stuff because there isn't a market. He said what they have done is effectivly created the market and everyone will benefit.
That sounds good and all until you examine some details. The reason there isn't a market for the super heaters is because it costs $70 to gain the efficiency savings of $20. At a point, it costs more then it saves and traditionally people attempted to get to the break even point in these terms. Now, the furnaces and/or other fixtures in the buildings have a life span on them too, throwing them out prematurely costs more money. This is what will be happening.
Now here is where he glossed over some finer points that effect us. He said that it would make a better building so the property owners could charge more for rent. But who actually pays the rent? You and me or the equivalent of you and me living in NYC either directly or indirectly when we use services or purchase something from someone paying the rent. Surely the property owners are going to have to raise the rent if only just enough to cover the loans needed to do all the retrofits and repairs necessary to gain compliance. So lets say this causes rent to double (I'm thinking a little more, it might be a little less), and lets say this will only effect businesses and not residential rentals. So when you go to the store, when you hire the lawyer or investment firm or whoever, they have to increase their fees and prices in order to pay the rent or they won't be there any more. This means you and me are paying for all this shit when we live our daily lives as no
Czars is more of an expression created by the news media. No official office uses the term.
It was used because we created cabinet positions appointed by but more or less independent from the administration to do certain things. These offices are not supposed to be political (pushing the administration's agenda) and are directed through passage of law. They aren't really Czars in the sense of a king or emperor.
I've seen foreign and independent films. Do you really want that?
Sure, Hollywood shovels crap at us, but at least most of us can tolerate sitting through the entire thing on most occasions. I can't say the same for most of the independent films I have watched.
I think the point, and you may have conceded it, is that you can listen to the music/videos/whatever in several completely legal ways instead of needing to rely on piracy or getting rid of copyright.
Maybe what is needed isn't to get rid of copyright but forced distribution with standardized fees to some extent. This would mean that if something Google couldn't get a license to allow songs to be posted on youtube or whatever, they could ask the government to create one in which they would pay the royalty to the artist/copyright holder through a government collection panel or something. We already have a model for it with how radio works.
Why wouldn't piracy be lost profits? I know that pirates may not purchase the material if they couldn't pirate but the point of copyright piracy is that someone was using the material anyways. It's still a lost profit if you steal a rental car for the weekend but never would have paid the rent on it. Like it or not, the law gives certain rights that imply certain value to the owners and creators of copyright.
Why would the framers want to do something like that? They set the government up specifically to avoid "Tyranny of the masses" and group stupidity.
What your seeing is exactly what they wanted. It may be being abused but it was the intent. The abuses seem more damaging now that people want to think the federal government is supposed to be over the people and not just a governing body for the states to control common business associated with the state.
The problem is that your not just saying the sky is blue. You are saying something that implies an action. That action is interpretation. You can say speech doesn't count all you want. But as soon as the speech causes the action to happen, you would have trapped yourself into your own interpretation. Now saying the constitution should be changed so that treason would include subverting the constitution is speech that is open from your logic. But saying that a phrase in the constitution means something other then it does is subverting the intent of the clause and the constitution itself. You would be in your own trap.
It's not so much the speech, but what the speech says.
Lol... the we both heard wrong wasn't about those many people. It was about my assertion that treason was a capitol crime and you saying I was wrong. In short, we both were wrong because it's both depending on the aggravating factors.
In what way is it? I mean do you fund terrorist organizations when you purchase a food item or something and that company donates a port of the profits to a charity that is unknowingly to them, funding terror groups? Does loaning a person a car to later find out that person used it in the commission of a crime like murder or robbery make you a conspirator of the crime, or a murderer?
The answer to that is that you need to have knowledge of your actions to the effect. You attempting to stretch the constitution's limits on treason to incorporate your agenda tears at the very same fabric. Are you giving aid and comfort to the enemies right now? Is that why you hold that position, to give aid and comfort to our enemies? Of course not, that's just silly but with out the knowledge and intent, you are essentially doing that within how you want to define treason.
So in order to be aiding and comforting our enemies, there has to be a thought component called intent. You exposing the government's illegal programs does not make it "giving aid and comfort" to our enemies unless your intent was to inform our enemies of the program (presumably for their protection). Even in your original statement that caused me to reply, you seem to have that down. I'm not really sure why you forgot it.
Speech has everything to do with it. Your advocating a specific act. Under your defined usage, it incorporates you too.
You said if the New York Times attempts to subvert the Constitution, it would be treason. Subverting the constitution isn't part of the legal definition of treason as stated in in the constitution. By making that claim, you are subverting (perverting) the constitution and are entrapped into your own statement.
Actually, it seems that we both heard wrong. The death sentence can be used for treason depending on Aggravating Factors
I understand why it is there. However, claiming that subverting the constitution would be treason in and of itself is subverting the constitution and taking the role of the king. That's the point, if you stray outside the constitutional definition and include subverting the constitution, you have in effect done the same in order to make that claim. You would then be looped into your own logic and be committing treason.
"they are allowed to sit outside (in a car) and record every person that comes and goes (in their own car) without a warrant, but if they want to know what was said by those people when they are inside (the car) they need a warrant."
Hope that helps ;)
A lot of that can be accomplished with a custom bootable CD or even apps configured to run from a flash drive or something.
I'm not sure if it would be ideal or not. But it would be somewhat doable.
I think your looking too hard to give her a pass. In 2008- Pelosi was in the majority and was on the comity only because of the majority. The democrats were in control at this time not the republicans.
It really doesn't matter who's party was in the majority or when they were, she voted for it anyways.
Now you can get some rest.
I'm glad I could help.
Because speech and action are not separable. One leads directly to the other which makes it completely relevant. People don't just get up and say "I'm going to trash the constitution today", they formulate an opinion, then act on it and if that is what happens, then you have your results. In what you said, your advocating the legal classification of something specifically defined in the constitution which is your application is outside that definition, but the crux of it is that you want to claim that actions contrary to the defined constitutionally of the constitution and ou government is treason. So in effect, you are setting a definition for treason that includes you into that envelope.
Now, speech is where the founding fathers determined that you cannot be treasonous unless you do specific things with specific people. Redefining treason to match whatever your goals are at the time under the claim of it being against the constitution or the government as you envision is violating that specific intent. We are after all, talking about labeling someone with a legal term that involves capitol punishment as well as a hit to their reputation. You weren't just saying "i don't like the color of his socks", you were saying someone who does X as defined by you and not the constitution is Y criminal legally speaking.
This isn't a matter of defined actions combined with intent. This is where you are attempting to classify both intent and action as something specific and separable. So in essences, you have stated that burning your neighbors house down as well as saying your going to burn the house down is X where X equals treason because it doesn't support your ideals. The problem is that we aren't talking about burning the house down, we are talking about a very strong and permanent legal definition placed inside the constitution of the united states. The constitutionally defined role of treason include intent within it's reach. So a more apt approach wouldn't be burning a house down, it would be akin to showing them were the troop are positioned as apposed to just just telling them over the phone.
ahh.. but there is when the constitution creates a situation specific to a set of events. Treason is a legal terms specifically defined by the constitution. Your attempts to expand it outside it's specific definition by your own rules of inclusion, violates the constitution. Now I'm not even going to get into the constitutionality or legality of any of the events in which you claim is blatantly against the constitution, what's important is that in order for you to make a claim, you end up pulling yourself into your own definition. This isn't about me saying the Constitution does X and being wrong, this is about you saying if anyone goes against X they are Y. But your failing to notice that your statement is going against X which by default of your own position makes you Y.
Now, I attempted to explain that, it doesn't surprise me that your not getting it or want to selectively place exclusions into it in order to coerce your statement into your reality. The problem is, neither exist in real life, all we have is article III section 3 and when you attempt to make the claim, your are actually in the results of your claim by making it. Again, we are talking about your claim, not the constitutionally defined version of treason.
What gets me is that your claim is a logic loop that entraps you into it. You are being treasonous with your own logic.
Why is this, because the constitution specifically says that treason shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The US government would have to declare someone/thing an enemy and in the constitutional context, it may actually take a hostile act towards the US in order for it to actually be close to an enemy for the purposes of treason. Going against the constitution itself isn't treason because the framers specifically allowed for it to be changed, allowed for the speech necessary for this to happen, restricted the government from acting to stop it in most cases, and exempted politicians from any punishment for any speech made on the floor of congress.
Anyways, the constitution which contained the only legal definition of treason does not contain an exception to aiding our enemies because the act defends your ideals. It does not contain anything about violations of constitutional acts, regulations, or whatever. In it's oaths and requirements for elected officials, it doesn't even prescribe punishment for violations of an oath. But your wanting to expand treason to beyond it's constitutional role and then limit the exposed effects against the NYT because it suits your ideals, make you in the process of committing treason in keeping your position which doesn't adhere to the constitution. Your stuck in a logic loop that incriminates yourself if we were to take you seriously.
But worse then that, according to you, all the democrats who supported gun bans and attempted to incorrectly interpret the second amendment as giving guns to hunters or making sure the military had weapons, they all would be treasonous and guilty of subverting the constitution right. All the people who supported the unconstitutional social programs instituted under Roosevelt that he knew full well was unconstitutional at the time, are treasonous right? Well, the answer is no because despite being inconstitutional, the founding fathers left speech and the ability to support something unpopular open and free and cared more about the constitution setting things right then prosecuting someone who may have passed a law in conflict with it.
BTW, the reference to Roosevelt was pulled from a speech he gave concerning the Volstead Act and appeared in the NYT on March 3, 1930. This was almost two years before he was ellected president and started regulating the workign hours of private citizens, created welfare and social security and quite a few other things that the federal government had absolutely no powers to do. In fact, at one point in time, the supreme court said the laws were unconstitutional and he basically replied with "so, do something about it" in which he knew the courts had no power to force a ruling. This is when the chief justice at the time expanded the interstate commerce clause and allowed some of the programs to exist because of a minor connection to interstate commerce.
Roosevelt said "As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt