How is this any different than allowing police to break into homes and install covert cameras? Do they already allow this?
It's different because you can't install a million covert cameras without breaking into a million homes, and owning a million cameras. and then having enough personal to actually look at all the footage. installing spyware on a million computers/phones on the other hand is ACTUALLY DOABLE.
Actually it does, in typical government inefficiency it will take considerable resources to process this fine, and most likely there will be banking charges involved which means at least some of the money leaks into private hands.
So this is basically a make work project for already wealthy lawyers and bankers. Fascism at its best.
It's not like TV stations are slipping this video in amongst their shows and commercials to trick you into watching it. If you don't like it, don't watch it, and stop trying to force your religious views on others.
The thing I fid interesting is that on one hand you have "don't watch it if you don't want to be offended/Free speech Yaaaaaay!!!!" regarding the anti-muslim propaganda while on the other hand.. you have doctrine for castigating any attacks on another people/religion.. so codified that it even has a well known descriptive name "Antisemitism"
I'm not saying that attacking one group is any worse/better than attacks on another group - however I do believe that a lot of people in western countries would have a different opinion if that film on youtube was anti-Semitic.
(and yes I know there are anti-semetic films on youtube, but they are not as well publicized as the film du jour topic of outrage. IE Videos from the Westboro baptist church )
actually no. If jews went on a rampage and killed random people because of an anti-semitic video, I would be just as pissed off at the riots and still not really care about the video. If a video went and more or less accurately depicted Moses as the genocidal psycho that he was, I would probably applaud it.
oops I just called Moses a genocidal psycho. perhaps all the christians, jews and muslims on the earth should riot now.
Beyond a mere declaration of a function header nothing else in code that dynamically links to another object is derived from that object. And since that small snippet is an API it is not copyright protected by law. So you don't need the GPL to derive from it.
As far as any data being passed back and forth at run time - you are not the one who is copying that data, (it happens at runtime in response to actions of another human being who has dynamically linked the other object) so you are not the one who is deriving anything from the software.
If I'm wrong I'd love to know about the court case that contradicted me.
The ONLY logical conclusion for your premise is that we should rip all the hard earned equity accumulated by people upon their death and give it to the state. What makes you think that is any better than how it currently is? What makes you think wealth is the only thing you inherit that gives you advantages?
I made a claim about the definition of Libertarianism. How you get from that to all these other things is a special form of logic that eludes me.
Unfair Advantage does not equate to opportunity.
I never claimed that either.
Tall people have an unfair advantage when playing basketball, however, all people have equal opportunity, hence all the under 6' players that succeed in basketball, and people like me (6'5") can't shoot for shit.
People are born with all sorts of advantages and disadvantages, it is wholly unfair for arbitrary rules designed to "level the playing field", which equate (IMHO) to the cure being worse than the disease.
we are not talking about fairness. And we are not talking about advantages people are born with. We are talking about advantages that society GIVES THEM.
Property is a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PEOPLE. It is ARTIFICIAL. You only inherit because everybody concedes that you inherit. If everybody claims that the state inherits, then the state inherits. If everyone claims that the king inherits, then that is what happens. It has to do with social relationships.
Abolishing private inheritence may do little to equal the playing field in terms of innate advantages but that is still more equal than allowing it.
Take for instance the biggest industry that plays upon the advantages of inheritance (not necessarily monetary), Hollywood. It is a bastion of Liberal / Socialism group think.
It's not, but I don't care about Hollywood. We are talking Libertarian core values.
Um... that race wasn't even allowed to vote in every state until recently. Most of their grandparents couldn't even work the worst jobs in society because of discrimination. The fact that their grand children aren't running the country yet should be a given... oh wait.
yeah because if there is a black president it means that black people are running the country.
If some law which creates a right of first sale specifically refers to goods made in the United states...
The right of first sale an axiom upon which the entire structure of the United States is based. You know the phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence? In the first draft, that was "life, liberty and property" and even though the wording was changed, the essential idea remained the same. There is no law "creating" a right of first sale; it is an inherent human right!
Destroying the right to sell property is the same as destroying the right to own property; a ruling such as this would transform the US into the most socialist country the world has ever known -- way beyond even the Soviet Union.
Copyright revokes the normal rights other owners have over their own property. The US is the most copyright crazy country the world has ever known by the way. Beyond even the Soviet Union.
Not only would it be the fasted amendment ever ratified, but it would be a clear message that the Supreme Court can go to hell if they're going to fuck around with the way commerce has worked in this country since before it was a country.
I think you don't understand the role of the supreme court. The supreme court is not a political body. It interprets the laws as they are written in the facts of the specific cases at hand. If some law which creates a right of first sale specifically refers to goods made in the United states, then the rules of statutory interpretation would imply that goods made someplace else are treated differently. Otherwise the phrase "inside the United States" would be redundant, and the legislature is presumed to NOT speak redundantly so as to give each word in a statute full effect. Once the court is allowed to assume words are redundant then that opens up a huge can of worms for different courts interpreting statutes in unpredictable ways. The court is required to assume that anything legislature put into law, no matter how strange it seems, was done intentionally.
If any message is being sent by this, it would be the court sending a message to the legislature to write betters laws in the first place.
What we really need to worry about are robots building robots. That's when they finally don't need us any more and can rise up as our oppressors. That's the beginning of the end, man. The beginning of the end.
The end will come before that. When the majority of population can no longer perform as cost effectively as machines. This is sufficient to cause the entire economy to collapse.
It makes little difference if 100% of the human race is less cost effective than robots, or merely 50%.
We might already be at that point if only the price of the most capable robots and computers came down sightly. With perhaps another decade or 2 of software development.
A fair portion of today's heavy manufacturing jobs go to the fixers.
Actually a fair portion of todays heavy manufacturing jobs go to the robots. The "fixers" are merely replacement for the company doctors that have been fired when the human workforce was made redundant.
"incite" in a criminal context requires some kind of direction or urging or persuasion to do the thing being incited.
Incitement to riot would be something like "lets go smash that car! follow me!" or yelling things like "don't let the police treat us like animals! defend yourself!".
if the movie had instructions that people should go and burn down all the mosques, then that would be incitement. But it had nothing like that at all.
the fact that a movie is highly offensive to someone is not inciting them to do anything.
Yes, because a few thousand people is always representative of a religion with roughly 1 billion followers.
No. It is the leaders of those 1 billion followers who represent them, and without any notable exceptions, all the leaders of Islamic nations have come out and blamed the movie for the violence and used this as a speaking opportunity to argue that it should be illegal to criticize or mock Islam, and to spend more energy criticizing anyone who criticizes muslims for this violence (As you have done) rather than criticize the muslims who are responsible for it.
he wasn't jailed for making this movie. he was jailed for violating his parole. someone else could have made the exact same movie without any consequences. In fact he might still be acquitted for violating his parole if he can establish that the police went far out of their way to nitpick his activity beyond what they would normally do for other parolees. Everyone is supposed to be treated with the same legal standards and not be treated more harshly simply because some legal activity pisses off a a religious group.
And make no mistake, Muslims were pissed off because of the movie, not because of a suspected parole violation.
If his detention is motivated by political purposes and not merely because of a parole violation, he could very well have a lawsuit against the State.
"Freedom of speech does not cover shouting fire in a crowded theatre"
Why?
It doesn't harm anyone.
it harms people because they are obligated on pain of a fiery death to flee the building. during that time they are exposed to an increased risk of being trampled by the other people you obligated (on pain of a fiery death) to flee the building. Believing you when you yell fire is rational because fires happen on a regular basis, and people are killed in fires on a regular basis.
"Freedom of speech does not cover incitement to violence"
Since this is the entire point of this movie, you therefore agree it is not free speech.
Well done.
The movie is not an incitement to violence.
If some imam gets offended and tells people to commit violence then it is the imam who is inciting. The movie never told anybody to kill anybody.
Part of state security is keeping information out of the hands of its own people so they don't turn against the state. In China, they have site filters to keep news about bad shit their government does or political opinions they don't favor out of the public mind. In the US, we have all this classified information that we don't see a strategic reason for classifying. In both cases, the strategic reasoning is that the government doesn't want its people to know!
Not that that's a good thing, but it's still an act of war to disseminate information against the national security interests of the state.
Except that didn't happen and by defintion can NOT happen.
The people in a democracy can never threaten the national security interest of the state because in a democracy, the State and The People are the same and the Government can not exist against the people.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " - Declaration of Independance
If the people do not like what the Government is up to, the people have a RIGHT to know. Those who would keep secrets of government misbehavior from the people, to thwart the State's duty to exist only by the consent of the government, the thwart the rights of the People to give consent, are the true enemy's of the State. Without the consent of the governed, consent which is meaningless unless it is INFORMED CONSENT, the United States would not exist.
Direct your outrage on this on to the people who let them get away with this. They settled for no fines or penalties. When the watchers let the scumbags get off with a slap on the wrist the message is clear.
They basically let them off with a warning! No fines. nothing but a promise not to do it again. That is even less than a slap on the wrist.
You are welcome to take photographs of the permanent collection and selected loan exhibitions. Please respect signage in exhibitions prohibiting photography of specific works of art. Photographs must use existing light (no flash photography) and are allowed with the condition that the images are for personal, nondistributional, noncommercial use. Flashes, tripods, and video cameras are prohibited.
Members of the media should contact our Department of Public Affairs at (312) 443-3626 or aicpublicaffairs@artic.edu to arrange shoots for still photography and film.
If you violated that term they would have a hard time making a case against you.
the problem for them is that YOU own the rights on the photographs, not them.
Please show me the US case where someone has been thrown in jail for downloading music or videos. (Except, of course, videos that are criminal to own, like child porn.)
They don't, not directly. What they do is get a judgement against you. Then the debtor repeatedly files motions to have you appear in court, which when they have a judgement against you, they can do, so the judge can assess your income, pay back plan, etc. The key word here is repeatedly, sometimes several times a month. Since these judgements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, there's no hope for them to repay it. And as you might imagine, when you have an appointment two or more times a month for the rest of your life, sooner or later circumstances are going to arise where you miss your court date.
And that is when you go to jail: For failing to appear, or contempt of court. The sentence in either is indeterminate; An increasing number of jurisdictions have laws in place saying you can't get out of jail until you repay any legally owed debts -- statutes originally intended to repay victims of actual crime, not civil cases. So you do forced labor, at minimum wage, in jail.
God Bless America.
can you cite the case where this happened? it sounds a bit fishy to me. there is something called 'abuse of process'.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this any different than allowing police to break into homes and install covert cameras? Do they already allow this?
It's different because you can't install a million covert cameras without breaking into a million homes, and owning a million cameras. and then having enough personal to actually look at all the footage.
installing spyware on a million computers/phones on the other hand is ACTUALLY DOABLE.
Actually it does, in typical government inefficiency it will take considerable resources to process this fine, and most likely there will be banking charges involved which means at least some of the money leaks into private hands.
So this is basically a make work project for already wealthy lawyers and bankers. Fascism at its best.
It's not like TV stations are slipping this video in amongst their shows and commercials to trick you into watching it. If you don't like it, don't watch it, and stop trying to force your religious views on others.
The thing I fid interesting is that on one hand you have "don't watch it if you don't want to be offended/Free speech Yaaaaaay!!!!" regarding the anti-muslim propaganda while on the other hand .. you have doctrine for castigating any attacks on another people/religion .. so codified that it even has a well known descriptive name "Antisemitism"
I'm not saying that attacking one group is any worse/better than attacks on another group - however I do believe that a lot of people in western countries would have a different opinion if that film on youtube was anti-Semitic.
(and yes I know there are anti-semetic films on youtube, but they are not as well publicized as the film du jour topic of outrage. IE Videos from the Westboro baptist church )
actually no. If jews went on a rampage and killed random people because of an anti-semitic video, I would be just as pissed off at the riots and still not really care about the video. If a video went and more or less accurately depicted Moses as the genocidal psycho that he was, I would probably applaud it.
oops I just called Moses a genocidal psycho. perhaps all the christians, jews and muslims on the earth should riot now.
Beyond a mere declaration of a function header nothing else in code that dynamically links to another object is derived from that object. And since that small snippet is an API it is not copyright protected by law. So you don't need the GPL to derive from it.
As far as any data being passed back and forth at run time - you are not the one who is copying that data, (it happens at runtime in response to actions of another human being who has dynamically linked the other object) so you are not the one who is deriving anything from the software.
If I'm wrong I'd love to know about the court case that contradicted me.
The ONLY logical conclusion for your premise is that we should rip all the hard earned equity accumulated by people upon their death and give it to the state. What makes you think that is any better than how it currently is? What makes you think wealth is the only thing you inherit that gives you advantages?
I made a claim about the definition of Libertarianism. How you get from that to all these other things is a special form of logic that eludes me.
Unfair Advantage does not equate to opportunity.
I never claimed that either.
Tall people have an unfair advantage when playing basketball, however, all people have equal opportunity, hence all the under 6' players that succeed in basketball, and people like me (6'5") can't shoot for shit.
People are born with all sorts of advantages and disadvantages, it is wholly unfair for arbitrary rules designed to "level the playing field", which equate (IMHO) to the cure being worse than the disease.
we are not talking about fairness. And we are not talking about advantages people are born with. We are talking about advantages that society GIVES THEM.
Property is a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PEOPLE. It is ARTIFICIAL. You only inherit because everybody concedes that you inherit. If everybody claims that the state inherits, then the state inherits. If everyone claims that the king inherits, then that is what happens. It has to do with social relationships.
Abolishing private inheritence may do little to equal the playing field in terms of innate advantages but that is still more equal than allowing it.
Take for instance the biggest industry that plays upon the advantages of inheritance (not necessarily monetary), Hollywood. It is a bastion of Liberal / Socialism group think.
It's not, but I don't care about Hollywood. We are talking Libertarian core values.
Um... that race wasn't even allowed to vote in every state until recently. Most of their grandparents couldn't even work the worst jobs in society because of discrimination. The fact that their grand children aren't running the country yet should be a given... oh wait.
yeah because if there is a black president it means that black people are running the country.
"The US is about equal opportunity for all...not equal outcomes"
Libertarian Core Principle.
myth. libertarians believe in the inheritance of wealth which utterly blows any possibility of equal opportunity out of the water.
The right of first sale an axiom upon which the entire structure of the United States is based. You know the phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence? In the first draft, that was "life, liberty and property" and even though the wording was changed, the essential idea remained the same. There is no law "creating" a right of first sale; it is an inherent human right!
Destroying the right to sell property is the same as destroying the right to own property; a ruling such as this would transform the US into the most socialist country the world has ever known -- way beyond even the Soviet Union.
Copyright revokes the normal rights other owners have over their own property. The US is the most copyright crazy country the world has ever known by the way. Beyond even the Soviet Union.
The patent is on how to do it with a computer; which is a different thing.
yeah cuz its so hard to do things with a computer.
If you don't like it, move to another country.
just boycott american products.
Not only would it be the fasted amendment ever ratified, but it would be a clear message that the Supreme Court can go to hell if they're going to fuck around with the way commerce has worked in this country since before it was a country.
I think you don't understand the role of the supreme court. The supreme court is not a political body. It interprets the laws as they are written in the facts of the specific cases at hand. If some law which creates a right of first sale specifically refers to goods made in the United states, then the rules of statutory interpretation would imply that goods made someplace else are treated differently. Otherwise the phrase "inside the United States" would be redundant, and the legislature is presumed to NOT speak redundantly so as to give each word in a statute full effect. Once the court is allowed to assume words are redundant then that opens up a huge can of worms for different courts interpreting statutes in unpredictable ways. The court is required to assume that anything legislature put into law, no matter how strange it seems, was done intentionally.
If any message is being sent by this, it would be the court sending a message to the legislature to write betters laws in the first place.
What we really need to worry about are robots building robots. That's when they finally don't need us any more and can rise up as our oppressors. That's the beginning of the end, man. The beginning of the end.
The end will come before that. When the majority of population can no longer perform as cost effectively as machines. This is sufficient to cause the entire economy to collapse.
It makes little difference if 100% of the human race is less cost effective than robots, or merely 50%.
We might already be at that point if only the price of the most capable robots and computers came down sightly. With perhaps another decade or 2 of software development.
So far, every time we reduced the human labor in one sector, we invented another sector which required a new set of human work.
Let's just hope we can keep up with the trend.
"hoping" for something is just about the stupidest way to accomplish it. but I guess that's the plan then.
A fair portion of today's heavy manufacturing jobs go to the fixers.
Actually a fair portion of todays heavy manufacturing jobs go to the robots. The "fixers" are merely replacement for the company doctors that have been fired when the human workforce was made redundant.
"incite" in a criminal context requires some kind of direction or urging or persuasion to do the thing being incited.
Incitement to riot would be something like "lets go smash that car! follow me!" or yelling things like "don't let the police treat us like animals! defend yourself!".
if the movie had instructions that people should go and burn down all the mosques, then that would be incitement. But it had nothing like that at all.
the fact that a movie is highly offensive to someone is not inciting them to do anything.
Yes, because a few thousand people is always representative of a religion with roughly 1 billion followers.
No. It is the leaders of those 1 billion followers who represent them, and without any notable exceptions, all the leaders of Islamic nations have come out and blamed the movie for the violence and used this as a speaking opportunity to argue that it should be illegal to criticize or mock Islam, and to spend more energy criticizing anyone who criticizes muslims for this violence (As you have done) rather than criticize the muslims who are responsible for it.
he wasn't jailed for making this movie. he was jailed for violating his parole. someone else could have made the exact same movie without any consequences. In fact he might still be acquitted for violating his parole if he can establish that the police went far out of their way to nitpick his activity beyond what they would normally do for other parolees. Everyone is supposed to be treated with the same legal standards and not be treated more harshly simply because some legal activity pisses off a a religious group.
And make no mistake, Muslims were pissed off because of the movie, not because of a suspected parole violation.
If his detention is motivated by political purposes and not merely because of a parole violation, he could very well have a lawsuit against the State.
"Freedom of speech does not cover shouting fire in a crowded theatre"
Why?
It doesn't harm anyone.
it harms people because they are obligated on pain of a fiery death to flee the building. during that time they are exposed to an increased risk of being trampled by the other people you obligated (on pain of a fiery death) to flee the building. Believing you when you yell fire is rational because fires happen on a regular basis, and people are killed in fires on a regular basis.
"Freedom of speech does not cover incitement to violence"
Since this is the entire point of this movie, you therefore agree it is not free speech.
Well done.
The movie is not an incitement to violence.
If some imam gets offended and tells people to commit violence then it is the imam who is inciting. The movie never told anybody to kill anybody.
Part of state security is keeping information out of the hands of its own people so they don't turn against the state. In China, they have site filters to keep news about bad shit their government does or political opinions they don't favor out of the public mind. In the US, we have all this classified information that we don't see a strategic reason for classifying. In both cases, the strategic reasoning is that the government doesn't want its people to know!
Not that that's a good thing, but it's still an act of war to disseminate information against the national security interests of the state.
Except that didn't happen and by defintion can NOT happen.
The people in a democracy can never threaten the national security interest of the state because in a democracy, the State and The People are the same and the Government can not exist against the people.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " - Declaration of Independance
If the people do not like what the Government is up to, the people have a RIGHT to know. Those who would keep secrets of government misbehavior from the people, to thwart the State's duty to exist only by the consent of the government, the thwart the rights of the People to give consent, are the true enemy's of the State. Without the consent of the governed, consent which is meaningless unless it is INFORMED CONSENT, the United States would not exist.
Direct your outrage on this on to the people who let them get away with this. They settled for no fines or penalties. When the watchers let the scumbags get off with a slap on the wrist the message is clear.
They basically let them off with a warning! No fines. nothing but a promise not to do it again. That is even less than a slap on the wrist.
I'm a Christian, ... I don't have to believe in reincarnation or karma to respect those who do.
So you think reincarnation and karma are errors at best, or outrights lies that would comdemn a soul to hell.
And you respect people for believing them?
You just lost all of my respect.
You are under the impression that there is a "universal right" and "universal wrong" (and you claim to know the right in this case)
In a democracy the majority should get their way - by definition.
If democracy trumps human rights then why have trials then? just vote on guilt or innocence.
Indeed. From the Art Institute of Chicago...
Photography
You are welcome to take photographs of the permanent collection and selected loan exhibitions. Please respect signage in exhibitions prohibiting photography of specific works of art. Photographs must use existing light (no flash photography) and are allowed with the condition that the images are for personal, nondistributional, noncommercial use. Flashes, tripods, and video cameras are prohibited.
Members of the media should contact our Department of Public Affairs at (312) 443-3626 or aicpublicaffairs@artic.edu to arrange shoots for still photography and film.
If you violated that term they would have a hard time making a case against you.
the problem for them is that YOU own the rights on the photographs, not them.
Please show me the US case where someone has been thrown in jail for downloading music or videos. (Except, of course, videos that are criminal to own, like child porn.)
They don't, not directly. What they do is get a judgement against you. Then the debtor repeatedly files motions to have you appear in court, which when they have a judgement against you, they can do, so the judge can assess your income, pay back plan, etc. The key word here is repeatedly, sometimes several times a month. Since these judgements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, there's no hope for them to repay it. And as you might imagine, when you have an appointment two or more times a month for the rest of your life, sooner or later circumstances are going to arise where you miss your court date.
And that is when you go to jail: For failing to appear, or contempt of court. The sentence in either is indeterminate; An increasing number of jurisdictions have laws in place saying you can't get out of jail until you repay any legally owed debts -- statutes originally intended to repay victims of actual crime, not civil cases. So you do forced labor, at minimum wage, in jail.
God Bless America.
can you cite the case where this happened? it sounds a bit fishy to me. there is something called 'abuse of process'.
Over millions of years, sure. It takes a little while to dissipate.
Are you sure it takes millions of years to dissipate and not maybe a dozen years? Did you just make that number up?