citing a “person familiar with the situation,”... Mr. Snowden would remain in transit at an airport in Moscow for “several hours” pending an onward flight to Cuba
However, this is not that particular domain seizure. This is a redirect to government servers ("spoofs", if you will) with no judicial oversight. Furthermore, there was no judicial order for VeriSign to act in such a deceptive manner in support of a government actor.
Your post only goes to prove the GPs issue on due process. If they were able to follow the rules then, why not now? This simply constitutes censorship until evidence and affidavit are submit to a judge in due process of law to obtain a writ. Only then does this become an injunction and not censorship.
the article says and even links to the fact that the US Government busted people selling counterfeit or pirated goods.
Wrong. The article says that the "ICE said" that these sites were "engaged in the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works". These are allegations, not "facts". Preponderance of evidence proving a crime has been committed is accomplished only through proper due process. There were no references to a court order, no references to a court trial, nor any reference to admittance of a crime. It is apparent to me that the DNS redirects were accomplished under duress of an executive agency without judicial oversight:
The seizures were accomplished by getting the VeriSign registry, owner of the.com and.net top-level domains, to change the authoritative domain-name servers for the seized domains to servers controlled by DHS.
I would call this unconstitutional, regardless of any supposed law that may be reference to the contrary. If these actions were done under a court order with judicial oversight accomplished through a supportive affidavit of the specific crime and specific circumstances, it would be different.
At this point in time, it is simply one government agency (or rather a group of related agencies), all this is is the effective removal of someone's publication of information. Until the judiciary orders its removal, it is nothing less than censorship.
We won't even go into the allusion in the article that the government is apparently deceptively redirecting site traffic to its own servers.
True, however, enforcement of said judgment is quite another matter. For instance, if someone tries to sue me in another State over a matter that is not lawful to sue me for in my State, they will have a very hard time attaching anything of value that is not within the adjudicating State's geographic boundaries. If they attempt to attach my wages in my State of citizenry, where their initial proceeding was not lawful to begin with, their petition would be denied.
Even if the other State's court was able to get a petition considered in my State, once it is found to be unlawful to proceed, my State's court would deny the petition.
That may well be the case to the opening story. If this person is a citizen of California, and the contract was initiated in Massachusetts, then his current State of citizenry would have precedence in the matter where Federal Law is silent.
However, if this person is still a citizen of the State of Massachusetts, then Massachusetts would be able to enforce its law upon its own citizen.
Moving to a new State does not automatically transfer citizenry. There are lawful requirements in each State to attain citizen status. Even in criminal matters, any State must obtain permission from the State of citizenry to extradite for prosecution where Federal Law is silent.
It is no different in matters of tort. If a contract is unlawful in the State of citizenry, then it is also unenforceable on that State's citizen, barring any interests the person has in the State of adjudication and Federal Law.
I would have to say that this is the reasoning the State of California is also making with regards to this case. It will be interesting to see how it all ends.
Your reference is in regards to two corporations located in the State of Massachusetts over a citizen of said State. We are citizens of our respective States and bound by the laws of our State of citizenry while within the geographic boundaries of said State. I am not bound by the laws of another State as a citizen of my State for activity I conduct within my own State, unless the laws of my State give such authority to another State or there is Federal Law which affects said activity.
So the question is, is this person a citizen of the State of Massachusetts or not? If not, then the State of Massachusetts may find it hard to enforce their State laws upon another State's citizen for activity within their own State.
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
brownout \brown"out\ n.
2. a partial reduction in the amount of electric power
available to customers in a region, such as by reduction
of voltage or selective cutoff of certain customers;
"The companies" have already been testing selective cutoff of internet access, and some are even making appearances of "backing off". This "study" is simply telling the truth. "The companies" are going to increase their practices of selective cutoff. This is just propaganda to get the general public to believe it's not "the companies" doing it deliberately.
...who has a problem with statutory damages being awarded when the law requires registration of the "literary work" to have this form of "protection". Copyright is extended automatically upon the creation of any "literary work", but registration with the Office of Copyright is still required to claim statutory damages. To claim such damages in the face of not having an actual registration does not seem kosher to me.
I would believe that the plaintiff would have had to claim actual damages, unless he has proof for the judge that he indeed is entitled to statutory damages. The damages are the judge's responsibility to determine the legality of. The judge is not to simply give the plaintiff everything he/she prays for, even in a judgment of default.
There is the Nebraska law on libel, which requires "publication", as I work for the major newspaper in Nebraska, I know from experience in dealing with our paper and website, that libels suits have only covered the printed word here.
I would have to say then that in accordance with your own personal experience that you have been fortunate enough not to stand accused of libel. However, that still does not change the fact that you are wrong.
From your own citation:
Publication of an allegedly libelous statement occurs when it is communicated to someone other than the person defamed. Vergara v. Lopez-Vasquez, 1 Neb. App. 1141, 510 N.W.2d 550 (1993).
It says neither that the libel must be run through a press nor on paper to be libel in the State of Nebraska. "Publication" results when the alleged libel is simply communicated to a third party. There is no apparent restraints as to the form and origin of the communication.
Yeah! And shame on you, you illiterate clod who can't even read a French article to understand that they debated this issue for over 40 hours, were under the understanding that debate of the issue was over and would be voted on first thing next week, and the fact that the Secretary of State instructed those left at 10:45 AT NIGHT to immediately vote on the issue knowing that the majority has already gone home.
YOU should be ashamed for leaving YOUR work when it's not done yet although you've been in your cubicle for two days straight and it's almost midnight. Shame on you when your own work is not even done!
For all we know, the plaintiffs are orchestrating this themselves for the exact purpose of planting this kind of bias into the judge. I had the prosecution pull stunts like this in 2004 in a case I was involved with. It is far more likely, in my opinion, that the plaintiffs are doing this themselves BECAUSE they are losing, and to defame any possible associations the defendants may have, or to tie them to criminals or those with criminal activity is the only way they have a chance at prosecution.
We need a main, reliable, one size fits all DESKTOP distro. that's what we need.
...
but on desktop we dont have a strong name presence so that when you name it, everyone will know. we need that.
And when I decide that I do not like your one size fits all distro, I change it into something more toward my liking to use and, maybe, even distribute it. That's what the "Free" stands for in "Free Software".
Now I will point out how many of the arguments posted here are addressed:
...
Also, people with old clunkers won't be able to afford new cars.
The plan calls for vouchers that, in addition to new vehicles, have the option to be spent on used vehicles or on public transit (although in the latter cases the voucher's value is slightly less).
The fact that the vouchers have an option to be spent on used vehicles far from addresses the issue that some people still will not be able to afford NEWER cars. The purchase of the vehicle is only part of the total expense of the vehicle. Some States' registration fees are based on a retail value of the vehicle. An "old clunker" that may cost $40/yr. to register and $240/yr. to insure, is quite cost effective for a housewife or elderly who uses it to get around town once in a while to get groceries.
That $25/month is less than what would be paid out for basic land line phone service.
Buying a 2004 or newer model car is going to shoot the registration fee up in such States anywhere from $150-$200 annually. Not to mention the car insurance going up at least 50%. This would practically double the monthly cost of simply OWNING the vehicle. We're not even talking the monthly payments of the purchase itself.
Many of these "old clunkers" are '80s or even '70s models cars and trucks. The voucher would only be good for $1500. That's nothing when you don't have money! And these vouchers are most likely NOT going to be good in private sales. So getting some 2004 model "fuel efficient" vehicle for even $3,000-$4,000 will be absolutely impossible.
Also, what's to stop the dealers from suddenly raising used car prices a few thousand dollars after such legislation goes into effect? Are we to simply trust that they will keep prices sky high for used vehicles and not shoot them astronomically?
Just browsing through the local trade paper on used car dealers shows that a 2004-2006 "fuel efficient" vehicle is running about $10,000 - $20,000. Now really think about it! What kind of person who is barely making it as it is, maybe even on a fixed retirement income, has $8,500 or more to throw into a NEWER car?
Guess what! Most of these people who have these "old clunkers" DON'T have this kind of money. Get a loan? Sure, why not? That $8,500 even with A credit is still gonna cost you $150 a month! So now, you have $50/mo. just to own the car, and another $150/mo. for the next five years for the loan!
Yeah. Real smart! Do you really think that someone with that kind of limited income is suddenly going to be able to afford an extra $200/mo. just to have a more "fuel efficient" vehicle that probably won't save them but maybe $20-$40/mo. at the pump??
This voucher idea is just as bad as bailing out failed corporations and lenders when that kind of money could have gone straight to the mortgagees to pay their mortgages, and to the possibly future laid-off employees for a few years of unemployment.
All of the "stimulus" legislation coming out of Congress these past few years seems to promise salvation to those who are really struggling, while simply hammering the poor over the head instead. Like an intentional Catch 22.
You obviously have now idea what you are talking about when it comes to public education in this country. According to appellate judges Crosky, Klein, and Kitching of the Second Appellate District,
A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good
citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting
the public welfare.
Any fool can plainly take a look at the current affairs of the education system and see that this is absolutely the truth of the matter in public education.
Now, if you actually did get a HS diploma, go sit quietly at home in anticipation of your "superior" digital television like all good sheeple should.
Ya, real democracy, wonderful. So that a 90% Christian nation can impose its morals on everyone. No, we need to remove blue laws, not give people the chance to make more. Our republic is supposed to be setup so that the majority can't run roughshod over minorities.
Look around yourself. Do you really believe that 90% of the people you see are serious Christians? I suspect that 90% of the people who self-identify as Christians are BS'ing for various reasons.
The vast majority of those who claim to be "Christian" have no idea who, or even what, Jesus, the Christ, is. I agree wholeheartedly that blue laws should be abolished as they are explicitly and blatantly unconstitutional. Nobody has a right to force me to worship on a specific day, but God Himself. If I so choose to worship on the Sabbath, instead of Sunday, the first day of the week, then that is between myself and my God. No man has a right to impose a day of rest on me when my God says to work six, and rest the seventh.
A true believer in Christ would realize that He is not a God who forces Himself on you. He commanded His disciples to:
Luke 10:9
And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, "The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you."
But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, "Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you."
Christ Himself tells His true followers to proclaim His Ways. If they don't listen, warn them that God himself will be their Judge...not make a law and force others to abide. True Christians will proclaim what Christ tells them to, and will in no way FORCE others to abide by their beliefs. That is not our place!
Those who "self-identify" as Christians are exactly that...self-proclaimed, wannabes, charlatans. And they are "BS'ing" for their own personal agendas, which usually include a sense of power and belonging. And they accomplish their agenda by banding together with other like-minded, self-proclaimed enforcers of morality in order to pass laws upon society to force all into their lifestyle.
This kind of behavior is not to exist in a Republic, even in the greatest majority:
Wyoming Constitution
Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.
No flamebait intended (some hyperbole ahead), but parents are idiots when it comes to their kids, and often kids in general. They will abandon the pursuits and benefits of a free society to "protect the children" at all costs.
You should say SOME parents! As a father of five, the 2nd Amendment is all I need to protect my children...be it from supposed "predators", or worst, the government.
Rather the point I made up above -- if fantasy depiction of one crime is illegal, and is to be penalised as if it's the real thing -- then ALL fantasy depictions of crimes must, in fairness, be equally penalised as if they are real.
And there goes the contents of most libraries, most film/TV, and anything else that might depict persons or property or intent.
In other words, finally a judge willing to put all Bible toting Christians in prison for a very long time?
II Samuel 13:1-14
And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do any thing to her. But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah David's brother: and Jonadab was a very subtil man.
And he said unto him, "Why art thou, being the king's son, lean from day to day? wilt thou not tell me?"
And Amnon said unto him, "I love Tamar, my brother Absalom's sister."
And Jonadab said unto him, "Lay thee down on thy bed, and make thyself sick: and when thy father cometh to see thee, say unto him, I pray thee, let my sister Tamar come, and give me meat, and dress the meat in my sight, that I may see it, and eat it at her hand."
So Amnon lay down, and made himself sick: and when the king was come to see him, Amnon said unto the king, "I pray thee, let Tamar my sister come, and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat at her hand."
Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, "Go now to thy brother Amnon's house, and dress him meat."
So Tamar went to her brother Amnon's house; and he was laid down. And she took flour, and kneaded it, and made cakes in his sight, and did bake the cakes. And she took a pan, and poured them out before him; but he refused to eat.
And Amnon said, "Have out all men from me." And they went out every man from him.
And Amnon said unto Tamar, "Bring the meat into the chamber, that I may eat of thine hand. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother.
And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, "Come lie with me, my sister."
And she answered him, "Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly. And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee."
Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.
These are obviously depictions of underage persons involved in explicit acts of sex. I suppose the Bible should also be banned now too?
You disregarded a key point of what I said: If what you say hurts someone. You have freedom of speech, you can say you hated their service, you hated their donuts. YOu say they are dirty, then prove it. For those that say "its an opinion" - yea it is, one that can hurt someone. So they need to have reasonable proof that the place is dirty.
Of course it appears he disregarded a key point of what you said. That's because your point is not logical. You state that the "opinion" was "fact". That simply forgoes any proper logic. How is it that you have RTFA (yes, I am assuming you have) and yet claim that the individual made a statement such as "That Duncan Donuts is one of the dirtiest places in Maryland"? That, of course, is a statement of fact, possibly carrying the speaker's opinion.
The speaker said that it was one of "the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen." This is obvious a statement of pure relativity that may or may not have its foundation in fact. It is clear from the statement itself that the speaker was giving an opinionated overview of the establishment in relation to his own personal experience.
The only fact apparent here is the fact that the statement is the person's own opinion based purely on personal experience. Regardless of this fact, you make the statement, "You have freedom of speech, you can say you hated their service, you hated their donuts. YOu say they are dirty, then prove it." Yet, he did not make a statement of fact that the establishment was dirty by any legal means, but that his own experiences, relative to other establishments, placed this particular Duncan Donuts on the lower tier of his personal review of these types of establishments. The only statement of fact in all of this is the fact that the statement is the speaker's own opinion.
By your very logic, because of the possibility that someone may decide not to do business with this particular establishment based on the speaker's own experiences is no different from banning video games because some kid crashes a car through some business after playing GT4. It's no different from the logic that says since most college students are 19-22 and since "music piracy" is rampant on college campuses, any accused 19-22 year old is obviously guilty of "piracy".
I just fail to see how one can logically state that a negative opinion regarding product or service is just fine, but a negative opinion, relative to one's own experience, regarding the atmosphere is somehow crossing some invisible line and suddenly no longer acceptable.
Access, use, and dissemination of anything intangible (this includes a work for purposes of entertainment) is a right. The right to disseminate is waived in part or whole through what we term as "copyright".
Here in the States, our First Amendment Right of Speech covers most of the access issues, though there are still those who would try to use law to prohibit access to certain forms of intangible creations, including some of those use for purposes of entertainment. This particular Right, however, is not a coverall for the issue of access, but covers a wide range of it.
Our First Amendment Right of Assembly, coupled with Press covers the simplest of dissemination, and thus why I said this right is waived in part. Our laws are not yet to a point where we are forbidden from speaking of a work of entertainment. We are not prohibited from reviewing it, commenting on it, parodying it, etc. These particular issues of dissemination are not distribution ("copyright") of the work in question, though the work is the core subject. This partially covers the issues of use and dissemination.
Being intangible, there is no real property (and thus, truly, no real property rights) to trespass, vandalize, destroy, nor steal. These actions that occur to real property are ideas that are stretched only in the imaginations of those who feel that a "limited copyright" does not fit into their agenda. these are the same who feel that even the very access to a work should be controlled by the creator of the work. Scientology is a prime example of this.
With that background into my thinking, the one liner answer is: yes, access to works of entertainment is a Right of the People.
As a last note: If this were not true, then why would works of entertainment ever have the need to become works of the public domain? Being of the public domain ensures access to the work for use and further dissemination of the work as seen fit by any member of the "public".
Is there a difference between the right to access non-fictional information and fictional information?
Most certainly there is a difference. The whole purpose of copyright is to create incentive for creations of works that are inherently intangible and part of the culture and society itself. Being a part of the culture and society, these creations are inherently the rightful "property" of that culture and society. Thus, every member of that culture and society has the inherent right to that work for any purpose. Copyright is our limited waiving of this cultural and societal right to that created work for a limited time period, at the end of which the rights to the work return to the culture and society from which it came.
The point in all of this is creativity. Are facts creative? I would have to say that by the very nature of a fact, a resounding "NO!" is the answer. Works of non-fiction, in and of themselves, hold the creative input of the author, but are still primarily a collection of facts. A fact would only have a finite number of ways of being released, in accordance with the restraints on the language used.
Due to this, I do not personally believe that facts should be able to be copyrighted, and in the States, they are not! However, the creative input and performance of facts is able to be copyrighted. The problem in this is that some copyright holders feel that the very facts themselves are what they have the right of distribution for. In the States, our first Amendment Rights of Speech and Press pretty much hinder the assertion of a copyright holder against the dissemination of facts. But works of creativity based on those facts are still protected in our laws.
That said, whether it is a work of fiction or non-fiction, it should still hold some form of "protection" as it were, thou
If you're giving money to the person who is a creator, then you're doing a public service by empowering them to continue to create, but are not actually morally obligated to do so.
I am also a product of the '70s, and I agree with this statement you make. Although you are not morally obligated to empower them to continue to create, you are legally required to. And unfortunately, many deem this as a moral or ethical obligation. The legal requirement that is our current copyright law is a dowry for the content creator to continue to create AND distribute their works.
The main problem I see is that the content creator at some point fails to continue to provide distribution of the work. The second-hand market is completely immaterial to this subject. Copyright is when we, as The People, relinquish our right to disseminate information freely, as a dowry for the content creators to create AND distribute their works. If the creators of content fail, themselves, to distribute their works, then they have failed their own obligation to We, The People, and thus, there is no moral nor ethical obligation on our part to continue to waive our right over the information.
Copyright deals with the right to distribute, not the right of ownership. Nobody owns information. Copyright is simply there as an incentive to have creative minds create AND distribute their work. If they fail to do either, then there is no moral nor ethical obligation to continue to waive your right.
Even if the creator does create and distribute, there is still no moral nor ethical obligation, because the creator is not being deprived of anything tangible, but only "might haves", and "could haves", and such.
I was sitting here trying to find ANYBODY that had it right. Daylight Savings is not upon us...we're leaving it behind for Standard time! Is everyone in the U.S. turned into a blithering idiot nowadays? One would have to think so....
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. no. 109-58, 119 Stat 594 (2005).
Perhaps everyone in the U.S. simply cannot read anymore? Brains checked out at the door. Good little sheeple being taken to the slaughter. Idiots.
Your friend should go read the OCILLA section of the DMCA. There is nothing there against being proactive, and if anything, an ISP that independently discovers infringing behavior is liable if it does not end the infringing behavior.
I would dare to say that there has been no copyright infringement and therefore this ISP has done a legal wrong. Their behavior well may make them liable for a number of possible actionable complaints by the copyright holder.
The only way being proactive can get an ISP in trouble is if it allows the ISP to end a contract on a bogus reason not supported by the contract.
Or if it materially and/or intentionally interferes with a copyright holder's copyright. Not to mention the possible libel involved here, as well as other possible criminal charges that may come along with such. Any affiliation this ISP would have in ANY way with the RIAA could also lead to some conspiracy investigations as well.
It all depends on how anal the wronged company decides it wants to be about the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
citing a “person familiar with the situation,” ... Mr. Snowden would remain in transit at an airport in Moscow for “several hours” pending an onward flight to Cuba
In other words, he's heading straight for Gitmo?
However, this is not that particular domain seizure. This is a redirect to government servers ("spoofs", if you will) with no judicial oversight. Furthermore, there was no judicial order for VeriSign to act in such a deceptive manner in support of a government actor.
Your post only goes to prove the GPs issue on due process. If they were able to follow the rules then, why not now? This simply constitutes censorship until evidence and affidavit are submit to a judge in due process of law to obtain a writ. Only then does this become an injunction and not censorship.
the article says and even links to the fact that the US Government busted people selling counterfeit or pirated goods.
Wrong. The article says that the "ICE said" that these sites were "engaged in the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works". These are allegations, not "facts". Preponderance of evidence proving a crime has been committed is accomplished only through proper due process. There were no references to a court order, no references to a court trial, nor any reference to admittance of a crime. It is apparent to me that the DNS redirects were accomplished under duress of an executive agency without judicial oversight:
The seizures were accomplished by getting the VeriSign registry, owner of the .com and .net top-level domains, to change the authoritative domain-name servers for the seized domains to servers controlled by DHS.
I would call this unconstitutional, regardless of any supposed law that may be reference to the contrary. If these actions were done under a court order with judicial oversight accomplished through a supportive affidavit of the specific crime and specific circumstances, it would be different.
At this point in time, it is simply one government agency (or rather a group of related agencies), all this is is the effective removal of someone's publication of information. Until the judiciary orders its removal, it is nothing less than censorship.
We won't even go into the allusion in the article that the government is apparently deceptively redirecting site traffic to its own servers.
True, however, enforcement of said judgment is quite another matter. For instance, if someone tries to sue me in another State over a matter that is not lawful to sue me for in my State, they will have a very hard time attaching anything of value that is not within the adjudicating State's geographic boundaries. If they attempt to attach my wages in my State of citizenry, where their initial proceeding was not lawful to begin with, their petition would be denied.
Even if the other State's court was able to get a petition considered in my State, once it is found to be unlawful to proceed, my State's court would deny the petition.
That may well be the case to the opening story. If this person is a citizen of California, and the contract was initiated in Massachusetts, then his current State of citizenry would have precedence in the matter where Federal Law is silent.
However, if this person is still a citizen of the State of Massachusetts, then Massachusetts would be able to enforce its law upon its own citizen.
Moving to a new State does not automatically transfer citizenry. There are lawful requirements in each State to attain citizen status. Even in criminal matters, any State must obtain permission from the State of citizenry to extradite for prosecution where Federal Law is silent.
It is no different in matters of tort. If a contract is unlawful in the State of citizenry, then it is also unenforceable on that State's citizen, barring any interests the person has in the State of adjudication and Federal Law.
I would have to say that this is the reasoning the State of California is also making with regards to this case. It will be interesting to see how it all ends.
Your reference is in regards to two corporations located in the State of Massachusetts over a citizen of said State. We are citizens of our respective States and bound by the laws of our State of citizenry while within the geographic boundaries of said State. I am not bound by the laws of another State as a citizen of my State for activity I conduct within my own State, unless the laws of my State give such authority to another State or there is Federal Law which affects said activity.
So the question is, is this person a citizen of the State of Massachusetts or not? If not, then the State of Massachusetts may find it hard to enforce their State laws upon another State's citizen for activity within their own State.
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 : brownout \brown"out\ n. 2. a partial reduction in the amount of electric power available to customers in a region, such as by reduction of voltage or selective cutoff of certain customers;
"The companies" have already been testing selective cutoff of internet access, and some are even making appearances of "backing off". This "study" is simply telling the truth. "The companies" are going to increase their practices of selective cutoff. This is just propaganda to get the general public to believe it's not "the companies" doing it deliberately.
...who has a problem with statutory damages being awarded when the law requires registration of the "literary work" to have this form of "protection". Copyright is extended automatically upon the creation of any "literary work", but registration with the Office of Copyright is still required to claim statutory damages. To claim such damages in the face of not having an actual registration does not seem kosher to me.
I would believe that the plaintiff would have had to claim actual damages, unless he has proof for the judge that he indeed is entitled to statutory damages. The damages are the judge's responsibility to determine the legality of. The judge is not to simply give the plaintiff everything he/she prays for, even in a judgment of default.
It was one time, and consensual! * This is a joke, and in no way represents an actual occurrence.
Talk to the hand!
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=s2502008000
There is the Nebraska law on libel, which requires "publication", as I work for the major newspaper in Nebraska, I know from experience in dealing with our paper and website, that libels suits have only covered the printed word here.
I would have to say then that in accordance with your own personal experience that you have been fortunate enough not to stand accused of libel. However, that still does not change the fact that you are wrong.
From your own citation:
Publication of an allegedly libelous statement occurs when it is communicated to someone other than the person defamed. Vergara v. Lopez-Vasquez, 1 Neb. App. 1141, 510 N.W.2d 550 (1993).
It says neither that the libel must be run through a press nor on paper to be libel in the State of Nebraska. "Publication" results when the alleged libel is simply communicated to a third party. There is no apparent restraints as to the form and origin of the communication.
Yeah! And shame on you, you illiterate clod who can't even read a French article to understand that they debated this issue for over 40 hours, were under the understanding that debate of the issue was over and would be voted on first thing next week, and the fact that the Secretary of State instructed those left at 10:45 AT NIGHT to immediately vote on the issue knowing that the majority has already gone home.
YOU should be ashamed for leaving YOUR work when it's not done yet although you've been in your cubicle for two days straight and it's almost midnight. Shame on you when your own work is not even done!
I think Apple has stores in all 50 states, and they have sales tax on all iTunes sales no matter where you live in the US.
Montana doesn't have sales tax, you insensitive clod!
For all we know, the plaintiffs are orchestrating this themselves for the exact purpose of planting this kind of bias into the judge. I had the prosecution pull stunts like this in 2004 in a case I was involved with. It is far more likely, in my opinion, that the plaintiffs are doing this themselves BECAUSE they are losing, and to defame any possible associations the defendants may have, or to tie them to criminals or those with criminal activity is the only way they have a chance at prosecution.
We need a main, reliable, one size fits all DESKTOP distro. that's what we need.
but on desktop we dont have a strong name presence so that when you name it, everyone will know. we need that.
And when I decide that I do not like your one size fits all distro, I change it into something more toward my liking to use and, maybe, even distribute it. That's what the "Free" stands for in "Free Software".
Now I will point out how many of the arguments posted here are addressed:
...
Also, people with old clunkers won't be able to afford new cars.
The plan calls for vouchers that, in addition to new vehicles, have the option to be spent on used vehicles or on public transit (although in the latter cases the voucher's value is slightly less).
The fact that the vouchers have an option to be spent on used vehicles far from addresses the issue that some people still will not be able to afford NEWER cars. The purchase of the vehicle is only part of the total expense of the vehicle. Some States' registration fees are based on a retail value of the vehicle. An "old clunker" that may cost $40/yr. to register and $240/yr. to insure, is quite cost effective for a housewife or elderly who uses it to get around town once in a while to get groceries.
That $25/month is less than what would be paid out for basic land line phone service.
Buying a 2004 or newer model car is going to shoot the registration fee up in such States anywhere from $150-$200 annually. Not to mention the car insurance going up at least 50%. This would practically double the monthly cost of simply OWNING the vehicle. We're not even talking the monthly payments of the purchase itself.
Many of these "old clunkers" are '80s or even '70s models cars and trucks. The voucher would only be good for $1500. That's nothing when you don't have money! And these vouchers are most likely NOT going to be good in private sales. So getting some 2004 model "fuel efficient" vehicle for even $3,000-$4,000 will be absolutely impossible.
Also, what's to stop the dealers from suddenly raising used car prices a few thousand dollars after such legislation goes into effect? Are we to simply trust that they will keep prices sky high for used vehicles and not shoot them astronomically?
Just browsing through the local trade paper on used car dealers shows that a 2004-2006 "fuel efficient" vehicle is running about $10,000 - $20,000. Now really think about it! What kind of person who is barely making it as it is, maybe even on a fixed retirement income, has $8,500 or more to throw into a NEWER car?
Guess what! Most of these people who have these "old clunkers" DON'T have this kind of money. Get a loan? Sure, why not? That $8,500 even with A credit is still gonna cost you $150 a month! So now, you have $50/mo. just to own the car, and another $150/mo. for the next five years for the loan!
Yeah. Real smart! Do you really think that someone with that kind of limited income is suddenly going to be able to afford an extra $200/mo. just to have a more "fuel efficient" vehicle that probably won't save them but maybe $20-$40/mo. at the pump??
This voucher idea is just as bad as bailing out failed corporations and lenders when that kind of money could have gone straight to the mortgagees to pay their mortgages, and to the possibly future laid-off employees for a few years of unemployment.
All of the "stimulus" legislation coming out of Congress these past few years seems to promise salvation to those who are really struggling, while simply hammering the poor over the head instead. Like an intentional Catch 22.
And THAT is why you don't post to /. right after a company party!
You obviously have now idea what you are talking about when it comes to public education in this country. According to appellate judges Crosky, Klein, and Kitching of the Second Appellate District,
A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.
(Read the full opinion here
Any fool can plainly take a look at the current affairs of the education system and see that this is absolutely the truth of the matter in public education.
Now, if you actually did get a HS diploma, go sit quietly at home in anticipation of your "superior" digital television like all good sheeple should.
Ya, real democracy, wonderful. So that a 90% Christian nation can impose its morals on everyone. No, we need to remove blue laws, not give people the chance to make more. Our republic is supposed to be setup so that the majority can't run roughshod over minorities.
Look around yourself. Do you really believe that 90% of the people you see are serious Christians? I suspect that 90% of the people who self-identify as Christians are BS'ing for various reasons.
The vast majority of those who claim to be "Christian" have no idea who, or even what, Jesus, the Christ, is. I agree wholeheartedly that blue laws should be abolished as they are explicitly and blatantly unconstitutional. Nobody has a right to force me to worship on a specific day, but God Himself. If I so choose to worship on the Sabbath, instead of Sunday, the first day of the week, then that is between myself and my God. No man has a right to impose a day of rest on me when my God says to work six, and rest the seventh.
A true believer in Christ would realize that He is not a God who forces Himself on you. He commanded His disciples to:
Luke 10:9
And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, "The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you."
But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, "Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you."
Christ Himself tells His true followers to proclaim His Ways. If they don't listen, warn them that God himself will be their Judge...not make a law and force others to abide. True Christians will proclaim what Christ tells them to, and will in no way FORCE others to abide by their beliefs. That is not our place!
Those who "self-identify" as Christians are exactly that...self-proclaimed, wannabes, charlatans. And they are "BS'ing" for their own personal agendas, which usually include a sense of power and belonging. And they accomplish their agenda by banding together with other like-minded, self-proclaimed enforcers of morality in order to pass laws upon society to force all into their lifestyle.
This kind of behavior is not to exist in a Republic, even in the greatest majority:
Wyoming Constitution
Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.
...it's a brain-wiring issue. Thusfar the only way we, as a society, has been able to deal with people who have the miswiring of their brains...
And exactly how is it you know for a fact that it is THEIR brain that is miswired and not the rest of ours?
No flamebait intended (some hyperbole ahead), but parents are idiots when it comes to their kids, and often kids in general. They will abandon the pursuits and benefits of a free society to "protect the children" at all costs.
You should say SOME parents! As a father of five, the 2nd Amendment is all I need to protect my children...be it from supposed "predators", or worst, the government.
Rather the point I made up above -- if fantasy depiction of one crime is illegal, and is to be penalised as if it's the real thing -- then ALL fantasy depictions of crimes must, in fairness, be equally penalised as if they are real.
And there goes the contents of most libraries, most film/TV, and anything else that might depict persons or property or intent.
In other words, finally a judge willing to put all Bible toting Christians in prison for a very long time?
II Samuel 13:1-14
And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do any thing to her. But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah David's brother: and Jonadab was a very subtil man.
And he said unto him, "Why art thou, being the king's son, lean from day to day? wilt thou not tell me?"
And Amnon said unto him, "I love Tamar, my brother Absalom's sister."
And Jonadab said unto him, "Lay thee down on thy bed, and make thyself sick: and when thy father cometh to see thee, say unto him, I pray thee, let my sister Tamar come, and give me meat, and dress the meat in my sight, that I may see it, and eat it at her hand."
So Amnon lay down, and made himself sick: and when the king was come to see him, Amnon said unto the king, "I pray thee, let Tamar my sister come, and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat at her hand."
Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, "Go now to thy brother Amnon's house, and dress him meat."
So Tamar went to her brother Amnon's house; and he was laid down. And she took flour, and kneaded it, and made cakes in his sight, and did bake the cakes. And she took a pan, and poured them out before him; but he refused to eat.
And Amnon said, "Have out all men from me." And they went out every man from him.
And Amnon said unto Tamar, "Bring the meat into the chamber, that I may eat of thine hand. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother.
And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, "Come lie with me, my sister."
And she answered him, "Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly. And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee."
Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.
These are obviously depictions of underage persons involved in explicit acts of sex. I suppose the Bible should also be banned now too?
You disregarded a key point of what I said: If what you say hurts someone. You have freedom of speech, you can say you hated their service, you hated their donuts. YOu say they are dirty, then prove it. For those that say "its an opinion" - yea it is, one that can hurt someone. So they need to have reasonable proof that the place is dirty.
Of course it appears he disregarded a key point of what you said. That's because your point is not logical. You state that the "opinion" was "fact". That simply forgoes any proper logic. How is it that you have RTFA (yes, I am assuming you have) and yet claim that the individual made a statement such as "That Duncan Donuts is one of the dirtiest places in Maryland"? That, of course, is a statement of fact, possibly carrying the speaker's opinion.
The speaker said that it was one of "the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen." This is obvious a statement of pure relativity that may or may not have its foundation in fact. It is clear from the statement itself that the speaker was giving an opinionated overview of the establishment in relation to his own personal experience.
The only fact apparent here is the fact that the statement is the person's own opinion based purely on personal experience. Regardless of this fact, you make the statement, "You have freedom of speech, you can say you hated their service, you hated their donuts. YOu say they are dirty, then prove it." Yet, he did not make a statement of fact that the establishment was dirty by any legal means, but that his own experiences, relative to other establishments, placed this particular Duncan Donuts on the lower tier of his personal review of these types of establishments. The only statement of fact in all of this is the fact that the statement is the speaker's own opinion.
By your very logic, because of the possibility that someone may decide not to do business with this particular establishment based on the speaker's own experiences is no different from banning video games because some kid crashes a car through some business after playing GT4. It's no different from the logic that says since most college students are 19-22 and since "music piracy" is rampant on college campuses, any accused 19-22 year old is obviously guilty of "piracy".
I just fail to see how one can logically state that a negative opinion regarding product or service is just fine, but a negative opinion, relative to one's own experience, regarding the atmosphere is somehow crossing some invisible line and suddenly no longer acceptable.
OK, so my questions are:
And my answers are:
Is access to a work of entertainment a right?
Access, use, and dissemination of anything intangible (this includes a work for purposes of entertainment) is a right. The right to disseminate is waived in part or whole through what we term as "copyright".
Here in the States, our First Amendment Right of Speech covers most of the access issues, though there are still those who would try to use law to prohibit access to certain forms of intangible creations, including some of those use for purposes of entertainment. This particular Right, however, is not a coverall for the issue of access, but covers a wide range of it.
Our First Amendment Right of Assembly, coupled with Press covers the simplest of dissemination, and thus why I said this right is waived in part. Our laws are not yet to a point where we are forbidden from speaking of a work of entertainment. We are not prohibited from reviewing it, commenting on it, parodying it, etc. These particular issues of dissemination are not distribution ("copyright") of the work in question, though the work is the core subject. This partially covers the issues of use and dissemination.
Being intangible, there is no real property (and thus, truly, no real property rights) to trespass, vandalize, destroy, nor steal. These actions that occur to real property are ideas that are stretched only in the imaginations of those who feel that a "limited copyright" does not fit into their agenda. these are the same who feel that even the very access to a work should be controlled by the creator of the work. Scientology is a prime example of this.
With that background into my thinking, the one liner answer is: yes, access to works of entertainment is a Right of the People.
As a last note: If this were not true, then why would works of entertainment ever have the need to become works of the public domain? Being of the public domain ensures access to the work for use and further dissemination of the work as seen fit by any member of the "public".
Is there a difference between the right to access non-fictional information and fictional information?
Most certainly there is a difference. The whole purpose of copyright is to create incentive for creations of works that are inherently intangible and part of the culture and society itself. Being a part of the culture and society, these creations are inherently the rightful "property" of that culture and society. Thus, every member of that culture and society has the inherent right to that work for any purpose. Copyright is our limited waiving of this cultural and societal right to that created work for a limited time period, at the end of which the rights to the work return to the culture and society from which it came.
The point in all of this is creativity. Are facts creative? I would have to say that by the very nature of a fact, a resounding "NO!" is the answer. Works of non-fiction, in and of themselves, hold the creative input of the author, but are still primarily a collection of facts. A fact would only have a finite number of ways of being released, in accordance with the restraints on the language used.
Due to this, I do not personally believe that facts should be able to be copyrighted, and in the States, they are not! However, the creative input and performance of facts is able to be copyrighted. The problem in this is that some copyright holders feel that the very facts themselves are what they have the right of distribution for. In the States, our first Amendment Rights of Speech and Press pretty much hinder the assertion of a copyright holder against the dissemination of facts. But works of creativity based on those facts are still protected in our laws.
That said, whether it is a work of fiction or non-fiction, it should still hold some form of "protection" as it were, thou
If you're giving money to the person who is a creator, then you're doing a public service by empowering them to continue to create, but are not actually morally obligated to do so.
I am also a product of the '70s, and I agree with this statement you make. Although you are not morally obligated to empower them to continue to create, you are legally required to. And unfortunately, many deem this as a moral or ethical obligation. The legal requirement that is our current copyright law is a dowry for the content creator to continue to create AND distribute their works.
The main problem I see is that the content creator at some point fails to continue to provide distribution of the work. The second-hand market is completely immaterial to this subject. Copyright is when we, as The People, relinquish our right to disseminate information freely, as a dowry for the content creators to create AND distribute their works. If the creators of content fail, themselves, to distribute their works, then they have failed their own obligation to We, The People, and thus, there is no moral nor ethical obligation on our part to continue to waive our right over the information.
Copyright deals with the right to distribute, not the right of ownership. Nobody owns information. Copyright is simply there as an incentive to have creative minds create AND distribute their work. If they fail to do either, then there is no moral nor ethical obligation to continue to waive your right.
Even if the creator does create and distribute, there is still no moral nor ethical obligation, because the creator is not being deprived of anything tangible, but only "might haves", and "could haves", and such.
Actually, isn't STANDARD time upon us?
Yes it is!
I was sitting here trying to find ANYBODY that had it right. Daylight Savings is not upon us...we're leaving it behind for Standard time! Is everyone in the U.S. turned into a blithering idiot nowadays? One would have to think so....
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. no. 109-58, 119 Stat 594 (2005).
Perhaps everyone in the U.S. simply cannot read anymore? Brains checked out at the door. Good little sheeple being taken to the slaughter. Idiots.
Your friend should go read the OCILLA section of the DMCA. There is nothing there against being proactive, and if anything, an ISP that independently discovers infringing behavior is liable if it does not end the infringing behavior.
I would dare to say that there has been no copyright infringement and therefore this ISP has done a legal wrong. Their behavior well may make them liable for a number of possible actionable complaints by the copyright holder.
The only way being proactive can get an ISP in trouble is if it allows the ISP to end a contract on a bogus reason not supported by the contract.
Or if it materially and/or intentionally interferes with a copyright holder's copyright. Not to mention the possible libel involved here, as well as other possible criminal charges that may come along with such. Any affiliation this ISP would have in ANY way with the RIAA could also lead to some conspiracy investigations as well.
It all depends on how anal the wronged company decides it wants to be about the situation.