I think that most posts on this subject err to differentiate criminal (government) charges versus civil liability issues (private).
You have no free speech right against me a private person. Your first amendment right protects you only against the government. My property, including my intellectual property, is not the government's. So when I try to sue you to protect my property you can't use rights you don't have as a defense!
Let's analyze this in a way that would make the naysayers think twice.
Let's say I compile, using only legal search engines, a list of all your social security numbers, dates of birth, and other information. You know the stuff that any identity thief would love to get his or her hands on : to ruin your financial life.
Now let's go one step further and say that I place convenient links to where people can go and see this. All I did was provide links.
But now look at how I am aiding in the transaction as an information conduit. The information is the valuable piece of the puzzle and that's the problem.
Do I have a free speech right to do this?
Perhaps, I can argue that the government can't lock me up because of the way I collected the information. And that I did not break any privacy law since I did not owe any of the people any privacy duty. (Since they are not my customers, employees, or have any status with me their rights are severely limited). Now I have a pretty good argument against a criminal offense case.
BUT
My actions were deliberate and reckless. Also, they did assist in the violation of the law which I should have had reasonable belief would occurr. The damages that my indirect victims become my liability. They can pursue me directly because of the damages they suffered from me doing what I wasn't supposed to do.
So in this case: when this kid published links and helped people break the law he became an agent and conduit just like I could have become with your identities. He was sued and lost because of his actions. Now if the government tries to toss in him in jail, that would be another story. However, there is the possibility that they could....
What makes you think you can publish information specifically on how to steal someone else' property?
That does make you a responsible party since there's two separate tracks and we can reason it out separately.
The civil suit side which the RIAA/MPAA care about...You have no legal right to aid in or support the theft of their property.
The criminal side -- which didn't occur in this case you could argue a free speech right: since the 1st amendment protects you from the government and hence criminal sanctions. But this freedom doesn't apply to the situation above.
Well, yes, you could be....should is a different question. And then even if we can figure out if you should...will you be prosecuted? That's up to the US Attorneys' Office for criminal issues and up to the copyright holder for civil damages.
That's true: but first are you a newspaper reporter? Second, providing a generalization (in this neighborhood or "almost any building on this block" )would be okay, but if you provide the exact name and address with cell phone number of a gun runner or pimp or even music/dvd pirate then I think that would prove your intent to aid in the criminal activity.
We can surmise intent with your actions, words, intended audience, and the degree of accuracy or self-censorship offered.
Nope, because your freedom of speech, based on the first amendment, protects you from the government.
But if you say that CEO of XYZ Corporation is a thug and a crook...you are talking libel, unless it's true. Since you don't have a right to disparage private individuals without it being a truth. The government, on the other hand, is obligated, to enduring your remarks since that's the hallmark of your political freedom.
I think that one is a generalization: oh you can buy some LSD near the tracks...at night. but providing a dealer's name, address, and cell phone would be different.
Because, those backwater places produce nothing of value to steal. So, in order to get stolen IP to those islands you would have to break the laws of an original exporting country. Also, with so little in population, outbound transmissions would then be directed to places that actually respect the rule of law. So all you do is create a small barrier around only the hosting machine, but all the party's are still guilty of breaking laws.
And I would guess one day they might want to leave that island...
I'd easily argue that Google's intent and his intent are two very different things.
Google runs an automated system that crawls the web and catalogs file. It doenst reguard to the content. Just like Google News.
But he actively collected specific links.
Intentions where quite different, wouldnt you think?
I think it would be more than just putting a link. In these matters intent is very important, wouldn't you think?
Not that we can get in his head and figure out his true intent, but we can look at the evidence of what he did and the circumstances.
So, if you put a link to his site, I'm not sure if you're trying to inform me or show what not to do? Or are you trying to steer people toward where they can steal?
If you aid someone materially in breaking a law then you can be held accountable both in criminal proceedings and in civil lawsuits.
So, yes, if I know a bootlegger or drug dealer and point you in their direction, then I am guilty of a crime, too.
Everyone is responsible for his or her actions.
If it were portable then it would be interesting
on
A Brief FAQ on CableCards
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If I could take my CableCard to a friends' house, snap it in, and watch the channels I subscribe to, or bill the PPV to my account -- then it would be something to write home about.
I know I'd have to assume that either cable company is the same at my friend's house or has some sort of "roaming" agreement -- but don't I pay for cable -- not my house? And if I'm away from hoome...that cable subscription is basically useless.
EULA's for free software present a murkier matter
Offer- Want to use my software?
Acceptance- I use your software.
(The mirror image rule is satisfied, since every contract must be able to be reversed)
But what about consideration?
Consideration doesn't have to be monetary, directly.
But it must be something of value
It can be another intangible good. Like, in a good NDA it would be written as a promise to non-disclose by both parties. That would be the consideration for each (not to disclose the other's information).
Thoughts?
Re:Minors and Drunks: Defences? Limited!
on
The Basics of EULAs
·
· Score: 1
Oops:
Intoxicated while entering contract If I am drunk and get into a contract with another person and then later want out: I owe RESTITUTION. That means I must return the car, comic books, or whatever, in ORIGINAL condition.
RESTITUTION is the higher standard and requires a complete return to its original value. Used for adults & drunks.
RESTORATION is the lower standard and just the return "as-is" of the item. Used mainly to protect kids.
Offer, acceptance, and consideration are the way to evaluate if a contract is legally enforceable. A contract that's not enforceable is merely a promise. A promise is worth however much you believe in the credibility of the issuer.
Contracts with minors
If you are under 18 and decide to recind a contract you owe restoration, but the adult party owes restitution. The differnce is clear. If I, an adult, sell on ebay $500 worth of comic books to a 12 year old and later the 12 year old wants out of the contract -- I have to give exactly $500 back. But the 12 year old just has to return the comic books in whatever condition they are in (even if the child spilled sode on them).
If the minor lies about age, the child loses all protections from the law that protects minors.
Intoxicated while entering contract
If I am drunk and get into a contract with another person and then later want out: I owe restoration. That means I must return the car, comic books, or whatever, in original condition.
5424 = Citibank MasterCard
try 5425 1801 or 5424 1804 since for some reason Citibank almost always starts their MasterCards with 5424 1801 or 5424 1804
or even Amex 3730 73
I like trying to use Google Suggest in unexpected ways:
Try typing in 1ZE and see all the UPS tracking numbers that come up. Pick one and track it.
Or try typing an area code with a large population (201, 212, 213, 818, etc) and maybe add a digit or two and see what telephone numbers people have been searching for lately.
I also like the shopkeeper analogy in this case:
You shoplift from me a case of wine, let's say worth $250. I sue you for $250 -- I want my property back, that's all my interest is. But after that I'll turn you into the police and prosecutor and they'll do what they do. Or maybe they'll let you plead to a lesser offense, community service, anything, but I don't care because that's my concern.
If you offer me $500 to let me go and condition it on not informing the police that's a bribe since that's not a legal right that can normally be bought and sold -- it's not a property right or a claim to property. (Sort of like buying and selling votes) -and likewise- if I tell you pay me $500 and I won't call the police that would be extortive.
It all depends on the facts.
Now what the RIAA was doing was invoking their copyright protection which sets up civil damages and suing on that basis. Which is their legally recognized property right. You can either go to court argue about facts or damages or both or settle with them and then they'll drop their case. After that, they don't care if the FBI gets involved. The FBI has jurisdiction for criminal copyright investigations in the United States. But hey if the FBI gets involved that's helpful to the RIAA and if not that's okay, too.
The RIAA's own behavior needs to be justified. And I believe this lady is just complaining that the RIAA was asking for too much money to drop the case. But saying pay me or I won't drop the case isn't extortive since that's the essence of out-of-court settlement negotiations.
Depends...
I'll run two scenarios, one I call normal and the other extortion.
Your drunk and crash into my car. I suffer $20,000 in direct damages - new car, towing, and rental for a reasonable period while I get a new car. Let's assume no one is seriously hurt (otherwise the figures will go up quickly.) I offer you $25,000 to settle the case or even $20,000 -- that's not extortion. That's saying you can buy the legal right for me not to sue you by paying me a fair amount of money.
If I tell you give me $50,000 or I will report you to the police for drunk driving now that's extortion, since I have no business with the criminal aspect. Assuming it was a routine crash....You were arrested at the scene, anyway. I have nothing to do with that aspect. In fact, most likely, I will wait until after you are convicted for drunk driving since that will make my civil court case a done deal and will also subject you to punitive damages.
If you just crash into me I am only entitled to recovering my damages, but if you crash into me recklessly or intentionally then I can easily demand punitive damages to stop you from your bad actions -- and effectively punish you.
All crimes are prosecuted by the state and are committed against the state. The victim is "society". But civil suits are over torts and contracts. Breaking the law sets you up for a tort lawsuit from the property owner/direct victim and criminal prosecution from the government on behalf of society.
That's why in a drunk driving case the lawsuits would be:
State of NJ vs You (for criminal liability, fines, prison, etc)
or People of the State of CA vs You
and in the civil liability section will be:
Me Vs You
Going after Kazaa under the same law is actually ten times easier than that lady's RICO assertion against the RIAA.
RICO works analagous to this:
I have a business and I'm bent on making $$. I go to you and say buy my stuff or else! Now that you buy from me -- I profit, but only as the indirect result of my crime. So you can sue me, personally, for the tort of assault and criminally under a terroristic threat statue or similar law in your area (in NJ Title 2C). Now what about my business' ill-gotten profit? That'll either be taken care of via accomplice, accessory charges in crime or possible RICO acts. This assumes my business is a corporation (not partnership or sole prop -- where the owners are directly and personally responsible).
That's what this is about -- criminal profits even if in-direct, if beneficial to your corporation can cause the whole thing to come down.
Good luck to her, but I don't see it working. RIAA was pursuing an action that it had under the law and that is not a violation of RICO. RIAA offering her and others a settlement which in effect results in the RIAA being paid money not to excercise a legal right is at the heart of all settlements.
If you crash into my car I can either sue you or settle. And you know that sometimes haggling can be intense, but what I can't do is threaten to break your legs if you don't settle.
She may want it to be illegal, but she'll lose, because RICO specifically targets real extortion, bribes, and lots of other crimes (including copyright). Extortion and bribes depend on trying to get or give money to either get or prevent someone from doing something that you have no legal right to. (Like bribing a teacher for a grade would be covered or extortion based on naked or embarassing photo's since you are driven by something that you have no right to use.)
They would have better luck pursuing the case in the United States alleging that the profits and the business model rely on the in-direct benefit of criminal copyright violations. Since their ad revenue is driven by the number of users and their users are largerly there for illegal music and videos this criminal case could work.
Jail Time
Fines
Treble Civil Penalties
18 USC 96
Since most K-12 students are already in effective state custody; they already have a way of keeping tabs on them. Also, when you get a job your employer files an I-9 and then later either a W-2 or 1099 -- so they're tracking all the other age groups already. Oh yea, and then what about the good old driver license and national driver licence registry?
Government's like that elephant....
Although Verizon is a monopolist in telephone service its other businesses are neither monopoly nor protected by government frachise provisions. I do not like any monopolies for commercial services. It doesn't matter if its a government-owned monopoly (local Water Department) or a government-sanctioned monopoly (local cable company). The results are the same. Higher prices and less choice. Also, with a government-owned monopoly there is usually even more free-loading by select interest groups, more contracts awards based on politics, and less consumer rights available. The government should be in the business of governing: doing things that only the government is able to do. Everything else should be left to the private-sector. Otherwise you end up with the skewwing of economics.
Let's look at some examples of how the government changes the economy by offering non-vital services for "free" or "cheap":
public school system - how bad are they! why? because they have a near monopoly hold, always cry for more money, and spend it on select interest groups. this results in people relying on the government to pay for and to be responsible for their childrens' education. Also, select interest groups are always at work trying to change the curriculum to their liking. (Ban evolution, hand out condoms!, yay!!)
Obviously, the education of children is a key priority for all of society, but going with a one-size fits all solution isn't!
Imagine a public network owned by the government. It will be like the public libraries. Some books are burned; some web-sites are blocked or government-sanctioning Denial of Service attacks against the truly perverted sites (just like their books are burned). Some board in a little town will be doing this. Just like your friendly board of education.
With a private solution the consumer has choices. Free to buy or not to buy. Price competition with power competition. No one company should be powerful enough to impose its view on society and also prices should be changing, just like they do with gas. With a government solution you are screwed twice: once to pay taxes which you are forced to, then to either "enjoy" free, but crappy services, or to pay again (think of a toll road).
Perhaps rural and outlying areas can't economically support a network. Just like these areas were the last to usually have access to wireless telepphones and cable tv. Do you, in an urban area, want to subsidize that? Doesn't that further skew the market? Think about "urban sprawl" aren't you encouraging that? Well, maybe the correct density of subscribing customers is 25 per square mile or maybe its 75 subscribers per square mile, but if something is offered at a loss -- someone needs to pay for that? If it's a private sector company they'll go under -- but if it's government they'll just increase your taxes (the easier solution in their view then to just shutdown, which is what the market indicates).
The government ought not to expand or provide more crappy services. Also, I believe the government should stop offering all non-essential services. This to me includes public schools, roads, and health-care. Obviously these are important items to society so the government should help poor people buy these services by giving them money. Tuition money to help people go to the school of their choice, tax credit to offset toll road fees, and many other items. Give people power, choice, and they will be fine. It's certainly better than giving money to some giant government group that seldom has any clue what people want or care about -- they just see the people that make the most noise!
Disagree: California can tax its own residents on how many total miles they drive, globally and universally, since it is a sovereign state. Just like US Federal income taxes apply to all US citizens no matter where they make their money (even if you make all your income overseas). Taxes of a sovereign usually follow citizens unless the government specifically exempts it. Non-sovereigns can't. Sovereign governments that only want to tax local "domestic" income/property can do so, but only at their discretion.
Just like New Jersey income taxes apply to people who live in NJ, but work in New York City or Upstate New York. Now, DC can't do this for people who work in DC, but live in VA or MD since DC is not sovereign and Congress has disallowed it.
CA can even tax non-residents for miles they drive in California.
Just because it's legal - doesn't make it right: I'm still against this idea.
Slashdot Mirror
You have no free speech right against me a private person. Your first amendment right protects you only against the government. My property, including my intellectual property, is not the government's. So when I try to sue you to protect my property you can't use rights you don't have as a defense!
Let's analyze this in a way that would make the naysayers think twice.
Let's say I compile, using only legal search engines, a list of all your social security numbers, dates of birth, and other information. You know the stuff that any identity thief would love to get his or her hands on : to ruin your financial life.Now let's go one step further and say that I place convenient links to where people can go and see this. All I did was provide links.
But now look at how I am aiding in the transaction as an information conduit. The information is the valuable piece of the puzzle and that's the problem.
Do I have a free speech right to do this? Perhaps, I can argue that the government can't lock me up because of the way I collected the information. And that I did not break any privacy law since I did not owe any of the people any privacy duty. (Since they are not my customers, employees, or have any status with me their rights are severely limited). Now I have a pretty good argument against a criminal offense case.
BUT
My actions were deliberate and reckless. Also, they did assist in the violation of the law which I should have had reasonable belief would occurr. The damages that my indirect victims become my liability. They can pursue me directly because of the damages they suffered from me doing what I wasn't supposed to do.
So in this case: when this kid published links and helped people break the law he became an agent and conduit just like I could have become with your identities. He was sued and lost because of his actions. Now if the government tries to toss in him in jail, that would be another story. However, there is the possibility that they could....
What makes you think you can publish information specifically on how to steal someone else' property? That does make you a responsible party since there's two separate tracks and we can reason it out separately. The civil suit side which the RIAA/MPAA care about...You have no legal right to aid in or support the theft of their property. The criminal side -- which didn't occur in this case you could argue a free speech right: since the 1st amendment protects you from the government and hence criminal sanctions. But this freedom doesn't apply to the situation above.
Well, yes, you could be....should is a different question. And then even if we can figure out if you should...will you be prosecuted? That's up to the US Attorneys' Office for criminal issues and up to the copyright holder for civil damages.
That's true: but first are you a newspaper reporter? Second, providing a generalization (in this neighborhood or "almost any building on this block" )would be okay, but if you provide the exact name and address with cell phone number of a gun runner or pimp or even music/dvd pirate then I think that would prove your intent to aid in the criminal activity. We can surmise intent with your actions, words, intended audience, and the degree of accuracy or self-censorship offered.
Nope, because your freedom of speech, based on the first amendment, protects you from the government. But if you say that CEO of XYZ Corporation is a thug and a crook...you are talking libel, unless it's true. Since you don't have a right to disparage private individuals without it being a truth. The government, on the other hand, is obligated, to enduring your remarks since that's the hallmark of your political freedom.
I think that one is a generalization: oh you can buy some LSD near the tracks...at night. but providing a dealer's name, address, and cell phone would be different.
Because, those backwater places produce nothing of value to steal. So, in order to get stolen IP to those islands you would have to break the laws of an original exporting country. Also, with so little in population, outbound transmissions would then be directed to places that actually respect the rule of law. So all you do is create a small barrier around only the hosting machine, but all the party's are still guilty of breaking laws. And I would guess one day they might want to leave that island...
I'd easily argue that Google's intent and his intent are two very different things. Google runs an automated system that crawls the web and catalogs file. It doenst reguard to the content. Just like Google News. But he actively collected specific links. Intentions where quite different, wouldnt you think?
I think it would be more than just putting a link. In these matters intent is very important, wouldn't you think? Not that we can get in his head and figure out his true intent, but we can look at the evidence of what he did and the circumstances. So, if you put a link to his site, I'm not sure if you're trying to inform me or show what not to do? Or are you trying to steer people toward where they can steal?
If you aid someone materially in breaking a law then you can be held accountable both in criminal proceedings and in civil lawsuits. So, yes, if I know a bootlegger or drug dealer and point you in their direction, then I am guilty of a crime, too. Everyone is responsible for his or her actions.
If I could take my CableCard to a friends' house, snap it in, and watch the channels I subscribe to, or bill the PPV to my account -- then it would be something to write home about. I know I'd have to assume that either cable company is the same at my friend's house or has some sort of "roaming" agreement -- but don't I pay for cable -- not my house? And if I'm away from hoome...that cable subscription is basically useless.
EULA's for free software present a murkier matter
Offer- Want to use my software? Acceptance- I use your software. (The mirror image rule is satisfied, since every contract must be able to be reversed)
But what about consideration?
Consideration doesn't have to be monetary, directly.
But it must be something of value
It can be another intangible good. Like, in a good NDA it would be written as a promise to non-disclose by both parties. That would be the consideration for each (not to disclose the other's information).
Thoughts?
Oops: Intoxicated while entering contract If I am drunk and get into a contract with another person and then later want out: I owe RESTITUTION. That means I must return the car, comic books, or whatever, in ORIGINAL condition. RESTITUTION is the higher standard and requires a complete return to its original value. Used for adults & drunks. RESTORATION is the lower standard and just the return "as-is" of the item. Used mainly to protect kids.
Offer, acceptance, and consideration are the way to evaluate if a contract is legally enforceable. A contract that's not enforceable is merely a promise. A promise is worth however much you believe in the credibility of the issuer. Contracts with minors If you are under 18 and decide to recind a contract you owe restoration, but the adult party owes restitution. The differnce is clear. If I, an adult, sell on ebay $500 worth of comic books to a 12 year old and later the 12 year old wants out of the contract -- I have to give exactly $500 back. But the 12 year old just has to return the comic books in whatever condition they are in (even if the child spilled sode on them). If the minor lies about age, the child loses all protections from the law that protects minors. Intoxicated while entering contract If I am drunk and get into a contract with another person and then later want out: I owe restoration. That means I must return the car, comic books, or whatever, in original condition.
5424 = Citibank MasterCard try 5425 1801 or 5424 1804 since for some reason Citibank almost always starts their MasterCards with 5424 1801 or 5424 1804 or even Amex 3730 73
I like trying to use Google Suggest in unexpected ways: Try typing in 1ZE and see all the UPS tracking numbers that come up. Pick one and track it. Or try typing an area code with a large population (201, 212, 213, 818, etc) and maybe add a digit or two and see what telephone numbers people have been searching for lately.
I also like the shopkeeper analogy in this case: You shoplift from me a case of wine, let's say worth $250. I sue you for $250 -- I want my property back, that's all my interest is. But after that I'll turn you into the police and prosecutor and they'll do what they do. Or maybe they'll let you plead to a lesser offense, community service, anything, but I don't care because that's my concern. If you offer me $500 to let me go and condition it on not informing the police that's a bribe since that's not a legal right that can normally be bought and sold -- it's not a property right or a claim to property. (Sort of like buying and selling votes) -and likewise- if I tell you pay me $500 and I won't call the police that would be extortive. It all depends on the facts. Now what the RIAA was doing was invoking their copyright protection which sets up civil damages and suing on that basis. Which is their legally recognized property right. You can either go to court argue about facts or damages or both or settle with them and then they'll drop their case. After that, they don't care if the FBI gets involved. The FBI has jurisdiction for criminal copyright investigations in the United States. But hey if the FBI gets involved that's helpful to the RIAA and if not that's okay, too. The RIAA's own behavior needs to be justified. And I believe this lady is just complaining that the RIAA was asking for too much money to drop the case. But saying pay me or I won't drop the case isn't extortive since that's the essence of out-of-court settlement negotiations.
Depends... I'll run two scenarios, one I call normal and the other extortion. Your drunk and crash into my car. I suffer $20,000 in direct damages - new car, towing, and rental for a reasonable period while I get a new car. Let's assume no one is seriously hurt (otherwise the figures will go up quickly.) I offer you $25,000 to settle the case or even $20,000 -- that's not extortion. That's saying you can buy the legal right for me not to sue you by paying me a fair amount of money. If I tell you give me $50,000 or I will report you to the police for drunk driving now that's extortion, since I have no business with the criminal aspect. Assuming it was a routine crash....You were arrested at the scene, anyway. I have nothing to do with that aspect. In fact, most likely, I will wait until after you are convicted for drunk driving since that will make my civil court case a done deal and will also subject you to punitive damages. If you just crash into me I am only entitled to recovering my damages, but if you crash into me recklessly or intentionally then I can easily demand punitive damages to stop you from your bad actions -- and effectively punish you. All crimes are prosecuted by the state and are committed against the state. The victim is "society". But civil suits are over torts and contracts. Breaking the law sets you up for a tort lawsuit from the property owner/direct victim and criminal prosecution from the government on behalf of society. That's why in a drunk driving case the lawsuits would be: State of NJ vs You (for criminal liability, fines, prison, etc) or People of the State of CA vs You and in the civil liability section will be: Me Vs You
Going after Kazaa under the same law is actually ten times easier than that lady's RICO assertion against the RIAA. RICO works analagous to this: I have a business and I'm bent on making $$. I go to you and say buy my stuff or else! Now that you buy from me -- I profit, but only as the indirect result of my crime. So you can sue me, personally, for the tort of assault and criminally under a terroristic threat statue or similar law in your area (in NJ Title 2C). Now what about my business' ill-gotten profit? That'll either be taken care of via accomplice, accessory charges in crime or possible RICO acts. This assumes my business is a corporation (not partnership or sole prop -- where the owners are directly and personally responsible). That's what this is about -- criminal profits even if in-direct, if beneficial to your corporation can cause the whole thing to come down.
Good luck to her, but I don't see it working. RIAA was pursuing an action that it had under the law and that is not a violation of RICO. RIAA offering her and others a settlement which in effect results in the RIAA being paid money not to excercise a legal right is at the heart of all settlements. If you crash into my car I can either sue you or settle. And you know that sometimes haggling can be intense, but what I can't do is threaten to break your legs if you don't settle. She may want it to be illegal, but she'll lose, because RICO specifically targets real extortion, bribes, and lots of other crimes (including copyright). Extortion and bribes depend on trying to get or give money to either get or prevent someone from doing something that you have no legal right to. (Like bribing a teacher for a grade would be covered or extortion based on naked or embarassing photo's since you are driven by something that you have no right to use.)
What have they done in a criminal way or one that is particularly described in the definitions of the statue?
They would have better luck pursuing the case in the United States alleging that the profits and the business model rely on the in-direct benefit of criminal copyright violations. Since their ad revenue is driven by the number of users and their users are largerly there for illegal music and videos this criminal case could work. Jail Time Fines Treble Civil Penalties 18 USC 96
Since most K-12 students are already in effective state custody; they already have a way of keeping tabs on them. Also, when you get a job your employer files an I-9 and then later either a W-2 or 1099 -- so they're tracking all the other age groups already. Oh yea, and then what about the good old driver license and national driver licence registry? Government's like that elephant....
Although Verizon is a monopolist in telephone service its other businesses are neither monopoly nor protected by government frachise provisions. I do not like any monopolies for commercial services. It doesn't matter if its a government-owned monopoly (local Water Department) or a government-sanctioned monopoly (local cable company). The results are the same. Higher prices and less choice. Also, with a government-owned monopoly there is usually even more free-loading by select interest groups, more contracts awards based on politics, and less consumer rights available. The government should be in the business of governing: doing things that only the government is able to do. Everything else should be left to the private-sector. Otherwise you end up with the skewwing of economics. Let's look at some examples of how the government changes the economy by offering non-vital services for "free" or "cheap": public school system - how bad are they! why? because they have a near monopoly hold, always cry for more money, and spend it on select interest groups. this results in people relying on the government to pay for and to be responsible for their childrens' education. Also, select interest groups are always at work trying to change the curriculum to their liking. (Ban evolution, hand out condoms!, yay!!) Obviously, the education of children is a key priority for all of society, but going with a one-size fits all solution isn't! Imagine a public network owned by the government. It will be like the public libraries. Some books are burned; some web-sites are blocked or government-sanctioning Denial of Service attacks against the truly perverted sites (just like their books are burned). Some board in a little town will be doing this. Just like your friendly board of education. With a private solution the consumer has choices. Free to buy or not to buy. Price competition with power competition. No one company should be powerful enough to impose its view on society and also prices should be changing, just like they do with gas. With a government solution you are screwed twice: once to pay taxes which you are forced to, then to either "enjoy" free, but crappy services, or to pay again (think of a toll road). Perhaps rural and outlying areas can't economically support a network. Just like these areas were the last to usually have access to wireless telepphones and cable tv. Do you, in an urban area, want to subsidize that? Doesn't that further skew the market? Think about "urban sprawl" aren't you encouraging that? Well, maybe the correct density of subscribing customers is 25 per square mile or maybe its 75 subscribers per square mile, but if something is offered at a loss -- someone needs to pay for that? If it's a private sector company they'll go under -- but if it's government they'll just increase your taxes (the easier solution in their view then to just shutdown, which is what the market indicates). The government ought not to expand or provide more crappy services. Also, I believe the government should stop offering all non-essential services. This to me includes public schools, roads, and health-care. Obviously these are important items to society so the government should help poor people buy these services by giving them money. Tuition money to help people go to the school of their choice, tax credit to offset toll road fees, and many other items. Give people power, choice, and they will be fine. It's certainly better than giving money to some giant government group that seldom has any clue what people want or care about -- they just see the people that make the most noise!
"Don't fuck with the Interstate Commerce Clause."
Disagree: California can tax its own residents on how many total miles they drive, globally and universally, since it is a sovereign state.
Just like US Federal income taxes apply to all US citizens no matter where they make their money (even if you make all your income overseas). Taxes of a sovereign usually follow citizens unless the government specifically exempts it. Non-sovereigns can't. Sovereign governments that only want to tax local "domestic" income/property can do so, but only at their discretion.
Just like New Jersey income taxes apply to people who live in NJ, but work in New York City or Upstate New York. Now, DC can't do this for people who work in DC, but live in VA or MD since DC is not sovereign and Congress has disallowed it.
CA can even tax non-residents for miles they drive in California.
Just because it's legal - doesn't make it right: I'm still against this idea.