Stop being an asshole. I specifically stated that the person is a guest. We're not dealing with real world shit, we're dealing with a hypothetical set of events in order to demonstrate a legal notion.
OF COURSE the real world version of this hypothetical is going to be complicated.
Now get off yourself, and shut up. The analogy is fine, and the hypothetical is fine, if you would just put away your retarded trolling.
To deny the intentional boundary our founding fathers formed between church and state is to lie. This crazy brand of Christianity these evangelicals practice didn't even exist when this country was founded and when Thomas Jefferson used the word "God" he never meant "the Judeo-Christian God."
Actually, I enjoyed learning recently that the founding fathers were much more diverse in opinion than we make them out to be. I think it would be better for people to realize more that the founding fathers had some of the exact same arguments that we are having now. These issues aren't new, they run that deep, and I think understanding that clearly is a better thing for students to learn than the idea that the founding fathers were some sort of uniform bloc.
The crazy brand of Christianity these evangelicals practice DID exist when the country was founded. This is why many of the original colonies of Britain were made... because they were crazy reactionaries. Most of these crazy reactionary groups set up as their initial first acts religious oppression.
Now, many of the founding fathers being enlightened individuals held more strongly to deism than any particular strain of Christianity. How could they not? They had no reasoned explanation for the world without a supernatural Creator. And note, the Declaration of Independence speaks of a "Creator" not "God".
Economic freedoms are not the same as personal freedoms. People can have vastly different ideas about which should be applied, and which should be restricted.
Towards the freedom in all of them, you get libertarians (and anarchists), whom the USA still tends to consider "conservative". While toward freedom of business, but restricted social freedoms, we have the "neo-cons", and the more common conservatives. (The idea that gay marriage should be restricted, is a fundamentally anti-social-rights idea... "we know better" as you put it.)
Then on the "liberal" side, we have two parties of thought as well. There are socialist, who argue for social freedoms, but restricted economies, and "communists" who wish to restrict both economic and social freedoms.
I'll now stand for the the socialist agenda, as this is the one I know best (followed by libertarians). In the socialist agenda, personal rights are paramount, and the purpose of the government is to protect and defend the dignity of all humans. Next up, there is the belief that economic freedoms are easily abused, and naturally result in infringement upon personal freedoms. There exists a definite amount of economic freedom that will permit slavery. Thus, it is the purpose of the government to protect the personal rights of the individual, and regulate business to ensure that it does not become a tyranny of the majority.
You argue that progressives lean towards authority, well, in some ways they do, but in others they don't. Progressives would like to see everyone be free to practice their own religious beliefs unhindered by any others, within a secular and neutral government. This grants you MORE freedom than the religious right is striving for.
If you want to be upset that progressives want women to have the right to vote, for blacks to be treated with dignity in all places of public accommodation, then... ok, you're entitled to your own opinions, and to strive to enact these beliefs in public policy. However, I would rather not live in such a system.
Copyright infringement is a criminal offense in Sweden.
It is also most definitely a civil offense. In fact, IPRED establishes the civil legal issues of coypright, rather than criminal.
Then also according to http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/10634/a/117091, "Infringements of intellectual property rights can also result in criminal sanctions such as fines or imprisonment, but this is more of a complement to the civil remedies."
The question here would be: how does the neighbour know that I know the dude who damaged his plant? Though clearly, in the case of OBT the ISP knows who the people behind OBT are, but your example, unless the owner of the plant plans to subpoena all of his neighbours, it's not a good analogy. And that's assuming he has proof that at least one neighbour knows something about what happened, which he might not have. After all the culprit could have been somebody completely unrelated to anyone else living in that building.
Coming up with hypothetical variations of the argument that contradict facts given does not attack the argument in any way.
In particular, to answer your question, because the plaintiff knew them to be a guest of yours. This was explicitly stated as a given to the hypothetical. This certainly gives them reason and belief to presume that you know the tortfeasor's name.
Of course, it is entirely possible that you do not actually know the name of the tortfeasor, and they made an incorrect assumption that you only invite individuals over, whom you know.
But since it is reasonable to believe that any reasonable person would not invite strangers over as guests, you're stuck establishing this assertion in court.
Even then, if you did win, and it was established that you do not know the identity of the individual (and you're not simply being contemptuous of the court) the court would likely still order you to provide everything you do know about the individual.
If he then forms a law which help copyright holders find out the personal data of people infringing on copyright to prosecute them for that he has turned them all into criminals which may be punished for a very common crime made by millions of people.
No. He has not made them criminals. If I slander someone else, then even if I am found at fault in court, I am still not a "criminal", because I have not violated a criminal statute.
In fact, (at least in the USA) some civil suits don't even hold that something wrong was done at all. There is an idea of "unjust enrichment", where no one did anything wrong, but one party benefited, by accident, from the acts of another.
The young(?) copyright infringing population is still at risk of getting punished and seen as criminals, something he said we couldn't have.
Just because they're not criminals, does not mean that they might not be "punished". They can still be found legally responsible for their actions that injure another party. As to being "seen a criminals", that is a social perspective that the courts cannot control. The USA sees OJ as a criminal, even though the legal system sees him as not. (Wait, this is to be read as if it were before he kidnapped that one guy at weapon-point.)
This also is not a suit against individual downloaders, but rather those who provide the mechanisms by which individual downloaders obtain their material. So again, the general populace is not being touched at all. (Unlike in the USA, where the *IAA has been going after individuals.)
What I find even lamer though is that instead of trying to catch and punish all those millions of people actually breaking copyright (which wouldn't be popular..) they go after the TBP operators which IMHO haven't committed any crimes whatsoever just because it's easier, more well-accepted among the general population and won't hurt their own popularity (or rather kill it totally.. what if the kids of everyone/all families got ridiculous Hollywood damage compensations fees?)
For a government to criminalize (I don't care about your definition of the word) a major part of the population is probably more or less suicide. To just go after the leaders somewhat easier.
This seems to directly contradict your previous posts. You quote them saying "we don't want to make a whole generation criminals", and agree with this statement, but then directly call for them to criminalize the individuals, rather than the media?
What is your proper position here? Mine is that copyright infringement doesn't appear to be criminal, but it certainly can create a civil action, this civil action should not be brought against the individuals at all, but the medium is unfortunately responsible for distribution.
Namely, since copyright is supposed to be the exclusive right to distribute, individual downloaders are not distributing.
In Sweden, all crimes were investigated by the police - until IPRED. As far as I know, there's no difference between criminal and civil law - if it's again some law then it's criminal. We don't have the lawsuit paradigm over here.
Then again, I'm not a Swedish lawyer, are you?
The distinction in the USA is that criminal law can be punished with jail time, while civil law generally cannot (the only thing that can, is contempt of civil court).
Straight from the Wikipedia article for IPRED: "The directive covers the remedies that are available in the civil courts, but not criminal offenses."
From Swedish Wikipedia we have Civilprocess which covers civil lawsuits in Sweden, that are not criminal law.
Sometimes civil law and criminal law overlap. (Something that is a crime typically also creates a civil case for a delict.)
So, no, I am not a Swedish lawyer, however I do understand that the Civil Law tradition still has a criminal trials and a civil trials.
You have the right to be left alone as long as you're not doing anything illegal. If the Bittorrent tracker operators do not themselves break the law, their identity is nobody's business.
Actually... you kind of don't. You can still be subpoenaed for information that you might have regarding a crime/tort.
Example: you are renting a house from a home owner, and you have a guest over. This guest goes next door and damages a neighbor's rose plant. That neighbor wishes to sue this individual, but they don't know who the person is. Not only that, but they don't really know who you are. They get property records, and discover who the landlord is. They are allowed to open a suit against the John Doe, subpoena the landlord to find out your identity, so that they may subpoena you, so that they may learn the guest's identity.
In other contexts, similar actions would definitely be illegal. For example, one person walks up to another person and says "Hey, I want to murder Bob Jones, but I don't know where he lives, can you help me?" and the second person says "Yeah, he lives at 123 Fake Street, here's copy of his house key. By the way, here's where you can get a really nice shotgun which would be a really effective murder instrument to use."
In this case, the ISP is bound by a court order. If I were in the similar situation, where a court order held me responsible, and I had reason to believe that they intended harm against the other. a) I would present it in court... this should be seen as an invalid reason to know the identity of another. (this is obviously not the case. the *iaa in this case simply intend to bring about legal actions... which is a legitimate reason for discovery of another's identity) b) should the previous argument fail, I would refuse to release the individuals identity, and let the plaintiff sue me to obtain the funds, and present argument (a) again, arguing that under a reason of necessity, I am violating the law to protect the life and rights of another. c) should (b) fail, which is likely would, if it even got that far, I would likely face the penalty myself... which I would pay. Because $$$ out of my pocket is worth saving the life of another.
The answer was another lie; equivalent to "The original statement was that swedish police should not hunt these criminals. We have other methods for that." which essentially means that it's okay to pass laws that lets the Hollywood lawyers play police.
There is a difference between criminal and civil law. Police enforce criminal law, and private citizens enforce civil law.
Are you claiming that private citizens play police when they enforce defamation law? or other delicts (torts in Common Law traditions)? No.
Decriminalizing something like copyright law does not automagically make it ok to do no matter what. When OJ was found innocent of murder, he was still found civilly liable for her "wrongful death". Doing harm to others still results in a responsibility... just not necessarily under criminal penal law.
Individuals are entirely responsible for enforcing their rights, and claims in civil court. So far, nothing you've attributed to the politician is a lie... it may be misleading if you don't understand the intricacies of law...
OpenBitTorrent is just a tracker. That's all; not a torrent indexer like TPB. They are not responsible for whatever people choose to use their service to download or distribute. I'd also imagine they can't do anything about what people move through their service.
So far, the *IAA is just looking for the identity of the people operating the OBT. They suspect that they are simply The Pirate Bay under a new name.
Let me give a good example. I operate an open Wi-Fi access point. A neighbor uses it to download copyrighted material. The copyright owner then sues the ISP to obtain the identity of the individual operating my IP. They receive it, so that they can then sue me to obtain the identity of the individual who properly violated their copyright.
They may potentially need this information in order to be able to subpoena an individual in a copyright claim court case.
While we don't particularly like the idea that people can sue to obtain another's identity, in order to provide for proper civil actions to be taken, sometimes you have to sue for the identity of another individual.
I disagree with your implementation of the Igpay Atinlay algorithm as described in RFC PL.
"They" is properly encrypted as "Ey-thay", as "th" is a single phoneme.
Of course, if you're sticking to the MICROSOFT implementation of going simply with orthographic characters, and you want to be non-standard with proper implementations, then go ahead.
You left out the most important part of the context. There wasn't just a head on the coin, there was very likely also some text (as was common with roman coins). At that time, it was probably something that proclaimed either the emperor or his father to be a god.
That was the trap, not the simple tax question. If he said "yes", it would mean accepting another god, which is against the commandments, etc. If he said "no", they'd hang him for tax evasion.
Yep.
Even bible scholars agree that most likely there is no deeper meaning to this, and it is included as an example of Jesus' wits.
How do they rectify this interpretation with Romans 13? Where St. Paul is asserting the same point. Submit to secular governments, because we are but strangers in this land, and our home is not here, but in the one to come.
That is an interpretation of his statement. There are many good books on the art of interpretation, and how easy it is to read something that's not there.
My interpretation fits the context of Roman 13... I'd like to how I'm wrong with explicit statements such as:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." (Romans 13: 1)
Nonsense. The bible is, as literally quality goes, the pulp fiction of religious literature. Thanks to sheer volume, you can find a lot of deep and meaningful sentences, if you start looking. Sam Harris has a great example of how to read deep philosophical meanings into a text (he uses a fish recipe) in the appendix of "The End of Faith".
If you do not recognize the authority of the Bible, then why are you even arguing in a discussion of what the Bible as an authority has to say about something?
If you're already against the Christian religion, and the Bible, then my argument is already vacuous, and needs no further dispute.
Just because the guy apparently had a number of nifty ideas doesn't mean every single one of his utterances is a gospel of truth.
If one accepts the Bible as a religious authority, then one by default takes the words of Jesus as a "Gospel of Truth", in fact, that's where the term "Gospel of Truth" comes from.
So I'm not saying that "his statements", as in the totality of them, are empty. But I am saying that not every single word of his had the deepest meaning.
I'm not arguing with atheists with the Bible... I'm arguing with Christians with the Bible. They feel it is their authority, so use it. Arguments should always be tailored toward the audience that you are arguing with.
Jesus is challenged, "Should we pay Roman taxes?" Jesus recognizes the trap. Asks to see a coin. He is shown a coin, to which he asks "who's image is upon this coin?" The response, "Caesar's". Jesus responds with, "Then give Caesar what is Caesar's, and give God what is God's." And they were all amazed.
Yeah, I know the context by heart. Amazing that such a vacuous statement (as you claim it) was greeted with such amazement... all three versions have everyone amazed at the statement.
This is a direct statement by Jesus, that a Christian should submit to secular rule by secular authorities, but resist secular authorities, when they attempt to make religious rule.
Everything in the Bible has meaning. It was not just an escape from a trick. Let me give a similar trick question Jesus was presented with:
The came to Jesus to trick him, and asked, "What is the greatest commandment." Jesus replies, "Remember your Lord God, who brought you out of Egypt." Then adding, "Following that, love your neighbor. From these two commandments all the rest shall follow."
Should we hold, that since this was just Jesus getting out of a trick that his statements are vacuous?
On the other hand, some people wanted the church to attend to matters of faith and the state to attend to matters of state.
I have a good quote to go with this: "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's."
Seems like the dude who made that quote (attributed through three sources in one book) had a good sense of separation between a secular government, and a religious church.
Cooperation and competition have very differing worth in selection, depending upon the niche maintained by the evolving group.
While many groups gain dramatically from cooperation, some groups must be highly competitive against say a prey, and thus the more competitive the animal is, the more strong their genetic line becomes.
This is kind of the reason why the most equivalent representation of sexual activity amongst highly-niched carnivores is best described as "rape". Specifically, among felines and sharks.
Felines have a barbed penis, which rakes the inside of the feline vagina when removed. This sucks for the female, but has become necessary for triggering their ovulation. This triggered ovulation means that female cats don't need to waste energy ovulating until there is a likelihood of fertilization. This competitive sexual activity means that not only are the animals engaged in predator-prey competition with their preys, but also simply for reproduction. It thus, gives felines a leg up on catching prey. (Yes, I know some felines engage in social groupings, however for instance with lion packs, when a new group of males take over a pride, they kill all the children. Competition again remaining still more important than cooperation.)
Sharks I know less about, however I do know that the males usually need to bite and hold the female, in order to insert their penis. Again, this sexual competition creates an advantage for them in catching prey.
But walk out of the Felidae family and even the (relatively) closely related hyena goes straight back to social packs with cooperation being more important than competition.
Yet again, verbosity is mistaken for "Informative". (I should know.)
No it doesn't clear anything up but your misinterpretation of the Treaty. If you actually read all of the wikipedia information you would have seen this too.
("According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.)
This pretty much explicitly states exactly the opposite of your assertion: that the US is a secular state, not a Christian state.
BTW, the Christian Bible instructs via Jesus's own words that Christians are to submit to secular governments. Secular governments rule this world, not the one that Christians should be concerned with.
If you actually were taught your history correctly all our founding fathers were religious men. Some deeply religious (Samuel Adams for one.) But they believed all religions should be allowed to be practiced without persecution. (Constitution of the US 1st Amendment.) Since history is not your strong suit let me help you with this. The pilgrims came over here because of religious persecution from the Church of England. When the founding fathers wrote all of our laws they made sure this could not happen again, as well as, made sure we would not be ruled over again.
The first laws passed by the pilgrims were to outlaw religions other than their own. Or at least to refuse voting rights to people believing other faiths.
Our country is based on the people voting for who they believe will do what they want to be accomplished. We don't work for the government they work for us.
You are correct in that we are a Republic. However, there are a few ways to interpret ones position as a representative. One of those is, "I was elected to exercise my own personal will and ideology", and the other is "I was elected to exercise personal restraint, and represent my voters faithfully." Neither is wrong.
For the record, the chairman of the board of concern in this article was strongly of the prior opinion, rather than the secondary. The voters felt his personal will and ideology varied sufficiently from what they wanted to have happen, that they voted him out.
But most of America has forgotten all of the above and are no longer being taught it in school. Instead they say how they were all slave owners (Again not true), and they were all agnostics.
Not agnostics, well, ok, a deist is an theistic agnostic, so, never mind. I don't recall it pointing out that we were all slave owners, in fact, it's pretty explicitly stated that there were slave-states and non-slave states. But slavery was still considered to be "decriminalized".
In fact the original Declaration of Independence stated the following. "Life, Liberty, and Property" but it was changed to "the Pursuit of Happiness" because they didn't want the southern slave owners to argue that the slaves were property.
Happiness at that time actually had two meanings. One of them was equivalent to "Fortune", and "Luck". (c.f. with German: "glücklich" (happy) from "Gluck" (luck)) Fortune also meaning Property.
"Pitiful" also used to mean something that evoked the emotion of pity. As in "this poem is quite pitiful."
In fact, I believe it was John Adams that said (roughly) if we do not fight this battle now (In regards to slavery) we will fight it again in 100 yrs. Funny enough he was right and we fought the civil war under Lincoln (He was an evil republican by the way. lol)
The "evil republican" party was established initially by anti-slavery activists. They supported business generally, hard money (i.e., the go
Yikes...I had no idea addition was so complicated you needed to get a diety involved.
It is crazy complicated, and I don't find it particularly amazing that they feel the need to involve a deity to explain its existence. (I do find it depressing.)
Explaining the existence of addition is an extremely advanced topic of mathematics. One of the first persons to empirically explore the topic was put in an insane asylum by his peers, because they were concerned about him deriving arithmetic from nothingness (the null set).
These people can't even accept the retardedly obvious argument for evolution... like they're going to accept the advanced topics in theoretical mathematics.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a dour, rainy day in late November.
Seattle?
Stop being an asshole. I specifically stated that the person is a guest. We're not dealing with real world shit, we're dealing with a hypothetical set of events in order to demonstrate a legal notion.
OF COURSE the real world version of this hypothetical is going to be complicated.
Now get off yourself, and shut up. The analogy is fine, and the hypothetical is fine, if you would just put away your retarded trolling.
To deny the intentional boundary our founding fathers formed between church and state is to lie. This crazy brand of Christianity these evangelicals practice didn't even exist when this country was founded and when Thomas Jefferson used the word "God" he never meant "the Judeo-Christian God."
Actually, I enjoyed learning recently that the founding fathers were much more diverse in opinion than we make them out to be. I think it would be better for people to realize more that the founding fathers had some of the exact same arguments that we are having now. These issues aren't new, they run that deep, and I think understanding that clearly is a better thing for students to learn than the idea that the founding fathers were some sort of uniform bloc.
The crazy brand of Christianity these evangelicals practice DID exist when the country was founded. This is why many of the original colonies of Britain were made... because they were crazy reactionaries. Most of these crazy reactionary groups set up as their initial first acts religious oppression.
Now, many of the founding fathers being enlightened individuals held more strongly to deism than any particular strain of Christianity. How could they not? They had no reasoned explanation for the world without a supernatural Creator. And note, the Declaration of Independence speaks of a "Creator" not "God".
Economic freedoms are not the same as personal freedoms. People can have vastly different ideas about which should be applied, and which should be restricted.
Towards the freedom in all of them, you get libertarians (and anarchists), whom the USA still tends to consider "conservative". While toward freedom of business, but restricted social freedoms, we have the "neo-cons", and the more common conservatives. (The idea that gay marriage should be restricted, is a fundamentally anti-social-rights idea... "we know better" as you put it.)
Then on the "liberal" side, we have two parties of thought as well. There are socialist, who argue for social freedoms, but restricted economies, and "communists" who wish to restrict both economic and social freedoms.
I'll now stand for the the socialist agenda, as this is the one I know best (followed by libertarians). In the socialist agenda, personal rights are paramount, and the purpose of the government is to protect and defend the dignity of all humans. Next up, there is the belief that economic freedoms are easily abused, and naturally result in infringement upon personal freedoms. There exists a definite amount of economic freedom that will permit slavery. Thus, it is the purpose of the government to protect the personal rights of the individual, and regulate business to ensure that it does not become a tyranny of the majority.
You argue that progressives lean towards authority, well, in some ways they do, but in others they don't. Progressives would like to see everyone be free to practice their own religious beliefs unhindered by any others, within a secular and neutral government. This grants you MORE freedom than the religious right is striving for.
If you want to be upset that progressives want women to have the right to vote, for blacks to be treated with dignity in all places of public accommodation, then... ok, you're entitled to your own opinions, and to strive to enact these beliefs in public policy. However, I would rather not live in such a system.
Copyright infringement is a criminal offense in Sweden.
It is also most definitely a civil offense. In fact, IPRED establishes the civil legal issues of coypright, rather than criminal.
Then also according to http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/10634/a/117091, "Infringements of intellectual property rights can also result in criminal sanctions such as fines or imprisonment, but this is more of a complement to the civil remedies."
The question here would be: how does the neighbour know that I know the dude who damaged his plant? Though clearly, in the case of OBT the ISP knows who the people behind OBT are, but your example, unless the owner of the plant plans to subpoena all of his neighbours, it's not a good analogy. And that's assuming he has proof that at least one neighbour knows something about what happened, which he might not have. After all the culprit could have been somebody completely unrelated to anyone else living in that building.
Coming up with hypothetical variations of the argument that contradict facts given does not attack the argument in any way.
In particular, to answer your question, because the plaintiff knew them to be a guest of yours. This was explicitly stated as a given to the hypothetical. This certainly gives them reason and belief to presume that you know the tortfeasor's name.
Of course, it is entirely possible that you do not actually know the name of the tortfeasor, and they made an incorrect assumption that you only invite individuals over, whom you know.
But since it is reasonable to believe that any reasonable person would not invite strangers over as guests, you're stuck establishing this assertion in court.
Even then, if you did win, and it was established that you do not know the identity of the individual (and you're not simply being contemptuous of the court) the court would likely still order you to provide everything you do know about the individual.
If he then forms a law which help copyright holders find out the personal data of people infringing on copyright to prosecute them for that he has turned them all into criminals which may be punished for a very common crime made by millions of people.
No. He has not made them criminals. If I slander someone else, then even if I am found at fault in court, I am still not a "criminal", because I have not violated a criminal statute.
In fact, (at least in the USA) some civil suits don't even hold that something wrong was done at all. There is an idea of "unjust enrichment", where no one did anything wrong, but one party benefited, by accident, from the acts of another.
The young(?) copyright infringing population is still at risk of getting punished and seen as criminals, something he said we couldn't have.
Just because they're not criminals, does not mean that they might not be "punished". They can still be found legally responsible for their actions that injure another party. As to being "seen a criminals", that is a social perspective that the courts cannot control. The USA sees OJ as a criminal, even though the legal system sees him as not. (Wait, this is to be read as if it were before he kidnapped that one guy at weapon-point.)
This also is not a suit against individual downloaders, but rather those who provide the mechanisms by which individual downloaders obtain their material. So again, the general populace is not being touched at all. (Unlike in the USA, where the *IAA has been going after individuals.)
What I find even lamer though is that instead of trying to catch and punish all those millions of people actually breaking copyright (which wouldn't be popular ..) they go after the TBP operators which IMHO haven't committed any crimes whatsoever just because it's easier, more well-accepted among the general population and won't hurt their own popularity (or rather kill it totally .. what if the kids of everyone/all families got ridiculous Hollywood damage compensations fees?)
For a government to criminalize (I don't care about your definition of the word) a major part of the population is probably more or less suicide. To just go after the leaders somewhat easier.
This seems to directly contradict your previous posts. You quote them saying "we don't want to make a whole generation criminals", and agree with this statement, but then directly call for them to criminalize the individuals, rather than the media?
What is your proper position here? Mine is that copyright infringement doesn't appear to be criminal, but it certainly can create a civil action, this civil action should not be brought against the individuals at all, but the medium is unfortunately responsible for distribution.
Namely, since copyright is supposed to be the exclusive right to distribute, individual downloaders are not distributing.
In Sweden, all crimes were investigated by the police - until IPRED. As far as I know, there's no difference between criminal and civil law - if it's again some law then it's criminal. We don't have the lawsuit paradigm over here.
Then again, I'm not a Swedish lawyer, are you?
The distinction in the USA is that criminal law can be punished with jail time, while civil law generally cannot (the only thing that can, is contempt of civil court).
Straight from the Wikipedia article for IPRED: "The directive covers the remedies that are available in the civil courts, but not criminal offenses."
From Swedish Wikipedia we have Civilprocess which covers civil lawsuits in Sweden, that are not criminal law.
Sometimes civil law and criminal law overlap. (Something that is a crime typically also creates a civil case for a delict.)
So, no, I am not a Swedish lawyer, however I do understand that the Civil Law tradition still has a criminal trials and a civil trials.
You have the right to be left alone as long as you're not doing anything illegal. If the Bittorrent tracker operators do not themselves break the law, their identity is nobody's business.
Actually... you kind of don't. You can still be subpoenaed for information that you might have regarding a crime/tort.
Example: you are renting a house from a home owner, and you have a guest over. This guest goes next door and damages a neighbor's rose plant. That neighbor wishes to sue this individual, but they don't know who the person is. Not only that, but they don't really know who you are. They get property records, and discover who the landlord is. They are allowed to open a suit against the John Doe, subpoena the landlord to find out your identity, so that they may subpoena you, so that they may learn the guest's identity.
In other contexts, similar actions would definitely be illegal. For example, one person walks up to another person and says "Hey, I want to murder Bob Jones, but I don't know where he lives, can you help me?" and the second person says "Yeah, he lives at 123 Fake Street, here's copy of his house key. By the way, here's where you can get a really nice shotgun which would be a really effective murder instrument to use."
In this case, the ISP is bound by a court order. If I were in the similar situation, where a court order held me responsible, and I had reason to believe that they intended harm against the other. a) I would present it in court... this should be seen as an invalid reason to know the identity of another. (this is obviously not the case. the *iaa in this case simply intend to bring about legal actions... which is a legitimate reason for discovery of another's identity) b) should the previous argument fail, I would refuse to release the individuals identity, and let the plaintiff sue me to obtain the funds, and present argument (a) again, arguing that under a reason of necessity, I am violating the law to protect the life and rights of another. c) should (b) fail, which is likely would, if it even got that far, I would likely face the penalty myself... which I would pay. Because $$$ out of my pocket is worth saving the life of another.
The answer was another lie; equivalent to "The original statement was that swedish police should not hunt these criminals. We have other methods for that." which essentially means that it's okay to pass laws that lets the Hollywood lawyers play police.
There is a difference between criminal and civil law. Police enforce criminal law, and private citizens enforce civil law.
Are you claiming that private citizens play police when they enforce defamation law? or other delicts (torts in Common Law traditions)? No.
Decriminalizing something like copyright law does not automagically make it ok to do no matter what. When OJ was found innocent of murder, he was still found civilly liable for her "wrongful death". Doing harm to others still results in a responsibility... just not necessarily under criminal penal law.
Individuals are entirely responsible for enforcing their rights, and claims in civil court. So far, nothing you've attributed to the politician is a lie... it may be misleading if you don't understand the intricacies of law...
OpenBitTorrent is just a tracker. That's all; not a torrent indexer like TPB. They are not responsible for whatever people choose to use their service to download or distribute. I'd also imagine they can't do anything about what people move through their service.
So far, the *IAA is just looking for the identity of the people operating the OBT. They suspect that they are simply The Pirate Bay under a new name.
Let me give a good example. I operate an open Wi-Fi access point. A neighbor uses it to download copyrighted material. The copyright owner then sues the ISP to obtain the identity of the individual operating my IP. They receive it, so that they can then sue me to obtain the identity of the individual who properly violated their copyright.
They may potentially need this information in order to be able to subpoena an individual in a copyright claim court case.
While we don't particularly like the idea that people can sue to obtain another's identity, in order to provide for proper civil actions to be taken, sometimes you have to sue for the identity of another individual.
Who the fuck are they giving mod points to anymore?
INFORMATIVE? This was total "out of my ass" bullshit. ... *shrugs and goes back to her alcohol*
Forget me, I'm retarded. I was thinking your comment came from the other poster.
I expect that you are already well aware of the law tradition in Germany. oof!
I agree on that. But again, that will have to be tested in future cases, so we don't yet know which way German courts will swing.
Germany has a Civil Law tradition, which means that the judge's decision in this case is not binding to future cases.
Each case is considered entirely upon its own merits.
I disagree with your implementation of the Igpay Atinlay algorithm as described in RFC PL.
"They" is properly encrypted as "Ey-thay", as "th" is a single phoneme.
Of course, if you're sticking to the MICROSOFT implementation of going simply with orthographic characters, and you want to be non-standard with proper implementations, then go ahead.
But hey, this is slashdot where pedantry passes for insightfulness, so what the hell.
This is some new level of pedantry. I saw that they did use "encryption", but quickly wrote off Caesar's Cipher as any sort of "real" encryption.
I mean, you have a PEDANTIC BITCH telling you that she agrees that you didn't need to be more explicit.
But then, hey, perhaps for the individual being pedantic enough to complain, Caesar's Cipher is still an effective encryption system.
why are you wasting my time?
If you don't want to waste your time - what the fuck are you doing on /. ? ;-)
Trying to have slightly more useful arguments than two atheists debating what the bible says about a secular government?
That's why I - an atheists - discuss the bible with christians, not the koran. ;-)
You can discuss the Principia Discordia with me, if you prefer. It's funnier, too.
I'm an atheist, too...
I wasn't trying to start anything with you at all. I was adding on some information for the Christians.
Since you're not a Christian, and I'm not a Christian, why are you wasting my time?
You left out the most important part of the context. There wasn't just a head on the coin, there was very likely also some text (as was common with roman coins). At that time, it was probably something that proclaimed either the emperor or his father to be a god.
That was the trap, not the simple tax question. If he said "yes", it would mean accepting another god, which is against the commandments, etc. If he said "no", they'd hang him for tax evasion.
Yep.
Even bible scholars agree that most likely there is no deeper meaning to this, and it is included as an example of Jesus' wits.
How do they rectify this interpretation with Romans 13? Where St. Paul is asserting the same point. Submit to secular governments, because we are but strangers in this land, and our home is not here, but in the one to come.
That is an interpretation of his statement. There are many good books on the art of interpretation, and how easy it is to read something that's not there.
My interpretation fits the context of Roman 13... I'd like to how I'm wrong with explicit statements such as:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." (Romans 13: 1)
Nonsense. The bible is, as literally quality goes, the pulp fiction of religious literature. Thanks to sheer volume, you can find a lot of deep and meaningful sentences, if you start looking. Sam Harris has a great example of how to read deep philosophical meanings into a text (he uses a fish recipe) in the appendix of "The End of Faith".
If you do not recognize the authority of the Bible, then why are you even arguing in a discussion of what the Bible as an authority has to say about something?
If you're already against the Christian religion, and the Bible, then my argument is already vacuous, and needs no further dispute.
Just because the guy apparently had a number of nifty ideas doesn't mean every single one of his utterances is a gospel of truth.
If one accepts the Bible as a religious authority, then one by default takes the words of Jesus as a "Gospel of Truth", in fact, that's where the term "Gospel of Truth" comes from.
So I'm not saying that "his statements", as in the totality of them, are empty. But I am saying that not every single word of his had the deepest meaning.
I'm not arguing with atheists with the Bible... I'm arguing with Christians with the Bible. They feel it is their authority, so use it. Arguments should always be tailored toward the audience that you are arguing with.
Jesus is challenged, "Should we pay Roman taxes?"
Jesus recognizes the trap. Asks to see a coin. He is shown a coin, to which he asks "who's image is upon this coin?" The response, "Caesar's". Jesus responds with, "Then give Caesar what is Caesar's, and give God what is God's." And they were all amazed.
Yeah, I know the context by heart. Amazing that such a vacuous statement (as you claim it) was greeted with such amazement... all three versions have everyone amazed at the statement.
This is a direct statement by Jesus, that a Christian should submit to secular rule by secular authorities, but resist secular authorities, when they attempt to make religious rule.
Everything in the Bible has meaning. It was not just an escape from a trick. Let me give a similar trick question Jesus was presented with:
The came to Jesus to trick him, and asked, "What is the greatest commandment." Jesus replies, "Remember your Lord God, who brought you out of Egypt." Then adding, "Following that, love your neighbor. From these two commandments all the rest shall follow."
Should we hold, that since this was just Jesus getting out of a trick that his statements are vacuous?
On the other hand, some people wanted the church to attend to matters of faith and the state to attend to matters of state.
I have a good quote to go with this: "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's."
Seems like the dude who made that quote (attributed through three sources in one book) had a good sense of separation between a secular government, and a religious church.
Cooperation and competition have very differing worth in selection, depending upon the niche maintained by the evolving group.
While many groups gain dramatically from cooperation, some groups must be highly competitive against say a prey, and thus the more competitive the animal is, the more strong their genetic line becomes.
This is kind of the reason why the most equivalent representation of sexual activity amongst highly-niched carnivores is best described as "rape". Specifically, among felines and sharks.
Felines have a barbed penis, which rakes the inside of the feline vagina when removed. This sucks for the female, but has become necessary for triggering their ovulation. This triggered ovulation means that female cats don't need to waste energy ovulating until there is a likelihood of fertilization. This competitive sexual activity means that not only are the animals engaged in predator-prey competition with their preys, but also simply for reproduction. It thus, gives felines a leg up on catching prey. (Yes, I know some felines engage in social groupings, however for instance with lion packs, when a new group of males take over a pride, they kill all the children. Competition again remaining still more important than cooperation.)
Sharks I know less about, however I do know that the males usually need to bite and hold the female, in order to insert their penis. Again, this sexual competition creates an advantage for them in catching prey.
But walk out of the Felidae family and even the (relatively) closely related hyena goes straight back to social packs with cooperation being more important than competition.
Yet again, verbosity is mistaken for "Informative". (I should know.)
No it doesn't clear anything up but your misinterpretation of the Treaty. If you actually read all of the wikipedia information you would have seen this too.
("According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.)
This pretty much explicitly states exactly the opposite of your assertion: that the US is a secular state, not a Christian state.
BTW, the Christian Bible instructs via Jesus's own words that Christians are to submit to secular governments. Secular governments rule this world, not the one that Christians should be concerned with.
If you actually were taught your history correctly all our founding fathers were religious men. Some deeply religious (Samuel Adams for one.) But they believed all religions should be allowed to be practiced without persecution. (Constitution of the US 1st Amendment.) Since history is not your strong suit let me help you with this. The pilgrims came over here because of religious persecution from the Church of England. When the founding fathers wrote all of our laws they made sure this could not happen again, as well as, made sure we would not be ruled over again.
The first laws passed by the pilgrims were to outlaw religions other than their own. Or at least to refuse voting rights to people believing other faiths.
Our country is based on the people voting for who they believe will do what they want to be accomplished. We don't work for the government they work for us.
You are correct in that we are a Republic. However, there are a few ways to interpret ones position as a representative. One of those is, "I was elected to exercise my own personal will and ideology", and the other is "I was elected to exercise personal restraint, and represent my voters faithfully." Neither is wrong.
For the record, the chairman of the board of concern in this article was strongly of the prior opinion, rather than the secondary. The voters felt his personal will and ideology varied sufficiently from what they wanted to have happen, that they voted him out.
But most of America has forgotten all of the above and are no longer being taught it in school. Instead they say how they were all slave owners (Again not true), and they were all agnostics.
Not agnostics, well, ok, a deist is an theistic agnostic, so, never mind. I don't recall it pointing out that we were all slave owners, in fact, it's pretty explicitly stated that there were slave-states and non-slave states. But slavery was still considered to be "decriminalized".
In fact the original Declaration of Independence stated the following. "Life, Liberty, and Property" but it was changed to "the Pursuit of Happiness" because they didn't want the southern slave owners to argue that the slaves were property.
Happiness at that time actually had two meanings. One of them was equivalent to "Fortune", and "Luck". (c.f. with German: "glücklich" (happy) from "Gluck" (luck)) Fortune also meaning Property.
"Pitiful" also used to mean something that evoked the emotion of pity. As in "this poem is quite pitiful."
In fact, I believe it was John Adams that said (roughly) if we do not fight this battle now (In regards to slavery) we will fight it again in 100 yrs.
Funny enough he was right and we fought the civil war under Lincoln (He was an evil republican by the way. lol)
The "evil republican" party was established initially by anti-slavery activists. They supported business generally, hard money (i.e., the go
Yikes...I had no idea addition was so complicated you needed to get a diety involved.
It is crazy complicated, and I don't find it particularly amazing that they feel the need to involve a deity to explain its existence. (I do find it depressing.)
Explaining the existence of addition is an extremely advanced topic of mathematics. One of the first persons to empirically explore the topic was put in an insane asylum by his peers, because they were concerned about him deriving arithmetic from nothingness (the null set).
These people can't even accept the retardedly obvious argument for evolution... like they're going to accept the advanced topics in theoretical mathematics.
BTW, what language is your sig in?