BTW, I mean "treated as" a sex offender, i.e. the probation terms. On a re-read it might be assumed I thought he was going on the sex-offenders list, and I didn't mean to imply that.
I am getting sick of the government going out of its way to make criminals out of kids and even adults who do stupid things.
Okay, this kid did something stupid. Why not spank him and let him go? Seriously, he is going to do time over this? He is going to be treated as a sex offender for being stupid?
Same thing goes for smoking pot. Spank them and chew them out and let them go. Why not? Even our Presidents admit to smoking pot, so what about that makes them a criminal?
The entertainment industry goes on and on about how piracy is costing us jobs. But what about all the jobs lost because people are not allowed to get training or are discriminated against being hired because they did something stupid.
Now if someone steals a T.V. or shoots someone, or causes any sort of measurable harm to someone else intentionality, then by all means, throw the book at them.
On the other hand, these mostly victim-less crimes (i.e. you can't actually find someone that these kids have actually, personally, and intentionally harmed) need to be dealt with in some way that is more rational and reasonable then crushing them under the heel of the law like they were really criminals.
Let me propose a definition of "scarce" for you. Anything finite that cannot be trivially replicated is scarce. A thing that is not scarce is one that I can trivially and without significant cost to me replicate so I have the thing and you get a indistinguishable-from-the-original version of the thing.
By this definition, digital information is nearly never scarce. I trivially and without measurable cost to myself give you an exact copy of a movie or a song without reducing my inventory of movies and songs.
If I make 100 DVDs, they are scarce. If I have 1000 theater seats, they are scarce. But a movie, the information, the content, is never scarce, because I *can* give THAT away (via sharing a file) in a way that doesn't reduce what I myself have.
Just because the information isn't scarce doesn't mean I as a owner *have* to share it. But I can, and it isn't scarce by definition.
There is another word that might confuse you, and that word is "rare". Something that is rare is something that is hard to find or acquire. If a movie owner manages to keep control of the content of a movie, then they might make the movie rare, and because it is rare, they can charge more for access to the movie.
But just because they owner manages to make a movie rare, does not mean that the content, the information, is scarce.
Re: Re: For me it's not just about software cost but of time ...
I should say that Windows is beginning to do updates about every time I touch it. But maybe it is because I avoid touching Windows more and more now days.
Re: Re: For me it's not just about software cost but of time ...
I ignore the updates when I just need to keep working, and I start them when I leave the computer (like going to lunch, or getting coffee, or going to a meeting).
Other times I do the updates while I am working, but it is just something running off to the side. Mostly it isn't a problem; only when I am asked to reboot does it really matter.
Re: Re: For me it's not just about software cost but of time ...
Just give up the games.
Honestly, you might find there are other things to do with your system besides playing computer games if you look around.
I have been going through this rather painful process over the last year. I started with one Linux server at the house. Then when I replaced my laptop, I made it dual boot Linux and Windows. Only when I just have to do something in Windows, I reboot into Windows, do that thing, then go back to Linux.
Over the last couple of months, I find myself in Windows less and less.
What is sad is that I had to give M$ the dollars for the OS even though I barely use the M$ OS. I moved to Open Office, and I am working to move our Web Apps off of the IBM application stack.
Open Software just makes more sense. I contribute to Open Software as well, but I do so because I want access to my work even if I switch jobs.
Infringement really isn't theft. You are not taking away anything.
When we talk about file sharing, the term works just fine. This is because "sharing" does not necessarily imply you don't have access to the resource you are sharing. If I share a cab with you, I still get where I am going. If I share a thought with you, I still have the thought. If I share a file with you, I still have the file. I might even share the file by creating a "shared file" (terms used in Linux, Mac OS, Windows).
If we talk about "sharing," it is absolutely true that the term does cover usages that are not infringement. All of the examples above cover perfectly legal examples of sharing (assuming the file I share with you is mine to share to begin with).
So to summarize: Theft cannot by any stretch cover infringement as it simply doesn't describe what is going on. Sharing absolutely describes what is going on, but perhaps intentionally ignores the issue of the legality of what is going on.
Sadly, most of the mechanisms put into practice to stop infringement do so by limiting file sharing. And I use that last term literally, since the limits fall equally on both on infringement and on actual legal sharing.
When people like myself worry that "file sharing" is being targeted by the likes of Big Content, it is most accurately described as "file sharing" as the impact of their policies are exactly an attack on "file sharing" both legal and illegal.
I do a podcast for a Church. We limit it to the message (no music) because such a small church publishing a podcast with such small circulation cannot afford license fees for music. The exception is original music performed by the artist who gives us permission.
I also run an open source project to make a bit of technology available to others. This is a bit of tech that supports several multi-million dollar projects, so it is far from insignificant.
Many of us of the so-called-anti-IP-crowd contribute heavily to the public commons. And many of us are quite critical of extreme IP rights. And we are hardly slackers.
It might seem as if I am arguing with you in my previous post. Mostly I am not. I personally don't care if government is ramping up copyright enforcement because they are corrupt, or because they are misguided. I am concerned that they are doing this despite the fact that they have no constitutional basis for doing so.
And by arbitrary, I mean that there isn't anything moral or immoral about the sharing of content.
We wrote a law and made this stuff illegal. It isn't in the ten commandments that we shouldn't copy stuff. The Buddha didn't teach about copying or not copying. Mohammad didn't convey any laws from Allah about copyrights. Jesus never mentioned copyright issues in the Sermon on the Mount. No Saints died for copyright.
The only basis for being concerned about copyright is right there in the Constitution. It is about promoting progress in the Sciences and Useful Arts.
Government has the responsibility to evaluate if progress is being made. As long as progress is being made, its mandate is being met. Government has no responsibility (and some would say government has no authority) to write and enforce laws that do not advance progress, and actually (as these studies show) limit progress.
It isn't my fault that you said they don't have copyright laws, and you meant that they do not enforce their copyright laws. Had you said the latter, I might have spent my couple of minutes looking into THAT issue.
It remains that India has copyright laws, and that various international organizations recognize those laws as being adequate.
I should point out that copyright infringement is quite rampant in the U.S., but I would not say the U.S. does not have any copyright laws, nor would I say the existence of such infringement is an indicator of vast corruption in the U.S.. The U.S. is plenty corrupt, and if anything I'd say the copyright laws written to support Big Content, and attention to enforcing those laws is the proof of that.
The problem here is the lax use of terms. It is a common thing in natural language. I might say I saw that AT&T is going to buy T-Mobile, for example. But in fact it could be that I didn't "see" this, I heard it on the radio.
In most cases such expressions don't change the meaning. In fact even blind people will make reference to things they have "seen" in their life, though they cannot see. We understand the idea of "seeing" as being the same as "learning" or "experiencing".
However, Piracy does not imply or connote the concept counterfeiting. The Content Industry repeatedly attempts to conflate infringement with counterfeiting and theft as doing so provides emotional support for their views. However, there is no intersection between infringement, counterfeiting, and theft.
And to be honest, Piracy has always been associated with theft and not infringement. Infringing on the copyright or trademark will never be prosecuted under laws against piracy, because it isn't piracy. A counterfeiter will never be prosecuted under laws against piracy, because that isn't piracy either.
Big Content has been successful in establishing the term "Piracy" to refer to people that download copyrighted material illegally. But I think it is ridiculous to allow Big Content and their supporters to further confuse downloading with counterfeiting.
The English Language and the Law affords you many perfectly reasonable and rightly defined words and terms to describe infringement, counterfeiting, and theft. Do so and make your argument. But even when your error is pointed out to you (and many others on the pro-copyright side) are loath to drop it, and use proper terms, and discuss the issues. Why?
The only reason possible that a misuse of the language could be so important is that doing so avoids addressing the issues, and is important in deceiving the casual voter about the issues.
It seems to me that the courts have bent over backwards to avoid addressing the fact that the Constitution requires copyright and patent law to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
Maybe the fact that James Mahan out right calls out this requirement may force the courts to either rule that the law must abide by this constitutional requirement, or rule that the constitution doesn't know what it is talking about....
I still can't get my head around the idea that authors are spurred to write knowing that some corporation is going to make money off their works for 100 years after their death. In my own case, this would be a reason NOT to produce any commercial content...
It seems to me that the courts have bent over backwards to avoid addressing the fact that the Constitution requires copyright and patent law to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
Maybe the fact that James Mahan out right calls out this requirement may force the courts to either rule that the law must abide by this constitutional requirement, or rule that the constitution doesn't know what it is talking about....
I still can't get my head around the idea that authors are spurred to write knowing that some corporation is going to make money off their works for 100 years after their death. In my own case, this would be a reason NOT to produce any commercial content...
"Indian copyright law is governed by the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Copyright Law in the country was governed by the Copyright Act of 1914,which was essentially the extension of the British Copyright Act, 1911 to India,and borrowed extensively from the new Copyright Act of the United Kingdom of 1956. Now Indian Copyright is governed by the Indian Copyright Act,1957[1].
The Indian Copyright Act today is compliant with most international conventions and treaties in the field of copyrights.India is a member of the Berne Convention of 1886 (as modified at Paris in 1971), the Universal Copyright Convention of 1951 and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement of 1995.
Though India is not a member of the Rome Convention of 1961, WIPO Copyrights Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT),the Copyright Act is compliant with it.[2]"
Honestly, I don't know how strictly India enforces their copyright laws. But in any event, it does not appear to me to be all that weak. In fact, I would think they need some reform, (i.e. they need to strengthen consumer rights, and back off the corporate copyright welfare), just not as much as most of the west.
You know, there are so many things we get for free. Sort of. You do not pay for the air you breath. You don't pay for conversations you have with the person you stand next to in a supermarket. You don't have to pay for the design and development of the language you use (though you might have to pay someone to teach you its finer points). You don't have to pay for the thousands of years of development that went into the invention of the technologies you use. You don't pay for the bacteria you have to have in your gut and on your skin for you to live.
I know much of the music that is central to our culture. I grew up in the 60's and 70's. Music ranging from the Rock, to the Hymns I learned in Church, to camp songs, to Country music, to Classical music. I paid for very little of it in cash (I remember buying only three albums growing up, though I might have bought twice that).
You see, I listened to the Radio, but just wasn't that interested in Music. I don't buy music today either, as I'd rather listen to various other sorts of programs. Thank goodness for podcasts! I love that stuff!
I have software I wrote that I open source. Why? Because I can control that software even if I have to take someone's paycheck to work. In the past, I had to rewrite this software several times, as I did the work for other companies and couldn't take my software with me. But now that it is open source, I have been able to take my software to two different jobs, and I still can leverage it to make money.
Do I give my software away for free? Yes. But I charge to consult and help people use that software.
We do have to pay for lots of stuff. But it is stupid to assume there isn't any mix of free and pay. I charge for my consulting, but I give the software itself away for free. In some sense this really hurts companies like IBM or Oracle that might have similar software. They charge more because they are IBM and Oracle and have to support the overhead of big, public companies. I don't care if I undercut them by providing software for free that in many respects is easier to use then their products. I only need to support myself.
The same happens with music. Do singers and song writers need to support the Labels with their huge corporate overhead and obligations to their investors? No. they can charge less and make more. And their product is just as good as that of the record labels (not a high bar there).
Increasingly this will happen with movies. It is happening with publishing. It is happening with software.
When more product is produced and made available, then all of us get more stuff for less money. We should only pay people that are adding value. Mike is right about this.
Actually he justified the importance of the domain by first pointing out that a domain is how other people, computers, and search engines find a site. All of these avenues for traffic to a site are blocked by seizing a domain even if the domain is put back on the web under a new domain. A domain is a critical factor in marketing and branding as evidenced by the willingness of companies to pay a great deal to secure particular domains (13 million for Sex.com for example).
Clearly a domain is a significant and lucrative asset, as the author explained.
He dismantled the importance of seizing a domain in the interest of stopping copyright infringement by pointing out how such seizures are 1) unlikely to make any difference in stopping copyright infringement, 2) a failure to stop copyright infringement is not necessary to preserve public safety, 3) will not effect the collection of revenue by the government in any measurable way, and 4) is not necessary to preserve evidence of a crime.
How you would claim that the author "never really justifies this statement" is beyond me.
Er.... I must have missed the posts that debunked the arguments against ICE taking American property from Americans without due process. Refresh my memory, were they before or after the posts that announced Elvis is playing at SXSW today? And was it written by DOD TinkerBell, or Homeland Tooth Fairy?
More than likely it bounces, but someone will have to test.
Just because the email bounces doesn't mean the government didn't intercept it anyway.
IF the government is intercepting the email, AND If you are using PGP (or the like) then the government will get the encrypted email, which most likely they will not be able to read.
On the post: Guy Who Didn't Actually Sing Obscene Song To Kids Gets Jail Time & Restraining Order As If He Did
Re: It is the principle of the thing....
On the post: Guy Who Didn't Actually Sing Obscene Song To Kids Gets Jail Time & Restraining Order As If He Did
It is the principle of the thing....
Okay, this kid did something stupid. Why not spank him and let him go? Seriously, he is going to do time over this? He is going to be treated as a sex offender for being stupid?
Same thing goes for smoking pot. Spank them and chew them out and let them go. Why not? Even our Presidents admit to smoking pot, so what about that makes them a criminal?
The entertainment industry goes on and on about how piracy is costing us jobs. But what about all the jobs lost because people are not allowed to get training or are discriminated against being hired because they did something stupid.
Now if someone steals a T.V. or shoots someone, or causes any sort of measurable harm to someone else intentionality, then by all means, throw the book at them.
On the other hand, these mostly victim-less crimes (i.e. you can't actually find someone that these kids have actually, personally, and intentionally harmed) need to be dealt with in some way that is more rational and reasonable then crushing them under the heel of the law like they were really criminals.
On the post: Movie Studios Add Another Window: The $30 Dollar Rental
Re: Re: Re:
By this definition, digital information is nearly never scarce. I trivially and without measurable cost to myself give you an exact copy of a movie or a song without reducing my inventory of movies and songs.
If I make 100 DVDs, they are scarce. If I have 1000 theater seats, they are scarce. But a movie, the information, the content, is never scarce, because I *can* give THAT away (via sharing a file) in a way that doesn't reduce what I myself have.
Just because the information isn't scarce doesn't mean I as a owner *have* to share it. But I can, and it isn't scarce by definition.
There is another word that might confuse you, and that word is "rare". Something that is rare is something that is hard to find or acquire. If a movie owner manages to keep control of the content of a movie, then they might make the movie rare, and because it is rare, they can charge more for access to the movie.
But just because they owner manages to make a movie rare, does not mean that the content, the information, is scarce.
It isn't any harder than that.
On the post: According To Microsoft's Own Numbers, Microsoft Costs The World Economy $500 Billion
Re: Re: For me it's not just about software cost but of time ...
On the post: According To Microsoft's Own Numbers, Microsoft Costs The World Economy $500 Billion
Re: Re: For me it's not just about software cost but of time ...
Other times I do the updates while I am working, but it is just something running off to the side. Mostly it isn't a problem; only when I am asked to reboot does it really matter.
On the post: According To Microsoft's Own Numbers, Microsoft Costs The World Economy $500 Billion
Re: Re: For me it's not just about software cost but of time ...
Honestly, you might find there are other things to do with your system besides playing computer games if you look around.
I have been going through this rather painful process over the last year. I started with one Linux server at the house. Then when I replaced my laptop, I made it dual boot Linux and Windows. Only when I just have to do something in Windows, I reboot into Windows, do that thing, then go back to Linux.
Over the last couple of months, I find myself in Windows less and less.
What is sad is that I had to give M$ the dollars for the OS even though I barely use the M$ OS. I moved to Open Office, and I am working to move our Web Apps off of the IBM application stack.
Open Software just makes more sense. I contribute to Open Software as well, but I do so because I want access to my work even if I switch jobs.
On the post: Drug Companies Overestimate Cost Of Developing A New Drug By Merely $1.26 Billion
Let's just try something...
Are you really going to claim that the industry spent 65 *TRILLION* dollars getting them there?
Hogwash. Maybe *some* drug was expensive somewhere along the line, but there isn't any possible way this is the typical cost of any drug.
On the post: Chris Dodd Memorizing Bogus MPAA Talking Points; Says File Sharing Ruins Community Bonding
Re:
Infringement really isn't theft. You are not taking away anything.
When we talk about file sharing, the term works just fine. This is because "sharing" does not necessarily imply you don't have access to the resource you are sharing. If I share a cab with you, I still get where I am going. If I share a thought with you, I still have the thought. If I share a file with you, I still have the file. I might even share the file by creating a "shared file" (terms used in Linux, Mac OS, Windows).
If we talk about "sharing," it is absolutely true that the term does cover usages that are not infringement. All of the examples above cover perfectly legal examples of sharing (assuming the file I share with you is mine to share to begin with).
So to summarize: Theft cannot by any stretch cover infringement as it simply doesn't describe what is going on. Sharing absolutely describes what is going on, but perhaps intentionally ignores the issue of the legality of what is going on.
Sadly, most of the mechanisms put into practice to stop infringement do so by limiting file sharing. And I use that last term literally, since the limits fall equally on both on infringement and on actual legal sharing.
When people like myself worry that "file sharing" is being targeted by the likes of Big Content, it is most accurately described as "file sharing" as the impact of their policies are exactly an attack on "file sharing" both legal and illegal.
On the post: What Have We Learned: Greater IP Enforcement Doesn't Work... Yet That's What Governments Want To Give
Re:
I do a podcast for a Church. We limit it to the message (no music) because such a small church publishing a podcast with such small circulation cannot afford license fees for music. The exception is original music performed by the artist who gives us permission.
I also run an open source project to make a bit of technology available to others. This is a bit of tech that supports several multi-million dollar projects, so it is far from insignificant.
Many of us of the so-called-anti-IP-crowd contribute heavily to the public commons. And many of us are quite critical of extreme IP rights. And we are hardly slackers.
On the post: Yet Another Study Says Enforcement Won't Bring Back Consumer Spending On Music; But Will Strangle New Biz Models
Re: Re:
It might seem as if I am arguing with you in my previous post. Mostly I am not. I personally don't care if government is ramping up copyright enforcement because they are corrupt, or because they are misguided. I am concerned that they are doing this despite the fact that they have no constitutional basis for doing so.
On the post: Yet Another Study Says Enforcement Won't Bring Back Consumer Spending On Music; But Will Strangle New Biz Models
Yet this is just arbitrary criminal activity
We wrote a law and made this stuff illegal. It isn't in the ten commandments that we shouldn't copy stuff. The Buddha didn't teach about copying or not copying. Mohammad didn't convey any laws from Allah about copyrights. Jesus never mentioned copyright issues in the Sermon on the Mount. No Saints died for copyright.
The only basis for being concerned about copyright is right there in the Constitution. It is about promoting progress in the Sciences and Useful Arts.
Government has the responsibility to evaluate if progress is being made. As long as progress is being made, its mandate is being met. Government has no responsibility (and some would say government has no authority) to write and enforce laws that do not advance progress, and actually (as these studies show) limit progress.
Sorry, that just seems to be as clear as it gets.
On the post: Wikileaks Unveils Evidence Of Indian Parliamentary Bribery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Argument
It remains that India has copyright laws, and that various international organizations recognize those laws as being adequate.
I should point out that copyright infringement is quite rampant in the U.S., but I would not say the U.S. does not have any copyright laws, nor would I say the existence of such infringement is an indicator of vast corruption in the U.S.. The U.S. is plenty corrupt, and if anything I'd say the copyright laws written to support Big Content, and attention to enforcing those laws is the proof of that.
On the post: Wikileaks Unveils Evidence Of Indian Parliamentary Bribery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Argument
In most cases such expressions don't change the meaning. In fact even blind people will make reference to things they have "seen" in their life, though they cannot see. We understand the idea of "seeing" as being the same as "learning" or "experiencing".
However, Piracy does not imply or connote the concept counterfeiting. The Content Industry repeatedly attempts to conflate infringement with counterfeiting and theft as doing so provides emotional support for their views. However, there is no intersection between infringement, counterfeiting, and theft.
And to be honest, Piracy has always been associated with theft and not infringement. Infringing on the copyright or trademark will never be prosecuted under laws against piracy, because it isn't piracy. A counterfeiter will never be prosecuted under laws against piracy, because that isn't piracy either.
Big Content has been successful in establishing the term "Piracy" to refer to people that download copyrighted material illegally. But I think it is ridiculous to allow Big Content and their supporters to further confuse downloading with counterfeiting.
The English Language and the Law affords you many perfectly reasonable and rightly defined words and terms to describe infringement, counterfeiting, and theft. Do so and make your argument. But even when your error is pointed out to you (and many others on the pro-copyright side) are loath to drop it, and use proper terms, and discuss the issues. Why?
The only reason possible that a misuse of the language could be so important is that doing so avoids addressing the issues, and is important in deceiving the casual voter about the issues.
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
Maybe the fact that James Mahan out right calls out this requirement may force the courts to either rule that the law must abide by this constitutional requirement, or rule that the constitution doesn't know what it is talking about....
I still can't get my head around the idea that authors are spurred to write knowing that some corporation is going to make money off their works for 100 years after their death. In my own case, this would be a reason NOT to produce any commercial content...
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
Maybe the fact that James Mahan out right calls out this requirement may force the courts to either rule that the law must abide by this constitutional requirement, or rule that the constitution doesn't know what it is talking about....
I still can't get my head around the idea that authors are spurred to write knowing that some corporation is going to make money off their works for 100 years after their death. In my own case, this would be a reason NOT to produce any commercial content...
On the post: Wikileaks Unveils Evidence Of Indian Parliamentary Bribery
Re: Re: Argument
Okay, I will admit to being mostly ignorant of Indian Copyright law, however I can look up Indian Copyright Law on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_copyright_law, which says:
"Indian copyright law is governed by the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Copyright Law in the country was governed by the Copyright Act of 1914,which was essentially the extension of the British Copyright Act, 1911 to India,and borrowed extensively from the new Copyright Act of the United Kingdom of 1956. Now Indian Copyright is governed by the Indian Copyright Act,1957[1].
The Indian Copyright Act today is compliant with most international conventions and treaties in the field of copyrights.India is a member of the Berne Convention of 1886 (as modified at Paris in 1971), the Universal Copyright Convention of 1951 and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement of 1995.
Though India is not a member of the Rome Convention of 1961, WIPO Copyrights Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT),the Copyright Act is compliant with it.[2]"
Honestly, I don't know how strictly India enforces their copyright laws. But in any event, it does not appear to me to be all that weak. In fact, I would think they need some reform, (i.e. they need to strengthen consumer rights, and back off the corporate copyright welfare), just not as much as most of the west.
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
in a world where we get everything for free ...
I know much of the music that is central to our culture. I grew up in the 60's and 70's. Music ranging from the Rock, to the Hymns I learned in Church, to camp songs, to Country music, to Classical music. I paid for very little of it in cash (I remember buying only three albums growing up, though I might have bought twice that).
You see, I listened to the Radio, but just wasn't that interested in Music. I don't buy music today either, as I'd rather listen to various other sorts of programs. Thank goodness for podcasts! I love that stuff!
I have software I wrote that I open source. Why? Because I can control that software even if I have to take someone's paycheck to work. In the past, I had to rewrite this software several times, as I did the work for other companies and couldn't take my software with me. But now that it is open source, I have been able to take my software to two different jobs, and I still can leverage it to make money.
Do I give my software away for free? Yes. But I charge to consult and help people use that software.
We do have to pay for lots of stuff. But it is stupid to assume there isn't any mix of free and pay. I charge for my consulting, but I give the software itself away for free. In some sense this really hurts companies like IBM or Oracle that might have similar software. They charge more because they are IBM and Oracle and have to support the overhead of big, public companies. I don't care if I undercut them by providing software for free that in many respects is easier to use then their products. I only need to support myself.
The same happens with music. Do singers and song writers need to support the Labels with their huge corporate overhead and obligations to their investors? No. they can charge less and make more. And their product is just as good as that of the record labels (not a high bar there).
Increasingly this will happen with movies. It is happening with publishing. It is happening with software.
When more product is produced and made available, then all of us get more stuff for less money. We should only pay people that are adding value. Mike is right about this.
On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional
Re:
Clearly a domain is a significant and lucrative asset, as the author explained.
He dismantled the importance of seizing a domain in the interest of stopping copyright infringement by pointing out how such seizures are 1) unlikely to make any difference in stopping copyright infringement, 2) a failure to stop copyright infringement is not necessary to preserve public safety, 3) will not effect the collection of revenue by the government in any measurable way, and 4) is not necessary to preserve evidence of a crime.
How you would claim that the author "never really justifies this statement" is beyond me.
On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re:
On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: What about MX records
Just because the email bounces doesn't mean the government didn't intercept it anyway.
IF the government is intercepting the email, AND If you are using PGP (or the like) then the government will get the encrypted email, which most likely they will not be able to read.
Next >>