I've never "ripped off an artist". I have, however, copied some things from people who were willing to let me. Voluntary transactions don't consitute a "ripping off" of anyone.
There have been cheap, easy and legal alternatives for years.
Only after the record labels sat on their hands and did their best to push people towards even cheaper and easier (though less legal) avenues. Getting them to go backwards to harder and more expensive methods is tougher to accomplish.
texas politicians don't care about the civil rights of texas citizens any more than the rest of the states. no, no, no. this is about us giving the feds the finger.
Which of course would instantly fail any challenge.
Maybe, but I wasn't theorizing here: those are actually the rules.
To get a handgun license in Chicago now, you have to have at least an hour of time logged at a shooting range, but they also ban shooting ranges in city limits. Neat, huh?
Politicians want more control, like this sherrif, not less.
Fixed that for you. We have only one party; the big government party. While the "Team Red" vs "Team Blue" myth persists, the leaders who keep that myth of political choice going are laughing their asses off.
The Tea Party member are basically Republicans demanding (some) fiscal responsibility in the face of their party's shameful, ongoing complicity in our current budget disaster. Departing from Republican talking points on social issues was never their strong suit.
The "small government crowd" encompasses many more people, including your average libertarian like me, and you can bet we're all over it. You did realize that Radley Balko (the guy Masnick hat-tipped in the post itself) writes for Reason magazine, right?
Too true. Eventually they are going to run out of really sexy amendments to tear down, and are going to have to start looking at tearing down some of the less-sexy ones too.
"These men risked their lives for freedom; are you really going to deny them room and board for a couple months while they get back on their feet?"
Why? The court basically says that it's "against public policy" to require a warrant:
Not technically accurate. Any fruits of an illegal search would still be (in a non-insane world like ours) inadmissible in court.
The decision "only" said that the serfs can't resist during the time period that their rights are being violated, and must submit for their own safety in the face of any expected police brutality that is sure to come. Later, when the threat of being beaten to death by a police officer is no longer present, they can spend their life savings on a lawyer to bring a complaint forward against the officers that will then be heard and decided on by the friends of said police officers.
But technically, officers still require a warrant if they want to use what they find in court. If they just want to keep any loot for themselves through civil forfeiture ("Can you prove that you didn't buy your wife these earrings with drug money? No? Great! Now I don't have to shop for an anniversary present!"), presumably that's okay.
On the post: Why Operation In Our Sites Is Illegal And Needs To Be Fixed ASAP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A few extra questions
I've never "ripped off an artist". I have, however, copied some things from people who were willing to let me. Voluntary transactions don't consitute a "ripping off" of anyone.
On the post: Why Operation In Our Sites Is Illegal And Needs To Be Fixed ASAP
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Operation In Our Sites Is Illegal And Needs To Be Fixed ASAP
Re: Re: Re: A few extra questions
Only after the record labels sat on their hands and did their best to push people towards even cheaper and easier (though less legal) avenues. Getting them to go backwards to harder and more expensive methods is tougher to accomplish.
immoral people
Illegal != Immoral.
On the post: Why Operation In Our Sites Is Illegal And Needs To Be Fixed ASAP
Re:
Then . . . stop reading?
Critical thinking > anonymous shills everywhere.
On the post: TSA Lies About The Constitution In Defending Pat Downs
Re: You are all talking a load of BS
Proof? I, for one, support neither. You seem to be stuck in a "conservatives vs liberals" mindset.
On the post: TSA Lies About The Constitution In Defending Pat Downs
Re:
Well, I'll take what I can get. ;)
On the post: German Police Seize Pirate Party Servers Days Before The Election... Because Anonymous Was Chatting?
Not Hard to Understand
I think you're making the assumption that the stated reason was the real reason.
On the post: DailyDirt: You Can't Be In Two Places At Once... Yet.
Re:
You've seen Terminator, right?
On the post: DailyDirt: You Can't Be In Two Places At Once... Yet.
Re:
On the post: Philly Police Harass, Threaten To Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun; Then Charge Him With Disorderly Conduct For Recording Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe, but I wasn't theorizing here: those are actually the rules.
To get a handgun license in Chicago now, you have to have at least an hour of time logged at a shooting range, but they also ban shooting ranges in city limits. Neat, huh?
On the post: Congress Just Sold You Out: Leadership Plans To Extend Patriot Act For Four Years With NO Concessions
Re: Re: Re: I Hope the Partisan Hacks Remember This
On the post: Congress Just Sold You Out: Leadership Plans To Extend Patriot Act For Four Years With NO Concessions
I Hope the Partisan Hacks Remember This
On the post: Guy Asks For Software Crack, Creator Provides Free App Instead
Re: Huh
On the post: DHS's ICE Group Accused Of Lying To Court About Expense Of Complying With FOI Request
Re: Re: The truth DOES NOT always lie somewhere in between
I say you should eat rat poison.
Now, there's no need for us to be extremists, let's compromise!
On the post: What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay
Re: Re: dangerous
Fixed that for you. We have only one party; the big government party. While the "Team Red" vs "Team Blue" myth persists, the leaders who keep that myth of political choice going are laughing their asses off.
On the post: What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay
Re:
On the post: What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay
Re: Re: WWII Germany?
The "small government crowd" encompasses many more people, including your average libertarian like me, and you can bet we're all over it. You did realize that Radley Balko (the guy Masnick hat-tipped in the post itself) writes for Reason magazine, right?
On the post: What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay
Re: 3rd amendment next?
"These men risked their lives for freedom; are you really going to deny them room and board for a couple months while they get back on their feet?"
On the post: What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay
Re: Re: Minor Nitpick
Using exigent circumstances to enter is not unlawful, of course, even it it might be wrong.
On the post: What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay
Minor Nitpick
Not technically accurate. Any fruits of an illegal search would still be (in a non-insane world like ours) inadmissible in court.
The decision "only" said that the serfs can't resist during the time period that their rights are being violated, and must submit for their own safety in the face of any expected police brutality that is sure to come. Later, when the threat of being beaten to death by a police officer is no longer present, they can spend their life savings on a lawyer to bring a complaint forward against the officers that will then be heard and decided on by the friends of said police officers.
But technically, officers still require a warrant if they want to use what they find in court. If they just want to keep any loot for themselves through civil forfeiture ("Can you prove that you didn't buy your wife these earrings with drug money? No? Great! Now I don't have to shop for an anniversary present!"), presumably that's okay.
Next >>