Nasch, you might want to re-evaluate your definition. A debt is simply something owed. It does not have to be for money borrowed. You walk up to the counter at a store to purchase something and you have incurred a debt. Once you pay for your item, the debt is relieved since you no longer owe the store for the item.
Actually, what needs to happen is that anyone seeking the offices be automatically disqualified. We don't need professional politicians, we need people willing to accept the burden of the office because its a job that needs to be done.
Here's the part I like: She is District Coordinator of the Texas Department of Emergency Management with the Texas Department of Public Safety. Yet somehow she couldn't take a look at the weather and think maybe today isn't such a good day to fly?
I've driven that stretch of Texas highway more than I care to remember. After all her trouble it took her about the same amount of time to reach Houston as it takes to drive.
Its a DOJ document, that's why its labeled For Law Enforcement Use Only. I don't think it would be that difficult to obtain the information by contacting your carrier. The difficult part would be determining who to talk to at the carrier. I doubt your average customer support rep would know this info.
And I fit very well into the category of jack of all trades, but only a master of some, and none of those that I would consider myself truly knowledgeable in are listed in your post.
And you seem to be basing your posts on the assumption that the defendants in both of the cases are the originators of the file sharing. Now, I'm not certain if that topic ever came up, but if they didn't upload the original file, should they still be held accountable? You seem to be saying that only the first person to upload a file should be held accountable and fined in this way.
As for $750 not being a large sum of money, get a grip on reality. To an average middle class family with a total income of 60k a year (totally random number, I consider myself to be middle class and my total family income is significantly lower), $750 is a VERY significant number, in fact, its damn near 20% of their monthly income. I disagree with DH about the maximum fine on this, for a non-commercial infringement, unless the plaintiff can actually prove damages, I think the total fine should not exceed $100 per infringement. Although to be entirely honest, if its a non-commercial infringement, I really don't think there should even be a basis for a lawsuit.
On the post: TSA Decides Terrorists Must Be Driving; Partners With Tenn. Law Enforcement To Randomly Search Vehicles
Re: it's Probable Cause i said so.
On the post: Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash For Secondhand Sales
Re: Re:
On the post: What If A Court Gave An Important Ruling, But We Were Not Allowed To Know What It Was?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: British Historian On Porn And Internet Censorship: North Korea Is Right -- The Internet Is Our Enemy
Re: Re: origami...
On the post: Woman Sues Airline Over Flight Turbulence
Re:
On the post: Woman Sues Airline Over Flight Turbulence
Re:
On the post: BMI Hurting Artists, Yet Again
Re:
On the post: Beyonce May Get Sued For Copyright Infringement Because Of The Way She Danced
Re:
On the post: Blaktron's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Well said.
On the post: Homeland Security Says Homeland Security Hasn't Abused Airline Passenger Info
Re: what DHS needs...
On the post: DOJ Document Shows How Long Telcos Hold Onto Your Data
On the post: University Police & Administration Freak Out Over Nathan Fillion Firefly Poster; Censor, Threaten Professor
Re: Re: Huh? What's Firefly?
On the post: University Police & Administration Freak Out Over Nathan Fillion Firefly Poster; Censor, Threaten Professor
Re: Huh? What's Firefly?
On the post: Facebook Hosts 4% Of All Photos Ever Taken In History
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Arbitrarily Deciding What Is And What's Not Patentable
Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Strange New Worlds
On the post: US Marshals Service Asks Us To Remove A Comment
Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Ups Three Strikes Propaganda Campaign In Australia With Misleading Stats
Re:
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re:
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Punitive v. Non-Punitive Damages
As for $750 not being a large sum of money, get a grip on reality. To an average middle class family with a total income of 60k a year (totally random number, I consider myself to be middle class and my total family income is significantly lower), $750 is a VERY significant number, in fact, its damn near 20% of their monthly income. I disagree with DH about the maximum fine on this, for a non-commercial infringement, unless the plaintiff can actually prove damages, I think the total fine should not exceed $100 per infringement. Although to be entirely honest, if its a non-commercial infringement, I really don't think there should even be a basis for a lawsuit.
Next >>