Yeah, communism has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. At all. Just thought I'd point that out.
At one level that is true - however most actual communist states have subscribed to a version of communism (caled Marxist -Leninist- although not invented by either of them) that included atheism. To quote wikipedia: "The Marxism–Leninist worldview promotes atheism as a fundamental tenet".
Convinced that religious anti-Sovietism had become a thing of the past, the Stalin regime began shifting to a more moderate religion policy in the late 1930s.
Would seem to support the idea that one of the larger motivations was a clash of power, more than ideology.
Actually the shift was driven by necessity. The realisation of impending war meant that as many as possible had to be enrolled for the national cause.
The real shift in policy arrived when Hitler invaded and started re-opening churches.Stalin realised had to match him or lose support from his own people.
Is a copyright levy system, that -- taking as a basis the estimation of the actual damage -- is financed through the State budget thus not making possible to guarantee that the costs of this compensation are only supported by the users of the private copies (as opposed to the non-users), compliant with Article 5(2)(b)b) of [EU] Directive 2001/29?
Surely under the existing copyright levy system it is not "possible to guarantee that the costs of this compensation are only supported by the users of the private copies" since the costs are born by all users of the devices and media that are taxed regardless of whether they use their devices to make copies of (other people's) copyrighted works or not.
We need to stick up for our version of God - even if we don't actually believe in Him.
That is a dangerous attitude that leads to never-ending conflicts.
What do you think I,meant by "stick up for our version of God".
Let me be clear that what I didn't mean was any form of violence.
The early church stuck up for its version of God through 300 years of intermittent persecution, the Greek church stuck up for its version of God through 400 years of subjection to the Ottoman empire and the Russian church stuck up for its version of God through 70 years of communist atheist persecution. None of this involved violence.
Most of us are either Christians or atheists of Christian Heritage. We need to stick up for our version of God - even if we don't actually believe in Him.
Better that than the "all versions of God are equal" that is implicit in your comment (even if it is followed by "ly bad").
The version of God that was in the minds of the framers of the US constitution will do - since that is where the rights come from in the US at least.
As computers and electronic devices are becoming increasingly interconnected, files physically held on one computer are often accessible from another computer. Accordingly, it is critical that law enforcement officers executing a search warrant are able to search not only material on computers located on the search premises but also material accessible from those computers but located elsewhere.
In other words law enforcement needs to be able to access these computers...because they can.
I'd go with a secular tyrant who only imprisons the extremely religious (insane), even moderately religious should be kept an eye on over the mess that is going on there right now.
This is a disturbing trend. After the first world war the territory of the former Ottoman Empire (and other previous Islamic Empires) was taken over by "strongmen". Kemal Ataturk was the prototype and Nasser, Assad (Mk 1), Saddam, Gadafy etc followed in their footsteps.
They tended to emphasise Nationalism and de-scope religion and tribalism as far as possible. (although they often relied on cronies from a particular tribe for their core support. In general the non-islamic communities in their countries did rather well - often getting government jobs (eg Tariq Aziz).
These people had to work hard to keep the religious genie in the bottle and this often required oppressive methods - but it seems (from what we see now) that this was better than the alternative.
Technically MGM is in the wrong. They were not using the name Rocky in the fun run space. These people got to it first in that space and therefore they have the rights.
If the movie studio was a small independent and the (original) run was being organised by a big multinational then I'm sure that that is the way it would play out.
In most of Europe there is no law against children drinking in private. In public the limit is usually 18 - not 21. In the UK it is technically illegal to give alcohol to under 5's but I am aware of no proactive effort to enforce this as a standalone law. Generally it would be detected/enforced as part of more general child protection measures.
In France it is common to give small quantities of wine (diluted with water) even to very small children.
As far as I know the US obtains no advantage in terms of alcohol related crime or ill health from its dtricter laws.
All they do is to give the police another excuse to criminalise more people
It seems clear to me that the judge knows the difference between copies and copyrights. He's referring to the intangible rights in the sound recording.
If he knows the difference why does he not refer to the intangible rights directly instead of using a sloppy (if common) conflation between two different things?
Frequent inaccurate usage like this has the effect (possibly intentional) of confusing the public mind about these issues in ways that favour certain parties to the debate. Consequently it has to be called out whenever it occurs.
Yes I am aware that this argument has been unsuccessful in the courts - however that probably refelects their reluctance to upset a well established apple cart.
nyone able to clarify why it is that in the main, the judges who sit on copyright cases seem to have actually no knowledge of copyright or the laws that are already in place
Because the alternative is worse!
Judges who specialised in copyright would be inevitably "captured" by the big IP lobby and the result would be that all the decisions would be uniformly bad - whereas at present there are good decisions from time to time!
On my reading of your constitution state level copyright laws are unconstitutionsl.
One of the original intentions of the copyright clause was to forestall the development of a messy, inconsistent, morass of state copyright laws (as was beginning to develop).
Constitutionally the right to make copyright law is reserved to Congress.
I also think it is important for our police officers to follow orders they are given by our elected officials.
I don't know how you work it in the US - but in the UK the police are independent - and NEVER receive a direct order from an elected official. If it ever even appeared to happen then there would be a scandal.
I think having elected officials order policemen about directly is a really bad idea.
In other words you think it is OK for the police to go on fishing trips.
Get a warrant to search for one thing and then - hey ho - find something unrelated - and not even relating to the same person!
Of course the existence ot our ridiculous criminal business enablement laws (aka drug laws) does make this thing so much easier - almost anyone can be suspected of having drugs and quite a few who are actually suspected of something else will turn out to have them (or if not then it can be arranged...).
Except for people who serve on juries, it pays basically $0. It makes them little more then $1 an hour, and most people hate jury duty. Consequently juries are composed entirely of people who are to stupid to get out of jury duty!
On the post: NJ Town Proposes Law That Would Grant Law Enforcement The Right To Warrantlessly Search Houses To Find Underage Drinkers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At one level that is true - however most actual communist states have subscribed to a version of communism (caled Marxist -Leninist- although not invented by either of them) that included atheism. To quote wikipedia:
"The Marxism–Leninist worldview promotes atheism as a fundamental tenet".
On the post: NJ Town Proposes Law That Would Grant Law Enforcement The Right To Warrantlessly Search Houses To Find Underage Drinkers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would seem to support the idea that one of the larger motivations was a clash of power, more than ideology.
Actually the shift was driven by necessity. The realisation of impending war meant that as many as possible had to be enrolled for the national cause.
The real shift in policy arrived when Hitler invaded and started re-opening churches.Stalin realised had to match him or lose support from his own people.
On the post: Awful Spanish Copyright Law May Be Stalled Waiting For EU Court Ruling On Plans To Change Spain's Copyright Levy System
What about the previous system?
Surely under the existing copyright levy system it is not "possible to guarantee that the costs of this compensation are only supported by the users of the private copies" since the costs are born by all users of the devices and media that are taxed regardless of whether they use their devices to make copies of (other people's) copyrighted works or not.
On the post: NJ Town Proposes Law That Would Grant Law Enforcement The Right To Warrantlessly Search Houses To Find Underage Drinkers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is a dangerous attitude that leads to never-ending conflicts.
What do you think I,meant by "stick up for our version of God".
Let me be clear that what I didn't mean was any form of violence.
The early church stuck up for its version of God through 300 years of intermittent persecution, the Greek church stuck up for its version of God through 400 years of subjection to the Ottoman empire and the Russian church stuck up for its version of God through 70 years of communist atheist persecution. None of this involved violence.
On the post: NJ Town Proposes Law That Would Grant Law Enforcement The Right To Warrantlessly Search Houses To Find Underage Drinkers
Re: Re:
Our version of course!
Most of us are either Christians or atheists of Christian Heritage. We need to stick up for our version of God - even if we don't actually believe in Him.
Better that than the "all versions of God are equal" that is implicit in your comment (even if it is followed by "ly bad").
The version of God that was in the minds of the framers of the US constitution will do - since that is where the rights come from in the US at least.
On the post: Proposed Terror Law Would Allow Australia's Entire Internet To Be Monitored With Just One Warrant
Because
In other words law enforcement needs to be able to access these computers...because they can.
On the post: Cheney Biographer, Fox News Contributor Put On DHS Terrorist Watchlist; Harry Reid's Spokesperson Says It's No Big Deal
Re: Re: disturbing indeed, for so many reasons
This is a disturbing trend. After the first world war the territory of the former Ottoman Empire (and other previous Islamic Empires) was taken over by "strongmen". Kemal Ataturk was the prototype and Nasser, Assad (Mk 1), Saddam, Gadafy etc followed in their footsteps.
They tended to emphasise Nationalism and de-scope religion and tribalism as far as possible. (although they often relied on cronies from a particular tribe for their core support. In general the non-islamic communities in their countries did rather well - often getting government jobs (eg Tariq Aziz).
These people had to work hard to keep the religious genie in the bottle and this often required oppressive methods - but it seems (from what we see now) that this was better than the alternative.
On the post: Citizen Organizing Small Get-Together 'Rocky Run' Sent C&D By MGM Because Of Course She Was
Re: MGM isn't wrong legally? Really?
If the movie studio was a small independent and the (original) run was being organised by a big multinational then I'm sure that that is the way it would play out.
On the post: NJ Town Proposes Law That Would Grant Law Enforcement The Right To Warrantlessly Search Houses To Find Underage Drinkers
Uh what is it with the US?
In France it is common to give small quantities of wine (diluted with water) even to very small children.
As far as I know the US obtains no advantage in terms of alcohol related crime or ill health from its dtricter laws.
All they do is to give the police another excuse to criminalise more people
On the post: Judge Rules Against Sirius XM On Pre-1972 Recordings
Re: Re: The judge is an idiot.
If he knows the difference why does he not refer to the intangible rights directly instead of using a sloppy (if common) conflation between two different things?
Frequent inaccurate usage like this has the effect (possibly intentional) of confusing the public mind about these issues in ways that favour certain parties to the debate. Consequently it has to be called out whenever it occurs.
On the post: Judge Rules Against Sirius XM On Pre-1972 Recordings
Re: Re: Constitution
On the post: Judge Rules Against Sirius XM On Pre-1972 Recordings
Re:
Because the alternative is worse!
Judges who specialised in copyright would be inevitably "captured" by the big IP lobby and the result would be that all the decisions would be uniformly bad - whereas at present there are good decisions from time to time!
(cf CAFC in patent cases)
On the post: Judge Rules Against Sirius XM On Pre-1972 Recordings
Constitution
One of the original intentions of the copyright clause was to forestall the development of a messy, inconsistent, morass of state copyright laws (as was beginning to develop).
Constitutionally the right to make copyright law is reserved to Congress.
On the post: Internal Emails Show Harris Corp. Misled The FCC On Stingray Device Usage In Order To Receive Approval
Hmm
On the post: Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause'
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know how you work it in the US - but in the UK the police are independent - and NEVER receive a direct order from an elected official. If it ever even appeared to happen then there would be a scandal.
I think having elected officials order policemen about directly is a really bad idea.
On the post: Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause'
Re:
Get a warrant to search for one thing and then - hey ho - find something unrelated - and not even relating to the same person!
Of course the existence ot our ridiculous criminal business enablement laws (aka drug laws) does make this thing so much easier - almost anyone can be suspected of having drugs and quite a few who are actually suspected of something else will turn out to have them (or if not then it can be arranged...).
It works both ways.
On the post: New Zealand Whistleblower Reveals He Was Told To 'Bury' Unflattering Info About The Gov't Spying On Dotcom
Re: Aaand the explanation
Anybody see a problem with that? ANYBODY?!?!?
I can see one big problem. If that is the case how do we know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?
On the post: New Zealand Whistleblower Reveals He Was Told To 'Bury' Unflattering Info About The Gov't Spying On Dotcom
Re:
who thought he could get away with making money in a area where everyone knows that only existing big media organisations are allowed to make money..
FTFY
On the post: CBS Loses Lawsuit Brought By Podcast Patent Troll, But It's Not Over Yet
Re: Re:
Consequently juries are composed entirely of people who are to stupid to get out of jury duty!
On the post: Netflix And Infringement Called Out During Australian Copyright Forum, But One Major Studio Admits Windowed Releases Are Stupid
Made up
Personally I prefer cats on skateboards, it's more real. I'm fed up with this made up stuff.
Next >>