I'm not trying to point fingers and blame the courts. It's just that the people have no way to access them and find out the good that they can do or the damage that they reap in bad decisions.
It's a very difficult conundrum that doesn't have any right answers. How can you have a SCOTUS that answers to the Constitution and what the people actually want without compromising the rights they have?
Currently, SCOTUS has gutted the 4th Amendment. They've also done their best to pass the bill on patent and copyright issues, knowing that there are a number of issues with them. The Whitney Harper case is very disappointing. Only one Justice thought to hear this case.
I guess my main argument is that I'd love to have a Supreme Court that would stand up for the Constitution. They're allowing a very corrupt Congress to do whatever it wants along with a very corrupt Executive Branch run roughshod over everyone. They only hear so many cases. And yet, with those cases it seems to hurt our democratic republic more and more...
First of all, most Supreme Court Justices stay in that position for as long as they possibly can. They retire when they're extremely old. If they were really in it for the money, they would retire much younger and make those millions you claim.
I believe the ideology of some of the Supreme Court Justices is just as deadly as any monetary gift. The Supreme Courts are supposed to decide Constitutional issues, irregardless of what they feel are the points made.
By all means, Justice Scalia is supposed to be an Originalist. He interprets this as a weak Supreme Court allowing Congress a lot more power than what the Constitution expressly allows. The same goes for Chief Justice Roberts, who I feel that the Citizens United exposes their ideology in a worse light.
Perhaps corruption isn't the right term for how our Supreme Court works, but there is a noticeable lack of... Ethics? Understanding?
Something is missing when the SCOTUS has to decide issues and always seem to vote for businesses over the needs of the people. I just can't put my finger on quite what it is.
You should have pointed to the Chanel case. Just tell them that if you don't GoDaddy would take over their website without them ever listening to a judge. That's the problem here.
Think about how much money they'll make off of enforcement of SOPA. It doesn't matter if you don't pay. They'll make money by destroying the competition and harrying customers into being criminals.
That's what's even worse about this. They tie up the competition (in this case, the entire internet) in litigation while the money rolls in. It's not about them making more money. Their money will remain constant while everyone else suffers.
Everyone focuses so much on the money in politics, that it's just so easy to drop the ball on what the actual problem is. Lessig is close and I have to stress, he's almost right. But when he dropped the fight for copyright, I thought he had understood what the actual fight was. It's the system we have in place: The electoral/First past the post system that allows the worst of evils to be elected.
The money is a huge issue. But it's transparent. The people do not have a say in their politics at all. We know this. We know that Boehner is a bought politician that is not answerable to us. And most, if not all of the politicians are bought off in the same way.
But we need to change the electoral system that we have in place. This cannot be denied. This is the actual issue that has to be fought. As CGPGrey explains, THIS is the problem with our government. We need a better system to elect Congress that allows smaller parties as well as a system to have a majority president with no spoiler effect.
I mean for goodness sake, we allow Fox News to help elect our president by choosing who they will not allow! Don't think I'm done with the electoral system here!
If you actually were to understand it, it deprives people of the right to vote. Further, giving states the right to vote instead of people ensures that the states will be screwed with smaller states having far more representation than necessary. This is why the candidates spend so much time in 4 states in particular: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The electoral college compels them to spend a lot of money in these states where they poll pretty evenly along party lines.
Finally, we need a new way to elect Congress. A way to represent diverse political parties. No one can say that Republicans and Democrats actually represent the majority of Americans and all of their viewpoints. As of now, all they seem to represent is themselves and the money they take in at the detriment of society. I'm open to ideas. But the fact remains that the republic we so covet is usurped.
If people had a way to be represented by different parties such as the Justice Party, then we can have a better system in place. Personally, I would love to hear more about the Swedish referendum system. I would love a *debate* on these topics. What I hate along with the rest of America is the fact that I have to spend more than I have on an issue when it's not based in economic facts.
So please, understand I have to call this like it is. The system is broken. It can not be saved because it leads to the very corruptions that Lessig talks about. The BEST idea is to change it. Abolish it if necessary. But trying to fix the system by banning the money won't change all of the problems inherent in the system. That just leads the toothpaste to run elsewhere.
We need a better system and that has already been presented.
You have misrepresented the facts and possibly created them as you provided no citations which could be authenticated.
No, that seems to be your MO. Try to have some proof of your assertion that Jefferson, known skeptic of copyright and patents, believed in patents or copyright and miniature monopolies.
Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don’t have any
Mad again, staff? Kind of sad that you have such negativity emanating from you when it could be used to prove the flaws of the patent system right now. Since I already know that your assertions are baseless statements, it's not worth the time to get into a proper debunking. The fact is, the patent system is beyond broken. This has been discussed in minute detail. Unless you can prove otherwise, you've sadly fallen short yet again in your ad hom attacks.
Much later on they were still at it when Charles Dickens much moaned that those damned Americans were stealing his books. What would he now say to their movies from his stolen works?
Bear in mind, Dickens was a hypocrite. The US was importing books and not recognizing foreign copyrights, causing the flourishing America to profit from larger tours and cheap books.
Please explain "ripping off the public domain"? How can you rip off something that is in the public domain?
Compare the different versions of Disney movies that can come out because of copyright laws when compared to folktales based on Grimm's fairy tales. The public domain got screwed.
The **AAs don't depend on safe harbors to rip people off.
Right. Because they download movies and music that's not theirs all the time. Gotcha.
GoDaddy (and other companies) should not be subject of boycotts for having an opinion and working with it.
Funny, their customers will feel the effects of SOPA, they decide to move their domains in protest, and this is bad because GoDaddy's customers understand this legislation is vague and ineffective against piracy?
You have the choice not to do business with them, but pressuring others to not do business with them as well based solely on their stand against piracy is just not right.
Their customers understand that they have no reason to do business with GoDaddy because they will lose out in the long run. The piracy problem doesn't factor into the larger problem of affecting smaller businesses without the funds to fight one sided legislation.
What these actions did was force GoDaddy to publicly change their position, even though their support for SOPA was well stated before. They aren't changing because they "saw the light", they are changing to stop you guys from trying to destroy their business.
I guess you don't see how public opinion is against SOPA. There are very few people that like SOPA after reading up on it. GoDaddy is learning that their customers are more than willing to drop them like a bad habit if they go against them. Most people could care less about piracy. They value their platforms of expression, due process, and right to privacy. SOPA invades on that.
Now, find someone that can justify SOPA who isn't paying for the legislation. By all means, don't take too long.
That's not enough though. If they believe that being architects to censorship is a good idea, they don't deserve that money from people that will be affected. They don't understand good business and need to recognize exactly what the free market is: choice. They've made a bad choice about who their allegiance is to. They have a bad service and a bad business model that should not be rewarded. If they believe the public will support being censored, they need to be taught the lesson of an economic boycott.
On the post: Jack Abramoff Explains The Return On Investment For Lobbying: 22,000% Is Surprisingly Low
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a very difficult conundrum that doesn't have any right answers. How can you have a SCOTUS that answers to the Constitution and what the people actually want without compromising the rights they have?
Currently, SCOTUS has gutted the 4th Amendment. They've also done their best to pass the bill on patent and copyright issues, knowing that there are a number of issues with them. The Whitney Harper case is very disappointing. Only one Justice thought to hear this case.
I guess my main argument is that I'd love to have a Supreme Court that would stand up for the Constitution. They're allowing a very corrupt Congress to do whatever it wants along with a very corrupt Executive Branch run roughshod over everyone. They only hear so many cases. And yet, with those cases it seems to hurt our democratic republic more and more...
On the post: SOPA Can Impact Companies Who Think They're Immune
Re: Re: Dajaz1.com
Oh wait...
On the post: Universal Music Takes Down 50 Cent's Official YouTube Video
For those interested...
On the post: Jack Abramoff Explains The Return On Investment For Lobbying: 22,000% Is Surprisingly Low
Re: Re:
I believe the ideology of some of the Supreme Court Justices is just as deadly as any monetary gift. The Supreme Courts are supposed to decide Constitutional issues, irregardless of what they feel are the points made.
By all means, Justice Scalia is supposed to be an Originalist. He interprets this as a weak Supreme Court allowing Congress a lot more power than what the Constitution expressly allows. The same goes for Chief Justice Roberts, who I feel that the Citizens United exposes their ideology in a worse light.
Perhaps corruption isn't the right term for how our Supreme Court works, but there is a noticeable lack of... Ethics? Understanding?
Something is missing when the SCOTUS has to decide issues and always seem to vote for businesses over the needs of the people. I just can't put my finger on quite what it is.
On the post: Jack Abramoff Explains The Return On Investment For Lobbying: 22,000% Is Surprisingly Low
Re: Re:
Clarence Thomas
Oh, I guess I should mention someone else. David Prosser
On the post: GoDaddy Desperately Reaching Out To Try To Win People Back
Re: Still Waiting
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Jack Abramoff Explains The Return On Investment For Lobbying: 22,000% Is Surprisingly Low
Re:
That's what's even worse about this. They tie up the competition (in this case, the entire internet) in litigation while the money rolls in. It's not about them making more money. Their money will remain constant while everyone else suffers.
On the post: Jack Abramoff Explains The Return On Investment For Lobbying: 22,000% Is Surprisingly Low
I sound like a broken record
The money is a huge issue. But it's transparent. The people do not have a say in their politics at all. We know this. We know that Boehner is a bought politician that is not answerable to us. And most, if not all of the politicians are bought off in the same way.
But we need to change the electoral system that we have in place. This cannot be denied. This is the actual issue that has to be fought. As CGPGrey explains, THIS is the problem with our government. We need a better system to elect Congress that allows smaller parties as well as a system to have a majority president with no spoiler effect.
I mean for goodness sake, we allow Fox News to help elect our president by choosing who they will not allow! Don't think I'm done with the electoral system here!
If you actually were to understand it, it deprives people of the right to vote. Further, giving states the right to vote instead of people ensures that the states will be screwed with smaller states having far more representation than necessary. This is why the candidates spend so much time in 4 states in particular: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The electoral college compels them to spend a lot of money in these states where they poll pretty evenly along party lines.
Finally, we need a new way to elect Congress. A way to represent diverse political parties. No one can say that Republicans and Democrats actually represent the majority of Americans and all of their viewpoints. As of now, all they seem to represent is themselves and the money they take in at the detriment of society. I'm open to ideas. But the fact remains that the republic we so covet is usurped.
If people had a way to be represented by different parties such as the Justice Party, then we can have a better system in place. Personally, I would love to hear more about the Swedish referendum system. I would love a *debate* on these topics. What I hate along with the rest of America is the fact that I have to spend more than I have on an issue when it's not based in economic facts.
So please, understand I have to call this like it is. The system is broken. It can not be saved because it leads to the very corruptions that Lessig talks about. The BEST idea is to change it. Abolish it if necessary. But trying to fix the system by banning the money won't change all of the problems inherent in the system. That just leads the toothpaste to run elsewhere.
We need a better system and that has already been presented.
On the post: Thomas Jefferson: Original Remixer
Re: more dissembling
You might wanna check up on patent law. Ideas are patentable.
Clearly, Jefferson believed inventions (not just ideas) deserved patents, or he would not have been the first commissioner.
You're misguided. Read this, please.
You have misrepresented the facts and possibly created them as you provided no citations which could be authenticated.
No, that seems to be your MO. Try to have some proof of your assertion that Jefferson, known skeptic of copyright and patents, believed in patents or copyright and miniature monopolies.
Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don’t have any
Mad again, staff? Kind of sad that you have such negativity emanating from you when it could be used to prove the flaws of the patent system right now. Since I already know that your assertions are baseless statements, it's not worth the time to get into a proper debunking. The fact is, the patent system is beyond broken. This has been discussed in minute detail. Unless you can prove otherwise, you've sadly fallen short yet again in your ad hom attacks.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Myth That SOPA/PIPA Only Impact 'Foreign Sites'
Re: Rogue Sites
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
On the post: Breaking: GoDaddy Drops SOPA Support
Re:
On the post: Breaking: GoDaddy Drops SOPA Support
Re: Where do the seized domains go?
On the post: Thomas Jefferson: Original Remixer
Re:
Bear in mind, Dickens was a hypocrite. The US was importing books and not recognizing foreign copyrights, causing the flourishing America to profit from larger tours and cheap books.
On the post: Prominent Rightwing Blogger Promises To Work Hard To Defeat Any Rightwing SOPA Supporters In Congress
Re: Re: Re:
Compare the different versions of Disney movies that can come out because of copyright laws when compared to folktales based on Grimm's fairy tales. The public domain got screwed.
The **AAs don't depend on safe harbors to rip people off.
Right. Because they download movies and music that's not theirs all the time. Gotcha.
On the post: Breaking: GoDaddy Drops SOPA Support
Re: Re: Re:
Funny, their customers will feel the effects of SOPA, they decide to move their domains in protest, and this is bad because GoDaddy's customers understand this legislation is vague and ineffective against piracy?
You have the choice not to do business with them, but pressuring others to not do business with them as well based solely on their stand against piracy is just not right.
Their customers understand that they have no reason to do business with GoDaddy because they will lose out in the long run. The piracy problem doesn't factor into the larger problem of affecting smaller businesses without the funds to fight one sided legislation.
What these actions did was force GoDaddy to publicly change their position, even though their support for SOPA was well stated before. They aren't changing because they "saw the light", they are changing to stop you guys from trying to destroy their business.
I guess you don't see how public opinion is against SOPA. There are very few people that like SOPA after reading up on it. GoDaddy is learning that their customers are more than willing to drop them like a bad habit if they go against them. Most people could care less about piracy. They value their platforms of expression, due process, and right to privacy. SOPA invades on that.
Now, find someone that can justify SOPA who isn't paying for the legislation. By all means, don't take too long.
On the post: Breaking: GoDaddy Drops SOPA Support
Re: $$ talks
On the post: Brazil's Copyright Reform Draft Bill: The Good, The Bad And The Confused
Re:
Next >>