Yes. It is. As I've already wrote, the constitution protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures from the government, not from individuals.
That does not mean that an individual can legally search your stuff. Of course such a search could be illegal. However, because the search does not involve the government, the exclusionary rule never comes into play.
Here's a good example from the court where I work. Three burglars broke into a guy's house and stole his safe. They finally got it open and discovered it was not filled with money. But with child porn the safe owner produced himself using children he knew from friends and family.
These three hardcore criminals were so incredibly shocked by what they found they turned the safe, the tapes, and the pictures over to the police. And because the police did not perform the search which led to the discovery of the child porn, which was evidence that the safe owner committed sexual assaults against children, the evidence was not excluded.
Thus, it does not matter how reasonable the Best Buy employees were. The constitution does not protect us from them. Clearly breaking into a person's house and stealing a safe is unreasonable. But it does not invoke the exclusionary rule, because the government was not involved.
The constitution protects us from unreasonable search and seizure from the government, not from computer techs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of our country's laws.
It seems like my day is not complete unless I slam my head on my desk after reading some idiotic opinion here. God, freeloading open source crap. I've heard it all.
Yeah, but Apple makes the stuff they steal shiny and pretty. That's really their MO. If they made an actual turd of shit shiny and pretty enough, and called it iTurd, millions would buy it.
"Microsoft was trying to win the last battle against Google, rather than looking ahead to the next one"
That's Microsoft's MO. It finds a successful product or service, it than moves into that market and dominates it or destroys it. Then it allows the market stagnates because Microsoft lacks the ability to innovate without someone else showing it how.
"CL is getting quite the reputation for being a viper pit of scammers these days. Should the newspapers ignore this situation, or use it to their advantage to market their products?"
God are you really that fricken naive or are you simply retarded Exactly who is giving craigslist the reputation? The newspaper industry. This is no different than newspaper magnate William Hearst's attack on marijuana to protect his tree based paper industry.
And don't forget it's also profitable. Not ridiculously profitable like Google, but the people behind craigslist do not want that sort of success. They know that if they went public they'd have to answer to other entities and eventually the service would be destroyed. Because it would become focused entirely on profits rather than providing the best service for its clients and customers.
She should move to my county. Here administrative bureaucracy has put blocks on various websites (not techdirt.com yet!) to keep employees from goofing off. It blocked sites such as Facebook and MySpace, which the local probation department would use to keep an eye on probationers. Not anymore. The agents complained about it, but the administration is not backing down. This is certainly a circumstance where the people making the rules do not understand what they're doing, at all.
Comboman never compared the RIAA to rapists and murders, he was only analogizing Rosen's situation to that of a criminal defense attorney. Both Rosen and criminal defense attorneys do unpleasant things, but that does not mean they agree with those unpleasant things.
Skype is useful. My immediate and extended family lives all over the country. We never call each other with land lines or cell phones. Skype is all we need and it's free. It's saved us a fortune.
The problem with Skype is monetizing it. But that's not my problem.
"But it leaves out the fact that the RIAA itself has always promoted the idea that it does represent the best interests of music itself"
It pisses me off when the RIAA claims to represent artists. The RIAA represents the industry, which has been screwing over artists since the industry was created.
To me, this is one of the reasons newspaper readership is declining. (Besides the fact that no one reads newspapers anymore because you can get better news sources online!) The writing today is utterly boring. There is never an "answer" as both sides are always presented as being right.
Think about amazing journalism, such as Watergate. Does anyone think that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were unbiased? Does anyone think Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein should have been unbiased? Of course not. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were trying to expose a crime. They were not attempting to show both sides of the event.
In today's media climate Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein never would have been allowed to publish their stories as they were originally written.
"Take a look at the bill itself, particularly section 606"
Thanks. Here's the section:
Sec. 606 The provisions of this chapter do not apply in respect to the use of digital products or digital codes obtained by the end user free of charge.
That seems to contradict 304(3)
"Value of the service used" means the purchase price for the digital automated service or other service, the use of which is taxable under this chapter. If the service is received by gift or under conditions wherein the purchase price does not represent the true value thereof, the value of the service used shall be determined as nearly as possible according to the retail selling price at place of use of similar services of like quality and character under rules the department may prescribe
606 seems to say that if you didn't pay for it, it won't be taxed. 304(3), on the other hand, seems to say that if you didn't pay for it, taxes will still be accessed at the "retail price." Mmmm...
Mike, you're missing a huge angle to this story. You'd have to pay taxes all free downloads, including open source and music promotional samples! Here are the exceptions to the law:
Digital goods that are not offered for sale are exempt from tax when they are:
* Noncommercial (such as personal email communications).
* Created solely for an internal audience.
* Created solely for the business needs of the person who created the digital good and is not the type of digital good that is offered for sale, such as business email communications. (See section 605 of the digital products bill).
If you're a professional musician, your "free" song is not "noncommercial." It would not be created for an internal audience, unless the artists wanted to put a bunch of hoops fans would have to jump through to get it. And because music is the type of digital good that is offered for sale, the last exception wouldn't apply either.
I think even streaming samples on Amazon would be covered under the "streamed and accessed digital goods" section combined with the section which states that "It does not matter if the purchaser obtains a permanent or nonpermanent right of use."
And how would the courts interpret the law in relation to open source software. Sure, we think that open source software is not commercial, but clearly office suites are commercially available. Would a judge understand the difference? Is there a difference?
"Mike the Q&A states that digital products given away for free are exempt."
Not really. Here's what it actually says:
Created solely for the business needs of the person who created the digital good and is not the type of digital good that is offered for sale, such as business email communications.
"might be out of reach for a large number of consumers."
Who cares?! Owning a solid gold house is out of my reach, so should the government mandate that the prices of solid gold houses be artificially lowered to make them in my reach? Of course not.
"The other part is that ticket sellers don't want the hassle of using ALL of the avenues available to get tickets to fans."
That makes no sense to me at all.
"You're probably right, there isn't any true fleecing."
Close, I am right.
Nor is there anything wrong with charging as high as the market will bear.
Thanks!
Just don't complain when the bands and artists want to go another route because of the consequences.
I won't because I have no cause to complain. There are millions of things on this planet I want but cannot afford. Complaining about things I cannot afford is a pure waste of time.
"Rational...usually, unless you keep doing it after a detrimental economic effect."
What "detrimental economic effect"?! People have been buying tickets at market value, i.e., through scalpers for decades. But yet year after year people keep doing it.
"Moral...I don't know what that means."
Me neither, I just put it in for a hyperbolic joke. ;-)
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Over Computer Tech's Right To Search Your Computer
Re: i totally agree with the verdict.
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Over Computer Tech's Right To Search Your Computer
Re: Re: The Law is the Law
Yes. It is. As I've already wrote, the constitution protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures from the government, not from individuals.
That does not mean that an individual can legally search your stuff. Of course such a search could be illegal. However, because the search does not involve the government, the exclusionary rule never comes into play.
Here's a good example from the court where I work. Three burglars broke into a guy's house and stole his safe. They finally got it open and discovered it was not filled with money. But with child porn the safe owner produced himself using children he knew from friends and family.
These three hardcore criminals were so incredibly shocked by what they found they turned the safe, the tapes, and the pictures over to the police. And because the police did not perform the search which led to the discovery of the child porn, which was evidence that the safe owner committed sexual assaults against children, the evidence was not excluded.
Thus, it does not matter how reasonable the Best Buy employees were. The constitution does not protect us from them. Clearly breaking into a person's house and stealing a safe is unreasonable. But it does not invoke the exclusionary rule, because the government was not involved.
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Over Computer Tech's Right To Search Your Computer
On the post: The Fear Of Freeloaders Overblown In Both Proprietary And Open Arenas
On the post: That's One Way To Grab Search Traffic
Re: Re:
Yeah, but Apple makes the stuff they steal shiny and pretty. That's really their MO. If they made an actual turd of shit shiny and pretty enough, and called it iTurd, millions would buy it.
On the post: That's One Way To Grab Search Traffic
That's Microsoft's MO. It finds a successful product or service, it than moves into that market and dominates it or destroys it. Then it allows the market stagnates because Microsoft lacks the ability to innovate without someone else showing it how.
On the post: Newspapers' Plan For Survival: Charge Money, Beat Up On Craigslist And Keep Repeating To Ourselves That We're Needed
Re:
God are you really that fricken naive or are you simply retarded Exactly who is giving craigslist the reputation? The newspaper industry. This is no different than newspaper magnate William Hearst's attack on marijuana to protect his tree based paper industry.
On the post: Newspapers' Plan For Survival: Charge Money, Beat Up On Craigslist And Keep Repeating To Ourselves That We're Needed
And don't forget it's also profitable. Not ridiculously profitable like Google, but the people behind craigslist do not want that sort of success. They know that if they went public they'd have to answer to other entities and eventually the service would be destroyed. Because it would become focused entirely on profits rather than providing the best service for its clients and customers.
On the post: Yes, Your Parole Officer Can Use Facebook Too
On the post: Switzerland Decides That It's Ok For Private Firm To Violate Your Privacy If It's Searching For 'Pirates'
On the post: Former RIAA Boss States The Obvious: The Record Labels Screwed Up... And Continue To Screw Up
Re: Re: No surprise
On the post: eBay Finally Realizes That No One Is Interested In Voice Communication With Others During An Online Auction
Re:
The problem with Skype is monetizing it. But that's not my problem.
On the post: Former RIAA Boss States The Obvious: The Record Labels Screwed Up... And Continue To Screw Up
It pisses me off when the RIAA claims to represent artists. The RIAA represents the industry, which has been screwing over artists since the industry was created.
On the post: eBay Finally Realizes That No One Is Interested In Voice Communication With Others During An Online Auction
I'd guess that most eBay sellers despised it.
On the post: Is It Really So Wrong For A Reporter To Have An Opinion?
Think about amazing journalism, such as Watergate. Does anyone think that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were unbiased? Does anyone think Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein should have been unbiased? Of course not. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were trying to expose a crime. They were not attempting to show both sides of the event.
In today's media climate Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein never would have been allowed to publish their stories as they were originally written.
On the post: Can Washington Charge Unauthorized Downloaders With Tax Evasion?
Re: Re:
Thanks. Here's the section:
That seems to contradict 304(3)
606 seems to say that if you didn't pay for it, it won't be taxed. 304(3), on the other hand, seems to say that if you didn't pay for it, taxes will still be accessed at the "retail price." Mmmm...
On the post: Can Washington Charge Unauthorized Downloaders With Tax Evasion?
If you're a professional musician, your "free" song is not "noncommercial." It would not be created for an internal audience, unless the artists wanted to put a bunch of hoops fans would have to jump through to get it. And because music is the type of digital good that is offered for sale, the last exception wouldn't apply either.
I think even streaming samples on Amazon would be covered under the "streamed and accessed digital goods" section combined with the section which states that "It does not matter if the purchaser obtains a permanent or nonpermanent right of use."
And how would the courts interpret the law in relation to open source software. Sure, we think that open source software is not commercial, but clearly office suites are commercially available. Would a judge understand the difference? Is there a difference?
On the post: Can Washington Charge Unauthorized Downloaders With Tax Evasion?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can Washington Charge Unauthorized Downloaders With Tax Evasion?
Re: Re:
Not really. Here's what it actually says:
Created solely for the business needs of the person who created the digital good and is not the type of digital good that is offered for sale, such as business email communications.
On the post: Some Musicians Using Ticket Scalping To Raise Funds For Charity
Re: Re:
Who cares?! Owning a solid gold house is out of my reach, so should the government mandate that the prices of solid gold houses be artificially lowered to make them in my reach? Of course not.
"The other part is that ticket sellers don't want the hassle of using ALL of the avenues available to get tickets to fans."
That makes no sense to me at all.
"You're probably right, there isn't any true fleecing."
Close, I am right.
Nor is there anything wrong with charging as high as the market will bear.
Thanks!
Just don't complain when the bands and artists want to go another route because of the consequences.
I won't because I have no cause to complain. There are millions of things on this planet I want but cannot afford. Complaining about things I cannot afford is a pure waste of time.
"Rational...usually, unless you keep doing it after a detrimental economic effect."
What "detrimental economic effect"?! People have been buying tickets at market value, i.e., through scalpers for decades. But yet year after year people keep doing it.
"Moral...I don't know what that means."
Me neither, I just put it in for a hyperbolic joke. ;-)
Next >>