special-interesting (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 8:52pm
Dodging court served papers does happen. Keeping in mind how abused the court system can be so its a strategy. However here we have a case where the court itself may think there's evidence of abuse and is ready to ferret out the exact details, identify the source(s), and the process has already started.
If they don't show it would be bad and look bad for any lawyer who, by just being a lawyer in good standing, are unavoidably available just dealing with normal client business. Not being able to respond quickly to the usual demands from new clients, defense or prosecution staff and typical timely court filings would ruin any law firm.
They either have their shingle out swinging out on the front lawn (and active phone numbers, web address, etc.) or they don't.
It possible they are counting on only daily fines being levied for a no show on April 2nd. Its possible that they want to attend a smaller hearing, by suffering a few days of fines and criticism for lame excuses, rather than the likely three ring circus on the 2nd.
They may even be counting on the O'l boy network by trying for a private meeting in the judges chambers. However harsh the judge might treat them it would still be out the the public eye. This would also give the advantage of not having to show up with everyone else. (whom some are obviously hostile parties)
Of course if warrants are issued for contempt of court they might show up the very next day or so and in the morning also so as to assure a prompt hearing possibly/hopefully avoiding incarceration. This would also allow some to escape the wild party on the 2nd but only at such a cost.
Then again of course they could always try to run...
Or they might try a scapegoat. “It was all his idea!”, “take one for the team boy” (just a few possibilities of course)
Ultimately there will likely be a trial date. The charges are still being examined. This could take months maybe even years. Verdict: the stores will sell a lot of popcorn and butter.
special-interesting (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:18am
Re:
Funded by the MPAA. Just knowing that, except for normal critical review, why would anyone even listen to an association that is now famous for its abuse of Hollywood accounting practices (which is arguably abuse in the first place) for lobbying fodder.
These studies get the magnifying glass under full sunlight and whatever evidence is left still gets appropriate scrutiny.
Believing that their credibility is skewed, and that the Megaupload case was known and supported by media groups before it broke news, it might be nice to examine the sales records exactly and look for gross inventory transfer anomalies, sales discounting specials and new outlets opening during that time. There was no mention of revenue or margin profits.
special-interesting (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:32am
Kinda scary. Aren't all Canadians already loyal citizens in good standing? As such they should not need any extra agreement. Just the fact that such a contract has been submitted there must be something other than the issue of loyalty at steak.
Why divide up the country with loyalty contracts and what is the difference between citizens (who are by default already loyal) and government? The schism being created might grow.
The anon comment of treason rang a bell. Remember what loyalty is and its relation to fealty. (to the Crown?)
First you throw and set the hooks. Then you heave ho the barge to the dockside. Then you load the garbage. From the outside it looks like the hook stage.
special-interesting (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 9:58am
Dodging court served papers does happen. Keeping in mind how abused the court system can be its not always a bad thing. However here we have a case where the court itself has recognized abuse and is ready to ferret out the exact details, to identify the source(s), and the process has already started.
If they don't show it would be bad and look bad for any lawyer who, by just being a lawyer in good standing, are unavoidably available just dealing with normal client business. Not being able to respond quickly to the usual demands from new clients, defense or prosecution staff and typical timely court filings would ruin any law firm. They either have their shingle out swinging out on the front lawn (and active phone numbers, web address, etc.) or they don't.
It would seem they are counting on only daily fines being levied for a no show on April 2nd. Its possible that they want to attend a smaller hearing, by suffering a few days of fines and criticism for lame excuses, rather than the likely three ring circus on the 2nd.
They may even be counting on the O'l boy network by trying for a private meeting in the judges chambers. However harsh the judge might treat them it would still be out the the public eye. This would also give the advantage of not having to show up with everyone else. (whom some are obviously hostile parties)
Of course if warrants are issued for contempt of court they might show up the very next day or so and in the morning also so as to assure a prompt hearing possibly/hopefully avoiding incarceration. This would also allow some to escape the wild party on the 2nd but only at such a cost.
Then again of course they could always try to run...
Or they might try a scapegoat. “It was all his idea!”, “take one for the team boy” (just a few possibilities of course)
Ultimately there will likely be a trial date. The charges are still being examined. This could take months maybe even years.
special-interesting (profile), 21 Mar 2013 @ 9:08pm
Re: Re:
Such an intrusion into everyday life of families is beyond me. Of what possible benefit to society and culture does the censoring have? What is the fear factor and raised blood pressure doing to the health and profits of the citizens and economy?
special-interesting (profile), 21 Mar 2013 @ 7:21pm
Re: Re:
Was busy hat night and mixed matched posts. -embarrassed-
I try to compose each post on a word processor before entry. Helps most of the time. Especially when detail, facts and links are needed.
Except for the reactionary part most of the text should have been in the “Report Suggests Obama May Take Drones Away From The CIA” post.
Getting to the point.
Securom. Is it a rootkit? (I don't know) May not be but any monitoring or DRM program should be mentioned on the outside of the game box. Its more than basic courtesy. Another reason I wont trust EA products on any computer in house. I agree that an announcement is necessary.
The Aaron Swartz issue was tragic and hope heads will roll (so to speak). This is what we get for allowing copyright lawyers into official positions.
special-interesting (profile), 21 Mar 2013 @ 6:12pm
Is personal opinion but ALL weapons (overly large? Undefined.) should be under the control of the Defense Department. (with the exception of citizen held weaponry. Undefined.) Spy agencies in charge of killing anyone plus nearby innocent civilians? No way. NSA (why does this agency exist?) or White House is still out of the question. No way. Killing is for professionals and leave it at that. (No I don't believe that common spy agencies should have blanket license to kill. Keep in mind the judicial review process.)
A separate agency (for armed drones) is silly when compared to democracy and the Three branches of government. Defense Department or nothing as this keep clear the foreign and domestic issues.
The actual invocation of a lethal response requiring the assistance of the Armed Forces creates a lessor but similar scenario as judicial review does. (which would be nice in many circumstances also) It creates the paperwork and documentation trail for a (grudgingly) required lethal assault be it marines, naval aircraft, army or drone missile.
Please (more personal opinion) end the congressionally approved war on terror. (Which arguably does not exist.) Write your local congressmen. Some domestic (and sometimes foreign) oversight is needed. The precedent of random drone strikes on world opinion is not currently in our favor. Fear is never good. Fear of the USA can only lead to bad things.
Domestic surveillance only drones should also be regulated by judicially reviewed search warrant (publicly posted) please. Under no circumstances should the average person fear government spying. Also please reinstate (judicial policy or with legislation) the inadmissible evidence by search warrant not specifically mentioning the item looked for. (still weak but is better than the abuse when everything is allowed.) Otherwise a search warrant for poppy fields (who cannot just hide them) might be used for a property tax increase because they saw your temporary above ground steel sided pool. (they only last a 5-15 or so years depending on maintenance.)
The justice branch (when issuing search warrants) must not fall into the 'interpretation of the law doctrine' trap. Every case must be examined by judge and jury in relation to basic constitutional law. Tossing out the ridiculous special interest influenced congressional sponsored nonsense is the control that our original founding fathers anticipated. Not anticipated are the special interest sponsored appointees to the judicial department. (i-evil in any analysis) Additionally, well, not overly, worded law helps.
All government actions by any agency must be accountable to the public for any action whatsoever.
special-interesting (profile), 21 Mar 2013 @ 12:48pm
Is personal opinion but ALL weapons should be under the control of the Defense Department. (with the exception of citizen held weaponry) Spy agencies in charge of killing anyone anyone plus the nearby innocent civilians? No way. NSA or White House is still out of the question. No way. Killing is for professionals and leave it at that.
A separate agency is silly when compared to Democratic and the Three branches of government. Defense Department or nothing. (must keep clear on foreign or domestic issues)
The actual invocation of a lethal response requiring the assistance of the Armed Forces creates the same scenario as a judicial review does. It creates the paperwork and documentation trail for an (grudgingly) required assault be it marines or drone missile.
Please (more personal opinion) A request to end the congressionally approved war on terror. (Which arguably does not exist.) Write your local congressmen.
reactionary: (more great posts)
Anonymous and DH's Love Child; No, the justice branch must not fall into the 'interpretation of the law doctrine' trap. Every case must be examined by judge and jury in relation to basic constitutional law. Tossing out the ridiculous special interest influenced congressional sponsored nonsense is the control that our original founding fathers anticipated. Not anticipated are the special interest sponsored appointees to the judicial department. (ievil in any analysis)
ECA; states the obvious.
Anonymous: Secureom? Sounds like a root issue. Please elaborate. (anyone?) It's enforceable regardless of TOS notice.
special-interesting (profile), 21 Mar 2013 @ 11:36am
Where I grew up it was normal that the more your cussed and cursed and (figuratively) threatened to kill a person the greater a friend they were.
Seriously. A normal greeting would be like; How the fuckk have you been doing lately? Ya haven't goddammn talked to me in fuckking ages where the hhell have you been bitchingg around the whole goddammn time since then you asshhole? I'll fuckking kill you if you don't explain why? Shiit! Your Deadd man.
Haven't felt this comradeship for a while. -wistful-
I remember getting some backstage passes to a (edited) rock-band concert. While schmoozing with the star while exiting the arena and old friend approached and spoke, in much the same way of the above paragraph, very personally and I'd guess friendly a very way. The star glanced at his bodyguard/staff and tossed the (now -ex) friend out. I still like the music but the rock-star seems aloft and distant now.
Since then have tried to couch my text and speech with conservative reasoning (and spelling). Obviously the ex-friend was misunderstood. Is this the same thing China citizens go through to avoid censorship or worse?
Any automated word or phrase detection that does not incur the review of a qualified human is nonsense to the extent that civil law might provide a remedy. What orders does the human follow. Democratic free speech or oppressive black-listing?
Reactionary: (reading the cool comments)
Mr. Applegates comment on power are appropriate. Great personal example.
Ninja, Michael. The police seemed very sensitive. (not breaking the door down and pointing guns at the kids) Did the School superintendent cry wolf? One of the worst things one can suffer from is being ignored when a real problem happens. Imagine this same official calling for help when a real delinquent intrudes on school property.
AB; did you read this? http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/oppn-slammed-over-nsw-right-to-silence-law/story-e6frf ku9-1226601328430 From reddit.com . Is scary but contrast the problems they deal with. (cars with guns and rifles) Nothing an exceptional zoom camera could not solve. [remember the Russian lesson of car cams capturing the chonderite (volatile chemical composition) meteorite. They have car cams because every official is bought and in every accident both parties lie and actual evidence is the only defense regardless of what government policy about such is.]
Personal input; Abuse must be prevented or civil lawsuits will curtail. If local enforcement officials think along the lines of “have SWAT team will use” thinking... (fill in the blank)
special-interesting (profile), 21 Mar 2013 @ 12:29am
Sounds like something the BSA cooked up in some smoky back room of special interest power brokers. They were not mentioned specifically but my guess is they are just behind the curtain nearby. If the BSA is involved it could bring up much suspicion about any figures and statistics submitted to the CA legislators. This might be another excuse to bring in more protectionist law.
The software mentioned “,Adobe, Microsoft, Symantec and others,” (indianexpress.com) Any of these (don't know about “others”) can be substituted with open source software and expect a huge migration from the spiteful (and now hated by India firms as to risky to use?) US software makers. Who in their right minds would want to use software that requires a large yearly, per computer, license fee? This well surely backfire like spitting into the wind it will be ugly and messy. (to late for that is my guess.)
Open source usually does require extra skilled in house tech personnel but that has many in house software customization advantages if they really are capable programmers and net experts. The problem is that most firms think they can skip the higher pay grade skilled workers thus costing more right off the bat. (Job opportunities or FOSS Linux/Unix) I agree that Linux software is not as developed as some MS software but few tasks actually use or need this level.
The fact that the California State Attorney (CA SA) used the term pirate seems unbecoming of the position. The term pirate has lately been used as propaganda by copyright industry special interest groups very effectively to paint a dark picture of which should be a bright cultural future for the average person. The word pirate presupposes guilt and creates a false image relating to a persons character possibly poisoning the jury pool before a trial. The correct words are accused/suspect/alleged/defendant or others but “pirate” is a no-no.
It is so weird that the suit is filed in CA and not India where the violation supposedly happened. I cannot see any reason US domestic copyright law can be used in this way. This must be under the title of 'interpretation of the law doctrine' commonly in style these days. (as if the written law was not clear enough) Sounds like extortion by the way its filed. It does set dangerous precedent which could cut both ways.
Why does our administration condone such antagonistic behavior? Are they really trying to alienate the entire world from us?? And they say we are wearing the tin hats??? Is the CA SA related to Prenda in any way???? (Seriously. The methods sound similar.)
Why again does the justice branch even allow such cases to be filed in the first place? This surely is not the first time my faith has been dashed but my hopes are still there.
I hope India will be able to recover lost sovereignty. Hint to India firms; higher local CA attorneys its way much cheaper than hauling in your own. If this is a recurring national problem maybe the India consulate might bring on some local legal staff.
Disclaimer: some of this was inspired by above comments. Thanks. (mostly the FOSS stuff)
special-interesting (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 6:48pm
One of the few really nice bits of news on this good day. I hope it can put some teeth into the the battle and take a bite out of current federal privacy policy.
The ambiguity of the DoJ is normal. Who knows what they think. Remember that many are appointed and were civil copyright or drug prosecution lawyers before.
Getting proper warrants for any intrusion into peoples private lives is necessary for the normal operation of democracy. It just doesn't work any other way.
Considering the non terrorist uses of the terrorist laws so far is a to dump present law allowing such. I agree with the pre 9-11 comment. Nothing was wrong except the terrorists themselves.
Kudos for Senator Patrick Leahy. May others follow this leadership. Please note all opposition and “Govern yourself accordingly.” (Couldn't resist the Hansmeier quote.)
special-interesting (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 6:14pm
Quote from Maria Pallante; "I've never thought that copyright inhibits innovation."
My comment; Duuuuuh. She must already be the target of special interest pressure.
Where is the awareness of social and cultural effects on copyright? Nothing about the public needs were even mentioned in her 'updating copyright' speech. Its like we don't exist if we aren't holding 1000 copyright claims. In any way does her proposals benefit society (at large) and the culture inter-shared between us just being the natural humble social animals are?
We talk and share ideas and concepts. We drink water and breath air in much the same way. What we really NEED are more formats to expand the methods and ways we can share such ideas and concepts.
Anyone who claims that DRM is a good innovation has not actually been burnt by it yet. (the count is millions and growing) Not all innovation is helpful to the creation of new original-work and DRM is definitely not one of them.
Obviously Ms Pallante did not read my late posts commenting on her speech. DRM is, in fact, a guaranteed way to lose knowledge and culture. Its a lose-lose situation benefiting only some unknown monopoly entity.
“,make the public performance right a felony, rather than a misdemeanor,” This sends so many shivers down my spine. As if free speech and Fair Use isn't in danger as it is. (please read my comments on public performance in the link above) Throw this woman out of office NOW please.
Lately my mantra for copy-wrong updating has been that; Everyday use and Fair Use of copyrighted media should be the norm and NOT the exception. Think about it. In no way should using copyrighted media be involved with criminal let alone felony law. These are civil matters only and should stay there.
It goes right along with the concept that original-works protection terms being much less than the lives of the audience.
special-interesting (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 5:31pm
This gets another Yeeeeeesssss! Score! (only 2 points but the count is rising.)
Copyright lawyers involved in questionable practices. Huummmm. Shocking. Just Shocking!
Just how many firms do these guys own anyway? Is this new one “Class Action Justice Institute” worse than a shell firm? Dose it take advantage of anyone unfairly?
An Illinois lawyer relying on the testimony of his family... yikes that is like so normal in Illinois the state of political nepotism. (Lincoln must be flipping in his grave.)
special-interesting (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 4:55pm
It always drive me to silent thought on how my acquaintances and friends can feign ignorance about privacy issues. The most common comment when mentioning CISPA or ACTA (or the next emergency congressional attack on personal liberties) is, besides the glossed over eyes, “It doesn't involve me”, “Who cares?” or “I'm not a terrorist what dose it matter?” or something like that. (the head in the sand approach)
We are still butting up against near total unawareness. I think the greatest light bulb of awareness in the publics eye (that something was amiss) was when their web pages were interrupted for the ACTA protest. If the muster includes such powerful players then the campaign, for personal and family privacy, against CISPA (and other bill of the same ilk) might have a chance.
To me CISPA is just a continuation of the justifications wanted by current agencies to both continue business as usual and to post justify past likely illegal intrusions. If (dream) I was in charge anyone who mentioned that it would make their job easier they would be fired. Nobody said any job done right was easy.
If we want the presidents help then a plan must include some rationalization that allows protesting bureaucracy's unnecessary escalating demands while preserving a successful legacy of the first black president in history. May be wrong but successful legacy seems to be the key words. I like the fact that this is a racial first but please don't allow that to be a rubber-stamp of bureaucracy.
Congress is a tough nut to crack on this one. Special interest groups almost rule both the House and Senate. There are some good exceptions but unless they each know their constituents will not only vote them out but their party also...
And that leads us back to more of the publics support I mentioned above.
Does the C really stand for Cyber? Thats so stupid its hilarious. It's not even included in my spell checker. Dose it mean anything at all? Have the names of any congressional bill actually meant what was written in the text? Including a meaningless term in the name is like not even caring whats in the bill.
special-interesting (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 9:09am
The problem we have with enforcement is, the worst of all situations, the fact that we are not allowed to use the material we purchase. Just reading a book or viewing a video is considered risk to the content owner. Just being able to memorize (to many?) quotes and saying (or acting them out) them in the wrong place when an copyright monitor agency is listening can get you large fees and likely fines in civil court and thats not even touching the bastardized new criminal laws being foisted on a hapless congress. Worse if the event was considered a public performance. (on and on)
The root of the problem is, based on the fact, that everyday use is NOT the norm but the exception. Everyday actions should not, even closely, be regulated in such a way as to incur felony convictions. Just handing a DVD of a movie to your kids or giving them access to the Internet should not be a, possibly, life threatening criminal event.
Even fair use is under attack and many times flatly ignored in media sweeping take-down notices. Fair use is an everyday use of copyrighted media. Writing a book report/letter/essay/book/memo with quotes and examples is vital for basic communication of ideas/thoughts/thinking.
If we want free and open ideas/comments/statements/facts in forums, BBS, blogs or whatever future format we must remove any fear factor involved with fair use. Make fair use NORMAL and NOT the exception.
Sorry for jumping to a somewhat sensible solution oriented attack without a detailed analysis of the above discussed laws. It is important that they be fought at every level and shown as such the horrible tragedy, foolish nonsense they are. Trying (been spending to long a post no one will read) to make up for that...
Current enforcement trend is the criminalization of civil copyright law. It was best to leave it in the civil domain as actual proof of violations have the potential to be reviewed by a jury. How can the justice branch afford the added cost of enforcing such broad law that makes almost everyone a potential (likely?) criminal? Yes this was foisted upon them by congress but don't they have a clue?
With DMCA take-down there is no court. Poof. Freedom of speech is out the window. Gone. Vanished.
Six strikes also involves no court and only incrimination evidence is sufficient for fines and worse. It sounds more like water-boarding to gain supposedly real evidence. Some will ignore thus some smarts-ass layer will say they did not deny it. Many will pay some fee and (very) regrettably sign some paper admitting guilt even if they did nothing.
Statutory Damages. Its is embarrassingly common that congress, under the duress of whatever special interest group in vogue at the time, allows the word 'deterrent' to brain wash themselves into approving harsh/draconian/ruinous fines. Fines so out of proportion that it destroys the lives of the very consumers that support the economy. Fines for doing what? Making backups? Kids downloading music files? (isn't that same music being payed on an Internet radio somewhere?)
Every 40 years or so this becomes an obvious problem and a “realignment of federal sentencing law” concept bubbles up in the minds of voters.
Special-interesting yells “Echo!” in the empty (room) post.
Media being free is an old established very workable commercial concept that has been explored in depth over the last 80 years. Furthermore. It creates real incentives for the original-work's creator to develop and add value to the original-work making it culturally viable thus more profitable.
If you must charge something make it a pittance amount. Do you (Mr/Ms Executive of large direction-less media firm) actually understand the 101 course-level topic of Available Spending cash????? If you do then you realize that the average consumer only has (atm) less than a dollar of fun money in their pocket.
Newspapers take advantage of this knowledge with average prices of $1 or less. (there are exceptions and inflation affects price but not the Available Spending ratio.) This same small amount basically goes to the small newsstand distributor harking out (would that be a prosecutable public performance?) the headlines on the street corner.
Most media is paid for 100% by contract when its purchased and this investment is recouped by advertisements and other sponsorships when played/broadcast/sent to the public. There are downstream sales opportunities but, bluntly, how do we tell our friends about it if we cant share it? (Most consumers (Yikes, only me?) watch so much media we cannot remember the name of the characters or title.)
Since any files we could provide would not include the value added stuff in the commercially sold edition (please read up on Cwf-Rtb) their will still be incentive to purchase it. James Burkhardt's post above says that more eloquently than I.
Who Cares said something interesting: “An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning.”
my only comment is that we must find a way to educate kids about copy-wrong. (I meant copyright. Really I did!) Or its eternal copyright forever.
special-interesting (profile), 20 Mar 2013 @ 6:25am
Wow! I so totally agree with this. Inducements for original-work creation is 100% a domestic concern. What dose anyone care how other foreign entities (countries, TPP, TAFTA, TRIPS, ect) treat or abuse their artists and media firms?
Wouldn't any such agreements intrude upon free trade anyway. If I understand right aren't all these agreements are, in reality, based on protectionism and written in ways we would misunderstand as laymen? Its been of lately a hallmark that all bills submitted to congress have some cool sounding name or acronym that implies some benefit where the text of the bill is written by special interest groups (thus writing law that mean exactly opposite of the name). So why trust any of that?
Furthermore. All these funny foreign agreements have been negotiated in secret and by default that means someone else's rights are trampling on mine.
This is a much better phrased argument that your Senator or Representative might understand. At least I do. (and I don't understand much!)
Shameless plug: It might even offer the opportunity to suggest the self consistent socially and culturally defensible argument that; Original-works (some might say copyright) must have terms less than the lives of who we teach them to (our kids) so that they can actually use the wisdom we shared with them before they die. (this is not my idea only my words and phrasing)
special-interesting (profile), 19 Mar 2013 @ 8:52pm
Incidental copies are a funny thing when applying Internet technologies. Buffers, backup servers, mirror sites etc. and thats all before the copy gets to its intended destination/user/purchaser who probably wants to backup important data and books or media. Many computers have two or more possessors which complicates almost every software user agreement which stated (wow it looks so silly from todays perspective) that the user cannot run it on more that one processor at a time.
I have said this before but knowledge and important data must be more durable than one copy be it either a DVD, CD, tape or hard-drive. A single hard-drive is a guaranteed way to loose all your precious data and with hdd's storing more than 2gb that can be a huge loss. At minimum a user needs a mirrored copy. A RAID array is ideal. If only one copy allowed its like shooting technology and Internet growth in the digital foot.
Most dangerous are the new USB connected hard-drives and quick removal/install non locking docking bays. A hard-drive's most sensitive and critical moment is when it is reading or writing data. Removing or unplugging the drive at this time has a high probability of crashing the whole drive. Poof! They are so vulnerable that just wiggling the USB cord can blast your data to oblivion. Happens all the time. Power outages? Hahaha.
A remote copy is never going to work because of the inherent instability of companies and their hardware or technology. Its now famous that DRM'd media is licensed out of existence once the firm either stops earning enough to support the division, goes bankrupt or bought out by someone who just wants to sell off the assets. (Including the personal info collected on its customers.)
So if we want to preserve our personal history as recorded from our cameras, musical instruments and video recorders plus the books and other media we collect the current laws must be tossed. The flat out don't work. Which brings us to enforcement.
thats for next next post. (this is mostly a dead topic now its a few days old but I just like to have fun with the details)
special-interesting (profile), 19 Mar 2013 @ 9:11am
Distribution Also needs to avoid the term “right”. One can use control/limitations/censorship/black-listing/monopoly or whatever but “right” is wrong. (pun not intended but love the wordplay) The misused term “right” is most likely clever doublespeak to dodge around the obvious insidiousness evils to cultural growth by taxation or charging for normal sharing/enjoyment. (charging a fee for every time you play a song has already been suggested) Not to mention (and not discussed enough) the privacy issues such control allows.
The mention of “,there needs to be evidence of actual distribution to violate the distribution,” is basic to all judicial foundations of law. First person evidence must always be required or abuse will be legendary and on a national scale. We see hints of this already in the unprecedented DMCA take-down notice scheme.
A great common example of what happens without witnesses giving public testimony in person at trial by a jury of peers; Just look at the entirety of historical examples of Monarchy's (kings and queens) ruthless domination over their kingdoms. The murder of anyone who opposed them and the brutal enslavement of serfs are the horrors known as the dark ages. Nobody wants this.
If more has to be said its obvious that not even one word spoken in history class entered the brain. (be ashamed)
Distribution has larger implications when considering an author's intended use of their work. Obviously many authors and original-work creators do not want their good work portrayed in a bad light. Such opportunities of control brings up many controversial conflicting topics (of which are beyond my current awareness atm). Would Disney want their work played at a GLBT convention? Who knows, and who cares. Such opportunities for censorship should be prohibited in a blanket rule. If some author wants an 'exception' let them beg for it like we are doing now just to use the devices/media we have.
With an overly controlled distribution channels we have an unnatural opportunity to tax and charge for everyday usage and enjoyment of cultural items with friends and family. (See post above about “performance right” wrongs.) Related are “incidental copies” described better as more distribution complications. No such control over normal daily use of any original-work should be the rule not the exception. Making exceptions for every little new development that our clever society creates destroys market opportunities we need to grow rich and great as a country. (no less)
having fun picking on the political logic so maybe more later
On the post: Prenda Law Update: How Do You Serve An Alan Cooper Who Might Not Exist?
If they don't show it would be bad and look bad for any lawyer who, by just being a lawyer in good standing, are unavoidably available just dealing with normal client business. Not being able to respond quickly to the usual demands from new clients, defense or prosecution staff and typical timely court filings would ruin any law firm.
They either have their shingle out swinging out on the front lawn (and active phone numbers, web address, etc.) or they don't.
It possible they are counting on only daily fines being levied for a no show on April 2nd. Its possible that they want to attend a smaller hearing, by suffering a few days of fines and criticism for lame excuses, rather than the likely three ring circus on the 2nd.
They may even be counting on the O'l boy network by trying for a private meeting in the judges chambers. However harsh the judge might treat them it would still be out the the public eye. This would also give the advantage of not having to show up with everyone else. (whom some are obviously hostile parties)
Of course if warrants are issued for contempt of court they might show up the very next day or so and in the morning also so as to assure a prompt hearing possibly/hopefully avoiding incarceration. This would also allow some to escape the wild party on the 2nd but only at such a cost.
Then again of course they could always try to run...
Or they might try a scapegoat. “It was all his idea!”, “take one for the team boy” (just a few possibilities of course)
Ultimately there will likely be a trial date. The charges are still being examined. This could take months maybe even years. Verdict: the stores will sell a lot of popcorn and butter.
On the post: A Tale Of Two Studies: File Sharing Hurts Sales!
Re:
These studies get the magnifying glass under full sunlight and whatever evidence is left still gets appropriate scrutiny.
Believing that their credibility is skewed, and that the Megaupload case was known and supported by media groups before it broke news, it might be nice to examine the sales records exactly and look for gross inventory transfer anomalies, sales discounting specials and new outlets opening during that time. There was no mention of revenue or margin profits.
On the post: A Tale Of Two Studies: File Sharing Hurts Sales!
Re: Re:
On the post: Canadian Librarians 'Owe Duty Of Loyalty To The Government,' Must Self-Censor Opinions Even In Private
Why divide up the country with loyalty contracts and what is the difference between citizens (who are by default already loyal) and government? The schism being created might grow.
The anon comment of treason rang a bell. Remember what loyalty is and its relation to fealty. (to the Crown?)
First you throw and set the hooks. Then you heave ho the barge to the dockside. Then you load the garbage. From the outside it looks like the hook stage.
On the post: Prenda Lawyer Hires His Own Lawyer, Tries To Tapdance His Way Out Of A Jail Sentence By Throwing Prenda Under The Bus
If they don't show it would be bad and look bad for any lawyer who, by just being a lawyer in good standing, are unavoidably available just dealing with normal client business. Not being able to respond quickly to the usual demands from new clients, defense or prosecution staff and typical timely court filings would ruin any law firm. They either have their shingle out swinging out on the front lawn (and active phone numbers, web address, etc.) or they don't.
It would seem they are counting on only daily fines being levied for a no show on April 2nd. Its possible that they want to attend a smaller hearing, by suffering a few days of fines and criticism for lame excuses, rather than the likely three ring circus on the 2nd.
They may even be counting on the O'l boy network by trying for a private meeting in the judges chambers. However harsh the judge might treat them it would still be out the the public eye. This would also give the advantage of not having to show up with everyone else. (whom some are obviously hostile parties)
Of course if warrants are issued for contempt of court they might show up the very next day or so and in the morning also so as to assure a prompt hearing possibly/hopefully avoiding incarceration. This would also allow some to escape the wild party on the 2nd but only at such a cost.
Then again of course they could always try to run...
Or they might try a scapegoat. “It was all his idea!”, “take one for the team boy” (just a few possibilities of course)
Ultimately there will likely be a trial date. The charges are still being examined. This could take months maybe even years.
On the post: Motion Picture Association: The Cloud Is A Threat To Us And The Best Response Is Censorship
Re: Re:
On the post: If Congress Won't Fix The CFAA, President Obama Should Order The DOJ To Stand Down
Re: Re:
I try to compose each post on a word processor before entry. Helps most of the time. Especially when detail, facts and links are needed.
Except for the reactionary part most of the text should have been in the “Report Suggests Obama May Take Drones Away From The CIA” post.
Getting to the point.
Securom. Is it a rootkit? (I don't know) May not be but any monitoring or DRM program should be mentioned on the outside of the game box. Its more than basic courtesy. Another reason I wont trust EA products on any computer in house. I agree that an announcement is necessary.
The Aaron Swartz issue was tragic and hope heads will roll (so to speak). This is what we get for allowing copyright lawyers into official positions.
On the post: Report Suggests Obama May Take Drones Away From The CIA
A separate agency (for armed drones) is silly when compared to democracy and the Three branches of government. Defense Department or nothing as this keep clear the foreign and domestic issues.
The actual invocation of a lethal response requiring the assistance of the Armed Forces creates a lessor but similar scenario as judicial review does. (which would be nice in many circumstances also) It creates the paperwork and documentation trail for a (grudgingly) required lethal assault be it marines, naval aircraft, army or drone missile.
Please (more personal opinion) end the congressionally approved war on terror. (Which arguably does not exist.) Write your local congressmen. Some domestic (and sometimes foreign) oversight is needed. The precedent of random drone strikes on world opinion is not currently in our favor. Fear is never good. Fear of the USA can only lead to bad things.
Domestic surveillance only drones should also be regulated by judicially reviewed search warrant (publicly posted) please. Under no circumstances should the average person fear government spying. Also please reinstate (judicial policy or with legislation) the inadmissible evidence by search warrant not specifically mentioning the item looked for. (still weak but is better than the abuse when everything is allowed.) Otherwise a search warrant for poppy fields (who cannot just hide them) might be used for a property tax increase because they saw your temporary above ground steel sided pool. (they only last a 5-15 or so years depending on maintenance.)
The justice branch (when issuing search warrants) must not fall into the 'interpretation of the law doctrine' trap. Every case must be examined by judge and jury in relation to basic constitutional law. Tossing out the ridiculous special interest influenced congressional sponsored nonsense is the control that our original founding fathers anticipated. Not anticipated are the special interest sponsored appointees to the judicial department. (i-evil in any analysis) Additionally, well, not overly, worded law helps.
All government actions by any agency must be accountable to the public for any action whatsoever.
On the post: If Congress Won't Fix The CFAA, President Obama Should Order The DOJ To Stand Down
A separate agency is silly when compared to Democratic and the Three branches of government. Defense Department or nothing. (must keep clear on foreign or domestic issues)
The actual invocation of a lethal response requiring the assistance of the Armed Forces creates the same scenario as a judicial review does. It creates the paperwork and documentation trail for an (grudgingly) required assault be it marines or drone missile.
Please (more personal opinion) A request to end the congressionally approved war on terror. (Which arguably does not exist.) Write your local congressmen.
reactionary: (more great posts)
Anonymous and DH's Love Child; No, the justice branch must not fall into the 'interpretation of the law doctrine' trap. Every case must be examined by judge and jury in relation to basic constitutional law. Tossing out the ridiculous special interest influenced congressional sponsored nonsense is the control that our original founding fathers anticipated. Not anticipated are the special interest sponsored appointees to the judicial department. (ievil in any analysis)
ECA; states the obvious.
Anonymous: Secureom? Sounds like a root issue. Please elaborate. (anyone?) It's enforceable regardless of TOS notice.
On the post: Toronto School Board Spokesperson Sends Police Out To Hassle One Of Its Critics
Seriously. A normal greeting would be like; How the fuckk have you been doing lately? Ya haven't goddammn talked to me in fuckking ages where the hhell have you been bitchingg around the whole goddammn time since then you asshhole? I'll fuckking kill you if you don't explain why? Shiit! Your Deadd man.
Haven't felt this comradeship for a while. -wistful-
I remember getting some backstage passes to a (edited) rock-band concert. While schmoozing with the star while exiting the arena and old friend approached and spoke, in much the same way of the above paragraph, very personally and I'd guess friendly a very way. The star glanced at his bodyguard/staff and tossed the (now -ex) friend out. I still like the music but the rock-star seems aloft and distant now.
Since then have tried to couch my text and speech with conservative reasoning (and spelling). Obviously the ex-friend was misunderstood. Is this the same thing China citizens go through to avoid censorship or worse?
Any automated word or phrase detection that does not incur the review of a qualified human is nonsense to the extent that civil law might provide a remedy. What orders does the human follow. Democratic free speech or oppressive black-listing?
Reactionary: (reading the cool comments)
Mr. Applegates comment on power are appropriate. Great personal example.
Ninja, Michael. The police seemed very sensitive. (not breaking the door down and pointing guns at the kids) Did the School superintendent cry wolf? One of the worst things one can suffer from is being ignored when a real problem happens. Imagine this same official calling for help when a real delinquent intrudes on school property.
AB; did you read this? http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/oppn-slammed-over-nsw-right-to-silence-law/story-e6frf ku9-1226601328430 From reddit.com . Is scary but contrast the problems they deal with. (cars with guns and rifles) Nothing an exceptional zoom camera could not solve. [remember the Russian lesson of car cams capturing the chonderite (volatile chemical composition) meteorite. They have car cams because every official is bought and in every accident both parties lie and actual evidence is the only defense regardless of what government policy about such is.]
Personal input; Abuse must be prevented or civil lawsuits will curtail. If local enforcement officials think along the lines of “have SWAT team will use” thinking... (fill in the blank)
No comment otherwise.
On the post: California Attorney General Claims Foreign Companies Using 'Pirated' Software Represent Unfair Competition
The software mentioned “,Adobe, Microsoft, Symantec and others,” (indianexpress.com) Any of these (don't know about “others”) can be substituted with open source software and expect a huge migration from the spiteful (and now hated by India firms as to risky to use?) US software makers. Who in their right minds would want to use software that requires a large yearly, per computer, license fee? This well surely backfire like spitting into the wind it will be ugly and messy. (to late for that is my guess.)
Open source usually does require extra skilled in house tech personnel but that has many in house software customization advantages if they really are capable programmers and net experts. The problem is that most firms think they can skip the higher pay grade skilled workers thus costing more right off the bat. (Job opportunities or FOSS Linux/Unix) I agree that Linux software is not as developed as some MS software but few tasks actually use or need this level.
The fact that the California State Attorney (CA SA) used the term pirate seems unbecoming of the position. The term pirate has lately been used as propaganda by copyright industry special interest groups very effectively to paint a dark picture of which should be a bright cultural future for the average person. The word pirate presupposes guilt and creates a false image relating to a persons character possibly poisoning the jury pool before a trial. The correct words are accused/suspect/alleged/defendant or others but “pirate” is a no-no.
It is so weird that the suit is filed in CA and not India where the violation supposedly happened. I cannot see any reason US domestic copyright law can be used in this way. This must be under the title of 'interpretation of the law doctrine' commonly in style these days. (as if the written law was not clear enough) Sounds like extortion by the way its filed. It does set dangerous precedent which could cut both ways.
Why does our administration condone such antagonistic behavior? Are they really trying to alienate the entire world from us?? And they say we are wearing the tin hats??? Is the CA SA related to Prenda in any way???? (Seriously. The methods sound similar.)
Why again does the justice branch even allow such cases to be filed in the first place? This surely is not the first time my faith has been dashed but my hopes are still there.
I hope India will be able to recover lost sovereignty. Hint to India firms; higher local CA attorneys its way much cheaper than hauling in your own. If this is a recurring national problem maybe the India consulate might bring on some local legal staff.
Disclaimer: some of this was inspired by above comments. Thanks. (mostly the FOSS stuff)
On the post: Patrick Leahy Introduces Legislation (Yet Again) To Require Government Warrants To Get Your Electronic Info
The ambiguity of the DoJ is normal. Who knows what they think. Remember that many are appointed and were civil copyright or drug prosecution lawyers before.
Getting proper warrants for any intrusion into peoples private lives is necessary for the normal operation of democracy. It just doesn't work any other way.
Considering the non terrorist uses of the terrorist laws so far is a to dump present law allowing such. I agree with the pre 9-11 comment. Nothing was wrong except the terrorists themselves.
Kudos for Senator Patrick Leahy. May others follow this leadership. Please note all opposition and “Govern yourself accordingly.” (Couldn't resist the Hansmeier quote.)
On the post: Copyright Office Boss Admits Copyright Law Is Broken And Needs A Rethink... But Still Focused On Bad Ideas
My comment; Duuuuuh. She must already be the target of special interest pressure.
Where is the awareness of social and cultural effects on copyright? Nothing about the public needs were even mentioned in her 'updating copyright' speech. Its like we don't exist if we aren't holding 1000 copyright claims. In any way does her proposals benefit society (at large) and the culture inter-shared between us just being the natural humble social animals are?
We talk and share ideas and concepts. We drink water and breath air in much the same way. What we really NEED are more formats to expand the methods and ways we can share such ideas and concepts.
Anyone who claims that DRM is a good innovation has not actually been burnt by it yet. (the count is millions and growing) Not all innovation is helpful to the creation of new original-work and DRM is definitely not one of them.
Obviously Ms Pallante did not read my late posts commenting on her speech. DRM is, in fact, a guaranteed way to lose knowledge and culture. Its a lose-lose situation benefiting only some unknown monopoly entity.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130318/11114922368/more-details-copyright-register-ma ria-pallantes-call-comprehensive-forward-thinking-flexible-copyright-reform.shtml#c786 the usual wordy but different in perspective approach. It was fun to dig into. Covers almost all I would want to say.
“,make the public performance right a felony, rather than a misdemeanor,” This sends so many shivers down my spine. As if free speech and Fair Use isn't in danger as it is. (please read my comments on public performance in the link above) Throw this woman out of office NOW please.
Lately my mantra for copy-wrong updating has been that; Everyday use and Fair Use of copyrighted media should be the norm and NOT the exception. Think about it. In no way should using copyrighted media be involved with criminal let alone felony law. These are civil matters only and should stay there.
It goes right along with the concept that original-works protection terms being much less than the lives of the audience.
On the post: Key Players In Prenda Lawsuits Also Involved In Questionable 'Class Action' Objections
Copyright lawyers involved in questionable practices. Huummmm. Shocking. Just Shocking!
Just how many firms do these guys own anyway? Is this new one “Class Action Justice Institute” worse than a shell firm? Dose it take advantage of anyone unfairly?
An Illinois lawyer relying on the testimony of his family... yikes that is like so normal in Illinois the state of political nepotism. (Lincoln must be flipping in his grave.)
This is real legal drama.
out of popcorn -reaches for box of JuJubee's-
On the post: Time To Speak Up About CISPA: We Shouldn't Be Scared Into Giving Up Our Privacy
We are still butting up against near total unawareness. I think the greatest light bulb of awareness in the publics eye (that something was amiss) was when their web pages were interrupted for the ACTA protest. If the muster includes such powerful players then the campaign, for personal and family privacy, against CISPA (and other bill of the same ilk) might have a chance.
To me CISPA is just a continuation of the justifications wanted by current agencies to both continue business as usual and to post justify past likely illegal intrusions. If (dream) I was in charge anyone who mentioned that it would make their job easier they would be fired. Nobody said any job done right was easy.
If we want the presidents help then a plan must include some rationalization that allows protesting bureaucracy's unnecessary escalating demands while preserving a successful legacy of the first black president in history. May be wrong but successful legacy seems to be the key words. I like the fact that this is a racial first but please don't allow that to be a rubber-stamp of bureaucracy.
Congress is a tough nut to crack on this one. Special interest groups almost rule both the House and Senate. There are some good exceptions but unless they each know their constituents will not only vote them out but their party also...
And that leads us back to more of the publics support I mentioned above.
Does the C really stand for Cyber? Thats so stupid its hilarious. It's not even included in my spell checker. Dose it mean anything at all? Have the names of any congressional bill actually meant what was written in the text? Including a meaningless term in the name is like not even caring whats in the bill.
On the post: More Details On Copyright Register Maria Pallante's Call For Comprehensive, 'Forward-Thinking, But Flexible' Copyright Reform
The root of the problem is, based on the fact, that everyday use is NOT the norm but the exception. Everyday actions should not, even closely, be regulated in such a way as to incur felony convictions. Just handing a DVD of a movie to your kids or giving them access to the Internet should not be a, possibly, life threatening criminal event.
Even fair use is under attack and many times flatly ignored in media sweeping take-down notices. Fair use is an everyday use of copyrighted media. Writing a book report/letter/essay/book/memo with quotes and examples is vital for basic communication of ideas/thoughts/thinking.
If we want free and open ideas/comments/statements/facts in forums, BBS, blogs or whatever future format we must remove any fear factor involved with fair use. Make fair use NORMAL and NOT the exception.
Sorry for jumping to a somewhat sensible solution oriented attack without a detailed analysis of the above discussed laws. It is important that they be fought at every level and shown as such the horrible tragedy, foolish nonsense they are. Trying (been spending to long a post no one will read) to make up for that...
Current enforcement trend is the criminalization of civil copyright law. It was best to leave it in the civil domain as actual proof of violations have the potential to be reviewed by a jury. How can the justice branch afford the added cost of enforcing such broad law that makes almost everyone a potential (likely?) criminal? Yes this was foisted upon them by congress but don't they have a clue?
With DMCA take-down there is no court. Poof. Freedom of speech is out the window. Gone. Vanished.
Six strikes also involves no court and only incrimination evidence is sufficient for fines and worse. It sounds more like water-boarding to gain supposedly real evidence. Some will ignore thus some smarts-ass layer will say they did not deny it. Many will pay some fee and (very) regrettably sign some paper admitting guilt even if they did nothing.
Statutory Damages. Its is embarrassingly common that congress, under the duress of whatever special interest group in vogue at the time, allows the word 'deterrent' to brain wash themselves into approving harsh/draconian/ruinous fines. Fines so out of proportion that it destroys the lives of the very consumers that support the economy. Fines for doing what? Making backups? Kids downloading music files? (isn't that same music being payed on an Internet radio somewhere?)
Every 40 years or so this becomes an obvious problem and a “realignment of federal sentencing law” concept bubbles up in the minds of voters.
Special-interesting yells “Echo!” in the empty (room) post.
On the post: Publishers Show Yet Again How To Make Money By Reducing The Price To Zero
Media being free is an old established very workable commercial concept that has been explored in depth over the last 80 years. Furthermore. It creates real incentives for the original-work's creator to develop and add value to the original-work making it culturally viable thus more profitable.
If you must charge something make it a pittance amount. Do you (Mr/Ms Executive of large direction-less media firm) actually understand the 101 course-level topic of Available Spending cash????? If you do then you realize that the average consumer only has (atm) less than a dollar of fun money in their pocket.
Newspapers take advantage of this knowledge with average prices of $1 or less. (there are exceptions and inflation affects price but not the Available Spending ratio.) This same small amount basically goes to the small newsstand distributor harking out (would that be a prosecutable public performance?) the headlines on the street corner.
Most media is paid for 100% by contract when its purchased and this investment is recouped by advertisements and other sponsorships when played/broadcast/sent to the public. There are downstream sales opportunities but, bluntly, how do we tell our friends about it if we cant share it? (Most consumers (Yikes, only me?) watch so much media we cannot remember the name of the characters or title.)
Since any files we could provide would not include the value added stuff in the commercially sold edition (please read up on Cwf-Rtb) their will still be incentive to purchase it. James Burkhardt's post above says that more eloquently than I.
Who Cares said something interesting: “An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning.”
my only comment is that we must find a way to educate kids about copy-wrong. (I meant copyright. Really I did!) Or its eternal copyright forever.
On the post: Patents, Trademarks And Copyrights Have No Place In Trade Agreements
Wouldn't any such agreements intrude upon free trade anyway. If I understand right aren't all these agreements are, in reality, based on protectionism and written in ways we would misunderstand as laymen? Its been of lately a hallmark that all bills submitted to congress have some cool sounding name or acronym that implies some benefit where the text of the bill is written by special interest groups (thus writing law that mean exactly opposite of the name). So why trust any of that?
Furthermore. All these funny foreign agreements have been negotiated in secret and by default that means someone else's rights are trampling on mine.
This is a much better phrased argument that your Senator or Representative might understand. At least I do. (and I don't understand much!)
Shameless plug: It might even offer the opportunity to suggest the self consistent socially and culturally defensible argument that; Original-works (some might say copyright) must have terms less than the lives of who we teach them to (our kids) so that they can actually use the wisdom we shared with them before they die. (this is not my idea only my words and phrasing)
On the post: More Details On Copyright Register Maria Pallante's Call For Comprehensive, 'Forward-Thinking, But Flexible' Copyright Reform
I have said this before but knowledge and important data must be more durable than one copy be it either a DVD, CD, tape or hard-drive. A single hard-drive is a guaranteed way to loose all your precious data and with hdd's storing more than 2gb that can be a huge loss. At minimum a user needs a mirrored copy. A RAID array is ideal. If only one copy allowed its like shooting technology and Internet growth in the digital foot.
Most dangerous are the new USB connected hard-drives and quick removal/install non locking docking bays. A hard-drive's most sensitive and critical moment is when it is reading or writing data. Removing or unplugging the drive at this time has a high probability of crashing the whole drive. Poof! They are so vulnerable that just wiggling the USB cord can blast your data to oblivion. Happens all the time. Power outages? Hahaha.
A remote copy is never going to work because of the inherent instability of companies and their hardware or technology. Its now famous that DRM'd media is licensed out of existence once the firm either stops earning enough to support the division, goes bankrupt or bought out by someone who just wants to sell off the assets. (Including the personal info collected on its customers.)
So if we want to preserve our personal history as recorded from our cameras, musical instruments and video recorders plus the books and other media we collect the current laws must be tossed. The flat out don't work. Which brings us to enforcement.
thats for next next post. (this is mostly a dead topic now its a few days old but I just like to have fun with the details)
On the post: More Details On Copyright Register Maria Pallante's Call For Comprehensive, 'Forward-Thinking, But Flexible' Copyright Reform
The mention of “,there needs to be evidence of actual distribution to violate the distribution,” is basic to all judicial foundations of law. First person evidence must always be required or abuse will be legendary and on a national scale. We see hints of this already in the unprecedented DMCA take-down notice scheme.
A great common example of what happens without witnesses giving public testimony in person at trial by a jury of peers; Just look at the entirety of historical examples of Monarchy's (kings and queens) ruthless domination over their kingdoms. The murder of anyone who opposed them and the brutal enslavement of serfs are the horrors known as the dark ages. Nobody wants this.
If more has to be said its obvious that not even one word spoken in history class entered the brain. (be ashamed)
Distribution has larger implications when considering an author's intended use of their work. Obviously many authors and original-work creators do not want their good work portrayed in a bad light. Such opportunities of control brings up many controversial conflicting topics (of which are beyond my current awareness atm). Would Disney want their work played at a GLBT convention? Who knows, and who cares. Such opportunities for censorship should be prohibited in a blanket rule. If some author wants an 'exception' let them beg for it like we are doing now just to use the devices/media we have.
With an overly controlled distribution channels we have an unnatural opportunity to tax and charge for everyday usage and enjoyment of cultural items with friends and family. (See post above about “performance right” wrongs.) Related are “incidental copies” described better as more distribution complications. No such control over normal daily use of any original-work should be the rule not the exception. Making exceptions for every little new development that our clever society creates destroys market opportunities we need to grow rich and great as a country. (no less)
having fun picking on the political logic so maybe more later
Next >>