special-interesting (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 10:38am
Not gonna happen. Usually a tax(ing) opportunity comes at a point of purchase and because most e-mail accounts are free this does not exist. This of course will not stop idiotic legislators and clueless corporation execs. from suggesting such.
No way to enforce and no way many would even want the several government agencies that would have access to your personal contact web info. Think of it: Fed IRS, State IRS, FCC, Interstate Commerce division(s) Congressional watchdog communities, (no way to deny the various) intelligence agencies from data harvesting, etc. And. This is in addition to all of the commercial data mining that would want to dig in.
The taxing of e-mails would require giving your SS# and other personal info to such government agencies thus linking it to any such accounts. It would facilitate the serving of court papers most likely (to be lost, in a whole new wave, of commercial span). All your on-line accounts would be FaceBook like.
If the government wants to whine about it too bad! It gives (to many more) reasons, for a protectionist minded legislators, to drive perfectly good domestic customers overseas (again! Its a trend.). More lost business for desperate US electronic information based firms.
The USPS, or its rivals, is not going away anytime soon so let them raise their rates and let free market forces flow. At this time paper mail is not in danger to the extent that I don't even remember giving out an e-mail address to anyone except a forum or two and thats most likely an alias anyway.
Taxing one thing to pay for another does not seem like proper representation of tax levies. (Classic Boston Tea Party of 250y ago not the tepid present day variety) If they wanted to support USPS all they would have to do it tax each stamp purchase, siphon off what portion they felt bureaucracy felt they could get away with, and give the rest back to USPS. (classic)
Off topic: One beef about the USPS was a while back the courts determined that your very own mail box was basically treated like their property and even the paperboy was (legally) prohibited from using it. The instant proliferation of all those extra colorful newspaper boxes hung right next to the original box was a fascinating cultural effect. Its amazing how the courts are abused to enforce monopolistic culture.
There is no cornering the market on stupid ideas (just listen to me for example) and this will not be the last. Stamping out Taxation issues is always a hot topic and hope voters make that a priority right next to finding legislators who care about constitutional matters.
special-interesting (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 11:41pm
What I want to say is... (#22 anonyomys) said:
“Have fun trying to explain the merits of copyright in this case. Because relevance was clearly never problem for you, mate.”
And. I mean reeeeeeaaalllllyyy want to! What respect to individual privacy and the laws of such have they shown at any time. What respect for the law itself have they shown at most times? The chicanery, foolery, outright misdirection, phony documents for shell firms, etc?
One of my classic arguments is that we should not support the draconian 'intent of the law' (unofficial, official doctrine) and stick to the exact letter of the law. (and throw out the rest as unconstitutional)
As this political drama plays out I would be proud that these copyright Trolls get put in jail for their utter contempt of the court practices, individual constitutional privacy violations and business law including mail/wire fraud (somehow the, most likely, plagiarized (copied?) or forged signature of the caretaker (Alan Cooper) got to Florida), etc.
Please stick to the letter of the law. It establishes good precedent.
On that note: “An example of only one such letter (undersigned counsel knows there are many more)” The judicial validity of the California District Court would be solidified if more than one letter were submitted because only one (hope the others are filed quickly) may not be enough to establish obvious jurisdiction. An extra few travel days time might happen also and assign expense responsibilities on the final court date. (just serving a registered letter takes a day or so)
More specifically: the court is looking into perjury, forgery of submitted documents, misrepresentation of evidence and probably more things I can recognizance. In the area of violation of court procedures judges have broad somewhat undefined powers like daily fines and incarceration.
It looks as though the judicial community itself has been disgusted (finally) in the way (a typical copyright dog. Sorry for not being PC.) the Prenda case has been presented and maneuvered. Its hard to piss off so many judges and, the judicial system, will probably follow up with to some fitting end.
A best result would be that the judicial system begins to recognize that the copyright dogs (maximalists, whatever) need incentive to respect constitutional individual rights and the law itself.
The succulent irony of this particular case shines brightly and few have provided such, in general, brilliantly phrased commentary.
-looks around for popcorn vendor- Two beers with that please. (This might take a while and hope the hot dog salesperson makes it over here.)
special-interesting (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 12:10am
Thats right. Now your wife gossiping over the backyard fence will be running up the 'quote-o-meter' from each newspaper headline she mentions. The bill will be in the mail or automatically added to your phone/internet bill. (and will be 3 times as much if you chat at the fence corner with 3 of your neighbors)
Ive said this before but I see news-aggregation sites as no more than gossiping about current events. Since they link back to the original article I suggest they get paid for referrals just like ads do. Its only fair.
There are easier to access and better news sites that will pop up if present publishers cant provide what the public wants.
special-interesting (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:24pm
This is (kind of) on topic but to fix such an important, and so screwed up, mess such as individual privacy it takes some historical review on the roots of digital privacy and then jumping off to some (admittedly) proposals that may be ahead of the current legislations scope. (its nice to try anyway)
Since electronic technology is in its infancy it hard to make any permanent law. Technology is an ever changing thing while laws stay forever and the legislation records are filled with laws that make no sense today yet are still enforceable.
Privacy in general is not a new subject to the law and from its inception the Constitution placed it as one of the highest priorities. The current dilemma is not a problem but is a problem anyway. (Go figure.) The problem is two part in that there are the relatively easy (to understand) Constitutional aspects and the law enforcement established procedures to deal with. One without the other is meaningless.
The root mistake of the electronic privacy debacle currently existing can be found about 40 years ago when some how electronic data and communications were declared outside of existing definition of privacy found in the constitution. On the obvious side that is ridiculous.
Ok Sherman. Set the way-back machine to ~40 years ago: Nixon and the Democratic party was trying fend off wiretapping charges (Watergate) and the Cold War was winding down. The combination of a President with no moral challenges to spying (on anyone?) combined with a paranoiac law enforcement environment gave way to several court cases that set precedence that ignored the 1st amendment rights to privacy in regards to electronic digital communications. (I bet there are a lot of cool references am passing up here but am stretching memory as it is. I was busy watching Bullwinkle & Rocky)
In the courts, at the time, eye; a paper letter was protected but if you took that exact same text and e-mailed it over the wire... it was different and not subject to normal privacy expectations. They did not have the constitutional fortitude or vision to see beyond the written page. (more of a disappointment that a pun)
Regardless of where (geo-location) you are and what you say from there these things should be not just private but very private. Complication this are some expectation of privacy issues of where Twitter is a public forum but would you like government to monitor all your tweets? Probably not and could not imagine it to be any of the governments business. In the old days if the government was watching you they had to declare you a suspect and this would alleviate the public in that they would not be subjected to spying. (of any kind the public was so much aware of their individual rights at the time)
in the sense that monitoring such, with this same search warrant being sent by certified mail to the targeted person/entity. There is a distinct difference between a search warrant and spying although the court does not distinguish such. They should be treated differently.
For any law to have teeth it should have prison terms and fines that apply to either citizens or persons employed by government both for the officer who ordered such an act and the agency involved including the entire dissolution of such agency or department of same agency. (Scapegoating will always be a problem but wth anyway)
Proposal #1: Generally issued search warrants will be sent by registered letter or e-mail with official signature to the affected party/individual/entity. This will allow the individual to be aware of the fact that they are a suspect. The law should not be able to indiscriminately search anyone and especially without ones knowledge without a very detailed and substantiated search warrant. Only the term “Suspect” can be use and the term “person of interest” is abolished.
There are special cases of search warrants, where the prosecution has survived strict justification rules reviewed by a judge in, not informing the suspect and allows (a hopefully impartial) law enforcement officials to search your property or other premises without your knowledge with or without your permission and even possibly, with further strict justification, authorizing force.
It is important that law enforcement not be 'loose guns' and subject software programmers or anyone to armed forced entry warrants without an extremely high requirement that are reviewed by a judge. Of course all the justifications must be in writing and on the search warrant and no secret provisions or sources either.
Proposal #2: Spying is another matter entirely. The current practice of using normal low requirement of justification search warrants for everyday spying on individual is kind of Orwellian. The requirement for spying on an individual should be (almost?) as high as armed forced entry. It would also be nice that after a year or so they would have to notify you after the (spy) warrant had expired. Call it a spy-warrant.
Proposal #3: A re implementation, of an old principle, of the discarded judicial policy of throwing out all evidence acquired in an improper manner. This means that if you were served a search warrant for stolen pencils from your office they could not use as evidence, for any reason, the erasers you stole from your former boss. Better yet make it legislation. (with penalties)
A zero tolerance policy of no exceptions would be important too. (This might come back to haunt government. They should not teach by example stupidity)
Yeah I'm overwriting a lot of law but so what its only a proposal anyway. This has been loosely worded so its only my opinion anyway.
Law enforcement and spy agencies will scream and whine but thats all they can do. As one ignores a kid bawling in the toy store that mommy cant afford some shiny toy we should ignore blatant violations of our privacy. Convenience is no excuse for breaking the law or the constitution.
No one promised anyone an easy job without risk and if someone does not like it please polish up the resume. Its normal for managers to replace personnel who don't agree with current practices so no problems if we just appoint department heads (wow what a change of elected people that would take?) that will follow the letter of the law and not the perceived intent of law.
Of course this would mean also throwing out the 'intent of the law doctrine' in current law enforcement vogue.
special-interesting (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 8:07am
Command & Conquer has went down hill and I stopped purchasing EA games when one of them did not work right out of the box. I never want any online game requirements and especially wont tolerate an always-online game.
The problems EA has, if they are determined, can be solved but its likely a massive server investment is on the executive chairman's desk right this moment. I think its idiocy to demand that most of the processing is done at the server level and makes the arguments they used weak at best if not total fabrication.
If anyone wants to sell me some software it had better be a stand alone disk or a way to make one that can be used for a 100% recovery without using the Internet ever. I have made exceptions for business reasons but as soon as an even closely viable alternative pops up... -jumps-
Btw, the games on Linux are slowly getting better.
special-interesting (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 7:38am
I have to argue against WordPress's policy of storing a clients site's format page only on their home server and the rest of the sites page is hosted elsewhere on a paid for server.
If you look at a DieTrollDie URL request it starts with *.DieTrollDie.com, *.wp.com, (and others) of which any discernig web crusader would of course notice and add them to the block list. The site looks funky without the formatting but who cares anyway? You can miss a lot of content but for general locked down web browsing its cool. (for most)
For sensitive sites vulnerable to an outright information, by hostile legal groups, grab I wold recommend using another forum program of which there are many. Why make yourself vulnerable to such nonsense when you can at least reduce the liability risk. WordPress is slick but it obviously creates extra risk. It is kind of like EA's always online policy but in a much smaller way. I wonder if there is a setting on the WP server site settings that would prevent this type of URL leak. (getting out of my experience so will shut up)
I understand the bandwidth considerations and they are severe so there is no easy solution. It's another privacy issue related to the immaturity of the information age.
special-interesting (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:02am
Isn't is great when congress cannot do anything? I see several agencies have the smell of a large pork dinner with trimmings. Just think of the increase in appropriations they get for the extra bureaucracy. Bigger slice of the pie, more personnel (political patronage jobs), more control... more power!
Current electronic technology law is so much in its infant stage it goes so far as to suggests, a 100% preposterous, trust in the prosecution. Luckily the defense has something to say about that mess. Few times has this kind of accusation reached a jury so precedence not really set yet.
Note that a lot of computer crime law so far is based on hearsay evidence. Example of hearsay: We did not see you do it but we did see an IP or URL that looked exactly like you. (circumstantial evidence by definition) Surely anyone to deny that has other motives irrelevant to a first person (witness) based judicially reviewed by peer based trial system.
Convenience is no excuse for the prosecution not to do its homework.
special-interesting (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 4:32am
Fair warning: A back when I was a snot wiping brat story...
From 3rd grade and on it was the easy going laid back environment that encouraged actual study and left to the parents things like sex ed or test preparation skills. The doors were not locked during school hours and neither were most of the classrooms when they weren't in use and we all carried pocket knives.
Thats right. Sharp little boy scout knives or the like. They were quite the tool of a developing technological society with many legitimate uses making our lives easier and better. We actually used them when we needed to cut a paper or whittle a pencil (remember the pencil?) or often for the art class project using Popsicle stick, toothpicks or whatever medium the school or your parents could afford and that was really all we used them for.
The police NEVER came to the school and even fights were handled internally. When there was a fight the little tools NEVER came out of the pockets even of the losing side. No one even considered it as a weapon at all. NEVER were there trips to the hospital except for such like sports injury. It was explains to us that if we ever did such we would get into 'real trouble' of which none of us wanted ever. (the real police really would be called) Such maturity of my experience makes me wonder the inner fortitude of the latest generation(s?).
It seems to me that a zero tolerance policy equates to a zero brain usage policy. Whats next? Just making the peace sign would be mimicking a pair of scissors thus getting thrown out for representing the shape of a sharp object. Going “bang, bang” with your hand is a no problem kind of thing. A non event. Go ahead and play cops and robbers. What about a great light-saber battle with some rolled up paper or tubes... Who cares???!!!
I like the mention of teaching in history class above. (anonymous^2, rekrul) That war is a very,very BAD thing is only learned by reading unedited text, pictures and other media. Its best taught by a grade school teacher who fought in WW2 and can tell of the bloody pointless battles wasting immense resources for insignificant piles of rock deemed of strategic value. Not being able to mention the word “gun” in class or make a classic shooting gesture removes a part of language. It is a censoring of the most blatant kind.
I think the last generation(s?) have lost the not to complicated moral insurance question: “If we are chained to the bed wont it be safer for us?” Such an overreaction and lack of trust for the next generation is so Orwellian... (and so damaging) (Lost the 911 war didn't we? WE are the terrorist now... to ourselves.)
It is more likely that school safety as a whole is reduced by such incompetent behavior on the part of the adults. I mean really. Overreacting like that is just the same as throwing a mega tantrum in a baby like manner. What kind of example is that?
Been kinda watching this stuff but every time it beaks my heart to see some young child caught up in stupid adult games. I hope every incident results in a multi million lawsuit and the school officials involved lose jobs.
Heres my zero tolerance policy: Bus driver, teacher, officials and admin... pafft. One strike. Youuuuur out!
special-interesting (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 4:14am
Re: Re: [Twixt the lines]
Thanks for the lighter side its a grim subject. On the other hand (having some glimpse into normal human reactions) its (your translation) probably closer to the truth than what we might think.
special-interesting (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 3:03am
On the serious side (the one not aching from laughter) how can any law firm subpoena the sources of sites doing legitimate reporting and story discovery (FightCopyrightTrolls and DieTrollDie) using a public forum process. Even if the posts are not reporters themselves they would certainly be legitimate sources.
If these clowns actually had a defamation, or whatever complaint, case they would have to provide specific details for every instance. Is there any precedent for the type of generality described?
special-interesting (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:29am
The world is old and land is finite. All empires are built on stolen land over the ashes, technology and blood of the previous owners and paint themselves as just and proud heroes in the end.
This is a good article that helps substantiate the fact that extended patent laws only slow down and strangle vital technological development. Makes me wonder if patent terms are too long also especially since the advantage is on the larger firms. Taking off from the industrial development it directly related to copyright angle...
Copyright restrictions are directly related to industrial growth because you cant build a mystery device, you need plans, specs and inside experience as found in books and journals.
I also think this also directly relates to (supposed?) problem related to the frozen nature of shared culture. In other words: We don't share enough! (of cultural items such as books, journals, music and such)
Often when growing I have heard the rumor (from several European immigrants) that Americans are barbarians in the area of culture. Young and immature was heard often. I wonder if that is related to copyright induced stagnation also? What do we think culture is and how it grows?
Shared culture can be like this essay of unoriginal ideas, concepts and even phrases (all aspects of culture) being collected and reused by me in a way that I have re shared what was shared to me. My only claim to original input it the way I knit them together and present the augment.
If our culture/history/industry was censored by copyright law how would we know? How would we recognize the blood stains and bones from the ashes? The real pirates seem to be the copyright industry.
special-interesting (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:28am
I don't think its the lack of talent in the lawyer field of practice but the lack of where we apply that (admittedly, currently, seems lacking) talent.
The Prenda problems brings to light many of the common abuses in practice within the copyright industry. (So much so that I was wondering if the justice branch was legislated out by congress or some executive order.) Am happy that at least one Judge Otis Wright was looking at some of the details. Its nice that perjury is considered a bad thing in one court in America.
Its like (most) judges and legislators alike don't even care if industry lies to them, makes up preposterous assumptions and even deletes and rearranges/reword research to effect. I hope its a trend.
The lawyers paid by SOPA/ACTA/PIPA or whatever illegal trade agreement that tries to implement new law on its own should be ashamed who they have as clients. Would you want to employ or elect any of these noggin heads?
Note: loved the liberal accounting humor above! Some of it actually made sense and was better logic that what was submitted to congress.
Considering my opinion that we should only support first person witness judicially reviewed with jury law... I hope that another judge will consider the constitutional implications to a free and open society in regards 1) to the DMCA take-down notice UN-proceedure and the 2) summary judgment by implication of things like the Six-Strikes 'policy' and the associations that promote such. 3) Is eternal copyright to long to be allowed as a protected monopoly? 4) Why do we have electronic information laws when we even don't know what that is yet? Its an undefined frontier of knowledge completely unexplored.
Disclaimer: I am for the abandonment of the copyright amendment. (lets do something that adds to shared culture)
special-interesting (profile), 7 Mar 2013 @ 10:50pm
This argument of foreign ownership has been around a long time. Its been kicked about somewhat by the public, but is generally, forgotten quickly. Since most of the arguments are technical the average voter is overwhelmed. Outlining this difficult but important problem and trying to suggest possible solutions...
Foreign ownership of American firms is a form of participation in American democratic values and thus, is in itself, fine. Its a genius way to avoid both economic and physical war by way of international cooperation through trade and (partial or in whole) firm ownership. Smart countries do not engage in overt protectionism because it chases away business opportunities. (duuuu! Three Stooges logic, but this is the level...)
Not mentioned, in addition to the foreign based influence, is the domestic government agencies with large lobbying budgets. I kind of equate foreign owned firms in the same category as domestic government agency lobbying. Since these agencies are only the tools of a citizen elected government I see no reason not to outlaw this specifically and see it as an important way to limit the uncontrolled growth of bureaucracy. Only citizens need need to influence/convince themselves who to vote for. They are free to read whatever industry or government journal they like.
It is normal for any interested party to want to control their destiny by any means. Just like any domestic firm would. Each firm does their best to see what our rivals are doing and study them for covert intelligence (looking over another persons shoulder, so to speak, is normal).
One point is of course what means do we allow an entity to influence their bottom line profit margin. Of course that does not include breaking and entering or especially physical violence against anyone or firm. Such is the traditional most popularly understood way to succeed and that this applies to both domestic and foreign firms alike is equitable in the American way of universally applied law.
This (admittedly sparse) bread crumb trail leads directly to what is law and how is it influenced. Furthermore. How can a foreign firm take advantage of that? And. More importantly. How to prevent such untoward influenced on domestic (copyright) law.
Much is made of the American electoral process as fair and representative of the voting public. Influence of voting is commonly exerted by, (domestic, foreign firms and domestic government agency) special interest groups (SIGs) both domestic and foreign. How does one uncover a foreign or domestic government agency donation? It is a problem associated with anonymous large donors. Corruption of the election system is obvious and rampant but the argument do foreign firms exert to much control and should we allow any at all?
My archaic solution (to this specific voter quandary) is to eliminate the assumption that firms are as citizens. They might be treated as equal to people but (because they are not necessarily American) they definitely cannot be treated as citizens. Its is extremely normal that firms use and often abuse shell (or cover) firms to disguise operations or actions they did not want their competitors to thwart.
Its is also normal that countries use the shell company method for whatever covert operation they deem in their own interest. This distinction between a real citizen and a, corporation treated as a, person (still with rights) would allow the complete denial of corporate (and interestingly enough: domestic and foreign government agency) funding, through whatever means, of election candidates.
Because an election is supposed to be an equality based event no citizen should have (to much?) advantage over another so a low, low monitory limit accessible to the average person would be nice. Problem, of foreign influence on elections, solved. Scream if you must. This solution does not completely remove the potential influence of foreign powers that be and do we want to?
This will not stop the incessant, extremely well produced and positioned foreign, domestic and government agency sponsored, advertisements. (cigarette argument anyone?)
SIGs, even it they are not considered citizens, would still exist and likely we only want to limit foreign influence anyway. Lobbying is natural for any firm affected by potential legislation. Only preventing firms (shell or real or otherwise) from donating to candidates or parties would go a long way to preserve the institution of voting as, it is to me, a personal American experience.
Since the creation of law is in reality the definition of who and what is illegal it is the entire reason we have elections in the first place. Allowing it to be hijacked by anonymous large donors is irresponsible in the extreme.
I do believe that the effects of domestic, foreign firms and domestic government agency influence on the American political process is significant but we need to be specific. I have expressed my opinion on how voting donations should be exempt from SIG influence directly but they will still indirectly sponsor ads and such in the same way. One step at a time.
Since this is the usual late and wordy post will leave off for now. All I have done is define the problem and proposed a solution to a good part of it. The arguments are generic so far and see no need to specify copyright or trademark law abuse.
Unsolved is the Huge influence of SIGs which would lead directly to current abuse of electronic technology law (and other law). Additionally, not explored (yet) are my thoughts on how all this effects copyright law and specifically to be analyzed is recently passed electronic information legislation and its implications for a free society which might even be better covered in other posts.
special-interesting (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 11:49am
Re: Re: whooo
“In the immediately preceding millennia, now long forgotten and swept away in the sands of time, one might encounter a story of something unusual that sounds plausible but improbable. In the internet age of information and communication we find that such things, while rare and unexpected, really do occur.”
Kind of romantic.
The obvious problem is that although the Internet does have the capability to bring us the entirety of all human knowledge but not the capacity. This will never happen because of the rate of capacity increase of the Internet (admittedly exponential) has never approached the data growth rate (possibly an exponent of an exponential rate).
Even if we did have the world on a pinhead (storage drive) and instantly recallable how would we disseminate it? Without social discussion, which is also possible on the Internet, education enough to understand it and time enough to do all that... it would be wasted.
The question of what is important is easily lost in all the You-tube entertainment fuss. It comes to me that forums, blogs, sharing files and new aggregation sites serve a great dissemination function of this deluge of information.
And of course life is an endless fascination for anyone not caught up in war or a fascist, communist or otherwise, government that would limit the important cultural significance of this dawning Internet age with some mistaken form of content management (otherwise known as censorship). Life loses its fun when it's hell. In such a situation an anonymous Internet connection is a lifeline.
My nail lately has been the eternal copyright nonsense. Wham! -nail driven just a (tiny) bit deeper- All hail for the demise of copyright. (something else please)
special-interesting (profile), 5 Mar 2013 @ 10:55am
The prez seems to be trying to flex some initiative but quickly running into the manifold of real and bureaucratic complexities. Hard to see if he will be able to see and act through all the red tape bound to exist or be laid when matching political wits with special interest groups.
Today I learned things like the Library of Congress (LOC) was in fact (like its name implies) a part of the Legislative division of government. Of which I have no opinion atm.
However I still cannot fathom why they get to decide what is a basic right amid the lamely titled 'exceptions' to copyrighted items/works. (cell phones? Gimmie a break!)
The LOC is so huge and diverse they are more worried about the size of the next appropriation hearings than some obscure law with annoying and time consuming 'exceptions' complete with public input (protests?) and the mostly hated (by who?) special interest lobbing. There is no absolute way they will want to risk pissing off the very funding cash flow which nourishes them.
It was kinda sweet that Congress tried to keep its bureaucracy from the digital device and other provisions but its more likely the LOC will end up tainted in much the same way as the FCC, FDA or whatever zar named position.
Any law that prohibits circumvention of DRM be it hard or soft coded is a waste of legislative manpower and precious fed money.
On the post: Wrong Legislative Thought Of The Day: An Email Tax To Save The Post Office
No way to enforce and no way many would even want the several government agencies that would have access to your personal contact web info. Think of it: Fed IRS, State IRS, FCC, Interstate Commerce division(s) Congressional watchdog communities, (no way to deny the various) intelligence agencies from data harvesting, etc. And. This is in addition to all of the commercial data mining that would want to dig in.
The taxing of e-mails would require giving your SS# and other personal info to such government agencies thus linking it to any such accounts. It would facilitate the serving of court papers most likely (to be lost, in a whole new wave, of commercial span). All your on-line accounts would be FaceBook like.
If the government wants to whine about it too bad! It gives (to many more) reasons, for a protectionist minded legislators, to drive perfectly good domestic customers overseas (again! Its a trend.). More lost business for desperate US electronic information based firms.
The USPS, or its rivals, is not going away anytime soon so let them raise their rates and let free market forces flow. At this time paper mail is not in danger to the extent that I don't even remember giving out an e-mail address to anyone except a forum or two and thats most likely an alias anyway.
Taxing one thing to pay for another does not seem like proper representation of tax levies. (Classic Boston Tea Party of 250y ago not the tepid present day variety) If they wanted to support USPS all they would have to do it tax each stamp purchase, siphon off what portion they felt bureaucracy felt they could get away with, and give the rest back to USPS. (classic)
Off topic: One beef about the USPS was a while back the courts determined that your very own mail box was basically treated like their property and even the paperboy was (legally) prohibited from using it. The instant proliferation of all those extra colorful newspaper boxes hung right next to the original box was a fascinating cultural effect. Its amazing how the courts are abused to enforce monopolistic culture.
There is no cornering the market on stupid ideas (just listen to me for example) and this will not be the last. Stamping out Taxation issues is always a hot topic and hope voters make that a priority right next to finding legislators who care about constitutional matters.
On the post: As Expected, Team Prenda Trying Desperately To Get Out Of Appearing On Monday
“Have fun trying to explain the merits of copyright in this case. Because relevance was clearly never problem for you, mate.”
And. I mean reeeeeeaaalllllyyy want to! What respect to individual privacy and the laws of such have they shown at any time. What respect for the law itself have they shown at most times? The chicanery, foolery, outright misdirection, phony documents for shell firms, etc?
One of my classic arguments is that we should not support the draconian 'intent of the law' (unofficial, official doctrine) and stick to the exact letter of the law. (and throw out the rest as unconstitutional)
As this political drama plays out I would be proud that these copyright Trolls get put in jail for their utter contempt of the court practices, individual constitutional privacy violations and business law including mail/wire fraud (somehow the, most likely, plagiarized (copied?) or forged signature of the caretaker (Alan Cooper) got to Florida), etc.
Please stick to the letter of the law. It establishes good precedent.
On that note: “An example of only one such letter (undersigned counsel knows there are many more)” The judicial validity of the California District Court would be solidified if more than one letter were submitted because only one (hope the others are filed quickly) may not be enough to establish obvious jurisdiction. An extra few travel days time might happen also and assign expense responsibilities on the final court date. (just serving a registered letter takes a day or so)
More specifically: the court is looking into perjury, forgery of submitted documents, misrepresentation of evidence and probably more things I can recognizance. In the area of violation of court procedures judges have broad somewhat undefined powers like daily fines and incarceration.
It looks as though the judicial community itself has been disgusted (finally) in the way (a typical copyright dog. Sorry for not being PC.) the Prenda case has been presented and maneuvered. Its hard to piss off so many judges and, the judicial system, will probably follow up with to some fitting end.
A best result would be that the judicial system begins to recognize that the copyright dogs (maximalists, whatever) need incentive to respect constitutional individual rights and the law itself.
The succulent irony of this particular case shines brightly and few have provided such, in general, brilliantly phrased commentary.
-looks around for popcorn vendor- Two beers with that please. (This might take a while and hope the hot dog salesperson makes it over here.)
On the post: National Post Wants $150 To Quote Articles (Even The Parts It Quoted From Other Articles)
Ive said this before but I see news-aggregation sites as no more than gossiping about current events. Since they link back to the original article I suggest they get paid for referrals just like ads do. Its only fair.
There are easier to access and better news sites that will pop up if present publishers cant provide what the public wants.
On the post: Congress Tries, Yet Again, To Fix Outdated Electronic Privacy Laws
Since electronic technology is in its infancy it hard to make any permanent law. Technology is an ever changing thing while laws stay forever and the legislation records are filled with laws that make no sense today yet are still enforceable.
Privacy in general is not a new subject to the law and from its inception the Constitution placed it as one of the highest priorities. The current dilemma is not a problem but is a problem anyway. (Go figure.) The problem is two part in that there are the relatively easy (to understand) Constitutional aspects and the law enforcement established procedures to deal with. One without the other is meaningless.
The root mistake of the electronic privacy debacle currently existing can be found about 40 years ago when some how electronic data and communications were declared outside of existing definition of privacy found in the constitution. On the obvious side that is ridiculous.
Ok Sherman. Set the way-back machine to ~40 years ago: Nixon and the Democratic party was trying fend off wiretapping charges (Watergate) and the Cold War was winding down. The combination of a President with no moral challenges to spying (on anyone?) combined with a paranoiac law enforcement environment gave way to several court cases that set precedence that ignored the 1st amendment rights to privacy in regards to electronic digital communications. (I bet there are a lot of cool references am passing up here but am stretching memory as it is. I was busy watching Bullwinkle & Rocky)
In the courts, at the time, eye; a paper letter was protected but if you took that exact same text and e-mailed it over the wire... it was different and not subject to normal privacy expectations. They did not have the constitutional fortitude or vision to see beyond the written page. (more of a disappointment that a pun)
Regardless of where (geo-location) you are and what you say from there these things should be not just private but very private. Complication this are some expectation of privacy issues of where Twitter is a public forum but would you like government to monitor all your tweets? Probably not and could not imagine it to be any of the governments business. In the old days if the government was watching you they had to declare you a suspect and this would alleviate the public in that they would not be subjected to spying. (of any kind the public was so much aware of their individual rights at the time)
in the sense that monitoring such, with this same search warrant being sent by certified mail to the targeted person/entity. There is a distinct difference between a search warrant and spying although the court does not distinguish such. They should be treated differently.
For any law to have teeth it should have prison terms and fines that apply to either citizens or persons employed by government both for the officer who ordered such an act and the agency involved including the entire dissolution of such agency or department of same agency. (Scapegoating will always be a problem but wth anyway)
Proposal #1: Generally issued search warrants will be sent by registered letter or e-mail with official signature to the affected party/individual/entity. This will allow the individual to be aware of the fact that they are a suspect. The law should not be able to indiscriminately search anyone and especially without ones knowledge without a very detailed and substantiated search warrant. Only the term “Suspect” can be use and the term “person of interest” is abolished.
There are special cases of search warrants, where the prosecution has survived strict justification rules reviewed by a judge in, not informing the suspect and allows (a hopefully impartial) law enforcement officials to search your property or other premises without your knowledge with or without your permission and even possibly, with further strict justification, authorizing force.
It is important that law enforcement not be 'loose guns' and subject software programmers or anyone to armed forced entry warrants without an extremely high requirement that are reviewed by a judge. Of course all the justifications must be in writing and on the search warrant and no secret provisions or sources either.
Proposal #2: Spying is another matter entirely. The current practice of using normal low requirement of justification search warrants for everyday spying on individual is kind of Orwellian. The requirement for spying on an individual should be (almost?) as high as armed forced entry. It would also be nice that after a year or so they would have to notify you after the (spy) warrant had expired. Call it a spy-warrant.
Proposal #3: A re implementation, of an old principle, of the discarded judicial policy of throwing out all evidence acquired in an improper manner. This means that if you were served a search warrant for stolen pencils from your office they could not use as evidence, for any reason, the erasers you stole from your former boss. Better yet make it legislation. (with penalties)
A zero tolerance policy of no exceptions would be important too. (This might come back to haunt government. They should not teach by example stupidity)
Yeah I'm overwriting a lot of law but so what its only a proposal anyway. This has been loosely worded so its only my opinion anyway.
Law enforcement and spy agencies will scream and whine but thats all they can do. As one ignores a kid bawling in the toy store that mommy cant afford some shiny toy we should ignore blatant violations of our privacy. Convenience is no excuse for breaking the law or the constitution.
No one promised anyone an easy job without risk and if someone does not like it please polish up the resume. Its normal for managers to replace personnel who don't agree with current practices so no problems if we just appoint department heads (wow what a change of elected people that would take?) that will follow the letter of the law and not the perceived intent of law.
Of course this would mean also throwing out the 'intent of the law doctrine' in current law enforcement vogue.
On the post: SimCity: The Backlash
The problems EA has, if they are determined, can be solved but its likely a massive server investment is on the executive chairman's desk right this moment. I think its idiocy to demand that most of the processing is done at the server level and makes the arguments they used weak at best if not total fabrication.
If anyone wants to sell me some software it had better be a stand alone disk or a way to make one that can be used for a 100% recovery without using the Internet ever. I have made exceptions for business reasons but as soon as an even closely viable alternative pops up... -jumps-
Btw, the games on Linux are slowly getting better.
On the post: Prenda Law Issues Subpoena For IP Addresses Of Every Visitor To Critic Blogs For The Past Two Years
If you look at a DieTrollDie URL request it starts with *.DieTrollDie.com, *.wp.com, (and others) of which any discernig web crusader would of course notice and add them to the block list. The site looks funky without the formatting but who cares anyway? You can miss a lot of content but for general locked down web browsing its cool. (for most)
For sensitive sites vulnerable to an outright information, by hostile legal groups, grab I wold recommend using another forum program of which there are many. Why make yourself vulnerable to such nonsense when you can at least reduce the liability risk. WordPress is slick but it obviously creates extra risk. It is kind of like EA's always online policy but in a much smaller way. I wonder if there is a setting on the WP server site settings that would prevent this type of URL leak. (getting out of my experience so will shut up)
I understand the bandwidth considerations and they are severe so there is no easy solution. It's another privacy issue related to the immaturity of the information age.
On the post: Will Jurisdictional Fight Slow Down CISPA's Momentum?
Current electronic technology law is so much in its infant stage it goes so far as to suggests, a 100% preposterous, trust in the prosecution. Luckily the defense has something to say about that mess. Few times has this kind of accusation reached a jury so precedence not really set yet.
Note that a lot of computer crime law so far is based on hearsay evidence. Example of hearsay: We did not see you do it but we did see an IP or URL that looked exactly like you. (circumstantial evidence by definition) Surely anyone to deny that has other motives irrelevant to a first person (witness) based judicially reviewed by peer based trial system.
Convenience is no excuse for the prosecution not to do its homework.
On the post: 7-Year-Old Student Suspended For Waving Around A 'Gun' Made From A Pastry
From 3rd grade and on it was the easy going laid back environment that encouraged actual study and left to the parents things like sex ed or test preparation skills. The doors were not locked during school hours and neither were most of the classrooms when they weren't in use and we all carried pocket knives.
Thats right. Sharp little boy scout knives or the like. They were quite the tool of a developing technological society with many legitimate uses making our lives easier and better. We actually used them when we needed to cut a paper or whittle a pencil (remember the pencil?) or often for the art class project using Popsicle stick, toothpicks or whatever medium the school or your parents could afford and that was really all we used them for.
The police NEVER came to the school and even fights were handled internally. When there was a fight the little tools NEVER came out of the pockets even of the losing side. No one even considered it as a weapon at all. NEVER were there trips to the hospital except for such like sports injury. It was explains to us that if we ever did such we would get into 'real trouble' of which none of us wanted ever. (the real police really would be called) Such maturity of my experience makes me wonder the inner fortitude of the latest generation(s?).
It seems to me that a zero tolerance policy equates to a zero brain usage policy. Whats next? Just making the peace sign would be mimicking a pair of scissors thus getting thrown out for representing the shape of a sharp object. Going “bang, bang” with your hand is a no problem kind of thing. A non event. Go ahead and play cops and robbers. What about a great light-saber battle with some rolled up paper or tubes... Who cares???!!!
I like the mention of teaching in history class above. (anonymous^2, rekrul) That war is a very,very BAD thing is only learned by reading unedited text, pictures and other media. Its best taught by a grade school teacher who fought in WW2 and can tell of the bloody pointless battles wasting immense resources for insignificant piles of rock deemed of strategic value. Not being able to mention the word “gun” in class or make a classic shooting gesture removes a part of language. It is a censoring of the most blatant kind.
I think the last generation(s?) have lost the not to complicated moral insurance question: “If we are chained to the bed wont it be safer for us?” Such an overreaction and lack of trust for the next generation is so Orwellian... (and so damaging) (Lost the 911 war didn't we? WE are the terrorist now... to ourselves.)
It is more likely that school safety as a whole is reduced by such incompetent behavior on the part of the adults. I mean really. Overreacting like that is just the same as throwing a mega tantrum in a baby like manner. What kind of example is that?
Been kinda watching this stuff but every time it beaks my heart to see some young child caught up in stupid adult games. I hope every incident results in a multi million lawsuit and the school officials involved lose jobs.
Heres my zero tolerance policy: Bus driver, teacher, officials and admin... pafft. One strike. Youuuuur out!
On the post: 7-Year-Old Student Suspended For Waving Around A 'Gun' Made From A Pastry
Re: Re: [Twixt the lines]
On the post: Next Ridiculous Idea To Stifle Online Speech: Irish Senator Says You Should Have To Pay To Post Online
TANJ-it! (there ain't no justice) Larry Niven.
-throws a 10 pence in the swear box-
On the post: Prenda Law Issues Subpoena For IP Addresses Of Every Visitor To Critic Blogs For The Past Two Years
If these clowns actually had a defamation, or whatever complaint, case they would have to provide specific details for every instance. Is there any precedent for the type of generality described?
On the post: Prenda Law Issues Subpoena For IP Addresses Of Every Visitor To Critic Blogs For The Past Two Years
Re: Re: 4,294,967,296 (IPv4)
On the post: Prenda Law Issues Subpoena For IP Addresses Of Every Visitor To Critic Blogs For The Past Two Years
Re: Aliens
I once believed that calculus was a concept sent to Earth of destroy the minds of the young. (Register now while the lines are short.)
On the post: Yes, The US Industrial Revolution Was Built On Piracy And Fraud
This is a good article that helps substantiate the fact that extended patent laws only slow down and strangle vital technological development. Makes me wonder if patent terms are too long also especially since the advantage is on the larger firms. Taking off from the industrial development it directly related to copyright angle...
Copyright restrictions are directly related to industrial growth because you cant build a mystery device, you need plans, specs and inside experience as found in books and journals.
I also think this also directly relates to (supposed?) problem related to the frozen nature of shared culture. In other words: We don't share enough! (of cultural items such as books, journals, music and such)
Often when growing I have heard the rumor (from several European immigrants) that Americans are barbarians in the area of culture. Young and immature was heard often. I wonder if that is related to copyright induced stagnation also? What do we think culture is and how it grows?
Shared culture can be like this essay of unoriginal ideas, concepts and even phrases (all aspects of culture) being collected and reused by me in a way that I have re shared what was shared to me. My only claim to original input it the way I knit them together and present the augment.
If our culture/history/industry was censored by copyright law how would we know? How would we recognize the blood stains and bones from the ashes? The real pirates seem to be the copyright industry.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: Hire Better Shills
The Prenda problems brings to light many of the common abuses in practice within the copyright industry. (So much so that I was wondering if the justice branch was legislated out by congress or some executive order.) Am happy that at least one Judge Otis Wright was looking at some of the details. Its nice that perjury is considered a bad thing in one court in America.
Its like (most) judges and legislators alike don't even care if industry lies to them, makes up preposterous assumptions and even deletes and rearranges/reword research to effect. I hope its a trend.
The lawyers paid by SOPA/ACTA/PIPA or whatever illegal trade agreement that tries to implement new law on its own should be ashamed who they have as clients. Would you want to employ or elect any of these noggin heads?
Note: loved the liberal accounting humor above! Some of it actually made sense and was better logic that what was submitted to congress.
Considering my opinion that we should only support first person witness judicially reviewed with jury law... I hope that another judge will consider the constitutional implications to a free and open society in regards 1) to the DMCA take-down notice UN-proceedure and the 2) summary judgment by implication of things like the Six-Strikes 'policy' and the associations that promote such. 3) Is eternal copyright to long to be allowed as a protected monopoly? 4) Why do we have electronic information laws when we even don't know what that is yet? Its an undefined frontier of knowledge completely unexplored.
Disclaimer: I am for the abandonment of the copyright amendment. (lets do something that adds to shared culture)
On the post: So Much For Protecting US Interests - Most Big 'IP Intensive' Firms Are Foreign-Owned
Foreign ownership of American firms is a form of participation in American democratic values and thus, is in itself, fine. Its a genius way to avoid both economic and physical war by way of international cooperation through trade and (partial or in whole) firm ownership. Smart countries do not engage in overt protectionism because it chases away business opportunities. (duuuu! Three Stooges logic, but this is the level...)
Not mentioned, in addition to the foreign based influence, is the domestic government agencies with large lobbying budgets. I kind of equate foreign owned firms in the same category as domestic government agency lobbying. Since these agencies are only the tools of a citizen elected government I see no reason not to outlaw this specifically and see it as an important way to limit the uncontrolled growth of bureaucracy. Only citizens need need to influence/convince themselves who to vote for. They are free to read whatever industry or government journal they like.
It is normal for any interested party to want to control their destiny by any means. Just like any domestic firm would. Each firm does their best to see what our rivals are doing and study them for covert intelligence (looking over another persons shoulder, so to speak, is normal).
One point is of course what means do we allow an entity to influence their bottom line profit margin. Of course that does not include breaking and entering or especially physical violence against anyone or firm. Such is the traditional most popularly understood way to succeed and that this applies to both domestic and foreign firms alike is equitable in the American way of universally applied law.
This (admittedly sparse) bread crumb trail leads directly to what is law and how is it influenced. Furthermore. How can a foreign firm take advantage of that? And. More importantly. How to prevent such untoward influenced on domestic (copyright) law.
Much is made of the American electoral process as fair and representative of the voting public. Influence of voting is commonly exerted by, (domestic, foreign firms and domestic government agency) special interest groups (SIGs) both domestic and foreign. How does one uncover a foreign or domestic government agency donation? It is a problem associated with anonymous large donors. Corruption of the election system is obvious and rampant but the argument do foreign firms exert to much control and should we allow any at all?
My archaic solution (to this specific voter quandary) is to eliminate the assumption that firms are as citizens. They might be treated as equal to people but (because they are not necessarily American) they definitely cannot be treated as citizens. Its is extremely normal that firms use and often abuse shell (or cover) firms to disguise operations or actions they did not want their competitors to thwart.
Its is also normal that countries use the shell company method for whatever covert operation they deem in their own interest. This distinction between a real citizen and a, corporation treated as a, person (still with rights) would allow the complete denial of corporate (and interestingly enough: domestic and foreign government agency) funding, through whatever means, of election candidates.
Because an election is supposed to be an equality based event no citizen should have (to much?) advantage over another so a low, low monitory limit accessible to the average person would be nice. Problem, of foreign influence on elections, solved. Scream if you must. This solution does not completely remove the potential influence of foreign powers that be and do we want to?
This will not stop the incessant, extremely well produced and positioned foreign, domestic and government agency sponsored, advertisements. (cigarette argument anyone?)
SIGs, even it they are not considered citizens, would still exist and likely we only want to limit foreign influence anyway. Lobbying is natural for any firm affected by potential legislation. Only preventing firms (shell or real or otherwise) from donating to candidates or parties would go a long way to preserve the institution of voting as, it is to me, a personal American experience.
Since the creation of law is in reality the definition of who and what is illegal it is the entire reason we have elections in the first place. Allowing it to be hijacked by anonymous large donors is irresponsible in the extreme.
I do believe that the effects of domestic, foreign firms and domestic government agency influence on the American political process is significant but we need to be specific. I have expressed my opinion on how voting donations should be exempt from SIG influence directly but they will still indirectly sponsor ads and such in the same way. One step at a time.
Since this is the usual late and wordy post will leave off for now. All I have done is define the problem and proposed a solution to a good part of it. The arguments are generic so far and see no need to specify copyright or trademark law abuse.
Unsolved is the Huge influence of SIGs which would lead directly to current abuse of electronic technology law (and other law). Additionally, not explored (yet) are my thoughts on how all this effects copyright law and specifically to be analyzed is recently passed electronic information legislation and its implications for a free society which might even be better covered in other posts.
Getting off topic. -throws away two page rant-
On the post: Prenda Law Showdown Happening Monday: Judge Orders Everyone To Show Up In Court
Re: Re: whooo
Kind of romantic.
The obvious problem is that although the Internet does have the capability to bring us the entirety of all human knowledge but not the capacity. This will never happen because of the rate of capacity increase of the Internet (admittedly exponential) has never approached the data growth rate (possibly an exponent of an exponential rate).
Even if we did have the world on a pinhead (storage drive) and instantly recallable how would we disseminate it? Without social discussion, which is also possible on the Internet, education enough to understand it and time enough to do all that... it would be wasted.
The question of what is important is easily lost in all the You-tube entertainment fuss. It comes to me that forums, blogs, sharing files and new aggregation sites serve a great dissemination function of this deluge of information.
And of course life is an endless fascination for anyone not caught up in war or a fascist, communist or otherwise, government that would limit the important cultural significance of this dawning Internet age with some mistaken form of content management (otherwise known as censorship). Life loses its fun when it's hell. In such a situation an anonymous Internet connection is a lifeline.
My nail lately has been the eternal copyright nonsense. Wham! -nail driven just a (tiny) bit deeper- All hail for the demise of copyright. (something else please)
On the post: Librarian Of Congress Shoots Back At White House Over Phone Unlocking: We're Just Doing Our Job
Today I learned things like the Library of Congress (LOC) was in fact (like its name implies) a part of the Legislative division of government. Of which I have no opinion atm.
However I still cannot fathom why they get to decide what is a basic right amid the lamely titled 'exceptions' to copyrighted items/works. (cell phones? Gimmie a break!)
The LOC is so huge and diverse they are more worried about the size of the next appropriation hearings than some obscure law with annoying and time consuming 'exceptions' complete with public input (protests?) and the mostly hated (by who?) special interest lobbing. There is no absolute way they will want to risk pissing off the very funding cash flow which nourishes them.
It was kinda sweet that Congress tried to keep its bureaucracy from the digital device and other provisions but its more likely the LOC will end up tainted in much the same way as the FCC, FDA or whatever zar named position.
Any law that prohibits circumvention of DRM be it hard or soft coded is a waste of legislative manpower and precious fed money.
On the post: Prenda's Brett Gibbs Finally Answers Some Questions; No Mention Of Alan Cooper
Some jail time should send shivers down an **AA executive who have basically lied every time they submitted statistics and outright faulty research.
Theres been a run on popcorn n butter. The local store is out. I may be in a panic soon.
On the post: Prenda Law Sues Critics For Defamation
Next >>