The courts hold an important role in the US's system of checks and balances. They are the branch of government that determines if laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are fair and fit within the scope of the Constitution (at least they are supposed to). If the courts find that a law is unfair or unconstitutional, the law is no longer in effect and Congress must reconsider it.
So Mike asking for more judicial review of patent law is perfectly inline with the system of government instituted in the US.
If you still don't understand, go take 3rd grade Civics class again.
Yeah, "screwed over" so badly by a contract that they willingly entered into and benefited from.
A contract that 1) He had no alternative too other than to get the same contract from a different label. 2) A Contract that has not kept up with the shift in the way that music is distributed or consumed. 3) A Contract that is weighted more heavily in favor of the label.
As a Libertarian, I don't think that you fully understand what it is we believe in. First and formost, we believe that the proper role of government is to protect individuals rights to life liberty and property. Next, we believe that the Federal government was set up under a Constitution to achieve those goals. As long as the Federal Government sticks to its powers granted to IT by the people under the Constitution, all is good. Anything not outlined in the Constitution as power granted to the Federal government is under the power of the States, as their constitutions establish, or to the people.
We do not believe that special privileges should be given to any person or organization above another. We know from history that giving certain groups or people more rights than others will always lead to situations where the rights of all end up limited. For example, licensing systems that are set up to limit competition. All this means that monopolies are not conducive to the theories and ideologies of a libertarian. Which also means that government granted monopolies are not conducive to the libertarian ideologies.
By all means, we should work together to ensure the common good, but the Federal government has a limited role and the states and people should have more power to establish their own quality of life and system of protecting life, liberty and property.
I think it could come from a variety of sources. For one, we can stop paying out the funds from the Universal Service Fund to companies that are unwilling to service rural areas like they are supposed to. Take that money and actually fund a rural broadband company or preferably more.
Or we could end the monopoly privileges of current ISPs and work toward brig real choice to places like my home city that has one DSL provider and nothing else.
It is copyright infringement to provide captions for films and tv shows without the permission of the copyright holder. So no, Netflix cannot do it and the ADA is not a defense for it. Even if Netflix eventually won the copyright infringement lawsuit using the ADA as a defense, they would have spent millions of unnecessary dollars and many unnecessary years in court to do so. Potentially bankrupting them. If they do end up surviving the lawsuit, they will not survive the withdrawal of uncooperative movie and television studios.
How is it Netflix's fault? Here is a hypothetical conversation between Netflix and a movie studio:
Netflix: Hey movie company. Our customers want closed captioning on all your movies. Will you give us permission to turn that on? Movie Exec: What?!? That would cut into our DVD's selling points. If people could watch the movie online with closed captioning, they wouldn't need to buy the DVD. That would kill our revenue. Of course you cannot turn them on. Netflix: It's what our customers want. Maybe we will do it anyway. Movie Exec: If you do that, we will sue you out of existence for copyright infringement.
See how that works? This is not in Netflix's ability. It is out of their hands.
You pile it all up, and still you ignore what the site was doing: making it possible for people to enjoy TV.
Notice the slight, yet world altering change? This site was doing something that the television and movie industries continue to refuse to do. Make it easy for people to find their favorite shows. That is not illegal.
The fact that the tv and movie companies had to resort to such an broad law to shut this guy down is a testament to the fact that what he was doing was not illegal.
You can ignore it, but all you are doing is ignoring reality.
Perhaps you should hold that truth to heart yourself.
I should also add this. Exactly who benefits from this license system the most? The customer for getting a licensed nail technician? The nail technician who has a license? Or the cosmetology schools which have a government guarantee of students and income? If all those cosmetologists weren't forced through the schools, it would not be such a big industry.
I once read a story. In this story, a man walked through a vast wilderness. Every time he cam across a chasm or ravine, he would build a bridge before crossing. One day an passerby saw him building a bridge. He stopped and asked the man why he was taking the time to build a bridge if he was only going to cross the ravine once. The man then replied that somewhere far behind is another man, much younger than him who will use those bridges and have a much easier travel because of it.
That is why she is taking the time to fight this. She is building a bridge for hair braiders and others who will follow in her footsteps.
If that is a concern for you, shave yourself. However, I know many a barber that is more than willing to prove his skill with a straight edge using nothing but a balloon and the blade. If he can shave soap off a balloon clean using the blade, then he is good enough to shave my neck. If the balloon pops, sorry, no shave for me.
Ah. That means that the ability for supply to meet demand has been able to succeed despite the presence of such horrendous regulation. However, can you imagine how many more and how much cheaper they might be if they did not have to go through such a licensing process?
On the post: DC Seeks To 'Legalize' Uber... By Forcing It To Be Way More Expensive Than Cabs
Re: *gasp*
http://www.ij.org/nashville-limos
On the post: Copyright Fight Over Competing Abortion Videos Results In Awkward Fair Use Ruling
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Fight Over Competing Abortion Videos Results In Awkward Fair Use Ruling
Re:
On the post: Judge Posner: Do Most Industries Even Need Patents?
Re:
So Mike asking for more judicial review of patent law is perfectly inline with the system of government instituted in the US.
If you still don't understand, go take 3rd grade Civics class again.
On the post: Def Leppard Covers Its Own Songs With 'Forgeries' To Fight Back Against Universal Music
Re:
A contract that 1) He had no alternative too other than to get the same contract from a different label. 2) A Contract that has not kept up with the shift in the way that music is distributed or consumed. 3) A Contract that is weighted more heavily in favor of the label.
So, yes, they "willingly" signed the contract.
On the post: Ron And Rand Paul: Net Neutrality And The Public Domain Are Really Evil Collectivist Plots
Re:
We do not believe that special privileges should be given to any person or organization above another. We know from history that giving certain groups or people more rights than others will always lead to situations where the rights of all end up limited. For example, licensing systems that are set up to limit competition. All this means that monopolies are not conducive to the theories and ideologies of a libertarian. Which also means that government granted monopolies are not conducive to the libertarian ideologies.
By all means, we should work together to ensure the common good, but the Federal government has a limited role and the states and people should have more power to establish their own quality of life and system of protecting life, liberty and property.
On the post: Jimmy Wales Confident That UK Gov't Won't Ignore 200,000+ Signatures Against O'Dwyer Extradition
Re:
On the post: Band Asks Fans To 'Donate Sounds' For Next Album
Re: Re: it's a question of what to send.
Also your profile is blank.
Just letting you know.
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging & Digging: Inman And IndieGoGo Hit Back
Re: Re: Re: Crazy
On the post: Announcing The Declaration Of Internet Freedom
Re:
Or we could end the monopoly privileges of current ISPs and work toward brig real choice to places like my home city that has one DSL provider and nothing else.
That is a start.
On the post: Websites Deemed 'Place Of Public Accommodation' Under The ADA; Expects Lots Of Sites To Get Sued
Re: I hate this too
On the post: Websites Deemed 'Place Of Public Accommodation' Under The ADA; Expects Lots Of Sites To Get Sued
Re: Re: Re: this is kind of tough
On the post: Websites Deemed 'Place Of Public Accommodation' Under The ADA; Expects Lots Of Sites To Get Sued
Re: this is kind of tough
Netflix: Hey movie company. Our customers want closed captioning on all your movies. Will you give us permission to turn that on?
Movie Exec: What?!? That would cut into our DVD's selling points. If people could watch the movie online with closed captioning, they wouldn't need to buy the DVD. That would kill our revenue. Of course you cannot turn them on.
Netflix: It's what our customers want. Maybe we will do it anyway.
Movie Exec: If you do that, we will sue you out of existence for copyright infringement.
See how that works? This is not in Netflix's ability. It is out of their hands.
On the post: Anonymous Courtroom Notes Raise Serious Questions About SurfTheChannel Conviction
Re:
You pile it all up, and still you ignore what the site was doing: making it possible for people to enjoy TV.
Notice the slight, yet world altering change? This site was doing something that the television and movie industries continue to refuse to do. Make it easy for people to find their favorite shows. That is not illegal.
The fact that the tv and movie companies had to resort to such an broad law to shut this guy down is a testament to the fact that what he was doing was not illegal.
You can ignore it, but all you are doing is ignoring reality.
Perhaps you should hold that truth to heart yourself.
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re:
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
On the post: Why You Can't Braid Someone's Hair In Utah For Money Without First Paying $16k
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why You Can't Braid Someone's Hair In Utah For Money Without First Paying $16k
Re:
That is why she is taking the time to fight this. She is building a bridge for hair braiders and others who will follow in her footsteps.
On the post: Why You Can't Braid Someone's Hair In Utah For Money Without First Paying $16k
Re:
None of the 2000 hours of schooling that costs $16000 has anything to do with braiding hair.
Can you get that through your thick skull?
On the post: Why You Can't Braid Someone's Hair In Utah For Money Without First Paying $16k
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why You Can't Braid Someone's Hair In Utah For Money Without First Paying $16k
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>