In the modern age where news travels the globe in minutes or even seconds, any kind of weekly news is obsolete by the time it's printed, much less delivered then read. Media, especially news and entertainment, needs to be more timely in todays instantaneous society.
Pirates are not to blame, consumers are not to blame, the internet is not to blame, free is not to blame. If blame is what you NEED, check the business model and the product.
THAT is the real TD message that seems to be lost on the paytards each and every day while they attempt to make criminals out of everyone and insisting the situation can be fixed. The real problem is that nothing is broken except legacy business models in a modern world.
Since you and those of your ilk keep repeating this mantra of yours, I'll continue to post my usual reply...
Let's take the legal definitions (courtesy of Law.com)of both because neither mentions the other so I will just add you to the group of those who really just talk out of their ass because that's where their head rests. Theft involves TAKING something and infringement involves USING something, there is quite a bit of difference which I doubt you can see from in there.
theft
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.
See also: burglary embezzlement larceny robbery
infringement
n. 1) a trespassing or illegal entering. 2) in the law of patents (protected inventions) and copyrights (protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty. Even though the infringement may be accidental (an inventor thinks he is the first to develop the widget although someone else has a patent), the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damages, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers' accumulated gross profits.
See also: copyright patent plagiarism royalty trademark
My post was a direct reply to your last line:
"I do agree that it is not always responsible for the crimes quoted, but it IS a degrading and harmful thing that should be avoided."
Now the government has even LESS business in controlling what I do and don't do, so long as I bring no harm to others.
If you're against smoking - don't smoke.
If you're against abortion - don't have one.
If you're against pornography - don't view it.
If you're against gay marriage - don't marry someone of the same sex as you.
But PLEASE - stay out of my life and my choices, I stayed out of yours!
Senator Feinstein also sent me this reply today. For those of you who doubted that the letter I sent would even be read, you missed the mark on this one, both of my senators replied to my letter. However, I'm sure my views can easily be dismissed if I am one of but a few to share them with my elected officials. I again ask you to simply take a couple of minutes to send an email to your representatives in Congress to let them know how you feel. Without your input, they will simply not have your point of view as part of any decision making process. If only a few vocal people actually do this it may not make any difference at all, but if thousands or tens of thousands were to provide similar views it may be possible to at least have your point considered.
Here was the Senators reply:
Dear Mr. Rezendes:
I received your letter and want to thank you for sharing your views about the USA PATRIOT Act. I recognize that this is an important issue to you, and I welcome the opportunity to share my point of view with you.
Three provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT – known as "roving wiretaps," "lone wolf," and "business records" – are currently set to expire on May 27, 2011. It is important to note that all three of these authorities can only be used after being approved by a federal judge. For your information, these provisions do the following:
o Roving wiretaps – before this authority was established, warrants could only be issued for a specific phone number. In the modern age of telecommunications, terrorists were able to evade surveillance simply by switching phones, which is easily done with throwaway cell phones. Thus, the "roving wiretap" authority simply authorizes a judge to issue a surveillance order that is specific to the suspect terrorist, rather than specific to a particular phone number.
o Lone wolf – the lone wolf provision allows for court-ordered surveillance of foreigners who engage in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific international terrorist group has not yet been determined.
o Business records – finally, the business records section allows the government to obtain business records relating to a suspected terrorist if it receives a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have seen how the United States intelligence and law enforcement agencies have used these expiring provisions and I have come to believe without them, they would lack important tools to protect this nation. The United States remains a target for terrorists, and good surveillance is critical to prevent attacks. For this reason, I have introduced legislation, the "FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011" (S. 149), to extend the three expiring provisions until December 31, 2013.
As you may be aware, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has also introduced legislation to extend the expiring provisions until December 31, 2013. In addition, Senator Leahy's bill, the "USA PATRIOT Sunset Extension Act of 2011" (S. 193) would amend the law to improve congressional oversight of these three provisions and impose a sunset on the National Security Letters section of the PATRIOT Act.
On March 10, 2011, I voted for the "USA PATRIOT Sunset Extension Act of 2011" when the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, approved the bill by a vote of 11 to 7. I voted for this bill because it would provide appropriate oversight over PATRIOT Act authorities and civil liberty protections, while also giving intelligence and law enforcement agencies the certainty and predictability they need to safeguard national security.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please know I will keep your thoughts in mind as this debate continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.
Re: Re: Time to take a little action, at least....UPDATE
Update: So, I did at least receive a reply from Senator Boxer, here it is in full:
Dear Mr. Rezendes:
Thank you for contacting me regarding S.193, the USA Patriot Act Sunset Extension Act. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your comments.
This bill would extend three provisions through 2013 that allow the government to seek orders from a federal court to obtain physical materials related to a terrorism inquiry, obtain roving wiretaps on suspected terrorists, and apply for orders from a special court to conduct surveillance on "lone wolf" terrorists who do not associate themselves with any organization. S.193 would also provide additional oversight to protect Americans from unwarranted privacy intrusions.
S.193 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 10, 2011. Be assured that I will keep your views in mind when this legislation comes before the full Senate.
Again, thank you for writing to me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other issue of importance to you.
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
While I may not necessarily agree with the reply at least my letter was received and read by someone.
"The yellow pages are a short list of ads sorted and arranged by human beings."
Hmmm...I can see it now: a warehouse full of people arranging scraps of paper by hand until everything is just right. Then they call in the scrapbook experts to put it all together in a nice tidy package. NOT!
That work is all sorted and arranged by computer software algorithms and/or databases which alphabetizes the items at the click of a button. It's called "publishing software". It requires a human to push some keys to indicate the desired output - very much like a Google search.
Re: Re: Time to take a little action, at least....
I'd simply ask that if you feel the way I do - take the 3-5 minutes to copy and paste this to your congressperson(s) and ask others to do the same. If we, as a group, don't do anything then we become just as culpable as the opposition for the current state of affairs.
That's easy for them to do with only a handful, but if there were a truckload of them, they become harder to ignore.
It actually requires effort on their part to ignore you. Even more effort to ignore lots of us.
There will come a time when these people will ask "Why is this (not being re-elected, etc.) happening to me?" and the answer is - "You ignored the very people you were there to serve."
Give them something to ignore - in great quantity preferably! The burden is now on them because even a million TD posts with the same content isn't part of how our government works. Contacting your representative is exactly how it is SUPPOSED to work. If you don't contact them, then you should have no expectations for them to do what you believe is the right thing, unless you believe they are somehow mind readers and they have fortunately chosen you out of their thousands of constituents to use their mind reading abilities on.
If you prefer to do nothing and bitch about that lack of action then you have become a willing non-participant to that which brings you your own unhappiness.
Together, we can object loudly to our representatives!
If you want to cry and lament about hopeless it is to fight these abusive industries, then please go do it quietly in the corner as far from me as possible.
Five days worth of crickets chirping and no reply from the AC troll who insisted I'm pro-piracy.
No, I'm not surprised.
Nor do I believe a retraction or apology is forthcoming though obviously either would be entirely appropriate in the face of the false accusation above.
You know who I am because I actually use my name on my posts and you know where I stand on these issues of copyright and patents because I've spelled it out quite clearly for you right here. Next time you want to claim otherwise, grow a pair and actually respond with some substance and perhaps a reference, citation or even a personal point of view to back up your position.
Your lack of ethics, morals, and your willingness to defame others from behind the keyboard for your own comic relief and enjoyment reveal the emptiness of your very being. I doubt that even your mother is/was proud of you, but I'm sure you're content when you look in the mirror. Enjoy that view - you may well be the only one who can.
It's amazing how the AC shill/trolls, aka shit-rolls, claim that ALL file sharing is piracy (wrong!), which equals theft (wrong again!), but when the technology is useful in other ways it's perfectly fine to use as a modern communications tool (hypocrite!).
"Ignoring the question of copyright as it pertains to the downloadable mp3, it cannot be denied that the mp3 is there specifically so that it can be downloaded and listened to."
Anyone who downloads unauthorized mp3's pretty much ignores the question of copyright already - isn't that what this case is all about? Where is the explicit authorization for this file?
In fact, every mp3 that can be found online ANYWHERE is there specifically to be downloaded and listened to - that's why the format was chosen.
Judge: So since you have lost the entire value of all of your works, your revenue for the past year was $0, right?
Lawyer: Um...only when we have to figure out what we actually owe to the artists, then yes, it is $0.
Judge: Please allow Marshall Bruce Mathers III to enter the courtroom. {MBM III enters} Mr. Mathers, could you please tell the court how much money you were paid in royalties last year for your music?
MBM III: I was paid $X, your honor based on sales of #Y number of copies in physical formats. However, the label claims that all my songs on iTunes are only licenses for which I should be paid $X + 20% since the digital distribution is relatively zero cost, according to my contract.
Judge: Are you the only artist signed to a contract with this label?
Let's take the legal definitions (courtesy of Law.com)of both because neither mentions the other so I will just add you to the group of those who really just talk out of their ass because that's where their head rests. Theft involves TAKING something and infringement involves USING something, there is quite a bit of difference which I doubt you can see from in there.
theft
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.
See also: burglary embezzlement larceny robbery
infringement
n. 1) a trespassing or illegal entering. 2) in the law of patents (protected inventions) and copyrights (protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty. Even though the infringement may be accidental (an inventor thinks he is the first to develop the widget although someone else has a patent), the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damages, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers' accumulated gross profits.
See also: copyright patent plagiarism royalty trademark
Mike, how about offering up letters we can forward to our elected officials on some of these topics - especially this one.
I followed a link from an earlier story and sent the following to both of my Senators (Boxer & Feinstein)here in CA:
Dear Senator Feinstein,
I am a constituent and I am writing to express my strong and sincere disappointment that Congress voted in February to reauthorize the three expiring USA PATRIOT Act provisions without any reforms.
Now that Congress has three more months to consider the issue of PATRIOT Act renewal and reform, I urge you to stand up for my civil liberties by opposing further PATRIOT renewal and demanding the passage of meaningful reforms such as those contained in the JUSTICE Act of 2009 (H.R. 4005, S. 1686). The JUSTICE Act not only contained critically important new checks and balances to prevent abuse of the three expiring PATRIOT provisions, but also proposed many meaningful reforms to a wide range of permanent PATRIOT powers. The JUSTICE Act also began to address some of the serious civil liberties problems with the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which broadly enhanced the government's authority to spy on your international phone calls and emails without warrants and may ultimately be more dangerous to civil liberties than anything in PATRIOT.
I respectfully ask that Congress not waste the next three months, but instead spend that time giving PATRIOT reform the attention it deserves. When it comes to fixing the serious problems with PATRIOT, including the broad National Security Letter authority that has been the subject of widespread and well-documented abuse, Congress had delayed too many times and for too long. It's time for Congress to stop kicking the can on this issue and stand up for my constitutional rights. Please, don't make the same mistake twice: oppose PATRIOT renewal without reform, and support the passage of powerful reforms like those in the JUSTICE Act.
See the little paytard sitting on a fence, one theft and one is rent
I find it absolutely humorous that a paytard such as yourself, would argue both sides of the fence and not even realize it!
While you scream and whine about infringement being theft and those who argue against you point out how nothing physical has been stolen, you have the audacity to try and use the SAME EXACT argument to defend rentals:
"It is NOT the same as RENTING. If you RENT a DVD then it leaves someones possession, goes to yours, you watch it and return it. There is a LONG time where the owner is without the DVD and must buy additional DVDs to keep renting to multiple people at the same time."
Hypocrites are always wrong at least half the time.
I hereby label you the shill-troll title of Master Shitroll!
On the post: EU Advocate General Says ISP Filtering To Block Infringement Violates Fundamental Rights Charter
Glad someone isn't completely bought and paid for...
Very clear and well reasoned recommendation, it's been a while since we've seen this in the US on a regular basis.
Pedro for President!
On the post: Latest Issue Of Newsweek Down To Just Six Ads
Newsweak...buh-bye
Pirates are not to blame, consumers are not to blame, the internet is not to blame, free is not to blame. If blame is what you NEED, check the business model and the product.
THAT is the real TD message that seems to be lost on the paytards each and every day while they attempt to make criminals out of everyone and insisting the situation can be fixed. The real problem is that nothing is broken except legacy business models in a modern world.
On the post: Joe Biden: There's No Reason To Treat Intellectual Property Any Different Than Tangible Property
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly!!
When you COPY something without permission, that's infringement.
Got it yet?
Didn't think so...
See when you take something it is no longer there and it can no longer be used by the previous holder.
When you copy something - you both have the item and can both use it.
Still don't get it?
Didn't think so.
On the post: Joe Biden: There's No Reason To Treat Intellectual Property Any Different Than Tangible Property
Re:
Let's take the legal definitions (courtesy of Law.com)of both because neither mentions the other so I will just add you to the group of those who really just talk out of their ass because that's where their head rests. Theft involves TAKING something and infringement involves USING something, there is quite a bit of difference which I doubt you can see from in there.
theft
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.
See also: burglary embezzlement larceny robbery
infringement
n. 1) a trespassing or illegal entering. 2) in the law of patents (protected inventions) and copyrights (protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty. Even though the infringement may be accidental (an inventor thinks he is the first to develop the widget although someone else has a patent), the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damages, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers' accumulated gross profits.
See also: copyright patent plagiarism royalty trademark
On the post: Sorry, My Brain Accidentally Called You
Re:
On the post: Winklevi Won't Give Up; Appealing The Ruling That They Have To Accept 'Just' $160 Million
Re: Re: Re:
My daughters step sister built one of these (see link below) for her science fair project with a leaf blower and you can move people with it!
http://www.hovercrafterz.com/howtobuildahovercraft.html
On the post: Senators And Reps Grandstand Against Online Pornography Which Is Destroying Our Social Fabric
Re: Re: Re:
"I do agree that it is not always responsible for the crimes quoted, but it IS a degrading and harmful thing that should be avoided."
Now the government has even LESS business in controlling what I do and don't do, so long as I bring no harm to others.
On the post: Senators And Reps Grandstand Against Online Pornography Which Is Destroying Our Social Fabric
Re:
If you're against smoking - don't smoke.
If you're against abortion - don't have one.
If you're against pornography - don't view it.
If you're against gay marriage - don't marry someone of the same sex as you.
But PLEASE - stay out of my life and my choices, I stayed out of yours!
On the post: Senators And Reps Grandstand Against Online Pornography Which Is Destroying Our Social Fabric
Re: Re: Re: Theocracy
On the post: Senator Leahy Ignores Serious First Amendment Concerns With COICA
SECOND UPDATE: Senator Feinstein's Reply
Here was the Senators reply:
Dear Mr. Rezendes:
I received your letter and want to thank you for sharing your views about the USA PATRIOT Act. I recognize that this is an important issue to you, and I welcome the opportunity to share my point of view with you.
Three provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT – known as "roving wiretaps," "lone wolf," and "business records" – are currently set to expire on May 27, 2011. It is important to note that all three of these authorities can only be used after being approved by a federal judge. For your information, these provisions do the following:
o Roving wiretaps – before this authority was established, warrants could only be issued for a specific phone number. In the modern age of telecommunications, terrorists were able to evade surveillance simply by switching phones, which is easily done with throwaway cell phones. Thus, the "roving wiretap" authority simply authorizes a judge to issue a surveillance order that is specific to the suspect terrorist, rather than specific to a particular phone number.
o Lone wolf – the lone wolf provision allows for court-ordered surveillance of foreigners who engage in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific international terrorist group has not yet been determined.
o Business records – finally, the business records section allows the government to obtain business records relating to a suspected terrorist if it receives a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have seen how the United States intelligence and law enforcement agencies have used these expiring provisions and I have come to believe without them, they would lack important tools to protect this nation. The United States remains a target for terrorists, and good surveillance is critical to prevent attacks. For this reason, I have introduced legislation, the "FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011" (S. 149), to extend the three expiring provisions until December 31, 2013.
As you may be aware, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has also introduced legislation to extend the expiring provisions until December 31, 2013. In addition, Senator Leahy's bill, the "USA PATRIOT Sunset Extension Act of 2011" (S. 193) would amend the law to improve congressional oversight of these three provisions and impose a sunset on the National Security Letters section of the PATRIOT Act.
On March 10, 2011, I voted for the "USA PATRIOT Sunset Extension Act of 2011" when the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, approved the bill by a vote of 11 to 7. I voted for this bill because it would provide appropriate oversight over PATRIOT Act authorities and civil liberty protections, while also giving intelligence and law enforcement agencies the certainty and predictability they need to safeguard national security.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please know I will keep your thoughts in mind as this debate continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
On the post: Senator Leahy Ignores Serious First Amendment Concerns With COICA
Re: Re: Time to take a little action, at least....UPDATE
Dear Mr. Rezendes:
Thank you for contacting me regarding S.193, the USA Patriot Act Sunset Extension Act. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your comments.
This bill would extend three provisions through 2013 that allow the government to seek orders from a federal court to obtain physical materials related to a terrorism inquiry, obtain roving wiretaps on suspected terrorists, and apply for orders from a special court to conduct surveillance on "lone wolf" terrorists who do not associate themselves with any organization. S.193 would also provide additional oversight to protect Americans from unwarranted privacy intrusions.
S.193 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 10, 2011. Be assured that I will keep your views in mind when this legislation comes before the full Senate.
Again, thank you for writing to me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other issue of importance to you.
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
While I may not necessarily agree with the reply at least my letter was received and read by someone.
On the post: House Hearing On File Sharing Turns Into 'But Why Can't Google Magically Stop All Bad Things Online' Hearing
Re: Re:
Hmmm...I can see it now: a warehouse full of people arranging scraps of paper by hand until everything is just right. Then they call in the scrapbook experts to put it all together in a nice tidy package. NOT!
That work is all sorted and arranged by computer software algorithms and/or databases which alphabetizes the items at the click of a button. It's called "publishing software". It requires a human to push some keys to indicate the desired output - very much like a Google search.
On the post: Senator Leahy Ignores Serious First Amendment Concerns With COICA
Re: Re: Time to take a little action, at least....
That's easy for them to do with only a handful, but if there were a truckload of them, they become harder to ignore.
It actually requires effort on their part to ignore you. Even more effort to ignore lots of us.
There will come a time when these people will ask "Why is this (not being re-elected, etc.) happening to me?" and the answer is - "You ignored the very people you were there to serve."
Give them something to ignore - in great quantity preferably! The burden is now on them because even a million TD posts with the same content isn't part of how our government works. Contacting your representative is exactly how it is SUPPOSED to work. If you don't contact them, then you should have no expectations for them to do what you believe is the right thing, unless you believe they are somehow mind readers and they have fortunately chosen you out of their thousands of constituents to use their mind reading abilities on.
If you prefer to do nothing and bitch about that lack of action then you have become a willing non-participant to that which brings you your own unhappiness.
Together, we can object loudly to our representatives!
If you want to cry and lament about hopeless it is to fight these abusive industries, then please go do it quietly in the corner as far from me as possible.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Filmmaker Gets Fair Use Clip Removed From Documentary Over Copyright Claim
AC being troll
No, I'm not surprised.
Nor do I believe a retraction or apology is forthcoming though obviously either would be entirely appropriate in the face of the false accusation above.
You know who I am because I actually use my name on my posts and you know where I stand on these issues of copyright and patents because I've spelled it out quite clearly for you right here. Next time you want to claim otherwise, grow a pair and actually respond with some substance and perhaps a reference, citation or even a personal point of view to back up your position.
Your lack of ethics, morals, and your willingness to defame others from behind the keyboard for your own comic relief and enjoyment reveal the emptiness of your very being. I doubt that even your mother is/was proud of you, but I'm sure you're content when you look in the mirror. Enjoy that view - you may well be the only one who can.
On the post: Tenenbaum Appeal Heard: Is It Okay To Make Someone Pay $675,000 For Downloading 30 Songs?
Re: Re:
"Ignoring the question of copyright as it pertains to the downloadable mp3, it cannot be denied that the mp3 is there specifically so that it can be downloaded and listened to."
Anyone who downloads unauthorized mp3's pretty much ignores the question of copyright already - isn't that what this case is all about? Where is the explicit authorization for this file?
In fact, every mp3 that can be found online ANYWHERE is there specifically to be downloaded and listened to - that's why the format was chosen.
On the post: Tenenbaum Appeal Heard: Is It Okay To Make Someone Pay $675,000 For Downloading 30 Songs?
Re:
Lawyer: Um...only when we have to figure out what we actually owe to the artists, then yes, it is $0.
Judge: Please allow Marshall Bruce Mathers III to enter the courtroom. {MBM III enters} Mr. Mathers, could you please tell the court how much money you were paid in royalties last year for your music?
MBM III: I was paid $X, your honor based on sales of #Y number of copies in physical formats. However, the label claims that all my songs on iTunes are only licenses for which I should be paid $X + 20% since the digital distribution is relatively zero cost, according to my contract.
Judge: Are you the only artist signed to a contract with this label?
MBM III: No, your honor.
Judge: Council, you are full of shit!
On the post: Senator Leahy Ignores Serious First Amendment Concerns With COICA
Actually Nigel...P.Y.H.O.O.Y.A...
theft
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.
See also: burglary embezzlement larceny robbery
infringement
n. 1) a trespassing or illegal entering. 2) in the law of patents (protected inventions) and copyrights (protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty. Even though the infringement may be accidental (an inventor thinks he is the first to develop the widget although someone else has a patent), the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damages, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers' accumulated gross profits.
See also: copyright patent plagiarism royalty trademark
On the post: As Expected, MPAA Sues Movie Streaming Site That Uses Connected DVD Players
Re:
On the post: Senator Leahy Ignores Serious First Amendment Concerns With COICA
Time to take a little action, at least....
I followed a link from an earlier story and sent the following to both of my Senators (Boxer & Feinstein)here in CA:
Dear Senator Feinstein,
I am a constituent and I am writing to express my strong and sincere disappointment that Congress voted in February to reauthorize the three expiring USA PATRIOT Act provisions without any reforms.
Now that Congress has three more months to consider the issue of PATRIOT Act renewal and reform, I urge you to stand up for my civil liberties by opposing further PATRIOT renewal and demanding the passage of meaningful reforms such as those contained in the JUSTICE Act of 2009 (H.R. 4005, S. 1686). The JUSTICE Act not only contained critically important new checks and balances to prevent abuse of the three expiring PATRIOT provisions, but also proposed many meaningful reforms to a wide range of permanent PATRIOT powers. The JUSTICE Act also began to address some of the serious civil liberties problems with the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which broadly enhanced the government's authority to spy on your international phone calls and emails without warrants and may ultimately be more dangerous to civil liberties than anything in PATRIOT.
I respectfully ask that Congress not waste the next three months, but instead spend that time giving PATRIOT reform the attention it deserves. When it comes to fixing the serious problems with PATRIOT, including the broad National Security Letter authority that has been the subject of widespread and well-documented abuse, Congress had delayed too many times and for too long. It's time for Congress to stop kicking the can on this issue and stand up for my constitutional rights. Please, don't make the same mistake twice: oppose PATRIOT renewal without reform, and support the passage of powerful reforms like those in the JUSTICE Act.
Sincerely,
Ronald Wayne Rezendes Jr.
On the post: As Expected, MPAA Sues Movie Streaming Site That Uses Connected DVD Players
See the little paytard sitting on a fence, one theft and one is rent
While you scream and whine about infringement being theft and those who argue against you point out how nothing physical has been stolen, you have the audacity to try and use the SAME EXACT argument to defend rentals:
"It is NOT the same as RENTING. If you RENT a DVD then it leaves someones possession, goes to yours, you watch it and return it. There is a LONG time where the owner is without the DVD and must buy additional DVDs to keep renting to multiple people at the same time."
Hypocrites are always wrong at least half the time.
I hereby label you the shill-troll title of Master Shitroll!
Next >>