Excuse me how does that conflict with what I said? First of all I had relatives in the movement and they pushed it for health and morals. Secondly, I was using official speak. Please link to copy where it says "the federal government announced today that it would pander to the puritans and introduce a constitutional amendment banning the production, comsumption or possession of alcohol." Will it also contain a passage saying "the senate announced due to the large amount of money they had received from the recording industry they were lengthing the number of years copyrights run again."?
Iknow this one too, it is the example is inconvient to my argument so I will pretend it doesn't apply. You should at least have gone the way Lobo Santo went. Since you can't see it I will point it out for you. For public health and moral reasons the government made illegal something the majority of the population wished to do going so far as to amend the constitution. Large amount of money and resources were expended to enforce the law. Currently by your own estimate a huge proportion of the populace is not obeying the law. Enforcement has to be one at a time because it is so easy to break this law anyone can do it. In fact it is likely that everyone enfringes using either Xerox machines, scanners, or copiers. Yet you insist that law will stop it dispite the fact the both alcohol and drug use indicate otherwise. So please explain why it will work this time.
If a "huge percentage" of your market will not buy your product if would seem to be fairly transformative. Would you also like to explain how prohibition was a huge success?
The existance of a database is not being objected to. The article was being used to point to the fact that large accumulations of information are misused and the entity that has access to large amount of info about us is the government. Furthermore we are required by law to supply that information in many cases. Also your boldface key seems to have gotten stuck
So what if a Canada doesn't sign the treaties. Do they get invaded? Suddenly no one will do business with them? Will the US finally get world support to invade Canada?
As a matter of fact your life experience is "entered as evidence". You are asked questions such as "Are any of your relatives police?" or "Have you ever had a bad experience with a finance company?" If your life experience would cause you to lean to would side or the other attorneys for either the plaintiff or defense can remove you. In criminal cases the States attorney has an unlimited number of such challenges and there was a lawsuit over removeing people for being black or minority.
You are not supposed to ignore your life experience, however you are not supposed to consider materials not admitted as evidence. There are items that could tip the decision of the jury that may not be allowed because of improper handling or other legal reasons and it is easier for the jury to disregard them if they don't know about them.
So you are saying the trademark holder would take me to court for theft yes? If they did they would lose. Besides you are deliberating misunderstanding in a trolling manner. Of course they could come after me for tradmark violation because they did not give the trademark away. See how easy it is to answer questions if you are not just trying to be obtuse.
Ok, lets try an easy example. I give you 100 books for "free" You sell those books to the general public for a million dollars each. You do not give me any of the money. Are you guilty of stealing, theft or anything else? There are court cases saying that if you dispose of CD's and someone else removes them from the garbage the finder can sell those disks. How is this different?
You sure are off on this one. You cannot steal things that are given away. Depending on how they are using it he may be able to show a copyright violation, but not theft.
There is no such thing as everyday morality. There are a bunch of options in existance, but the interpretation of them varies from person to person. Besides that is not the point of the argument, the point is that the arguments user is doing something that most people would object to having done to themselves, but justifying it by saying "but I only do it to bad people"
What the judge is saying is that these arguments are more compeling not that they would have won. Saying an attorney badly represented their client is not saying that you want to legislate from the bench. Besides which there is no such thing as an activist judge. Only those who don't decide in your favor.
I have been trying very hard not to think about this so I believe I have the answer. The people involved in writing the treaty understand how bad everything has become with the current rules so this treaty is being written to fix all of that. Since the result will be so awesome the writers being honest, self effacing public servants do not want their adoring public to overwhelm them with congratulations, offers to buy them drinks, etc. So everything has to be kept under wraps. What's really amazing is that they leak fictious draconian sections to throw everyone off track.
His top degree is an MS in economics at least. The think tank is a self proclaimed non partisan non profit funded by private individuals and foundations that just seems to come down on the side of corporate viewpoints. As I pointed out given your venue and background Mr Masnicks opinion is just as good as yours. Further if you are going to trade on your academic credentials it would be nice to have a lin to a peer reviewed publication.
His degree is in law probably with an emphasis on IP since he practiced law in an IP firm. Basically he does not have economic or sociological credentials so his opinion isn't any better than the ones expressed here. He talks about how the local musicians should lock up their work with out saying how this would create any widspread demand. I also don't see papers in areas other than opinion pages.
On the post: Why The Record Labels Are Still Confused: The Difference Between Transformative And Incremental Change
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody obeys the law
On the post: Why The Record Labels Are Still Confused: The Difference Between Transformative And Incremental Change
Re: Re: Re: Nobody obeys the law
On the post: Why The Record Labels Are Still Confused: The Difference Between Transformative And Incremental Change
Re: Nobody obeys the law
On the post: Arizona Politician Accused Of Using Voter Database To Stalk Young Woman
Re: Another way to look at it...
On the post: DRM To The Disaster Again... May Prevent 3D Showing Of Avatar In Some Theaters
Re:
On the post: Canada Also Getting Pushed By EU On Ridiculous Copyright Policies
Treaties
On the post: Public Enemy Not Selling Well Enough On Sellaband: What Went Wrong?
Re: Re:
So sad.
On the post: Jurors Cause Trouble By Friending Each Other On Facebook, Using Wikipedia For Research
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Jurors Cause Trouble By Friending Each Other On Facebook, Using Wikipedia For Research
Re:
On the post: White House Wants Input On Public Access Rules For Federally Funded Research
Journals
On the post: White House Wants Input On Public Access Rules For Federally Funded Research
Re: My case is why we need to change things.
On the post: Apple Trying To Patent Anti-Tamper Tape
Playstation
On the post: The Creator's Dilemma On Others Making Money Off Your Content
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Creator's Dilemma On Others Making Money Off Your Content
Theft
On the post: The Creator's Dilemma On Others Making Money Off Your Content
Re:
On the post: Schmidt's 'Don't Do Stuff You Want To Keep Private' Sounds Like 'If You Aren't Doing Anything Wrong...'
Re: Politics vs. Morality vs. Practicality
On the post: Judge Finalizes Tenenbaum Ruling, Trashes Nesson For Chaotically Bad Defense
Re:
On the post: Why Would Countries Leave ACTA Negotiations If Text Was Public?
Reason for Secrecy
On the post: Piracy Harming African Culture... Because Some Professor Says So
some thinktank
On the post: Piracy Harming African Culture... Because Some Professor Says So
Background
Next >>