I agree with you regarding a a general pro murder statute, but that is a straw man argument to my point.
The UN treaty on Child welfare was a set of GUIDELINES that countries were ENCOURAGED to design their own laws to conform to. There was NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM in the treaty. Additionally, the treaty was based on laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS in the USA, except they were somewhat watered down. The treaty in this scenario didn't make UN the sole arbitrator on all disputes involving children in the US, it merely created a framework that UN members could pledge to follow. This is redundant for the US because THE UN RESOLUTION IS BASED ON OUR FEDERAL LAWS, SO BY PLEDGING THE US WOULD BE PLEDGING TO IMPLEMENT LAWS BASED ON US LAWS. /logic.
Anyhow, the example you put forth on Murder is different because you are assuming a UN mandate that signatories place a specific law (although general in nature) regarding a crime that affects all states and the federal government, with a means of enforcing said law via the UN, is a direct infringement of the country's ability to govern itself. The example I gave isn't that - it's a pledge to develop laws to promote child well being, as the UN laws as a guide.
Finally, back to my point, which you kind of helped me prove:
The US is very paranoid when it comes to UN treaties that MIGHT infringe on the country's rights (for example, above mentioned UN treaty about the children that you love so much) and didn't approve it. This ITU WCIT proposal would be taking away rights and imposing restrictions on rights Americans (used to) have regarding freedom of speech, expression, etc. over the internet. If a treaty that MIGHT infringe won't pass muster in the US congress, a treaty that WILL infringe definitely won't get approved, and I'm sure the US will use its influence to shut that whole thing down.
I doubt that, seeing how the US has been weary of ANY type of UN treaty that might infringe on US sovereignty, even if that treaty really doesn't (see: UN Child protection treaty that got shut down in congress for harming our sovereignty when in reality it was a weaker version of laws already on the books IN THE US...)
Something about this article reminds me about the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The Guide would set up shop on a planet, suck it dry of resources, and move on to the next tar...host.
If the SC rules genes NOT patentable and follow the same reasoning as the lower court that it is from nature, it will be interesting to see if that will be used to defeat software patents, as the mathematical algorithms are part of the natural world...
Real world application: I have a copy of The Dark Knight Rises (not downloaded or bought, just borrowed) and fully intend to buy the dvd/blue ray/digital copy/ultraviolet/vhs/projector reel combo pack on Dec. 4th. the problem is the arbitrary release dates that used to serve a purpose (took a while to mass produce vhs's) and just delay release for no reason. The copy many theaters get is sometimes THE MOVIE ON A DVD. THEY COULD SELL IT MONTHS SOONER AND STILL MAKE BANK.
Um, dense much? My point went over your head. I didn't excuse Obama. I simply pointed out that he KNOWS WHAT HE SIGNED, as opposed to a President (Bush, possibly Romney) who would have just signed whatever his Generals told him to sign, no questions asked.
I was not defending the President for his actions. I was pointing out that at least he KNOWS what he is doing, like it or not. The only consolation is that this isn't a situation where the President is being told what to do and to just play along. At least he knows the implications. The problem is: He's ok with it.
Also, I meant between the two people with a fighting chance to get elected. Until the system changes to allow a viable third party contender that has an actual chance, the President is coming from one of the two main parties.
No matter who was elected President would have done this. The only consolation is that Obama was a Constitutional Lawyer, so at least he KNOWS what he is signing. Romney would just go along with whatever.
"Anyone capable of getting themselves elected President should by no means be allowed to do the job." -Douglas Adams
So now Apple is paying Apple for Samsung's "infringement" and Samsung gets to keep doing what it does. Seems like Apple is the loser here. Sure, on the books it looks like Samsung owes you, but they're just going to be handing back your money...
Am I the only one who thinks that the music companies should have to pick: It's either a SALE or a LICENSE, but can't be both, depending on what side of it they are on.
Why should they be allowed to argue that it is "just" a sale (and subject to smaller royalty fees payable to the artist) and then sue someone for making a copy of a CD off of iTunes because it is really a "license"?
Creator A creates a book, and sells it to person B. Person B uses the book, but because of copyright, B cannot sell it, unless A gets a cut.
Automaker A creates a car and sells it to person B. Person B uses the car, but every time thecar is sold, the automaker would need to get a cut, or be able to block future sales...
Maybe they should do a dry run where they start streaming a day or two early, so if(WHEN) the bot blocks it, the feed can be restored in time for the real event.
This form of damage mitigation isn't a substitute for fixing the problem, but would do two things: highlight the obsurdity of the system in the first place, and get feeds restored in time for their actual airing, so people can watch.
If every label includes these clauses, wouldn't they become unconscionable due to lack of choice/disparity in bargaining power, and if challenged in the jurisdiction of the artist's choosing, shouldn't the court trash the clause so the artist has some recourse? If they have NO CHOICE but to sign a contract with that clause, shouldn't it be unenforceable?
Also, "just go without" isn't an option courts consider too much when dealing with unconscionability...
I think the problem is that most Americans don't hear about these rules Congress is making regarding these letters until AFTER THE FACT. The reasons SOPA/PIPA/JIGGA/Whatever didn't pass were because of the large amounts of public outcry that came before the votes took place. Here, most of these provisions were buried within other bills/statutes and got little to no air time beforehand. That and the fact that most "National Security" bills get rushed through for the sake of security, but no one really understands the repercussions until the laws have taken effect and affected some part of the population lead to situations where people scratch their heads and wonder why it's "ok" for agencies to do this.
The other problem with National Security related laws is it is very hard to convince a congress or senate or executive to dial them back, because every one of their opponents will say they are weak on security and get them ousted in the next election. Once the cat is out of the bag, good luck getting it back in.
The current suit is likely to be dropped because the issue is a moot point now that one side gave in. Next time, should the affected website sue for an emergency injunction against seizure, and then show irreparable harm, using these cases as exampmes of abuse? Just a thought...
On the post: White House: We Will Not Support An ITU Treaty That Blurs Telecom Infrastructure With The Info That Crosses Over It
Re: Re: Re: Maybe I'm cynical but...
I agree with you regarding a a general pro murder statute, but that is a straw man argument to my point.
The UN treaty on Child welfare was a set of GUIDELINES that countries were ENCOURAGED to design their own laws to conform to. There was NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM in the treaty. Additionally, the treaty was based on laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS in the USA, except they were somewhat watered down. The treaty in this scenario didn't make UN the sole arbitrator on all disputes involving children in the US, it merely created a framework that UN members could pledge to follow. This is redundant for the US because THE UN RESOLUTION IS BASED ON OUR FEDERAL LAWS, SO BY PLEDGING THE US WOULD BE PLEDGING TO IMPLEMENT LAWS BASED ON US LAWS. /logic.
Anyhow, the example you put forth on Murder is different because you are assuming a UN mandate that signatories place a specific law (although general in nature) regarding a crime that affects all states and the federal government, with a means of enforcing said law via the UN, is a direct infringement of the country's ability to govern itself. The example I gave isn't that - it's a pledge to develop laws to promote child well being, as the UN laws as a guide.
Finally, back to my point, which you kind of helped me prove:
The US is very paranoid when it comes to UN treaties that MIGHT infringe on the country's rights (for example, above mentioned UN treaty about the children that you love so much) and didn't approve it. This ITU WCIT proposal would be taking away rights and imposing restrictions on rights Americans (used to) have regarding freedom of speech, expression, etc. over the internet. If a treaty that MIGHT infringe won't pass muster in the US congress, a treaty that WILL infringe definitely won't get approved, and I'm sure the US will use its influence to shut that whole thing down.
:)
On the post: White House: We Will Not Support An ITU Treaty That Blurs Telecom Infrastructure With The Info That Crosses Over It
Re: Maybe I'm cynical but...
That is, until the M*AA comes out for it.....
On the post: $1.5 Billion In Taxpayer Funds Go Directly To Movie Studios Each Year... And Very Few Jobs Created
Don't Panic!
Make sure you bring your towel.
On the post: Supreme Court Will Finally Say If Genes Are Patentable
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 30th, 2012 @ 3:06pm
On the post: Supreme Court Will Finally Say If Genes Are Patentable
Precedent
On the post: Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It.
Batman
On the post: Creativity Through Collaboration: From Memes To Videogames
Oh Lordy
On the post: President Obama Signs 'Secret Directive' On Cybersecurity
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: President Obama Signs 'Secret Directive' On Cybersecurity
Re: Re:
Also, I meant between the two people with a fighting chance to get elected. Until the system changes to allow a viable third party contender that has an actual chance, the President is coming from one of the two main parties.
On the post: President Obama Signs 'Secret Directive' On Cybersecurity
"Anyone capable of getting themselves elected President should by no means be allowed to do the job." -Douglas Adams
On the post: Apple Learns That Suing A Key Supplier May Not Be So Smart; Samsung Jacks Up Prices On Apple
On the post: John Mellencamp: Thou Shalt Not Permit The Internet To Derail Our Gravy Train
On the post: Universal Music Settles Key Fight Over Eminem Royalties... With Secret Agreement
Ain't Nobody Got Time For That
Why should they be allowed to argue that it is "just" a sale (and subject to smaller royalty fees payable to the artist) and then sue someone for making a copy of a CD off of iTunes because it is really a "license"?
PICK ONE PLEASE
On the post: Economist's Defense Of Perpetual Copyright: It's Best To Just Ignore The Economics
Creator A creates a book, and sells it to person B. Person B uses the book, but because of copyright, B cannot sell it, unless A gets a cut.
Automaker A creates a car and sells it to person B. Person B uses the car, but every time thecar is sold, the automaker would need to get a cut, or be able to block future sales...
On the post: DailyDirt: Computers Becoming More Like Us
Well
On the post: Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
Hmm
This form of damage mitigation isn't a substitute for fixing the problem, but would do two things: highlight the obsurdity of the system in the first place, and get feeds restored in time for their actual airing, so people can watch.
On the post: University Requires Students To Pay $180 For 'Art History' Text That Has No Photos Due To Copyright Problems
Response to: Chris Hoeschen on Sep 17th, 2012 @ 1:39pm
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Unconscionable?
Also, "just go without" isn't an option courts consider too much when dealing with unconscionability...
On the post: Unconstitutional Fishing Expeditions: The Massive Abuse Of Administrative Subpoenas By The Government
The other problem with National Security related laws is it is very hard to convince a congress or senate or executive to dial them back, because every one of their opponents will say they are weak on security and get them ousted in the next election. Once the cat is out of the bag, good luck getting it back in.
On the post: Oops: After Seizing & Censoring Rojadirecta For 18 Months, Feds Give Up & Drop Case
Thought
Next >>