I don't see this as worse. Everyone knows the only socially redeeming value of the internet is its abundance of cat videos. It is the only reason why my employer is connected to the internet and the only reason I use the internet.
I'm using a VPN. The reply button doesn't function because of some issue with my VPN and the TD website. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
I administer VPNs as part of my day job, and I have yet to see a VPN do deep packet inspection and screw around with http as badly as you appear to be seeing. If your VPN is causing this difficulty, I suggest you might want to find a different VPN provider, preferably one that isn't such a scam. VPNs should just tunnel traffic from one point to another. (Actually, I tend to see this type of thing more with "anonymizer proxy servers," as in the free ones that tend to be really insecure.)
You might want to hook up here with some of the other folks who use VPNs to access Techdirt, as they have far better success than you appear to be having. Might I suggest out_of_the_blue and Average_Joe... Maybe they can offer some help in setting up your VPN to work with Techdirt.
I'm not sure what you're basing that on. There are all kinds of theft statutes that consider the receiving of something of value without paying to be theft. Look at theft of cable service. That's theft because it's taking something of value without paying.
I am basing it on my training and experience.
I fail to see how sneaking into a theater is even closely related to theft of cable service. Theft of cable service is also a separate law. And in my experience the theft of cable service has more to do with breaking equipment and removing service from others than it does stealing service.
How does that disprove my point that copyright infringement is like theft of services because in each case someone obtains something of value--value created by the property holder--without paying the expected amount?
I recently purchased (as I often do,) a movie on DVD that I was interested in watching. Usually I use Netflix for this, but the movie wasn't available on Netflix (probably because the company felt it could make more money by stiffing Netflix than it could by working with them, but no matter.) I then ripped it (actually, legally, as the DVD did not have any copy protection, thankfully,) and placed the DVD on to my shelves that have DVDs, and then proceeded to watch the movie on my Linux system using VLC (I don't do Windows, and there aren't any "legal" Linux DVD players out there.) I did not place the video online, and did not "make it available" for anyone to download.
So, what you are saying is that I didn't pay the expected amount to obtain the DVD I paid for because I used copyright infringement to obtain something of value, created by the property holder, for something they determined I should only be allowed to play on a sanctioned DVD player or on a Windows computer? What if I purchased the DVD and then found out it was copy protected and I couldn't play it on my Linux computer? What if, after buying it, I downloaded it from a torrent in order to play it? So all copyright infringement is like theft of service because customers who purchase a DVD or BluRay, expecting it to play, obtain something of value without paying the expected amount?
Sneaking in to the theater without paying is theft, even if it didn't cost the theater anything as they were playing the movie anyway, because the person sneaking in ACQUIRES something without paying for it.
Which is why sneaking into the movie theater is usually not charged as theft of services/defrauding an innkeeper, but as commercial trespass. The movie theater tells the person to leave and the police give the person notice of trespass. If the person returns, they go to jail on misdemeanor trespass charges. A lot easier than going to court and dealing with $6-10 in damages.
A loss of profits can certainly be a part of what makes it theft. But it's theft even if it's not a lost sale for the reasons just mentioned. The infringer acquires something of value without paying the part who has the right to exclude from acquiring that thing without paying for it.
This has been debunked so many times here. It is not true based on the law or based on reality. A lost sale is not theft (at least until Congress passes a law that mandates profit.) There are many cases where an infringer acquires something of value while paying but not receiving what they paid for, or receiving the value they thought they were going to receive by paying.
I apologize for the replies not showing up correctly. That is beyond my control. I am clicking "reply" in the normal fashion. If you view it in "Flattened" view, it's easier.
Like every other argument you've made...it is easier (according to you) to do what is easier for you, instead of doing what is easier for everyone else. How entitled are you?
Hollywood makes works that are original in the legal sense.
So the fifth iteration of Transformers and the seventh iteration of Fast and Furious are original. Thanks for the clarification. Also, I'll let the publishers of John Carter know that Disney's implementation is entirely original.
I think you misunderstand what original means in the copyright law context.
The fact that there can be any misunderstanding of the law vs. reality shows how tenuous the law is.
For example, if you sneak into a movie theater and watch the movie without paying, that is defined to be theft of services in many states.
"Theft of services" is not considered theft in the same line as petty theft/grand theft. It is more akin to defrauding an innkeeper (which most states equate it to.) Much like copyright infringement, it is considered different under the law than theft. However, unlike copyright infringement, defrauding an innkeeper does result in real loss, since the innkeeper has a limited amount of supply and the theft prevents them from selling that supply to another person.
Copyright infringement potentially results in loss of profit, but when there is an infinite supply of product, it is hard to say that the result prevents someone from selling the supply to another person.
Also, please learn to internet. When you respond to someone, press "reply to this." It helps keep things in order and makes following the thread easier.
What I said is the classic presentation of the copyright bargain. The exclusive rights are the incentive that get people to create original works in the first place.
A classic presentation that a good group of us find corrupt and perverted. A copyright bargain based on a flawed view of creation, instead of one based on evolution. A copyright bargain that has no basis in reality and serves only to make those who managed to get there first the rulers over those who came later.
The belief that, as you say, without incentive, no original works will be created. Copyright is a recent invention (a flawed one,) and for many years before copyright existed, people created works. And copyright isn't giving much of an incentive right now for Hollywood to make original works.
If you have nothing to compare the DNA against in the crime, then you're just wasting your time. Or simply trying to create a database of DNA to solve other crimes you do have DNA evidence for.
This, x1000. It may be proactive because you know DNA evidence is forthcoming, but it still isn't right and is an absolute waste of everyone's time. It is amazing that anyone, with a straight face, would suggest this as an option. You are wasting the time of 500 people who pay your paycheck just so it will allow you to be a little quicker in matching the data after the fact, especially since it doesn't take very long to get the DNA evidence and compare it to the suspect you have a warrant for (since you have already been able to determine, through actual police work, and with the help of the citizenry, who the target is.) The case wasn't even cold yet.
This should have gotten first-worded, but too late for that. I'll give you Last Word as a consolation prize
In all fairness, my entire argument was based on arguments that came before (though one I truly believe in.) So I only accept the last word on behalf of everyone else.
And copyright does so how? By giving authors certain exclusive rights, i.e., rights to exclude others from misappropriating the protected elements of their works. It's not hard. Why pretend like this isn't part of the bargain?
So in your words, copyright is there to protect those who come first from others, who are not fortunate to be born first from coming along and building on that work. If that is the case, hope, no pray, that someone who comes before you doesn't claim you stole their work. Copyright gives authors exclusive rights (for a limited period of time) to copy their work. Derivative rights are an abomination to science, reality, and human nature, and hopefully will someday be destroyed.
Nothing is born in a vacuum. Not ether, not copyrighted works, nothing. All works are born from works that came before. Everything is derivative. To claim otherwise is to tilt at windmills.
In modern usage, it's not blackmail (the threat of revealing damaging information unless you do what they want), it's extortion (the threat of harm to your person or property unless you do what they want).
Even worse, it is extortion under the color of authority to attempt to illegally deprive someone's Constitutional rights. IANAL, but certainly 42 USC 1983 would work here (but they would have to sue the officer for violation of their 4th amendment rights.)
Though, I have a feeling that many AT&T customers are going to be switching to "pay as you go" phones in the near future.
This is one (and probably the biggest reason) of about 5 reasons I left AT&T. I am with a month-by-month plan with T-Mobile, and pay far less than AT&T (since I don't pay for the privilege of bringing my own phone, though they are now giving you back $15 a month for bringing your own phone to AT&T.)
Of course, if you ask AT&T, it was them who dumped me first because I wasn't interested in being a good customer and wanted to take my phone number somewhere else (apparently, if you go somewhere else and take your number with you, AT&T cancels your account and forces you to reactivate in order to get a new number.) When I've moved lines in the past with other companies, they just assigned me a new phone number. Stay classy AT&T.
While airsoft is used sometimes for training, it isn't standard equipment. And it can be dangerous, especially if the person isn't wearing eye protection. Having taken a number of airsoft hits, it is painful and will get your attention pretty quickly, but aside from that the risks are too high to be used as anything other than a less than lethal weapon (and they already have enough to carry.) Besides, airsoft looks and works too much like a real weapon, so it is open to the risk of the officer deploying their real weapon thinking it was an airsoft (or vice-versa.)
as with real bullets a leg shot or knee arent usually lethal
Most shots aren't "immediately" lethal. Shots that clip the heart or a major artery/vein, or shots to the head may be immediately lethal, and shots that hit the spinal cord between the head and the neck are almost always immediately lethal (severing the spinal cord there will result in the lungs and heart immediately not working), but other shots, even to vital organs will likely not be immediately lethal. Even a sucking chest wound, or a collapsed lung will not kill you instantaneously. Hollywood lies.
The danger always comes with bleeding out, and even a leg wound can be lethal if not taken care of.
i remember a time when the police were told to shot in the leg
I remember a time when police were told to stand sideways when firing (though I was very young at the time,) but other then Hollywood movies, I don't think police were ever told to shoot the legs. The center of mass is the easiest place to hit, and thus hitting somewhere in the milk-bottle is far easier than to the legs. Plus, the legs have some of the biggest arteries/veins in the body, so a hit to the leg may be fatal.
I think that if the amount of evidence were identical, but the victim was the one who shot the agent, the DA would bring charges and prosecute vigorously.
It would depend if the victim had a legal right to discharge a firearm (which is extremely rare in California, where it is against the law to have a loaded firearm on your person in public without a license, which is extremely difficult to get.) The fact that a victim had a firearm, and used it, would be enough for the DA to charge the victim over.
Now, if the victim had a CCW, and feared for his life, the DA would have had a lot more difficult time.
.I was thinking more along the lines of the peons and whatnot.
Peons are included.
As for lawyers lying in court, they should be held to the same rules, especially perjury. If they are caught lying, hopefully there is enough for the judge to get them removed from office and penalized.
I suspect that if the victim were the one who killed the agent, the DA would have absolutely brought charges regardless.
I'm not so sure. If they had shot the agent with a gun, yes. If they had hit the agent with the car, yes. But I suspect there would have been vastly more evidence of a crime in both of those cases in which to bring charges against the victim.
It isn't that I am trying to protect the agent here...I'm just pointing out that the D.A. couldn't bring charges because there wasn't enough evidence. If an agent discharges their firearm to protect themselves or another person, it is legal. In this case I tend to agree with aldestrawk below...this was a keystone cops episode, where the agent was obviously over-aggressive and wrong, and should receive discipline and removed from his position so he can't accidentally hurt anyone ever again under to color of authority.
On the post: Advisory Panel Offers Suggestions To Strengthen US Cybersecurity, But Is The Government Capable Of Change?
Re: Could be worse...
I don't see this as worse. Everyone knows the only socially redeeming value of the internet is its abundance of cat videos. It is the only reason why my employer is connected to the internet and the only reason I use the internet.
And at home, the internet solely exists for porn.
/s
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Lawyers Tell Show Inspired By 'The Princess Bride' To Prepare To Die
Re:
I administer VPNs as part of my day job, and I have yet to see a VPN do deep packet inspection and screw around with http as badly as you appear to be seeing. If your VPN is causing this difficulty, I suggest you might want to find a different VPN provider, preferably one that isn't such a scam. VPNs should just tunnel traffic from one point to another. (Actually, I tend to see this type of thing more with "anonymizer proxy servers," as in the free ones that tend to be really insecure.)
You might want to hook up here with some of the other folks who use VPNs to access Techdirt, as they have far better success than you appear to be having. Might I suggest out_of_the_blue and Average_Joe... Maybe they can offer some help in setting up your VPN to work with Techdirt.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Lawyers Tell Show Inspired By 'The Princess Bride' To Prepare To Die
Re:
I am basing it on my training and experience.
I fail to see how sneaking into a theater is even closely related to theft of cable service. Theft of cable service is also a separate law. And in my experience the theft of cable service has more to do with breaking equipment and removing service from others than it does stealing service.
How does that disprove my point that copyright infringement is like theft of services because in each case someone obtains something of value--value created by the property holder--without paying the expected amount?
I recently purchased (as I often do,) a movie on DVD that I was interested in watching. Usually I use Netflix for this, but the movie wasn't available on Netflix (probably because the company felt it could make more money by stiffing Netflix than it could by working with them, but no matter.) I then ripped it (actually, legally, as the DVD did not have any copy protection, thankfully,) and placed the DVD on to my shelves that have DVDs, and then proceeded to watch the movie on my Linux system using VLC (I don't do Windows, and there aren't any "legal" Linux DVD players out there.) I did not place the video online, and did not "make it available" for anyone to download.
So, what you are saying is that I didn't pay the expected amount to obtain the DVD I paid for because I used copyright infringement to obtain something of value, created by the property holder, for something they determined I should only be allowed to play on a sanctioned DVD player or on a Windows computer? What if I purchased the DVD and then found out it was copy protected and I couldn't play it on my Linux computer? What if, after buying it, I downloaded it from a torrent in order to play it? So all copyright infringement is like theft of service because customers who purchase a DVD or BluRay, expecting it to play, obtain something of value without paying the expected amount?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Lawyers Tell Show Inspired By 'The Princess Bride' To Prepare To Die
Re:
Which is why sneaking into the movie theater is usually not charged as theft of services/defrauding an innkeeper, but as commercial trespass. The movie theater tells the person to leave and the police give the person notice of trespass. If the person returns, they go to jail on misdemeanor trespass charges. A lot easier than going to court and dealing with $6-10 in damages.
A loss of profits can certainly be a part of what makes it theft. But it's theft even if it's not a lost sale for the reasons just mentioned. The infringer acquires something of value without paying the part who has the right to exclude from acquiring that thing without paying for it.
This has been debunked so many times here. It is not true based on the law or based on reality. A lost sale is not theft (at least until Congress passes a law that mandates profit.) There are many cases where an infringer acquires something of value while paying but not receiving what they paid for, or receiving the value they thought they were going to receive by paying.
I apologize for the replies not showing up correctly. That is beyond my control. I am clicking "reply" in the normal fashion. If you view it in "Flattened" view, it's easier.
Like every other argument you've made...it is easier (according to you) to do what is easier for you, instead of doing what is easier for everyone else. How entitled are you?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Lawyers Tell Show Inspired By 'The Princess Bride' To Prepare To Die
Re:
So the fifth iteration of Transformers and the seventh iteration of Fast and Furious are original. Thanks for the clarification. Also, I'll let the publishers of John Carter know that Disney's implementation is entirely original.
I think you misunderstand what original means in the copyright law context.
The fact that there can be any misunderstanding of the law vs. reality shows how tenuous the law is.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Lawyers Tell Show Inspired By 'The Princess Bride' To Prepare To Die
Re:
"Theft of services" is not considered theft in the same line as petty theft/grand theft. It is more akin to defrauding an innkeeper (which most states equate it to.) Much like copyright infringement, it is considered different under the law than theft. However, unlike copyright infringement, defrauding an innkeeper does result in real loss, since the innkeeper has a limited amount of supply and the theft prevents them from selling that supply to another person.
Copyright infringement potentially results in loss of profit, but when there is an infinite supply of product, it is hard to say that the result prevents someone from selling the supply to another person.
Also, please learn to internet. When you respond to someone, press "reply to this." It helps keep things in order and makes following the thread easier.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Lawyers Tell Show Inspired By 'The Princess Bride' To Prepare To Die
Re:
A classic presentation that a good group of us find corrupt and perverted. A copyright bargain based on a flawed view of creation, instead of one based on evolution. A copyright bargain that has no basis in reality and serves only to make those who managed to get there first the rulers over those who came later.
The belief that, as you say, without incentive, no original works will be created. Copyright is a recent invention (a flawed one,) and for many years before copyright existed, people created works. And copyright isn't giving much of an incentive right now for Hollywood to make original works.
On the post: Warrantless Collection Of Cellphone Data By Law Enforcement On The Rise, As Is The Use Of Stingray Tower Spoofers
Re: DNA of 500 people helps them how exactly?
This, x1000. It may be proactive because you know DNA evidence is forthcoming, but it still isn't right and is an absolute waste of everyone's time. It is amazing that anyone, with a straight face, would suggest this as an option. You are wasting the time of 500 people who pay your paycheck just so it will allow you to be a little quicker in matching the data after the fact, especially since it doesn't take very long to get the DNA evidence and compare it to the suspect you have a warrant for (since you have already been able to determine, through actual police work, and with the help of the citizenry, who the target is.) The case wasn't even cold yet.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Lawyers Tell Show Inspired By 'The Princess Bride' To Prepare To Die
Re: Re: Re:
In all fairness, my entire argument was based on arguments that came before (though one I truly believe in.) So I only accept the last word on behalf of everyone else.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Lawyers Tell Show Inspired By 'The Princess Bride' To Prepare To Die
Re:
So in your words, copyright is there to protect those who come first from others, who are not fortunate to be born first from coming along and building on that work. If that is the case, hope, no pray, that someone who comes before you doesn't claim you stole their work. Copyright gives authors exclusive rights (for a limited period of time) to copy their work. Derivative rights are an abomination to science, reality, and human nature, and hopefully will someday be destroyed.
Nothing is born in a vacuum. Not ether, not copyrighted works, nothing. All works are born from works that came before. Everything is derivative. To claim otherwise is to tilt at windmills.
On the post: Kansas City Cops Tell Man They'll Kill His Dogs And Destroy His Home If Forced To Obtain A Search Warrant
Re: Re:
Even worse, it is extortion under the color of authority to attempt to illegally deprive someone's Constitutional rights. IANAL, but certainly 42 USC 1983 would work here (but they would have to sue the officer for violation of their 4th amendment rights.)
On the post: Newest Leak Shows NSA, GCHQ Infiltrated World Of Warcraft, Second Life
Re: Re: Re: Huh...
I am sure they do (all of them, my in game characters resumes and my resume.)
On the post: Newest Leak Shows NSA, GCHQ Infiltrated World Of Warcraft, Second Life
Re: Huh...
On that note, I would like to formally volunteer to be NSA's lead game player for "EvE Online." Just let me know where I need to send my resume.
On the post: AT&T Tells Shareholders To Mind Their Own Business Concerning Its Relationship With The NSA
Re: Re:
This is one (and probably the biggest reason) of about 5 reasons I left AT&T. I am with a month-by-month plan with T-Mobile, and pay far less than AT&T (since I don't pay for the privilege of bringing my own phone, though they are now giving you back $15 a month for bringing your own phone to AT&T.)
Of course, if you ask AT&T, it was them who dumped me first because I wasn't interested in being a good customer and wanted to take my phone number somewhere else (apparently, if you go somewhere else and take your number with you, AT&T cancels your account and forces you to reactivate in order to get a new number.) When I've moved lines in the past with other companies, they just assigned me a new phone number. Stay classy AT&T.
On the post: ACLU Calls For Ban On Nonlethal Weapons In Schools After Tased Student Ends Up In Coma
Re: The compromising alternative
While airsoft is used sometimes for training, it isn't standard equipment. And it can be dangerous, especially if the person isn't wearing eye protection. Having taken a number of airsoft hits, it is painful and will get your attention pretty quickly, but aside from that the risks are too high to be used as anything other than a less than lethal weapon (and they already have enough to carry.) Besides, airsoft looks and works too much like a real weapon, so it is open to the risk of the officer deploying their real weapon thinking it was an airsoft (or vice-versa.)
On the post: ACLU Calls For Ban On Nonlethal Weapons In Schools After Tased Student Ends Up In Coma
Re: Re: Re: Stop calling them "nonlethal"
Most shots aren't "immediately" lethal. Shots that clip the heart or a major artery/vein, or shots to the head may be immediately lethal, and shots that hit the spinal cord between the head and the neck are almost always immediately lethal (severing the spinal cord there will result in the lungs and heart immediately not working), but other shots, even to vital organs will likely not be immediately lethal. Even a sucking chest wound, or a collapsed lung will not kill you instantaneously. Hollywood lies.
The danger always comes with bleeding out, and even a leg wound can be lethal if not taken care of.
i remember a time when the police were told to shot in the leg
I remember a time when police were told to stand sideways when firing (though I was very young at the time,) but other then Hollywood movies, I don't think police were ever told to shoot the legs. The center of mass is the easiest place to hit, and thus hitting somewhere in the milk-bottle is far easier than to the legs. Plus, the legs have some of the biggest arteries/veins in the body, so a hit to the leg may be fatal.
On the post: Lawsuit Claims ICE Officers Shot At, Arrested Wrong Man
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: attempted murder!
It would depend if the victim had a legal right to discharge a firearm (which is extremely rare in California, where it is against the law to have a loaded firearm on your person in public without a license, which is extremely difficult to get.) The fact that a victim had a firearm, and used it, would be enough for the DA to charge the victim over.
Now, if the victim had a CCW, and feared for his life, the DA would have had a lot more difficult time.
On the post: Case Over No-Fly List Takes Bizarre Turn As Gov't Puts Witness On List, Then Denies Having Done So
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Peons are included.
As for lawyers lying in court, they should be held to the same rules, especially perjury. If they are caught lying, hopefully there is enough for the judge to get them removed from office and penalized.
On the post: Lawsuit Claims ICE Officers Shot At, Arrested Wrong Man
Re: Re: Re: attempted murder!
I'm not so sure. If they had shot the agent with a gun, yes. If they had hit the agent with the car, yes. But I suspect there would have been vastly more evidence of a crime in both of those cases in which to bring charges against the victim.
It isn't that I am trying to protect the agent here...I'm just pointing out that the D.A. couldn't bring charges because there wasn't enough evidence. If an agent discharges their firearm to protect themselves or another person, it is legal. In this case I tend to agree with aldestrawk below...this was a keystone cops episode, where the agent was obviously over-aggressive and wrong, and should receive discipline and removed from his position so he can't accidentally hurt anyone ever again under to color of authority.
On the post: Case Over No-Fly List Takes Bizarre Turn As Gov't Puts Witness On List, Then Denies Having Done So
Re: Re: Re:
They may not remember taking an oath, but I am willing to bet "in most cases" they did. U.S. Office of Personnel Management - Constitutional Initiative.
The oath is required for most sensitive positions in the Executive Branch, and I believe Congressional staff are required to take a similar oath.
Contractors, and shills/lobbyists/friends, not so much.
Next >>