No, I meant what I said.
Even if you have some kind of conviction, the idea that because someone did something wrong everything they own is now free for the taking is blatantly unconstitutional. Asset forfeiture is written to allow police to assume everything the person owns must have some connection to drugs without having to actually prove any of it is. This is blatantly against the constitutions restrictions on punishments.
The fact that an online dictionary makes it require some kind of wrongdoing is irrelevant. That's not how the law is written or enforced so it's meaningless to bring that up at all.
Except that what you're describing is NOT asset forfeiture.
The entire point of asset forfeiture is to take things from people in the hopes that bankrupting them will make it impossible to continue running drugs. Nothing about asset forfeiture cares about where those "assets" originally came from or how connected they might be to the drug crimes they've been committing.
Hence, asset forfeiture is ABSOLUTELY in ALL cases unconstitutional garbage.
To be fair, it's been reversed by much of the public citizenry as well. Far Far FAR too many people today think it's just fine if we accidentally punish some innocents as long as that means we catch more bad guys. They're not willing to think through what that really means or look into how it actually plays out as long as they personally haven't suffered because of it.
Stop pretending every issue is the sole responsibility of whatever the "other side" is from you. You're only blinding yourself to your own biases with these kinds of nonsensical arguments.
There will always be those who say, "Well, don't break the law." These aren't criminal proceedings. These are civil proceedings
Those who make this argument don't care about that difference. They don't care about treating anyone they've decided they don't need to care about with any ounce of decency. Their logic in this argument is so incredibly stupid it would treat speeding violations with the same severity as murder because both are "breaking the law".
Nice try. Both sides have plenty of examples of people falling into that pitfall. It's always hard to accept the truth when your personal feelings have been hurt by it.
This is simply not true. While I can't speak to why you were seeing delays, standard DNS has so many layers that cache requests for you to speed them up the next time you ask that there's zero chance doing it over HTTPS could be faster for the sole reason that you lose all those caches.
Your own router maintains a DNS cache so most common requests you make never even have to go over the internet to get resolved.
I know you want to hate all corporations really really really bad. That doesn't make any of what you just said make any sense, though.
The DMCA has made it far far more expensive to defend the poor people than to let them fight it out themselves. It's not worth imagining conspiracies when the simplest explanation is as strong as this one is. Either take the content down until the poor people explain why it wasn't infringing, or go out of business.
Google isn't the bad guy here.
The DMCA is definitely the source of the problem, but not quite in the way you've stated.
The DMCA does not mandate notice-and-takedown, it just makes it incredibly risky to not take the content down immediately by making the service provider liable if it ends up being found to be infringing. Since YouTube can't possibly evaluate every video it gets complaints for manually, it's not worth taking on that risk.
This is what allows people to pretend it's not required when there's really no other way to do it anyway. It's honestly worse than if it just mandated the takedown because of that.
This was literally addressed in the article and just showed that you, like her, don't know what you're talking about.
It is expensive. It is time consuming. And above all it is absolutely ridiculous to require people to do that just so they can do a small job for someone else.
Freelancing is not the horrible thing so many people call it out to be. It serves a legitimate need for both companies and individuals and there is no good reason to make it so hard to do.
What you're describing isn't actually the core of the problem. You've just discovered Economics, my friend.
Nothing has "intrinsic value". All value is determined by the individual and therefore the "whims of society". This is more obvious in areas where haggling is more prominent but it's absolutely true everywhere. It's how the entire supply/demand curve works.
Much of the issue with the value of digital goods is that they have consistently been massively overvalued. People tend to freak out when they see the low dollar points that come out of calculating things the way physical goods are when the cost of reproduction is literally 0 and overhead costs are in the sub-dollar ranges per month. They can't handle that and start insisting that "normal" prices must be applied here because reasons.
As soon as you can explain with sane logic why those who actually caused the harm are somehow not the correct ones to go after instead of the news that said things those people are using as a dumb excuse to go out and hurt others over.
It's much worse than that. Notification is irrelevant based on what they're claiming for MailChimp. The fact that they provided their services at all is all that matters.
When the "creator" in question does not care about copyright in order to engage in the creation of new things, giving it copyright does not promote anything. It has no effect whatsoever.
that should concern drivers in every state where marijuana is legal
This should be a concern to everyone no matter what the legalized status of marijuana is in their state. Alcohol breathalyzers are known to produce false positives when the person hasn't got a drop of alcohol within 10 miles of their skin, much less in their blood.
The real truth is that no device used on the side of a road should ever be used to prove guilt or innocence. These things need to always be tested in a lab. Anything less than that cannot prove what any substance is not matter what form it's in.
Obviously SpaceX is free to keep photos it takes to itself if it wants to. The point here is that because it's so difficult to get photos from space and there's lots of interest in them and it's free for anyone who is already in space anyway to take basically as many as they want it would be nice if they'd let everyone use them.
Re: Re: Re: All NASA photos are not works of the US Government
The point you're trying to argue and the point everyone else is making including this article are worlds apart from each other.
Yes, a company contracted by the government to create something can assign that copyright to the government and the government can then own the copyright in that thing.
That is NOT the same thing as the government hiring an individual under contract to work for them for a short period of time. That is the same thing as the government using one of its own employees and at that point it cannot hold any copyright in whatever it used that contractor to create.
At the very least the case you cite doesn't prove this point. It shows an example of the former (contracting a company), not the latter (hiring a contractor and then using them to create the work).
The idea is to deter theft or the enabling of theft with a penalty so severe the thieves will either stop doing it or be bankrupted for doing it
It's not theft. Even this ruling doesn't call it theft.
The Constitution explicitly forbids this kind of penalizing mentality precisely because it stops being about encouraging people to follow the law and just becomes about destroying people's lives. At that point you no longer have a system of justice. You are advocating for something that is much more like crime boss style thuggery.
On the post: Five Weeks After Being Sued, DEA Agrees To Return $82,000 It Stole From A Retiree
Re: Re: Re: Constitutional
No, I meant what I said.
Even if you have some kind of conviction, the idea that because someone did something wrong everything they own is now free for the taking is blatantly unconstitutional. Asset forfeiture is written to allow police to assume everything the person owns must have some connection to drugs without having to actually prove any of it is. This is blatantly against the constitutions restrictions on punishments.
On the post: Five Weeks After Being Sued, DEA Agrees To Return $82,000 It Stole From A Retiree
Re: Re: Re: Constitutional
The fact that an online dictionary makes it require some kind of wrongdoing is irrelevant. That's not how the law is written or enforced so it's meaningless to bring that up at all.
On the post: Five Weeks After Being Sued, DEA Agrees To Return $82,000 It Stole From A Retiree
Re: Constitutional
Except that what you're describing is NOT asset forfeiture.
The entire point of asset forfeiture is to take things from people in the hopes that bankrupting them will make it impossible to continue running drugs. Nothing about asset forfeiture cares about where those "assets" originally came from or how connected they might be to the drug crimes they've been committing.
Hence, asset forfeiture is ABSOLUTELY in ALL cases unconstitutional garbage.
On the post: Michigan State Police Spend The Weekend Getting Ratioed For Bragging About Stealing $40,000 From A Driver
Re:
To be fair, it's been reversed by much of the public citizenry as well. Far Far FAR too many people today think it's just fine if we accidentally punish some innocents as long as that means we catch more bad guys. They're not willing to think through what that really means or look into how it actually plays out as long as they personally haven't suffered because of it.
On the post: Michigan State Police Spend The Weekend Getting Ratioed For Bragging About Stealing $40,000 From A Driver
Re: Re:
Stop pretending every issue is the sole responsibility of whatever the "other side" is from you. You're only blinding yourself to your own biases with these kinds of nonsensical arguments.
On the post: ACLU Sues ICE Over Its Deliberately-Broken Immigrant 'Risk Assessment' Software
They don't want to think about it
There will always be those who say, "Well, don't break the law." These aren't criminal proceedings. These are civil proceedings
Those who make this argument don't care about that difference. They don't care about treating anyone they've decided they don't need to care about with any ounce of decency. Their logic in this argument is so incredibly stupid it would treat speeding violations with the same severity as murder because both are "breaking the law".
On the post: The Law Doesn't Care About Your Feelings: 9th Circuit Slams Prager University For Its Silly Lawsuit Against YouTube
Re:
Nice try. Both sides have plenty of examples of people falling into that pitfall. It's always hard to accept the truth when your personal feelings have been hurt by it.
On the post: Hoping To Combat ISP Snooping, Mozilla Enables Encrypted DNS
Re: Bonus
This is simply not true. While I can't speak to why you were seeing delays, standard DNS has so many layers that cache requests for you to speed them up the next time you ask that there's zero chance doing it over HTTPS could be faster for the sole reason that you lose all those caches.
Your own router maintains a DNS cache so most common requests you make never even have to go over the internet to get resolved.
On the post: CBS Gets Angry Joe's YouTube Review Of 'Picard' Taken Down For Using 26 Seconds Of The Show's Trailer
Re: Re: Re: YouTube rewind 2019
I know you want to hate all corporations really really really bad. That doesn't make any of what you just said make any sense, though.
The DMCA has made it far far more expensive to defend the poor people than to let them fight it out themselves. It's not worth imagining conspiracies when the simplest explanation is as strong as this one is. Either take the content down until the poor people explain why it wasn't infringing, or go out of business.
Google isn't the bad guy here.
On the post: CBS Gets Angry Joe's YouTube Review Of 'Picard' Taken Down For Using 26 Seconds Of The Show's Trailer
Re:
The DMCA is definitely the source of the problem, but not quite in the way you've stated.
The DMCA does not mandate notice-and-takedown, it just makes it incredibly risky to not take the content down immediately by making the service provider liable if it ends up being found to be infringing. Since YouTube can't possibly evaluate every video it gets complaints for manually, it's not worth taking on that risk.
This is what allows people to pretend it's not required when there's really no other way to do it anyway. It's honestly worse than if it just mandated the takedown because of that.
On the post: California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Says She Simply Doesn't Believe All Of Those Who Have Been Harmed By Her AB5 Bill
Re:
This was literally addressed in the article and just showed that you, like her, don't know what you're talking about.
It is expensive. It is time consuming. And above all it is absolutely ridiculous to require people to do that just so they can do a small job for someone else.
Freelancing is not the horrible thing so many people call it out to be. It serves a legitimate need for both companies and individuals and there is no good reason to make it so hard to do.
On the post: How Years Of Copyright Maximalism Is Now Killing Pop Music
Re: worth of digital goods
What you're describing isn't actually the core of the problem. You've just discovered Economics, my friend.
Nothing has "intrinsic value". All value is determined by the individual and therefore the "whims of society". This is more obvious in areas where haggling is more prominent but it's absolutely true everywhere. It's how the entire supply/demand curve works.
Much of the issue with the value of digital goods is that they have consistently been massively overvalued. People tend to freak out when they see the low dollar points that come out of calculating things the way physical goods are when the cost of reproduction is literally 0 and overhead costs are in the sub-dollar ranges per month. They can't handle that and start insisting that "normal" prices must be applied here because reasons.
On the post: The Rorshach Test Of The Covington Catholic Boy's DC Encounter Now Extends To Bogus Lawsuits And Confidential Settlements
Re:
As soon as you can explain with sane logic why those who actually caused the harm are somehow not the correct ones to go after instead of the news that said things those people are using as a dumb excuse to go out and hurt others over.
On the post: Civil FOSTA Suits Start Showing Up In Court; Prove That FOSTA Supporters Were 100% Wrong About Who Would Be Targeted
Re:
It's much worse than that. Notification is irrelevant based on what they're claiming for MailChimp. The fact that they provided their services at all is all that matters.
On the post: Chinese Court Says AI-Generated Content Is Subject To Copyright Protection
Re:
When the "creator" in question does not care about copyright in order to engage in the creation of new things, giving it copyright does not promote anything. It has no effect whatsoever.
On the post: Company Says It's Built A Marijuana Breathalyzer, Wants To Roll It Out By The Middle Of This Year
Not just a concern to marijuana users
that should concern drivers in every state where marijuana is legal
This should be a concern to everyone no matter what the legalized status of marijuana is in their state. Alcohol breathalyzers are known to produce false positives when the person hasn't got a drop of alcohol within 10 miles of their skin, much less in their blood.
The real truth is that no device used on the side of a road should ever be used to prove guilt or innocence. These things need to always be tested in a lab. Anything less than that cannot prove what any substance is not matter what form it's in.
On the post: Elon Musk And SpaceX Just Backed Down From Earlier Promise To Release SpaceX Photos To The Public Domain
Re:
Launch yourself into space often, do you?
Obviously SpaceX is free to keep photos it takes to itself if it wants to. The point here is that because it's so difficult to get photos from space and there's lots of interest in them and it's free for anyone who is already in space anyway to take basically as many as they want it would be nice if they'd let everyone use them.
On the post: Elon Musk And SpaceX Just Backed Down From Earlier Promise To Release SpaceX Photos To The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: All NASA photos are not works of the US Government
The point you're trying to argue and the point everyone else is making including this article are worlds apart from each other.
Yes, a company contracted by the government to create something can assign that copyright to the government and the government can then own the copyright in that thing.
That is NOT the same thing as the government hiring an individual under contract to work for them for a short period of time. That is the same thing as the government using one of its own employees and at that point it cannot hold any copyright in whatever it used that contractor to create.
At the very least the case you cite doesn't prove this point. It shows an example of the former (contracting a company), not the latter (hiring a contractor and then using them to create the work).
On the post: Insanity (AKA Copyright Statutory Damages) Rules: Cox Hit With $1 Billion (With A B) Jury Verdict For Failing To Magically Stop Piracy
Re:
The idea is to deter theft or the enabling of theft with a penalty so severe the thieves will either stop doing it or be bankrupted for doing it
It's not theft. Even this ruling doesn't call it theft.
On the post: Why Are Members Of Congress Telling A Private Organization Not To Comment On Copyright Law?
Obligatory
Copying is not theft
Next >>