Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logo by Nina
Stop. Take a deep breath and relax. Now, take off the tinfoil hat, and repeat after me: 'There does not always have to be a 'why' for deciding on an artist out of millions of choices. There does not always have to be a conspiracy just because diverse groups who actually agree on something band together so their voices can be heard.'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just trying to help.
Reading the Perfect 10 case, I see nothing that states Google won because of how Google conducts business. I DO see how Google won based upon a link not being distribution. That much is very clearly stated inside the decision.
Maybe you should go back and read it? And THEN site a case that supports your argument (finally)?
Okay, let's reply to your points before I call you an idiot.
We aren't at war. War was never declared, so we have no 'wartime' situation going on.
The documents in question have revealed nothing that our supposed enemies didn't already know.
The ONLY people these documents have shown to harm are the people in them who did wrong. Not just unlawful, but immoral and/or unjust actions.
You don't seem to understand that he was not acting as a Private, and I've met many a private who had more intelligence and balls than upper echelon commanders, but as a citizen of the United States. There comes a time, even if you don't agree with it, that a person MUST stand for what they believe in.
You want everyone to be little cogs that do what they're trained to do, and nothing more. That's what the government wants. This is not in the best interests of the people or the country.
Intent is never clear unless admitted to or solid evidence is shown. How close he is to the doors is meaningless unless it can be shown that these pamphlets were ONLY given to jurists.
And yet stating facts cannot be illegal unless those facts have been deemed state secrets. By your definition a juror reading a newspaper article can be influenced, and thus the reporter is guilty by this statute.
'First, jurors swear that they will apply the law as instructed. So, to the extent someone is "bound" by their oath, they are bound to do so.'
This is unenforceable, as jury nullification is an accepted part of our legal system. Just because judges and lawyers wish it weren't doesn't mean they can twist things around as they please, either.
If we were all sworn to 'apply the law as instructed,' there would be no point in a jury, as we could be instructed to apply the law as the judge sees fit. That isn't the judge's job OR prerogative.
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logo by Nina
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just trying to help.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just trying to help.
Maybe you should go back and read it? And THEN site a case that supports your argument (finally)?
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re:
Karl:
AC: LOL! WRONG!
Who to believe? Certainly not you, since he shows cases that show you to be wrong, and you aren't actually showing why you believe he's wrong.
On the post: New Hampshire Police Charge Man With 'Wiretapping' Because He Made A Phone Call During Traffic Stop
Re: Re: Re: the issue is two-party consent
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re:
We aren't at war. War was never declared, so we have no 'wartime' situation going on.
The documents in question have revealed nothing that our supposed enemies didn't already know.
The ONLY people these documents have shown to harm are the people in them who did wrong. Not just unlawful, but immoral and/or unjust actions.
You don't seem to understand that he was not acting as a Private, and I've met many a private who had more intelligence and balls than upper echelon commanders, but as a citizen of the United States. There comes a time, even if you don't agree with it, that a person MUST stand for what they believe in.
You want everyone to be little cogs that do what they're trained to do, and nothing more. That's what the government wants. This is not in the best interests of the people or the country.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re:
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re: Re: jury nullification
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
This is unenforceable, as jury nullification is an accepted part of our legal system. Just because judges and lawyers wish it weren't doesn't mean they can twist things around as they please, either.
If we were all sworn to 'apply the law as instructed,' there would be no point in a jury, as we could be instructed to apply the law as the judge sees fit. That isn't the judge's job OR prerogative.
On the post: IEEE Decides That Its Own Profits Are More Important Than Sharing Knowledge
Re:
On the post: IEEE Decides That Its Own Profits Are More Important Than Sharing Knowledge
Re: the enemies of science need not fear this lily liver
Also, why would these millions of scholars not be able to benefit if he publishes online? It just seems you didn't actually /read/ what he said.
On the post: Could Patent Reform Actually Pass This Year?
Re: How many of you punks have a patent in your name ?
On the post: Righthaven Sues Radio Giant For Hosting Caption Contest On Denver Post Photo
Re: Anyone have a link to the picture?
On an unrelated note, I love how the linked site claims extra rights.
'The Post, however, has an explicit copyright warning stating its material can't be reproduced in full.'
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: Re: make pirating not as attractive
Next >>