PLEASE stop with the house analogy. Physical property and intellectual property are not the same thing. You cannot keep trying to twist this analogy to prove a point when the whole thing is flawed to begin with.
I get that it's the San Diego Co Reg. Airport Auth., but are they a city/county municipal authority? Are they a private company with an 'official sounding' name?
Or, as has been illustrated elsewhere in this post, are they someone putting up a smoke-screen rule that would result in a constitutional violation if enforced?
1) Please use the [reply to this] buttons on posts to respond to them... I've given up trying to link your counter-points back to what you're countering.
2) Please back up your statement that "...most tours throughout history, don't make money." Touring and merchandising is where bands make the money, not from record sales. It has been noted all over the place since 2000 that a) bands get a sliver of a portion of sales from each CD and b) none of the award money from these 'protection actions' has actually made it back to the artist.
So let's recap: copyright infringement is illegal, but is not theft. And producing and marketing intellectual property IS NOT THE SAME as building and selling a house or car. Please stop trying that analogy.
and why should they be any different? Because, as has been stated repeatedly, physical property is not the same as intelectual property. While copyright violation is illegal, it is not theft.
Here's where I'll point out that most musicians do not get their money from CD sales. According to many musicians who broke away with the traditional contracts (which were very much the norm back in 2000), the labels got the majority of the money out of those.
And all the money the labels milked out of the Napster fiasco? How much of that do you really think made it into a 'protected' artist's pocket? I'd be surprised if they say more than a token pittance.
that came out of the Napster scenario... anyone else remember the 'Napster Bad' flash animations? That is how I will always remember Ulrich and Hetfield. Epic.
Wherever I may roam, I hear this holier than thou attitude from this self-proclaimed god… the god that failed. This action, the unforgiven action of suing accusing your fans of being thieves while crying “don’t tread on me”… you may have won the struggle within, but you have lost our respect. And after respect is gone, nothing else matters. You have shown the inherent difference of wolf and men… where a man will work with his fans but a wolf will attack them crying for blood. Though you may deny it, it is sad but true. Through the never -ending fight of your conscious, I hope you realize your downfall, my friend of misery.
And Enter Sandman is overplayed and way over-hyped.
Ok... I do see your point there. But let me ask this, and I apologize for 'not doing my homework', but I'm at work and can't spend all day reading legal interpretation. So I'd like to rely on your (and other's) interpretation on this: Does the adjudication taht sets up the adversarial proceeding happen before or after the site's take-down under the COICA?
So how would this guy going through a metal detector (what was in place prior to the new scanners) carrying what amounts to a plastic bag and a rubber tube have caused said bag to burst? This was due to the scanner finding the bag and the pat-down bursting the bag.
Sounds like others are scraping the bottom of a barrel to find reasons as to why these searches are defendable.
Milton Friedman was an economist. In the book that quote is taken from, he was talking about Free Market and special interests. He wasn't talking about constitutional rights or government intervention into privacy.
Specifically, he was talking about a hypothetical situation where the steel industry appeals to the government for subsidization on grounds of national security due to all steel being cheaper from over-seas.
""However, they are administrative prior restraints as that term has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. According to the Court, "only a judicial determination in an adversary proceeding ensures the necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression, only a procedure requiring a judicial determination suffices to impose a valid final restraint." Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965). Thus, if material protected by the First Amendment is removed from circulation without these procedural protections, the seizure is invalid as a prior restraint."
Well, since COICA involves civil forfeiture proceedings, which are adversarial, then according to the Supreme Court, it's NOT prior restraint."
So... you're saying that the fact that the COICA creates an adversarial proceeding is the how this would not be prior restraint?
What happened to the argument that copyright is not expression and that blocking whole websites that may contain copyrighted materials would not in and of itself be prior restraint?
Sounds to me like you're now saying that the only reason this isn't prior restraint is because the COICA procedures create the exception that your quoted case-law specifies. So if not for the fact that the COICA creates adversarial procedures, would this be prior restraint?
"The US has been very lucky, for almost a century, in avoiding massive terrorist attacks (Before you scoff about "Almost a Century" please read a book, any book). Our time has run out and we now have to face the same choices the Brits did in the early 1900's with the IRA.
Before you start drawing parallels between the Taliban and the IRA, you better make sure you understand their ideals and the reasons behind their actions. I'm sure that you know that the IRA in the early 1900's was a self-proclaimed 'freedom force' fighting to overthrow British rule. Sound familiar? Because if you're saying they're the same as the Taliban, they so are we. We were a self-proclaimed freedom force fighting to overthrow British rule back in 1776... we just happened to win and wrote the history.
Now, if you're talking about the IRA that most people would call terrorists in the 80's, you’re talking about a splinter group that broke off of the 'official' IRA. Both groups denied the validity of each other, but the splinter-group (later called the Provisional IRA) are the ones most people mean when they say "The IRA" in the same sentence as "terrorism". And if you're going to point out the Belfast incident as one of their actions, remember that that engagement was actually between the two factions of IRA, not the British. It seems that the P-IRA and the IRA were as focused on killing each other as they were with ‘terrorizing’ Britain.
"If I'm faced with the choice of having my privacy violated by the TSA or by having my plane hit the ground at 400mph; I will choose the TSA."
Ok, but the rest of us are not so ready to surrender our constitutional rights, especially since the payment for buying our rights is an empty wooden nickel that has no value. Again, no proof that any of this is even effective at its stated purpose.
"This manufactured outrage racing about the country has done nothing but encourage the bad guys and made the US laughing stocks in the eyes of our allies."
I'm interested in your definition of 'manufactured' in this. Is everyone who's been in the news being paid to do this by the Right (or is it Left, I can't tell any more) just to stir up trouble? Is the Taliban paying American citizens or placing terrorists in here just to cause this stink?
And I think the US being laughing-stocks of the world-at-large has already happened and had nothing to do with the TSA Security Theater.
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy is not free speech
On the post: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped
Re: Re: Exactly!
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
PLEASE stop with the house analogy. Physical property and intellectual property are not the same thing. You cannot keep trying to twist this analogy to prove a point when the whole thing is flawed to begin with.
Thank you!
On the post: San Diego Airport Says Recording TSA Gropings Is An Arrestible Offense?
Re:
9/11/2001
On the post: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped
Re: Re: Re: Rename
On the post: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped
Re: Re:
On the post: San Diego Airport Says Recording TSA Gropings Is An Arrestible Offense?
Who's rule is this?
Or, as has been illustrated elsewhere in this post, are they someone putting up a smoke-screen rule that would result in a constitutional violation if enforced?
On the post: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped
Re: Rename
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy is not free speech
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
sivad
2) Please back up your statement that "...most tours throughout history, don't make money." Touring and merchandising is where bands make the money, not from record sales. It has been noted all over the place since 2000 that a) bands get a sliver of a portion of sales from each CD and b) none of the award money from these 'protection actions' has actually made it back to the artist.
So let's recap: copyright infringement is illegal, but is not theft. And producing and marketing intellectual property IS NOT THE SAME as building and selling a house or car. Please stop trying that analogy.
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
And all the money the labels milked out of the Napster fiasco? How much of that do you really think made it into a 'protected' artist's pocket? I'd be surprised if they say more than a token pittance.
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
The one good thing...
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re: Re: Irrelevant
And Enter Sandman is overplayed and way over-hyped.
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Botched TSA Pat Down Leaves Traveler Covered In Urine
Re:
Sounds like others are scraping the bottom of a barrel to find reasons as to why these searches are defendable.
On the post: President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans
Re: Sincerely, Chertoff
Specifically, he was talking about a hypothetical situation where the steel industry appeals to the government for subsidization on grounds of national security due to all steel being cheaper from over-seas.
Please don't quote out of context.
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re:
So... you're saying that the fact that the COICA creates an adversarial proceeding is the how this would not be prior restraint?
What happened to the argument that copyright is not expression and that blocking whole websites that may contain copyrighted materials would not in and of itself be prior restraint?
Sounds to me like you're now saying that the only reason this isn't prior restraint is because the COICA procedures create the exception that your quoted case-law specifies. So if not for the fact that the COICA creates adversarial procedures, would this be prior restraint?
On the post: TSA Agents Absolutely Hate New Pat Downs, Find Them Disgusting And Morale Breaking
Re: Re: Sad day for the USA
Absolutely not... but we WOULD like some kind of verifiable evidence that these processes have helped keep that from happening. The one time someone asked, they were told "sorry, that information is a state secret". ref: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101119/18284511954/whether-not-tsa-has-ever-caught-terrorist-is-a pparently-state-secret.shtml
Before you start drawing parallels between the Taliban and the IRA, you better make sure you understand their ideals and the reasons behind their actions. I'm sure that you know that the IRA in the early 1900's was a self-proclaimed 'freedom force' fighting to overthrow British rule. Sound familiar? Because if you're saying they're the same as the Taliban, they so are we. We were a self-proclaimed freedom force fighting to overthrow British rule back in 1776... we just happened to win and wrote the history.
Now, if you're talking about the IRA that most people would call terrorists in the 80's, you’re talking about a splinter group that broke off of the 'official' IRA. Both groups denied the validity of each other, but the splinter-group (later called the Provisional IRA) are the ones most people mean when they say "The IRA" in the same sentence as "terrorism". And if you're going to point out the Belfast incident as one of their actions, remember that that engagement was actually between the two factions of IRA, not the British. It seems that the P-IRA and the IRA were as focused on killing each other as they were with ‘terrorizing’ Britain.
Ok, but the rest of us are not so ready to surrender our constitutional rights, especially since the payment for buying our rights is an empty wooden nickel that has no value. Again, no proof that any of this is even effective at its stated purpose.
I'm interested in your definition of 'manufactured' in this. Is everyone who's been in the news being paid to do this by the Right (or is it Left, I can't tell any more) just to stir up trouble? Is the Taliban paying American citizens or placing terrorists in here just to cause this stink?
And I think the US being laughing-stocks of the world-at-large has already happened and had nothing to do with the TSA Security Theater.
Next >>