"Just like warning drivers about speed traps, warning other business owners about law enforcement stings raises awareness and actually results in more compliance, rather than less. Those warned about speed traps slow down. Those warned about law enforcement sting operations pay more attention to those they're serving alcohol to. The only party that "loses" is the one that thinks the general public is nothing more than a revenue stream that can be tapped into at its convenience -- where arrests and fines are preferred to actual lawful behavior. "
Yeah. Um, no. Look, I do not live in America, I live in a country that has gun control laws. The number of shootings in my country is less than the number of shootings in the closest US city.
In fact, at one point, there was a news article in the local newspaper that we had no homicides (gun, car, train, truck, pipe, bat, knife, sword, dagger, fork, spoon, etc.) for 22 months (that's almost 2 years). Meanwhile, less than 1 mile away, in a US City (I live in a border town), THAT SAME DAY, there were 16 homicides.
16 homicides in one day - vs. 22 months of 0 homicides. 12 of those 16 homicides involved a firearm.
Guns are designed for one purpose - to kill. Giving more people guns will only increase the killing. Some will be accidental, but most will be intentional.
Sorry, but gun control laws DO reduce gun violence. No, it will not end it, but it WILL reduce it.
Um, until Kim Dotcom has been found guilty of these crimes, according to the US Justice system, he is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.
Perhaps you should remember this. The DOJ is now trying to prevent Mr. Dotcom from successfully defending himself in court.
If the DOJ was certain of his guilt, they would not be doing everything in their power to prevent him from defending himself. The reality is, in their desire to bring him to "justice", they have made alot of errors. Errors that they know will be used by Dotcom's defense to very possibly acquit him of the charges.
So now they are trying to prevent Dotcom from successfully mounting that defense by pulling his legal representation out from under him, by preventing him from being able to pay them.
Look, it doesn't matter if Dotcom is guilty or innocent of the "Criminal Copyright Infringement" charges leveled against him. That has not been determined by the courts yet. However, the DOJ is abusing the system, potentially BREAKING THE LAWS THEMSELVES. And in this case, unlike Dotcom's, the DOJ is actually stealing.
Whatever you think Dotcom did, he is NOT being charged with theft. To accuse him of stealing is wrong. Even the DOJ isn't saying he stole something. He isn't being charged with theft. He is being charged with Copyright Infringement. Regardless of what the media industries tell you, Copyright Infringement IS NOT theft.
No, it is not legal, but it is not theft either. Just like murder isn't theft, arson isn't fraud, or assault isn't human trafficking. Just because he may be doing something illegal, doesn't mean that that something is something else.
Anyone who says Dotcom has been stealing is nothing more than a shill, who refuses to think for themselves. He is being charged with Criminal Copyright Infringement, and has NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY YET!!!!
Copyrighted works in Canada still follows the "Life plus 50 years" standard from the Berne Convention.
You may be confusing the extention of copyrighted performances which increased from 50 years from the original performance to 70 years from the original performance.
So, the answer is, fight back with their own laws.
What you need:
1. Find every Irish IP rights organization. 2. Get two buddies.
Now, you and your two buddies all file copyright infringement claims against the rights organizations.
Sure, the organizations can get the courts to overturn it, but how long will they be without internet? Yep, accuse the rights organizations of copyright infringement and get THEM disconnected from the Internet.
Can't find the link now, but yes, everything here is available to re-post. I don't remember how exactly Techdirt got around the whole "you can't actually put something in the public domain". It may be under a Creative Commons licence or something.
(a) (1) A contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services.
Is the relevent text. It COULD seem to apply to NDA's, but there may be a techincal loophole in there somewhere. I am not good enough at legalese to know it though.
On the post: Jury Acquits Restaurant Owner Of Obstruction Charges For Tweeting Out Photo Of Teens Involved In Police Alcohol Sting
"Just like warning drivers about speed traps, warning other business owners about law enforcement stings raises awareness and actually results in more compliance, rather than less. Those warned about speed traps slow down. Those warned about law enforcement sting operations pay more attention to those they're serving alcohol to. The only party that "loses" is the one that thinks the general public is nothing more than a revenue stream that can be tapped into at its convenience -- where arrests and fines are preferred to actual lawful behavior. "
On the post: Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life
SLAPP them away.
On the post: Time Warner, Defenders Of Copyright, Forced To Pay Up For Copyright Infringement
On the post: Germany Wants To Define A Snippet As Seven Words Or Less; Doing So Is Likely To Breach Berne Convention
On the post: UK Releases Snooping Bill, Attempts To Mislead Everyone
On the post: Predictable: The Fragmented Media Will Give Us All Our Post-Oregon-Shooting Outrage Blankets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, at one point, there was a news article in the local newspaper that we had no homicides (gun, car, train, truck, pipe, bat, knife, sword, dagger, fork, spoon, etc.) for 22 months (that's almost 2 years). Meanwhile, less than 1 mile away, in a US City (I live in a border town), THAT SAME DAY, there were 16 homicides.
16 homicides in one day - vs. 22 months of 0 homicides. 12 of those 16 homicides involved a firearm.
Guns are designed for one purpose - to kill. Giving more people guns will only increase the killing. Some will be accidental, but most will be intentional.
Sorry, but gun control laws DO reduce gun violence. No, it will not end it, but it WILL reduce it.
On the post: PETA Defends Its Rights To Represent The Selfie-Taking Monkey In Court
But...
On the post: St. Louis County Charges Journalists Who Covered Ferguson Protests With Trespassing
Re: Wow-prosecutors should be sacked
And the people responsible for hiring the people who have just been sacked, should also be sacked.
Ni.
On the post: Even If You Think Kim Dotcom Is Guilty As Sin, The US Government Stealing His Assets Should Concern You
Re: Re: They've MADE Dotcom a saint.
Perhaps you should remember this. The DOJ is now trying to prevent Mr. Dotcom from successfully defending himself in court.
If the DOJ was certain of his guilt, they would not be doing everything in their power to prevent him from defending himself. The reality is, in their desire to bring him to "justice", they have made alot of errors. Errors that they know will be used by Dotcom's defense to very possibly acquit him of the charges.
So now they are trying to prevent Dotcom from successfully mounting that defense by pulling his legal representation out from under him, by preventing him from being able to pay them.
Look, it doesn't matter if Dotcom is guilty or innocent of the "Criminal Copyright Infringement" charges leveled against him. That has not been determined by the courts yet. However, the DOJ is abusing the system, potentially BREAKING THE LAWS THEMSELVES. And in this case, unlike Dotcom's, the DOJ is actually stealing.
Whatever you think Dotcom did, he is NOT being charged with theft. To accuse him of stealing is wrong. Even the DOJ isn't saying he stole something. He isn't being charged with theft. He is being charged with Copyright Infringement. Regardless of what the media industries tell you, Copyright Infringement IS NOT theft.
No, it is not legal, but it is not theft either. Just like murder isn't theft, arson isn't fraud, or assault isn't human trafficking. Just because he may be doing something illegal, doesn't mean that that something is something else.
Anyone who says Dotcom has been stealing is nothing more than a shill, who refuses to think for themselves. He is being charged with Criminal Copyright Infringement, and has NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY YET!!!!
On the post: NotGTAV And The Strange Ways Copyright Screws With Everyone
Re:
On the post: Guy Writes New James Bond Book... Only Available Where Bond Is In The Public Domain
Re: life plus 50 ?
Copyrighted works in Canada still follows the "Life plus 50 years" standard from the Berne Convention.
You may be confusing the extention of copyrighted performances which increased from 50 years from the original performance to 70 years from the original performance.
where you got 80 from, I do not know.
On the post: Ridiculous Ruling In Ireland Requires ISP To Kick Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of File Sharing Off The Internet
I got the answer
What you need:
1. Find every Irish IP rights organization.
2. Get two buddies.
Now, you and your two buddies all file copyright infringement claims against the rights organizations.
Sure, the organizations can get the courts to overturn it, but how long will they be without internet? Yep, accuse the rights organizations of copyright infringement and get THEM disconnected from the Internet.
On the post: More Copyright Trolls Rushing In To Take Advantage Of Canadian Copyright Notice System Loopholes
Caps Lock?
On the post: Head Of UK Parliamentary Committee Overseeing Intelligence Agencies Resigns After Being Caught In Sting
Re:
On the post: Google Pulls Out The Nuclear Option: Shuts Down Google News In Spain Over Ridiculous Copyright Law
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: What is tech dirt's license?
On the post: California Outlaws Consumer-Silencing Non-Disparagement Clauses
Re: NDAs
Is the relevent text. It COULD seem to apply to NDA's, but there may be a techincal loophole in there somewhere. I am not good enough at legalese to know it though.
On the post: Switzerland Could Offer Snowden Safe Conduct To Testify About Surveillance, But Accepting Seems Risky
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Want In-Depth Coverage Of Net Neutrality? Crowdfund Our Reporting - And Double Your Impact
Re: Re:
Long live Techdirt!!!
On the post: The Greatest Response To A Cease And Desist Letter, Probably Written While Drunk
Next >>