Has it not occurred to people that they may very well have said it wasn't secure *because* they were no longer going to maintain it—not because they were aware of any flaws?
"The fact is, our government is out of control, and nobody from the outside seems to have the power to slow it down or stop it at this point."
The problem isn't that the power isn't there—the states can call for a constitutional convention, avoiding any need for Congress to approve an amendment—it's that American voters, and therefore their representatives, aren't of similar enough mind and coordinated enough. The average American doesn't look upstream enough when trying to put their finger on "the problem". The solution starts with breaking our "two-party system" by instituting ranked choice voting everywhere possible.
It's ludicrous that federal law is even involved here. If there's no federal law against prostitution (which there isn't), why should there be ones against crossing state lines, communicating over the internet, or anything else, in connection with it? The states and localities that ban it are perfectly capable of enforcing their own prohibitions, and the people who live in or would travel to those that haven't banned it are being unjustly constrained in their ability to do something legal.
Alas, if the Necessary and Proper and Interstate Commerce Clauses were interpreted as intended, the Feds wouldn't be able to stick their noses in this case to begin with.
I don't think they're particularly worried about whether the people of the world support it in their hearts, only that they abide by it out of fear of their governments.
The reason the administration is keeping the treaty negotiations secret is so that it can be announced, introduced in the Senate, and passed before any popular opposition can organize. Enough of the Dems in the Senate will vote for it (planning to apologize later with "I didn't know" or "it was forced on me"), with our Dem president's support, the whole scheme will work, and his supposedly angry supporters will reward the party with yet another election's worth of support! (Yes, you DO have a choice: vote for libertarian candidates of any party.)
Because some of us foresee the entirely predictable consequence of even *further* removing price signals from medical decision making. The degenerate variant of so-called "insurance" in medical care has been much of the pricing problem, and ACA has only mandated that we continue to pay for medical care using the current uneconomical scheme.
"Paying a living wage - why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?"
It's not a difficult concept to grasp. It's a difficult concept not to dismiss for its irrationality. The idea is no more grounded in reason than the term used to refer to it. "Living" wage, as if anything less is a death sentence. Never mind the obvious question begged: how have so many people continued to breath on "non-living" wages for so long? Yes, yes, I know you *mean* live *well*, but that embraces subjectivity like little else in economics, doesn't it? People always want more. You cannot base an economy on paying people what they want. You can only base it on paying them what their labor is *worth*, which is determinable by no person, for no one is omniscient, only by the behaviors of everyone in the market (read: supply–demand equilibrium). No rational actor will pay someone more than their labor is worth, so trying to move the equilibrium wage for various jobs higher by fiat is a fool's errand—you will only get the people you wanted to help laid off.
"If your employees need government support in order to survive then you are not paying them a living wage and are stealing from the tax payers in order to enrich yourself."
The problem with this line of reasoning should be apparent. Employers do not ask the tax payers to supplement their employees' incomes. The tax payers, whipped into emotive fervors by self-serving politicians, do that on their own. By your reasoning, the tax payers could decide to supplement the incomes of every worker in the country, then turn around and accuse every single employer of "stealing" from them. You'll probably write that counter-argument off as "absurd", but it demonstrates the flaw in your logic. The fact that an employee gets public benefits cannot itself mean their employer is "stealing" from anyone.
It is no doubt her lawyers that came up with the copyright tactic. Any competent law firm would know any sites on which he posted were likely granted (by him, under the Terms of Service in effect when he posted) perpetual and irrevocable licenses to display to visitors his posted content. If you read their DMCA take-down letter to GoDaddy, they follow the copyright ownership rationale required by DMCA with irrelevant (to a DMCA-takedown request) plaints about invasion of privacy, defamation, the safety and privacy of the minor children, the legitimate concerns of the public, etc. They even complain that her holy name is used without her permission!
They're simply throwing everything at the wall in the hope that something will "stick", where "stick" does NOT mean stand up in court, but simply work to win *voluntary* compliance with the request. That's all they're hoping for, as that's all they're legally entitled to. The sites may well comply not because they're not sure they'd win in court, but because they simply don't care enough about the content posted by this one user to pay even one lawyer to fight it.
The judge isn't suggesting any particular means by which to remove content posted by the deceased. He's simply granted her the legal cover under which she can act to remove content in any way that he could. The judge cannot give her rights to remove his content that he himself did not have.
"'Terms of service' don't really count since she apparently does not want to have the service continue."
Every competently written Terms of Service includes in one clause (call it A) a grant of perpetual license to display the posted content on the site, and in the Termination clause a statement listing many clauses that will survive any termination of the agreement that includes clause A. So, yes, armchair lawyer, the Terms of Service do "count" very much, because they probably provided that the man himself could not have used copyright to get his own posted content removed, so anyone who inherits his copyrights could not either.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by T.
(untitled comment)
Re: The key argument is this:
Re: Re: The most bone-chilling yet
The problem isn't that the power isn't there—the states can call for a constitutional convention, avoiding any need for Congress to approve an amendment—it's that American voters, and therefore their representatives, aren't of similar enough mind and coordinated enough. The average American doesn't look upstream enough when trying to put their finger on "the problem". The solution starts with breaking our "two-party system" by instituting ranked choice voting everywhere possible.
Re: Extremely extremist sensitive
Re: Kafka called...
Next they'll be arguing in court that because it's so government-funded, users have no expectation of privacy!
(untitled comment)
Alas, if the Necessary and Proper and Interstate Commerce Clauses were interpreted as intended, the Feds wouldn't be able to stick their noses in this case to begin with.
Re: ...ask me no questions...
Re:
The reason the administration is keeping the treaty negotiations secret is so that it can be announced, introduced in the Senate, and passed before any popular opposition can organize. Enough of the Dems in the Senate will vote for it (planning to apologize later with "I didn't know" or "it was forced on me"), with our Dem president's support, the whole scheme will work, and his supposedly angry supporters will reward the party with yet another election's worth of support! (Yes, you DO have a choice: vote for libertarian candidates of any party.)
Re: this mahine didn't kill Faciests
Re: Re:
Because some of us foresee the entirely predictable consequence of even *further* removing price signals from medical decision making. The degenerate variant of so-called "insurance" in medical care has been much of the pricing problem, and ACA has only mandated that we continue to pay for medical care using the current uneconomical scheme.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a difficult concept to grasp. It's a difficult concept not to dismiss for its irrationality. The idea is no more grounded in reason than the term used to refer to it. "Living" wage, as if anything less is a death sentence. Never mind the obvious question begged: how have so many people continued to breath on "non-living" wages for so long? Yes, yes, I know you *mean* live *well*, but that embraces subjectivity like little else in economics, doesn't it? People always want more. You cannot base an economy on paying people what they want. You can only base it on paying them what their labor is *worth*, which is determinable by no person, for no one is omniscient, only by the behaviors of everyone in the market (read: supply–demand equilibrium). No rational actor will pay someone more than their labor is worth, so trying to move the equilibrium wage for various jobs higher by fiat is a fool's errand—you will only get the people you wanted to help laid off.
"If your employees need government support in order to survive then you are not paying them a living wage and are stealing from the tax payers in order to enrich yourself."
The problem with this line of reasoning should be apparent. Employers do not ask the tax payers to supplement their employees' incomes. The tax payers, whipped into emotive fervors by self-serving politicians, do that on their own. By your reasoning, the tax payers could decide to supplement the incomes of every worker in the country, then turn around and accuse every single employer of "stealing" from them. You'll probably write that counter-argument off as "absurd", but it demonstrates the flaw in your logic. The fact that an employee gets public benefits cannot itself mean their employer is "stealing" from anyone.
Re: Re: Re: Mason Wheeler
You were saying something about claims not accompanied by evidence?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aaaand... HACK.
Re: The conspiracy theorists are winning
They? "They" did not remark. *He* did. Depersonalizing failures of The Exalted One again are we?
Re: Did Judge say or suggest copyright?
They're simply throwing everything at the wall in the hope that something will "stick", where "stick" does NOT mean stand up in court, but simply work to win *voluntary* compliance with the request. That's all they're hoping for, as that's all they're legally entitled to. The sites may well comply not because they're not sure they'd win in court, but because they simply don't care enough about the content posted by this one user to pay even one lawyer to fight it.
Re: Re: Did Judge say or suggest copyright?
Re: That's what copyright terms are about.
Every competently written Terms of Service includes in one clause (call it A) a grant of perpetual license to display the posted content on the site, and in the Termination clause a statement listing many clauses that will survive any termination of the agreement that includes clause A. So, yes, armchair lawyer, the Terms of Service do "count" very much, because they probably provided that the man himself could not have used copyright to get his own posted content removed, so anyone who inherits his copyrights could not either.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by T.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt