You're suggesting that we should do the "natural" thing and attack some completely innocent people who happen to live someplace near where we think the terrorist came from?
That strikes me as unreasonable. Criminal, even.
Let's start by finding out exactly who did this, first. Then figure out how to persuade them, and others who think like them from doing it again. Yes, if necessary, by killing them. Them, not innocents who had nothing to do with it.
I don't know what the Taiwanese court was thinking, but I can imagine an argument that porn isn't "creative". Charlie's Angels might be bad art (or just bad), but it did presumably have a script and a plot, even if a bad one.
One could argue that porn isn't covered by copyright because it lacks a creative element.
(It might be procreative, but that's not the same thing.)
Re: Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
:There is nothing wrong in selling merchandise..."
I agree. I object to them selling merchandise by use of deception - tricking buyers into thinking they're supporting Paul's campaign when they're actually buying from a for-profit firm. If they made that clear instead of hiding it in the fine print I'd cheer them on.
However, I agree that pursing the case thru WIPO is ill-advised. It would be better to pursue a claim of fraud.
That said, Paul has every right to use the existing legal mechanisms to pursue his case, even though he advocates different mechanisms. After all he, pays his taxes even tho he's against them - until and unless the system changes, he has the same right as anyone else to use it.
Libertarianism is not the same as anarchy. Paul supports the rule of law and the principles of common law. Opposition to economic regulation (before the fact) is not the same as opposition to legal means for obtaining compensation for damages, after the fact.
RonPaul.com is not a real grassroots support site for Ron Paul. It never was.
It's a scam site setup to milk Paul's supporters for money by selling merchandise (T-shirts, mugs, etc.) while implying to the casual surfer who doesn't read the site carefully that profits go to Paul's campaign.
Someone in my family got suckered by them & bought two "$100 Grassoots Mugs" from them (two $100 coffee mugs), thinking that it was a way of donating $200 to Paul's campaign. But the campaign didn't get a penny.
I pointed it out and they quickly refunded the money - they walk the fine line between deception and legal fraud.
They're scammers who have no interest in Paul or his ideas other than to divert donations to themselves.
Suppose you were kidnapped and held in a car with a gun at your back.
You pass a traffic cop. How can you signal to the cop that you're in distress without alerting your kidnappers?
Giving the finger might not be a bad solution. The cop will probably be pissed off, and pull the car over.
Obviously the cop in this case isn't very bright - if he'd said he thought the _passenger_ was signaling for help he might have a case. (And if he'd just wasted 20 minutes of the motorist's time and then let him go, there would be no case.)
But, given the nature of cops, normal self-interested people don't give them the finger. Investigating the exceptions doesn't strike me as obviously wrong.
This is the culmination of at least 35 years of official concern about the effects of personal computers.
I'm old enough to remember. As soon as computers became affordable to individuals in the late 1970s there was talk about "licensing" computer users. Talking Heads even wrote a song about it (Life During Wartime).
The good guys won, the bad guys lost.
Then, even before the Web, we had the Clipper chip. The EFF was created in response. And again the good guys won.
Then we had the CDA, and then CDA2. And again, the bad guys lost and the lovers of liberty won.
In the West, the war is mostly over (yet eternal vigilance remains the price of liberty).
Not so in the rest of the world, as last week's ITU conference in Dubai demonstrated.
I say - let them try it. Let them lock down all the VPNs, shut off all the traffic they can't parse. Let's have the knock-down, drag-out fight between the hackers and the suits.
Stuart Brand was right. Information wants to be free. I know math. I know about stenography. I know about economics.
The ITU is often fine at doing things that don't have a lot of political impact - as you say, technical things like administering radio spectrum and assigning T.35 country codes.
I speak from experience - I was for many years a Rapporteur in ITU-T (I was chair of one of those joint ITU - ISO/IEC committees).
But when it comes to anything with serious political (vs. technical) weight behind it, they're pushovers - their paymasters are the government Members, and they do as they're told. ITU is NOT someplace you want in control of your civil liberties.
Most of the problem starts when journalists feel they have to pretend they're impartial and "just presenting the facts"(as they're taught to in journalism school), instead of presenting their honest interpretation of the apparent facts.
This is something that's less than 100 years old - since the rise of "professional" journalism in the middle of the 20th century
If journalists were interested in truth, they wouldn't pretend impartiality (they’re human, of course they have opinions of their own). Instead they’d openly admit their viewpoint and let the reader judge their arguments.
There are still countless newspapers in the US with “Republican” or “Democrat” in their title. I suspect the relatively high esteem which journalists enjoy is a legacy from the era when these newspapers were founded.