I was not arguing for or against their actual guilt. I believe they have done no wrong. I was trying to comment upon the refusal of so many against them of letting due process be followed. It seems simple that just allowing both sides the benefits of the process would allow an unshakable ruling to be made. The only reason to deny due process is that you have something to hide and wish to just get it over with.
It is even due process to allow seizures before trial, but even those rules have been cast aside because the authorities have already decided the guilt of the accused and are seemingly just looking for a way to make their fiction a truth.
I still have to wonder why due process is not being followed. Even if they are guilty, (not under the laws of the locality they operate under might I add) cases are normally thrown out if due process is violated as this invalidates court hearings. Lets look at an example in a criminal trial, if a perpetrator of a crime has his rights violated, is it not the case that they are most often released due to technicalities of failure to follow due process? I just want to see justice served and that means everyone follow the rules so that if they are convicted it was because they have been found to have violated the law and were treated within the confines of their rights. I would think anyone who wants to speak out against piracy and infringement would want the cases air tight and strictly following due process so that they can hold those cases up as clear cut examples of what happens when you break the law.
Does not an amendment to a document take precedence over the initial wording? If not why change it? So in that case 1st amendment protections were put in place to curb the power of copyright.
There were many failed attempts to do what Jobs did, he just had ability to make it successful. If his design was above reproach why had it changed and/or been improved? I still feel there is so much more that can come out of the platform that in 10 years we will see what Jobs did as a great step forward but still a primitive attempt to make a great tablet/phone. The one thing you can be sure of with technology, it will progress and be based on the ideas that came before it.
Gestures existed in many different areas before of linux for example
On screen keyboards existed before in key access machines for example
Orientation changing existed before see the gateway tablet/laptop
Android / iOS are completely different under the hood for the programming
An app store existed before see steam for a game app store that existed before
The basic shape and form of the tablet was predicted in the film 2001 (look for the scene where the guy is having a video chat while eating using a tablet)
Many of the features of tablets were predicted by the Knight Ridder company in 1994
So much of what is being claimed here as innovation was really just seeing what was coming and being the first to incorporate all of the different things into a single device. Is it forward thinking, good business sense, and even raising the bar for the whole industry, yes. Is it innovative, new, or even novel, I don't think so. I hate to bring out a trite quote from Star Trek but "in every revolution there is one man with a vision." He may have been the visionary to combine it first, but it was only a matter of time until someone made the obvious combination of technologies. Does this make Jobs special, no, he was just first.
Did you give anyone a chance or just assume they were all criminals? Also this does not address the many innocent people who had their speech squelched by over zealous agents following questionable logic and legalities.
Due process is a very important part of our rights. If they had actually followed the laws we currently have on the books a more just and correct result would have happened. The infringing/rogue/disagreeable/illegal sites not online and no trampling of anyone's free speech rights.
Prior restraint is not as you characterize..... the many thousands of sites taken down wrongly were the problem. You must always consider what your actions create. If your logic were taken to a logical extreme then if a person was murdered in a ball park it would ok to hold everyone with no trial, time before a judge, and no defenses allowed for as long as the authorities felt necessary. This is the opposite of what our laws dictate.
I know it was an extreme example but no more out of touch than saying that it is ok to seize the property and prevent the speech of 84,000+ people for the sake of censoring less than one one thousandth of that population.
It does not matter what is easy, only what is just. If we follow your example of taking the easy route there will be many unintended consequences and I am quite sure a great many of even your rights broken.
You can indeed control subdomains through existing law. If you were to present the writ from the judge to the mooo.com orders to stop sites dedicated to CP I am quite sure those domains would be down.
In some cases you can say the last word (closest to present time) in the Constitution is the most correct since it was amending the original document. You don't believe that the correct version of a document is the first draft? No, that is not how it works. An amendment is to add or correct portions of the original document. You could almost look at it as a document in a configuration management system, when you look at the document you see the current version. If you want you may see the way it has changed, this is to promote understanding and explanations of how we got to where we are.
So to put it simply, first is not the trump card some people want it to be.
Perfect!
http://theoatmeal.com/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The world is one
forgot to log in again, Well what can you do?
Re: Re: Re: Not your invented "domain censorship", but actual piracy.
I was not arguing for or against their actual guilt. I believe they have done no wrong. I was trying to comment upon the refusal of so many against them of letting due process be followed. It seems simple that just allowing both sides the benefits of the process would allow an unshakable ruling to be made. The only reason to deny due process is that you have something to hide and wish to just get it over with.
It is even due process to allow seizures before trial, but even those rules have been cast aside because the authorities have already decided the guilt of the accused and are seemingly just looking for a way to make their fiction a truth.
Re: Not your invented "domain censorship", but actual piracy.
I still have to wonder why due process is not being followed. Even if they are guilty, (not under the laws of the locality they operate under might I add) cases are normally thrown out if due process is violated as this invalidates court hearings. Lets look at an example in a criminal trial, if a perpetrator of a crime has his rights violated, is it not the case that they are most often released due to technicalities of failure to follow due process? I just want to see justice served and that means everyone follow the rules so that if they are convicted it was because they have been found to have violated the law and were treated within the confines of their rights. I would think anyone who wants to speak out against piracy and infringement would want the cases air tight and strictly following due process so that they can hold those cases up as clear cut examples of what happens when you break the law.
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
So aren't there laws that already cover this? Aren't they being sued under those existing laws?
(untitled comment)
FNORD! This comment left intentionally blank.
Re:
All Hail Discordia!
Rule of 5s
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
seems? that doesn't mean it is obvious then does it?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.
What about then entire concept established in law and court cases for prior restraint of speech?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.
Does not an amendment to a document take precedence over the initial wording? If not why change it? So in that case 1st amendment protections were put in place to curb the power of copyright.
Re: Re: Re: Jobs = Hypocrite
Copyrighting what someone else created is not legal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ugh please
Obvious does not equal easy. Ask any programmer.
There were many failed attempts to do what Jobs did, he just had ability to make it successful. If his design was above reproach why had it changed and/or been improved? I still feel there is so much more that can come out of the platform that in 10 years we will see what Jobs did as a great step forward but still a primitive attempt to make a great tablet/phone. The one thing you can be sure of with technology, it will progress and be based on the ideas that came before it.
Re:
Gestures existed in many different areas before of linux for example
On screen keyboards existed before in key access machines for example
Orientation changing existed before see the gateway tablet/laptop
Android / iOS are completely different under the hood for the programming
An app store existed before see steam for a game app store that existed before
The basic shape and form of the tablet was predicted in the film 2001 (look for the scene where the guy is having a video chat while eating using a tablet)
Many of the features of tablets were predicted by the Knight Ridder company in 1994
So much of what is being claimed here as innovation was really just seeing what was coming and being the first to incorporate all of the different things into a single device. Is it forward thinking, good business sense, and even raising the bar for the whole industry, yes. Is it innovative, new, or even novel, I don't think so. I hate to bring out a trite quote from Star Trek but "in every revolution there is one man with a vision." He may have been the visionary to combine it first, but it was only a matter of time until someone made the obvious combination of technologies. Does this make Jobs special, no, he was just first.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you give anyone a chance or just assume they were all criminals? Also this does not address the many innocent people who had their speech squelched by over zealous agents following questionable logic and legalities.
Due process is a very important part of our rights. If they had actually followed the laws we currently have on the books a more just and correct result would have happened. The infringing/rogue/disagreeable/illegal sites not online and no trampling of anyone's free speech rights.
Prior restraint is not as you characterize..... the many thousands of sites taken down wrongly were the problem. You must always consider what your actions create. If your logic were taken to a logical extreme then if a person was murdered in a ball park it would ok to hold everyone with no trial, time before a judge, and no defenses allowed for as long as the authorities felt necessary. This is the opposite of what our laws dictate.
I know it was an extreme example but no more out of touch than saying that it is ok to seize the property and prevent the speech of 84,000+ people for the sake of censoring less than one one thousandth of that population.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
mooo.com owners, not orders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do not think you understand either. There is a thing in the US called prior restraint.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prior+Restraint
It does not matter what is easy, only what is just. If we follow your example of taking the easy route there will be many unintended consequences and I am quite sure a great many of even your rights broken.
You can indeed control subdomains through existing law. If you were to present the writ from the judge to the mooo.com orders to stop sites dedicated to CP I am quite sure those domains would be down.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy
In some cases you can say the last word (closest to present time) in the Constitution is the most correct since it was amending the original document. You don't believe that the correct version of a document is the first draft? No, that is not how it works. An amendment is to add or correct portions of the original document. You could almost look at it as a document in a configuration management system, when you look at the document you see the current version. If you want you may see the way it has changed, this is to promote understanding and explanations of how we got to where we are.
So to put it simply, first is not the trump card some people want it to be.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
looks like you beat me to it, ha ha.
Great minds think alike or something.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did he even once deliver a copy of the software himself via any method? All he did is tell people where to pick it.
So if you point out a crack house down the corner did you distribute crack?