"Paragraph (18) of subsection (a) of Section 3‑12 of this Act" also guarantees a MINIMUM of 45 days between application and approval of this "exemption", with no stated maximum period. And as stated, this isn't a license they get through normal means, but an exemption to the standard license restrictions.
Enough bureaucracy to for some to go through the middle men instead. It isn't necessary to ban something when you can just make it worse than the alternative.
Also, your point about whether or not she WAS doing journalism is pointless. The point is, this IS about the venue. Maybe not completely, as you have pointed out, but why should the venue matter AT ALL?
Frankly, the extent to which they focused on the venue might lead one to believe it is likely that she WAS doing journalism. Otherwise, why did they have to focus so much on the venue to rule against her?
1. No, you don't have to obtain qualifications to be a journalist in America. If the government required that then it wouldn't be a "free" press now, would it?
2. I am not a doctor. But if I come to your house, inject you with a local anesthetic, and remove what I have diagnosed as a cancerous lump, am I practicing medicine?
These are the two key points of Mike's post. Anyone in this country can "do journalism", and if you are doing it, YOU'RE DOING IT. The venue doesn't change that fact.
So if a lawyer, who has identified himself as such, gives you legal advice on a message board, then he isn't practicing law? I think the law disagrees with your logic here.
My reference stating otherwise is the Tenth Amendment, but the wording isn't clear. It contains two qualifiers, that the powers aren't prohibited to the states AND that they aren't delegated to the federal government (like copyright is). Both conditions must be met for the powers to be reserved to the states. Does "not reserved" mean that both the state and federal get to make laws? That's not how I read it, but I'm not a lawyer (or a judge).
Oh wait, you seem confused on the question. You are trying to explain why the state laws didn't violate federal law, right? I asking how they don't violate the Tenth Amendment.
I don't think I'd call 2% "crazy low" for several reasons. Think about it. Primarily, you would have to doubt the numbers on DVR ownership and time-shifting. Even if we raise the fast-forward rate to (an unreasonable) 100%, we would still only be at 3.5%. Now consider that everyone has been conditioned to be used to commercials for decades, and that they have turned their attention away as much as possible for quite a while. (Getting a snack, moving clothes from the washer to dryer, whatever.)
Now factor in those people who would rather check their smart phones than fast-forward through commercial breaks. Or, if watching something with friends, talk to them about the show or just about life in general in that "free time". Many people still check other channels on commercial breaks.
The one glaring flaw in that stat is that it assumes a DVR owner who time-shifts isn't watching any more TV than the rest, which I will just assume is wrong. But even factoring that in, I still don't think 2% is "crazy low".
I don't think I'd call 2% "crazy low" for several reasons. Think about it. Primarily, you would have to doubt the numbers on DVR ownership and time-shifting. Even if we raise the fast-forward rate to (an unreasonable) 100%, we would still only be at 3.5%. Now consider that everyone has been conditioned to be used to commercials for decades, and that they have turned their attention away as much as possible for quite a while. (Getting a snack, moving clothes from the washer to dryer, whatever.)
Now factor in those people who would rather check their smart phones than fast-forward through commercial breaks. Or, if watching something with friends, talk to them about the show or just about life in general in that "free time". Many people still check other channels on commercial breaks.
The one glaring flaw in that stat is that it assumes a DVR owner who time-shifts isn't watching any more TV than the rest, which I will just assume is wrong. But even factoring that in, I still don't think 2% is "crazy low".
Apparently it wasn't clear, but I was specifically NOT talking about those games (of which there are actually 5). That's what I was getting at with "free games (on PS+, not the "Welcome back" ones)".
I've seen way too much discussion recently of whether or not Playstation Plus is worth it, usually brought on by the mention of this free month now being offered.
Every time I see mention of free games (on PS+, not the "Welcome back" ones) no one ever mentions that you lose them if you don't pay to keep PS+. This makes the free month pretty much useless to most. It's still better that nothing, but not by as much as some are acting.
Dang it. Apparently we had the same thought, but it takes me way too long to type on the PS3's on-screen keyboard. (Must pick up batteries for wireless keyboard tonight.)
At some clubs, the strippers PAY the club for the right to dance. They give customers a "reason to buy" through paying more attention to better tippers and the general understanding that without tips these people won't continue stripping.
Broken link
The link to the Addendum is broken. It has an extra quotation mark at the end.
Re: Re: already been done across the border
"Paragraph (18) of subsection (a) of Section 3‑12 of this Act" also guarantees a MINIMUM of 45 days between application and approval of this "exemption", with no stated maximum period. And as stated, this isn't a license they get through normal means, but an exemption to the standard license restrictions.
Enough bureaucracy to for some to go through the middle men instead. It isn't necessary to ban something when you can just make it worse than the alternative.
Re: Re: Re: Not so bad...
Also, your point about whether or not she WAS doing journalism is pointless. The point is, this IS about the venue. Maybe not completely, as you have pointed out, but why should the venue matter AT ALL?
Frankly, the extent to which they focused on the venue might lead one to believe it is likely that she WAS doing journalism. Otherwise, why did they have to focus so much on the venue to rule against her?
Re: qualifications?
1. No, you don't have to obtain qualifications to be a journalist in America. If the government required that then it wouldn't be a "free" press now, would it?
2. I am not a doctor. But if I come to your house, inject you with a local anesthetic, and remove what I have diagnosed as a cancerous lump, am I practicing medicine?
These are the two key points of Mike's post. Anyone in this country can "do journalism", and if you are doing it, YOU'RE DOING IT. The venue doesn't change that fact.
Re: Re: Re: Not so bad...
So if a lawyer, who has identified himself as such, gives you legal advice on a message board, then he isn't practicing law? I think the law disagrees with your logic here.
example
Obvious immigration joke:
"Kick out the Mexicans and build a wall?
Who's going to build it?"
And I've seen people claim this joke has been stolen by people.
Re: Re: Re: Re: unconstitutional
My reference stating otherwise is the Tenth Amendment, but the wording isn't clear. It contains two qualifiers, that the powers aren't prohibited to the states AND that they aren't delegated to the federal government (like copyright is). Both conditions must be met for the powers to be reserved to the states. Does "not reserved" mean that both the state and federal get to make laws? That's not how I read it, but I'm not a lawyer (or a judge).
Re: Re: unconstitutional
Well, either Congress has authority and the state laws are unconstitutional, or federal copyright on sound recordings is unconstitutional. Right?
Re: Re: unconstitutional
Oh wait, you seem confused on the question. You are trying to explain why the state laws didn't violate federal law, right? I asking how they don't violate the Tenth Amendment.
Re: Re: unconstitutional
No, that doesn't explain it. The copyright clause makes no such distinction.
unconstitutional
Why aren't those state laws themselves unconstitutional? That power was delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
Re: "Crazy low"?
My bad for the duplicate post, accidentally clicked "back" to the "comment submitted" page. :)
"Crazy low"?
I don't think I'd call 2% "crazy low" for several reasons. Think about it. Primarily, you would have to doubt the numbers on DVR ownership and time-shifting. Even if we raise the fast-forward rate to (an unreasonable) 100%, we would still only be at 3.5%. Now consider that everyone has been conditioned to be used to commercials for decades, and that they have turned their attention away as much as possible for quite a while. (Getting a snack, moving clothes from the washer to dryer, whatever.) Now factor in those people who would rather check their smart phones than fast-forward through commercial breaks. Or, if watching something with friends, talk to them about the show or just about life in general in that "free time". Many people still check other channels on commercial breaks. The one glaring flaw in that stat is that it assumes a DVR owner who time-shifts isn't watching any more TV than the rest, which I will just assume is wrong. But even factoring that in, I still don't think 2% is "crazy low".
"Crazy low"?
I don't think I'd call 2% "crazy low" for several reasons. Think about it. Primarily, you would have to doubt the numbers on DVR ownership and time-shifting. Even if we raise the fast-forward rate to (an unreasonable) 100%, we would still only be at 3.5%. Now consider that everyone has been conditioned to be used to commercials for decades, and that they have turned their attention away as much as possible for quite a while. (Getting a snack, moving clothes from the washer to dryer, whatever.) Now factor in those people who would rather check their smart phones than fast-forward through commercial breaks. Or, if watching something with friends, talk to them about the show or just about life in general in that "free time". Many people still check other channels on commercial breaks. The one glaring flaw in that stat is that it assumes a DVR owner who time-shifts isn't watching any more TV than the rest, which I will just assume is wrong. But even factoring that in, I still don't think 2% is "crazy low".
Re: Re: PS+
Apparently it wasn't clear, but I was specifically NOT talking about those games (of which there are actually 5). That's what I was getting at with "free games (on PS+, not the "Welcome back" ones)".
PS+
I've seen way too much discussion recently of whether or not Playstation Plus is worth it, usually brought on by the mention of this free month now being offered.
Every time I see mention of free games (on PS+, not the "Welcome back" ones) no one ever mentions that you lose them if you don't pay to keep PS+. This makes the free month pretty much useless to most. It's still better that nothing, but not by as much as some are acting.
And I'm saying this as a current PS+ subscriber.
Re: Strippers
Dang it. Apparently we had the same thought, but it takes me way too long to type on the PS3's on-screen keyboard. (Must pick up batteries for wireless keyboard tonight.)
Stripper tips
At some clubs, the strippers PAY the club for the right to dance. They give customers a "reason to buy" through paying more attention to better tippers and the general understanding that without tips these people won't continue stripping.
so old
You know how I know I'm old? The appositive explaining what Skynet is seemed totally unnecessary to me ...
old news
While I agree it is stupid, hasn't this story been around every year just with different companies?