i think what you are referring to is the broken windows theory. if people see it advertised it must be okay. if it's okay then i can do it too. therefore, i can become a pimp, prostitute, or john with no repercussions. this drives up the demand and the whole thing grows.
makes sense, but i don't know if it solves the problem.
mike, one thing you didn't do was present a definition of what you think a bulletin board is. from my perspective fb and myspace are bulletin boards, but if you want to split hairs then lets bring out the hairs. this is the first paragraph from wikipedia:
A Bulletin Board System, or BBS, is an online service based on microcomputers running appropriate software. Once logged in, users can upload and download software and data, read news and bulletins, and exchange messages with other users either through email or in public message boards. Many BBSes also offer on-line games, in which users can compete with each other, and BBSes with multiple phone lines often provide chat rooms, allowing users to interact with each other more instantaneously.
now you called facebook and myspace "social media". so you think that because some clever social scientist relabeled the bbs as social media, that somehow this guy should be given additional consideration.
when you are convicted of a crime like this any kind of anonymous communication should off your list for quite some time (which is how the order was worded). these guys are very persistent and clever and will take advantage of any loophole. i'm sorry he cannot network his business using fb and myspace, but that's the price you pay. he was lucky to have the light punishment that he had. now he will server some hard time for trying to game the system.
i don't think this qualifies. you bought a product, period. then you started to use their service. every time you sign into that service is a separate usage. every month you pay your bill continues the relationship. that's the problem with services. your use of it today does not guarantee that it will be the same tomorrow.
while i don't agree with this, i believe that there is a fundamental separation between the product and the service. they are cleverly marketed together, but are actually two different things. for example, you buy a car at the dealer, but you can get it serviced anywhere. however, the dealer will do everything he can to make it seem that you can only have that new car serviced at the dealership.
wait a minute. why are we looking to government on this? this is what reputation is all about. personally, i haven't bought anything from sony in ten years, and will not until their reputation improves and stays improved for many years. i spend my money with innovative companies that back up their products and services.
i am so embarrassed to admit that i am from arizona. it is such a beautiful place to live with a great climate. unfortunately, it is also filled with right wing extremist idiots. it is very difficult to be a democrat (even a conservative one) in this state.
i have sent messages to my state reps and senators as well as the governor urging her to veto the bill. however, it is hard to say how she will react. sometimes she couldn't find her ass with both hands, but occasionally she will rise up in moments of lucidity and veto these stupid bills. i guess it all depends on whether the bill's sponsors have something on her.
as mike was saying, the really sad part about this is that it modifies an existing law that addresses telephone communication. those laws might make some sense. but now that the bill has modified those laws it is entirely possible the the whole thing will be found unconstitutional. that would effectively remove the protections that the original law provided.
are there any nice blue states out there that i can move to?
this is sort of like wanting the department of motor vehicles to weigh in on car forfeiture in a drug case. yes, the dmv issues the title, the plates, and licenses, and they create new specialty license plates for which you can pay extra, but in no way are they involved in what you or the authorities do with your car.
they need to stay neutral and make this a problem for the courts.
either i missed your point altogether or you made it very poorly. each of your arguments falls flat when examined closer.
for example, grandma and grandpa go to the movies every sunday because they want to. when people reach that stage of life they choose their entertainment based on what they like to do. i am old enough to be a grandparent (got off to a late start, however) and so are most of my friends. we are very savvy about our entertainment choices. even my mother has a big screen tv and is also very savvy about her entertainment choices. she watches netflix on her computer, and i didn't show her how to do it.
my teenage kids get their music from the easiest source (usually pandora) not because it is legal, but because it is easy.
you got me on the ultraviolet thing. what the heck is that? but that probably plays more to my argument than yours.
don't ever believe that because you are young that older people are stuck in our ways. people change when they see value in changing.
no one ever said it was free. it's not free for anyone. there are many companies that compile this information and provide the tax processing. you want free then contact the states yourself.
google will validate addresses for free using their api.
usps or ups will provide zip codes. there are other services out there.
if the world were limited to what people like you could find for free, we wouldn't accomplish much. can you imagine trying to cure cancer based on what could be found for free on google? just because you cannot do the research yourself or don't have the connections to get the information yourself doesn't mean that we have to be limited by what you can accomplish.
this thing will never die. as long as there are people who make money from copyright those rights will be consolidated into associations and unions until there is enough money to pay for lobbyists. those lobbyists will work to further the interests of the people paying them.
the other side of this is the tech companies. once they get a taste of lobbying, it is going to be hard to stop them. google and facebook will start to understand that certain laws that limit them (and their revenues) need to go away. smaller competitors start to feel squeezed by new laws and so on.
the problem here is the process by which our laws are created. our legislators are just regular guys (with really big egos, granted) who want to do the right thing. but when the people they talk to have something to sell and they couch it in terms of "for the children" and prop it up with campaign contributions, these voices drown out the rest of us. it isn't until we get really pissed off and shove it down their throats like we did on wednesday do they really take notice.
now everyone will go back lick their wounds and strategize this all over again. the associations will reassess and consult with the lobbyists. the lobbyists will figure out how to rephrase this to our legislators so that is sounds good again. and the whole thing starts all over. this will never die until our culture changes to a degree where these people become irrelevant a la the buggy whip makers association.
does it really matter who you vote for at this point? you've got republican who can be bought, but once they realize we are paying attention renege on the deal. on the other hand, you've got democrat who stick to their guns and stay bought. hmmm, i'm voting for pat paulson.