Re: So what amendment will be next to go Peter King?
I like to argue that income taxes are a violation of our 3rd Amendment rights. The 3rd Amendment guarantees the government will not force us to house soldiers in peace time. Taxes we are forced to pay go toward housing soldiers during peace times.
Perhaps you are not aware of what a scarlet letter is. There was a book about it once. It involved a woman who was caught in an adulterous relationship and was forced to wear a red A on her at all times so that everyone knew she committed adultery. This resulted in her to be ostracized from society.
Putting someone on a lifetime sex offender registry or labeling them a felon does much the same thing. Felons have trouble getting jobs. Sex offenders have trouble finding housing. Both labeling systems result in undue hardships and ostracizing of the person labeled.
If ind it hard to understand how a "compassionate society" would endorse either scenario. I find it hard to understand how someone could advocate against a site that publishes mugshots, claiming that it is a form of scarlet lettering, while supporting a "justice" system that does far more damage.
I have had a love/hate relationship with Netflix for many years now. I love the service they provide and the content I can watch. The price is pretty good for what they offer. I have subscribed for many years.
However, their stance on DRM is the primary focus of the hate part of the relationship. Their insistence on using DRM, driven mostly by their media partners, has prevented me from being able to watch online any content on my primary PC and my HTPC. The reason is that the DRM they use, Microsoft Silverlight, is not compatible with my operating system, Linux. It never has been and never will.
Lucky for me, some clever users were willing to violate the DMCA and risk fines and jailtime to circumvent the DRM and allow Netflix's Watch Instantly software to run in Linux based PCs. It is absolutely insane that one must risk financial and social ruin to allow people to use services they are already paying for.
In response to the Boston bombings, police have shut down one of the most useful and commonly used services for victims and those close by to contact family and emergency services. They have shut down the ability for media to communicate easily with one another. Shutting down the cell services of the Boston area will do nothing but spur more panic and frustration at the scene and around those trying to contact loved ones. Imagine being a parent or spouse trying to contact someone you suspect as having been there and getting nothing but a "Your call cannot be connected" message.
I am aware that they are not unique to the real world. My daughters have owned several pairs of "ruby slippers" but they were never called "Ruby Slippers" in any marketing materials. However, you cannot make a Wizard of Oz movie that includes Ruby slippers because those were a construct of MGM.
While there is no fashion design copyrights, there is movie, and TV copyrights. Those copyrights extend their protection to anything uniquely identifiable to the movie. That is why no one by MGM can make Ruby Slippers or use the exact look for the Scarecrow and Tinman, as an example. That is why Fox thinks it is the only one who can license the rights to sell Jayne hats.
Calling them "Jayne hats" and making them look exactly like the hat Jayne wore in the series could be copyright infringement. Kind of silly, but that is the world we live in.
Now, the question then becomes, can you legally recreate and sell the hat without using the term "Jayne"? If people are selling replica's but not referring directly to the show, would Fox be in its right to send a C&D? I wouldn't think so. While the hat had a unique look in the show (did you see any other knitted caps?), it isn't unique in the real world.