As pointed out, that isn't the definition of treason. Since no one else seems to be posting the definition, here you go:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Agreed... Tech stories should be boring and devoid of humor. On more than one occasion Mr. Geigner has forced me to elicit a smirk, and this is unforgivable. Not to mention the penis jokes... After a long and hard day, I find techdirt to be a great way to beat the monotony of the daily grind, but many times the thrust of the article is lost due to his juvenile humor.
I was planning on attempting to refute your other claims until I realized your article was parody. You almost had me fooled, but when you said "he knows what he's talking about" I realized my error. Well played, sir, well played.
What you just said was just as offensive, crass, and juvenile as what Rosario tweeted. It's also just as much of a constitutionally protected opinion as his was. That aside, your hypocrisy is unmeasurable.
PS... Your comment is also equally as likely to get prosecuted for slander.
I'm inclined to disagree with this sentiment, and if permitting is not considered unconstitutional than perhaps it should be. I don't have a problem with a permit as a voluntary request, but making it a requirement is most certainly unconstitutional. All mandatory permits can lead to is censorship, other than the gatherers providing the courtesy of notification. If the permit is declined that's censorship. If the permit allows an institutional response to the assembly that alters the scope or presentation of the assemble, then that is censorship as well.
I think you missed the assault of the elderly woman by the officer. He had no right to place his hands on her. Her swinging her purse was a response to being assaulted. He is the one who should have been arrested and charged with a felony.
In the 80's if you wanted a track you had to listen to the radio with a tape deck and record the song you wanted to hear on a blank cassette. You then shared this tape with your friends ensuring they didn't have to pay for it either, because, you know, we were kids and couldn't afford to pay for it even if we wanted to. And that is single-handedly why music doesn't exist anymore because home taping actually did kill it... oh wait...
Pandora and Spotify give the artists something from people that would otherwise be giving them nothing in many cases. This is progress in the right direction, and if you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm all about you guys experimenting with new models for revenue generation and all, but I have to agree with some of the others here that I do not like this new format with the pinned post staying up top. Hopefully a less intrusive method will be found, but I'm an adblock, noscript kinda guy, so maybe I'm in the minority...
"So console gamers can disagree, can complain, but it's going to happen. It's been proven successful on the PC platform, and while you probably won't see the sales and indie development, due to control, it will benefit all.
The only one benefiting from used game sales are the scumbag stores who deal in it while destroying the industry."
It's only successful on the PC because of the sales and indie development. Those 2 factors are the only thing that is offered on the PC platform to compete with free. Without services like steam and gog, all of a sudden the pirate bay would be getting a much greater increase in traffic. Those services add value to the consumer by providing them with convenience at a reasonable price. The console ecosystem has no intention of providing this benefit, so what makes you think this move will be good for anyone other than the game publishers?
You mean like average citizens and journalists have being arrested for filming police officers, or throwing water balloons, or posting rap lyrics on Facebook?
DNA should not be collected without a conviction because these days the police can arrest anyone for anything. The charges may not hold water, but its a moot point once they've violated your rights and put you in a biometrics database. How can you possible be ok with this?
IANAL but I don't believe this would be considered entrapment. As the owner of the copyright, his offering of the films online would be considered an authorized use. To then turn around and demand money from these authorized downloaders to keep Prenda from publicly releasing their porn habits would be a classic example of extortion. Actual legally defined, no argument to the contrary, extortion. Time to buy some stock in PopSecret... this is going to get good!
I was kinda thinking the same thing. This is a cross post from another blog site, so my guess is they have some kind of deal where they get to cross post a story every week and the other site chooses it...? Like you said, it's good to have a new reason to hate Starbucks, but I don't see how this post fits Techdirt.
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 30th, 2013 @ 8:27am
This is exactly how it should work, but I think even you can agree that this is not what is currently happening. All new changes to laws have been beneficial only to the content owners that wrote and paid for said changes, continuously diminishing the rights of the public. These changes are extremely slow and attempt to react to a technology that has normally surpassed itself by several generations by the time the reaction becomes codified, and then the now outdated change is attempted to be applied to the newer innovation like squeezing a square peg in a round hole.
The reality of the situation is that no amount of legislation will ever change the fact that the internet can be used as a giant copy machine. The content owners are not trying to compete on a realistic playing field. They have this notion of what they want things to be like and think that additional legislation will solve their problems, but this line of thinking is quite similar to living by a river in Egypt. Until they realize that their only option is to compete with the reality of free, they will continue to fail.
This is exactly the point of the article about hindering innovation. Every time a new startup comes up and tries to fill in a gap to provide a service that there is clearly demand for, they are blocked at every turn in the best case scenario, and sued out of existence in the worst. If the content owners were truly providing the innovation and the services their customers want, then these startups wouldn't even need to exist since the demand would already be met. The content owners have repeatedly shown their desire to work against their customers, not with them, and trying to claim anything to the contrary is truly the definition of disingenuous.