You DO know that copyright/patent reform is only a SMALL part of the main pirate platform, right?
The platform is: * Government accountability/transparency * Increased Personal Privacy * Copyright/Patent/Trademark reform.
You'll also notice that's the order of the 3 sections in the book No Safe Harbor, put out by the USPP (and co-edited by me)
You'll notice a lot of the first two being talking about recently. The first vote against ACTA at the EU was led by a committee on a report written by Pirate MEP Amelia Andersdotter. Pirates: Fact-based politics.
Lutz isn't a lawyer, he's the officer of AF Holdings. They lost one case this week in Illinois. The Patel (that's the 'ignore California because Gay Marriage' and 'seal the case because the internet is mean') case has a hearing on Tuesday. Judge has said 'no affidavit's, unless they're here to be cross'd as well' and will be talking sanctions.
Nope, I know they'd LIKE that theory, but they have at least bowed to the realities.
Namely, while a land border is continuous and exterior, an air-border (ie, airport) is closed and interior. They already have and and all exits out of said area under control (because it's so small) and because to arrive in it, you'd need to do so in an easily recognizable aircraft.
A land border, however, is large, and has free and open access, and so anyone can arrive there at any time and at any point (in theory) without observation and direct control. Hence the Zone.
Now, I certainly don't agree with it, but it at least makes a 'kinda' sense - or at least as much as those Committee for State Security ever make.
Are you a lawyer, licensed in Ga? I'm just asking because you clearly know how to do legal research, and AF Holdings is now looking for a lawyer in the Patel case, since Nazaire has been forced to withdraw under 10USC. Might wanna give them a call.
That's NOTHING. You should check out 17 U.S. CODE § 501 I'll quote the very first bit to you.
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.
You'll notice that it SPECIFICALLY refers to violating copyright, and defines details. It does not reference 18USC at all, for a very good reason, 18USC is inapplicable.
Of course, I'm all for striking 17USC501 and replacing it with 18usc.
BTW, that 2319 came from a lovely little lobby law produced under Bush, the ProIP act. So you can hardly say it's 'been deemed that for a century'.
Also, the SCOTUS doesn't consider it theft (see Dowling, Golan)
the exception for naming the driver of a vehicle went to the european courts in ~98. they said you had no right to silence or protection from self-incrimination then.
Then RIPA came in, and they can demand the password for any crime, failure is 2 years. for terrorism its 5. So one of the first things people did when it passed, was commit a minor crime, write a file about it, then encrypted it and sent it to the Home Secretary (or maybe the deputy PM, I forget which) then told the police that politician had evidence of a crime. As you might expect, plod didn't really care, because of who it was (this was before plebegate) but it might be something people will try again.
I used to machine (many years ago I was a robotics guy ,was even one of the tech advisers/safety inspectors on BattleBots), and I'll tell you one thing about modern machining. The low-end stuff today, is worse than the low-end stuff from the 40s.
Second, 90% of all mills and lathes come from China.
Third - there are a NUMBER of conversion kits, to turn regular mills and lathes into CNC machines, and has been for a long time. I remember the battleBot builder association SORC buying and installing a conversion kit in 1999.
Fourth -mills and lathes and CNC machines are not that complex. In fact they're a lot simpler than atomic weapons to construct. So, if you're worried about constructing a bomb, and don't want them to do it, trying to den them a much simpler tool used for it, aint going to work. Especially not when there are even open source kits out there. After all, how well did the Ban on CNC machines hamper the Manhattan project? (I know the ban was temporal, in that they hadn't been invented at that point, but the US made them without needing a CNC)
There are potentials for effectively acting otherwise than in the best interests of the client when a layer accepts money from a third party. Thus the referenced rules make it clear that such things are to be done with the clients informed consent, and with the people funding being unable to direct the litigation, or obtaining information that's privileged.
Not going to be too hard to prove there were no professional standards violations.