What possible reason is there to intentionally import millions of other countries' poor?
Actually, those who have the cojones to actually relocate to another country tend to be the "go getters" of their respective societies. They are productive and often start up businesses that create jobs in their new countries. They pay more in taxes than they receive in welfare. They spend their income on local goods and services. Overall, higher rates of foreign-born population historically have corresponded to lower unemployment rates.
The Constitution does not apply to or protect foreign nationals in foreign countries.
The wording in most of the Articles and Amendments refer to "people" instead of "citizens" and have no restrictions in regards to physical location. The Constitution is simply a list of what the US government may or may not do and isn't restricted any sub-set of humanity, except for the Articles and Amendments that are specifically worded to apply only to "citizens".
It's my belief that the Constitution applies to anyone and everyone who has dealings with the US government, with the exception of the Articles and Amendments that apply only to "citizens" (for example, the right to vote).
Obviously, our courts do not subscribe to my view of this.
Re: How many more times are you going to attack copyright by way of stories about greedy skimmers, mostly lawyers?
It's ancient as human creation, simply recognizing personal achievement and common law of "I made it, it's mine."
Actually, copyright (which is relatively new in the scope of human creation) goes against most common law principles concerning property.
The "I made it, it's mine." part fits okay, but you conveniently left out the part of copyright that says "I sold it to you, but it's still mine".
Common law property principles have always recognized that transfer of ownership terminates the property rights of the original owner. Copyright violates this common law principle by granting extra rights to the original owner after the sale.
It matters who owns my property, Mike, the property that I created, with my own investment, time and toil. Mine. Not everyone's. Mine.
Another difference between intellectual property and other property are the rights granted to the original owner after the transfer of ownership. One doesn't get to dictate how the person you sell your used car to uses it, but the author of a book gets to restrict how the book is used after he sells it.
If you are willing to give up any and all rights after the sale of your intellectual property, than I would be willing to treat as any other property.
Ever create anything that was valuable to anyone other than yourself? Ever make any money from selling something of your own?
Obviously, I am not who you directed these questions at, but I would like to answer for myself, if I may.
The answer to both of those questions is yes and I still consider myself a copyright minimalist. I am a graphic artist who creates designs everyday (which all have copyright by default) and I do not care if they are copied or not because what I really do is sell signs and printed graphics.
In my free time I am a hobbyist programmer and I have released one of my programs under the GPLv3 License because I have enjoyed using Linux for almost a decade and wanted to pay something forward.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, that's not what they are doing
Like I said, I'm not really sure. This is a bit of a gray area.
Fedex advertising "Copy your textbooks here" in a college town would be a different situation then them advertising "We make copies".
The VCR was marketed towards making copies of broadcast TV even before it was resolved that time-shifting was Fair Use. Even though VCR's enable copyright infringement they are remain legal to sell because they are "capable of substantial noninfringing uses". How is a Xerox machine, even one that is being used to sell copying services to others, any different if the end-user is making the choices of what to copy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, that's not what they are doing
So you agree that FedEx was engaging in unlawful activity.
I didn't say that.
To be honest, I'm not really sure and I work in industry where this comes up (sign business). I basically assume that my customer has the rights or permission to use the designs they provide me and I try to make sure I use public domain/properly licensed stuff for designs I create.
What I don't do is spend my valuable time being a "copyright cop" for other peoples intellectual property, because it's not my job to do so.
As an aside, this is leading to interesting law discussions concerning marijuana dispensaries, which are legal at the state levels, but not at the Federal level. Are they allowed to advertise their wares? Is their commercial speech protected by the First Amendment or not?
To prove any charge of "defamation", Mr. Ayyadurai will have to prove that Mr. Masnick lied.
The bar is actually higher than that.
Since Ayyadurai, by his own admissions, is a "public figure" (he asserts in his complaint that he is a "world-renowned scientist, inventor, lecturer, philanthropist and entrepreneur") he must prove "actual malice" by Mike & Techdirt using "clear and convincing evidence", which his complaint clearly lacks.
Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"
No one's "free speech" is reduced simply by not being able to use content someone else has made. -- That include parts, "fair use", or whatever: all that you're itching to object over, those are NOT essential to YOUR free speech.
If I am unable to quote your comment (ie: Fair Use) so I can properly rebut it within context so that anyone reading it isn't confused, then yes, my Free Speech rights are infringed upon. How do you not realize that?
I see that you quoted the line from article that you are referring to in your comment title, so apparently you also value Fair Use.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: The Logician on Feb 19th, 2017 @ 9:54am
The idea of clicking to block a comment not because it's spam but because you don't like it (don't agree) is a form of censorship.
It's not censorship. It's just the community showing you they don't necessarily agree with you.
The comment is still there, just subject to a form of tamping down similar to a Trump crowd beating up a Hillary supporter.
Not even close. Your rights are not being violated whatsoever. Nobody is required to provide you an equal platform for your speech.
It stops or limits a form of free speech, that of expressing an opinion people don't like.
It does neither. Your speech is still there. And to be honest, I believe it actually promotes your comment to some degree. I always click on hidden comments just to see why they were hidden.
My comment (number 45 or so in this discussion) was posted on Friday the 18th, but only made visible on the 21st.
Your comment was caught in the spam filter and was released on the first day following a three day weekend. Nothing nefarious there.
My comments are stopped or delayed because those that are in charge don't like them.*
I have to call bullshit on this claim unless to can show some proof, Sparky. If you really want to have less comments get caught, create an account. You can still be as anonymous as you want. But of course, you probably won't do this because your comment history would be available to anyone wanting to point out any hypocrisy between comments you make.
Using the report flag to hide a comment because you don't like it is abusive, stupid, and it really tramps on the free speech of others.*
I will agree that flagging comments just because you disagree with them is a bit childish, but I do not agree it tramps on anyone's free speech at all. The comments are still there and you are still provided a platform to voice your dissenting opinions. Now if Techdirt didn't allow or removed dissenting comments, like say, The Trichodist does, you'd have a valid point.
On that point, the DOJ's argument is more solid: they were using computers hosted in the US. IF (big if) there was a crime committed, the jurisdictional claim in the US makes sense.
Perhaps a little more solid, but still on shaky ground. As Larry Lessig pointed out in his affidavit:
The Superseding Indictment does discuss the existence of Megaupload servers in the United States.... But the mere presence of data servers in Virginia does not establish that direct infringement took place there. See, e.g., CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 549-50 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that direct infringement under the civil standard requires more than “mere ownership of a machine used by others to make illegal copies” and that there “must be actual infringing conduct[.]”); Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, 131-32 (2d Cir. 2008) (direct civil infringement requires “volitional conduct,” not mere ownership of device used by others to infringe).
The Superseding Indictment never states that any specific user, much less any of the criminal defendants, chose to upload or download any specific infringing work from within the United States.