According to his arguments the First Amendment does not apply here. And given the case law to support, i am not a judge nor am i a Constitutional expert, but i believe he would have a good argument in front of one.
On the other hand, he is not saying that there was not wrongdoing here (double negative is intended) he makes a very good point regarding the Fourth Amendment. I believe this was an unreasonable seizure simply because of the amount of time that the site was seized for was entirely too long for there not to be a court case out of it.
And he does not overlook the fact that there basically was NO investigation to the claims before the seizure took place.
Both of the above issues are Fourth Amendment issues not First Amendment issues.
The First First Amendment issue to be addressed here is whether there is case law to support the blog being considered "Press". I would hope they would win the fight for that but considering that the "Real Press" doesn't like competition i don't see that case getting very far.
We will have to wait for the Hirch's and Clean Channel's of the US to die off. (Of which they have been doing due to increase of alternative media and news.)
Based on these numbers, which seem pretty generous, the question is:
"Is it more cost effective to have entire company divisions devoted to developing anti-piracy solutions than it is to write the money off as a loss?"
In addition, pursuing legal battles and greasing the palms of congressmen contribute to the cost of piracy.
If the companies did not spend so much on battling piracy and accepted like everyone else that it will occur and just ignore it, they probably would have a larger bottom line.
I would have to disagree, the "founding fathers" were every bit as corrupt as the current system.
To that end there is evidence to suggest that the revolutionary war was started, in part, due to a deal the english had made with the east india trading company for tea and the fact that bootleggers were being undercut by this new deal.
if the above is true then the phrase "No taxation without representation" was the 18th century equivalent to "They took our jobs!" or "They have WMDs"
FYI: I am an American, and fully believe that idealistically a democratic republic is the best form of government.
It's the puritanical "morals" that keep people covering these discrepancies up. Most of the country will look down on a person if they even admit to having tried drugs, had sex out of marriage, and a myriad of other socially reprehensible activity's.
Social mores and taboos dictate how politician's and public figures present themselves to the public, if anyone is to blame it's us.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Azalus.
"AC (You know) is crazy"
I don't believe that.
According to his arguments the First Amendment does not apply here. And given the case law to support, i am not a judge nor am i a Constitutional expert, but i believe he would have a good argument in front of one.
On the other hand, he is not saying that there was not wrongdoing here (double negative is intended) he makes a very good point regarding the Fourth Amendment. I believe this was an unreasonable seizure simply because of the amount of time that the site was seized for was entirely too long for there not to be a court case out of it.
And he does not overlook the fact that there basically was NO investigation to the claims before the seizure took place.
Both of the above issues are Fourth Amendment issues not First Amendment issues.
The First First Amendment issue to be addressed here is whether there is case law to support the blog being considered "Press". I would hope they would win the fight for that but considering that the "Real Press" doesn't like competition i don't see that case getting very far.
We will have to wait for the Hirch's and Clean Channel's of the US to die off. (Of which they have been doing due to increase of alternative media and news.)
The real question
Based on these numbers, which seem pretty generous, the question is:
"Is it more cost effective to have entire company divisions devoted to developing anti-piracy solutions than it is to write the money off as a loss?"
In addition, pursuing legal battles and greasing the palms of congressmen contribute to the cost of piracy.
If the companies did not spend so much on battling piracy and accepted like everyone else that it will occur and just ignore it, they probably would have a larger bottom line.
Re: True then... truer now...
I would have to disagree, the "founding fathers" were every bit as corrupt as the current system.
To that end there is evidence to suggest that the revolutionary war was started, in part, due to a deal the english had made with the east india trading company for tea and the fact that bootleggers were being undercut by this new deal.
if the above is true then the phrase "No taxation without representation" was the 18th century equivalent to "They took our jobs!" or "They have WMDs"
FYI: I am an American, and fully believe that idealistically a democratic republic is the best form of government.
Re:
"Ingerance" was the name of the band.
Get over it
It's the puritanical "morals" that keep people covering these discrepancies up. Most of the country will look down on a person if they even admit to having tried drugs, had sex out of marriage, and a myriad of other socially reprehensible activity's.
Social mores and taboos dictate how politician's and public figures present themselves to the public, if anyone is to blame it's us.