"Just like warning drivers about speed traps, warning other business owners about law enforcement stings raises awareness and actually results in more compliance, rather than less. Those warned about speed traps slow down. Those warned about law enforcement sting operations pay more attention to those they're serving alcohol to. The only party that "loses" is the one that thinks the general public is nothing more than a revenue stream that can be tapped into at its convenience -- where arrests and fines are preferred to actual lawful behavior. "
Yeah. Um, no. Look, I do not live in America, I live in a country that has gun control laws. The number of shootings in my country is less than the number of shootings in the closest US city.
In fact, at one point, there was a news article in the local newspaper that we had no homicides (gun, car, train, truck, pipe, bat, knife, sword, dagger, fork, spoon, etc.) for 22 months (that's almost 2 years). Meanwhile, less than 1 mile away, in a US City (I live in a border town), THAT SAME DAY, there were 16 homicides.
16 homicides in one day - vs. 22 months of 0 homicides. 12 of those 16 homicides involved a firearm.
Guns are designed for one purpose - to kill. Giving more people guns will only increase the killing. Some will be accidental, but most will be intentional.
Sorry, but gun control laws DO reduce gun violence. No, it will not end it, but it WILL reduce it.
Um, until Kim Dotcom has been found guilty of these crimes, according to the US Justice system, he is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.
Perhaps you should remember this. The DOJ is now trying to prevent Mr. Dotcom from successfully defending himself in court.
If the DOJ was certain of his guilt, they would not be doing everything in their power to prevent him from defending himself. The reality is, in their desire to bring him to "justice", they have made alot of errors. Errors that they know will be used by Dotcom's defense to very possibly acquit him of the charges.
So now they are trying to prevent Dotcom from successfully mounting that defense by pulling his legal representation out from under him, by preventing him from being able to pay them.
Look, it doesn't matter if Dotcom is guilty or innocent of the "Criminal Copyright Infringement" charges leveled against him. That has not been determined by the courts yet. However, the DOJ is abusing the system, potentially BREAKING THE LAWS THEMSELVES. And in this case, unlike Dotcom's, the DOJ is actually stealing.
Whatever you think Dotcom did, he is NOT being charged with theft. To accuse him of stealing is wrong. Even the DOJ isn't saying he stole something. He isn't being charged with theft. He is being charged with Copyright Infringement. Regardless of what the media industries tell you, Copyright Infringement IS NOT theft.
No, it is not legal, but it is not theft either. Just like murder isn't theft, arson isn't fraud, or assault isn't human trafficking. Just because he may be doing something illegal, doesn't mean that that something is something else.
Anyone who says Dotcom has been stealing is nothing more than a shill, who refuses to think for themselves. He is being charged with Criminal Copyright Infringement, and has NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY YET!!!!
So, the answer is, fight back with their own laws.
What you need:
1. Find every Irish IP rights organization. 2. Get two buddies.
Now, you and your two buddies all file copyright infringement claims against the rights organizations.
Sure, the organizations can get the courts to overturn it, but how long will they be without internet? Yep, accuse the rights organizations of copyright infringement and get THEM disconnected from the Internet.
Can't find the link now, but yes, everything here is available to re-post. I don't remember how exactly Techdirt got around the whole "you can't actually put something in the public domain". It may be under a Creative Commons licence or something.
(a) (1) A contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services.
Is the relevent text. It COULD seem to apply to NDA's, but there may be a techincal loophole in there somewhere. I am not good enough at legalese to know it though.