If you could make a perfect copy of my money without taking away my ability to use the money I have, I would be ok with you doing this.
(Leaving aside the inflation problem specific to money, in this case. Copying my car would be a better analogy.)
Then why doesn't the text of the bill(s) say that? The wording as is appears to be much much broader.
Can you bring your own video device and record the crowd from your viewpoint? Would be an interesting side by side, and we may be able to identify some extra attendees.
So that made the _year_, huh?
I'll have to brew up another for 2012.
Are you listening to yourself? Why are you artificially restricting to only ideas and viewpoints? Also plenty of potential copyright infringement absolutely is expressing ideas or viewpoints.
I don't really see how you justify to yourself that this would not be censorship. I. Read your posts about differing opinions on scope, and my conclusion is that your narrowed scope definition is bullshit to help you sleep at night.
Any and all suppression or removal of any and all forms of speec, by anyone, is censorship. The first amendment is supposed to mean the government cannot do this, in most cases. There are socially acceptable forms of censorship that we deem worth the trade off (direct threats, fire in theater, etc). That is still censorship, its just a form we accept.
Trying to argue otherwise is just clouding the discussion, which should be: do we consider censorship for enforcing copyright acceptable?
Except that SOPA is content directed. So it is censorship. Where when and how doesn't matter, they are concerned with the what.
Au contraire, I think motivating voters to act to displace their "representatives" who are working against public interest (and free speech, natch) is the epitome of Free Speech in action.
Really shows your lack of understanding. It still being developed, and it is hard. It needs to be done carefully, and rollouts are complicated.
Then that is a contract dispute the label can take up with each artist. They certainly do not get any copyright to the material just because they have a contract with an artist.
The copyright claim is bogus, even if the artists did something wrong according to a contract.
There's a difference between a letter *sending* campaign (where you should be able to edit) and a letter *signing*. In the latter case, a single letter has been written, and you are choosing to add your name to it. , as written, before a single package is sent with all the signees.
Its not a double stanard. Its a separate system.
Holy hell what a terrible story. Let's see if the mainstream press gives it any coverage. Without that help, I doubt we will see the deserved punishment actually occur.
I have a hard time finding sympathy for your position that real justice and due process are just too damn slow for you and your cronies.
Tought. Shit. If you want the protection of laws at all, you take it at the pace the proper process offers. You don't get ExpressLaw customized just to your liking. That's not the way this works.
This was the conclusion I came to as well.
Sounds to me like those writers need to work out a better flat fee for their services up front. If it didn't depend on per play so much, there would be a problem. Make the publisher pay what your finite creation work is worth, without amortizing it.
One can simultanteously block the JS for google analytics and allow the JS for the site to function to run. NoScript offers fine control per domain.
Here you go: http://gobarbra.com/hit/new-8adee80f5ccb634167ca7431b26da721
I commend countries willing to ignore IP (primarily drug patents) in the interest of the health of their citizens. There is no greater service they could do than ensure those who need meds can get them at an affordable price.
If Big Pharma won't sell to Brazil or Mexico or even Canada at a price that work, we/they can just make ourselves. Go blow it out your ass. Corporate profits should never trump public health.
Re: Symbiosis
I can get behind you on term limits and laws for public good, but forcing candidates to self-fund seems to be a good way to guarantee we only get super wealthy elected officials. You think any honest hard working mother or father is going to put the mortgage or kids college fund on the line for a bid for office?
I would love to see more non-career-politicians in office, but to do that we need to make it _easier_ for good people to run.