The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures carried out by government actors. Again, it does not apply in a civil infringement case.
This is not correct. Several Ammendments - such as the First - do specify in their language that they are restrictions upon what government bodies can do, but not this one. It's wording is very plain:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You know, no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. If you don't like the deal, go someplace else and get a different phone.
The idea is that even though you signed up for 2 years, at the end of 2 years there was no where else to go with your iPhone so it's really 5 years.
As for a "5 year lock-in" - no such thing. You're under contract for two years, which is typical in the industry. At the end of that two years you can renew, upgrade, or leave. Since most people must replace their phone when they change carriers anyway due to difference in carrier's technology, having "no where else to go with your iPhone is a specious argument at best
He did specify "legal, legitimate, fully-authorized purchasable copies". I'm not sure about the other two, but Disney has never released Song of the South on DVD so it's a pretty safe bet that whatever atomicmall.com is sell does not meet RD's specification.
First off the guy is the ATTORNEY GENERAL, so sentencing a criminal is a part of his job.
No. The Attorney General (or, more precisely, people working in the AG's office) determines what to attempt to prosecute for, not the sentencing. That's the job of judge and jury.
[i]Why do you think of Chartier as the bad guy here? He's the victim of a multi-million dollar crime and you don't even afford him the latitude to feel wronged? Victim's aren't allowed to express emotion? [/i]
No, he is not the victim of a multi-million dollar crime. He is (possibly) the victim of an infringement which, per chapter 5 of the U.S. Copyright Law is a matter for civil court - not criminal court - to decide and determine remedy for. Regardless though, while he may feel wronged, verbally attacking someone for politely disagreeing with him is juvenile and - for a public figure - a really bad PR move.
What a ridiculous statement. If the DOJ really felt they had a valid reason for the write-tap, they could have gotten a judge to agree to it in a matter hours (if not minutes). Not doing so was a gross violation of existing law.
Is it newspapers that matter, or the existence of a free press? I can see how the lack of easily obtainable local news could have an impact on local elections, but there are other potential sources of local news besides newspapers.
I guess Northern Kentucky lacks other sources of local news?
Isn't the point of Boy and Girl Scouts to teach low tech approaches to every day things? Knot tying, fire making, survival in the wilderness? Isn't the point to teach children how to survive if they don't have modern day conveniences?
The "point" of both organizations is summed up in their respective mission statements:
The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.
Girl Scouting builds girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place.
The knot tying, fire making, wilderness survival, etc, etc, are tools these organizations use to teach their chosen core values and to make learning them fun. They are not "the point".