Maybe we can place "Winter is Coming" everywhere, and get thousands of takedown notices, and file a lawsuit to get the law changed.
Or...maybe not...
...we didn't like Bush Sr. raising taxes after saying "read my lips, no new taxes," so we threw him and his party out and elected Clinton... No! You misunderstood! Bush Sr. said, "Read my lips, know new taxes!"
"Unless you think being a registrar is a Wild West job with zero oversight, what are you talking about?" I'm talking about registrars who don't have unlimited funds to seek out and verify every single voter registration they have to process. But if they "screw up" and don't verify a non-citizen's registration, the one who did the criminal act, the registrant, should be held accountable for their illegal act. So my "silly non-argument" is relevant and appropriate.
So your position is: if someone commits a crime and the government doesn't stop them beforehand, they shouldn't be prosecuted?
The previous section, 2268, addresses registration, by the way.
2268. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter in the absence of a violation by that person of Section 18100, that person’s registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person.
(Added by Stats. 2015, Ch. 729, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2016.)
Maybe people are making this claim because it's perfectly legal for non-citizens to vote illegally in California if you "believe" you voted legally.
Source: CA Election Code Section 2269. If a PERSON WHO IS INELIGIBLE TO VOTE becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter and votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person’s registration, that person shall be PRESUMED TO HAVE ACTED WITH OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION and SHALL NOT BE GUILTY OF FRAUDULENTLY VOTING or attempting to vote pursuant to Section 18560, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.
(Added by Stats. 2015, Ch. 729, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2016.)
How many non-citizens voted in this last election that we can't prosecute because they "believe" they voted legally? And why do you think they pushed through the driver's license for non-citizens in California, while also supplying every newly-licensed driver with a voter registration form?
I remember buying Beagle Bros. software without DRM way back in the 80s. Sure, some people copied the disks without paying, but most people wanted to give money to a software company that didn't make you feel like they hated you or looked at you as a thief by default. It also helped that their software was great and their manuals were hilarious (if you understood computers).
"What kind of person would celebrate anyone's death?"
You didn't see my Facebook feed when Judge Scalia or Phyllis Schlafly died.
Maybe it's all an intricate plot, with years of forethought, to have people assaulted, starting with just a few a year, and increasing every year, until no one wants to go to the theater anymore.
Then their ingenious plan comes to fruition: they can rightly say no one is going to movies (because they are stealing the movies online!!!) and they can get SOPA passed without opposition!
I can see Hollywood executives curling their mustaches as I write this!
Only in the bizarro world of copyright maximalists, NOT showing copyrighted material (at user request) constitutes copyright infringement.
It's not just music: Getty is "licensing" public domain images at pretty high prices:
http://www.gettyimages.com/license/534290412
(That image was made in 1865 by Gustave Doré, by the way)
Every time I hear a commercial say, "Own it today on DVD!" I realize I'll NEVER own it on DVD, only license it.
Why isn't the FTC going after these guys for false advertising?
Maybe we can start a class action suit against the movie studios? We might get $9 each (maybe)!
Two simple fixes could cool down a lot of the current hatred of the copyright monopolists: reduce the exceedingly long copyright term to its original length, and mandate registration for copyright protection.
90% of the stuff I see online was made by people who don't want or need their creation to be "protected" by copyright, and Elvis (and today sadly, Prince) needs no incentive whatsoever to keep creating works under the current scheme!
As someone who compiles California law books, from public domain sources, I hope this fails miserably.
There already is a (false) copyright on the California Code of Regulations, with a single company able to print (and charge an arm and a leg for) those laws.
If this is passed, it won't be too long where the statutes are covered, and you'll need to pay some company for the right to read the laws that, if you don't follow them, could land you with fines or jail time.
1. Buy law to squelch competition
2. Complain law doesn't do enough
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
What we have here is proof that "Doth protest too much" is valid criticism.
I would hazard a guess that this guy fully supports the surveillance from the NSA, which in his mind doesn't have a "chilling effect" on U.S. citizens.
Whenever people say the police in this country (U.S.) aren't that bad, I show them two websites that track police activity:
http://www.policemisconduct.net
and
http://www.killedbypolice.net
Just looking through these two sites will dishearten the lightest of moods.
Is this the same Warner company that's been improperly licensing Happy Birthday?
If it is, color me shocked!
I'm almost to the point of filing my own lawsuit for $1.2 million against Survivor for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" every time I hear that damn song playing!
I guess the question is...
I guess the question is, "what is treason and what is whistle-blowing?"
If releasing information indiscriminately is "whistle-blowing" we should just dump everything currently classified, because holding any state secrets thwarts the credo of "information that all persons are entitled to receive."