Does your child have a laptop or tablet with a microphone and camera? Do you know whether that device is secure from pedophiles, drug dealers and other unsavory characters? Right now, Apple, Google and other manufacturers have set up unbreakable security on these devices. This prevents criminal hackers from taking control of these devices and using them to take advantage of your children.
Hillary Clinton wants to end that. She says that because these devices are secure, terrorists can use them to plan attacks. What she's not telling you is that she wants to give pedophiles and criminal hackers access to your child's internet devices. She says that she wants only the government to have the keys to these devices. But there's no way to do both. Either you make the devices vulnerable to hacking both by the government and by pedophiles and other criminals, or you keep them secure from all eavesdroppers.
Worse yet, by making these devices vulnerable we actually make it easier for the terrorists to attack us. So instead of gaining security from terrorists, we would actually make our children and our families more vulnerable to them.
So ask yourself: do you support Hillary Clinton for President when she is putting your childrens' safety at risk?
Don't be ashamed of something you didn't do. Be ashamed of the people who did it, and shame them. We've got to stop wringing our hands when evil is done in our names, and start working seriously to put a stop to it.
It's a common misunderstanding of patent law that you can't be sued if you buy a product that violates the patent. This is not the case: anybody who "practices" the technique described in the patent is liable, unless they have a license.
So if the company that sold you the WiFi box paid for a license on your behalf, you're in the clear. If they didn't, you're not. In principle, the patent holder can sue both you and the company who sold you the WiFi router.
Given that these patents hadn't been enforced in the past, it's unlikely that your WiFi vendor purchased a license for you. So yes, you are probably liable, if the patents are upheld.
Darryl, unfortunately for example Nike does not actually manufacture their products in the United States. So not only are we being asked to give up due process and our first amendment rights to protect Nike's profits, we're also being asked to give up U.S. manufacturing jobs.
This isn't about downloading music. It's got absolutely nothing to do with downloading music. It's got to do with control.
For instance, did you follow the recent case where the Supreme Court held that the first sale doctrine does not apply to products purchased in foreign countries, even countries that are signatories to the Berne convention? What does this mean? It means that we, here in the U.S., pay higher prices for products licensed by U.S. companies than people do abroad.
This is a fallacious argument, although I wouldn't be surprised if the current court agreed with you anyway. It's wrong for the same reason that it would have been wrong in the day of the printing press to argue that as long as the journalist's typewritten copy wasn't confiscated, it would be permissible to seize the newspaper's printing presses so as to prevent publication of the article.
Seizing a the domain name used to publish an article is exactly analogous to seizing the printing press that would be used to print the article. To claim that this is not prior restraint is sophistry.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ted Lemon.
Re: Here's what to tell these politicians.
Here's a "think of the children" argument:
Does your child have a laptop or tablet with a microphone and camera? Do you know whether that device is secure from pedophiles, drug dealers and other unsavory characters? Right now, Apple, Google and other manufacturers have set up unbreakable security on these devices. This prevents criminal hackers from taking control of these devices and using them to take advantage of your children.
Hillary Clinton wants to end that. She says that because these devices are secure, terrorists can use them to plan attacks. What she's not telling you is that she wants to give pedophiles and criminal hackers access to your child's internet devices. She says that she wants only the government to have the keys to these devices. But there's no way to do both. Either you make the devices vulnerable to hacking both by the government and by pedophiles and other criminals, or you keep them secure from all eavesdroppers.
Worse yet, by making these devices vulnerable we actually make it easier for the terrorists to attack us. So instead of gaining security from terrorists, we would actually make our children and our families more vulnerable to them.
So ask yourself: do you support Hillary Clinton for President when she is putting your childrens' safety at risk?
Re: Man...
Don't be ashamed of something you didn't do. Be ashamed of the people who did it, and shame them. We've got to stop wringing our hands when evil is done in our names, and start working seriously to put a stop to it.
Re: I don't understand
It's a common misunderstanding of patent law that you can't be sued if you buy a product that violates the patent. This is not the case: anybody who "practices" the technique described in the patent is liable, unless they have a license.
So if the company that sold you the WiFi box paid for a license on your behalf, you're in the clear. If they didn't, you're not. In principle, the patent holder can sue both you and the company who sold you the WiFi router.
Given that these patents hadn't been enforced in the past, it's unlikely that your WiFi vendor purchased a license for you. So yes, you are probably liable, if the patents are upheld.
Protecting U.S. jobs...
Darryl, unfortunately for example Nike does not actually manufacture their products in the United States. So not only are we being asked to give up due process and our first amendment rights to protect Nike's profits, we're also being asked to give up U.S. manufacturing jobs.
This isn't about downloading music. It's got absolutely nothing to do with downloading music. It's got to do with control.
For instance, did you follow the recent case where the Supreme Court held that the first sale doctrine does not apply to products purchased in foreign countries, even countries that are signatories to the Berne convention? What does this mean? It means that we, here in the U.S., pay higher prices for products licensed by U.S. companies than people do abroad.
It's about control.
Prior restraint
This is a fallacious argument, although I wouldn't be surprised if the current court agreed with you anyway. It's wrong for the same reason that it would have been wrong in the day of the printing press to argue that as long as the journalist's typewritten copy wasn't confiscated, it would be permissible to seize the newspaper's printing presses so as to prevent publication of the article.
Seizing a the domain name used to publish an article is exactly analogous to seizing the printing press that would be used to print the article. To claim that this is not prior restraint is sophistry.