The reason for the FBI's 10 year term is try to insulate them from politics more (which Comey has obviously failed to do with all his recent controversial decisions in the last election, but that's not the point here).
But why does the head of a copyright department need a 10 year term? What partisan politics are there that justifies trying to insulate them from politics? Copyright and IP isn't a partisan issue that one party supports and other opposes.
Not to mention DRM and outdated technologies dying out and becoming unusable also reduce the value of e-books.
If I buy a physical book I can re-read it whenever I want forever, as long as I don't lose the book or let it get so badly damaged it falls apart.
E-Books however can often be stolen from me whenever the publisher wants to. And who knows if the Kindle/etc. format will still be readable in the future.
My brother is a pastor, and he said all the older pastors warned him to keep backups of his old sermons in txt files, because many of them lost their lost sermons by using now unsupported word document formats. Txt files on the other hand are unlikely to ever become completely unreadable with time.
Communism and Capitalism have a lot of the same core foundations (including support for free public education). Just because Communism failed doesn't mean all it's ideas were bad, 8 out of 10 of Karl Marx's core principles of communism are well practiced in all capitalist countries in the world.
Not to mention what if someone is framed because another person put an encrypted file on their computer, and they then report that person for say possessing child pornography on their computer?
The accused literally can't prove themselves innocent by providing the password, because they won't know it. The accused will never need to be brought to trial, the prosecutors can just keep a wrongly accused person in jail forever.
Not to mention it also shows just how absurd the length of copyright terms are that they're even protected in the first place.
No one in their right mind would ever think games like Sonic the Hedgehog 1 are sellable and commercially viable games anymore these days. That's why even Sega doesn't sell it anymore.
There's only a small handful of Sega Genesis games that have retained their value today. But the people who own the copyright on them don't sell them anymore, it's just collectors on Ebay who sell them.
The earlier ricin false arrest on such flimsy evidence a few years ago makes this ruling even scarier.
For those don't know/forgot, a summary of the ricin issue.
Someone sent letters laced with ricin to several prominent politicians, including a US senator, and President Obama, as well as at least one judge.
The letters were signed 3 initials.
Law enforcement asked the US senator who he knew with those initials who might have done this. The Senator said he only knew of one guy with those initials, a famous Elvis impersonator in his state who performed at a few of his personal events (including his wedding).
Based solely on that 'evidence' from the senator, and some quick finding of the Elvis impersonator having a few mental health issues over the years, the police arrested the Elvis impersonator for the crime.
Within a week the police were forced to let the Elvis impersonator go when they did more investigation, and found the guy who actually did it, who had signed the letter with a different set of initials than his own in order to throw off the cops and frame someone else.
So yeah, in that case literally anyone with those same initials could have been thrown in jail if the US senator had thought of them and brought them to the police's attention.
Umm... this is WAY different then Obamacare in so many ways.
The Federal government and States have different powers. What's legal for one to do isn't necessarily legal for the other to do.
The mandate wasn't crafted to be a tax to raise money, it was crafted to push people to get health insurance to prevent the market from spiraling out of control (due to people only buying insurance when they're sick and then canceling it). There's no pressing issue that not taxing 'porn' will cause to get worse.
I would argue for at least a second redundant network ran by different folks than the first. I'd also argue the deployment should be mandated to anywhere within determined conditions such as radius from the center of the towns, population density and possibly others with farther places attended by wireless solutions when deploying the physical solution gets too onerous comparing to what's going to be earned from providing the service.
In other words, we should just admit the free market has failed and replace it with the government. Or alternately heavily regulate the private companies like utilities (which had a lot of the same lack of competition issues in the past).
There's certainly times when the free market works out better. But the current state of the ISP market and rampant abuse of their dominant positions by companies like Verizon and Comcast has proven that this is one of those cases where the free market just doesn't work.
premiering Down Under more than six weeks after it hits US cinemas.
Holy cow. I thought we were talking a 24 hour delayed release due to timezone differences until I saw this. A 6 week delay in today's Internet age is just insane and simply undoable.
Not only is there piracy to worry about, but once people in other countries have seen the movie and reviewed it, people in Australia will already know if the movie is good or bad, and decide if they want to watch it or not just from those reviews.
Apparently you didn't pay attention to how McCain Feingold was struck down then.
The SCOTUS took up a more narrow case about it. But then after deliberating they basically announced there would be another hearing on much broader questions (which would allow them to strike down much more then the narrow part of the law the case was originally about).
The SCOTUS has done the same before, asking the two parties to come back and deliberate over something else related to the original lawsuit. At time's it's just used as a stalling tactic for political reasons (like Brown vs Board of Education, where several justices were working extra hard behind the scenes to get a unanimous ruling, but needed more time to sway a few hold out justices), but other times it's used to expand the scope of the suit.
Oh, so you're telling me stealing and armed robbery is illegal after I just did both! How was I supposed to know that! The bank should have told me when I came barging in with a gun and demanded all their cash! That makes it all the bank's fault by this judge's logic!
1) Find something that politicians who support this bill and civil asset forfeiture oppose.
2) Organize a protest opposing that same thing those politicians oppose.
3) Get someone to break some stuff at that protest.
4) Use the very power of this new law to confiscate the assets of said politicians who backed this law, by arguing that through their public statements on the issue they were a part of the group of protesters, even if said politicians weren't even there at the protest.
5) Watch as the politicians are forced to suddenly take asset forfeiture laws and abuse their seriously when they're suddenly the ones being robbed by it.
Nonsense, I'm sure asset forfeiture isn't abused at all!
In fact I'm sure Rep. Sensenbrenner will be happy to prove it if a cop threatens to arrest him for political corruption, but agrees to drop the charges if Sensenbrenner will agree to hand over all his assets to law enforcement to escape charges.
After all, if it's a good system for everyone else, why shouldn't it be for handling corrupt as hell politicians?
Trump and everyone else 'shocked' by these leaks is either being delusional or willingly forgetful if they thought there wouldn't be a ton of leaks from his white house.
We literally knew throughout the entire 2 year presidential campaign what all the drama was that was happening in his campaign, the entire freaking time. We literally had constant stories about people who are moving up and down in the Trump campaign, and the constant conflict between multiple factions in his campaign that were out to get each other. That's stuff that should NEVER be leaking out, especially so regularly, from a competently run campaign.
Why would anyone expect that to change just because they were in the white house? If Trump couldn't crack down on the leaking then, why should we expect him to succeed in cutting down on it now?