Though, a reasonable interpretation would be that there are two different clauses:
1) except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and
2) for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place
Would the equation change if there was a broadcast right (brought to you by, say, an international broadcast treaty)? Commercial skipping could be viewed as creating some sort of derivative work (in the same way editing Monty Python down to fit 30 minutes is creating a derivative work).
Article I, Section 6, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution:
[Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
If he had won his race for Senate, I wonder if he could have talked about his experience on the floor of the Senate.
Someone should leak Lindsey Graham's cell phone metadata. I'd be interested in what is in there. In fact, if he has nothing to hide, he should work to get it released himself. Going farther, by not releasing his metadata, we know that Lindsey Graham has something he wants to hide. What is he up to? Is Lindsey Graham a terrorist?
Now there can be dueling "Scroogled" and "Microshafted" campaigns.
I'll disagree with your basic premise. I think people have a moral obligation to not commit crime. However, I don't think that everyone has a moral obligation to prevent crime. If I see someone running down the street with your purse in their hands, I have no obligation to stop the thief. It may be nice of me to do, but I am not morally obligated to do it.
We have police and attorney generals whose job it is to prevent crime (well... not legally). I pay my taxes which pays them. That is as far as my obligation goes.
It would be funny if the author of Exhibit A sued Jacques Nazaire for copyright infringement for reproducing the entire article (I jest... mostly...).
In my view, these comments by Sgt. Mullins make him a terrorist. He is advocating a philosophy calculated to terrorize the general citizenry and take away out fundamental rights. Why use bombs when you have the power of the NYPD behind you?
Your response to this assumes many facts that are not in the record. Please, if you have information that would back up your claims, then provide it so that we all can understand the situation better. On what basis do you assume that the record label must be living up to their obligations?
If you believe in that idealistic view of contracting you are putting forward, you are either naive or have never been involved in contracting with parties of disparate power.
Or, because the process of defending yourself, even when you are innocent, is expensive in terms of time, money and emotions, you just pay up. These letters are not about punishing infringers, they are about extorting money out of people.
Actually, It is section 104 of SOPA. Actually, if you read and study the bill from the perspective of copyright law, 103,combined with 104 does what the previous comment was suggesting.
What strikes me as interesting is that the proponents of SOPA on TD have several things in common
1)An unusual trust that greater power put into the hand of those that already abuse power is ok;
2)A simplistic view of reasons people do not wish to use filtered DNS
3)A oversimplified view, coupled with a complete understanding, of how a DNS system works
4) Some strange notion that SOPA is anything but a power grab with parts intentionally left ambiguous; ambiguity is greater to be used as a weapon to threaten litigation. It is expensive to litigate,and unless an accused company stands by some principles, they will cave to save the half a million to a million dollars
If a lot of people did this and it started costing them some serious money, they wouldn't see the true reason. They would blame piracy and the wild west of the internet. They have been blind thus far, so it is unlikely that they would see the truth in the future.
First of all, copyright is not the basis of all creative output. People were creative before the modern copyright statutes (by modern, I mean those that come after the Statute of Anne). In addition, many creative industries thrive with no or limited copyright.
Stay clear of obvious danger? Where is the line between what is an obvious danger and what is a not-so-obvious danger (both of which would have the same penalty). The library would be risk-adverse... and presto, a chilling effect.
So says you. If this is the intent of the drafters, then they should be more clear and precise that they do not mean to change the standard of willfulness or liability for criminal copyright infringement. The problem is, the drafters are not the people who enforce and interpret the law.
First of all, in the US, there usually is no clear documentation on ownership of copyright. Copyright is given without any formality. Second of all, every site associating a user with the user's real identity would be problematic from both a privacy and logistics standpoint.
I would like to hear you outline a feasible system that you have vaguely outlined and waved your hand around. Currently, the internet is a robust ecosystem for creative expression and speech. Sometimes, bad actors do bad things with IP. But that is an acceptable price for the benefits the internet gives the public. Under your proposed system, control of the internet would effectively be given to the moneyed corporate content creators at the expense of the public's ability to freely express themselves.
If you dispute this, outline a system where your view and freedom of expression could feasibly be implemented.
For instance, what documentation would you require for me to : A) verify that I own the copyright on what I have just posted; and B) the documentation necessary to prove to you I am who I say I am?