Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: Entsuropi on June 27, 2005, 08:37:24 PM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4627679.stm
Strike 2!
-
I agree with this one.
-
Yes, and if I stab someone, it's the knife manufacturers fault.
If I pour petrol on someone and light them on fire, we blame the creator of the matches and petrol.
If I smother someone's head with a pillow, the pillow manufacturer is to blame.
Of COURSE file sharing software writers must be responsible for what people do with it.
-
In this case the intent is to give people the opportunity to share MOSTLY illegal files.
-
JP you probably haven't even read the ruling and if you have you're reaction is just kool-aid and is a clear over reaction.
The ruling was a wither or not companies that design software for the express use of breaking the law (and no one argued that P2P wasn't used for that) and if the designers "condoned" the illegal use.
Pillows weren't made for killing
Matches and oil weren't made for killing
Napster and like software was made for stealing.
It's about time the laws here got serious about fixing the blight that is theft on the Internet, you're just upset because you're free ride might be over and you'll actual have to get your movies and music legally! Oh the horror of the thought!
-
yeah but that isnt the intent of PTP. The intent is to transfer info faster than by using hard copies. Sure that gets used for crime, just like people speed on roads. Now however completely legal sharing ( recording and loaning a copy of that TV show you saw last week to a friend which is legal under the Betamax descision) and legitimate software distribution may be hurt by this. I guess it sucks to use linux builds now. I suspect the studio early release of Star Wars to Bittorrent has a lot to do with the end result. This is going to come up again I bet.
-
Oh dear, except File Sharing *IS* designed for legal purposes. That's the only thing I use Bittorrent for, legal releases.
-
I don't see what this ruling has to do with Linux, that software wasn't designed to perform illegal activity nor does open source as a whole support theft.
The ruling didn't say P2P as a concept was illegal just that the current networks were designed for illicit activities, I also don't think this will have any effect on Bit-torrent the software since it's not a centralized hub like P2P networks plus there's a huge amount of legal file distribution via Bitt-torrent which P2P networks don't have so they don't fall under Beta max. Also I don't think Beta max makes it legal to record a show for non-personal use (ie giving it to someone else) but that TV companies never felt the need to go after such uses.
-
Oh dear, except File Sharing *IS* designed for legal purposes. That's the only thing I use Bittorrent for, legal releases.
File sharing is different then P2P which is what the focus of this ruling was, P2P networks and their responsibility for illegal content on their networks.
Besides Illegal Bitt-Torrent download sites are easily suable under current laws.
-
Almost all linux builds nowadays are distributed via bittorrent.
-
and, as I stated, I don't think Bitt-torrent has much to worry about thanks to Open Source. Part of the Betamax ruling, and why P2Ps got ruled against, was that there has to be some legal use that over weighs the possible illegal use and the Court ruled that the amount of legal downloads on many P2P networks, as they're designed now, is piratical non-existent thus Groakster isn't protected by Betamax. Bitt-torrent, on the other hand, has a huge amount of legal users and strong corporate support (like Microsoft and Blizzard) that I don't think there's anything to worry about.
-
The decision could also have an impact on any technology firm developing gadgets or devices that let people enjoy media on the move.
If strictly interpreted the ruling means that these hi-tech firms will have to try to predict the ways people can use these devices to pirate copyrighted media and install controls to stop this infringement.
The ruling could also prompt a re-drafting of copyright laws by the US Congress.
Uh Sprig, I think you are failing to look at the larger picture here. My take on this is that they are trying to make any kind of software that distributes files, and especially music, stealproof. In other words, they are going to make them all like iTunes. One of the things that is really a pain about iTunes is that a lot of the time it won't let you do what you want with your own music, due to the fact that they are guarding their music from being stolen. Besides that, not all of these companies are meant to illegally distribute music. Programs like the new Napster, and the new Kazaa are meant to legally distribute music. How they are used is another game entirely. Responsibility for that lies with the people that misuse these programs, because the companies are trying to run a legitimate business.
-
That BBC article isn't all that good in actually explaining the ruling, head over to news.com much better, and accurate, coverage on it. Of course this is just my interpretation of the ruling, you could be right or we all could be wrong, one thing is for sure it'll probably be a few years until we start seeing the full out come.
-
yet, Jam, you make the exact same argument for the legality of private gun ownership.
I don't know that it's really the intent. What is it largely being used for? Without looking up numbers, I'm willing to bet that over 75% of P2P file sharing is illegal file sharing. In fact, I believe that closer to 95% of p2p file sharing is illegal.
That makes a significant cost in revenue for the owners of copyright, no matter how you slice it (that takes into account the number of people who ONLY acquire it because it's free and would never touch it if it cost them anything).
A bittorrent server that hosts Linux distros, however, is hardly doing anything remotely illegal.
As much as I hate it, I have to side with the courts on this one. If 95% of the use for something is for illegal purposes, it should be shut down, or at least much better regulated.
Think about this, "Information wants to be free" lovers. If no one could make a living on producing intellectual property, the number of people who would spend most of their life working on intellectual property would not be able to do that. This means your music, your books, your comics, your movies, and even much of your software is gone. These people are trying to make a living giving you entertainment and service, and all you can do is complain when they insist that they want to be paid for it.
Now, I'm sure to be misinterpretted. Groups like the RIAA go after the PRINCIPLE of file sharing. WHich is retarded, in my opinion. THere are a vast number of legitimate reasons for efficient file sharing methods to be out there. But just letting anyone share anything at all isn't working. Instead of complaining about the people trying to protect their livlihood, perhaps you should support people who are trying to improve distribution methods to allow legitimate uses without making it so easy that most of the distribution going on is illegal.
-
Even though your estimated statistics seem fairly reasonable, e, I dont think we can assume the court made the correct decision because they agree with *estimated* statistics. If those were the case, I would say, yes, it seems reasonable. Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.
But it's terribly wrong when people start confusing the end with the means. Saying that file sharing, as in the process, has anything wrong with it, is obviously flawed. Technology has no morality, it is simply a tool and subservient to whatever moral judgements we want to make. If people want to do illegal things, well, shame on the people.
The thing is, people begin associaton of file sharing, or downloading mp3's, or whatever, with illegality, and become prejudiced against the technology rather than the criminal action.
-
well, I'm willing to bet that there are numbers involved in the court case. Just because I'm too lazy to look them up doesn't mean they don't exist. :D
-
Isn't it funny, though, how we are told something is illegal, yet I can only think of one person I know who considers it actually immoral?
See, I thought the idea of democracy was rule by the people, and therefore if the people decide something isn't wrong, then it isn't wrong.
So why then are the people, who do believe something isn't wrong, being told that it is illegal?
All this acheives is to bring copyright law into disrepsect, and to bring all law into disresepct. If this one law is stupid and not worth obeying, why should we obey ANY law?
In the end, I think people will come to the decision that they can make their own moral judgements, and resent law for getting in the way of doing things they consider moral. (I draw attention to the number of concientious, adult, Marujunia users in the world).
-
I know LOTS of people who consider it immoral. Probably you don't because you are dealing with college students.
Plus, what you say does NOT answer my arguments. You remove the capability to live off your intellectual property, people producing intellectual property shrinks. You kill a culture.
-
Well You are approching what USED to be called conservatism and what approches a libertarian mindset
If Liberty is the goal of society
and All Laws, by nature, restrict Liberty
however
Laws are often required to prevent 1 party from infringing on the Liberty of another
then
Laws should be limited to those that are absolutly nessicary.
Keep in mind, that the ability to profit from one's own work IS part of Liberty
However, The right to do what you please with what you have purchased is also Liberty
You have the Protection vs Fair Use debate.
Now, as to the specific issue, I believe that there are a number of legitamate uses for File sharing software
Back when the Video Caset Recorder was first released, Sony tried to sue BetaMax because people could use the VCR to infring copywright. They could, for example, record an NFL Game and then charge admission for it to be watched.
That case was decided in favor of BetaMax because VCRs had the legitamate use of "Time Shifting" (Watching a program at a time other than when it aired)
This set a legal presedent (sp) that Legitimate use of a technology TRUMPS Possible infringement using a technology
This has been clouded and confused by industry pundits and Lawyers lately who know they are dealing with an older and somewhat non-techsavy Judiciary.
Fortunatly there are organisations like the EFF www.eff.org that attempt to educate the Lawmakers and Judiciary while offering pro-bono representation to citizens who come under the heal of industry lawyers in the technical field. (They got their start representing hackers)
-
Isn't it funny, though, how we are told something is illegal, yet I can only think of one person I know who considers it actually immoral?
I believe it's immoral, so you can add a +1 to your tally.
-
I know LOTS of people who consider it immoral. Probably you don't because you are dealing with college students.
Immorality is moot when discussing Liberty and Law, The truly ritious are those who can act moraly in the face of temptation. However I think MJ is potentialy MORE Dangerous than Alcohol due to it's social status
Plus, what you say does NOT answer my arguments. You remove the capability to live off your intellectual property, people producing intellectual property shrinks. You kill a culture.
Intellectual Property USED to enter the Public Domain 7 years after the Author passed. However, in the age of media industry, the "author" can now be considered the corperate entity which will exist indefinatly.
ALso there is the "Disney extentions" to Copywright, Wlat Disny himself owned the CC to Mickey and friends. If you note, every time Walt Disney's creations are about to become public domain, Congress passes an extension to keep it protected. The current protection is now in excess of 30 years. It is very possible that we have seen the death of Public domain and no new IP will ever hit Public Domain... Unless we actualy start to care and get the Bought lawmakers out (Sen. Fritz Hollings R-NC is the current king of Disney's pocket)
-
as far as I know, oseleon, that precedent is NOT 100% institutionalized and NOT free from any restrictions.
Be wary of depending completely upon precedent. Remember that in our own country legalized slavery was once the precedent, as were any number of other immoral, and now illegal activities. Precedent is certainly important, and should inform our decisions, but if the precedent has flaws, then it should not be followed rigorously.
In this case, it has flaws. There was much more time shifting going on with VCRs than redistribution and charging for taped broadcasts. That is not the case with file sharing. THere are, as has been said repeatedly by BOTH sides of this debate, a number of valid uses for the technology. But it is doing much more damage to liberty than it is enabling legitimate freedoms. To say that the use of the technology "trumps" that liberty, imo does not accept the true sense of the precedent, does not acknowledge the reality of the current situation, and is blind demagoguery.
-
Immorality is moot when discussing Liberty and Law, The truly ritious are those who can act moraly in the face of temptation. However I think MJ is potentialy MORE Dangerous than Alcohol due to it's social status
I will both disagree with you and point out that this is not really an argument about me. Jam, who is arguing your position, was the one to bring up the "morality" of the law.
People throw around "morality" as if it were a religious term and thus not relevant to ethics or government. It is relevant. We have many, many laws and institutions, institutions that we all believe in, that are based on moral feelings.
-
Oseleon, precedent means very little to the Supreme Court -- the entire reason we have a Supreme Court is to either uphold precedent or to toss it out. The fact that a court ruled in favor of VCRs twenty-something years ago means nothing (especially since the Supreme Court just set new precedent...).
-
Intellectual Property USED to enter the Public Domain 7 years after the Author passed. However, in the age of media industry, the "author" can now be considered the corperate entity which will exist indefinatly.
ALso there is the "Disney extentions" to Copywright, Wlat Disny himself owned the CC to Mickey and friends. If you note, every time Walt Disney's creations are about to become public domain, Congress passes an extension to keep it protected. The current protection is now in excess of 30 years. It is very possible that we have seen the death of Public domain and no new IP will ever hit Public Domain... Unless we actualy start to care and get the Bought lawmakers out (Sen. Fritz Hollings R-NC is the current king of Disney's pocket)
So what? Are we arguing that P2P ought to be legal for public domain stuff only? I think e was referring to living artists and programmers -- not dead ones.
-
No, I am pointing out that the current state of IP law is stacked HEVIALY against the consumer in favor of the Content Creator.
Only through pulling in the opposite direction will we get it back into a balanced middle. P2P apps are potentialy a useful pawn in that strugle
-
I don't believe that working for the polar opposite is going to do us measurable good. Like I said, improve the file sharing system to be self regulating, THEN I believe it will be right to argue for the government to just stay the heck away from it.
-
Isn't it funny, though, how we are told something is illegal, yet I can only think of one person I know who considers it actually immoral?
See, I thought the idea of democracy was rule by the people, and therefore if the people decide something isn't wrong, then it isn't wrong.
So why then are the people, who do believe something isn't wrong, being told that it is illegal?
All this acheives is to bring copyright law into disrepsect, and to bring all law into disresepct. If this one law is stupid and not worth obeying, why should we obey ANY law?
In the end, I think people will come to the decision that they can make their own moral judgements, and resent law for getting in the way of doing things they consider moral. (I draw attention to the number of concientious, adult, Marujunia users in the world).
Just thought I'd add a bit here.
You're right that an Actual Democracy (as in a government type) is like that, but the US and all other like governments are actual Republics there are no true Democracies in the world. Now these Republics are Democratic in that they elect leaders and can lead movements to change laws but people don't have direct say in most cases.
Just thougt I'd point that out to JP before I goto bed.
-
A question for HoM:
Does the term Republic have two meanings? One for ' elected regional heads meeting and deciding policy' and one for 'a country with no monarchy, or are they the same concept?
-
what Sprig actually means is a representative democracy, which is often termed a republic in the US. In a representative democracy, you only choose who makes the decisions, you don't actually make the decisions. That would work more like Athens did. It would also, likely, be marked by even greater lack of participation because of the unfeasability of nearly 300 million people getting together to make decisions on each spending bill.
-
Yes Ent, it has both meanings, though the "a political body who has no monarch" usage is rarely used, since it's really vague.
There are, however, two major schools of thought when it comes to republics. The first -- what it appears SE was alluding to -- is where we elect representatives we trust, and allow them to govern in the way they see fit.
The second -- much closer to true democracy -- is that we elect representatives who will listen to the voice of the people on every issue, and vote accordingly. (Oddly enough, these types of politicians are often ridiculed in America as being poll-watchers. They're accused of having no backbone not standing for any of their own beliefs.)
Generally, if someone makes the argument that "America is a republic, not a democracy", they're referring to the first version of a republic.
-
The first -- what it appears SE was alluding to -- is where we elect representatives we trust
Trust? Are you joking?
-
There are already laws in place that make stealing music, making copies for your friends etc... illegal. They should be prosecuting the people that steal the music under the existing law. I know that it is insanely difficult to find the people who are stealing the music and then prove that they are doing so but making the maker of the hammer responsible for the use the buyer of the hammer puts it to is insane. (statistical usages aside the principal is the same and don't think this ruling won't be used by anyone who thinks they can make a fast buck by interpreting it in a million different ways not intended by the supreme court) I mean honestly, they just made photocopier manufacturers liable for any illegal copying done on their machines. They made the makers of CD and DVD burners liable for the same. For that matter they opened up the makers of thumbdrives, MP3 players, and harddrives to the same thing.
Jam can add me to the list of people who believe that the illegal copying and distribution of music is immoral. That's not to say that I haven't done it, but I know it's wrong.
As for the stifling of IP creators I would venture to say that the courts have just stifled, for the life of their ruling, the creation of filesharing software. Information exchange, the greatest thing to happen to every area of human endeavor ever, has just been dealt a mortal blow. Not because the courts have forbidden even legitimate filesharing but because they have made the creation of filesharing software legally dangerous. If "they" can't create filesharing software without risk of being sued over the myriad misuses that the public will find for that software, "they" won't create it. We will never move beyond the current state of the art in filesharing tech because of this decision. That's not to say that the tech will not move forward, it will, but not in the U.S. Congratulations big business and the courts, you have successfully stalled the need to adapt and put our country behind the rest of the world.
-
well, the problem with slippery slope arguments (this happened, so this is the next thing that will surely happen) is that they are rarely if ever right.
I'll have to take Skar's response as exaggeration, because his conclusion is ridiculous.
Look, this is from the opinion itself: "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement." (edit: the emphasis is mine)
You have to demonstrate intent for it to be illegal. YEs, both sides will try to exploit that decision. They have not said anything at all about Scanners, copiers, or DVD burners. Because you can't distribute a CD you've made yourself without a burner. and all these companies that wanted this ruling? They distribute CDs. So even if you're pessimistic, you have to realize that the application you say is sure to follow could never happen.
-
HoM - I was curious, since the UK tends to be described as a 'constitutional monarchy' (wierd since we have no constitution) and yet it fits into the 'republic' name just as well.
-
Which conclusion? I made several.
Your quote from the ruling itself just makes the whole thing worse. How in the world are you supposed to prove someone's intent? It's either unenforceable because you can't prove what someone was or was not thinking or it is enforceable because we now have the power to claim that we know what someone was thinking and prosecute them for it. Welcome to the era of thought police.
There is no slippery slope argument here. We've already arrived at the bottom. There is no difference between proving the makers of software (apparently what is meant by the word device) "intended" their users to infringe copyright and proving the makers of CD burners and all the other "devices" that make copies of digital data "intended" their users to infringe copyright. So, while they may not have mentioned other devices the ruling is still, obviously, applicable to them.
And how about the fact that innovators in the field of filesharing now have to worry about being sued for what the users of their software do, as long as the corporate lawyers of the music industry or their competitors can somehow show what they were thinking? They've stifled innovation in that field. And it's an important one.
I predict that them music and movie industries will start marketing their own file-sharing software and stifle all competition using this ruling.
-
No, we're hardly at the bottom. You will not see suits against burner manufacturers. Or else the common pencil will be sued already.
You ask the question about how we can prove someone's intent, does that mean you have a problem with the differences between manslaughter and murder? how about self-defense and murder? the ONLY difference in those is the killer's intent. They don't have to prove it finally, they only have to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt, which is doable and is done in courtrooms across the country every single day.
I'm sure you'll see the companies coming out with file sharing systems. It's what I've been hoping they'll do for ages and ages. But I don't think that these companies have the acumen to hold all of the filesharing market. They'll eventually turn to third party vendors, like iTunes or Napster, so they can make a bottom line. Just like they do for physical distribution. It's not so easy to add a whole new branch to your business. Marvel tried self-distribution of their comics when they had tons of money to back it up. They declared Chapter 11 because of it. Not everyone WANTS to distribute their own stuff. but if they do, who cares? It's available legally, using the technology you think will be so oppressed. If they are developing applications for this technology, you can be certain that they will be pushing the tech.
So which is it? Is the US going to be left in the dark ages over one ruling? or are these companies going to control the entire future?
oh, and yes, there's a HUGE divide between filesharing systems set up to distribute copyrighted info illegally and the simple manufacture of goods. Ignoring how unreasonable I think your vision of the natural consequences of this ruling are, no one will sue CD burner manufacturers. Because everyone NEEDS them. Even these huge businesses with all the money. Or is every book publisher on the planet going to start a copying machine and printer manufacturing division? and every movie studio is going to build a factory to manufacture their tapes and press their CDs? And every software developer is going to reinvent the CD/DVD burner so they can pass copies of their data to the other developers on the team? I suppose that the writer's union will lobby to make sure pens, paper, and pencils are illegal to make except for those who actually write with them?
-
No, we're hardly at the bottom. You will not see suits against burner manufacturers. Or else the common pencil will be sued already.
No, they would not have been sued because up till now the manufacturers of pencils could not be held responsible for what the consumer did with their product. That's what has changed.
Upon reflection I'm hard pressed to come up with the reason why intent in manslaughter vs murder cases is different than it would be used here so maybe I need to reconsider. Intent is difficult to prove but it all relates back to actions, what actions did the defendant take that leads us to believe his intent was to facilitate copyright infringement? This will tend to force filesharing software to distinguish between legally shared stuff and non but I suppose that's the intent eh?
* Skar frowns and scratches for fleas
no one will sue CD burner manufacturers. Because everyone NEEDS them.
But this is still a problem. You should have been able to say "no one will sue CD burner manufacturers because that's not what the law allows." But you can't now because it does.
Eh, aside from that, I back off. If the opinion as a whole is consistent with the bit you quoted then the article linked was highly misleading.
-
But it's terribly wrong when people start confusing the end with the means. Saying that file sharing, as in the process, has anything wrong with it, is obviously flawed. Technology has no morality, it is simply a tool and subservient to whatever moral judgements we want to make. If people want to do illegal things, well, shame on the people. The thing is, people begin associat[ing]...
..the technology with the crime. It's the type of idea that people associate, say, people from the middle-east with terrorists. It happens. Does that make all middle-easterners terrorists? No. Some are. Are all file-sharing systems made to mass distribute stolen art? No. Some are. And that is associating the morals of a person onto a technology or, in this case, a people.
However, I do think that illegal file-sharing is far too easy. There will always be illegal file-sharing as long as there is the technology to do so, but it is far too easy to achieve in today's age. Something should be done to shut down or reform file-sharing programs that mass distribute illegal material. The fact is whether or not the programs were designed for the purpose of illegal transfer, they are being used for that purpose and not doing anything about it. The creators are being apathetic and they need to care about what their programs are being used for.
JP, add me to your list, then take just about every person who makes money in media and add them to your list. If a person makes their living off the media and believes file-sharing is moral, they obviously don't understand the system.
How many people do you know that think stealing is immoral? Add every person that you know that thinks that stealing is immoral to your list, because illegal file-sharing is stealing. It is no less stealing to take the music an artist made without paying than if I took a chair a carpenter built without paying.
There's always going to be borrowing and burning of movies, CDs, videogames, books, etc., but that is hardly of significant impact to the the buisinesses that are effected, if anything, it is free advertisement. I mean, if somebody you know gives you a CD that you like from a band you've never heard of, you're more likely to buy a CD by or see a concert of the band in the future, just like if I borrow a book and like it, I'm more likely to read books by that author in the future.
If burning a CD that your friend had was as immoral as file sharing, by the way, then why do we have libraries, or video rental stores? It is the same idea--after you borrow a book you don't need to buy it anymore, you already read it, same goes for the movie. The same exact thing happens when you burn a CD. The problem lies when millions of people are copying millions of files at an extreme pace--when they steal more than they buy or close to that. So long as more music is being bought than is being stolen, it is more of an advertisement than a theft, just like all advertisements cost money, it costs them money when you burn their CD, but not much.
However, mass distribution of files without paying the creator(s) DOES harm the people who make the product financially. Unlike borrowing and copying from a friend, which does not hurt the industry and is likely to bring in more support in the future, mass distribution harms the industry and is likely to stop production in the future because of lack of funds.
And Ent, I think the UK is a republic because, if I am not mistakenm, the monarchy is just a figurehead that parliment never really felt the need to get rid of. Because parliment is the real law-making body in England, it is a republic. I think.
-
Yes it *IS* different, else I wouldn't see a whole load of people who feel that burning a CD is fine but see stealing as wrong.
On that subject, anyone who has ever copied a CD or such isn't allowed on my list. Actions speak louder than words.
-
Yeah, but just because somebody does something doesn't mean they think it is moral. People lie all the time, does that make it right? No. Even the people lying would most likely tell you it is not the right thing to do. Doing something isn't the same as believing it is moral.
And I thought the list was for people who thought that illegal file-transfer was wrong, which is, as you just admitted, different than burning a CD.
-
Do you just not understand "Actions speak louder than words"? I don't care what a person pays lip service to - if they do something, they are expressing in the strongest way possible they are ok with it.
It's like, I can say I don't agree with killing people and then stab you - does that mean I'm not a murderer?
-
No, but it could mean that you don't believe that killing is moral.
-
Do you just not understand "doing something does not mean you think it is moral."
Let me explain it to you simply:
There are people that have to steal to eat, and do so all over the world. These people are forced to steal. They understand and believe that stealing is wrong, but they do it anyway.
The action is stealing. The person does this action. They believe it is wrong. Just because the person steals, you assume they think stealing is okay. They are still a theif, and they still committed a crime, but they understand that what they are doing is wrong.
A person can recognize that something is bad and still do it, just because you do something does not mean you think it is the right thing to do. People do it everyday. That is why people feel guilt. If people only did what they thought was right, and therefore every action they took they agreed with, people would not feel guilt, because they would think that everything they did was morally correct and not worthy of remorse.
Do you get it now, or do I need to draw a picture? I'll do it, I swear.
-
If people only did what they thought was right, and therefore every action they took they agreed with, people would not feel guilt,
Not to mention hypocrites. If everyone did only what they thought was right, hypocrisy would be a theoretical term.
-
Hypocracy is a theoretical term. Anyone who disagrees is a Hypocrite.
-
I stoped reading this thread a bit ago but becasue I'm bored at work I'm back babey! Well at least for this post. Anyway Gorgon pretty much hit the nail on the head there, better then I could have at least.
-
Is JP in his 'well I lost but screw you all i'm gonna make some snarky comments!' phase now?
-
No, I just realised you're all too stupid to understand my supeior argument, so I won't bother.
I don't argue with idiots. They drag me to their level and beat me with experience. The fact that mutliple people have invoked fallacies of the form
a is X
b is like a in some regards
therefore b is X
instead of real arguments means I can't be bothered wasting me time.
-
As Capt. Morgan use to tell me:
"Don't confuse the issues with the facts"
-
The fact that mutliple people have invoked fallacies of the form
a is X
b is like a in some regards
therefore b is X
instead of real arguments means I can't be bothered wasting me time.
Including Jam! none of you arguments have been sound and specifically on the issue, incidentally.
-
JP, I'm still on your list -- never burned a CD, never used P2P (illegally or otherwise).
-
Speaking of people disagreeing with the court:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/29/souter.property.ap/index.html
-
which was also referenced in this thread (http://www.timewastersguide.com/boards/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=other;action=display;num=1119566190;start=15)
-
I refuse to be scooped.
I deny that thread exists.
-
Go ahead, wish for the Nile.
-
Is JP in his 'well I lost but screw you all i'm gonna make some snarky comments!' phase now?
Jam replied with...
I don't argue with idiots. They drag me to their level and beat me with experience.
So, in other words, yes.
-
So, Sandra Day O'Conner resigned. This is big frickin' news.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/01/resignation.supreme/index.html
-
wow. What an interesting time to resign.
-
It really messes up the expected political manuevering. Everyone thought that Rehnquist (a conservative) would resign first, and the Democrats would allow Bush to nominate another conservative in his place. Then, when O'Connor (a moderate) resigned, the Dems would push hard for a liberal nominee -- saying "We let you have your conservative already...".
That's all shot to heck now. I'd expect some serious fighting -- and we'll be facing the so-called "nuclear option" again in the very near future.
-
This is interesting. When Ginsberg and Breyer were confirmed in the early nineties (both liberal judges, nominated by a Democrat president), there wasn't a huge fight. During Ginsberg's nomination hearings, Strom Thurmond, the ranking Republican, said the following:
"In preparing these questions or any others I may propound during the hearings, if you feel they are inappropriate to answer, will you speak out and say so.... I will not press you to answer any that you feel are inappropriate."
In those same hearings, Joseph Biden, the Democrat chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said:
"You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the court in 50 forms probably, over your tenure on the court."
Honestly, do you think anyone Bush nominates will receive the same courtesies?
-
In a word? No.
-
Yes, there is some mud-slinging coming.