US copyrights will now last.. forever
-
Roger Wright wrote: Wouldn't it be fun to have a time machine, just to bring James Madison, Tom Jefferson, et al forward to get their opinion of what we've become? I wonder what changes they'd incorporate in their Constitution after seeing us as we are now! They would be far angrier about the Federal government imposing its will through Income Taxes, Roe V Wade and disallowing prayer in School then they would be about any silly Copy Right law. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: They would be far angrier about the Federal government imposing its will through Income Taxes, Roe V Wade and disallowing prayer in School then they would be about any silly Copy Right law. No doubt! And they'd be furious with the blatant usurpation by the Judicial and Executive branches of the powers reserved to the Legislature. I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The left is inherently Marxist, the Right is overwhelmingly religious zealots of one type or another. I don't find either to be true; people on both sides of the fence tend to gather closer to the middle than to either extreme. Stan Shannon wrote: What do we unite around? Paraphrasing an old western movie: "Whiskey, and fresh women for my men!" I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.
Roger Wright wrote: I don't find either to be true; people on both sides of the fence tend to gather closer to the middle than to either extreme. Well, if Hillary Clinton ain't a Marxist and if Jerry Falwell ain't a religious Zealot, I'll eat my hat. Can you imagine either of those two in charge of a new constitutional convention?!!!!! Roger Wright wrote: "Whiskey, and fresh women for my men!" Sounds like my kind of revolution... :) "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Roger Wright wrote: I don't find either to be true; people on both sides of the fence tend to gather closer to the middle than to either extreme. Well, if Hillary Clinton ain't a Marxist and if Jerry Falwell ain't a religious Zealot, I'll eat my hat. Can you imagine either of those two in charge of a new constitutional convention?!!!!! Roger Wright wrote: "Whiskey, and fresh women for my men!" Sounds like my kind of revolution... :) "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Well, if Hillary Clinton ain't a Marxist and if Jerry Falwell ain't a religious Zealot, I'll eat my hat. Can you imagine either of those two in charge of a new constitutional convention?!!!!! Stop that! You're frightening me!!!:omg: [checking my ammunition stock now, oiling up the AK...] Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
Roger Wright wrote: I don't find either to be true; people on both sides of the fence tend to gather closer to the middle than to either extreme. Well, if Hillary Clinton ain't a Marxist and if Jerry Falwell ain't a religious Zealot, I'll eat my hat. Can you imagine either of those two in charge of a new constitutional convention?!!!!! Roger Wright wrote: "Whiskey, and fresh women for my men!" Sounds like my kind of revolution... :) "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Well, if Hillary Clinton ain't a Marxist... If Hillary Clinton is a Marxist I can't imagine what you'd call Tony Benn or Ken Livingstone! :omg: Stan Shannon wrote: ...and if Jerry Falwell ain't a religious Zealot... He doesn't get any press in the UK. Probably a good thing... Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
I think the founders were first and formost respectors of private property rights. Given the role intellectual property plays in the modern world, I think they would have agreed with the court on this issue. The concept of a company being forced to surrender ownership of their own property so that society can benefit from it is something Marx would have been far more comfortable with than Jefferson. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson
I'm not the droid you're looking for.
-
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson
I'm not the droid you're looking for.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Well, if Hillary Clinton ain't a Marxist and if Jerry Falwell ain't a religious Zealot, I'll eat my hat. Can you imagine either of those two in charge of a new constitutional convention?!!!!! Stop that! You're frightening me!!!:omg: [checking my ammunition stock now, oiling up the AK...] Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
Roger Wright wrote: oiling up the AK A communist weapon! :omg::wtf::-D
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
Even worse - an Egyptian version:-) Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
Even worse - an Egyptian version:-) Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
But Chris, this ruling is not an abuse of the Constitution. It may indicate needed reforms in our government, but it hardly represents a gross violation of the constitution. I would happily join in just about any revolution to overthrow the government you guys could come up with just for the hell of it. But I have serious doubts about how we could actually improve the system. We need both the Constitution and capitalism - they are the two sides of the same coin. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: this ruling is not an abuse of the Constitution no, and neither would be congress overturning the 2nd amendment - it would be perfect legal and withing congress' legal mandate to do so. would you sit by and say "yeah, that's fine. the other parts of the constitution say it's ok for them to pass this law banning anything that can fire a bullet" ? Stan Shannon wrote: But I have serious doubts about how we could actually improve the system. start with the basic constitution again; get rid of or fix the parts we know to be ambiguous or confusing - like the 2nd amendment (militia? well-regulated?); add the basic things we know we want that weren't in the original (voting rights for all, etc).. get rid of the electoral college or implement some kind of run-off scheme to fix the issues we had in 2000, etc.. there's a lot that could be done. but, no, it will never happen. -c
I'm not the droid you're looking for.
-
"Call the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Secret Service! I've got one, I've got one!" Nice toy, but :wtf: can you do with such a thing?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
It's fun! Plus, I can eliminate every bug in a PC with one clip. Actually, though I've had a gun most of my life, I never once considered buying an assault rifle. Then the Peoples' Republic of California started the process of outlawing them (We just want to register them - no one is talking about taking them away from you! Yeah, right!). Anything they tell me I may not have, I want - it's a matter of principle. No government has any right to direct what I may own unless I specifically grant it that right, and in this case I do not. Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
since the US Supreme court has decided that the phrase "limited times" in the US constitution means nothing and that Congress can, at the behest of Disney and pals, extend copyright terms indefinitely. so what? Snow White, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Robin Hood, etc.. all of these are works that passed into the public domain (ie. their copyright expired) that Disney turned into movies. but, you should not expect to ever see a work based on a Disney movie (becuse that would violate their copyrights). likewise, you should never expect to see anything that has been created since 1920 pass into the public domain. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=&e=4&u=/ap/20030115/ap_on_bi_ge/scotus_copyrights[^]
I'm not the droid you're looking for.
Big business controlling the legal system in the US?? :omg: Sorry - I forgot to add the <sarcasm> tags. Free speech, individual's rights and democracy seem to be a dwindling commodity in the US. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson
I'm not the droid you're looking for.
You always give me something to ponder, Chris. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: this ruling is not an abuse of the Constitution no, and neither would be congress overturning the 2nd amendment - it would be perfect legal and withing congress' legal mandate to do so. would you sit by and say "yeah, that's fine. the other parts of the constitution say it's ok for them to pass this law banning anything that can fire a bullet" ? Stan Shannon wrote: But I have serious doubts about how we could actually improve the system. start with the basic constitution again; get rid of or fix the parts we know to be ambiguous or confusing - like the 2nd amendment (militia? well-regulated?); add the basic things we know we want that weren't in the original (voting rights for all, etc).. get rid of the electoral college or implement some kind of run-off scheme to fix the issues we had in 2000, etc.. there's a lot that could be done. but, no, it will never happen. -c
I'm not the droid you're looking for.
Chris Losinger wrote: no, and neither would be congress overturning the 2nd amendment - it would be perfect legal and withing congress' legal mandate to do so. would you sit by and say "yeah, that's fine. the other parts of the constitution say it's ok for them to pass this law banning anything that can fire a bullet" ? I would have no problem if that did that. They have the power to overturn any amendment. My only argument has been that until they do that they have no power to limit my ownership of firearms. And the Federal Judiciary should not try to do the heavy lifting for them as they did with Roe V. Wade. Chris Losinger wrote: start with the basic constitution again; get rid of or fix the parts we know to be ambiguous or confusing - like the 2nd amendment (militia? well-regulated?); add the basic things we know we want that weren't in the original (voting rights for all, etc).. get rid of the electoral college or implement some kind of run-off scheme to fix the issues we had in 2000, etc.. there's a lot that could be done. but, no, it will never happen. I don't disagree. But what if someone wants to throw in Nationalized health care or some such? It could turn into an absolute nightmare. My solution is to just break the country up into about five seperate countries with each new country having its own little constitutional convention. Our current size and strength buys us nothing but the hatred of the world. So lets just give up our hegemony and go our separate ways. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
You always give me something to ponder, Chris. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
isn't that paragraph absolutely brilliant? couldn't ask for a sharper mind to write the constitution. :beer: -c
I'm not the droid you're looking for.
-
It's fun! Plus, I can eliminate every bug in a PC with one clip. Actually, though I've had a gun most of my life, I never once considered buying an assault rifle. Then the Peoples' Republic of California started the process of outlawing them (We just want to register them - no one is talking about taking them away from you! Yeah, right!). Anything they tell me I may not have, I want - it's a matter of principle. No government has any right to direct what I may own unless I specifically grant it that right, and in this case I do not. Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003Roger Wright wrote: I can eliminate every bug in a PC with one clip It sounds like a commercial for "Doom III" :) I hope the Peoples' Republic of California didn't outlaw chemical, biological or nuclear weapons :-D ...:)...:~ .... :omg:, did they :eek: ?! I like to shoot sometimes too , but I deeply think that a war weapon shouldn't be allowed to be sold to individuals. If somebody wants to use it, he/she has just to engage in the Army :)
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Roger Wright wrote: I can eliminate every bug in a PC with one clip It sounds like a commercial for "Doom III" :) I hope the Peoples' Republic of California didn't outlaw chemical, biological or nuclear weapons :-D ...:)...:~ .... :omg:, did they :eek: ?! I like to shoot sometimes too , but I deeply think that a war weapon shouldn't be allowed to be sold to individuals. If somebody wants to use it, he/she has just to engage in the Army :)
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: I deeply think that a war weapon shouldn't be allowed to be sold to individuals I agree, but the press and politicians looking for an emotional 'cause' they can use have badly distorted the facts. What is called an 'assault rifle' here is, in fact, a low-quality hunting rifle. Although they like to call them automatic weapons, they aren't - one pull of the trigger = one bullet. They don't fire any faster than a Remington, and they're generally poorly made, and less accurate. The difference that they use to play on peoples' emotions to get them banned is that they look scary - like a military gun. Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
KaЯl wrote: I deeply think that a war weapon shouldn't be allowed to be sold to individuals I agree, but the press and politicians looking for an emotional 'cause' they can use have badly distorted the facts. What is called an 'assault rifle' here is, in fact, a low-quality hunting rifle. Although they like to call them automatic weapons, they aren't - one pull of the trigger = one bullet. They don't fire any faster than a Remington, and they're generally poorly made, and less accurate. The difference that they use to play on peoples' emotions to get them banned is that they look scary - like a military gun. Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003You're totally right, that's why I prone a total ban on weapons and guns :-D In fact, you are much more anarchist than republican (not the GOP, but to be one of those who believe in the concept of Republic), aren't you ? :)
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop