this is unbelievable. he wants the government to be able to go into everyone's computer and search for illegally downloaded music. 1984 :heythere He is not making any documents from the multi-nation treaty to be made public as per civil liberties unions request.
Lets see where they are going with this. Right now its just discussions.
How could you even discuss this? They have no jurisdiction to do anything remotely resembling this, many people were hopeful that at least Obama would be good with civil liberties, but as we have come to discover that was full of crap.
Would your opinion be the same if it was Bush who was discussing this?
It's so funny how this man made himself out to be an outsider, with no connections to the Wall St./Military-Industrial/Government-Media/National Security Complexes, even though he is the ultimate company man, and his die-hard supporters are about as open minded as a Bush Republican.
crazyray™
04-06-2009, 06:21 PM
How could you even discuss this? They have no jurisdiction to do anything remotely resembling this, many people were hopeful that at least Obama would be good with civil liberties, but as we have come to discover that was full of crap.
Would your opinion be the same if it was Bush who was discussing this?
It's so funny how this man made himself out to be an outsider, with no connections to the Wall St./Military-Industrial/Government-Media/National Security Complexes, even though he is the ultimate company man, and his die-hard supporters are about as open minded as a Bush Republican.
you know what time it is....
http://www.sheep101.info/Images/sheep_racing.jpg
John Kennedy
04-06-2009, 06:37 PM
The ACTA Treaty this video is referring to is a treaty that was discussed in 2007 among WTO countries. The leaked memo (http://wikileaks.org/leak/acta-proposal-2007.pdf) (PDF) from back then caused hysteria among blogwriters because of a few items on a list of suggested "examples of the types of provisions that could be included in the agreement", specifically the language regarding "ex parte searches" (searches by, for example, the RIAA, with a court order but without the actual copyright holder present -- which happen right now every day IF ISPs cooperate). Obama wouldn't be the initiator or sole authority here (or any authority, since this has nothing to do with Obama), so he or any single person in the U.S. probably wouldn't be able to allow FOIA to be applied to a proposed international treaty (which isn't even signed off on yet, or even written up for that matter, the leak was a discussion outline).
Now we can discuss the constitutionality of the U.S. engaging in international treaties as it's own entity without the consent of the people. Or the Patriot act (which it looks like, based on that leak, these provisions were modeled after). We can also discuss domestic wiretaps, warrants, or the U.S. reaching overseas to influence law enforcement that affects this country (as part of the WTO). But to say Obama wants to search your underwear for illegal mp3's is a little bit of a stretch... especially if he was never a part of this discussion in the first place, it's from 2007.
Its a time tested truth of what really separates the paranoid libertarians who think a new world order will take their guns from them and put serial codes on the foreheads of their babies and the people who actually step away from the hysteria, read the facts, and come out with an informed opinion.......
They can keep all the "sheep" photo websites in business. Its a small community circle jerk with these guys.... dellusional and I am more than happy to watch things that they swear will happen never happen.
Rover
04-07-2009, 02:24 PM
notice how some just avoid john kennedy's reasonable explanation regarding this matter and instead go directly to the pictures of sheep.
really makes you wonder about the cognitive abilities of some people reading this forum. if only JK could pictionary his thoughts onto here :(
Defekted
04-07-2009, 04:20 PM
notice how some just avoid john kennedy's reasonable explanation regarding this matter and instead go directly to the pictures of sheep.
really makes you wonder about the cognitive abilities of some people reading this forum. if only JK could pictionary his thoughts onto here :(
Avoiding facts and reason and replacing debate with pictures speak volumes about people's willingless to do work. It takes WORK to educate one's self to any of the hundreds of current event topics that is brought up here...... from the most random legislation that fails to make it to the cable news networks, to the issues that are in the spotlight...... everything warrants a look at 1) the facts and 2) the various opinions ..... if the facts involve tiny print on many pages, most people will just say fuck it, and put pictures of sheep or a smilie..... im so impressed, really i am.
J.K. is one of the handful of people, regardless of the topic (from economic issues, to government, to forein policy, to social issues), that will take the time to read before posting. So EVERY post he does is an informed one. Which is why he garners the respect of EVERY poster on this website.
FAST
04-07-2009, 04:22 PM
you guys make it seem as if you have never ignored a post that pretty much made you wrong,
everyone does it....
but if the oxygen is better up there on your high horse....send me down a ladder
:chuckle
whats up defeckted...when we doing dancing buddy ????
Avoiding facts and reason and replacing debate with pictures speak volumes about people's willingless to do work. It takes WORK to educate one's self to any of the hundreds of current event topics that is brought up here...... from the most random legislation that fails to make it to the cable news networks, to the issues that are in the spotlight...... everything warrants a look at 1) the facts and 2) the various opinions ..... if the facts involve tiny print on many pages, most people will just say fuck it, and put pictures of sheep or a smilie..... im so impressed, really i am.
J.K. is one of the handful of people, regardless of the topic (from economic issues, to government, to forein policy, to social issues), that will take the time to read before posting. So EVERY post he does is an informed one. Which is why he garners the respect of EVERY poster on this website.
:werdsign
Defekted
04-07-2009, 06:19 PM
you guys make it seem as if you have never ignored a post that pretty much made you wrong,
everyone does it....
but if the oxygen is better up there on your high horse....send me down a ladder
:chuckle
whats up defeckted...when we doing dancing buddy ????
After I get married cuz..... im a married man in 10 days. So next time I see you, kindly hide all your colombian friends..... my will power to say "no!" to my sweet tooth is still developing.
jameznyhc
04-07-2009, 07:55 PM
The ACTA Treaty this video is referring to is a treaty that was discussed in 2007 among WTO countries. The leaked memo (http://wikileaks.org/leak/acta-proposal-2007.pdf) (PDF) from back then caused hysteria among blogwriters because of a few items on a list of suggested "examples of the types of provisions that could be included in the agreement", specifically the language regarding "ex parte searches" (searches by, for example, the RIAA, with a court order but without the actual copyright holder present -- which happen right now every day IF ISPs cooperate). Obama wouldn't be the initiator or sole authority here (or any authority, since this has nothing to do with Obama), so he or any single person in the U.S. probably wouldn't be able to allow FOIA to be applied to a proposed international treaty (which isn't even signed off on yet, or even written up for that matter, the leak was a discussion outline).
Now we can discuss the constitutionality of the U.S. engaging in international treaties as it's own entity without the consent of the people. Or the Patriot act (which it looks like, based on that leak, these provisions were modeled after). We can also discuss domestic wiretaps, warrants, or the U.S. reaching overseas to influence law enforcement that affects this country (as part of the WTO). But to say Obama wants to search your underwear for illegal mp3's is a little bit of a stretch... especially if he was never a part of this discussion in the first place, it's from 2007.
From 2007 huh? this report is today .. That Obama wants to criminalize it ..my god your spin is ridiculous lately lol .. listen to the video before commenting .. we are not discussing the BUSH administration this is the Obama administration
Avoiding facts and reason and replacing debate with pictures speak volumes about people's willingless to do work. It takes WORK to educate one's self to any of the hundreds of current event topics that is brought up here...... from the most random legislation that fails to make it to the cable news networks, to the issues that are in the spotlight...... everything warrants a look at 1) the facts and 2) the various opinions ..... if the facts involve tiny print on many pages, most people will just say fuck it, and put pictures of sheep or a smilie..... im so impressed, really i am.
J.K. is one of the handful of people, regardless of the topic (from economic issues, to government, to forein policy, to social issues), that will take the time to read before posting. So EVERY post he does is an informed one. Which is why he garners the respect of EVERY poster on this website.
A lot of things fail to make the cable news network, for example totured prisoners being sent to Bagram Air Base, the money supply being expanded by 2 et cetera. Don't see how the government/media complex not reporting stories makes it a non-story.
The ACTA Treaty this video is referring to is a treaty that was discussed in 2007 among WTO countries. The leaked memo (http://wikileaks.org/leak/acta-proposal-2007.pdf) (PDF) from back then caused hysteria among blogwriters because of a few items on a list of suggested "examples of the types of provisions that could be included in the agreement", specifically the language regarding "ex parte searches" (searches by, for example, the RIAA, with a court order but without the actual copyright holder present -- which happen right now every day IF ISPs cooperate). Obama wouldn't be the initiator or sole authority here (or any authority, since this has nothing to do with Obama), so he or any single person in the U.S. probably wouldn't be able to allow FOIA to be applied to a proposed international treaty (which isn't even signed off on yet, or even written up for that matter, the leak was a discussion outline).
Now we can discuss the constitutionality of the U.S. engaging in international treaties as it's own entity without the consent of the people. Or the Patriot act (which it looks like, based on that leak, these provisions were modeled after). We can also discuss domestic wiretaps, warrants, or the U.S. reaching overseas to influence law enforcement that affects this country (as part of the WTO). But to say Obama wants to search your underwear for illegal mp3's is a little bit of a stretch... especially if he was never a part of this discussion in the first place, it's from 2007.
A treaty that is not being discussed because of national security? It might have been a 2007 treaty, but this has not been scrapped by Obama, and not only has it not been scrapped they are refusing to speak about it.
Consent of the governed has nothing to do with this treaty being discussed, I've read the Constitution, I know the Constitution and there is nothing in it that makes this remotely legal, even if all 3 branches declare it so.
Suzie*Q
04-07-2009, 09:37 PM
WTF is worrying about that for?? His country is falling apart and he is trying to fix this. He needs a nice good dose of REALITY:disappoin
Mathieu
04-07-2009, 09:43 PM
I think this law was applied in France already no?
.laurenx.
04-08-2009, 01:02 PM
i cant watch the video but i read the summary that defekted posted and to spin this whole thing into obama looking for ppl using soulseek or limewire or whatever it is obsurd. it seems to be geared more towards brand protection then anything else. i worked in IP for years and can tell you we desperately need better laws especially in the digital environment.
DINO nYc
04-08-2009, 01:45 PM
i cant watch the video but i read the summary that defekted posted and to spin this whole thing into obama looking for ppl using soulseek or limewire or whatever it is obsurd. it seems to be geared more towards brand protection then anything else. i worked in IP for years and can tell you we desperately need better laws especially in the digital environment.
So you're ok with the gov't being able to just jump into your computer at any time to see what you're "doing", oops I mean "downloading"???
.laurenx.
04-08-2009, 02:52 PM
So you're ok with the gov't being able to just jump into your computer at any time to see what you're "doing", oops I mean "downloading"???
do i think its a tad extreme? yea . but would i lose sleep over it? no. i have nothing to hide.
but is that what this is really about? like i said, i didnt see the video. but from what i read, looking for illegal downloads was not the main issue
DINO nYc
04-08-2009, 03:15 PM
do i think its a tad extreme? yea . but would i lose sleep over it? no. i have nothing to hide.
but is that what this is really about? like i said, i didnt see the video. but from what i read, looking for illegal downloads was not the main issue
Were you pro or anti Patriot Act? If you for it, then fine I see you couldn't give two shits about your civil liberties. If however you were against it, then how on Earth can you be ok with your gov't having access to anything and everything you have on your computer? At least the Patriot Act targeted "suspected" terrorists - this on the other hand targets every single US citizen. We may as well burn the constitution because it will be the death of all civil liberties.
FAST
04-08-2009, 03:20 PM
Were you pro or anti Patriot Act? If you for it, then fine I see you couldn't give two shits about your civil liberties. If however you were against it, then how on Earth can you be ok with your gov't having access to anything and everything you have on your computer? At least the Patriot Act targeted "suspected" terrorists - this on the other hand targets every single US citizen. We may as well burn the constitution because it will be the death of all civil liberties.
i am fine with the patriot act cause I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear...that whole "civil liberties" garbage is just hippy banter....times have changed and to be pretected there has to be some "liberties" given up ( to an extent) to get that protection. nothing is conventional anymore..not the wars and not the way we have to fight them....
as for this though, I have nothing to hide or fear in this case either since i dont download, but I def dont want them delving into my computer or hard drive if I did, cause its more private then a phone convo to me, information is stored that can potentially harm or defraud me, and someone has to be working for the government to conduct these searches, I just dont have the confidence in my fellow man to allow that to go down. and your right this targets all americans wherreas the patriot act is targeting individuals linked to or potentaily terrorists ( despite what some conspiracy tarts are gonna say)
DINO nYc
04-08-2009, 03:23 PM
Just on a side note, I was initially for the Patriot Act, however my stance changed once our gov't showed how willing it was to ABUSE the shit out of its newly given powers. Same thing applies to this bullshit - if you think for a second they'ill only be looking for music, you're truly naive.
jameznyhc
04-08-2009, 03:28 PM
Just on a side note, I was initially for the Patriot Act, however my stance changed one our gov't showed how willing it was to ABUSE the shit out of its newly given powers. Same thing applies to this bullshit - if you think for a second they'ill only be looking for music, you're truly naive.
thats the problem with patriot act..Geroge bush clearly did not abuse it ..but this administration i wouldnt trust them if my life depended upon it .. thankgod its not permanent ..Cause Obama lies way to much and you never know what his unpredictable ass will do
Especially when you see the white house going after private citizens like joe the Plumber and rush gives you pause to think .there are lines your not suppose to cross .. barry didnt get them memo he not playin chi town politics anymore he now president
Rover
04-08-2009, 03:36 PM
:lostit:lostit do you realize how ridiculous you sound? we're fighting a war on 2 fronts..the world hates us..b/c of Bush's lies..yet you're still not sure if you can trust obama? ok . cool.
jameznyhc
04-08-2009, 03:39 PM
:lostit:lostit do you realize how ridiculous you sound? we're fighting a war on 2 fronts..the world hates us..b/c of Bush's lies..yet you're still not sure if you can trust obama? ok . cool.
but Obama told us he opposed domestic spy program?, he told me he was gonna kill nafta, ..oist importantly he told me he was going to end the war in Iraq.. never mentioned leaving 50 ,000 troops there lmao .. nope he ran on ending the war for 2 years .. the dems wanted out when kerry ran in 04 .. why we still there good ole rover? .. he also told me he was gouing to be bipartisian govern from the center .. hahahahahaha
bottomline is bush never abused it .. i dont trust this guy the way he goes after commentators and private citizens .
Rover
04-08-2009, 04:04 PM
how many american boys have died due to obama's actions so far?
.laurenx.
04-08-2009, 04:16 PM
Were you pro or anti Patriot Act? If you for it, then fine I see you couldn't give two shits about your civil liberties. If however you were against it, then how on Earth can you be ok with your gov't having access to anything and everything you have on your computer? At least the Patriot Act targeted "suspected" terrorists - this on the other hand targets every single US citizen. We may as well burn the constitution because it will be the death of all civil liberties.
for it.
i really would like to know more about it, because it really seems to be geared towards the protection of brand owners which is desperately needed. digital environment makes me think it would be geared towards domain registrars and ISPs and how theres a real lack of IP enforcement on both ends. ok let me stop now before i go on a complete nerd rant :geek
jameznyhc
04-08-2009, 04:22 PM
how many american boys have died due to obama's actions so far?
69 since jan 20th -april 7th ..
1. Matthew Pollini, 21, Mass
2. Kyle Harrington, 24, Mass
3. Julian Brennan, 25, NY
4. Grant Cotting, 19, CA
5. David Wallace, 25, PA
6. Trevor Johnson, 23, Mont
7. Philip Windorski, 35, MN
8. Matthew Kelley, 30, MO
9. Joshua Tillery, 31, Ore
10. Benjamin Todd, 29, WA
11. Milton Suggs, 51, LA
12. Darrell Fernandez, 25, NM
13. James Dorsey, 23, IL
14. Christopher Sweet, 28, HA
15. Jason Burkholder, 27, OH
16. Jared Southworth, 26, IL
17. Kevin Preach, 21, MA
18. Peter Courcy, 22, TX
19. Jason Watson, 19, LA
20. Garnet Derby, 44, Mont
21. Joshua Ward, 30, KY
22. Albert Jex, 23, AZ
23. Jonathan Roberge, 22, Mass
24. Marc Small, 29, PA
25. Sean Diamond, 41, CA
26. Stephen Thompson, 23, OK
27. Raymond Munden, 35, TX
28. Cwislyn Walter, 19, HA
29. Timothy Davis, 28, Wash
30. Jeremy Bessa, 26, IL
31. David Hurt, 36, AZ
32. Mark Baum, 32, PA
33. Michael Mayne, 21, NY
34. Michael Alleman, 31, Utah
35. Zachary Nordmeyer, 21, IN
36. William Emmert, 36, TN
37. Brian Bunting, 29, MD
38. Schuyler Patch, 25, OK
39. Scott Stream, 39, IL
40. Daniel Thompson, 24, WI
41. Brian Connelly, 26, NJ
42. Simone Robinson, 21, IL
43. Donte Whitworth, 21, IN
44. Jeffrey Reed, 23, VA
45. Jessica Sarandrea, 22, FL
46. Daniel Hyde, 24, CA
47. Patrick Devoe, 27, NY
48. Patrick Malone, 21, FL
49. Theophilus Anson, 34, VA
50. Timothy Bowles, 24 AZ
51. Archie Taylor, 37, TX
52. Christopher Abeyta, 23, IL
53. Robert Weinger, 24, IL
54. Norman Cain III, 22, IL
55. Gary Moore, 25, OK
56. Daniel Geary, 22, NY
57. Adam Hardt, 19, AZ
58. Anthony Williams, 21, PA
59. Michael Ouellette, 28, NH
60. Jose Escobedo Jr., 32, NM
61. Raphael Futrell, 26, SC
62. Florence Choe, 35, CA
63. Francis Toner IV, 26. RI
64. Nelson Lantigua, 20, FL
65. Devin Poche, 25, NC
66. Phillip Myers, 30, VA
67. Israel Mejias, 28, Puerto Rico
68. Daniel Beard, 24, NY
69. Adam Kuligowski, 21, VA
how many american boys have died due to obama's actions so far?
i put that specifically in there b/c i know you'd blame the deaths of boys in Iraq on Obama. Obama didnt send them there, he's actually working on pulling them the fuck out.
dont blame him for the sins of your idols
RICKY
04-08-2009, 07:55 PM
i put that specifically in there b/c i know you'd blame the deaths of boys in Iraq on Obama. Obama didnt send them there, he's actually working on pulling them the fuck out.
dont blame him for the sins of your idols
You know he def thought he caught you out there with that list.....lol
jameznyhc
04-08-2009, 08:42 PM
You know he def thought he caught you out there with that list.....lol
caught him out where.. Obama said since 2004 we need to end the war .. doesnt take a retard to figure out he doin exactly what mccain or bush would do .. why leave a residual force of 50k? so if shit starts up again he can send them in .. they will be there thru 2012.. he could have easily started deployments to have every troop out by summer
metfan85
04-08-2009, 09:16 PM
Just on a side note, I was initially for the Patriot Act, however my stance changed once our gov't showed how willing it was to ABUSE the shit out of its newly given powers. Same thing applies to this bullshit - if you think for a second they'ill only be looking for music, you're truly naive.
I absolutely agree. I used to think the Patriot Act was absolutely necessary, then I realized why give the people with all the guns even less obstacles to rule over us in the future.
In all of history there has been one constant and it is the growth of government until it becomes to big and totalitarian. I'd rather make that slide take as long as possible not help it out.
thats the problem with patriot act..Geroge bush clearly did not abuse it ..but this administration i wouldnt trust them if my life depended upon it .. thankgod its not permanent ..Cause Obama lies way to much and you never know what his unpredictable ass will do
Especially when you see the white house going after private citizens like joe the Plumber and rush gives you pause to think .there are lines your not suppose to cross .. barry didnt get them memo he not playin chi town politics anymore he now president
WRONG! Many innocent Arabs in America were imprisoned indefinitely because of the Patriot Act.
i put that specifically in there b/c i know you'd blame the deaths of boys in Iraq on Obama. Obama didnt send them there, he's actually working on pulling them the fuck out.
dont blame him for the sins of your idols
2 words- Picture It
in your imagination of course, because that's the only place it's going to happen. He's leaving permanent bases there, his corporate bosses said so.
metfan85
04-08-2009, 09:26 PM
for it.
i really would like to know more about it, because it really seems to be geared towards the protection of brand owners which is desperately needed. digital environment makes me think it would be geared towards domain registrars and ISPs and how theres a real lack of IP enforcement on both ends. ok let me stop now before i go on a complete nerd rant :geek
that's a suprise :rolleyes:
we can only hope IP laws are completely scrapped. It's quite funny how the company pushing the '98 law strengthening IP, made it's fortune re-telling public domain stories.
John Kennedy
04-08-2009, 10:18 PM
From 2007 huh? this report is today .. That Obama wants to criminalize it ..my god your spin is ridiculous lately lol .. listen to the video before commenting .. we are not discussing the BUSH administration this is the Obama administration
I saw the video. It's regurgitated old news. Please tell me how Obama wants to MAKE piracy illegal, since it wasn't before he came into office.
Newsflash... search engines and ISPs have been cooperating with law enforcement for years now for access to content on PCs suspected of piracy. How do you think the RIAA has issued lawsuits against households already? This is the patriot act. This has been going on since 2001. I work at a label and sit right next to the anti piracy department... they issue subpoenas almost daily for customer access and law enforcement gets warrants on an almost daily basis based on evidence content owners gained on their own, contacting law enforcement. This treaty is for OTHER countries to comply to laws that WE ALREADY HAVE. We're the strictest country in terms of copyright laws. Most of the massive piracy is happening in Asia and Europe. This treaty would apply our laws to them. And a treaty that involves MANY countries, gives the U.S. no authority to discuss details freely, since it has political implications with the countries involved. This is a WTO issue, and the U.S. has been trying to get other countries to crackdown for years, to protect our businesses here at home. If you think Obama now wants to look inside your computer and control your content, and use this for further reach into internet control, then ask Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and every major web service, content owner (labels, publishers, studios) why they praised Obama on his stance on net neutrality since 2007, and praised his appointment of a STRONG net neutrality proponent this year Julius Genachowski to head the FCC.. please tell me why you're scared of an FCC that now finally goes up against telecom providers who have been trying to clamp down on access and control the net and filter content. How an administration that favors keeping monopolies out of the web game and media scares you into thinking your liberties will be taken away? Ask Google, the company that refused to cooperate with law enforcement, why they support net neutrality and praise the new FCC head? Why Eric Schmidt was Obama's tech advisor during his campaign? To destroy his own business?
Spin is you saying the Bush administration never abused the power of the patriot act. Actually calling it spin is giving it too much credit for subtlety. It's straight up delusional.
Special k89
04-09-2009, 01:04 AM
the whole music thing is just on paper its obvious even yo the biggest idiot that it's not what they are really searching for.
FAST
04-09-2009, 01:23 AM
maybe vinly will make a comeback now
.laurenx.
04-09-2009, 03:12 PM
that's a suprise :rolleyes:
we can only hope IP laws are completely scrapped. It's quite funny how the company pushing the '98 law strengthening IP, made it's fortune re-telling public domain stories.
u cant be serious with that statement. u really want IP laws abolished?
take the company you work for, im sure theyve worked long and hard to establish their customers/ clients. now say i go and open up the same type of company with the same name. now i leverage off ur brand and just simply tell your clients that i'm affiliated with you. would that be ok?
what about the internet? say you google tdbank and you get every possible variation of the name and domain extension and all the pages look exactly the same. however, some are just phishing sights, waiting to steal ur info.. which one would you trust?
even simple everyday crap. u dont have particular brands you like and trust???? if any joe schmoe could slap the name tylenol or advil on any kind of concoction of a pill they wanted to, that wouldnt cause a problem???
Benny B
04-09-2009, 03:34 PM
u cant be serious with that statement. u really want IP laws abolished?
take the company you work for, im sure theyve worked long and hard to establish their customers/ clients. now say i go and open up the same type of company with the same name. now i leverage off ur brand and just simply tell your clients that i'm affiliated with you. would that be ok?
what about the internet? say you google tdbank and you get every possible variation of the name and domain extension and all the pages look exactly the same. however, some are just phishing sights, waiting to steal ur info.. which one would you trust?
even simple everyday crap. u dont have particular brands you like and trust???? if any joe schmoe could slap the name tylenol or advil on any kind of concoction of a pill they wanted to, that wouldnt cause a problem???
umm first of all its SITES not sights..
second of all.. everything you listed already exists with the current laws already in place...
crazyray™
04-10-2009, 03:01 AM
I absolutely agree. I used to think the Patriot Act was absolutely necessary, then I realized why give the people with all the guns even less obstacles to rule over us in the future.
In all of history there has been one constant and it is the growth of government until it becomes to big and totalitarian. I'd rather make that slide take as long as possible not help it out.
WRONG! Many innocent Arabs in America were imprisoned indefinitely because of the Patriot Act.
2 words- Picture It
in your imagination of course, because that's the only place it's going to happen. He's leaving permanent bases there, his corporate bosses said so.
:agree, :agree, and :agree
i also was for the patriot act, because i was too naive to realize what blatent abuses would come about from it
.laurenx.
04-10-2009, 09:16 PM
umm first of all its SITES not sights..
second of all.. everything you listed already exists with the current laws already in place...
first of all, i was multi-tasking at work and had to write quickly. but normally when a person can only point out spelling mistakes, it's only because they have jack shit else to say :chuckle
second of all, obviously they exist but not to the extent i described. i cant tell you how many complaints we used to file with WIPO to get domains back and take down phishing sights and thats all to protect clients. if banks and other instutitutions didnt have laws on their side, identity theft would be even worse then what it is now. so when the current law isnt effective, which ur saying it's not, then u improve it and make it more strict to get the job done
i mean jesus christ murderers exist so should we make murder legal? should we just say, well the laws we have implace arent working now, so lets just declare a fucking free for all? no, give me a break already
ShaE
04-11-2009, 05:44 PM
it's all or nothing lauren, apparently if laws aren't 100% effective, we might as well not have them at all lol
yes, people will ALWAYS break laws, but should we do away w/ all these laws or not try to improve them just b/c some will disregard them nonetheless?:hmmm
ShaE
04-11-2009, 05:48 PM
the irony of all this is me reading conservatives freak out about the endangerment of their liberties & rights, something none of them uttered a word about when the patriot act shit all over them.
TrippinFace101
04-11-2009, 05:49 PM
it's all or nothing lauren, apparently if laws aren't 100% effective, we might as well not have them at all lol
yes, people will ALWAYS break laws, but should we do away w/ all these laws or not try to improve them just b/c some will disregard them nonetheless?:hmmm
If someone aint makin money off it no one is enforcing it
ShaE
04-11-2009, 05:54 PM
If someone aint makin money off it no one is enforcing it
drug laws are enforced pretty strongly, who's making money off them?
.laurenx.
04-11-2009, 06:19 PM
it's all or nothing lauren, apparently if laws aren't 100% effective, we might as well not have them at all lol
yes, people will ALWAYS break laws, but should we do away w/ all these laws or not try to improve them just b/c some will disregard them nonetheless?:hmmm
lol i cant believe some of the crap i read in this forum.
especially coming from a "CEO" who doesnt care about IP laws. thats mind boggling to me.
TrippinFace101
04-11-2009, 06:21 PM
drug laws are enforced pretty strongly, who's making money off them?
The police and state
ShaE
04-11-2009, 06:26 PM
The police and state
how is the cop that takes you in for possession making money?
i'd venture to say enforcing drug laws is more costly than anything in manpower, time & cash.
defense attorneys for drug dealers might though, i'd agree w/ that lol
TrippinFace101
04-11-2009, 06:28 PM
how is the cop that takes you in for possession making money?
i'd venture to say enforcing drug laws is more costly than anything in manpower, time & cash.
defense attorneys for drug dealers might though, i'd agree w/ that lol
You get fined you gotta pay its like gettin a speeding ticket. You never been in trouble have you lol.
metfan85
04-11-2009, 06:32 PM
u cant be serious with that statement. u really want IP laws abolished?
take the company you work for, im sure theyve worked long and hard to establish their customers/ clients. now say i go and open up the same type of company with the same name. now i leverage off ur brand and just simply tell your clients that i'm affiliated with you. would that be ok?
what about the internet? say you google tdbank and you get every possible variation of the name and domain extension and all the pages look exactly the same. however, some are just phishing sights, waiting to steal ur info.. which one would you trust?
even simple everyday crap. u dont have particular brands you like and trust???? if any joe schmoe could slap the name tylenol or advil on any kind of concoction of a pill they wanted to, that wouldnt cause a problem???
Ok, I finally have enough time to address this. I really hate the rain.
There's a ton of proplems with Intellectual Property, not the least of which is the very idea that idea's can be owned. Ideas are not property, if someone comes up with the idea of a yellow shirt, and you make a yellow shirt and make millions off of it, does that make you an evil thief? No, it makes you smarter, kudos to you. I digress, IP, is a relatively new concept but economic growth in the West has been going on for 100 years, the case for IP is that it is a necessary prerequisite for innovation, is therefore false.
Can you mention a single case where IP laws created a new industry? A new good? I can not, and in fact IP has stunted the growth of many goods. It is never one person who invents any one thing, rather it is a collection of ideas that morph into the invention. The Wright Brothers, did not invent an airplane from scratch, instead they used the ideas, something you say is tangible and can be owned, from many different sources, added their own and the modern airplane was invented. Now if there was IP, like your proposing, they never would have been able to use someone's "Intellectual Property," and the airplane would not have been invented except if the patent owner had come up with it.
Instead we see government grant monopolies to certain people, and the rest of us suffer as a result. In every case where an invention was not patented, you see not only the inventor, but the general public benefit from this good. However in the case of a patented good, the television for example, was patented and no one saw one for decades until the patent expired. Services in this country were not considered IP until the 1990's and yet in the time before the 90's we saw the ideas of the strip mall, home delivery of pre-cooked meals, delivery business models like UPS and FedEx, franchised chains, fast food, all of which were not IP then. Imagine if the inventor of Arby's, the first fast food business in America, was given a patent on the fast food idea?
Eli Whitney, invnentor of the Cotton Gin, decided to get the gin patented, while wildly popular, this is not where he made his money from. In fact he lost most of the most money earned from a previous invention not patented, the automatic musket machine, something he let other people imitate, is where he made a fortune. The same can be said of pharmaceuticals, patents rose 3 fold in the 90's yet no major drugs were invented. Nothing on the scale of the cure for polio, smallpox et cetera.
What were the medical milestones most significant in history? The list: penicillin, X-rays, tissue culture, anesthetic, chlorpromazine, public sanitation, germ theory, evidence-based medicine, vaccines, the Pill, computers, oral rehydration therapy, DNS structure, monoclonal antibody technology, and the discovery of the health risks of smoking.
Only two of those were patented or were due to some previous patent or brought about with a patent incentive.
Looking at a list of top pharmaceuticals does not produce a patent-favorable result. Michele Boldrin and David Levine find, in Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm) that patents had nothing to do with: aspirin, AZT, cyclosporine, digoxin, ether, fluoride, insulin, isoniazid, medical marijuana, methadone, morphine, oxytocin, penicillin, phenobarbital, prontosil, quinine, ritalin (methylphenidate), salvarsan, vaccines, or vitamins.
Now you want to argue, well what about music, certainly music must be copyrighted as it is intellectual property. Well one must counter with the question, why was England, so great at producing music in the Baroque period, suddenly lose out to Austria in the production of classical music? One then realizes that 1750 was the turning point in English musical history. You were no longer able to hear someone's work and tweak it without the authors permission. This absolutely stunted growth. Now not only did you have to create the music, you and you yourself had to work on it.
In fact, the market is responding to artists losing money to record companies that own the rights to their work. Artists are forming their own labels, and their own publishers that do not require the artist/author turn over the copyright.
Intellectual Property, represents state sponsored monopoly. No one likes a monopoly, yet in the free marketplace, monopolies are unsustainable, someone will always innovate. Only when innovation is stunted by government grants, do monopolies exist in perpetuity, or when the patent expires.
Now to your other questions, I would hope my clients, (I dont have clients btw, I play baseball and work construction in the offseason) are smart enough to check with me.
The internet was the freest place and had the most innovations before patent laws were extended to them. since then it has dramatically slowed.
Aspirin, ibuprofen, was created before patents. If someone makes something and claims it is ibuprofen and it is proven otherwise, the imposter is subject to criminal prosecution regardless of patent laws.
just sayin'...
metfan85
04-11-2009, 06:37 PM
lol i cant believe some of the crap i read in this forum.
especially coming from a "CEO" who doesnt care about IP laws. thats mind boggling to me.
go search the Yale Survey of 1987 and the Carnegie Survey of 2000 and see what CEO's of R&D companies have to say about the effectiveness of patents.
metfan85
04-11-2009, 06:40 PM
lets play jeopardy, trippinface gives us the answer for 100
The police and state
and the question is....
drug laws are enforced pretty strongly, who's making money off them?
that is correct.
how is the cop that takes you in for possession making money?
i'd venture to say enforcing drug laws is more costly than anything in manpower, time & cash.
defense attorneys for drug dealers might though, i'd agree w/ that lol
it gives jobs and federal money to purchase new toys for the cops and the bureaucrats.
TrippinFace101
04-11-2009, 06:47 PM
lets play jeopardy, trippinface gives us the answer for 100
and the question is....
that is correct.
it gives jobs and federal money to purchase new toys for the cops and the bureaucrats.
And cant forget about rehabs they get checks as well from the state.
Lmao at the jeopardy
.laurenx.
04-11-2009, 06:50 PM
Ok, I finally have enough time to address this. I really hate the rain.
There's a ton of proplems with Intellectual Property, not the least of which is the very idea that idea's can be owned. Ideas are not property, if someone comes up with the idea of a yellow shirt, and you make a yellow shirt and make millions off of it, does that make you an evil thief? No, it makes you smarter, kudos to you. I digress, IP, is a relatively new concept but economic growth in the West has been going on for 100 years, the case for IP is that it is a necessary prerequisite for innovation, is therefore false.
Can you mention a single case where IP laws created a new industry? A new good? I can not, and in fact IP has stunted the growth of many goods. It is never one person who invents any one thing, rather it is a collection of ideas that morph into the invention. The Wright Brothers, did not invent an airplane from scratch, instead they used the ideas, something you say is tangible and can be owned, from many different sources, added their own and the modern airplane was invented. Now if there was IP, like your proposing, they never would have been able to use someone's "Intellectual Property," and the airplane would not have been invented except if the patent owner had come up with it.
Instead we see government grant monopolies to certain people, and the rest of us suffer as a result. In every case where an invention was not patented, you see not only the inventor, but the general public benefit from this good. However in the case of a patented good, the television for example, was patented and no one saw one for decades until the patent expired. Services in this country were not considered IP until the 1990's and yet in the time before the 90's we saw the ideas of the strip mall, home delivery of pre-cooked meals, delivery business models like UPS and FedEx, franchised chains, fast food, all of which were not IP then. Imagine if the inventor of Arby's, the first fast food business in America, was given a patent on the fast food idea?
Eli Whitney, invnentor of the Cotton Gin, decided to get the gin patented, while wildly popular, this is not where he made his money from. In fact he lost most of the most money earned from a previous invention not patented, the automatic musket machine, something he let other people imitate, is where he made a fortune. The same can be said of pharmaceuticals, patents rose 3 fold in the 90's yet no major drugs were invented. Nothing on the scale of the cure for polio, smallpox et cetera.
What were the medical milestones most significant in history? The list: penicillin, X-rays, tissue culture, anesthetic, chlorpromazine, public sanitation, germ theory, evidence-based medicine, vaccines, the Pill, computers, oral rehydration therapy, DNS structure, monoclonal antibody technology, and the discovery of the health risks of smoking.
Only two of those were patented or were due to some previous patent or brought about with a patent incentive.
Looking at a list of top pharmaceuticals does not produce a patent-favorable result. Michele Boldrin and David Levine find, in Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm) that patents had nothing to do with: aspirin, AZT, cyclosporine, digoxin, ether, fluoride, insulin, isoniazid, medical marijuana, methadone, morphine, oxytocin, penicillin, phenobarbital, prontosil, quinine, ritalin (methylphenidate), salvarsan, vaccines, or vitamins.
Now you want to argue, well what about music, certainly music must be copyrighted as it is intellectual property. Well one must counter with the question, why was England, so great at producing music in the Baroque period, suddenly lose out to Austria in the production of classical music? One then realizes that 1750 was the turning point in English musical history. You were no longer able to hear someone's work and tweak it without the authors permission. This absolutely stunted growth. Now not only did you have to create the music, you and you yourself had to work on it.
In fact, the market is responding to artists losing money to record companies that own the rights to their work. Artists are forming their own labels, and their own publishers that do not require the artist/author turn over the copyright.
Intellectual Property, represents state sponsored monopoly. No one likes a monopoly, yet in the free marketplace, monopolies are unsustainable, someone will always innovate. Only when innovation is stunted by government grants, do monopolies exist in perpetuity, or when the patent expires.
Now to your other questions, I would hope my clients, (I dont have clients btw, I play baseball and work construction in the offseason) are smart enough to check with me.
The internet was the freest place and had the most innovations before patent laws were extended to them. since then it has dramatically slowed.
Aspirin, ibuprofen, was created before patents. If someone makes something and claims it is ibuprofen and it is proven otherwise, the imposter is subject to criminal prosecution regardless of patent laws.
just sayin'...
obviously we just completely disagree on the subject but just to be clear i was referring to the TRADEMARKED names of TYLENOL and ADVIL. not the actual substance of the pill. perhaps that was too confusing.
take ur favorite brand of soda, mine is coca-cola, if IP laws didnt exist, there could be a sea of coca-cola bottles on every grocery shelf all with the exact same packaging and same name, some the real thing, some not, some filled with the most putrid beverage you've ever tasted in ur life. so how do u tell the difference?
metfan85
04-11-2009, 07:07 PM
obviously we just completely disagree on the subject but just to be clear i was referring to the TRADEMARKED names of TYLENOL and ADVIL. not the actual substance of the pill. perhaps that was too confusing.
take ur favorite brand of soda, mine is coca-cola, if IP laws didnt exist, there could be a sea of coca-cola bottles on every grocery shelf all with the exact same packaging and same name, some the real thing, some not, some filled with the most putrid beverage you've ever tasted in ur life. so how do u tell the difference?
I don't if it's that we disagree, as much as it is you haven't really looked into the evil of intellectual property. A month or two ago, I'd have agreed with you.
Private contracts enforce this now, regardless of IP. A store will not sell a fake and a real Coca-Cola, because it is a breach of contract and they will be taken to court by the real Coke. Someone can make all the labels they want, but they won't able to sell falsely labeled drinks, anymore than the fake duracell batteries sell for $ .99 on the trains.
jameznyhc
04-12-2009, 09:47 AM
lets play jeopardy, trippinface gives us the answer for 100
and the question is....
that is correct.
it gives jobs and federal money to purchase new toys for the cops and the bureaucrats.
:applaud:lol...100% correct
.laurenx.
04-12-2009, 12:53 PM
I don't if it's that we disagree, as much as it is you haven't really looked into the evil of intellectual property. A month or two ago, I'd have agreed with you.
Private contracts enforce this now, regardless of IP. A store will not sell a fake and a real Coca-Cola, because it is a breach of contract and they will be taken to court by the real Coke. Someone can make all the labels they want, but they won't able to sell falsely labeled drinks, anymore than the fake duracell batteries sell for $ .99 on the trains.
lol but without IP there is no fake coca cola. thats my point. it would be completely legal to use the exact same packaging and name without any ip laws.
and what about domain infringement? new "country specific extensions" come out all the time, you know, .in, .ca etc etc etc. unfortunately, some of those countries allow people to register on a first come first serve basis. so if some scammer registered citibank.in before citibank has a chance to, and we didnt have ip laws to protect us, how in the world would citibank ever get that domain back?
metfan85
04-13-2009, 01:59 AM
lol but without IP there is no fake coca cola. thats my point. it would be completely legal to use the exact same packaging and name without any ip laws.
and what about domain infringement? new "country specific extensions" come out all the time, you know, .in, .ca etc etc etc. unfortunately, some of those countries allow people to register on a first come first serve basis. so if some scammer registered citibank.in before citibank has a chance to, and we didnt have ip laws to protect us, how in the world would citibank ever get that domain back?
like I said in my earlier post:
patents had nothing to do with: aspirin, AZT, cyclosporine, digoxin, ether, fluoride, insulin, isoniazid, medical marijuana, methadone, morphine, oxytocin, penicillin, phenobarbital, prontosil, quinine, ritalin (methylphenidate), salvarsan, vaccines, or vitamins.
So technically just anyone could have sold any of these products labeled as apirin, AZT, et cetera, they wouldn't make any money since people know it's not the real thing. It wouldn be completely legal, but it wouldn't be legal for a store that is contracted to sell Coca-Cola to sell an imposter, and if they chose to sell only the imposter, which uses a different recipe people would realize this and stop going there. You're not Laurenx because the law says so, you are Laurenx because that is who you are, people know you as you, just as people know Coca-Cola regardless of the government position on the subject.
To complain about domain infringement is very silly, for how many years has www.whitehouse.com been a porn website? Who has that harmed and how many people did not realize that www.whitehouse.gov was the proper website? No one should do business with a proprietor, online or live without doing their homework, so either way your argument is completely irrelevant.
.laurenx.
04-13-2009, 11:24 AM
like I said in my earlier post:
patents had nothing to do with: aspirin, AZT, cyclosporine, digoxin, ether, fluoride, insulin, isoniazid, medical marijuana, methadone, morphine, oxytocin, penicillin, phenobarbital, prontosil, quinine, ritalin (methylphenidate), salvarsan, vaccines, or vitamins.
So technically just anyone could have sold any of these products labeled as apirin, AZT, et cetera, they wouldn't make any money since people know it's not the real thing. It wouldn be completely legal, but it wouldn't be legal for a store that is contracted to sell Coca-Cola to sell an imposter, and if they chose to sell only the imposter, which uses a different recipe people would realize this and stop going there. You're not Laurenx because the law says so, you are Laurenx because that is who you are, people know you as you, just as people know Coca-Cola regardless of the government position on the subject.
To complain about domain infringement is very silly, for how many years has www.whitehouse.com been a porn website? Who has that harmed and how many people did not realize that www.whitehouse.gov was the proper website? No one should do business with a proprietor, online or live without doing their homework, so either way your argument is completely irrelevant.
lmaoooo ur not getting it. there is no imposter. ur proving my point. when i say advil you automatically think ibuprofen. its not about the ibuprofen its about the name advil.
do you know what a trademark is? :hmmm
to say domain infringement is irrelevant is quite ignorant. its really trademark infringement. the government doesnt own exclusivity to the name "the white house" so that example is crap.
but i give up with you because clearly you dont get it and never will.
jameznyhc
04-13-2009, 11:43 AM
like I said in my earlier post:
patents had nothing to do with: aspirin, AZT, cyclosporine, digoxin, ether, fluoride, insulin, isoniazid, medical marijuana, methadone, morphine, oxytocin, penicillin, phenobarbital, prontosil, quinine, ritalin (methylphenidate), salvarsan, vaccines, or vitamins.
So technically just anyone could have sold any of these products labeled as apirin, AZT, et cetera, they wouldn't make any money since people know it's not the real thing. It wouldn be completely legal, but it wouldn't be legal for a store that is contracted to sell Coca-Cola to sell an imposter, and if they chose to sell only the imposter, which uses a different recipe people would realize this and stop going there. You're not Laurenx because the law says so, you are Laurenx because that is who you are, people know you as you, just as people know Coca-Cola regardless of the government position on the subject.
To complain about domain infringement is very silly, for how many years has www.whitehouse.com been a porn website? Who has that harmed and how many people did not realize that www.whitehouse.gov was the proper website? No one should do business with a proprietor, online or live without doing their homework, so either way your argument is completely irrelevant.
i believe it was pizza hut or maybe papa johns ..anyway this guy registered pizza.com in the early days ..one of these chains wanted the domain .. the man made millions selling it!!! .. thats the beauty of free markets and unregulated capitalism isnt it bro
metfan85
04-13-2009, 11:44 AM
lmaoooo ur not getting it. there is no imposter. ur proving my point. when i say advil you automatically think ibuprofen. its not about the ibuprofen its about the name advil.
do you know what a trademark is? :hmmm
to say domain infringement is irrelevant is quite ignorant. its really trademark infringement. the government doesnt own exclusivity to the name "the white house" so that example is crap.
but i give up with you because clearly you dont get it and never will.
When you say ibuprofen, I think anti-inflammatory, NSAID.
I don't get it? You haven't given an intellectual response other than "why what would the people do without trademarks." You think the government says what is and what isn't. You don't something to be trademarked to be known in the minds of the people as yours, you dope. Don't tell me I don't get it, when your too think to tell the difference between products if it wasn't for a government granted monopoly on a design.
Regardless of trademarks and copyrights, there will be companies that stand out, people will know these companies and want to sell their products in their store. Why would a proprietor want to sell an inferior product? People don't buy Coca-Cola for the design on the bottle, they buy it for the taste.
You could make up your own website and call it whatever you want, and people would not shop there, because they had done their research. Maybe you need your hand held through it, in which case I wish you have someone helping you out, but most people do not need the nanny state helping them through the internet.
Chris
04-14-2009, 05:48 PM
IP is the only thing stoping people from complete plaguerising.
I love how people talk abou tthings they have no clue about or read somewhere and then it becomes facts..
2 months later you people are still crying like women..
booh ooo obama is going to take your children and eat them... nerds...
the EVILS of IP.. hahahah.
ideas ARE owned. you can NOT steal my idea and try to replicate it and sell it that is not SMARTs that is theft. plain and simple.
downloading music is theft. plain and simple.
downloading movies you didn't buy is the same.
IP is the ONLY thing htat protects artists and musicians these days.
you can alter the design or recipe and call it something else. but you can't steal my shit and call it your own. and rightfully so.
get your facts straight people .. ... .. .... ... .. .......
.laurenx.
04-14-2009, 06:06 PM
IP is the only thing stoping people from complete plaguerising.
I love how people talk abou tthings they have no clue about or read somewhere and then it becomes facts..
2 months later you people are still crying like women..
booh ooo obama is going to take your children and eat them... nerds...
the EVILS of IP.. hahahah.
ideas ARE owned. you can NOT steal my idea and try to replicate it and sell it that is not SMARTs that is theft. plain and simple.
downloading music is theft. plain and simple.
downloading movies you didn't buy is the same.
IP is the ONLY thing htat protects artists and musicians these days.
you can alter the design or recipe and call it something else. but you can't steal my shit and call it your own. and rightfully so.
get your facts straight people .. ... .. .... ... .. .......
THANK YOU!!!
im not even going to respond to metfan anymore because obviously hes not getting it.
John Kennedy
04-14-2009, 07:28 PM
When you say ibuprofen, I think anti-inflammatory, NSAID.
I don't get it? You haven't given an intellectual response other than "why what would the people do without trademarks." You think the government says what is and what isn't. You don't something to be trademarked to be known in the minds of the people as yours, you dope. Don't tell me I don't get it, when your too think to tell the difference between products if it wasn't for a government granted monopoly on a design.
Regardless of trademarks and copyrights, there will be companies that stand out, people will know these companies and want to sell their products in their store. Why would a proprietor want to sell an inferior product? People don't buy Coca-Cola for the design on the bottle, they buy it for the taste.
You could make up your own website and call it whatever you want, and people would not shop there, because they had done their research. Maybe you need your hand held through it, in which case I wish you have someone helping you out, but most people do not need the nanny state helping them through the internet.
What incentive would an R&D department have to come up with something if as soon as they were done they'd have to get into a pricewar with a company that just sprouted up and was formed based on their work which got stolen? If that was the case no company would do research.. they'd sit around waiting for something to steal. yay for the dark ages lol
You can put a pill in on a sheet of paper and figure out it's chemical makeup today. Maybe that idea might have worked in 1850 when you couldn't test a pill an figure out its formula from your kitchen table, or you couldn't read anyones written work from your couch and call it your own with a few clicks, but not in today's world.