MGM v. Grokster: Here's Why P2P is Valuable 732
Briefs defending Grokster's right to exist were filed yesterday in MGM v. Grokster, from Intel, Creative Commons [PDF], and many others. Among them, 17 computer science professors laid out the case for P2P, beginning with principles: "First, the United States' description of the Internet's design is wrong. P2P networks are not new developments in network design, but rather the design on which the Internet itself is based." Pointedly, the EFF compares this case's arguments to those made over 20 years ago in the Betamax case, which established the public's right to use video-copying technology, because of its "substantial non-infringing uses," even though many used videotape to infringe copyright. We'll soon see whether that right will extend to peer-to-peer software: the Supreme Court takes this up on March 29th.
Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why I bang my head on the wall so much when I hear people get completely wrong simple things which really aren't technical, yet appear to excuse their manglings as acceptable because only wizards with great intellects can fathom it. Probably has a lot to do with the same mentality which says, "it's ok to give up some of my rights in these trying times, it's for the good of the country."
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:5, Insightful)
It is okay for you to give up your rights.
It stops being okay when you try to give up MY rights.
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:3, Insightful)
Well yeah, there are certainly some benefits to selling your soul to the devil. It's a lot easier to move ahead by lying and stealing than through hard work. But I'd far rather be an honest, humble person than a rich cheater doomed to hell.
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:5, Insightful)
HTTP, FTP, SMTP, IRC, SCP, blah blah blah blah blah, can all be used to send files across the Internet to another party.
P2P has its legitimate uses as does any other object. P2P has its illegal uses as does any other tool. Obviously the lawyers would have a field day if P2P was banned...
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:5, Insightful)
I've just been arguing this elsewhere. Claiming P2P networks should be banned because it's used to share copyrighted works is like claiming that HTTP should be banned because web pages are used to slander people, or that knives should be outlawed because knives are used for stabbings. And it doesn't end there, screwdrivers and pencils can be used for stabbings, hammers can be used for bashing people's heads in, and cars can be used for running people over.
However, the designs of all of these tools are morally/ethically/legally neutral, as is the case with tools in general. Moreover, the internet is inherently a P2P system. There really isn't an inherent difference between "client" and "server", nor should there be. Because of this, I'm not sure how lawmakers/judges intend to draw a conclusive line between P2P networks and other network traffic, effectively censoring one protocol without destroying the Internet in general.
Re:Analogy time, boys and girls. (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? In the US, guns are still legal even though don't seem to have ANY legitimate use. The irony is that we are more likely to see P2P banned before guns are. After all, when the NRA comes to protest in numbers on your doorstep, you take notice. When a bunch of iPod toting teens show up, you probably think, "meh".
"There was a guild of canon ball
Re:Analogy time, boys and girls. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would take some issue with your points though:
1) a)the efficacy of a course of action is irrelevant as to it's legitimacy as a morally acceptible course of action. I cannot poop gold; but this is of no bearing to a discussion of whether I should or not.
1) b)the fact that the US federal and state governments constantly try to get round the constitution's limits on their powers does not invalidate the legitimacy of that document. I have no doubt that any attempt to overthrow the US government from within would be met with crushing force. This is largely the point of the ammendment: to try and prevent the Govt. from supressing legitimate dissent with force. It has probably now failed. The Republic is probably now an Empire. What can you do?
2) a)Most people in the world accept the principle that sometimes it is legitimate to use deadly force to act for the greater good. I think the Mahatma put it best when he said "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence." Obviously, he prefered when possible the third way, of non-violence, but he accepted that sometimes violence was, regretably, necessary.
If you disagree with him, and do not believe that the use of force against other humans is ever legitimate, no matter how many Jews they gas, then indeed, guns are probably not legitimate. What did Monty Python say again? "Blessed are the meek! Oh, that's nice, isn't it? I'm glad they're getting something, 'cause they have a hell of a time."
2) b)If it is acceptable for the police to have weapons to defend themselves, how much more so is it for the people to have weapons to defend themselves? Particularly since the police are under no legal obligation to do anything to protect the people. You seem to have accidentally suggested another legitimate reason, whoops!
Re:Analogy time, boys and girls. (Score:3)
Afghanistan: A well armed populace consisting of, among other, Osama Bin Laden. Armed by the United States of America and trained by the CIA.
Any examples where there's not a superpowe involved?
Re:Analogy time, boys and girls. (Score:3)
My fellow citizens elected George Bush -- to paraphrase Catch-22, "everywhere I look is a nut, and it's all a sensible young gentleman like myself can do to maintain his perspective amid so much madness".
It's a nation with enough sheep to blindly trust whatever is told them by whomever thumps their chest the hardest. Would that my government held themselves to
Re:Analogy time, boys and girls. (Score:4, Insightful)
Opening cans of beans? Noisemakers at a party?
Just kidding, but that's why I didn't choose guns for my analogy. Guns are built to be weapons, i.e. hurt people and animals. That's what they're constructed for, and though I suppose you could use one for a door-stop, it's not a sensible use. Knives, on the other hand can easily be used as weapons, and the difference between a knife constructed to be a weapon and a utility knife or a steak knife is relatively minor, and they can often be used interchangeably.
So P2P applications are more comparable to knives. The same way a knife will cut through rope, steak, or human skin just the same, P2P applications will distribute infringing material and free material just the same.
Re:Analogy time, boys and girls. (Score:5, Insightful)
None of this is to say that guns are bad or should be outlawed. But think about it, it's essentially different to say, "Knives aren't only weapons, since they can also be used in weapon training and weapon competition," versus saying, "Knives aren't only weapons, since they're also cooking instruments."
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, it has to do with lack of expertise (Score:4, Funny)
If you want advice on how to get paid lots of money without showing results, though, he's your guy.
P2P + BitTorrent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:P2P + BitTorrent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:P2P + BitTorrent (Score:2)
Re:P2P + BitTorrent (Score:5, Insightful)
And while we're on the subject of anonymity, you might want to do the anonymity at layer2/3, instead of some lame-ass protocol that will be too limited 6 months after it gets big.
Re:P2P + BitTorrent (Score:3, Interesting)
If you then setup a tunnel to someone else, and dont tell me who they are, but route packets back and forth, I can ping a person whose identity is a mystery to me.
If they in turn, connect to a 4th person, and we get the routing right, you can ping that person, who is anonymous to you, also.
If we set up a sane, manageable architecture that minimizes the number of direct connections you need, we can build a large network, perhaps
Is this MGM versus P2P or MGM vs Grokster? (Score:3, Insightful)
Grokster is an application of P2P technology that appears to exist to allow people to swap copyrighted files without permission.
They are not the same thing. MGM just wants Grokster and StreamCast banned. Not P2P itself!
Re:Is this MGM versus P2P or MGM vs Grokster? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're either extremely naive, or you work for one of the **AA's.
Re:Is this MGM versus P2P or MGM vs Grokster? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this MGM versus P2P or MGM vs Grokster? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given this state of affairs, a decision against Grokster ("a P2P client which is used to trade copyrighted works") could well set a precedent that is used to ta
Oral Arguments (Score:3, Interesting)
Is anyone in the DC area going to go?
Re:Oral Arguments (Score:2)
It has been a few years since I was in the court house (as an observer, not involved in the proceedings) I sugest you check o make sure that you do not need to make any form of "reservation/tckets" in order to be there (like you do for the capitol building and congress). I can't remmeber if my teacher at the time made some arangements or not for the ~10 of us that went. But better check just to be sure.
Re:Oral Arguments (Score:2)
Re:Oral Arguments (Score:2)
MGM v. Grokster is slightly more interesting than Criminal Law.
Well yeah, it's sort of like the lab portion (except for the whole civil thing).
But my newfound loyalty to class attendance [...] will probably trump any desire to hear what the Supreme Court justices have to say on the matter
There will be a criminal law class next semester. The supremes only rule on a given case once.
If P2P is so valuable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If P2P is so valuable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Another point is that people who otherwise could not get published by Sony and Viacom can now self publish. There are lots of sites with music and videos on the Internet other than those of the RIAA cartel. This is what they want to stop. If they can kill any distribution mechanism other than their own then they can stop progress. Ha!
Unfortunately, these music companies have largely outlived their usefulness to society. Within a few decades we'll be able to preview new music by search engines rather than visiting the record store.
The music industry is one generation behind the SW industry. I was diappointed to find I cannot write SW products for a living other than integration but do realize the over-supply of SW generally drives progress. Likewise, we'll see an over-supply of music. Related to this is the over-supply of food: if someone from the 1600's walked into a grocery store today they'd be flabergasted. That's how the music industry will look to us by the end of the century.
MPIAA/RIAA is still trying to force people to buy buggy whips.
...and convenient... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure we'll find a technical solution to the problems presented by this Tragedy of the Commons just like we were able to find a technical solution for the similar one with Spam [wired.com].
Oh, wait...
EFF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:EFF (Score:3, Interesting)
Never mind that my program would be completely, utterly useless as a spam tool. It acts as an interface to the
I hate professors (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying that P2P is an important network standard and therefore grokster cannot be held liable for what it enables with its software is the equivalent of saying that, since libraries are essential to the transmission of information, the government cannot request that the book "Practical Guide to Terrorist Attacks" be taken off library shelves.
There is a difference between eliminating a transmission method and policing the items that are actually purveyed. For example, everyone lives in a house. But that doesn't mean that we can't be against crackhouses, or that we can't demand that landlords take precautions to safeguard against their property being used as crackhouses.
If you are against copyright infringement, fine. If you don't think that the safeguards being proposed against copyright infringement over P2P networks are reasonable, fine. But don't pretend that this is an attack on P2P itself. The truth is that P2P networks have made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against copyright infringement. The industries have every right to demand that P2P networks be held to the same standards that other transmission methods are held, and to claim that the very Internet is under attack is a red herring.
Re:I hate professors (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy inadvertently argues for the opposite of what you and MGM are proposing. Many of us still believe that people have the right to publish books without government censorship or interference.
Re:I hate professors (Score:5, Insightful)
Newsflash for you. In the United States, the goverment CANNOT request that such a book be taken off library shelves. And that's a good thing.
The truth is that P2P networks have made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against copyright infringement.
LOL. You know, the phone companies made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against criminals using their equipment and networks to plan nefarious deeds. The federal government made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against bank robbers using the highway system to get to the banks.
The industries have every right to demand that P2P networks be held to the same standards that other transmission methods are held
Aah, I see you are getting it
Re:I hate professors (Score:4, Insightful)
So creators of FTPd, HTTPd, SMTPd, NNTPd, etc should all have to write in "reasonable" safeguards to stop copyrighted material from passing over their software?
Honestly, that can't work, I am free to move my copyrighted software from machine to machine to machine via FTP, HTTP, etc. That would put an end to the usefulness of these programs.
BTW -- I have talked about "reasonable" before. What's reasonable [slashdot.org]? I suppose in this day and age being "reasonable" all depends on how much money was slipped into the pockets of our law makers.
Re:I hate professors (Score:2)
Except with libraries, they can choose to remove the book permanently, and don't have to worry about anyone renaming the book to "Pr@ct1c4l Gyd3 +0 +3rr0r1st @++@ck5"
Re:I hate professors (Score:2)
Well, technically email is a P2P network. I don't see anyone claiming that every email program needs to have "reasonable safeguards against copyright infringement." Adding copyright checks is not the law of the land, it's the exception to the rule.
Re:I hate professors (Score:2)
No it is not the law. Want to point to the statute or case that supports you?
The Sony case, OTOH, says this: (emphasis mine)
Sigh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I cringe every time I read about some clueless politician or corporate figure point to a fundamental part of the Internet and call it a new and emerging evil.
For instance, the Internet was designed with redundancy in mind, when where a dead end is put in place, data can find another route to it's destination. Then you have some idiotic politician out to try and score points saying he wants the censor the whole of the internet of porn, free speech etc "for the sake of the children" Please.
And then you have idiots in marketing who think that the Internet "Is a big untapped market" of people who are just itching to come to their dingy website spend billions.
Sigh...
Test (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong; I am highly critical of those who wrongly distribute copyrighted material, but Grokster (in and of itself) is not to blame for this.
Re:Test (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Test (Score:3, Interesting)
Will We Get a Landmark Ruling? (Score:5, Interesting)
This will be interesting, but I'm a little nervous about *where* the Supreme Court will take this one. Applying constitutionality to modern technology is a little tricky; Roe v Wade, for instance, gave us a ruling based on the combined interpretation of several amendments resulting in a "right to privacy."
Are p2p networks covered by our right to gather? Our right to associate? Our right to privacy? Which amendments will apply to the laws being challenged?
I certainly hope for a ruling favorable towards p2p. But not just for p2p--also because whatever ruling gets handed down will likely set a lot of precedent for other cases where corporate interests weigh in against developing technology.
Free Sony PlayStation Portables [tinyurl.com] from Gratis.
Probably just another milestone. (Score:4, Informative)
As I understand it, the primary challenge is entirely interpretation of current copyright law, with its foundation in Article 1, section 8. To grossly oversimplify (and IANAL), MGM &c claim the technology is fundamentally for copyright violation, and that they should be able to collect damages from the Grokkers for the infringements; the Grokkers say it has substantial non-infringing uses, and that the actions of the users are the fault of the users, and go collect money from them.
The proposed legislation to ban peer to peer would need to be challenged on 1st amendment grounds, but that's not the case before the court. MGM &c are not directly challenging the legality of the product, but merely claiming the maker has responsibility for its consequential use. It may touch on the issues, but that's not where the focus lies.
Substantial non-infringing uses (Score:5, Interesting)
In order to win this (Score:2)
What examples will they use?
Re:In order to win this (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.filerush.com
Or are we talking specifically clients like Morpheus , et al?
There are a LOT of conspiracy theory documents, etc on P2P networks (or there were last time I used one) that would certainly qualify as a free speech use.
There are also loads of personal photos that people apparently want to share with the world.
It's also a viable distribution method for independent artists.
The list goes on and on and on.
Re:In order to win this (Score:2)
Re:In order to win this (Score:4, Funny)
Porn
Re:In order to win this (Score:4, Informative)
Is it legal to record off the radio? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the Supreme Court is truly serous about Copyright Law then it will need to enact a heavy Copyright Infringement Tax on any goods being shipping in from China and other coutries where the Copyright Law is Totally Abused. Forget dinkering around with filesharing networks that cost pennies in relation to the world practice of not paying $10/movie like US citizens have to do to see the movie!
When I was a kid people used to record tapes off the radio. Is that legal?
If so, why not make a frieTunes that sucks songs off the Internet radio stations and, if you have a radio card, the radio? Just tell fT what you want and it trolls for it and then sucks it into your personal listening library.
BTW, corporations are having a hard time adapting their business models to new technology. One thing history has shown is that countries that burn their fleets to hide exposure to the rest of the world (China) or ignore technology (battery in India) fell woefully behind. Allowing a supreme court to drive technology adoption is ludicrous.
We all know that technology such as file sharing is not going to die. Some country will have copyright-bypassing DVD burners by the end of the year and then, again, China will sell movies for $1 while the USA people are gouged for $10 at the theater! So, then the US government-backed economists will tell us the cost of living is lower is why our jobs are making a mass exodus but have not the fortitude to admit they have enacted a legal system that financially attacks Americans/lets other coutries off scott free.
Sadly, this is a case of extracting money from whoever can pay rather than enforcing legal justice. To continue to turn a blind eye on the rampant Copyright Infringements in Asia while attacking filesharing is like giving a speeding ticket to the guy late for work while failing to even investigate thefts (oh yeah, I'm wure we've all experienced this!!!).
Re:Is it legal to record off the radio? (Score:2, Informative)
When I was a kid people used to record tapes off the radio. Is that legal?
Short answer - no.
Re:Is it legal to record off the radio? (Score:3, Interesting)
Short and wrong. Recording radio broadcasts, even making your own mix tapes with them as long as you don't use those for commercial purposes, is and has always been legal. The record companies never really opposed that as far as I know. Broadcast radio tends to be their conscious tool, and the quality is low and gets lower with remixing - unlike digital media - all of which made the tape recorder much less thre
Re:Is it legal to record off the radio? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is it legal to record off the radio? (Score:5, Informative)
The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the
public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. It
emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public at large, the noncommercial
character of the use, and the private character of the activity conducted entirely within the home.
Moreover, the court found that the purpose of this use served the public interest in increasing access to
television programming, an interest that "is consistent with the First Amendment policy of providing the
fullest possible access to information through the public airwaves. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102." Id., at 454. n8 Even when an entire copyrighted work
was recorded, [p.426] the District Court regarded the copying as fair use "because there is no
accompanying reduction in the market for 'plaintiff's original work.'"
Re:Is it legal to record off the radio? (Score:3, Interesting)
You should look at my cable bill.
HDTV service, HD DVR, & broadband.
That corp is getting almost 100% of my music, movie, and internet funds. The only thing they don't get paid for is when I see a concert in person.
Re:Is it legal to record off the radio? (Score:3, Informative)
My point is the Supreme Court will have to take on global tax structures to make fair laws.
I see your point that China is a sovereign nation but you miss the point that China's growth is fueled by job loss in the USA and lack of proper tarriffs. As soon as goods from Chinese have the same absolute tax load as goods made here then I'll approve your assertion that they can continue to make illegal copies of movies if they want; but, right now, the US Government subsidizes job loss to China and importation of
The Betamax Case (Score:3, Interesting)
I submit that Betamax has done more for this world than VHS ever will from this case alone. Thank you Sony! And I'm sorry the format didn't achieve better acceptance.
I'm especially reminded of this ever time I do a visual scan on a VHS machine, that has never worked as smoothly and easily as Betascan[tm] did from its very first incarnation.
RIP Betamax. Gone, but never forgotten!
P2P may be all you have some day soon (Score:2)
Since when was it his right to decide standards on absolutely everything I see and hear?
If you don't want the bad stuff, don't pay for it.
From the Brief (Score:5, Informative)
I was pointed there by Ed Felton [freedom-to-tinker.com] in a response post on the brief's abstract page on Freedom to Tinker,
I love getting some free Ivy League insight (as an aside, I go to Rutgers where we are always using information from our Ivy League friends).
not necessarily p2p (Score:5, Insightful)
Please click the link and look at the diagram. It's one of the single most important concepts vital to understanding the structure of the internet.
This is nothing new. The decentralized design was chosen to maximize the price to redundancy ratio. A distributed network is too prone to failure and was not feasable back in 1968 (and still isn't today because of the basic economic structure in America. The internet will remain decentralized as long as the telcos own the phone lines.)
Re:not necessarily p2p (Score:3, Informative)
Frivolous abuse of the court's time! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really want gang-bangers to have guns, but I think that having a police officer with a gun is usually a good thing.
P2P should not be illegal, the act of piracy is already illegal. We do not need new laws, or even need the old laws "fleshed out" - they are perfectly adequate and can address the issue of piracy.
Re:Frivolous abuse of the court's time! (Score:5, Insightful)
From reading up on gun control, that's a deeply flawed argument. A hammer is a fairly general purpose tool for bashing things. A screwdriver is designed for screwing in screws. With a little imagination it can be turned to other purposes - opening paint pots, stirring paint, stabbing people. An AK-47 Assault rifle is a tool designed for the purpose of killing people. It is quite difficult to put it to any other purpose, and while doing so, the danger of someone accidentally getting killed anyway is quite high.
Napster 1 went down because the court was convinced that it wasn't a general purpose tool, but specifically a copyright-infringment tool. That's still the issue at stake.
Re:Frivolous abuse of the court's time! (Score:3, Insightful)
An AK-47 is only one model of thousands. It is to a degree a specialized version of a gun and it's designers probably considered lethiality when they designed it. But even an AK-47 can be used for sporting purposes as a rifle to shoot targets. It can be used to kill "varments" and can probably be used to hunt some
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Read more of the briefs, please (Score:5, Informative)
But I would suggest strongly that you look at many of the other briefs available on EFF's site. Respondents' Brief (the one by StreamCast and Grokster) is the most important, and there are many high quality amicus briefs. Eben Moglen, who wrote on behalf of FSF, has some great lines in his; and there are many other excellent ones.
It's simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of concentrating on how to stop people from copying movies and music, the responsible industries should be concentrating on how to ensure that people are willing to buy their goods. I buy my digital music because it is easy, high quality, and has DRM that I can live with (from iTunes anyway). I also buy the movies I like because the format is always higher quality than what I can download. Who wants to watch some divx compressed screener on a nice home theater system?
Movie and music companies should concentrate on what they do, make movies and music, not on stifling technology.
P2P (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm not confident (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Corporate lobbyists are always in the Supreme Court telling the justices how to rule, and the justices rule as the lobbyists tell them to.
3. The sky is green.
Re:I'm not confident (Score:3, Interesting)
You state that some people believe that there is a distinction between taking an innocent life, taking the life of the guilty, and accidental death. There is not.
I agree that accidental death is different. There is no intent to kill. The other two are no different, though. Either knowingly killing someone is wrong, or it is not. A person may believe that the wrong avoided by killing someone makes it justifiable, but that does not change the underlying moral decision on whether killing is right or wro
Re:I'm not confident (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm not confident (Score:5, Insightful)
If you actualy read anything, you would notice most of the disenting opinions beleived that competency should be established on a case by case basis. This ban effectively says everyone under 18 is not conpetent enough to know that murder is wrong.
Re:I'm not confident (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm not confident (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, that tells you something about him. It should have been a no-brainer: A flimsy piece of cloth is obviously not as important as our freedoms. If he had to struggle over that for more than 30 seconds, he's not f
Re:I'm not confident (Score:2)
On a side note, I'm strongly opposed to capital punishment in all forms. I'm just trying to help folks understand the difference between the court making decisions based on their moral values and making decisions based on their interpretation of the laws passed by
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, dude... (Score:2, Insightful)
the first is a moral issue, which has little bering on corporate profits (except the sick little monkeys in the execute-minors-industry). This case has to do with fear. Fear of losing control of 'properties'* and fighting tooth and nail (and no small amount of kicking under the table) to strangle consumption of their goods. Get the crap out the
No, No, No (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even want to debate whether it is cruel AND unusual (don't forget there is a conjunction) is a good or a bad thing. The point that people on both the right, left and center have to get into their collective heads: just because you like or dislike the results of a legal decision doesn't mean the legal decision was good or bad.
I don't like X. X was outlawed by the decision. Therefore, the decision was good. Well, this past decision was shotty?
You should be more worried that 6 justices (I'm including Conner) pretty much follow whatever whim they have and then try to back it up with shotty legal reasoning. That's why you should worry. I have no idea how those members of the court will judge something Constitutional or not. They are like boats set adrift on the ocean.
Re:No, No, No (Score:3, Interesting)
<rant type="creepy-technotopian">Curse those founders for writing the constitution in English! Natural languages are terrible at writing laws in them. Far too vague. We need to invent an artificial language to write laws in! Then they could be parsed by computers!</rant>
Re:I'm not confident -- Oh, The Children, sob... (Score:5, Interesting)
And 100% of those "children" thought it was just fine to execute other human beings. Some of them even felt it was okay to execute other human beings because they were children still, and therefore the state couldn't do anything really bad to them.
Those are not people I want to live beside afterwards. So just where are your priorities?
Re:I'm not confident -- Oh, The Children, sob... (Score:5, Insightful)
as in, the goverment is empowered to execute citizens who wrong the goverment, and minors (non-voting folks that they are) aren't CITIZENS as such, they are chattel, with some rights, but damn few privledges, and in exchange for not getting those privledges, they are not liable to the same extent.
What I want to know? if a minor is tried as an adult, and aquitted, does he get to vote? why not?? it's been acceptably proven that the individual in question is as responsible as an adult....
Re:I'm not confident (Score:2)
They may very well be personally against the death penalty (probably not, but they could be).
The Supreme Court is not supposed to be composed of 9 philosopher-kings, they are supposed to merely interpret and apply the constitution. That is all the dissenting justices were saying.
Re:I'm not confident (Score:4, Insightful)
What a provocative misstatement.
4 out of 9 justices believed that there was no distinction in the law as it's written between a person who committed a crime at the age of 18, and a person who committed a crime at the age of 17.
No one has suggested it's proper to strap an 8-year-old into an electric chair.
Re:I'm not confident (Score:2)
Re:I'm not confident (Score:2)
Re:I'm not confident (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Please Clarify (Score:2)
Re:I'm not confident (Score:2)
Because you know, we should allow these kids to get off with a slap on their wrist.
If, by slap on the wrist, you mean life in prison. It's not like we'll knock it down to probation os anything.
Re:When will it stop? (Score:2)
The Motion Picture Association of America has little to do with the distribution of music. The other evil **AA, though...
Re:When will it stop? (Score:2)
You're honor, my opponent is an idiot. (Score:3, Interesting)
BURN!
Fucking awsome!
Re:You're honor, my opponent is an idiot. (Score:3, Informative)
As in the MSFT case, the US legal system has shown absolutely no concern for technical facts. (Remember the insanely ludicrous claim that Internet Browsing was part of the OS? Such BS should have been grounds for immediate loss of the case for MSFT - if you think you can boldfacedly lie in court, well, you must be in America, a land where even the President lies in court and gets off basically scott free.)
Unfortunat
Re:NRA (Score:4, Interesting)
On a side note, the problem I had with that bill was that the courts should be making that distinction on their own, and the bill itself could have led to you being unable to sue Glock if you were shooting one and it exploded in your face. I am not an NRA fanboy, but I support many of the things they do nonetheless. This is just not their area of expertise.
Re:NRA (Score:2, Funny)
Oh wait, is it the IP packets after all?