...and years before that, big labels got in trouble for paying people to stream their songs for free!

Perhaps the solution is to create an offsetting TWATTS project, to make the whole thing gender neutral.

(yea, some people simply want to be offended)

" I meant what I wrote. Disenfranchisement is a significant operation in this country right now. "

Oh, then. Bullshit.

"voter disenfranchisement doesn't help anyone"

"Voter apathy," you mean. I for one don't want people who would only vote because of a legal requirement to do so. If they won't get out and vote on their own, they're certainly not going to take the time to make an informed decision.

Then again, that's no doubt exactly why Obama wants it.

I suspect his problem with it is that he confuses it with WEP.

This is different because a cop can't search a car in Finland without going to Finland, and placing himself under Finnish jurisdiction.

"Our very Constitution says quite explicitly they aren't allowed to issue warrants for "unknown" locations."

No, it says what it says. And, it says no such thing.

This is no different than a warrant to search a specific vehicle, independent of the location it might have been driven to. "Place to be searched" doesn't need to mean a physical location, it can mean a specific person or vehicle or computer.

The intent of the restriction is to ensure specificity, so there are no blanket warrants/searches. Allowing warrants for specific computers whose logical, but not physical, location is known doesn't undermine that.

But, the thing is, the cops don't have a license to transmit on the frequencies uses. Yet another case of breaking the law to enforce the law.

Its a mute point. Your begging the question, "Y"?

The US Constitution was written to protect individual rights from a tyranny of the majority. The problem is judges who can't read plain English, and will rationalize to give the other branches whatever they want. The Supremes deserve contempt.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

But, the murderer is no longer a burden on society.

Growing crops for your own family to eat, which never leave the state, and for which no money exchanges, is interstate commerce.

Now, you were saying?

No, but he still is. As the copyright holder, he would need to make a reasonable effort to stop you, or he would still be participating in commerce. IOW, no, there's not a loophole where he can have a friend post the videos.

The guy should post the video on his own, non-commercial web site.

Once you start arguing that it's not the operator making money, you open a slippery slope where one person makes money on videos (making it commercial) which a friend made using a drone. Then, they reverse roles.

The simple fact is, money is being made from the video, which makes it commerce. Even if "the guy" didn't receive any payment, he is clearly participating in Interstate Commerce, which is subject to regulation.