Not really. At $150,000 for willful infringement, and 330,000 copies, he's looking at $49,500,000,000, in damages. (SRC: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2)).*

That's about 1/3 of Hollywood's combined gross for every movie released 1996 and 2012 (as of last weekend). (SRC: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/)

No due process problem with that.

--AC

*Actually, the statutory damages are per work, not per infringing act, so the real number would be reduced to reflect the number of titles he copied, not the number of copies he made).

I know there's something in there about regulating something between the States.

What could it be?

Oh yeah, the Commerce Clause. Article I, Section 8.

And do you really want your medical devices and/or pharmaceuticals to be manufactured in the state with the lowest level of safety regulation?

--AC

Generally speaking, because the drafters did not explain what they meant by the term "commerce" when they drafted the Constitution, and the Court has interpreted Congressional power to regulate commerce between the States as encompassing the channels, instrumentalities, and activities of interstate commerce.

--AC

Please, please, please. Learn your history.

FDR did not pack the court with statists. In fact, the proposal he had advanced (of adding more justices to the supreme court), never went through. Instead, one justice on the court changed his mind about how to approach these matters and turned what had once been a 4-5 court into a 5-4 court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

But go ahead and blame FDR, that's easier than learning about history.

--AC

There is a great brief filed by a Colorado Public Defender addressing this issue (specifically the word Fuck and its history and uses).

The brief can be found at: http://scofacts.org/The-F-Motion.html

--AC

The reason it takes so long to check the list is that the airlines are not giving the manifest data back to the TSA. The TSA updates the lists, but it doesn't have access to the manifests, so it cannot check. Instead, the airlines check the lists whenever they chose, but no less than every two (previously eight) hours.

The big government solution would be to compel the airlines to provide the data to the TSA, which can then check the manifests against the lists as the data comes in. But privacy advocates and European governments are opposed to giving the "big government" real time access to people's travel plans. The government has been willing to accept the current system as a compromise.

Ultimately, the question is whether you want to allow the private sector to actually perform the no fly list reconciliation and keep your data relatively secret, or whether you want the government to be able to instantly identify people on the no fly list, but have access to your movements via air travel.

The choices are not great, and I won't express my preferences.

--AC

Except that, in a lawsuit, you can only recover for the damages you suffer. As one of those personal injury lawyers people are always talking about, a case with a slightly cut hand is not worth the time and money involved. A case with an amputated hand is going to have substantial medical bills and other economic losses, which would justify the time and expense involved in prosecuting the case.

What you're talking about is the difference between a ~$1 case, and (potentially) a $2,000,000.00 case. As a matter of professional ethics, I'm not going to spend $150,000 hiring expert witnesses to recover $1.

--AC

Great. How do we get the data for those long-term studies?

Do we do the experiment and then check the patients for an extended period of time? But before we can get there, we have to do the experiment.

Also, how do you know what Dr. Centeno tells his patients in the process of obtaining informed consent. I know the man professionally, and have found him to have the highest ethical standards. I don't know the precise information he provides when he obtains informed consent, but neither do you.

--AC

Isn't that the nature of an experiment, though? I mean really, when you do the experiment, you don't have proof to back up your claims. You have a hypothesis.

Now, in his case, there is actually some proof. Apparently, these kinds of stem cell treatments have been shown to be efficacious in animal trials, right? So actually, there is some basis for believing that they will do so in human trials as well.

At the same time, however, he doesn't have data showing that his treatments work. But he is gathering that data and publishing his studies in peer-reviewed journals. So, in fact, he is engaged in the science of medicine.

In a few years, if he's right, he'll be a pioneer in stem cell treatment. If he's wrong, he'll have to face the legal, ethical, and professional consequences of his failed experiment.

But, I'm sure you'll agree, it's a bit hasty to claim that he is "a con man bring shit that doesn't work to the people." As you must acknowledge, there is no proof EITHER WAY as to whether the treatments work in human beings.

Please, do try to restrain yourself from defaming people you don't know.

--AC