Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:There is a $500 fine for this (Score 1) 597

Takedowns already are filed in the name of a specific individual, usually the attorney for the accuser. All of this information is given to the person whose content was removed, so they can file a counter-notice.

After the counter-notice is filed, the service provider must restore the content between 10-14 business days, no more and no less. Failure to restore the content opens up the service provider to a lawsuit from the person whose content was removed. The only way to prevent the content going back up is if the accuser actually goes to court and requests a restraining order.

I have no idea where the $500 figure came from. The law says that anyone who knowingly and materially misrepresents that the material was infringing is liable for all court costs and attorney fees of the alleged infringer. This can be a lot more than $500.

The law is quite clear on all of these points. To everyone commenting here out of ignorance of the law, go RTFL. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512, especially subsections (c) (f) and (g).

Comment Re:Government needs to be slapped down again? (Score 1) 397

But if a US citizen in 1942 were to go and fight for the Nazi's, and lets say he became a high-up officer-- would we not be justified in going after his life "extrajudicially"?

No, we would not. We were already at war with Germany, so the solution would be to simply (and legally) kill him in combat.

What if a US citizen went to Mexico and became a higher up in the militarized drug cartels (lets not turn this into a discussion on drug politics)-- would we be justified in assisting in his death if capture were not an easy option?

No, we would not. That's a job for Mexico. As a sovereign nation, we have the right to defend our territory. If a violent invader crosses our borders illegally, we are perfectly within our rights to shoot them dead on sight. If they don't cross our borders, it's not our problem.

You seem to be confusing our recently ineffective justice system for a lack of justice.

Comment Re:For the last f**king time... (Score 1) 430

Another argument is that corporations are not people, thus shouldn't have free speech. This shows a lack of understanding of corporations. If people want to get together and make a movie criticizing some politician, they should be allowed to. This is not even controversial. A corporation is nothing but a convenient way to get together and be organized. If we abolished corporations, people would achieve the same goals (probably using contract law), except we would pay more as a society to accountants and lawyers for keeping track of all the paperwork. What a waste.

No, this shows a perfect understanding of corporations. Your argument that without corporations speech would be more expensive, is not an argument attacking the correctness of net neutrality, but only attacking its cost. So what if it's more expensive? Some things, like free speech, are worth the price. And I sincerely doubt that we would pay more to enforce contract law than we do to enforce corporations law, since you can have unregulated contracts but the state has a stake in regulating corporations.

Comment Re:Public option (Score 1) 2416

The right oppose it for ideological reasons, and many on the left because it falls too far short of the universal health care that any civilized country should have.

You mean welfare states like Greece? Greece spends 1/3 of it's "ordinary" budget on public health care (and over 40% on pensions). Clearly, this is not too much of a burden on their economy...

Source: http://www.minfin.gr/content-api/f/binaryChannel/minfin/datastore/8d/78/0e/8d780e3337a1e1cb20d1a1707686d7399be4913a/application/pdf/MTFS.pdf

Comment Re:First dissent (Score 1) 2416

Obama and the Democrats were idiots for not implementing the "insurance individual mandate" as a tax break / monetary payout to buy health insurance anyways. They could have avoided this entire debate by doing so.

I agree with you about constitutionality -- Obama could have said "we're going to raise everyone's taxes except you get a deduction if you have health insurance". Except the Dems weren't idiots because it would never have gotten past the House. Republicans wouldn't have voted for a tax hike. They could vote for the original because they viewed it as an insurance industry (in GOP lingo, "corporate") subsidy, and therefore a spending issue rather than a revenue issue.

The Republicans (and the Democrats) are statist and have no problems spending your money; the only difference between them is which special interest groups they want to spend your money on.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman is that the car salesman knows he's lying.

Working...