That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Note the absence of "copy" rights.
Joey,
I find your ideas completely at odds with the First and the Fourth Amendments.
In particular, the Fourth Amendment was adopted because under British rule, when the authorities were given the power to seize property and documents without first having to prove probably cause, those authorities abused the system. As predicted 200 years ago, we give UMG the authority to interfere with our business without a warrant, and this is exactly what happens: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3364808
It is a foundation of our nation that only the government can order your property and documents seized and only on sworn testimony or affidavit.
I would prefer to find a way that copyright holders can make money doing what they do, since I am one. But if I have to lose copy "rights" because they cannot be protected without shitting on the Declaration of Independence, or the First and Fourth Amendments, then I'll chose to let it go.
So if you would like to name your organization "The FBI" and require that all actions first acquire sworn testimony before a judge or an affidavit, and that false testimony will result in jail time for perjury, then we might have something to talk about.
I understand all of that and if we want to change what I've suggested from an independent board to an accelerated prosecution by the government of companies with high scores, that's fine. I'm inclined to trust the right board of directors more than our courts, but that's just me. I have a feeling Wikileaks's fate is better off being determined by our citizens than by our government. That's why I proposed keeping the organization independent. But really, my only goal is to have a transparent method of keeping tabs on the infractions of companies, so that each violation perpetrated on small rights holders without the resources to sue can add up and have consequences. The current problem is that all a company needs to do is make deals with the companies large enough to sue, and then abuse those too small to do so, and they can avoid the penalty of the current laws. What I've proposed allows for the overall behavior of a company to be transparent and acted upon. If it needs to be acted upon by our government, then that's okay, but I suspect that puts real free speech havens at risk.
Note the absence of "copy" rights.
Joey,
I find your ideas completely at odds with the First and the Fourth Amendments.
In particular, the Fourth Amendment was adopted because under British rule, when the authorities were given the power to seize property and documents without first having to prove probably cause, those authorities abused the system. As predicted 200 years ago, we give UMG the authority to interfere with our business without a warrant, and this is exactly what happens: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3364808
It is a foundation of our nation that only the government can order your property and documents seized and only on sworn testimony or affidavit.
I would prefer to find a way that copyright holders can make money doing what they do, since I am one. But if I have to lose copy "rights" because they cannot be protected without shitting on the Declaration of Independence, or the First and Fourth Amendments, then I'll chose to let it go.
So if you would like to name your organization "The FBI" and require that all actions first acquire sworn testimony before a judge or an affidavit, and that false testimony will result in jail time for perjury, then we might have something to talk about.