So, the rule book is on the floor and everybody's pissing on it? Strange.

So far the Democratic Party has stuck to the rules. If they continue to do so, Obabma wins. It is that close.

If they relent and allow the delegates seated Hillary wins.

If they compromise and 50% of each state's delegates are seated then, 1) who gets to chose which of the 50% go? and 2) it becomes a Sept. tossup for the convention.

President McCain? How can the Democrats screw this up?

"The media puts the information out into the Public airwaves therefore it is now the property of whoever receives the information and like all information can be disseminated to anyone at will."

Response:

Oneidea's statement is misleading and untrue in several ways:

(1) When the media broadcast (without the owner's permission) something that is copyrighted, they have violated the copyrights of the owner. The Copyright Act of 1976 makes that clear.

(2) Broadcasting publicly, without permission, a written or visual work (for example) does not divest the owner of his or her copyrights in the work. Quite the contrary: the unauthorized broadcast is a copyright infringement for which there may be actual or statutory damages and potential attorneys' fees recovered.

(3) Information that is publicly broadcast cannot be "disseminated at will." Such "dissemination" would be additional copyright infringement, even if considered "innocent" (not intentional).

It is the same with a book that you write (even if you don't register a copyright). If someone takes the book and publishes its entire contents on-line, the book and its copyrights still belong to you. The person who "disseminated" it has infringed your copyright. Anyone who makes a copy of the "disseminated" book is also an infringer.

The reason why you can record copyrighted television programs on your VCR is that (1) the owner of the program consented to the initial broadcast, and (2) the copyright law and court precedents say that making a private copy of a lawfully broadcast program is deemed "fair use" and not a copyright violation

If you sell or even make copies and distribute the program you copied on your VCR, you are mostly likely a copyright infringer. (The only uncertainty would be about whether the program itself was still under copyright protection or not).

The issue remains: will libertarians stand on principle to support the private property rights of the inventors and creators? Or will libertarians claim that other people's creative workproduct is collectively-owned public property that can be copied and given away via the Internet without paying the owner?

It's no different that a joke a person tells me a joke and I am now free to tell that joke to whoever I want to. They would need to have everyone who watches their shows sign a non disclosure agreement to enforce their intellectual property "rights"

Additionally, payments to Rand (and, I suspect, others) were actually reimbursements for campaign expenditures. Rand notes the princely sum of $345.55 he was paid was reimbursement for air fare to Montana to work for the campaign gratis. Meanwhile, the rest of his travel was done out of his own pocket.

The influx of immigrants today is no different than those of years past. All Woolridge is doing is blowing his horn.

$100/ton * 3 tons/home * 16 homes/week * 52 weeks/yr = $249,600/year

Local non-Hispanic applicants for the position: 2
Average time on the job for those applicants: 1 week
Number of trips I flew to Reno ferrying workers from Las Vegas: 2/week
Sympathy I hold for the cry of BS in the video: 0

In Iraq? I'll take the .306 thank you.

(1) Libertarians are adamantly pro-property rights.

(2) Many libertarians hold the U.S. Constitution in high esteem, and the Constitution expressly confers the power upon Congress to establish copyright protection for the legal rights of authors and creators to their intellectual property (copyrights, patents).

(3) Many libertarians hold Ayn Rand's views in high regard, and Ayn Rand's novels most certainly advocated the rights of the creative and productive person to own and control how his or her work product was sold or used by others.

At the same time, many of today's libertarians view the Internet as the vast network promoting the free exchange of ideas, a vital part of the underground information economy that stands against government monopolies on the flow of information.

Many libertarians also think nothing of copying and using other people's work product for their "private use," because it seems "free" for the taking.

On classical liberal principles, protecting and enforcing the rights of creative, productive people is a mainstay of the protection of the right to private property.

The libertarian position -- for libertarians who take our principles seriously -- must be to support the lawsuit against YouTube. Space prevents detailing why, but it is quite clear that YouTube is a clearing house for wholesale copyright infringement of the worst kind. In a word: YouTube faciliates the stealing of other people's work.

The libertarian alternative would be to encourage new methods to protect the creators' rights to their work product, while also making the work product available to people.

Napster might be a model -- charging low fees to people who want to use YouTube videos -- and funneling the fees to the owners of the work product. The result of the Napster model is to encourage producers to make their work product available to a fee-paying public.

In short: Libertarian principles suggest (1) protecting the rights of creators to their intellectual property, and (2) finding market-based solutions to enhance access to that property using technology to produce a win-win for producers and consumers.

-R Stevens

(1) Libertarians are adamantly pro-property rights.

(2) Many libertarians hold the U.S. Constitution in high esteem, and the Constitution expressly confers the power upon Congress to establish copyright protection for the legal rights of authors and creators to their intellectual property (copyrights, patents).

(3) Many libertarians hold Ayn Rand's views in high regard, and Ayn Rand's novels most certainly advocated the rights of the creative and productive person to own and control how his or her work product was sold or used by others.

At the same time, many of today's libertarians view the Internet as the vast network promoting the free exchange of ideas, a vital part of the underground information economy that stands against government monopolies on the flow of information.

Many libertarians also think nothing of copying and using other people's work product for their "private use," because it seems "free" for the taking (akin to TV shows on the "public airwaves").

On classical liberal principles, protecting and enforcing the rights of creative, productive people is a mainstay of the protection of the right to private property.

The libertarian position -- for libertarians who take our principles seriously -- must be to support the lawsuit against YouTube. Space prevents detailing why, but it is quite clear that YouTube is a clearing house for wholesale copyright infringement of the worst kind. In a word: YouTube faciliates the stealing of other people's work.

The libertarian alternative would be to encourage new methods to protect the creators' rights to their work product, while also making the work product available to people.

Napster might be a model -- charging low fees to people who want to use YouTube videos -- and funneling the fees to the owners of the work product. The result of the Napster model is to encourage producers to make their work product available to a fee-paying public.

In short: Libertarian principles suggest (1) protecting the rights of creators to their intellectual property, and (2) finding market-based solutions to enhance access to that property using technology to produce a win-win for producers and consumers.

-R Stevens