It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air Force cracks software, carpet bombs DMCA

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Air Force cracks software, carpet bombs DMCA


arstechnica.com

DMCA: We'll enforce it, but won't abide by it

The Court of Federal Claims that first heard the case threw it out, and the new Appellate ruling upholds that decision. The reasoning behind the decisions focuses on the US government's sovereign immunity, which the court describes thusly: "The United States, as [a] sovereign, 'is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.'"
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
So here we have another example of how the Government of the United States, under this administration, rules itself immune from the liabilities and consequences of crimes it enforces against its citizens. I'm starting to get tired of the ever growing list of 'exempt' government actions.

arstechnica.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Max,
That has been the way it is for every country in history. Its not something that is new to the "Bushies"!! All governments have to agree to be sued by an entity that has an action they feel should be taken against a government entity. Even other countries have to ask each other if a suit will be heard. The World Court's decisions are only good to signatories to the UN World Court agreement! All Soverign nations have the same rules!!

Zindo



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
so that says the u.S. is immune to be sued unless it agrees to be sued and the court will define that suit according to what the U.S. agrees to be sued by.

Makes sense..



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Not just the US. Try to go sue France because of some grievence you have with them or any other country. You'll find they all have that soveign right. Thats why you have to sue for peace to officialy end any declared war. The two parties have to agree to hear terms and make an agreement from the surrendering party to the victor.

Zindo



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


I understand the need for a government to be immune to certain kinds of suits. But to say that laws established and virtually rammed down our throats, like the DCMA, were legal weapons granted to corporations.

The corporations enjoyed the support and even assistance of the 'government' in their pursuit of the criminals who were impinging on their profit. Yet the government's conduct in this case was precisely what the law was meant to prevent. In what light are we to accept that intellectual property is an irrelevance in regards to operational expedience, yet the citizen behaving similarly, using the same rationale, is a criminal?

There is a logic disconnect here. The spirit of the law is not meant to be invalidated by circular logic to invoke impunity. Was there an admission of guilt, no? They are telling us the government 'will not allow' itself to be charged for the crime. Is this really acceptable in terms of juris prudence or are we no longer to assume the government can be held accountable for any actions it takes?



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
... Thats why you have to sue for peace to officialy end any declared war. The two parties have to agree to hear terms and make an agreement from the surrendering party to the victor.

Zindo

That makes sense for war but it must have made sense to detail this to protect the rights of "small fries" from abuse of this kind. At least maybe we can see the need for better clarification now.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I agree with both of you, Its wrong on so many planes, but unless we all become 'One Worlders' and hold hands and sing Cum ba ya, we have to deal with the protections that soverign nations have made for themselves. Most times these laws work for the best of all. Many times they do not!!!

Zindo



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
I agree with both of you, Its wrong on so many planes, but unless we all become 'One Worlders' and hold hands and sing Cum ba ya, we have to deal with the protections that soverign nations have made for themselves. Most times these laws work for the best of all. Many times they do not!!!

Zindo


I bow to your wisdom. I have given it some thought and agree, the law itself is not the problem. Even the government, in and of itself, is not the problem. Its the moronic executors of the parties' will that gets us into these legal schisms.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join