Insurance Requirement - Court Upholds Obama's Health Mandate

Thursday, June 30, 2011 03:07 AM
By Jack Torry

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court in Cincinnati handed President Barack Obama a major victory yesterday when a Democrat-appointed judge and a Republican-appointed judge combined to uphold last year's controversial health-care law.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...rt-upholds-obamas-health-mandate.html?sid=101

 

lol - I think I'm more curious as to the rule violation...

 

You cannot copy and paste pages worth of data. That is a copyright violation.

Read more: Coin Talk Rules

 

I guessed right then lol

 

Holy crap! The lobbyists must not have cut a check to those guys yet.

 

Um... rlm? ...not meaning to say "gotcha"... but copying comments made from this site to your computer would qualify as an illegal act under the law wouldn't it? That said, feel free to copy anything I say, I don't mind.

Another point I'd like to make concerning the legality of copying material is the exclusions for commentary or critiques. As I understand it, a small portion may be copied and commented on, for the purpose of providing people who haven't read the original writings a summary of the writing in question. As I understand the current debate/actions on this site, the idea is to limit the copying to what is necessary to make you point, and to avoid the copying of unnecessarily large, or entire, portions of the writing.

This has been the standard for as long as I can remember. But like all laws, there are loopholes and exclusions, and are always subject to interpretation. That said, thanks for the link... but I've already read it several times when I joined.

 

UHMMM, those are not my rules. They are actually federal law, or a close approximation thereof.

Secondly, there is no debate/action. Peter owns the site and those are his rules. Period! End of story!

As for copying it to you desk top, that may be legal so long as that is as far as it goes. I am not the expert. The best expert I know is Doug. Try asking him.

 

Again, not trying to play the gotcha game, I was just making a point. I'm not saying they're your rules, or that this site's rules are any different than the law of the land, only that, technically, any copying is illegal... though there are exceptions.

I wasn't going to say anything about it at all... but I (obviously) decided it needed to be said, both for your comments after I mentioned I don't care about laws (though obviously I follow SOME lol) and your recent comment about saving people's posts. The point I was trying to make is that everyone eventually breaks a law in their life, and it's ok... welcome to humanity lol

 

Again, playing your "gotcha game", your interpretation of the law would mean that any looking at the internet would violate the copyright laws. Interesting conclusion, huh? (Before you ask, try thinking about how your computer really works.) Not only that, but having a CD, magazine, or book in your possession would violate your law. Now I have heard of some impractical laws/regulations, but you interpretation of that one takes the cake.

 

Not sure how you got "looking at the internet" (as an illegal act) out of what I wrote. The discussion is about copying information, not how it's read or the media is was obtained from. As I understand it, the laws are applied the same (with exceptions I'm sure) for all media, newspapers, books, magazines, TV, music, movies, internet, cell phone, etc.

Don't take it too personal, I'm not trying to rub your nose in it... just trying to make you understand that most laws allow for exceptions, and that, whether they know it or not, most people (if not all) are guilty of breaking a law sometime in their life. It's unavoidable, since laws are usually flawed and obsolete within a few decades. They say more about the era they were created in, and the people who wrote them, then they do about society as a whole.

 

Because in order to view it, your computer actually copies the info and stores it. I try not to pay any attention to the Anthony case, but one of the supposed pieces of evidence is that she searched for chloroform. How do you think they found that? DAH! Because it was stored on her computer.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no exceptions as to what is covered. They are your misinterpretations of the law. The mere fact that you are able to view this or any internet page means that the owner has granted you permission to view its contents and, baring specific stated exceptions, use its contents for whatever use you deem to. However, the law prohibits you from distributing it or otherwise profiting from it without the express written permission of the owner. It is like a book. When you buy the book, that copy is yours, but you are prohibited from further distributing any more copies

 

What a computer does in order to view material is different than what the user does with that material. That is part of the exceptions allowed under the law. Without those exceptions the writer would not be able to have people read the material. But you know that. I'm wondering why you think I wouldn't. A pointless argument really, as it evades the issue I was addressing, which was someone copying information, not something.

I'd agree, but I'm not arguing those points, though you are wrong about the need for profit to be involved.

 

There is no difference between you copying something and you computer copying something. A copy is a copy is a copy.

If you actually read what I wrote, the is nothing that so much as implied a need for profit. "or otherwise profiting from it" is there to cover whatever else you may come up with to do with the copyrighted material

 

I disagree, but that horse is beaten to death so I will not argue it further.

That is a somewhat condescending remark, to suggest that I haven't read what you wrote, or that I am unable to understand it. However, the rest of your statement above IS a little confusing to me.... but only for the haphazard structure of the sentence you wrote. I believe I understand the point you were trying to make and will leave it at that.

As it stands, I will agree to disagree if you will.