how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
2969 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to ISurfTooMuch
Re: 3 strikes enforcement voluntary but for common good said by ISurfTooMuch:No, if you are photographed by one of those cameras, you are mailed a citation, and, if you like, you can go to court to fight the ticket. How is this different that a cop handing you the ticket? Here's the difference. True story.
I get a license suspension notice in the mail. I track it down to a Beaverton Police Department photo-radar ticket earned by my 27-year-old daughter in her car (registered to me). I'm a 45-year-old man with a mustache and goatee and short red hair. She's got long blond hair, no facial hair, and is of the opposite sex.
Go I go down to court to plead, "not me" and the judge says that I look like the person in the picture, but I can have a trial and he'll call in the operator of the Photo Radar van for me to cross-examine (because somehow she has a superior ability to tell the difference??)!
Then I get called to go to another city for business which conflicts with that court date, so I submit my package in writing, go down there again on a Saturday because Monday was supposed to be the trial -- no drop box for weekend delivery and if I don't file the package by Monday, I can't submit in writing by court's rules.
I go back there on a Monday, get a new date and I submit my package anyway.
Hearing nothing on the package, I go back on the new date to learn from the clerk that my case has been dismissed. But now I have to go to the DMV with some paperwork and un-suspend my license (which hadn't taken effect yet but apparently would).
So I did that -- I get no receipt back for that delivery, I just have to hope that the right people got it. (I never got any confirmation from the court that my case was dismissed nor did I get anything from DMV that the license suspension was cancelled or lifted!)
Every step of the way was a hassle, there was no certainty to any of it.
Had a cop pulled her over, she would have received the ticket, instead. He also would have been able to weigh all the factors and apply something called "discretion" and given her the ticket if there was a safety factor or given her a warning if there was not one -- or if she was unlicensed or uninsured, the officer could have taken more appropriate action.
This is just lazy "surveillance-society" law enforcement and I'd prefer to keep human beings in charge of something so disruptive.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:No, if you are photographed by one of those cameras, you are mailed a citation, and, if you like, you can go to court to fight the ticket. How is this different that a cop handing you the ticket? i see the cameras as much different since a cop can make the decision to ticket or warn. they can also issue a ticket to the operator and not the owner. i have never gotten a nastygram from a camera but i still hold the opinion that cops are still better at traffic enforcement then a machine. the cop punches up your record on the car PC, sees you have a clean license for years. at that point he might decide that a good warning is suitable, where as someone with previous offenses he could issue a ticket knowing that warnings clearly havent worked.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | | |
|
| reply to hopeflicker
said by hopeflicker:How would **YOU** feel about having to pay a piracy tax if these clowns did pay off politicians to get this new form of extortion enacted? It isn't the clowns pushing the piracy tax. It is those defenders of piracy - the EFF that is pushing for that solution:
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···930.html
The EFF suggests RIAA support a "voluntary collective licensing regime" -- basically, a legal peer-to-peer network that'd let music fans pay a small monthly fee for the right to freely trade music. A survey conducted this summer found an overwhelming 80 percent of current peer-to-peer users would be interested in paying for such a system. If organized, it'd put a stamp of approval on a process that's going on anyway -- and, for an inconsequential individual fee of something like $5 a month, the industry would be able to pay rights-holders based on how much their music is being downloaded.
"The more people share, the more money goes to rights-holders," the EFF points out. "The more competition in P2P software, the more rapid the innovation and improvement. The more freedom for fans to upload what they care about, the deeper the catalog."
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | First, let's not conflate a voluntary fee with a tax.
Second, what we have now certainly isn't working, and this new plan just moves the jurist from the court to the ISP.
Third, what EFF is proposing is a model that is compatible with the current "download from iTunes" method, the older "buy the CD" method, the historic license with ASCAP/BMI method, and even the older "share with your friends" method.
Why are you against that?
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.—H. L. Mencken --
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
 hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by hopeflicker:How would **YOU** feel about having to pay a piracy tax if these clowns did pay off politicians to get this new form of extortion enacted? It isn't the clowns pushing the piracy tax. It is those defenders of piracy - the EFF that is pushing for that solution: » www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···930.htmlThe EFF suggests RIAA support a "voluntary collective licensing regime" -- basically, a legal peer-to-peer network that'd let music fans pay a small monthly fee for the right to freely trade music. A survey conducted this summer found an overwhelming 80 percent of current peer-to-peer users would be interested in paying for such a system. If organized, it'd put a stamp of approval on a process that's going on anyway -- and, for an inconsequential individual fee of something like $5 a month, the industry would be able to pay rights-holders based on how much their music is being downloaded.
"The more people share, the more money goes to rights-holders," the EFF points out. "The more competition in P2P software, the more rapid the innovation and improvement. The more freedom for fans to upload what they care about, the deeper the catalog." »www.portfolio.com/news-markets/t···Web-Guru
"Warner Music Group has tapped industry veteran Jim Griffin to spearhead a controversial plan to bundle a monthly fee into consumers' internet-service bills for unlimited access to music".
I'll ask again. How would **YOU** feel about having to pay a piracy tax if these clowns did pay off politicians to get this new form of extortion enacted?
--
There is no love untouched by hate
No unity without discord
There is no courage without fear
There is no peace without a war
There is no wisdom without regret
No admiration without scorn
| |
|
