I used 56 years & JFK for a very specific reason.
Do you not remember some of the most common attacks against JFK was precisely because of his being Catholic? Concerns of the Pope?
Seems to me, that the Republican party still thinks all 3 of those should disqualify you for the office of POTUS.
Not reading my bias into your argument, rather the bias of several of the newer conservative Judges that are probably going to say "**** it, I do what I want."
Can you point out where exactly the constitution defines what a Person is? Whether Embryonic Cells, or even a Fetus are a 'person'?
Clearly, you haven't been reading up on your conservative anti-choice game plan enacted across the country.
They're passing their Religious Law across the country in the hopes that the Supreme Court will rule in Favor of Christian Sharia Law.
Economic side of things yes, but you're forgetting that many artists don't personally profit from their works. (specially online). Many go the route of open licensing that allows anyone to use their work, so long as they acknowledge that they did the work. Effectively you're saying that if an artist doesn't seek to profit from their work, and you come along and steal it, That's fine. Because there was no economic harm.
And again, the laws have not been updated to reflect technology.
This is why I brought up a photo album.
It exists as a physical object in your home.
It is implied that photo album does not leave that house.
That I may view it and it's contents, but those contents do not leave that house without your express consent.
The fact that there exists technology, that I can simply scan the photos, or take pictures of those photos with the glasses I wear, and then distribute them, against your wishes is why said laws probably need to be updated to reflect technology. That perhaps it should be codified in law that personal pictures are private unless verbally or writtenly expressed otherwise?
In this scenario, you are showing me your private family photo album.
The fact that I could pull out a handheld scanner, scan them, and then proceed to upload them to the internet without even telling you I'm doing so. It is generally implied through social contract that a person won't effectively steal your photos without telling you the owner, what you're plans are with said photos. Just like If I were to show you artwork I painted, you take a picture of it, and then you proceed to post it online and act as if you were the original artist.
The legal validity of these practices are being discussed precisely because the laws of the land & the constitution haven't caught up with technology. They' barely help to protect artists from plagiarism, and they sure in the hell don't help individuals in-regards to privacy concerns.
"If you went to Photobucket, and started downloading artwork/pictures, and then tried selling/passing it off as your own, that's copyright infringement.
The only difference between that, and revenge porn is you're more likely to get caught distributing revenge porn... getting caught distributing it is kind of the point."
You are mixing two very different concepts. Copyright infringement is an economic right to the product of your sweat. You cannot "steal" my copyrighted material and make money of it in the same way you can not take the contents of my wallet. It's an economic right. A prviacy is a right to keep personal matters outside the perview of the public. Integral to the right of privacy is the notion that you have done nothing to endanger the private nature of such information. You cannot claim that a person who you gave access to such information is violating your privacy by deceminating such information unless you can show that the information was given with the proviso that it would not be further deceminated or used.
Dragonmount.com is a fan-maintained website dedicated to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time fantasy series. It is an online community of people from all over the world who have come here to experience the series to the fullest.