On CBS MoneyWatch: 11 Buzzwords That Should Be Banned
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 38 of 43:
Next »
« Previous
Money Opposes Merit
It costs money to hire an attorney to pursue a copyright infringement case. Those who substantially innovate typically invest in ability, not corruption. Those who acquire substantial monetary wealth typically invest in corruption, not ability. It makes perfect sense to me that the legal system is such that you need the money you likely don't have to pursue a court case against a money-monger who stole your work. The United States is based on the funny-money-rich robbing the funny-money-poor of everything and anything they please. If equitable legal protection was afforded to all citizens, this would not be a problem. But instead, the rich rig the courts so they can get away with crime against the poor to keep themselves rich and to keep the poor poor. It should be illegal to render any form of payment (or exertion whatsoever) to pursue legal services. Since effective legal services are essential to financial survival in America, and there is no survival more important than financial survival here, it should be an inaliable right to have a standardized legal counsel available to you at absolutely no charge. It's a crime for an attorney to charge their client for their services in any way. But the born-rich wouldn't want to legislatively let that be understood. They'd rather continue committing crimes against the poor to survive at everybody else's cost.
Posted by: bcroner   Posted on: 03/14/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

"Directly"  Jack-Booted EULA | 03/13/07
Directly means  No_Ax_to_Grind | 03/13/07
Does that include  Jack-Booted EULA | 03/13/07
no...  Stuka | 03/13/07
The courts disagree with you.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 03/13/07
Different case  voska | 03/14/07
But there's a difference.  Henaway | 03/14/07
True, but not the same  jc williams | 03/14/07
Sorry - directly MEANS directly  macbill | 03/14/07
Should be fun to watch  tic swayback | 03/13/07
agreed, absolutely!!  mdsmedia | 03/13/07
Only if I get to write the new one.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 03/13/07
Oh great  tic swayback | 03/14/07
Yeah, right....  Henrik Moller | 03/13/07
YouTube's fate rests on decade-old copyright law  Loverock Davidson | 03/13/07
yeah, good one Lovey  mdsmedia | 03/13/07
The Literal interpretation of the DMCA...  mdsmedia | 03/13/07
Once YouTube goes, the house of cards will hopefully follow  Scrat | 03/14/07
Cards like...  tic swayback | 03/14/07
I don't want YOUR internet!  macbill | 03/14/07
There will be no winners.  Raymond Danner | 03/14/07
Umm...it's a matter of time before - - -  Zolar | 03/14/07
Forgot - about the old music  Zolar | 03/14/07
Hit the nail on the head ...  Henaway | 03/14/07
Who should do the police work?  golfnutzgg@... | 03/14/07
By The Same Token  Mr_Wizard | 03/14/07
Tracking would satisfy  plutes | 03/14/07
Sooner or later.and it might be now...  epcraig | 03/14/07
There's no doubt about that  macbill | 03/14/07
I respectfully disagree.  Raymond Danner | 03/14/07
DMCA was never a good law  jdubow@... | 03/14/07
Unbalanced laws, infinite copyright...  Raymond Danner | 03/14/07
If only the DMCA was "nearly antique"...  Resuna | 03/14/07
How is this different?  steeleweed | 03/14/07
It's all short-sighted...  chas_2 | 03/14/07
Our Cultural Heritage is at Stake here  YellowbirdTwo | 03/14/07
I concur  sgo7 | 03/14/07
Money Opposes Merit  bcroner | 03/14/07
Here's a chance for Google to prove its non-evilness  plutes | 03/14/07
It really boggles the mind....  staygroovy | 03/15/07
YouTube charging?  billschwenke@... | 03/15/07
Viacom vs YouTube  PCH #1 | 03/15/07
The laws need fixing, and not just for companies  Boot_Agnostic | 03/24/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here