4 ms·

It would be cool to see this go second hand by a fan. A fan that could buy up all the copies at a bulk rate (say $2 for 1M copies) Then re-sell those at the ori

It would be cool to see this go second hand by a fan. A fan that could buy up all the copies at a bulk rate (say $2 for 1M copies) Then re-sell those at the original price. Since it's now a used book, that fan could donate the profit to the original author, whoever that is.

DataWorker 7y ago
I wouldn’t want to be that other guy. He might get disappeared via extraordinary rendition or rape allegationed into exile in some small embassy suite. No thanks!
buboard 7y ago
or someone from abroad could be buying them and sending copies to the US. kind of funny but would highlight the absurdity of the case
jedimastert 7y ago
I get the feeling that sending Edward Snowden a bunch of money would at least be cause for concern, if not actually illegal. I know "bitcoin" and all that, but if you're goal is to find some sort of legal loophole I don't think this is it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ne0flex 7y ago
Unfortunately, there was an Executive Order[1] signed by Obama in 2015 that "Blocks the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities". Section 2 states: "I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order." Where Snowden, or people similar to him, fall within the category of persons described within Section 1. [1]:https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...
- rhacker 7y ago
  EOs shouldn't be able affect that.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    Unfortunately, our inept Congress decided over the years to cede so much of their governing ability to the president. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding is that executive authority is quite vast and grows each year.
    - rhacker 7y ago
      I mean yeah, they might be able to arrest someone. The unfortunate aspect is that it is now up to the arrested person to tell the judge that they were arrested because of an executive order which only applies to the rules that govern federal agencies - and that they, and higher courts alone can overturn that order (or the act of arrest due to the order).
      - jethro_tell 7y ago
        Which is probably a blocker for a large number of people. That would very much mess with my family as I don't have anyone to help with my kids while I'm indisposed. It also makes it awkward for companies to accept donations on his behalf which will lessen access to many people. This stuff is never to block all transactions, it's to limit them to only a few and cut the flow substantially.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  With the Citizen’s United case being a thing, how is that even legal? The Supreme Court has ruled that donations are speech.
- sachdevap 7y ago
  Someone tell Trump that Obama signed that Executive Order. It will be struck right down.
mywittyname 7y ago
Found a company to sell the books under, found another company ostensibly owned by Snowden and domiciled in another country to operate as a shell. Grant the shell company special shares of the parent company entitling the shell company exclusive rights to dividends, and funnel profits through the American parent company, to the shell and into a bank account which distributes the proceeds to various accounts all of the world. The government is happy to enable such actions for the wealthy plutocrats of the world. So why not use such a loophole to undermine their ability sanction individuals.

DataWorker 7y ago

I wouldn’t want to be that other guy. He might get disappeared via extraordinary rendition or rape allegationed into exile in some small embassy suite. No thanks!

buboard 7y ago

or someone from abroad could be buying them and sending copies to the US. kind of funny but would highlight the absurdity of the case

jedimastert 7y ago

I get the feeling that sending Edward Snowden a bunch of money would at least be cause for concern, if not actually illegal. I know "bitcoin" and all that, but if you're goal is to find some sort of legal loophole I don't think this is it.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ne0flex 7y ago

Unfortunately, there was an Executive Order[1] signed by Obama in 2015 that "Blocks the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities". Section 2 states: "I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order." Where Snowden, or people similar to him, fall within the category of persons described within Section 1. [1]:https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...

rhacker 7y ago
EOs shouldn't be able affect that.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  Unfortunately, our inept Congress decided over the years to cede so much of their governing ability to the president. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding is that executive authority is quite vast and grows each year.
  - rhacker 7y ago
    I mean yeah, they might be able to arrest someone. The unfortunate aspect is that it is now up to the arrested person to tell the judge that they were arrested because of an executive order which only applies to the rules that govern federal agencies - and that they, and higher courts alone can overturn that order (or the act of arrest due to the order).
    - jethro_tell 7y ago
      Which is probably a blocker for a large number of people. That would very much mess with my family as I don't have anyone to help with my kids while I'm indisposed. It also makes it awkward for companies to accept donations on his behalf which will lessen access to many people. This stuff is never to block all transactions, it's to limit them to only a few and cut the flow substantially.
colejohnson66 7y ago
With the Citizen’s United case being a thing, how is that even legal? The Supreme Court has ruled that donations are speech.
sachdevap 7y ago
Someone tell Trump that Obama signed that Executive Order. It will be struck right down.

mywittyname 7y ago

Found a company to sell the books under, found another company ostensibly owned by Snowden and domiciled in another country to operate as a shell. Grant the shell company special shares of the parent company entitling the shell company exclusive rights to dividends, and funnel profits through the American parent company, to the shell and into a bank account which distributes the proceeds to various accounts all of the world. The government is happy to enable such actions for the wealthy plutocrats of the world. So why not use such a loophole to undermine their ability sanction individuals.