Slashdot Mirror

I'm not actively disagreeing with you, but your reading of the 10th Amendment is expressly contradictory of the way courts have read it. For most of the Modern Jurisprudential (post-Lochner) Era, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 10th Amendment has been the following:

The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.

United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

Thus in effect the 10th Amendment is a nullity in terms of its scope and power. There have been attempts to revive the 10th Amendment as a restriction on the Commerce Power--some as recently at the 1970s--but the Court has been quite divided over whether it wants to do this. There's some interesting reading on the subject here.

Barack Obama and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments

The ACLU agrees that there is no criminal immunity, and while this fact had been largely overlooked, Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson said this point had been mentioned in passing in both the House and Senate during the debate. With a little more digging, I found that the sponsors, as well as the Bush Administration, also understand that there is no immunity in the House-passed bill from criminal prosecutions for violations by anyone.

Another poster's link notes that this bill does not contain actual criminal immunity for telecoms or anybody else for that matter. It gives immunity from civil suits to telecoms, which while it still sucks, civil suits would not dissuade telecoms from wiretapping anyway.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080702.html

Barack Obama and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments

The ACLU agrees that there is no criminal immunity, and while this fact had been largely overlooked, Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson said this point had been mentioned in passing in both the House and Senate during the debate. With a little more digging, I found that the sponsors, as well as the Bush Administration, also understand that there is no immunity in the House-passed bill from criminal prosecutions for violations by anyone.

Read more than the press articles & the roll call.

Barack Obama and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments

The ACLU agrees that there is no criminal immunity, and while this fact had been largely overlooked, Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson said this point had been mentioned in passing in both the House and Senate during the debate. With a little more digging, I found that the sponsors, as well as the Bush Administration, also understand that there is no immunity in the House-passed bill from criminal prosecutions for violations by anyone.

In between reading the legislation (which none of you will do) and reading only the summary, you might consider reading some analysis of this by someone who Is A Lawyer:

Dean explains why current legislation regarding FISA would not hamper the next president's ability to push forward with criminal charges; cites the position regarding possible criminal charges that Obama had previously voiced; and describes the pardon dilemma with which President Bush may be faced if Obama continues to adhere to that position.

Article here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080702.html

The fairness doctrine doesn't censor anything.

The 1984 Supreme Court disagrees with you. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=468&invol=364

You appear to be ignorant of the principle of implied consent

It is not "Stealing" nor "Theft of services" nor "Unauthorized use of a computer" nor "Computer trespass" according to New York Law, for one example.

Perhaps you'd like a scholarly article on why we should not make your assumptions (and get indignant about it, I might add) from George Washington University - Law School

In fact, I had already given you examples of use which are not stealing, and you are choosing to ignore them so you can't redundantly say stealing is stealing. On the off chance that you blacked out, the examples were anonymous FTP and a web server sharing files. P2P is another situation where you could be sharing files by mistake, but it's reasonable to assume that it is not by mistake - and downloaders use more of your computer resources than someone sending data through your router.

It takes all of one minute to turn on security. You do *not* have to be a hacker - what a canard that is. I won't claim that there isn't anyone who wouldn't be able to do it, but society cannot always limit itself to what the least of us can do. There is no victim in this scenario, just someone who has shared their network, so deserve has nothing to do with it. I was merely suggesting that being lazy and ignorant usually means you are to blame when you do something you did not intend.

Enough of your feeble attempts to claim I will take other people's physical property if it's not bolted down. You are obviously having trouble recognizing the difference between a car parked in your garage and a service that you are broadcasting onto my property which advertises itself as non-private and explicitly authorizes me to join the network.

Is it possible that reasonable people can reach this conclusion? Or am I the only asocial moron with a toddler's mentality?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060227-6272.html
http://www.dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2006/02/26/20060226-H2-03.html
http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_its_ok_to_steal_wi_fi
http://zovirl.com/2006/07/27/you-cant-steal-wifi/
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1179938755.shtml

You may not agree, but you should not continue to pretend that all people who hold this view think it's OK to steal. Try to learn that much.

OK, the site has an "about" page with a Toronto address, and an address for a US office:

269 S. Beverly Drive, #1070
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

This turns out to be Beverly Hills Postal Place, a mail drop. It's in California, so they're subject to California law.

California has a right of publicity law: (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.... Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney's fees and costs.

That seems to apply here.

Small claims court would seem to be appropriate. Once you file a suit, you can send a subpoena to the mail drop company to get the actual name and address of the box owner.

"JLove" is supposedly a unit of "Only Media Group LLC" in Toronto, but neither JLove nor Only Media are listed with California corporation search or Dun and Bradstreet for the US or Canada. But a contact page for JLove affiliates leads to "Billing Provided By: Only Media UK LTD, 7 Petworth Road, Haslemere, Surrey, GU272JB". That doesn't match the address filed with Companies House (UK), but that address is an accountant and is also the contact for other companies. The address in Surrey leads to a secondhand furniture shop.

"Now, I'm not suggesting that you commit credit card fraud with captured numbers, but you could submit those credit card numbers to a newsgroup on the net read by people that would be more than happy to commit the fraud for you." ... making him an accessory, at least. Probably aiding and abetting.

"A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy."

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/aiding_abetting_accessory.html

IANAL but I wouldn't want to test this.

Surely if you've done nothing wrong, then you've got nothing to hide.

Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom: The Case Against Expanding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Powers.

Falcon

If anybody wants to call to make their opinion known to Hon. Louis L. Stanton, his office can be reached through :

Daniel Patick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St., Room 2250
New York, NY 10007
tel.:(0212)805-0252
fax: (212) 805-0389

( data from FindLaw.com

if someone has an email address .. jsut post it here. He definitely said that private information are worthless anyway

That's simply not true. The illegimate goods part of the case would, in all likelihood be equally upheld. Breach of trademark is breach of trademark, and ebay are facilitating this.

The problem with the legitimate goods on sale on ebay.fr is that they're grey market goods -- reimported against the condition of export sales. And the US Supreme Court has already refused to rule on whether non-US-manufactured copyrighted goods (which these are, as the logos are both trademarked and copyrighted) imported into the US as grey market goods are subject to the doctrine of first sale (QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. L'ANZA RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, INC.)

Note also, that the before appeal District Court denied the first sale doctrine in all such cases, so a ruling just like this one has ALREADY been made in the US Court, but struck down on appeal.

You might want to read up on merchantability, implied warranty, and fitness for use. These legal concepts apply to cars and other tangible goods but not to software. They should.

Theodore Frank, director of the Legal Center for the Public Interest at the American Enterprise Institute, believes that the lack of claimants proves that the case was meritless from the beginning. He submits that this lack of response proves that the plaintiffs claims were overblown, and as a consequence the suit may be deemed meritless and the lawyers who tried the case will not be able to collect their $1.3 million in legal fees they are demanding from Take-Two. Speaking to the New York Times, Frank says:

"There are two possibilities. Possibility one is they have a meritorious lawsuit and theyre selling out the class for attorneys fees. The other possibility is that, and frankly I think this is the more likely possibility, they brought a meritless lawsuit that had no business being brought to court at all."

Because I'm not a lawyer trying this case, and my only interest in this case is as a citizen who values my right to decide for myself what to consider indecent, I have no need to be as delicate as Mr. Frank. Of course it's "a meritless lawsuit that had no business being brought to court at all." The Supreme Court's own previous opinions on obscenity have no business being brought to court at all. Consider the lack of claimants in the GTA case in lieu of a formal survey of that community's standards. The court's incorrect estimate of that community's standards illustrates vividly that offering "community standards" instead of objectively defining what may be considered legally prohibited obscenity and what cannot be excluded from the First Amendment protection of free speech, is nothing better than a cop-out, and provides little or no value as precedent for subsequent judgements. To apply that "precedent" honestly would require a community survey for every obscenity case ever brought to court. Obviously, "community standards" do not provide a sufficient definition, in purely pragmatic terms, to have any positive value for purpose of upholding the rule of law. Laws are objective. Malleable statutes mean rule by fiat.

http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html

The definition of obscenity set forth in Roth was:

Speech which " . . . to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest" and which is "utterly without redeeming social importance..."

Customers who are not so offended that they demand a full refund and willingly return their copy of the game are entitled to no compensation whatsoever for their offense. Whatever judge ruled that customers have the right to keep their game and receive punitive damages for having been offended by a work that they intend to keep should be disbarred.

Not necessarily. See Stevens v Publicis S.A. (also here), in which a New York court found that a series of emails was sufficient to modify an employment contract. The court said that the parties sigs "constitute[d] 'signed writings' within the meaning of the statute of frauds" because they signified an "intent to authenticate the contents."

Here's the Supreme Court case that affirmed the USA's long standing border search practices
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=473&invol=531

Being a strict Constitutionalist isn't all that useful if you don't know what the Supreme Court has decided over the years or if you don't propose alternative ways to accomplish the results of those decisions.

Title III of the wiretapping law "Title III authorizes only a court of "competent jurisdiction" to issue wiretap orders. The term is defined as a "court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State who is authorized by a statute of that State" to issue wiretap orders" (Reference: http://pd.co.la.ca.us/overv.htm)

Ok, lets do this slowly.. When ever you are attempting to quote context of a law, it is imperative that you look at the actual law instead of somebodies rendition of it. Perhaps you couldn't find it because it is Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and not the wiretapping law (I know, I looked for the wiretapping act once too). Here is the relevant subsection describing the procedures to get a warrant. Please take a good look at section 7 where is says (paraphrasing) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, If certain conditions are true or believed to be true, a law enforcement may intercept such wire, oral, or electronic communication if an application for an order approving the interception is made in accordance with this section within forty-eight hours after the interception has occurred, or begins to occur.

This clearly states that a wire tap can happen without a warrant. Granted If a warrant isn't present or applied for within 48 hours then the information cannot be used against the person. But it is clear enough that if the communications result in something usable, a Warrant can be sought after the fact as well as the cops could use any information to pursue other leads.

FISA, if I recall requires a FISA court to issue the order. Besides that, not al parts of the FISA bill are even constitutional.

FISA doesn't require a warrant when the other person is not a US citizen or in US jurisdiction. That part has always been open to the president. But I'm wondering what is unconstitutional about it. In 2002 the FISC review court ruled that it was constitutional and the patriot act was too. It lists many other cases in it's order including the famous Kieth case which the supreme court holds it as constitutional saying that it is the nature of the threat, not the nature of the government's response to the threat, that determines the constitutionality of national security surveillance.

In a sealed case under review by the same court, It mentions "The Truong court, as
did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent
authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information"

Both cases are an interesting read. You should at least check them out.

As for constitutional protection of non-citizens, you are correct that citizens are granted more protection than non-citizens, but MANY sites, including the ACLU website, among others, clearly state that the Bill of Rights applies to anyone within the borders of the United States

I don't go off of what other sites say when there is a good deal of question over the legitimacy of things. I look for the language in court decisions on the subject at hand. For instance, the courts have ruled that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to special law enforcement needs like searched at the borders because the need to secure the border out ways the protections. There are other cases too. For a non-citizen legally in the country, a good majority of the right apply because they don't give your right but restrict the government from infringing on them. However, non-citizens in the country illegally don't have that favor. Well until recently when the supreme court ruled in opposition of itself on Samson Dada but if you read the opinion, dissentin

What kind of checks and balances in a Republic is that?

Unlike a democracy a republic does not require checks and balances. All a republic requires is "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch". A dictatorship can very well be, and most likely is, a republic.

This kills all of the lawsuits by quaffing each suit prior to the discovery process.

Only until the US Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. Now whether they would or not is up in the air. The current court has rubber stamped some of what the Bush admin wants to do but has barred others. The recent court ruling upholding habeas corpus for instance was a 5 to 4 ruling. However the Gonzales v. Raich ruling, the case about states rights and California voters approving medical marijuana, was 6 to 3 against states rights, without giving any logic based on the USA Constitution for the ruling.

>Then why doesn't anyone call him on his bullshit when he tries to pull the "Executive Privilege" line?

He has not, actually, done this. Quite the opposite. He consistently refused to invoke executive privilege.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040702.html

So where are you going with this?

Fair use is (1) a legal defence in a copyright violation case, not a right;

From Wiki:
"The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107".

From the US Copyright Office:
"Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law."

That summarizes section 107. And 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. Here's Standford University Library's Copyright and Fair Use section, with court cases.

So long as only a small part of an article is used it is covered by Fair Use. For more here's what Findlaw has to say, including When Copying is Okay.

Fair use is (1) a legal defence in a copyright violation case, not a right;

From Wiki:
"The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107".

From the US Copyright Office:
"Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law."

That summarizes section 107. And 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. Here's Standford University Library's Copyright and Fair Use section, with court cases.

So long as only a small part of an article is used it is covered by Fair Use. For more here's what Findlaw has to say, including When Copying is Okay.

I don't think you understand what patents are and how they work.

There are 3 types of patents:

Utility Patent - protects the way that your "invention" is used and works. Your "invention" does not have to be a machine or something tangible. It can be a business method or a process of doing something. For example, you can patent a method for making a pepperoni pizza so long as your method is novel. You did not have to have invented pepperoni pizza.

Design Patent - protects the way something looks. I'm not 100% clear on this but I assume that this is different from copyright law in that it can cover the ornamental appearance of a tangible invention. To make further use of my pepperoni pizza example, you could file a design patent on the way your pizza looks so long as no other pepperoni pizzas invented prior looks the same etc. I'm sure that car companies get design patents all the time on the appearances of their vehicles.

Planet Patent - government grant given to people who discover or invent new asexually reproducing plants and lasts for 20 years. Very simplified explanation, read more at http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/patent/patent-types/plant-patents.html if you're interested.

From what I gathered from the GP (I'm going by my interpretation of what he said, I'm not familiar with the patents themselves), the case in question was a patent on a METHOD for using specific gene sequences in a form of therapy. They weren't patenting the DNA itself.

Not at the moment, but TFA indicates that the movie studios are considering some type of high-definition pay-per-view service in advance of DVD release. It's this hypothetical window that they're trying to protect here.

No one would benefit more from a trend to home theaters than the studios. Selling their product directly to viewers squeezes out the networks and other program distributors on the one hand, and the theater owners on the other. The studios hate having to sell their product through distributors, so direct-to-home delivery is a dream come true. (At one time some studios owned their own theaters, but they were forced to divest them on antitrust grounds by the Supreme Court in 1948.)

I'd still pay to see Indiana Jones and its ilk on a lovely wide screen as we did just recently, but there are lots of films that don't require the big-screen treatment. I doubt we'll lose theaters entirely as they provide a social function as well as a method of distributing programming. I doubt we'll see television networks disappear any time soon either. But the allure of direct-to-home programming will continue to attract the studios' attention in the years to come.

Many places require that "No Trespassing" or similar signs be posted, but that is not a universal requirement. In many cases, fences, or even just a chain across a road can be as good or better than "No Trespassing" signs.

http://public.findlaw.com/http//realestate.findlaw.com/trespassing/select-state-laws-on-trespassing.html

Not really. The music industry has pretty much tested, since its very inception, the outer bounds of what the legal system would allow.

The whole idea of "licensing" or "leasing" music rather than selling it isn't a new one. The Victrola Company attempted all sorts of shenanigans with its records, including invalidating your right to play the record if you bought it for less than $1 (that's from 1906!). They attempted to back this up not only with contract law, but with patents as well. Their attempts at price-fixing via this method, both on records but even more significantly on machines, went all the way to the Supreme Court ("STRAUS v. VICTOR TALKING MACH. CO. , 243 U.S. 490").

So this is really nothing new at all. It's just the music industry playing screw-the-consumer in the same manner they have always done.

All licensing is really is allowing one party to perform the acts prohibited by the copyright monopoly of another. There's an exception in copyright law for the owner of copy of the software to make use of the software by copying into ram to run the program, but that doesn't automatically apply when the software is licensed instead of sold. If you didn't purchase and didn't license a piece of software for instance, you would be violating copyright just by copying it into memory by executing it. I think I found the case I was thinking of, TRIAD SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. SOUTHEASTERN EXPRESS COMPANY.

1. an elected member of US Congress, and
2. in possession of relevant facts, and
3. willing to step-up and present the facts, to

Look, this is hardly the correct thread for arguing this particular issue, but the long and short of it is that your information is wrong. Start here:

First and foremost, you need to go back to the ruling as a whole, rather than just snipping the particular sound-bites you think agree with your proposal.

Secondly, you need to stop getting your information on taxes from tax resistance organizations. There's a reason Kent Hovind is in jail, you know--and it's not because he was "kidnapped." He broke the law.

Lastly--and most fundamentally, if you're a Christian--you would do well to consider Matthew 22:15-22, especially in conjunction with Rom 13:1-7. At no point does your scripture make allowances for whether or not a tax imposed by Caesar is "legal," or "fair"--your Bible simply says "Pay it, or suffer the consequences."

which is why I carry defensive weapons

with a bit of planning you can avoid orders of magnitude more than without.

restricting guns is a step that can reduce violent crime rates, and...is successful on average... when numbers don't lie (only statistics do...) and the numbers do say that restricting access to guns tends to decrease violent crime rates.

You're right that some criminals will always have access to guns. But this is focussing on a small piece of the puzzle...

I rather doubt you have any experience in planning, organising or executing an insurgency

the government in the US (and most Western countries) keeps an extremely tight grip on explosives

Do you seriously believe that any insurgency in any Western country has a serious chance of success? If you do, then we may as well argue that instead, because it is pretty obvious to me that the answer is no; it has zero chance of success

most of the serious gun users are also bred to be strongly nationalistic and jingoistic, and all it takes is a right-wing government to come to power to make them happy. I did say most.

"Signed" includes using any symbol executed or adopted with present intention to adopt or accept a writing.

Oops, replied to the wrong comment. For anyone interested, here's a relevant (and fairly extensive) FindLaw dissertation discussing the legal precedents for signatures of all sorts.

Sorry for the AC, can't log in from work. Here's a relevant dissertation at FindLaw regarding the legal definition and requirements of a signature.

Wouldn't we (and the spiders) have more fun if we linked them properly? :)

MediaDefender:
MediaDefender
MediaDefender
MediaDefender
president: try president, president,
ceo: try MediaDefender (personal), president or president
controller: try: controller, controller

parent company: artistdirect (stock ticker: ARTD)
Investor relations: Investor relations
Chairman: Chairman
CEO: try CEO, CEO

Auditors: Gumbiner, Savett, Finkel, Fingleson & Rose, Inc
rgreene@gscpa.com (Ronald Greene) http://marketcenter.findlaw.com/scripts/display_profile.pl?id=173844

Executive Vice President Ronald Greene is in his thirtieth year of providing litigation support services
...
Mr. Greene has sub-specialities in the food, wine and music industries.

Have fun

parent company: artistdirect (stock ticker: ARTD)
Investor relations: ir@artistdirect.com
Chairman: diamond@artistdirect.com
CEO: try villard@artistdirect.com, dv@artistdirect.com

Auditors: Gumbiner, Savett, Finkel, Fingleson & Rose, Inc
rgreene@gscpa.com (Ronald Greene) http://marketcenter.findlaw.com/scripts/display_profile.pl?id=173844

Executive Vice President Ronald Greene is in his thirtieth year of providing litigation support services
...
Mr. Greene has sub-specialities in the food, wine and music industries.

Have fun.

Note that in 1919 the 18th amendment was required to achieve the same effect with alcohol.

Tell me; how many
Official Abu Ghraib Interrogators' Model
Chemical Light Sticks of GOP Enlightenment ®
need be properly inserted deep up where the sun don't shine by an accredited Bush Man Date each day to keep your mind's eye so sharp?

You did not even visit the proffered link, did you? It was a video in which the first part is Senator Levin questioning Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, February 27, 2008:

Sen. Levin:Do you believe that water boarding is consistent with common article 3 of The Geneva Conventions?

Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples: No Sir, I don't.

Sen. Levin: Do you believe it's humane?

Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples: No Sir, I think it would go beyond that.

It's obvious that you're a Card Carrying Member from The Party of The Public Potty-Peepers, whose closeted name for the interrogatory methodology of forceful sodomy with a blunt instrument is: "Compassionate Conservatism".

Equivocating coward, bloated up full of hot-air like a rutting slime-toad, and croaking false bravado. Even in the exceedingly unlikely event that you could stand to have water forced into your lungs repeatedly; We Have Ways To Deal With Tough-Boys. We'll just switch over to the Bybee Torture Memo protocols, that narrowly define torture as; "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function". Now bring me a dull hand ax, I do believe that the loss of a pinkie finger's first digit is allowed; it won't kill you; it's not an organ, and you can teach yourself new methods of manual dexterity, so no permanent loss either. If that fails, we'll switch over to the Yoo Catch 22, that defines torture as a violation of the 8th Amendment's "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" clause, and then disavows the detainees' possession of their 8th Amendment right; therefore they can not be tortured. Now bring me the tin snips, and we'll go for the family jewels.

Waterboarding is torture. It is inhumane and Un-American. The bar against cruel and unusual punishment is a Human Natural right, not bounded by citizenry, and these detainees are being held by the U.S. Government as criminal actors, without having been tried and convicted in a legitimate tribunal that adheres to due process of law. They are being held by only the word of The Connecticut cowboy, in his 38qt hat, Inbred Spawn of a Carpet-Bagging Family, whose ancestral home is Kennwefukdapoor, Maine. The man who was tasked with America's defense, and asleep at the wheel on September 11, 2001. The man who listened to his repressed Oedipal desires, and turned America's military away from the righteous fight, against our real enemy at Tora Bora in December 2001, when we had the bastards dead in our sights, and could have taken them to ground then and there as the rabid dogs that they are. A man who, all the while falsely preaching his devotion to democratic processes world-wide, played pocket Pool with the Pakistani Military dictator, Pervez Musharraf, slept with Uzbekistan's kleptocrat, Islam "Butcher of Andijon" Karimov, and let a Saudi Prince slip him the tongue deep in the heart of Middling, Texas, at his Crawford ranch.

So c'mon on back, boy; I'm anxious to hear just what the Is_Lamo_Fashionists' "I wannabe a Bauery Boy Too" excuse of the Week is.

Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.

HA! revisionist history!

the World Wildlife Federation sued the World Wrestling Federation not the other way around, This however, is shockingly on topic.

The WWF (as in wrestling) was actually allowed to use the mark for certain uses, they got in trouble when they attached it to merchandise (commercial exploitation) Heres a link to the contract between the two WWF's http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/wwf/worldwildlife.1997.01.20.html WARNING: actual contract text, lots of legalese

This is actually the reverse problem, the charity is now exploiting the mark J&J own, yes its J&J's since 1887. It took an act of congress to let the ARC use the emblem. Despite this both companies have a history of cooperating, even to the point of sending legal briefs together to third parties using the mark, J&J asserting their trade mark and the ARC quoting 18 U.S.C. 706, which prohibited use of "the emblem of the Greek red cross on a white ground, or any sign or insignia made or colored in imitation thereof " by anyone other than "the American National Red Cross and its duly authorized employees and agents and the sanitary and hospital authorities of the armed forces of the United States." J&J retained their trademark thanks to a grandfather clause; "This section shall not make unlawful the use of any such emblem, sign, insignia or words which was lawful on the date of enactment of this title."

Now the ARC is letting other commercial entities who are in direct competition with J&J use the mark on their own product, and are excusing it by saying that they are raising money for a charity. The really funny part is that its not just a trademark case the same law that protects the red cross, 18 U.S.C. 706, prohibits the use of the mark by anyone else, the red cross doesn't have the legal power to licence that mark to anyone.

I can feel the karma burn from siding with the big bad corporation here but I gotta say, if I was in J&J's position I'd have sued too.

How can a company with 4% of the market be bound by anti-trust laws?

Read up on the Kodak case. Kodak tried to keep third-party maintenance firms from buying Kodak repair parts. The monopoly was defined as being in spare parts for Kodak copiers, not the entire copier market. That went to the Supreme Court, and Kodak lost.

Knox lawyer argued "'lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area'" [as defined in the child porn statute] meant that the girls had to be nude - wearing clothing meant that that genitals and pubic area were clearly not exhibited. The Court disagreed and held that there was no nudity requirement in the statute: "the statutory term "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," as used in 18 U.S.C. - 2256(2)(E), does not contain any requirement that the child subject's genitals or pubic area be fully or partially exposed or discernible through his or her opaque clothing."

Several speakers at an L.A. police seminar I attended a few years back laughingly admitted that the largest collection of child porn in the country is in the hands of cops, who edit and publish it in sting operations. There is at most, they say, a small cottage industry among civilians in which pictures (most of them vintage) are traded.

The truth is that true research in this area is impossible, given that it's illegal to look at anything that is or might be child pornography. As a result, nobody knows exactly what child pornography is, what forms it takes, where it is, how much of it exists -- or even if it exists. We seem happy that nobody knows: That way we can take our fantasies, project them onto phantom demons (the child pornographers) and feel righteous.

California has a similar law, Civil Code section 3344. This covers "publicity rights". Each person's "publicity right" in recognizable images of themself is by law worth at least $750, if used in any manner related to advertising or selling. If you're famous, the price goes up, to cover "actual damages".

So if you're in California and recognizable in Google StreetView, you could put in a claim. It's not worth it unless you're a major celebrity.

I note from the Wiki article that the Court was not unanimous on that:

"I do not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that 'commercial' speech is of 'lower value' than 'noncommercial' speech." -- Clarence Thomas

I see I should have included more links, so here goes:

• "The High Cost of Free Speech"
  "No one considered advertising or other profit-motivated communications as constitutionally protected speech until fairly recently. According to legal scholars, the phrase "commercial speech" did not even appear in any decision of any court of the United States until 1971. Freedom of speech was an individual right, protected from abridgment by the federal government (and from state and local governments after 1931)."
• "Governmental Regulation of Commercial Speech"
• "Government Regulation of Commercial Speech"
  "The Supreme Court for many years took the view that commercial speech--speech that proposes an economic transaction--was not protected by the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the broad powers of government to regulate commerce must reasonably include the power to regulate speech concerning articles of commerce."
• "Commercial Speech"
  "In recent years, the Court's treatment of ''commercial speech'' has undergone a transformation, from total nonprotection under the First Amendment to qualified protection."
• Findlaw has more info.

I note from the Wiki article that the Court was not unanimous on that:

"I do not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that 'commercial' speech is of 'lower value' than 'noncommercial' speech." -- Clarence Thomas

I see I should have included more links, so here goes:

• "The High Cost of Free Speech"
  "No one considered advertising or other profit-motivated communications as constitutionally protected speech until fairly recently. According to legal scholars, the phrase "commercial speech" did not even appear in any decision of any court of the United States until 1971. Freedom of speech was an individual right, protected from abridgment by the federal government (and from state and local governments after 1931)."
• "Governmental Regulation of Commercial Speech"
• "Government Regulation of Commercial Speech"
  "The Supreme Court for many years took the view that commercial speech--speech that proposes an economic transaction--was not protected by the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the broad powers of government to regulate commerce must reasonably include the power to regulate speech concerning articles of commerce."
• "Commercial Speech"
  "In recent years, the Court's treatment of ''commercial speech'' has undergone a transformation, from total nonprotection under the First Amendment to qualified protection."
• Findlaw has more info.

It seems strange to me that so many people on slashdot (and more generally on the internet at large) seem so gung ho free speech, yet at the same time are ready to burn spammers at the stake.

I am sorry for your inconvenience, but I think free speech is a little bit more important than that.

While Free Speech is important commercial speech is not nearly as important. In Kasky v. Nike California's Supreme Court set up a 3 part test on "when a court must decide whether particular speech may be subjected to laws aimed at preventing false advertising or other forms of commercial deception. . . ." While the majority voted this way some Justices rejected it.

Findlaw has much more on Commercial speech.

It seems strange to me that so many people on slashdot (and more generally on the internet at large) seem so gung ho free speech, yet at the same time are ready to burn spammers at the stake.

I am sorry for your inconvenience, but I think free speech is a little bit more important than that.

While Free Speech is important commercial speech is not nearly as important. In Kasky v. Nike California's Supreme Court set up a 3 part test on "when a court must decide whether particular speech may be subjected to laws aimed at preventing false advertising or other forms of commercial deception. . . ." While the majority voted this way some Justices rejected it.

Findlaw has much more on Commercial speech.

It seems strange to me that so many people on slashdot (and more generally on the internet at large) seem so gung ho free speech, yet at the same time are ready to burn spammers at the stake.

I am sorry for your inconvenience, but I think free speech is a little bit more important than that.

While Free Speech is important commercial speech is not nearly as important. In Kasky v. Nike California's Supreme Court set up a 3 part test on "when a court must decide whether particular speech may be subjected to laws aimed at preventing false advertising or other forms of commercial deception. . . ." While the majority voted this way some Justices rejected it.

Findlaw has much more on Commercial speech.

No, the First doesn't cover ads, see Free speech v commercial speech. After 1971 Supreme Court rulings whittled away at the separation of commercial speech and free speech. Whereas SC rulings before then maintained the separation. If that isn't enough, for instance if you don't accept that website, then try Findlaw. Julie Hilden writes that commercial speech should have the same First Amendment rights, rights it didn't have in 2001.

No, the First doesn't cover ads, see Free speech v commercial speech. After 1971 Supreme Court rulings whittled away at the separation of commercial speech and free speech. Whereas SC rulings before then maintained the separation. If that isn't enough, for instance if you don't accept that website, then try Findlaw. Julie Hilden writes that commercial speech should have the same First Amendment rights, rights it didn't have in 2001.

Findlaw did an interesting legal commentary on the lawsuit (by an actual lawyer, no less), located at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20080428.html. I provide a summary (in my best fair-use language) below.

It seems there are four issues that are looked at in cases where fair use exceptions are claimed as a defense: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the portion of material used in relation to the original work and finally the effect on the potential market.

The author of the article wrote that typically in analysis of the purpose and character of use, the derivative work involves some extension or transformation. There isn't likely to be much in a lexicon or encyclopedia, so this should cut in favour of Rowling. The author did point out that an analysis of mistakes and plot inconsistencies would involve substantial extension and so could well have a valid defense

With regards to the nature of the copyrighted work, Rowling's books are original pieces of writing (although perhaps not great literature). This is the kind of stuff that copyright is meant to defend, so this is likely to cut in Rowling's favour also.

The article argues that it is the final two issues that the lexicon's author may have traction on. The amount and importance of the portion of work used seems to be the X-factor. The lexicon will no doubt copy a significant amount of material from the Rowling originals but use it in small pieces and put it in a completely context. The author figured this would break on a judge-by-judge basis. One that read the copyright act literally would fall in favour of Rowling, while a judge considering the overall purpose would not.

Finally there was the question of the effect on the potential market. Certainly a lexicon would damage sales of an official Rowling lexicon, but the author felt (and I would agree) that a Rowling original would likely be a bigger draw for readership. Rowling has access to more material than anyone, and her encyclopedia would likely be a better piece of work for a collector. The author figured that Rowling's claim here was weak.

All-in-all, it sounded like who gets selected as judge would play a major role in the result. It is possible that some uses may be fine (a detailed analysis of inconsistencies and mistakes, for example) while other uses may have to be deleted (e.g. an encyclopedic or dictionary-type use).