Slashdot Mirror

I disagree. According to Edward Lazarus's column on FindLaw, Kennedy's opinion uses the "women aren't smart enough" and "women will regret it" arguments (I'm paraphrasing here). Though I'm male, I find this interpretation to be alarming. And, as the other poster said, his opinion is a complete reversal from all of the other Supreme Court decisions on abortion since Roe v. Wade. I think the opinion ignores the interest of the mother, since the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit originally found the act unconstitutional because it "(1) lacked an exception allowing the prohibited procedure where necessary for the mother's health and (2) covered not merely intact D&E but also other D&Es" (quoted from Kennedy's opinion). My guess is that they had Kennedy write it becaues he's a little less conservative than those other four nutjobs.

IANAL.

Not true. Read ARMCO INC. v. HARDESTY, 467 U.S. 638 (1984); specifically: "Under the Commerce Clause, a State may not tax a transaction or incident more heavily when it crosses state lines than when it occurs entirely within the State." (emphasis added).

Thus, use taxes CAN be charged on items shipped across state lines. For a specific example, feel free to download Vermont's state tax booklet and read the instructions for line 27 (on page 7 of the PDF).

To save Vermont some bandwidth, let me quote the relevant section: "Use Tax applies to purchases on which sales tax has not been charged, but are subject to sales tax. This includes purchases from a mail-order house or catalog, over the Internet, from an out-of-state retailer, or from any retailer who did not charge sales tax."

This is perfectly legal, even under the existing laws, because the Vermont use tax is grandfathered - it existed long before the US government prevented sales tax on Internet purchases.

Michigan's unauthorized access statute, does in fact grant a rebuttal presumption that access was unauthorized. This means that the defendant, not the prosecution has the burden of proof on this question. This is unusual. Usually, the operator must make the exclusion clear and the prosecution must prove that the defendant ignored and/or circumvented the prohibitions. Michigan's law may in fact be an unconstitutional violation of due process as a result. See Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979)

Second, even if the statute is constitutional, the law may been misapplied. The access is not illegal if

Access was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

Copyright was intended as a means to prevent monopolies on publication and distribution.

I have no idea how you were modded insightful. Explain to me how the granting of monopolies acts to prevent monopolies...

Copyright in Britain was originally established so that printing houses who'd just bought an author's book wouldn't be undercut by other printing houses who could just run off copies without paying the author's fee (1). Copyright in the US was constitutionally established to promote the progress of science and useful arts (2). Copyright was intended to enforce artificial monopolies, not prevent them.

If you want people to look it up, maybe you should provide some credible references for your claims.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_ law#Movable_type
2: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/ar ticles.html (Section 8)
Look it up.

No person, whether or not acting under color of law,
shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate,
interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her
by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or
laws of the United States because of the other person's race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual
orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has
one or more of those characteristics.

If she asked for an ID, and reasonable documentation was provided, she's fulfilled her obligation under the law, and the liability now rests with the minor.

If an ID actually passed the scan, i.e. the state database or whatever says that it's a valid ID after running it through the little machine, then I don't think she would have denied the patron, confiscated the license, and posted it on her site. So by definition she'd be liable for allowing any of these people to drink illegally.

You are 80% right. I Just thought I would add to this thought. Following the link provided in the original post to findlaw.com http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c5/a6.html we find that "Transaction Scan" is defined as:

(c) "Transaction scan" means the process involving a device capable of deciphering any electronically readable format by which a licensee, or agent or employee of a licensee under this chapter reviews a driver`s license or non-driver identification card presented as a precondition for the purchase of an alcoholic beverage as required by subdivision two of this section or as a precondition for admission to an establishment licensed for the on-premises sale of alcoholic beverages where admission is restricted to persons twenty-one years or older.
Emphasis...mine
From this we can see that the "Transaction Scan" in this case was Rachel visually inspecting the ID (as it is her job to do) and recognizing it as a fake. A digital transaction scan would have had like results. I think most people caught in a situation of using a fake ID would fear the law more so than a bit of ridicule from an unknown (previously) blogger/artist/barkeep. The fact that this seems to be more important to them than admitting the creation of or contracting the creation of fake identification tells me that what Rachel is doing will be far more effective in deterring Ms Hyman in the future than a fine would. If someone is stupid enough to use his/her real name and give real, googleable life details when caught using a fake ID...they deserve some public humiliation. Put them in the stocks, I say.

...but have legislation preventing the solutions from being released to the general public.

Yep, right here

7. (a) In any proceeding pursuant to subdivision one of section
    sixty-five of this article, it shall be an affirmative defense that such
    person had produced a driver's license or non-driver identification card
    apparently issued by a governmental entity, successfully completed the
    transaction scan, and that the alcoholic beverage had been sold,
    delivered or given to such person in reasonable reliance upon such
    identification and transaction scan. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c5/a6.html
    (Emphasis mine).

Malice means not only hatred, ill will, or spite as it is ordinarily understood; again, to be sure, that is malice; but it also means that condition of mind that prompts a person to intentionally inflict damage without just cause, excuse, or justification. {M]alice, like intent, is a state of mind and as such is seldom proven with direct evidence. Rather, malice is ordinarily proven by circumstantial evidence from which it may be inferred. State of North Carolina v. Robert Bruan Sexton

The plaintiff in a civil action does not have to demonstrate that he has "probable cause" to bring action, but simply a reasonable belief that he has been wronged. In a criminal action for malicious prosecution, malice - as an essential element of the offense - would have to proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Not easy.

If you want to see someone in jail you have to convince a prosecutor to that he has a realistic chance to win a case against a particular individual - not an amorphous corporate entity. Again, not easy.

Recording radioshows and TV via VCR are indeed not leagal.

The only reason you are allowed to do the later is due to court cases that found the supplier of VCRs is not liable for you breaking the law and recording copy right content.

Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their programs, and because the District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use.

It seems you're referring to this decision, where the issue is how the employees who fund the union (in this case the Washington Educational Association) can opt out of that portion of the dues that are used to fund political activities (beyond the collective bargaining the union does on their behalf -- you know, what unions are for) the compulsory members may disagree with.

But it appears that the Building Industry Association of Washington does the same thing, taking excess worker's comp funds (which businesses in the state are required to pay) and diverting them for political activities, including deceptive campaigns and anti-union efforts.

A pox on both your houses.

If the contract says nothing about who owns the code, it may probably be treated as a work-for-hire . . .

False. If the company that wrote the code wasn't an "employee" of the contracting company (either actual or de facto, per the 12 non-exclusive, non-singly-determinative factors in Restatement of Agency 2d 220 (applied in a copyright context by SCOTUS in COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE v. REID, 490 U.S. 730 (1989), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=490&invol=730), the work is not a work for hire.

It also cannot be made a work for hire by contract, unless it's one of the specifically enumerated types of work in section (b) below (taken from the Copyright Act, 17 USC 101 (definitions)).

IMHO (and I am a lawyer, and I specialize in corporate / intellectual property matters), the best thing to do here is to try to negotiate a transfer of any and all vested copyrights, in a signed writing. But you're going to want to work with an IP transactional lawyer on this one. Or maybe sit on this sure-to-be-a-fun-time seminar: http://www.ceb.com/CEBSite/product.asp?calling_pag e=LiveProgramsDisplay.asp&catalog_name=CEB&menu_ca tegory=CLE+Courses&main_category=Live%20Programs&s ub_category=Practice%20Area%20Business&product_id= BU02114&Page=1&cookie_test=1 ;)

A "work made for hire" is--

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a "supplementary work" is a work prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes, and an "instructional text" is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities.

Eolas v. Microsoft, 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Page 24 of the PDF. I quote:

Without question, software code alone qualifies as an invention eligible for patenting under these categories, at least as processes. See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994); AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999); MPEP 2106.IV.B.1.a. (8th ed., rev. 2 2001).

The Supreme Court hasn't directly said software alone is patentable, but they've explicitly said they're not ruling it out (until they get a case where they have to decide it to reach a conclusion). In other words, the Federal Circuit's law is correct (for now). Here's the quote from Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981):

Our earlier opinions lend support to our present conclusion that a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula, computer program, or digital computer. In Gottschalk v. Benson we noted: "It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold." 409 U.S., at 71. Similarly, in Parker v. Flook we stated that "a process is not unpatentable simply because it contains a law of nature or a mathematical algorithm." 437 U.S., at 590. It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection. See, e. g., Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948); Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780 (1877); O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62 (1854); and Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156 (1853).

Until and unless Congress changes their mind or the Supreme Court says otherwise, software IS patentable.

Why is it that every time the Internet is mentioned someone brings up that old chestnut of it being built to survive a Nuclear war. Vin Cerf, one of the originators of the Internet has specifically stated that the purpose was to share computers.

was Re:Isn't it ironic?

I'm saying that it's justified by the fact that he was being questioned by a grand jury, which denies you your constitutional right to protection from self-incrimination. Not that our constitution ever meant that much, being just a piece of paper, but there seem to be exceptions to every "right" that the constitution supposedly guarantees us.

Everything I'm finding - including the link you gave me - states that rights preventing self-incrimination do apply to grand juries. Read footnote seven, the referenced SCOUTS case, and Google "grand jury self-incrimination" if you still don't believe me.

Precisely. The argument that this is a non-issue because the information might not have had to be preserved is nonsense. If the information actually was destroyed, we may never know whether it had to be preserved, but we may infer from other circumstances that it should have been preserved. These are not completely novel legal concepts; it is common in litigation for parties to get scored for having destroyed documents that they should have known should have been preserved (see ''Spoliation of Evidence"). Indeed, sometimes the finder of fact (e.g. jury) is instructed that, as a penalty to the party that committed spoliation, it must be assumed that the destroyed information would weigh against the spoliating party.

Well, keep in mind that it's actually written into the fifth amendment, so perhaps I should have written it differently - your fifth amendment rights do not apply to grand juries. (You can read about grand juries and the fifth amendment on FindLaw, among other places.)

The "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case is currently before the Supreme Court this term and covers much of this ground.

If nothing else, it's enormously entertaining just to hear the Supremes uttering the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus".

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/i s_20060830/ai_n16693097

Famous Scumbag Lawyer Ken Starr doesn't have any more of a chance here than he did on his other big case a few years ago, since there are plenty of prior rulings protecting students' free speech rights off-campus:

http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?countr y=&start=450&lang=&entry=Tinker+v.+Des+Moines&site s=any

Can't be. They're unenforceable in California by statute.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/bpc/16600-16 607.html

16600. Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which
anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or
business of any kind is to that extent void.

The exceptions have to do with breaking up a company. I don't think the acquisition would qualify.

This is probably due to trade-secret knowledge.

Jesus Christ, I am SO FUCKING TIRED of all you faggot punk redneck Republican flag-waving homo-erectus morons who just can't seem to get the fact that signing a treaty makes it U.S. Law?

Really? Where does it say that you fucking retards ask, well just in the FUCKING CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

There, was I fucking clear enough you goddam nose-picking sister-fuckin pretend-to-be-in-nascar driving hick? Do you finally get it now? Now bring out another Rush O'Reilly 'fact' so I can smash it down too you retarded fuck.

You and your kind have been told this (because we all know reactionary scumbags like you can't read well enough to get to that part of our constitution) SO MANY FUCKING TIMES I just can't take it anymore. You don't know what you're talking about, and no one wants input from some thoughtless twink who doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about.

One last time, and pay attention: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/ar ticle02/10.html

Read the bit about "Treaties as U.S. Law" if you can make it that far. When you're done, please shut the fuck up about anything you've learned from FoxNEWS or Kool-Aid Radio, they make you look stupid when you repeat their lies.

I believe you know what I'm getting at :-) And these people are worse than spammers by a long shot They know exactly what they're doing. It's purely a roll of the dice to them with very little cost when they lose. And there is no part of "discovery" that should involve me unless charges are filed. That would be my right to live free from harassment. Even though it's now a sad joke, there is a law to protect me from that. And failure by those in authority to enforce it should also be an imprisonable* offense. I don't care if it's a civil suit. If it's handled and authorized by a judge in a public courtroom then the government is involved and the law of the land should apply. This a "separation of powers" that shouldn't exist. This whole "civil suit" thing is designed to give more power to business than it does to the government by creating the lower standards of innocence and creating an end run around written law. It's how the IRS conducts its harassment campaigns. It uses civil law to seize property.

*note that this is directed at those types who believe more jail time will solve all of society's problems or who are expecting big dividends from the law enforcement sector. I personally don't believe in subjecting anybody to that kind of horror.

You can go to jail for things that aren't criminal.

Dude, embezzlement isn't criminal.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

The problem is that context is just as important as what was said. Sure, people said some shit they probably shouldn't have. They didn't actually do those things, though, and being the Internet, it's unlikely they have any plans to do so or actually believe that these things should be gone through with. People talk shit on the Internet. People say things just to be dicks on the Internet because they can be fairly certain it's not going to result in the ass kicking they probably deserve.

In this case specifically, these "threats" look like 90% of the arguments I see on the Internet. As far as I know not one of them has resulted in any of those suggestions occurring. This is what happens on the Internet.

If it is in fact believed that a person intends to make good on such threats or wants to believe they will (whether they actually can/will or not), well, we've already got that covered.

Starting at 8 a.m. last Thursday, federal Border Patrol agents blocked the highway outside town. For four hours, every car, truck and bus driving south on Highway 101 was pulled off the road and all passengers questioned.

How is this even remotely legal? (e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois)

Or did they count on the kind of people they were looking for not knowing how to say "Do you have a warrant?"?

Or maybe the officers thought there was probable cause that every car driving through Forks (!) had criminals in it?

Washington already has a law which says "It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town". So it's not like they wouldn't have heard about things well in advance, anyway.

A signing statement is nothing more than an opinion stated at the time the bill is signed.

A president making a signing statement is simply going on record about the context in which they're signing the bill, and actually saving everyone a lot of time and trouble when said law (or the way in which it's used or ignored) winds up in court. Would you rather that a president decide, personally, that he thinks a law is BS and makes a decision about if/how he'll apply it at a policy level within his areas of authority, but doesn't say so out loud?

Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.

First, go here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/ar ticle01/39.html to find out about how US case law finds the constitution and related fair use provisions of copyright law.

Then, if you believe that politicians vote the interests of their constituents, then I'm sorry for your blindness, and hope one day they find a cure for your malady. It really is a miracle that you're able to get slashdot content read to you, what with this handicap slowing you down.

Finally, we don't disagree that the entertainment business is important. It is, however, leaden with greed, abhorent litigation problems, hubris, and the unmanageable lack of clarity of such masterworks-of-the-devil like the DCMA, enlongated rights terms, and other twists financed by direct and undeniable bribery. Should the oil companies be punished for their misdeeds? Can excessive profits be termed a 'misdeed'? Even if they break all world records? Certainly supply and demand is a fair concept, no?

That the Right Honorable Mr Mossberg finally gets it shouldn't be 'News for Nerds'. Good grief, this man has his own sycophantic glitterati 'conference'. I've watched him at trade shows, where PR people toss rose pedals in his path, hoping--ever hoping for a passing mention so that their stock price might go through the roof. Beyond the stench of ready influence, is his 'come-lately' attitude. Fie.

Right here. What we need is proper interpretation and enforcement.

Patents, shmatents, I'm talking about the RIAA trying to sue off the market any attempt at a personal media player.

As for your point that the company has a right to control the use to which company resources are put, well, there's an old saying to the effect that just because you have a right to do something, that doesn't make it right for you to do it. Many companies (most companies? certainly all the companies I've ever worked for or owned) cannot function unless their employees do things that aren't strictly part of that worker's job description. Things like engineers working occasional (or even not-so-occasional) evenings and weekends. It is generally best for morale if those companies don't try to be strict with their resources. After all, if the people are giving up their time and resources on behalf of the company, the company should reciprocate. To do otherwise fosters a "workers vs owners" mentality when what is best is for everyone to be on the same page and working for the common good.

Yeah, there is a law that is already against this whacko treaty... "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," IANAL... but its called the 5th Amendment.... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment05/

So how was Gerald Ford able to pardon Richard Nixon for "any and all crimes he may have committed"?

Think again.

(AP) - LOS ANGELES-A man was charged with copyright infringement for allegedly uploading the computer-animated film "Flushed Away" after getting a copy from an Oscar voter.

Salvador Nunez Jr., 27, faces up to three years in prison if convicted of the felony count. He was scheduled to appear in court March 1. He was charged Thursday.

Prosecutors alleged he obtained a copy of the movie after it was sent in advance to his sister, an Oscar voter and member of The International Animated Film Society.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences received a tip in early January that someone put "Flushed Away" on the Internet, and an investigation found Nunez uploaded it on Dec. 23, according to a federal complaint.

A digital watermark identified it as an Academy screener film.

When interviewed by FBI agents, Nunez acknowledged he uploaded "Flushed Away" and the Oscar-nominated film "Happy Feet" onto the Internet, court documents said. However, investigators found only a copy of "Flushed Away" in his computer hard drive.

"Flushed Away," won four prizes on Feb. 11 at the Annie Awards, honoring achievements in feature film and television animation.

In 2003, the MPAA banned the distribution of screener copies over concerns about bootlegging, but partly lifted the ban after complaints from filmmakers, producers and independent production companies.

It was not immediately known whether Nunez had an attorney. His home phone number was not listed. US man charged with uploading Oscar movie copy of 'Flushed Away' onto Internet

Flushed Away was released on DVD February 20, 2007. Theatrical release November 3, 2006.Flushed Away

There is much of interest in this story.

But nothing could be more significant than the decision to prosecute the uploader on the felony charge.

You're conflating possession with ownership. 'Their' may imply either of the two, and sometimes both, but not necessarily both.

In any case, looking at the history of patent legislation here:
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/ar ticle01/39.html#2
you can see that, indeed, "Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts."
    Kendall v. Winsor, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 322, 328 (1859); A. & P. Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).

Indeed, the history for this stuff is quite a bit longer than 200 years.

As to this statement:
    "Look, people - ownership rights = capitalism, which is still the most efficient economic system that history has yet devised."

The US economic system (and most any western European economy) is a mix of pure capitalism and socialism. Pure 'capitalism' tends to end in monopoly instead of a competitive market. Markets are only efficient when the consumer has sufficient information to make correct choices between producers, and competition exists amongst multiple producers.

For many years, the U.S. and Canada have had a strong relationship with both countries serving as each others largest trade partner. The two countries also share, except for the Province of Québec, a similar culture with the same genres of music, movies, television, and, from the U.S. to Canada,...

This guy is the type of person that gives wikipedia a bad name.

Canada just doesn't have its head up its ass and is also not afraid of the united states. Unlike ass kissers like blair and whoever else in the world that bob likes an idiot when the u.s comes to town. Thats why even though we do deliver justice to terroists and other crimminals when its due, we still try to follow the law At least submitter noted that canada was doing a good job.

For all of you out there who think the law is easy or understandable, I like to make an analogy: you wouldn't think a lawyer could write good code, so why would you think a coder could represent himself in court? Even lawyers hire other lawyers for that. This guy proceeded pro se, which means he represented himself. It's a bad move, every time. Don't do it, you won't win. The best you'll do is come off looking like a fool, much like pulling someone off the street and telling them to code a linked list.

As for this case, I've got a few things to say. As it turns out, I'm taking a semester of First Amendment law right now. This case didn't really get into the meaty First Amendment issues at stake here. Google and Microsoft raised the defense that no one should be able to put words in their corporate mouths (and cited arguments made by the Supreme Court). The plaintiff didn't argue back, so he lost on that point. Pretty simple, really.

Going so far as to say Google Ads are "protected as free speech" is a gross oversimplification. At best, they're probably commercial speech, subject to the four-part test from Central Hudson Gas. Basically, the government can censor Google if the ads are illegal or misleading, and they probably don't need a 'compelling' purpose to censor, only a 'substantial' purpose. One of many reasons is that an ad for washing machines isn't as important as political debate, so it gets less protection.

In Contemporary Standard American English:
http://www.universalbackground.com/employment_scre ening/federal.asp
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Conviction+B y+Civil+Court

In Judicial literature:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:2wt6ze95vRoJ:c aselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3 Dwi%26vol%3Dapp2%255C97-1261%26invol%3D1+%22civil+ case%22+DUI+conviction+-army+-military+Wisconsin&h l=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us (via Findlaw and Google's cache) Original link is http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=wi&vol=app2%5C97-1261&invol=1 (free registration required).

So both lay people and judges sometimes use the term "civil conviction" to mean "being found guilty of breaking the law in civil court."

Any further questions? So much for "no evidence?"

Subtle difference, Diamond v. Diehr was the case which allowed processes which include a computer program as a step to be patented. In re Alappat , the case I mentioned, was, AFAIK, the first case to allow a patent on a computer program.

I really don't feel like dragging out the legal dictionary (not that any would read the damn thing), but it's not a legal requirement of theft for one to actually make off with something, nor deprive one of the actual item. Otherwise we could never have "theft of services".

Now in fairness here's the court case that most base their argument on. I recommend reading it in it's entirety before making a judgement. Make note of the "congress shall..." part as well because it's important.

1 - you cannot help someone break the law if the act is committed without your presence.

2 - Telling someone how to break the law is not an illegal act.

3 - Even if you send them the file sharing program, you did not commit the act.

4 - If you complain to the police that someone stole your paper bag of money containing $50,000 dollars that you left on some street corner, they will laugh at you and tell you that you are stupid.

5 - Theft of copyright is not possible, the premise is theft of 'presumed' revenues. There is no proof that any 'illegal' activity caused known damage to revenues in a quantitative way.

AT&T wrote some drivers for Vista, then told MSFT that they could use the drivers, but only in the US. MSFT burned Vista (including the AT&T drivers) onto a golden "master disk", which it sent overseas for duplication. AT&T sued, claiming breach of contract. The Federal Circuit agreed with AT&T, and MSFT appealed.

MSFT's position is that the software on the golden master is not actually patentable until it's combined with the rest of the computer. "It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device." They're arguing that the disk is just a (non-patented) component, and that once the data is copied onto the hard drive, that the hard drive is a component of the final, patented device.

AT&T's position is that it's the data on the disk that's patentable, and that is what MSFT licensed. They basically give up on source code patentability (it's not at issue in this case), and go after the object code that's on the disk. Their argument is that the object code is the 'blueprints' for making the patented device. They will give up the 'software is patentable' argument if the Court will give them the patent on the methods that the software implements.

AT&T wrote some drivers for Vista, then told MSFT that they could use the drivers, but only in the US. MSFT burned Vista (including the AT&T drivers) onto a golden "master disk", which it sent overseas for duplication. AT&T sued, claiming breach of contract. The Federal Circuit agreed with AT&T, and MSFT appealed.

MSFT's position is that the software on the golden master is not actually patentable until it's combined with the rest of the computer. "It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device." They're arguing that the disk is just a (non-patented) component, and that once the data is copied onto the hard drive, that the hard drive is a component of the final, patented device.

AT&T's position is that it's the data on the disk that's patentable, and that is what MSFT licensed. They basically give up on source code patentability (it's not at issue in this case), and go after the object code that's on the disk. Their argument is that the object code is the 'blueprints' for making the patented device. They will give up the 'software is patentable' argument if the Court will give them the patent on the methods that the software implements.

No, a rubber company was the first to get a software patent. See: Diamond vs. Diehr:
http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html /
See also:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=450&invol=175/

Interesting, If this report is true then any "evidence" collected by non LEA personnel at the scene is questionable under NY law http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c16/a36.html ARTICLE 45 EVIDENCE Rules 4514, 4517... (sorry I could not find reference to chain of custody rules but the report suggests that was broken as well).

This raises the question of why there were people wearing RIAA jackets at a alleged crime scene in the first place. I speculate that the exercise was more about harassment or publicity than protecting actual legal damages.

My opinion may be bias. I'm still wondering why RIAA and its parent agents (Sony, Virgin ...) are NOT being prosecuted for Anti Trust violations. Their behavior over the past few years is far more egregious than M$ ever was.

Mr. Edwards gained quite a reputation both in NC and nation wide as an extremely aggressive attorney. Living in NC for most of my life, I got to see many effects of his record setting medical settlements and jury awards on both the patients and doctors. If he can do the same things for Second Life, then it probably won't last much longer... :~}

Yes but the point was that they don't guarantee completely unrestricted free speech...

Unlike the Americans. Too bad there's nobody that will honor the guarantee. That EU law looks more like Chinese law than anything else. It guarantees nothing. The illusion seems to work pretty good for the person you responded to.

Speech is regulated as it is for a reason.

Regulating speech is against the law(the annotations are NOT the law) in the US. No matter how badly the judges read it. They are in violation and should be removed from the bench, AND they should be charged with violating their oath, which is to uphold the written law.