Slashdot Mirror

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment05/14.html

Any sovereign nation has to have this power. But I agree that "just compensation" is not properly defined. I would prefer something like double market value, since this action is taking away someone's liberty to pursue happiness, property, etc.

Freedom is more important than fixing the symptoms of our failed economic system. If they can't fix the real problems that cause blight, poverty, foreclosure of large business and government-run institutions, then these symptoms will only get worse. Taking away one's freedom doesn't help us in any way.

Now taking away one's freedom in the name of sovereignty, for national security or in extreme and similar situations, does make sense. Though that should happen much less often.

What our Supreme Court did is decide that a small town can take your home from you if they fear economic collapse after GM or Boeing or a military base shuts down. There's no certainty that by taking your home they will improve the economy. Its a gamble and you lose by default, if they take your stuff.

Probably better to live elsewhere anyway. This country sucks. It can't even understand what the real problem is and much prefers to patch the symptoms instead of doing a proper analysis and unbiased evaluation of how these problems occur.

Basically they said what the Conservatives would normally say, the states have the power.

Ah, but usually when conservatives say this it's when the federal government does something which is not authorized by the constitution, i.e. wields some power which should be reserved to the states. In this case, on the other hand, the constitution specifically and literally guarantees that property will not be taken except for "public use", and the 14th amendment says the states have to respect this.

For example, it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that the Federal Government can ban drugs (remember when they needed to amend the constitution to ban alcohol?). The constitution does specify that the feds and the states may not take away your home except for public use.

Basically they said what the Conservatives would normally say, the states have the power.

Ah, but usually when conservatives say this it's when the federal government does something which is not authorized by the constitution, i.e. wields some power which should be reserved to the states. In this case, on the other hand, the constitution specifically and literally guarantees that property will not be taken except for "public use", and the 14th amendment says the states have to respect this.

For example, it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that the Federal Government can ban drugs (remember when they needed to amend the constitution to ban alcohol?). The constitution does specify that the feds and the states may not take away your home except for public use.

Basically they said what the Conservatives would normally say, the states have the power.

Ah, but usually when conservatives say this it's when the federal government does something which is not authorized by the constitution, i.e. wields some power which should be reserved to the states. In this case, on the other hand, the constitution specifically and literally guarantees that property will not be taken except for "public use", and the 14th amendment says the states have to respect this.

For example, it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that the Federal Government can ban drugs (remember when they needed to amend the constitution to ban alcohol?). The constitution does specify that the feds and the states may not take away your home except for public use.

Their deferral to the legislature for such a pointedly Constitutional issue is worrying. Everything I have to say about this was already said better in Justice O'Connor's and Justice Thomas's dissenting opinions though, so I'll just point folks there.

One interesting thing you can do is declare that their mailings are obscene and that you want them to cease and desist. The form: http://www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps1500.pdf.
Federa l courts have ruled that the determination of obscenity is in the mind of the recipient. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=397&invol=728 Failure of a company to comply with the cease and desist subjects them to severe fines. US Code Title 39 part IV Chapter 30 Section 3001. Enjoy.

Thank you Mr. Kellner.

A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security[. . .]

It is in fact illegal and you can get yourself up to 5 years:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/ parts/i/chapters/41/sections/section_871.html

I'm not aware of any laws against threatening the President, any more than threatening the life of any other person.

Section 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Hmmm... Obviously I'm not a US citizen, but it seems that not everyone feels that way. In fact it looks like the US already has their Real ID bill passed, and not everyone welcomed it with open arms.

All the things you mention are abhorrant, but none of them have anything to do with a national ID card. The police can stop you and ask for your papers today in most states. A national ID card won't change that at all. The rules for how the police act are totally seperate from the rules on what constitutes a valid ID.

Fair points and I'll try and address them.

"but none of them have anything to do with a national ID card". They do however have to do with how the ID card is being sold to the british public. The Id card is being touted as, among other fairy tales, a panacea against terrorism. And yet, as pointed out by an ancestor post, that id is useless unless checked, and to check them widely and efficiently would require measures similar to the ones I describe.

"The police can stop you and ask for your papers today in most states". But if the card is to have any hope of serving its alleged purpose this would need to be endemic. There were checkpoints like this set up in Northern Ireland during the height of the Troubles. I understand that everyone there thought they were a Bad Thing. I sometimes wonder how many of those who say "Harumph! ID cards! Jolly Good Thing Too!" have actually thought through the implications, or whether they would be so keen if they had. Of course, everyone always assumes that they won't be on the receiving end.

"The rules for how the police act are totally seperate from the rules on what constitutes a valid ID". Arguably perhaps, but for the cards to work as advertised... well I've done that bit. The question is whether the government is planning such repressive measures, or whether they're lying about the cards effectveness whilst harbouring ulterior motives, or whether they are just plain incompetant.

Let me give you a little background here. The UK is the most heavily surveilled nation on the planet. Recent legislation saw the right to silence of an accused criminal removed. We have curfews in some parts of the country now - only for certain age groups at the moment, but that can quickly change. We have travel restrictions; usually applied in cases of overseas football matches but again the mechanism is there and is not limited to football hooliganism. Now they want to remove the right to a trial by jury. Oh and resign from the charter for human rights as well.

The last journalist to seriously embarrass the government was sacked, along with the director general of the BBC, while the whistle blower in the case was hounded to his grave.

Does anyone else see a trend developing here?

Almost all of the above is the work of the current government. I hope you'll excuse me if I don't fall over myself in my haste to extend them the benefit of the doubt.

What exactly is the downside to having ID standards that are harder to fake?

ID standards and implementations (in the non-code sense of the word) are not the same thing. Let's not confuse matters unnecessarily. My privacy in only violated by the government when the government forces me to present an ID.

And I've already explained why I find this less than reassuring. All the same, I think we're losing sight of something fundamental here:

The single best reason why we in the UK should not have ID cards is that we do not want them. We live in a dem

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It never says the ISP can only filter if the customer asks. To be safe the ISP could choose to filter anyway. Not sure if this is significant...

Not really. Market forces and other laws already address this. This law does nothing other than pander to a predominately Mormon population so parents can feel good that the government is doing something to protect the children and make them actually work to see all of the prawn as they spend 6 unsupervised hours/day cruising the web.

The ACLU must be having a slow month out there in Utah - this law does nothing but allow households to exercise their right to control what enters their homes as affirmed in ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 (1970)

In general, a contract (or a contract clause) will not be upheld for a number of different reasons. Some of the leading ones are: illegality, public policy, incapicity of one of the parties, duress, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation, vagueness, lack of exchange. Here's a quick summary.

"non-compete" clauses conflict with public policy when they make someone effectively unemployable in their chosen field; courts have generally found blanket "non-compete" clauses to be unenforcable. However, they have often upheld very limited clauses, such as ones with both a time-limit and a geographic restriction; for example, a salesman might be barred from selling a competing product in his former sales area for 1 year.

Recently, some employers have tried to argue that "trade secret" protection should allow broader "non-competes" to be acceptable, but in general, that argument hasn't flown very well.

Data General vs. Digidyne is very similar to the Apple/MacOS situation. Data General manufactured both Nova minicomputers and the RDOS operating system to run on them. Digidyne manufactured a Nova clone. Data General was not the dominant minicomputer manufacturer at the time. The appelate court held that Data General's requirement that RDOS could only be run on Data General hardware was an illegal tie-in sale. The Supreme Court declined to review, so that's the law in the US.

This is an area where combined software/hardware manufacturers have consistently lost.

...[our] system illustrates that the author's ownership is in the copyright, and not in the work itself, for if the author had an ownership interest in the work itself, she would not lose that right if she published the book without complying with federal statutory copyright requirements. Compliance with the copyright law results in the guarantee of copyright to the author for a limited time, but the author never owns the work itself. 202 ("Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied.").

This has an important impact on modern interpretation of copyright, as it emphasizes the distinction between ownership of the work, which an author does not possess, and ownership of the copyright, which an author enjoys for a limited time. In a society oriented toward property ownership, it is not surprising to find many that erroneously equate the work with the copyright in the work and conclude that if one owns the copyright, they must also own the work. However, the fallacy of that understanding is exposed by the simple fact that the work continues to exist after the term of copyright associated with the work has expired. "The copyright is not a natural right inherent in authorship. If it were, the impact on market values would be irrelevant; any unauthorized taking

According to this court document, the infrigments concern:

• Claims 15, 32, 34 of #5,436,960
• Claim 8 of #5,625,670
• Claim 199 of #5,819,172
• Claims 28, 248, 309, 313, 317 of #6,067,451
• Claims 40, 150, 278, 653, 654 of #6,317,592

5,436,960
5,625,670
5,819,172
6,067,451
6,317,592

These patents look to me like they would cover just about every PDA and cell phone on the planet today. Is RIM a target because of their popularity?

If you convert the indictment (PDF) to HTML, you can read all the blacked-out IP addresses.

Sheesh.

One of two things are true.
Either you honestly have no idea that what you are saying is 100% false yet continue to repeat the lies you have been fed due to cowardice or whatever else it is that keeps you from doing your duty as a citizen to be informed, or you do know that you're spreading extremely ignorant lies for the purpose of promoting an anti-freedom agenda.

Either one of these cases speaks very poorly of you.

I and many other people here are citizens, not subjects or consumers like yourself. We are trying to discuss important issues in a factual manner.

The blatant shit that you are spewing serves no possible positive purpose.

Either actually learn something (anything at all for crying out loud) about the subject and discuss it in a manner that demonstrates some level of understanding above that of a barn yard animal, or just act like you have the tiniest scrap of integrity and quit spreading blatant lies.

Now, you seem completely unable to actually figure out how to learn things as demonstrated convincingly by those lies that you spewed above so here is a link to the actual facts.

You and people like you are the worst enemies of freedom, truth, and honest open discussion.

Quit spreading lies you slimy piece of shit.

The defendant then obtained administrator privileges and transmitted codes, information and commands that: (1) deleted approximately 1300 user accounts; (2) installed RemotelyAnywhere; (3) deleted critical system files necessary for the operation of the computer; (4) copied a file containing usernames and encrypted passwords for the computer; and (5) installed tools used for obtaining unauthorized access to computers.

here.

US citizens be cautioned: the use of copy and paste to 'read between the lines' in this document could get you in Cuba (or some other place).

The scope of the DMCA appears to have been substantially narrowed by a case decided by the Federal Circuit. I'm not a lawyer (2 more months to go), but I think the Chamberlain Group case is a more important decision in terms of DMCA law, than Lexmark. Though the concurrence by Judge Merritt in the 6th Circuit decision in Lexmark goes much farther than the majority opinion did.

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004). at Findlaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=fed&navby=case&no=041118

Any changes to the laws to support 100 years or more are unconstitutional and would be struck down.

Unconstitutional? Nope.

From the Constitution (linked above): To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

One hundred years is "limited Times". It may be absurd, but as I understand it (though IANAL), it's not unconstitutional. Congress has passed a number of unconstitutional laws in the few years that I've been paying attention that the Supreme Court has ignored. Why would they care about this? Going further back, Congress has probably passed thousands of unconstitutional laws. Just about everything FDR did was unconstitutional. Welfare, WPA, CCC. None of those powers are "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" [1].

Congress and the President have been usurping powers little by little for 200 years.

If Washington and Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton could come back, the first thing they'd notice would be that the federal government now routinely assumes thousands of powers never assigned to it -- powers never granted, never delegated, never enumerated.
http://www.sobran.com/tyranny.shtml

Any changes to the laws to support 100 years or more are unconstitutional and would be struck down.

Unconstitutional? Nope.

From the Constitution (linked above): To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

One hundred years is "limited Times". It may be absurd, but as I understand it (though IANAL), it's not unconstitutional. Congress has passed a number of unconstitutional laws in the few years that I've been paying attention that the Supreme Court has ignored. Why would they care about this? Going further back, Congress has probably passed thousands of unconstitutional laws. Just about everything FDR did was unconstitutional. Welfare, WPA, CCC. None of those powers are "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" [1].

Congress and the President have been usurping powers little by little for 200 years.

If Washington and Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton could come back, the first thing they'd notice would be that the federal government now routinely assumes thousands of powers never assigned to it -- powers never granted, never delegated, never enumerated.
http://www.sobran.com/tyranny.shtml

The scope of the DMCA appears to have been substantially narrowed by a case decided by the Federal Circuit. I'm not a lawyer (2 more months to go), but I think the Chamberlain Group case is a more important decision in terms of DMCA law, than Lexmark. Though the concurrence by Judge Merritt in the 6th Circuit decision in Lexmark goes much farther than the majority opinion did.

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004). at Findlaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=fed&navby=case&no=041118

Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. at findlaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/0354 00p.pdf

The scope of the DMCA appears to have been substantially narrowed by a case decided by the Federal Circuit. I'm not a lawyer (2 more months to go), but I think the Chamberlain Group case is a more important decision in terms of DMCA law, than Lexmark. Though the concurrence by Judge Merritt in the 6th Circuit decision in Lexmark goes much farther than the majority opinion did.

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004). at Findlaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=fed&navby=case&no=041118

Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. at findlaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/0354 00p.pdf

I was reading MacSlash and came across this. link

It looks like some pretty solid evidence that Apple is working with Transitive Technologies, the company that allows binaries from one platform to execute at near native speeds on another platform.

Very interesting days indeed.

• the white house is harbouring and protecting a traitor
• Has a gag order on a whistleblower
• North Korea and Iran are about to (or have ) aquire Nukes due to this admin being interested in oil rather than national interest.
• Trying to silence the whistle blower about the halliburton deal.
• In light of the recent UK memo, I am surprised that few are pointing out that GWB awarded Tenet with the medal of freedom. If Tenet was what GWB claimed (and the CIA says was not the case), then he should be in prison.

Again, main point being that the US cannot be sued unless it has waived sovereign immunity.

Pah the 'constitution' that things 200 years old, does it have any relevance in today's world?

Terrorism changed the rules when it was invented on 9/11

However, the use of the threat of random violence as an instrument of political change or control is as old as recorded history. Ever hear of the Reign of Terror? Last time I checked, 9/5/1793 predated 9/11/2000 by 207 years. Or perhaps you've heard of The Inquisition or The Cultural Revolution? Irish and Scots rebels were using terror tactics against the English as far back as the 1300's.

you have to loose your freedoms if we are to catch them and the leader can't do that if he has to listen to stupid human rights hippies.

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. You, sir, appear to be the latter -- your statments advocating the abandonment of our Constitutional government constitute a criminal act of sedition.

We have to round up anyone who looks like a traitor or a terrorist or a commie and put them in the intensive interrogation camp to find out what they are planning.

Actually, so might you.

For example, the link you provided says that McDonalds kept their coffee at 185 degrees, 20 degrees hotter than other restaraunts. In a similar case ANGELINA AND JACK MCMAHON v BUNN-O-MATIC CORP., ET AL. the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals noted the following:

Let us tackle the contention that Bunn should have warned the McMahons about the dangers of hot coffee. What would this warning have entailed? A statement that coffee is served hot? That it can cause burns? They already knew these things and did not need to be reminded (as both conceded in their depositions). See American Law Institute, Restatement of Torts: Products Liability sec.2 comment j (Proposed Final Draft 1997). That this coffee was unusually hot and therefore capable of causing severe burns? Warning consumers about a surprising feature that is potentially dangerous yet hard to observe could be useful, but the record lacks any evidence that 179 degrees F is unusually hot for coffee. Neither side submitted evidence about the range of temperatures used by commercial coffee makers, or even about the range of temperatures for Bunn's line of products. The McMahons essentially ask us to take judicial notice that 179 degrees is abnormal, but this is not the sort of incontestable fact for which proof is unnecessary. In Barnett and Oubre the courts reported that the industry- standard serving temperature is between 175 degrees and 185 degrees F, and if this is so then the McMahons' coffee held no surprises. What is more, most consumers prepare and consume hotter beverages at home. Angelina McMahon is a tea drinker, and tea is prepared by pouring boiling water over tea leaves. Until 20 years ago most home coffee was made in percolators, where the water boiled during the brewing cycle and took some time to cool below 180 degrees. Apparently the McMahons believe that home drip brewing machines now in common use are much cooler, but the record does not support this, and a little digging on our own part turned up ANSI/AHAM CM-1-1986, which the American National Standards Institute adopted for home coffee makers. Standard 5.2.1 provides:

On completion of the brewing cycle and within a 2 minute interval, the beverage temperature in the dispensing vessel of the coffee maker while stirring should be between the limits of 170 degrees F and 205 degrees F (77 degrees C and 96 degrees C).

The upper finished brew temperature limit assures that the coffee does not reach the boiling point which can affect the taste and aroma. The lower temperature limit assures generally acceptable drinking temperature when pouring into a cold cup, adding cream, sugar and spoon.

Standard 5.2.3.2 adds, for any coffee maker that "incorporates means to maintain beverage temperature on completion of a brewing cycle": With the appliance containing maximum rated cup capacity of liquid, basket and pump removed (if present), allow to stand while still energized in an ambient temperature of 73 ñ 9 degrees F (23 ñ 5 degrees C) for a period of 1 hour at which time the beverage temperature in the appliance should not be lower than 170 degrees F (76.7 degrees C).

Thus home coffee makers that claim to follow the standard (a voluntary step; no statute or regulation requires compliance) must brew and hold coffee at a temperature that does not fall below 170 degrees. Coffee served at 180 degrees by a roadside vendor, which doubtless expects that it will cool during the longer interval before consumption, does not seem so abnormal as to require a heads-up warning. /end quote

Furthermore, yes, there were 700 cases of injuries. Those 700 cases came as the result of billions of cups of coffee sold. A 1 in 24 million injury rate is pretty damned good IMO.

There's also the fact that one of the jury members later stated that when the McDonald's expert used the term "statistically insignificant" it was a term of insult.

Do you have a link to some documentation for that the original thought behind copyright was?

• The Framers, Viewing Intellectual Property As Monopoly, Sought To Constrain It
• Guiding the Path of Intellectual Property
• Copyright as Cudgel
  ...
  James Madison, who introduced the copyright-and-patent clause to the Constitution, did not engage in absolutist "property talk" about copyright. He argued in terms of "progress," "learning," and other such classic republican virtues as literacy and an informed citizenry. When President George Washington declared his support for the Copyright Act of 1790, he proclaimed that it would be a step toward "teaching the people themselves to know, and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority." Thomas Jefferson -- author, architect, slave owner, landowner -- had no misgivings about protecting private property. Yet he expressed some serious doubts about the wisdom of copyright, based on his suspicion of concentrations of power and artificial monopolies.

The problem with this line of arguement is that this is not the only use for such tools. I have the GPG version of PGP on my home and work systems. At home, I use it for encrypting backup copies of my financial records, tax forms, old love letters (yes, the girls were of legal age, they're just embarrasing), and various files associated with my participation in local politics. At work, since I know there is at least some legally protected data on the machine, I have departmental computers backup local desktops to internal hard drives, and then encrypt the backup files whem putting them on the server.

Kind of like pointing out the defendant owned a shredder, there was huge pile of shredded paper by it, and the "smoking gun" documents are no where to be found.

Agreed... but it does not appear that the "huge pile of shredded paper" is present. Normal use of GPG or PGP to erase files leaves portions of the drive with data sectors showing either VERY high entropy, OR purely "zeroed". No mention of such evidence is in the news reports or ruling.

Last, it doesn't exactly sound like PGP was a "factor in his punishment". Rather, it sounds like it was a factor in his conviction. If the court had ruled that the evidence was inadmissible, then a new trial might have been ordered. This would require a finding that the irrelevant evidence was prejudicial enough that it could have formed a basis for the conviction. If the error was not considered substantial, then no new trial would have been ordered.

However, if the error was not considered substantial, the appeals court ruling would have said so; and if they had so ruled, or had ruled for it being inadmissable, there would be much less to this story. Instead, the ruling states "the presence of an encryption program on his computer was relevant to the state's case".

It's bothersome that the idiot testifying didn't know diddly about computers. Macs do NOT come with PGP or GPG installed by default. The FileVault system on OS X.3+ is based on AES-128, an algorithm whose main (sole?) similarity is that it cannot be decrypted by anyone short of the NSA. For that matter, Windows 2K and XP with EFS, based DESX... which probably can't be broken by anyone not willing to buy over ten megabucks of hardware for such jobs.

I also find it worrisome that it was admitted to evidence that he looked up on the web the definition of the crime he was accused of, as that would seem to weaken the right to counsel. Fortunately, that was not part of the basis of his appeal.

(copied from my post to a list)
First, read the opinion before the paranoia/speculation:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=mn&vol=apppub/0505/opa040381-0503&invol=1

The news.com article takes it out of context - the finding is that the
existence of an encryption program is relevant. Not damning, not
exonerating, just relevant - and personally I'm of the belief that encryption
software is a relevant issue when digital kiddie porn is the subject. This
does nothing to tie encryption with conviction - as shown by the opinion that
encryption was not very substantive to the case against him.

This is not a precedent, for many, many reasons. /MN resident

//knows what the hell he's talking about

See this EFF page where you can download the MP3 of oral arguments. Start listing at about 25:15 into the oral arguments to hear the "harsh terms" and "abusive language" remarks.

Also see this.

Hope that helps. Try Googling.

Copyright infringement is theft.

In 1985 there was a man named Dowling who was prosecuted for the "Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property". He was selling bootleg copies of Elvis records. The U.S. Supreme Court in DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) struck this down because copyright infringement is not theft. You have to deprive your victim of the item in order to steal it from them. Making copies doesn't deprive anyone of what it being copied, therefore its not theft.

While I agree that currently the only substantial use for trackerless P2P is IP theft.

Back in 1985 a man named Dowling was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property for selling infringing copies of Elvis records. U.S. Supreme Court in DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html struck this down because copyright infringement is not theft. You have to deprive your victim of the item in order to steal it from them. Making copies doesn't deprive anyone of what it being copied, therefore its not theft.

the guys who rip stuff illegally like to call it "copyright infringement" because that sounds something that fluffy bunnies might do that couldn't possibly hurt anyone.

The US Supreme Court sort of likes the term copyright infringement too. What with it being the correct term and everything. Your post is the first time I've seen it mentioned in connection with fluffy bunnies though; I really suspect that's unique to you.

Try the "real world" US Supreme Court in Dowling v. the United States.

Link to the case, for those honestly interested.

Getting crowded out there!

You can be imprisoned for months, or even years, without a trial. Under the USA-PATRIOT act, you can be imprisoned indefinately without ever being CHARGED with a crime.

The cases of Kevin Mitnick and Jose Padilla are a sobering reminder that our Constitutional right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury has become a hollow sham.

You are correct that distribution is infringement, but please note that even copying for personal private use is not legal copying. The only legal copying is for watching it later, one time--called "time-shifting". You are not legally allowed to tape a show and archive it to watch repeatedly, even if you are alone. There are other instances of copying that are legal, but only those enumerated in the "Fair Use" doctrine of copyright law.

There was a case (Sony v. Universal, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=464&invol=417) wherein the industry tried to sue VCR makers as contributory infringers because consumers were buying VCRs and using them to tape shows. The industry (i.e., the copyright holders) lost (and VCRs are therefore legal) because the Platonic Nine found that there are substantial non-infringing uses of VCRs, namely, time-shifting--watching the show later.

Archiving shows is technically not within fair use doctrine of copyright law, and is technically not legal. It is a copyright infringement.

Taping radio off the airwaves is likewise infringment of copyright.

congress can already prohibit judicial review unless SCOTUS is
specifically granted original jurisdiction.

"under such Regulations as the Congress shall make"

see Article 3

First, Federal funding appears to be only the start up money, and was not the political association to which I refer. The primary operational funding for Charter Schools (as I understand it) is not Federal, but provided by the local sponsoring School Board... which, either elected or appointed, is a political unit of local government. Since the Charter Schools are acting as agent for the School Board, it seems arguable that the corporation is a public employee, and to the extent its own employees act to the public service, so too might they be reasonably bound in their ability to claim libel.

Furthermore, stating "The further legal standard is different, specifically as Sullivan explains" is completely misleading, as footnote 23 explicitly declines to "specify categories of persons who would or would not be included," or to delineate the bounds of "official conduct". It does, however, refer over to Barr v. Matteo... the majority ruling of which includes:

The effective functioning of a free government like ours depends largely on the force of an informed public opinion. This calls for the widest possible understanding of the quality of government service rendered by all elective or appointed public officials or employees. Such an informed understanding depends, of course, on the freedom people have to applaud or to criticize the way public employees do their jobs, from the least to the most important.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer. And you're right, it's nowhere near as clear cut as it would be for, say, the state Secretary of Education... or even the elected head of the county school board. But if evidence of malice is not included in court filings, the defense would probably try a summary motion to dismiss pretty quickly.

Actually, so sorry, but it's not.

1) You don't need a mike, just a db level sensor.
2) It is an invasion of privacy.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendme nt01/19.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy

We send people to jail on stories and anecdotes. I believe they call it ....testimonial evidence (its described in painstaking detail here).

Perhaps you should reread what I said...naw...

Would anyone care to elaborate why a line-item veto is unconstitutional?

Because the Supreme Court said so.