Slashdot Mirror

the ability of copyright holders to make DMCA shutdown requests to ISPs, and then only in cases where no good-faith effort has been made

According to the 9th Circuit ruling, the MPAA did make a good faith effort. Specifically, they said that "the district court properly found that no issue of material fact existed as to MPAA's 'good faith belief' that Rossi's website was infringing upon its copyrighted materials."

After my brief reading of the facts, I disagree with the 9th circuit here, but I highly doubt the Supreme Court is going to get involved in such relative minutiae. I'm not even convinced there's a Contitutional issue involved here. After all, the MPAA is not the government. They did something which was probably wrong - tortious interference of a contractual relationship, but they didn't directly violate any First Amendment rights, they merely threatened the guy's ISP causing them to refuse to help him publish his website.

17 USC 512

Okay, so they have to comply with take-down requests from copyright owners if received, but may otherwise allow transmission so long as they don't filter, modify, or keep longer than needed any of the content being exchanged by users across their equipment. Oh, and they have to not know what's going on, and not get money directly from illegal activity. And the service provider has to make clear and accessible a way to send take-down notices. And have a stated policy of banning users if they are repeat infringers (note that the law specifically states repetition is involved.) The same applies to linking, indexing, referecing, pointing, or using informatin-location-tools, and "service providers" is defined very broadly. I'd say it applies to bittorrent trackers. And based on subsection (j), the most courts get to do is somehow order the service providers to make stuff stop, including just terminating specific users' accounts if that's sufficient, or ordering the service provider to block of IP's, etc. There's also mention of "standard technical measures" and mention of cost burden to service providers, such that if the service provider cannot reasonably find out who's infringing or whether or not the content is being illegally copies, the law seems to just let them off the hook. But hey, I'm not a lawyer either. (Then again, the law really shouldn't be the realm of lawyers. We should just as soon sue priests for misleading us on theology when God sends us to hell. People are just whiny babies about advice.)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

My point is that if the DMCA hampers the execution of law enforcement, then the DMCA is a fucked up law.

It doesn't. The DMCA, 17 USC 1201, contains an exemption for any circumvention performed as part of legit law enforcement:

(e) Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. - This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term "information security" means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.

Also can you provide a citation to a law that prohibits a person from decrypting content they already own?

It's a federal law, 17 USC 1201, as interpreted in Universal v. Reimerdes.

http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=152
http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=155
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20041215.h tml
And lots more... Google is your friend...

With apologies to Justice Potter Stewart:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced, but I know it when I see it... "

We agree with the district court that lack of authorization may be implicit, rather than explicit. After all, password protection itself normally limits authorization by implication (and technology), even without express terms.

that slashdot is only for the US only and therefore everbody automatically knows what the 4th amendment says.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th amendment

The 5th Amendment also seem to make a good candidate

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.
5th amendment

that slashdot is only for the US only and therefore everbody automatically knows what the 4th amendment says.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th amendment

The 5th Amendment also seem to make a good candidate

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.
5th amendment

Actually. NO.

yourself, who have certainly never read the GCRTPOW

I've studied the Geneva conventions. It's part of my job(military).

You have a number of categories.
Civilians
Combatants
Clergy
Medica l Personnel.

Civilians, Clergy, and Medical Personnel do not keep their status if they fight. Well, there is an exemption that people can protect themselves against unlawful forces (ie brigands).

Combatants are further divided up into lawful and unlawful categories. Lawful combatants are POWS. Al Qaeda are not lawfull combatants since they do not fulfill the measures needed to be considered lawful. The Iraqi military did, and I haven't heard any stories about their being held.

Of course, my instructions were basicly "treat them like a POW within these parameters: treat wounds, don't hurt them, speed them to the rear to the people better trained to handle prisoners and determine their status.

Al Qaeda doesn't operate following the conventions, so technically we could treat them like spies and execute them without trial. There are other treaties, accords, and such that disallow this, but the geneva conventions don't matter.

An arguement that might work someday soon but won't work today, only because things aren't that bad yet, is that copyright law, as written and currently practiced in the computer-programming industry, does not " promote the progress of science and useful arts ."

One could argue that today's patent system is messed up so badly that in some domains it hinders, rather than promotes, progress of science and useful arts, particulary in the computer-software industry.

It is not illegal to count cards in your mind. However, the casinos have the right to refuse to allow you to play for any reason (and being a successful card counter is one that they think is a good reason). All they can do is escort you from the property, and if you resist or refuse, they can charge you with tresspass.

The Nevada state courts ordered a casino to pay a card counter who won a small pile of cash there, which the casino had refused to pay. That pretty much sums up the legality, I believe.

That's not necessarily true either - there has to be willful intent:

The Supreme Court recognized "the venerable principle that ignorance of the law generally is no defense to a criminal charge" in Ratzlaf v. United States. 2 Nevertheless, it held that in 31 U.S.C. S 5322, applicable to structuring financial trans- actions to avoid federal reporting requirements, Congress decreed otherwise and required proof that the defendant knew the structuring was illegal.

A related concept in law is "wilful blindness": the criminal defendant who should have known, and could have asked, but deliberately chose not to ask. The law regards "wilful blindness" as equivalent to knowledge. U.S. v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700-701 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976). Cited with approval in U.S. v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d. 946, 950-951 (5th Cir. 1990).

Generally, ignorance or mistake of law is no excuse: i.e., it is no defense to the commission of a crime that the defendant was unaware that the acts were prohibited by the criminal law or that defendant mistakenly believed that the acts were not prohibited. The exceptions are: (1) Reliance upon statute later held unconstitutional; (2) Reliance upon judicial decision; (3) Reliance upon official interpretation. Sometimes, the mens rea aspect of a particular crime requires a certain belief concerning a legal matter. In such cases, if the defendant was ignorant or mistaken as to the legal matter, the prosecution may be unable to establish the mens rea required for liability and no conviction can be obtained.

etc, etc.

Since when are newspaper columnists "accountable" to anybody other than their editors? Was Novak been brought to account for outing a CIA operative? And Dan Rather and CBS were actually brought to account primarily by bloggers.
Novak has not been brought to account due to the fact that the Administration wanted the CIA operative outed because her husband (also a journalist) refuted the Administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was purchasing the prerequesites for a nuclear weapon.
Novak is the type of right wing Clinton bashing blow hard that George W Bush likes. The person who leaked the CIA operative's name to Novak has committed a treasonous act but won't ever be brought to justice for two major reasons:
1) W doesn't want to find out who it was- hell it probably was ordered by W himself and they will do anything to keep it covered up.
2)Once the Dems get back into power, and they will, they will have a real respect for the First Amendment- not just when it suits them.

I said:
> The constitutions binds you to laws passed by Congress,
> and those laws impose taxes on you, and part of proceeds
> go to help those poorer than you, as per these laws,
> which the constitution binds you to.

He said:
> 1. Is regulation of communications necessary and desirable?
> 2. If so, does the desired regulation have a constituional standing (Federal, State, local, etc.)?
> 3. If so, what would be the extent of such regulation?

You said:
> constitution denies Congress the right to pass laws
> that don't meet those three criteria he posted.

The US constitution said:

"Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. "

"Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The US constitution lets the Congress impose taxes on _anything_ it deems necessary for the general welfare of US citizens -- this validates my point you had responded to.

The three criteria the other poster mentioned was about whether the FCC could regulate communication. The US constitution prohibits laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" (1st Amendment). However, Congress can tax anything - so it can tax utilization of radio bands. And taxing implies measurement at the very least -- you cannot tax what you do not measure

Now regarding _regulation_ of the radio spectrum - that gets more interesting.
Now the radio spectrum is not anyone's private property. i.e. Joe randomguy broadcasting over 10000 sq. km.s on FM band 98.1 has no squatter rights to that utilization. On top of that, the 5th amendment make it clear that so called "eminent domain" can be used to confiscate private property for _public_ use after fair compensation.

Space is a pre-existing resource like land and water. If the government has the power to regulate other resources like land, water, it has the power to regulate the passage of radio waves through space as well (just like it regulates airspace). The specifics of whose laws - state or federal - boil down to whether the US constitution prohibits congress from passing laws outside of the powers explcitly granted it in Sec. 8, but which don't contradict it in any way. (I'm no expert, so real experts could help answer that). It also boils down to whether states assign these powers over to federal control. See:...

"Section. 3.
Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. "

Excellent point, except your example is from a California circuit court. Valve is in Washington. Here's a case that is slightly more relevant: M. A. Mortenson Company, Inc. v. Timberline Software Corp. & Softworks Data Systems

To summarize, a software license agreement, in which the developer set out liability limits, was held as a binding contract and the plaintiff's case was dismissed. The decision was further upheld in both the Superior and Supreme courts of Washington State.

From this C|Net article, These agreements normally take effect as a condition of installing software, and they ordinarily require customers to waive their right to sue over alleged defects. Such EULAs have been repeatedly upheld by the courts.

One such case is Zeidenberg v Silken Mountain Web Services, Inc, in which Zeidenberg won his case claiming the shrink-wrap license was invalid after he violated it to rip off the database on a CD and resell it cheaper - the case was overturned on appeal where the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld shrink-wrap licenses. They do make mention of a need to be able to return the product or see a refund if you refuse the license; but if it says, "by installing/using this you agree to these terms", then it considered that a valid contract under the UCC.

If you want to play lawyer on Slashdot, and least try to have your rudimentary facts correct.

I'm curious to know how you arrived at a universal human right of anonymity

Please refer to:

TALLEY v. CALIFORNIA, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995)

Very relevant is the quote from McIntyre:

"The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. ... Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at the hand of an intolerant society."

While one can reasonably question anonymity as a "universal" right applicable in all times under all conditions, these times should be the exception rather than the rule with the burden falling on those who say that the restriction should apply rather than on those who say not.

There's a reason you can be compelled to give DNA and other physical samples as evidence against you. See here for a more detailed explanation of why. Here's the executive summary:

You are absolutely correct quoting the Fifth Amendment. The courts are trying to fulfill the policy goal of making sure that witnesses aren't erroneously convicted of a crime. The phrase "witness against himself," obviously means that you shouldn't have to incriminate yourself with testimony. Even if you are innocent, however, you can still feel pressure in the witness box. If you stutter or 'choke', a jury could mistake that as a sign of guilt. On the other hand, DNA evidence, urine samples, and yes, data from a 'black box', don't have this problem. They represent hard evidence, and are much less likely to lie than you are. They can still be contested, like any evidence. Fingerprinting in particular has been called into question of late. Nevertheless, this sort of evidence doesn't fall within the narrow reading of "witness" in the Fifth Amendment, because it isn't being restricted by the same policy considerations. Therefore, you can be compelled to turn it over without running afoul of the Constitution.

There are privacy concerns to be sure. Of course, if you're speeding, then you're speeding. You're still in favor of cops arresting people using radar detectors, right? (Arguments about speeding being a victimless crime go elsewhere.) Somehow, it doesn't seem to me to make a difference whether the radar 'gun' is in his car or yours. Some of the arguments so far seem to be "oh shit, now I can't speed or I'll get into trouble." That doesn't impress me. The GPS tracking arguments are a little more worrisome, but not much more. You have a GPS or other location tracking system in your cell phone, right? You do take your phone with you in the car, don't you?

Amendment V:
[...] nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself [...]

But we're already compelled to give DNA, urine and tissue sample evidence, so paying for, maintaining and powering devices we own just to spy on us seems inevitable. That crazy old Constitution, with its quaint notions of human rights.

I believe you're thinking of "obscenity." See this recap of the Miller test.

I haven't studied this extensively (but have given it serious study in an effort to understand what may, and what may not, be provided on a website), but it is my understanding that pornography (and other material!) can be "indecent" or "obscene." If it's obscene, e.g., photographic depictions of bestiality, child pornography or incest, it can be banned nationally. Determining exactly what's "obscene" can be a difficult problem.

On the other hand "indecent" material may be acceptable in some communities but not others. A few states prohibit any depiction of penetrative sex. Some permit depiction of penetrative hetereosexual sex but ban penetrative homosexual sex. Some permit all (except the obscene items mentioned earlier). This is rapidly coming to the forefront as some aggressive prosecutors attempt to impose the highly restrictive standards of some communities nationally since the material is available in those communities via the postal system or the internet - in 1973 when the Miller test was invented "porn" was distributed in seedy adult theaters, not in the privacy of the viewer's home using either a VHS tape or broadband connection.

A further complication is the different protection offered to different media. The courts are loathe to ban written material, and drawings also get a fair amount of protection. One of the big questions before the court recently was photorealistic CGI and photoshopped images - as I recall the courts ruled that this material can't be banned solely because it -appears- to contain prohibited material.

BTW the Comstack act was late 1873, here. It criminalized distribution of information on birth control or abortions, and has never been revoked. As late as 1965 (just a few years before Roe v Wade) the state of Connecticut was still prosecuting doctors for prescribing birth control to married couples - see Griswold

Nope, they're not morons, but they do get old. Justice John Paul Stevens leans liberal, and is 84 years old. I'm tremendously hopeful that the moderates and liberals on the court can make it four more years, but I'm not optimistic.

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

These court decisions, and the various legislative responses to them, led people in the relatively wealthy areas (read "people who care enough to vote") to limit their property taxes dramatically. In the end, school funding is equal -- yes -- but equal at a very low level. People remember the tax cut and the 2/3 vote necessary to raise taxes, but they don't remember or even know the political environment that caused it to happen.

Thad Beier

Even if he did win Ohio Kerry still would have lost the popular vote... Sure he would have one the electorial college but... Wouldn't that be stealing the electon on a technicality?

WTF? Why is it that we make immigrants learn and understand the electoral process before they can become naturalized citizens, but people who were born in this country have no such requirement?

Start here Article II Section I

Yes, our only choices are "no patents, too much unfair competition" and "bad patents, not enough fair competition". That crazy Constitution, with its quaint notions of "securing for limited Times" monopolies "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Now that feudal monarchy is in the past, we need monopolies to keep the social contract.

The only question now is whether Giuliani will take the job as Bush Enforcer, or wait to be installed as a Supreme Court Justice. He'll probably go for Enforcer, because he's used to running a "Chief Prosecutor for Emperor" race, setting him up comfortably for 2008. Unless Sir Giuliani runs afoul of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
" No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

may be some distinction between people who openly carry weapons and those who don't

Yeah, the little distinction between being a lawful combatant (some sort of uniform, weapons carried openly, and attacking only enemy troops/positions), and an illegal combantant (not doing the above).

Basically, the conventions don't apply.
An explanation

a form of state political organization in which the government is based on religious offices.

Sounds bad.

A system of government controlled by the dominating religions beliefs inherent in the society.

Sounds good, given that you have a set of ``dominating religions beliefs''. If you think that the U.S. doesn't have that, you must be new here. Supreme Court Justice Black said: ``We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'' The original government of the U.S., as described in our constitution, would be a theocracy by that definition. It was designed to be controlled by the religious majority.

Letting religious organizations get a little bit of slops from the pork barrel is a long way from either of those definitions of theocracy.

Hey Mr. Ignorant,

Go read Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), where the US Supreme Court ruled that copyright infringement is not theft.

What then does the current version of the UCC have to say? We think that the place to start is sec. 2-204(1): "A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract." A vendor, as master of the offer, may invite acceptance by conduct, and may propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance. A buyer may accept by performing the acts the vendor proposes to treat as acceptance. And that is what happened. ProCD proposed a contract that a buyer would accept by using the software after having an opportunity to read the license at leisure. This Zeidenberg did. He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance. So although the district judge was right to say that a contract can be, and often is, formed simply by paying the price and walking out of the store, the UCC permits contracts to be formed in other ways. ProCD proposed such a different way, and without protest Zeidenberg agreed. Ours is not a case in which a consumer opens a package to find an insert saying "you owe us an extra $10,000" and the seller files suit to collect. Any buyer finding such a demand can prevent formation of the contract by returning the package, as can any consumer who concludes that the terms of the license make the software worth less than the purchase price. Nothing in the UCC requires a seller to maximize the buyer's net gains.

Section 2-606, which defines "acceptance of goods", reinforces this understanding. A buyer accepts goods under sec. 2-606(1)(b) when, after an opportunity to inspect, he fails to make an effective rejection under sec. 2-602(1). ProCD extended an opportunity to reject if a buyer should find the license terms unsatisfactory; Zeidenberg inspected the package, tried out the software, learned of the license, and did not reject the goods. We refer to sec. 2-606 only to show that the opportunity to return goods can be important; acceptance of an offer differs from acceptance of goods after delivery, see Gillen v. Atalanta Systems, Inc., 997 F.2d 280, 284 n.1 (7th Cir. 1993); but the UCC consistently permits the parties to structure their relations so that the buyer has a chance to make a final decision after a detailed review.

That's great, but you're wrong.

From FindLaw:

The biggest flaw in standard civics accounts of the electoral college is that they never mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the President. But in a key speech on July 19, the savvy Virginian James Madison suggested that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: "The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes."

In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the electoral college-a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech-instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall electoral college.

"In this worldwide shadow election:"

Am I the only one getting tired of this? Yes, whoever wins this election will affect people around the world to some degree, but it still going to affect people in the United States the most. What my neighbor does can have an effect on my property values, so should I have a say in who he should marry?

If you want to be able to have your say in who becomes the next President of the United States, it's really quite simple: become a state. If the US elections are so important to you that you are willing to sacrifice some of your national sovereignty in order to have a say, by all means go ahead. But if your interest in having your say extends only as far as having your drothers, then why exactly should your opinion matter to those who are most affected by it? The job description of President of the United States extends far beyond just the realm of foreign policy.

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean I should have to listen to it, especially when all these polls have little more to say beyond "We prefer Kerry." No supporting arguments offered, no mention of the conditionals those people thought of, just people such as yourself using nothing but a number as the entire "argument," with perhpas some self-serving conjecture about the cause of those numbers thrown in alongside it.

McDonald's has served "billions and billions." Does that mean we should all go there for lunch? Should those numbers sway our decision on where to have lunch in any way?

Hell, at least foreign governments have a fighting chance against the incursions of the US government. State sovereignty and independence has disappeared not in a bang but in a whimper in federal courts. Participation in the national government is about all we have left any more, and now other people would rather dillute our say in our government even further. That's all I'm getting out of these arguments.

How could there be a surplus when the Federal Government didn't start collecting taxes until 1894, and not reliably until 1913 (16th amendment). References please, oh wait, this is slashdot politics.

When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil, vote Libertarian.

By "Constitution", you must mean the Defense of Marriage Act, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage. The DoMA, on the other hand, does explicitly define the rights of states; states don't have to accept the legal marriage of gays from one state to another.

The problem with this is that Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution (Full Faith and Credit) states, basically, that all public "Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" in one state convey to all others. When Bush mentions activist judges, he's referring to judges that could overturn the DoMA or rule it unconstitutional. Making what DoMA says part of the Constitution is the only way that couldn't happen.

--trb

This comment has been removed since it was clearly in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 871 (Threats Against The President) and / or Section 875 (Interstate Communications: Extortions / Threats). You can Read More Here. We're sorry to have to do this, and while we don't necessarily agree with this, it is still the law. When the Secret Service gets involved, we don't have many options. We appreciate your understanding in the matter. Please call (202) 406-5000 if you have any questions.

The courts have been pretty damned clear on this. The Miller test may not be as free speech friendly as I'd like it to be, but it does say that to regulate speech the work must be considered "as a whole" and be found "obscene". I have a hard time believing that a Per Incident fine structure would stand up as constitutional.

... Thawte's 1995 sale to Verisign ...

A minor correction.

Thawte was founded in 1995 and had about 35% of the digital certificate market at the time. VeriSign bought Thawte in 1999, turning VeriSign into a virtual monopoly with about 95% of the SSL digital certificate market.

Rather, accourding to Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2332 the definition is: (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;

Yes, and section 921 says a "destructive device" is "any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having a propellant charge of more than one quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) mine or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses."

An al Samoud rocket has a propellant charge of 825 kg, a lot more than four ounces, and if armed with explosives therefore fits the definition of a "destructive device" under Section 921, which means it is therefore a WMD, under the law you quoted.

Thanks for helping prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq had WMD, according to U.S. law. Cheers!

My favorite quote on this perspective is by Michael Kinsley:

"The purpose of the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee was pretty clearly to protect political discourse. But liberals reject the notion that free speech is therefore limited to political topics, even broadly defined. True, that purpose is not inscribed in the amendment itself. But why leap to the conclusion that a broadly worded constitutional freedom ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms") is narrowly limited by its stated purpose, unless you're trying to explain it away? My New Republic colleague Mickey Kaus says that if liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory."
-- Washington Post, January 8, 1990 [Emphasis mine].

It should be noted, for the record, that Michael Kinsley is NOT part of the gun fanatic crowd-- quite the opposite. Anyone who doubts this can simply check out The New Republic Online website to get the gist of their political perspective. As for my own perspective, I am a gun ownership advocate, though casting me as a fanatic might be stretching it a bit.

In defense of the perspective you claim invalid (and in support of Mickey Kaus' statement indirectly quoted above) I present the following argument. If you really believe the literalist perspective that you stated, then you must also agree that all legal decisions derived from the "right to privacy" should be null and void. This is obvious, as the word "privacy", along with all of its synonyms, appears nowhere in the Constitution. While obviously true, it is not so likely that you are willing to jump on this bandwagon, as many of the decisions based on this nonexistent right tend to align with the philosophy of those who wield the phrase "gun fanatic" as a diatribe.

As for the legal know-nothings on the Supreme Court, I would hazard this is not the case. I would also hazard that you are referring to UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) in which the Supreme Court ruled that possession of the shotgun you described could not be construed as protected because such a weapon would not fulfill the definition of providing for a well armed militia. The problem is that they also defined what a well armed militia was, and I don't think you are going to like their answer:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
--- UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) [Emphasis mine]

As a physically capable male, I appreciate the insight these know-nothings had into the definition of a Militia. While I myself am in possession of nothing more than a small handgun for self-defense, I can still appreciate the wisdom of our forefathers, and our Supreme Court justices, in providing for, and maintaining, this fundamental right.

Finally, as for the access to good hacking code, I agree completely. This is important, because I have found it is better to end on an agreeable note-- it cuts down on continued conversational clutter.

Does Apple really need to? They have a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft, they distribute GPL'd software with source, and they've shown a willingness to license even questionable patents.

My guess would be that if Apple were found to have infringed on someone's (legitimate) patent, they would just pay-up.

Of course I'm sure someone will point out a counter example ;)

Following the district court, we treat the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of products, and therefore as governed by the common law of contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code. Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and "licenses" (which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale) is a subject for another day.

We get to the meat of the matter, acceptance.

What then does the current version of the UCC have to say? We think that the place to start is sec. 2-204(1): "A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract." A vendor, as master of the offer, may invite acceptance by conduct, and may propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance. A buyer may accept by performing the acts the vendor proposes to treat as acceptance. And that is what happened. ProCD proposed a contract that a buyer would accept by using the soft- ware after having an opportunity to read the license at leisure. This Zeidenberg did. He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance. So al- though the district judge was right to say that a contract can be, and often is, formed simply by paying the price and walking out of the store, the UCC permits contracts to be formed in other ways. ProCD proposed such a dif- ferent way, and without protest Zeidenberg agreed. Ours is not a case in which a consumer opens a package to find an insert saying "you owe us an extra $10,000" and the seller files suit to collect. Any buyer finding such a de- mand can prevent formation of the contract by return- ing the package, as can any consumer who concludes that the terms of the license make the software worth less than the purchase price. Nothing in the UCC requires a seller to maximize the buyer's net gains.

Here is the most pertinent part to your idea that the GPL is a contract, imo. I bolded the very last part because I found it interesting.

But are rights created by contract "equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copy- right"? Three courts of appeals have answered "no." Na- tional Car Rental Systems, Inc. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 433 (8th Cir. 1993); Ta- quino v. Teledyne Monarch Rubber, 893 F.2d 1488, 1501 (5th Cir. 1990); Acorn Structures, Inc. v. Swantz, 846 F.2d 923, 926 (4th Cir. 1988). The district court disagreed with these decisions, 908 F. Supp. at 658, but we think them sound. Rights "equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright" are rights estab- lished by law--rights that restrict the options of persons who are strangers to the author. Copyright law forbids duplication, public performance, and so on, unless the per- son wishing to copy or perform the work gets permission; silence means a ban on copying. A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, by contrast, generally af- fect only their parties; strangers may do as they please, so contracts do not create "exclusive rights."

Someone who found a copy of SelectPhone (trademark) on the street would not be affected by the shrinkwrap license--though the fed- eral copyright laws of their own force would limit the finder

According to traditional legal doctrine, if one party makes a promise and the other party offers nothing in exchange for that promise, the promise is unenforceable. Such a promise is known as a "gratuitous promise." Gratuitous promises are said to be "unenforceable for lack of consideration."

The Supreme Court of USA for those of you who (like me) didn't have a clue at first.

AKA (in casual parlance) "The Supremes" whose work is available for free.

Not to be confused with The Supremes(TM) whose works are not so free or so easily available for download.

No, they didn't.

The Court simply declined to grant cert to the case and consider it. They have said multiple times that their refusal does not convey anything about the merits of the case:

STATE OF MD. v. BALTIMORE RADIO SHOW , 338 U.S. 912 (1950)

"Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated."

Unless enough justices have a personal interest in the case, the Supreme Court rarely considers a case except to resolve conflicting decisions among the US Courts of Appeals.

We need a way to moderate original postings "uninformed".

The courts are finally catching on to the RIAA's game. People should start suing *them*.

This is the "Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act", commonly known as "Check 21". Basically it allows a bank anywhere along the path from where the check is first deposited, to its arrival for payment at your bank, to replace the paper check with a front and back image scan. The law provides that your copy of this substituted check must be treated like an original check for the purpose of things like using it as a receipt to show you paid. For example, if your landlord failed to record the fact that you paid the rent, but deposited your check anyway, the law requires this substitute check image (printed back to you by your bank) be accepted as proof the check was deposited just as the original would be.

Banks are not required to do the image scan of checks, but they are allowed to do so. Banks are required to accept the image scan in place of those checks when the image scan gets done. If PayPal is allowing you to write checks against your account (but they would BE a bank if this happens, I'd think), they would have to update their software by October 28 to comply. More likely, if "Check 21" is an issue here, is that they may be adding some software to allow them to image scan checks made as payment to them. But the more they do like this, the closer they become to being a real bank.

When an image scan is done, the check can be processed much faster because it can now be sent to the account holder bank electronically. This is where the "float" many people depend on can start to disappear. OTOH, your bank may be able to get funds into your account for checks paid to you that you deposit equally faster. There is a possibility that PayPal was doing things that depend on the "float". Many business and people have been doing that for years. Practices will now have to change.

For more information:

• http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/trunc ation/default.htm
• http://www.nclc.org/initiatives/check21.shtml
• http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20041004/04oct2 004153239.html
• http://www.frbservices.org/Retail/check21About.htm l
• http://reged.com/Check21/About21.html
• http://www.fnbonline.com/site/check21faq.html

From a recent MSNBC column [Cliff Notes review - prior to reading the source document]:

The weapons of mass destruction case is a bit more, um, nuanced than a lot of the press treatment makes it sound, of course. No weapons have been found, but the Iraq Survey Group's report makes clear that Saddam wanted to outwait sanctions and then start making the [WMD] weapons again:

The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making [WMD] again with as short a lead time as possible."

But hey, Kerry voted for the war, so his arguments on that topic boil down to either: Bush lied, and I'm [Kerry is] gullible Bush and I both got fooled [Kerry got fooled just like Bush], but I'll do better next time.

Neither is [a] very compelling [argument by Kerry].