Slashdot Mirror

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].

>Since when is not waching an advertisement illegal?

The Supreme Court has already considerd this issue in: Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. A quick Google search brought up this article. They found that time shifting was acceptable and not significantly harmful to copyright holders.

Of course, Congress could change this by passing this stupid bill. Whether or not today's Supreme Court would hold the same view as in the SONY case is a big unknown.

Books about those who designed
the Bush administration's deliberate dishonesty

There are many excellent people in the Republican political party in the United States. But there is are people who say they are Republicans who might be called "Re-money-cans". (There is no "public" in Remoneycan.) They are only interested in money and power and they achieve them by using dishonesty as a tool. For example, the Remoneycans have been running advertisements on U.S. television claiming that George W. Bush is a more experienced military leader than John Kerry, who opposes him for the 2004 presidential election. During times when people in the U.S. feel threatened, a large percentage of them feel that violence is the only answer, and the ads manipulate that feeling. The ads may be very convincing if the viewer does not know the truth, that John Kerry is much more experienced, as the Military Service Records for Bush and Kerry show. Also see the essay Bush's Military Records Show He Shirked.

1. Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The brains behind the remarkable political triumph of George W. Bush by Lou Dubose, Jan Reid, and Carl M. Cannon, 2003, PublicAffairs. Reviews: Powell's Barnes & Noble Amazon

   The secret of Karl Rove's success is that U.S. voters don't want to believe there is widespread corruption in their government. Therefore, if lies are extreme enough, they will be accepted.

   President George W. Bush has a habit of giving disrespectful nicknames to those with whom he works. "Boy Genius" is one of President Bush's nicknames for Karl Rove. President Bush also calls Karl Rove, "Turd Blossom". The term refers to a flower that grows in the feces of a cow.

2. Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove made George W. Bush presidential by James Moore and Wayne Slater, 2003, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA. Reviews: Powell's Barnes & Noble Amazon

   An Amazon review about the present U.S. president, George W. Bush, quotes the book: "Karl Rove matters to all Americans, many who have never even heard his name. While the president chafes at the description of Rove as 'Bush's Brain,' he can hardly deny that every policy and political decision either goes through, or comes from, the consultant," write the authors, leading them to pose the question, "Who really runs this country?"

3. Bad Boy: The life and politics of Lee Atwater by John Brady, 1997, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts. Reviews: Barnes & Noble Amazon

   Lee Atwater and Karl Rove worked together, but Lee died of a brain tumor when he was 40. Mr. Atwater also had no interest in government policy, but only in how to get someone elected. For example, see the top of page 103 of the hardcover edition: "Indeed, Lee had no interest in the policy loop." Another quote, about his sexual involvement with women other than his wife, from page 151: "He [Lee Atw

The State Street decision.

I know you are arguing against the merits of this, but this is the legal basis permitting such methods to be potential subject matter eligible for patent protection in the US under 35 USC 101.

Get a bunch of plantiff's attorneys involved, and a chase for money will ensue. Though SCO may have opened the doors here, IT really isn't very special when it comes to this sort of thing. Business has been dealing with this for years. There's a scam right now concerning ADA lawsuits, where law firms literally go out and hunt small and medium business that may have ADA infractions, even if they're relativly small and the owners tackle the problem right away. Settle up, or we sue.

If lawyers think they've got a loophole to pull cash out of you, they'll attack it. Hope your firm's attorneys are good.

Um... they didn't have to testify at all - due to separation of powers. Since this wasn't an impeachment hearing (at least not yet) or independent council investigation, the congress has no business investigating the office of the president.

I'm as much a believer in separation powers as anyone. But separation of powers does not prevent Congress from investigating the executive branch. Separation of powers means that the Constitution grants certain exclusive powers to each branch of the government; for example, the executive branch cannot declare war or constitute tribunals; the judicial branch cannot carry out impeachments; and the legislative branch cannot pardon crimes. Separation of powers also encompasses the idea of checks and balances. If one takes the view that this investigatory role is a check on the executive branch then separation of powers actually does give Congress this power.

You might have a more persuasive argument if you had said that the Constitution simply does not grant the power to Congress to conduct investigations. And you'd be right, if we only consider powers that the Constitution grants explicitly. However, it is generally understood that investigatory powers are granted to Congress implicitly, and this power is not so limited as to exclude investigations of the executive branch.

So they got a C&D letter. And probably from a real lawyer on actual letterhead. This is the lowest and cheapest form of legal intimidation. I've gotten one before, as have many other people. By itself it doesn't mean anything beyond a lawyer being paid to tell you Don't do that, or we'll be really pissed!

I'd say, get a lawyer in return. Get a cheap, or free lawyer. Get the ACLU (they like to defend free speech rights). Then send a letter in return. As for myself, the very best nasty C&D letter and their outstanding response will show you that a lot of times, this really is just a cheap scare.

Because, however, IANAL, do consult with one. And point him in the direction of: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc (1994).

It's the law that is found unconstitutional.

Just because the law is wrong doesn't mean the court endorses the crime. Take Miranda vs. Arizona . Even though the rapist is freed, and precedent is set, the court isn't saying it's okay to rape someone.

It should also be noted that Alan Keyes thinks it would be a good idea to repeal the 17th Amendment.

This, for those who don't know, would make the state legislature elect (U.S.) Senators instead of the people. Why? Likely because he is behind in the polls also.

But this seems like a bad idea to me for a number of reasons:

I may like Republicans to run my state, but not the U.S. Congress. Makes it hard to have it both ways.
People already feel under represented, this would make it worse.
Puts Senate choices and debate behind closed doors (I believe)

If I wasn't so tired, I'd have more for you.

Ok, class. One more time. There is no such thing as international law. There are international treaties, such as the UN charter...but a law a treaty does not make.

According to the Constitution, treaties, along with the Constitution and laws created under the Constitution, "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." So while treaties are not internationally binding, treaties that the US are signatories to essentially become US law.

The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot, however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true. The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith. Professions of good faith will be unlikely to prove persuasive, for example, where a story is fabricated by the defendant, is the product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. Nor will they be likely to prevail when the publisher's allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation. Likewise, recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports. (emphasis added)

The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made [376 U.S. 254, 280] with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot, however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true. The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith. Professions of good faith will be unlikely to prove persuasive, for example, where a story is fabricated by the defendant, is the product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. Nor will they be likely to prevail when the publisher's allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation. Likewise, recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports.

In short, the evidence is ample to support a finding of highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.

The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made [376 U.S. 254, 280] with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot, however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true. The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith. Professions of good faith will be unlikely to prove persuasive, for example, where a story is fabricated by the defendant, is the product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. Nor will they be likely to prevail when the publisher's allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation. Likewise, recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports.

In short, the evidence is ample to support a finding of highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.

The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made [376 U.S. 254, 280] with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot, however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true. The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith. Professions of good faith will be unlikely to prove persuasive, for example, where a story is fabricated by the defendant, is the product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. Nor will they be likely to prevail when the publisher's allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation. Likewise, recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports.

In short, the evidence is ample to support a finding of highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.

From CNN's site ("the broadcast" is the one in question): After the broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status. Here are the documents: http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004 /docs.html#ltbush note that only the last two documents are "forged" or faked or retyped or whatever the current line is now.... and that the first two were released from the whitehouse right after the story, and, perhaps im not reading this correctly, had not been released before. Which would suggest that the white house had been holding them, as its been holding so many of these records. So are all the documents fake, or just the two, did the administration release those two after the story, and if so, doesnt that mean they are legit? I think I am also eyeing some canadian realestate...

I think you've separated your ideas too much. Commerce regulation IS constitutional.
See here

In general, because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid , 490 U.S. 730 (1989), a party who hires an independent contractor to do software development work should have a written agreement with the contractor providing that the result of the contractor's efforts will be owned by the hiring party.

While there are exceptions to that rule, the exception requires proving several points which fundamentally are at odds with the legal classification of independent contractor, basically only if you can show that the programmer in question was doing nothing but rote mechanical implementation and there was no creative work being done by them. Even then use of this precedent is questionable, because of the rather complicated nature of the case involved.

In any case, point settled, the guy says it wasn't the same code so assuming he's being truthful, the copyright issues are indeed irrevelant.

Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door.

the act of gaining passage into and entering another's property (as a building or vehicle) without privilege or by force

wrongful conduct causing harm to another: as

a: a willful act or active negligence as distinguished from a mere omission of a duty that causes an injury to or invasion of the person, rights, or esp. property of another

continuing trespass
: a trespass that continues until the act (as of depriving another of his or her property without the intent to steal it) or instrumentality (as an object placed wrongfully on another's land) causing it is ended or removed

: to commit a trespass

esp
: to enter wrongfully or without proper authority or consent upon the real property of another: to commit a trespass against

Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door.

the act of gaining passage into and entering another's property (as a building or vehicle) without privilege or by force

wrongful conduct causing harm to another: as

a: a willful act or active negligence as distinguished from a mere omission of a duty that causes an injury to or invasion of the person, rights, or esp. property of another

continuing trespass
: a trespass that continues until the act (as of depriving another of his or her property without the intent to steal it) or instrumentality (as an object placed wrongfully on another's land) causing it is ended or removed

: to commit a trespass

esp
: to enter wrongfully or without proper authority or consent upon the real property of another: to commit a trespass against

Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door.

the act of gaining passage into and entering another's property (as a building or vehicle) without privilege or by force

wrongful conduct causing harm to another: as

a: a willful act or active negligence as distinguished from a mere omission of a duty that causes an injury to or invasion of the person, rights, or esp. property of another

continuing trespass
: a trespass that continues until the act (as of depriving another of his or her property without the intent to steal it) or instrumentality (as an object placed wrongfully on another's land) causing it is ended or removed

: to commit a trespass

esp
: to enter wrongfully or without proper authority or consent upon the real property of another: to commit a trespass against

Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door.

the act of gaining passage into and entering another's property (as a building or vehicle) without privilege or by force

wrongful conduct causing harm to another: as

a: a willful act or active negligence as distinguished from a mere omission of a duty that causes an injury to or invasion of the person, rights, or esp. property of another

continuing trespass
: a trespass that continues until the act (as of depriving another of his or her property without the intent to steal it) or instrumentality (as an object placed wrongfully on another's land) causing it is ended or removed

: to commit a trespass

esp
: to enter wrongfully or without proper authority or consent upon the real property of another: to commit a trespass against

Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door.

the act of gaining passage into and entering another's property (as a building or vehicle) without privilege or by force

wrongful conduct causing harm to another: as

a: a willful act or active negligence as distinguished from a mere omission of a duty that causes an injury to or invasion of the person, rights, or esp. property of another

continuing trespass
: a trespass that continues until the act (as of depriving another of his or her property without the intent to steal it) or instrumentality (as an object placed wrongfully on another's land) causing it is ended or removed

: to commit a trespass

esp
: to enter wrongfully or without proper authority or consent upon the real property of another: to commit a trespass against

"466. Every person having upon him or her in his or her possession a picklock, crow, keybit, crowbar, screwdriver, vise grip pliers, water-pump pliers, slidehammer, slim jim, tension bar, lock pick gun, tubular lock pick, floor-safe door puller, master key, ceramic or porcelain spark plug chips or pieces, or other instrument or tool with intent feloniously to break or enter into any building, railroad car, aircraft, or vessel, trailer coach, or vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code, or who shall knowingly make or alter, or shall attempt to make or alter, any key or other instrument named above so that the same will fit or open the lock of a building, railroad car, aircraft, vessel, trailer coach, or vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code, without being requested to do so by some person having the right to open the same, or who shall make, alter, or repair any instrument or thing, knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used in committing a misdemeanor or felony, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any of the structures mentioned in Section 459 shall be deemed to be a building within the meaning of this section."

I interpret this as owning lockpicks are legal, using them to commit a crime is a misdemeanor. Complete lockpicking laws - From FindLaw.

Pat

Kylow, I think you've made some good points. In the interest of civil debate I would like to retract some of the more juvenile things I may have said in this thread. Having said that...

In my earlier post, I contended that payment to the government (in the form of taxes) is analogous to payment of rent to a landlord for the privilege of living on his property. I then further pointed out that in a society, the government sometimes opts to spend its tax revenue on causes which individuals in the society disagree with, but which (ideally) most of society deems acceptable. You responded that this was the "Tyranny of the Majority". I agree, but I would like to explore the point further.

Let us first be frank and admit that there exist essentially two types of government. One makes decisions via broad consensus; the other reserves its decision making powers to a select few (or one). The first is subject to tyranny of the majority; the second is subject to tyranny of the minority. In both cases there exist situations in which the decision of the government is not in line with the views of certain citizens. But is this truly surprising, or avoidable? A society, after all, is made up of many people, with different and opposing views on how to handle any particular situation. It follows logically that when the government adopts a particular policy, said policy will be in line with the views of some, and contrary to the views of others. Whether this "tyranny" is perpetrated by the majority or the minority is somewhat irrelevant, wouldn't you say? At least with tyranny of the majority, most people are satisfied.

I understand that this solution is imperfect: witness the prosecution of African Americans during slavery, before the civil rights movement, and even today; witness the decision to intern Japanese Americans during the second world war; witness too the Salem Witch Trials, or Sentator Joe McCarthy's anti-communist witch hunt -- and even more recently, the War on Terror. Lamentable decisions are sometimes made to appease the majority view, and these are not always right. I do not claim that the Tyranny of the Majority is fair or just -- tyranny is so called for a reason.

But the fact remains that when many, many people must come to a decision, some will not be satisfied with its outcome. This cannot be avoided. Consider too that despite the fact that the Libertarian Party's views are not widely held, it seems that you would gladly impose them on America, if only you had the power to do so. How would this tyranny be any better than the one you despise?

Moving along to Amendment X. This Amendment is often used by conservatives as a catch all "most of the federal government is unconstitutional" provision. Unfortunately, legally speaking, this is not the correct interpretation. It surprises me that you would think that the Judicial branch of the United States government, which has the right and duty to interpret the United States constitution, would simply "be unaware" of the 10th Amendment.

As it happens, the 10th Amendment was an attempt by anti-federalists to do exactly what you describe: greatly limit the scope and power of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, their attempt was hamstrung by the Federalists and as a result this Amendment is widely regarded as tautological but meaningless. Some relevant excerpts from findlaw.com, which conveniently has references to back up everything it says:

That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word "expressly" before the word "delegated" ...

This is the problem with legalese; these little details are important. Here's the 10th amendment, for reference, with "expressly" inserted in brack

I could only find the Supreme Court case. Anybody have any of the others?

Miller v. U.S., 868 F.2d 236, C.A.7 (Ind.),1989.
United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir.1986)
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 (7th Cir.1986)
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed.2d 493 (1916)
U.S. v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, C.A.9 (Mont.),1986.

As a clarification, most mantraps are legal, at least in the US. I work at a government facility with one, and I've worked at a datacenter with one. In addition, a mantrap is in place in at least one location for America's Cash Express, as mentioned as a point of fact in this decision.

What I think etymxris was speaking of are lethal mantraps that use some kind of weapon (i.e., open the door and get a shotgun to the chest). Those are definitely illegal.

Then read the actual ruling.

It would be madness if Hollywood et al got their way, if only because as the article stated, Hollywood benefitted enourmously from sales of VCR.

Wait, so they wrote a law that defined two seperate concepts to be equal? Didn't we decide that this concept was illegal 50 years ago?

As I understand it, domestic partner status in California is available to any couple, regardless of the gender mix thereof. If so, it's legal. Stupid, perhaps redundant with marriage for heterosexuals, but legal.

The question of whether marriage is legal as it is presently described remains up for grabs. And, if I'm wrong about DP being open to both straights and gays, you're probably completely right. However, the DP law might provide enough of a safety valve and dissipation of political focus to delay the final resolution of this issue for a decade or two, since it provides the majority of what the majority of gay couples want-- the substance, if not the name, from the state, and nothing precluding them from using the name with their church, themselves, or their unbigoted neighbors. The current trend is that the younger someone is, the more likely they are to be tollerant to the idea of gay marriage. A two-decade delaying half measure might allow the political tide in this country to turn, and get rid of the half-measure by simplifying to one institution, open to all.

Myself, I think the state doesn't belong in the marriage business, merely in the "civil union"/"domestic partnership" business, but I'm a little strange, even for a Catholic; I believe that cases involving whether something is a marriage, or merely a domestic partnership, is something that may be decided by no mortal court. Religious authorities merely express advisory opinions as to what the ruling of that Final Court is thought likely to be.

Anyway, the current strange demographic trend (more conservative in personal behavior, but more liberal in tolerance of others) in the younger crowd may be one reason why the Republicans are using such desperate measures to pack the federal bench, and are drooling so hard over the prospects of putting up to three justices on the Supreme Court next term. I believe (as I have stated elsewhere in this discussion) that the Republicans have lost their sense of history. Though it might take a tremendous expendature of political capital, an extremist Supreme Court can be bludgeoned to a more moderate position if both President and Congress are united and sufficiently motivated. (Whether this is a good thing is questionable.)

• Section 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

  Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

What part of "restraint of trade" didn't they understand?

Take a look at the FTC Guidelines on horizontal agreements among competitors. There's a good chance that the FTC could challenge this. Even under the Bush Administration, the FTC regularly takes antitrust enforcement actions.

The laws under discussion ( apparently AB 205 and AB 25 according to this GoogleNews listed source) would make gay partnerships legally recognized with all the same rights as a marriage, but a different name -- a rose by any other name and a nicely Solomonic decision, pissing off the Radical Gays who demand both name and substance, and Christian Zealots who would deny them both. A nice compromise, therefore. =)

Wait, so they wrote a law that defined two seperate concepts to be equal? Didn't we decide that this concept was illegal 50 years ago?

"Such an instrument" being a weapon forbidden by the Firearm Act.

Unfortunately, you are ignorant of some legal terminology here. The term "exclusive jurisdiction" has a very precise meaning that is not applicable to private contracts. In this case, the paragraph you cite is intended to establish only the FCC has the right to make law regarding the use of RFI, as opposed to state governments or any other governmental body.

Why don't you read the definition on FindLaw

It is also amusing you so casually dismiss the firearm example. The bill of rights establishes your right to own a firearm, and landlords can and do force you to relinquish that right... yet some bullshit congressional act regarding radio frequencies doesn't carry the same weight?

Try and think logically here, at the very least.

Petitioner Sony Corp. manufactures home video tape recorders (VTR's), and markets them through retail establishments, some of which are also petitioners. Respondents own the copyrights on some of the television programs that are broadcast on the public airwaves. Respondents brought an action against petitioners in Federal District Court, alleging that VTR consumers had been recording some of respondents' copy-righted works that had been exhibited on commercially sponsored television and thereby infringed respondents' copyrights, and further that petitioners were liable for such copyright infringement because of their marketing of the VTR's. Respondents sought money damages, an equitable accounting of profits, and an injunction against the manufacture and marketing of the VTR's. The District Court denied respondents all relief, holding that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement, and that petitioners could not be held liable as contributory infringers even if the home use of a VTR was considered an infringing use. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding petitioners liable for contributory infringement and ordering the District Court to fashion appropriate relief. [Emphasis added].

Held:

The sale of the VTR's to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of respondents' copyrights. [In other words, told Universal to go stuff themselves.]

The only insightful sentance in the parent post is that there are way too many stupid people in the world. Among them are those who cannot distinguish between their first amendment rights & the FOIA.
The First amendment states:
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.
The FOIA on the other hand:
... provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, of access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions thereof) are protected from disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions ... The basic purpose of [the] FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.

The FOIA already includes exceptions for law enforcement & privacy issues. The current admin is trying to add Sat pictures to this list to avoid making Govt bought Sat pics available for the price of a FOIA query & thus helping potential terrorists. Anyone who needs the pics can still always go directly to SPOT & buy the pictures.
The 1st amendment & the FOIA have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Moderators, how is this Insightful?

The only insightful sentance in the parent post is that there are way too many stupid people in the world. Among them are those who cannot distinguish between their first amendment rights & the FOIA.
The First amendment states:
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.
The FOIA on the other hand:
... provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, of access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions thereof) are protected from disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions ... The basic purpose of [the] FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.

The FOIA already includes exceptions for law enforcement & privacy issues. The current admin is trying to add Sat pictures to this list to avoid making Govt bought Sat pics available for the price of a FOIA query & thus helping potential terrorists. Anyone who needs the pics can still always go directly to SPOT & buy the pictures.
The 1st amendment & the FOIA have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Moderators, how is this Insightful?

Why don't you actually read the Bush vs. Gore decision before you deride it as the action of a "right wing" Supreme Court. Their decision was based on a reading of the law, rather than politics. Of course, actually taking laws as written these days is a sure sign that a justice is "right wing." Surely Scalia and Rehnquist are at the front of judicial activism today! Get a clue!

You are the idiot.

Read this:

The Commander-in-Chief a Civilian Officer .--Is the Commander-in- Chiefship a military or civilian office in the contemplation of the Constitution? Unquestionably the latter. An opinion by a New York surrogate deals adequately, though not authoritatively, with the subject: ''The President receives his compensation for his services, rendered as Chief Executive of the Nation, not for the individual parts of his duties. No part of his compensation is paid from sums appropriated for the military or naval forces; and it is equally clear under the Constitution that the President's duties as Commander in Chief represents only a part of duties ex officio as Chief Executive [Article II, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution] and that the latter's office is a civil office. [Article II, section 1 of the Constitution; vol. 91, Cong. Rec. 4910-4916; Beard, The Republic (1943) pp. 100-103.] The President does not enlist in, and he is not inducted or drafted into, the armed forces. Nor, is he subject to court-martial or other military discipline. On the contrary, Article II, section 4 of the Constitution provides that 'The President, [Vice President] and All Civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' . . . The last two War Presidents, President Wilson and President Roosevelt, both clearly recognized the civilian nature of the President's position as Commander in Chief. President Roosevelt, in his Navy Day Campaign speech at Shibe Park, Philadelphia, on October 27, 1944, pronounced this principle as follows:--'It was due to no accident and no oversight that the framers of our Constitution put the command of our armed forces under civilian authority. It is the duty of the Commander in Chief to appoint the Secretaries of War and Navy and the Chiefs of Staff.' It is also to be noted that the Secretary of War, who is the regularly constituted organ of the President for the administration of the military establishment of the Nation, has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be merely a civilian officer, not in military service. (United States v. Burns, 79 U.S. 246 (1871)). On the general principle of civilian supremacy over the military, by virtue of the Constitution, it has recently been said: 'The supremacy of the civil over the military is one of our great heritages.' Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 324 U.S. 833 (1945), 14 L.W. 4205 at page 4210.'' 193

You are purposefully not addressing what I say. ... You are essentially making up my stance, then proving the strawman to be false.

Hello pot, let me introduce you to the kettle...

All I've done thus far is to try and convince you that what you think I'm saying isn't what I'm saying at all... With a little side dose of critique on some of the less well thought out opinions you've presented that were unrelated to the discussion. You say I'm not addressing what you're saying? Well you make it real easy this time. Let me beat a dead horse in response again:

This isn't about whether someone it intimatated. No one was intimidated. No one will be intimidated. This is about whether the information should or should not be public. What people do with it is a separate issue that I've repeatedly stated that I'm not addressing here.

Nobody has yet to question whether this information was public; especially not me. In fact the only thing in question in this thread is that which you say isn't: whether somebody can be intimidated by having their name being included on a list made public in a certain context.

Since you obviously don't care to have a dialogue about the issues I brought up regarding your assertions about their rights, I can' only tell you to go screw yourself.

Wait? I should go screw myself because I started a discussion with a narrow scope, and didn't present opinions to expand it? The only reason I'm continuing this discussion with you is because you continue to put words in my mouth. If you'd like to have a dialogue about the issue (singular) that I was commenting on, I'd be glad to.

So, not only are you wrong, but you know you are wrong, yet you keep asserting you are right by bringing in race, intimidation, private situations not related to the public officials involved, and straw men.

I claim to be right about one particular thing. The reason you think I'm wrong is that you think, for some strange reason, that I'm making a much more broad commentary than I really am, and then fabricating my position about these matters.

No. It does agree with me on *all* cases (with regards to my assertion). I can't prove that the law agrees with me in every case. To do so would require that I post every decision for every court case related. You can prove me wrong. All you have to do is post one single finding that disagrees with my statement. Of course, I expect you to do what you continue to do, purposefully misintrepret my statement to something easier to refute, then refute that which I never claimed.

Funny you should say all this in an article that references a subpoena issued by a grand jury in reference to USC Title 18 section 594. All you needed to do was click the link in the article (Oh horrors, you have to actually read the article in a slashdot post). Clearly the US district court doesn't consider the law to be unconstitutional. Of course if you're arguing about some law that nobody has yet dreamed of that says that public information should somehow be illegal to publicize, clearly that is going to lead to confusion, since nobody has said anything like that.

No. That's not what it is about.

Now you're telling me what I was talking about? I'm telling you right now: you're wrong. That is what this is about. I can say that with authority since I started this conversation and that is what I was discussing.

For one, I disagree. I expect that very few (if any) delegates were intimidated by the list.

So David Kelley just happened to be reading Indymedia and decided to prosecute over this? Unlikely. I'm sure that somebody on the list complained to his office that the list existed.

Additionally, even if they were intimidated, you intimate that it is somehow wrong to use public information to further your ag

Have you read Houston v. Hill Recently. You're a texas guy.

And GULLIFORD v PIERCE COUNTY ...Relying, inter alia, on the Supreme Court's decision in Hill, we ruled in Mackinney v. Nielsen that expressive conduct such as writing with chalk on the sidewalk does not itself create probable cause for arrest ...

He should be released ASAP, and the state should pay for his pains, plus reimburse the lost opportunity costs.

(All this said - i believe the first amendment protectes those who disagree with protected speech and their right to "clean up the mess" personally i prefer to collect litter on a stick - and have been arrested for that so - it cuts both ways.

AIK

Have you read Houston v. Hill Recently. You're a texas guy.

And GULLIFORD v PIERCE COUNTY ...Relying, inter alia, on the Supreme Court's decision in Hill, we ruled in Mackinney v. Nielsen that expressive conduct such as writing with chalk on the sidewalk does not itself create probable cause for arrest ...

He should be released ASAP, and the state should pay for his pains, plus reimburse the lost opportunity costs.

(All this said - i believe the first amendment protectes those who disagree with protected speech and their right to "clean up the mess" personally i prefer to collect litter on a stick - and have been arrested for that so - it cuts both ways.

AIK

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is part of the Bill of Rights you mention. This particular amendment was a nod to the Federalists, who argued against a Bill of Rights, largely because they believed by enumerating specific rights, the government would seize upon the absence of an omitted right to assert that there was no such right. They preferred a construction that very specifically enumerated those things government was allowed to do, and presume that all else was off-limits.

I don't know where on God's green earth you got that from, but you couldn't be more wrong.

Nope. He's right, and you're wrong. And by tossing in that gratutious "you can't be more wrong", you made YOURSELF even more wrong.

As others have replied, your supposed "proof" is based on confusing libel with satire. For the real state-of-the-law, read "The Cat Not In The Hat" decision. It clearly shows that imitating the work of an artist (Theodor Geisel) to comment on someone else (Orenthal Simpson) is NOT protected parody, but illegal copyright infringement.

In fact, when the satire is aimed at a public official

Comments like that underline your fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. The subject of the satire doesn't matter- it's not his rights that are being violated. It's the author of the source material that is allegedly harmed by the infringement. (Notice that it wasn't Bush or Kerry suing Jibjab, but Ms. Guthrie)

Findlaw.com

It's worth noting that the quoted statement is not protected by the first amendment, though the wording is such that it could probably be argued both ways. Findlaw has this to say about "clear and present danger. " In fact, I remember reading somewhere that the FBI is actually required to investigate any citizen who advocates violence against the president. Another useful link on the history and limitations of the first amendment is here.

No.

So, if you only buy the original 10, you're skipping the equal rights ammendment, the end of slavery and the one which gives women the right to vote!?

You're either nuts, or you should read the rest of the constitution...

A copyrighted work is a product like any other and if the owner chooses to license it rather than sell it, he or she can do so under whatever terms are agreeable to him or her. So long as the licensee agrees, the license is binding within usual limits on such things (no duress, no incompetance, etc.).

And EULAs have been upheld in court. For example, see the shrinkwrap license upheld in ProCD v. Zeidenberg.

Most likely the case discussed in this article:

Poletown Reversed

Disclaimer: the article doesn't really make the slightest pretense of being unbiased but it does highlight the issue well.

You're new to this whole 'intellectual property' thing, aren't you. US summary

In one town where I used to live there was a law to cover just this kind of situation. They didn't call in B&E, I think it was called "prowling." You could get minorly busted just for looking in car windows and trying the locks.

In Florida it means

The State must prove two elements to sustain a conviction for loitering and prowling. First the accused must be loitering and prowling in a manner not usual for law abiding citizens; and, second, the loitering and prowling must be under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or concern for the safety of persons or property located in the vicinity. As to the first element the State must prove more than vaguely suspicious presence. As to the second, it must prove conduct that is alarming in nature, indicating an imminent breach of the peace or a threat to public safety.

The lawyers have already covered this base, and it belongs to them. Sorry trolls, beat you to it.