Slashdot Mirror

There was always something that bugged me about foxnews.com cnn.com bbc.co.uk, etc, but I could never put my finger on it. They don't link to any documents or sources

You may be right about the BBC, but you are wrong about foxnews.com. I'm no apologist, but I give credit where credit is due.

The current front-page story on foxnews.com is about the Supreme Court's ruling 'Under God' Case Dismissed on Technicality

In the short blub on the front page, one immediately finds, under "raw data," Supreme Court's Dismissal of Case. Right there on the front page.

According to Find Law it would appear that only for DUI can the force a blood test ( and if you don't, they suspend your license unless you can prove you weren't under the influence.

Tepples wrote (about singing around the campfire as jhines suggested): Then your problem will be with BMI and ASCAP and SESAC, when they bill you for singing copyrighted songs. The recording isn't the only thing copyrighted; the sheet music itself is subject to a monopoly.

I'm all for singing.

First of all, although many songs are covered by copyright (including, darn them, "Happy Birthday") many others are not. If I feel like singing a Handel aria while sitting around the campfire, guess what? It's in the public domain. BMI can kiss my behind if they want to collect royalties from me for singing "Verdi prati" from Alcina (first performed in 1735). Same goes for many folk songs and traditional tunes. Including Kumbaya, which you might or might not consider encouraging news.

Second of all, it is questionable whether the campfire scenario described even falls under one of the "exclusive rights" of copyright. I call your attention to 17 USC 106:

Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
. . .
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

Note the word "publicly." The right to perform "publicly" is reserved to the rightsholder, but it says nothing about performing "privately." That is why you don't have to pay a royalty when you sing happy birthday to your 3-year-old nephew at a party at your brother's house. Or when you sing while gathered around the campfire with friends.

(Ok, after I managed to completely delete my reply...)

You are right. I looked for the articles I had read before and can not find them. So I finally wound up at the Copyright Offices' website.

In my journey's I went to Find Law's website, IP Watch.com, and the Copyright Office itself.

So - I'm wrong! Oh well.

Mathematically speaking though, Life + 70 can equal as much as 190 years (if you listen to the MPAA's spokesperson). It still is not 270 years though. Wish I could find that article again about why, under the DMCA, a copyright could last as long as 270 years. It was very enlightening at the time.

Later!

What you do find in Idaho is a general mistrust of the Federal Government and Attorney Generals. Remember Ruby Ridge.

It was a weak case from the start. Ashcroft was doing a witch hunt. With the case they were presenting anyone who sets up up a website with a forum with a single posting inciting violence could get terrorism charges. And the postings referenced in the indictment that Ashcroft quoted read like book reports. For example "The World's Bravest People" about the Chechen mujahideen warriors, "The True Meaning of Shaheed" about how matrydom is an ultimate honor, "The Objectives and Aims of Jihad", and "The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihad".

It was if someone posted a document on the honor and bravery of Samurais and the webmaster being thown in jail.

Here is the indictment.

As a former UI student who worked in the same lab as Sami, I am glad to see that our court systems do work and that he can return to his family. Let's hope that all accused get a day in court instead of indefinite prison terms and assassinations.

The thing about websites, forums, and mailing lists, is that you can never get the true feel from a description designed to make it sound horrible. For all we know, the messages that they read could be considered the trolls of the mailing list. Even if they weren't, Internet forums is still a sticky subject. People say a lot of stupid things, discussions can get heated, people can troll, people can exaggerate their beliefs to get a better response, and sometimes there are just nuts who use the Internet to let our their ideas that no one will listen to in real life. The sites could have been designed to support and recruit terrorists, but you can never really know, and there certainly wasn't enough evidence to point fingers at a moderator of the mailing list.

Perhaps - but don't truely free people have the right to travel?

In Britain, this might be a different case, but in America, it is a different story. Part of it lies with how automobiles are purchased, part of lies with licensing, and part of it lies within our Constitution.

There is both a Constitutionally and case law recognized "right to travel". It is rare that you find someone in court over this right - looking at various cases that have been fought and won (some involving the idea that automobile licensing violates the "right to travel") clearly show that our lawmakers *hate* this little inconvenience - they would rather that we be penned up like sheep for slaughter, it would seem.

Vehicle licensing seeks to restrict this "right to travel" by invoking the ideas of taxation for road usage (the poor have no right to travel?), or safety reasons (yeah, a license really shows you are a safe driver - hah!). Furthermore, the way we purchase our vehicles also affects this - because most buy vehicles on credit, and the original copy of the MSO (manufacturer's statement of origin), which is the actual manufacturer's receipt to you to show you own the property - goes to the licensing department of your state - you are supposed to get it back when you finish paying your loan - but you never do, at best you get a copy, if that. The only time you could ever see your MSO for your car would be if you bought it with cash from the manufacturer directly (*not* through a dealer). But then your licensing bureau (MDV, MVD, etc) would still want it so you can get a license. In the end you don't own your car - the state (or a combo of the state and the bank if you are still paying on a loan) does. It has long been recognised that free men are allowed to own property - but not property that allows them the right to travel?

One could still make the argument that "this doesn't violate your right to travel" - you still have your feet, or a bicycle, or a horse, or something (ie, how did early settlers travel?) - but even this isn't possible today in America, and probably not in many other parts of the world where free travel is allowed. Why?

Because in most areas, it is illegal (for many reasons, some of them good) to walk or bike along interstate throughfares. It is impossible in many cases to avoid these roads, simply because to do so you are likely trespassing on somebody's land (the states or Feds paid money to the private landowners for easements for the roadways). No matter what you do, it seems, you are breaking the law if you try to exercise your right to travel free of the restrictions imposed upon you by the State.

Can a free man be truely free if he can't travel freely (or own the property that enables him to travel)? Is a society composed of these supposedly "free" members truely free?

Here's a comment I posted earlier today where I mention the patent reexamination process and suggest a modification. I'll re-print a summary of the data here

It is currently possible to request that a patent be reviewed by the USPTO. This does not require a lawsuit (or technically even a lawyer, though there is a need for a properly-formatted request).

There are two types of re-examination. They differ in several respects. One, inter partes, allows you to basically provide rebuttals to the filer's explanations, and the other ex parte, does not.

My thanks to Thalia for locating the associated fees on the USPTO website: inter partes costs $8800 and ex parte $2500. Both of these costs do not include legal fees, which Thalia estimated (for inter partes) at about $12,000.

The problem is that getting a patent runs about $1,000 (again, not including any legal fees). This tends to slant things towards people acquiring patents, as it is still more expensive to get a patent revoked.

The modification that I'd like to see made would involve *patent owners* having to pay ex parte or inter partes fees if it is determined that their patent was improperly approved. This means that groups like the EFF (and, with some work to make the process particularly easy, perhaps anyone) can initate re-examination requests while supplying prior art examples.

Such a change would encourage patent filers to ensure that their patents really are legitimate when filing (reducing the number of bogus patents), and would not financially penalize someone who knows of prior art and wants to fix the USPTO database (if anything, I'd like to see someone who successfully brings up an example of prior art and gets a patent revoked *paid* a small fee by the patent filer for their time).

This change would involve minimal changes to the system, and not much cost. There might be the issue of collecting from the patent owner, who might be unwilling to pay. I think that an eight-thousand dollar deposit per patent would probably be too weighty, so I'm not sure how to approach that detail yet. However, even if the USPTO needs additional funding to help cover costs of employees needing to review patents where the USPTO cannot collect from the patent filer, I think that we woudl be better off (furthermore, that individual could be barred from being issued future patents until they have paid off their existing dues).

Problem: this change would *have* to grandfather old patents, as companies and individuals would otherwise be liable for masses of money for bogus patents. Irritating as it is that those people were able to get away with such behavior, the system permitted bogus patents, and charging them fees for said patents now is not reasonable (nor would it be acceptable to many people).

I think that this is the only feasible approach to the problem. Trying to ensure that the USPTO never grants invalid patents would require that they maintain a huge staff of PhDs that are up on the bleeding edge in every area of research (and honestly, woudl be better off doing research instead of reviewing patents).

Thoughts?

Please link your URLs--Slashdot inserts spaces every 50 characters of an unbroken word.

It is possible to request that the USPTO re-examine a patent. This does not require suing (and technically, I believe, does not even require a lawyer).

I believe that there are some fees, but I could not find the cost of a inter partes or ex parte reexamination on the USPTO web site (and would appreciate anyone that knows posting -- I'm talking about the cost sans any associated legal costs, if someone gets a law firm to do this).

The re-examination usually relies on new prior art being brought to light.

I'd like to see this system modified to impose the fee (perhaps with some multiplier) on the *patent filer* if the reexamination finds that the patent is indeed invalid, rather than on the party requesting the reexamination. If the process of requesting patent reexamination was streamlined and made zero-cost (if you're correct), this would effectively eliminate the problem of bogus patents.

I believe it is illegal for anyone to open mail not addressed to them. There are power of attorney type exceptions, in cases of invalids or those that are dead. Technically, I believe even your spouse cannot open mail addressed to you and vice-versa, if for some reason that is not desired. Note that conditions apply, such as for the purpose of interfering in delivery or prying into the affiars of another. No exclusions are made.

"Blocking another driver"?? So in rush hour, am I driving illegally because I'm "deliberately blocking another driver"?

Please, show me this law.

Quite the contrary, many states have laws that state that the driver who hits another driver from behind is at least 90% at fault.

Oh, since I asked for a reference, I suppose I should give one to backup my statement. Okay, here it is...

Public property is specifically the target of the first amendment. Companies can and should be allowed to limit what is done in their facilities, however, the government cannot do the same with speech.

You are quite wrong about that. The government has many of the same powers to limit the speech of its employees and the use of government property that any other employer or property owner has. Even more in some cases.

The law is complicated in this sort of case (but you can start here if you are interested). But the short version is that libraries can say whatever they like with their own money. If they take money from the government then the government gets to have a say in what gets done with it.

If you are right, then the government can forbid you to be on public land because of any opinion you voice they deem unacceptable.

The law draws a number of distinctions between different types of public property. In this case it isn't so much a matter of who owns the property (that applies more in the school case) as one of the conditions that can be attached to a subsidy.

What it means to not be compelled to be a witness against yourself is that they cannot force you to be a witness against yourself. What they can't do is arrest you and take your case to trial, call you as a witness, then ask you questions and penalize you if you fail to answer. Even further, they can't even call you to the stand or tell the jury that your failure to testify means anything (although the jury may come to that conclusion). Also when investigating a crime, you have the right to not say anything that could be used as evidence against you, or that would lead to them finding evidence against you. They must make a criminal case against you without your own testimony and get a jury of your peers to convict you. If you're innocent (and/or have a good lawyer), you will be acquitted. If you plea to a lesser crime, you're going to get punished. You can look at it like that, you actually get punished for testifying against yourself.

Not well enough. The charges against Spc. Sivits were valid, but he was tried in a Special Court Martial, which, as I understand it, is like a misdemeanor court, rather than a General Court Martial.

He did cooperate, and has agreed to testify against other soldiers, but giving him a one year sentence (the maximum that can be given by a Special Court Martial) and a dishonorable discharge is way too light. Seems like in our rush to show we weren't treating this lightly, we ... treated it lightly.

Anonymous Coward wrote: Incorrect. Any video that has an actor portraying a child (even a virtual actor) is childporn. I remember a story about this a few years ago.

No, you are incorrect, though you wouldn't have been a few years ago. Please see Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition in which the U.S. Supreme court found that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was overbroad, violating the first amendment. (Follow this link for a news story about it. A more in-depth article can be found on Findlaw.com here.)

Remember, the reason child porn is illegal while images of adults engaged in the same activities is legal is because engaging in those activities with children is abuse. (And if you come across a pair of emotionally disturbed 6-year-olds spontaneously engaging in sexual activity, grabbing your camera is not the proper response.) The images themselves are records of child abuse.

Think about it. No matter how icky the images, the situation is entirely different if the images are really of 19-year-old actors who happen to look younger, or if they are drawings or paintings of something that never really happened-- even if those drawings are computer graphics that are difficult to distinguish from photographs.

I remember reading a story in Cosmo or some magazine like that several years ago about a cellist in her 20's who decided to use an artistic topless picture of herself next to her cello on the cover of her first album. The picture was intended to make a reference to the similarities in the shape of the instrument and the female form. Unfortunately for her, her figure was rather "youthful" and probably looked more so the way the photograph was done. The album covers were sized for being child pornography and she had to go through a big rigmarole because of it. As awful as child pornography is, we don't want things like this to happen to innocent people either.

FTC warranty info

From that page, scroll down some:

Implied Warranties
Implied warranties are created by state law, and all states have them. Almost every purchase you make is covered by an implied warranty.

The most common type of implied warranty--a "warranty of merchantability," means that the seller promises that the product will do what it is supposed to do. For example, a car will run and a toaster will toast.

Another type of implied warranty is the "warranty of fitness for a particular purpose." This applies when you buy a product on the seller''s advice that it is suitable for a particular use. For example, a person who suggests that you buy a certain sleeping bag for zero-degree weather warrants that the sleeping bag will be suitable for zero degrees.

If your purchase does not come with a written warranty, it is still covered by implied warranties unless the product is marked "as is," or the seller otherwise indicates in writing that no warranty is given. Several states, including Kansas, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Mississippi, Vermont, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, do not permit "as is" sales.

If problems arise that are not covered by the written warranty, you should investigate the protection given by your implied warranty.

Implied warranty coverage can last as long as four years, although the length of the coverage varies from state to state. A lawyer or a state consumer protection office can provide more information about implied warranty coverage in your state.

---this is why they don't "sell" you software, they "license" it, and in the fine print it is most prominent that it has no fitness for purpose, or merchantability, etc.

That's the part that is a scam, IMO,it's leaglistic legislated snakeoil fraud, and needs to change. It's like GM offering cars "for license" instead of "for sale", and because they got 100 yards mileage on them driving them on and off transporters before they get to the dealers saying they are "used" and "Licensing" them to you for big money "as is". That would be stupid and a scam, and it's the same with software that they "license" but everyone on the planet can see they "sell".

And if you are saying "too bad, that's the contract they click agree on", then I agree, that's why I think it should be outlawed,the law NEEDS to be changed, maybe from a serious major class action suit, because it's a freeking sale, and it needs at a minimum implied warranties like every other product out there. I'm just the kinda guy gonna call a spade a spade, that software is sold. there's free software, then there's for-sale software, everyone knows the difference. They can legal mush mouth it all they want to, it's still sold, that's how most people treat it and think of it, so it needs a warranty, for merchantability and fitness of purpose and so on.

>Winner-takes-all elections are undemocratic
>and should be replaced

That's what they said about state congresses appointing senators, and now only millionaires can get elected to the senate. Mob rule is bad, mmmm'k?

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists-- for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies."

-John Ashcroft, 12/6/2001

We all know what the current administration does to those it percieves as aiding people associated with terrorists.

So far, the current administration has held American citizens incommunicado without charges, violated the Geneva convention many hundreds of times, demanded vast police powers without oversight, has arrested a man for providing volunteer webmonkey work to a site that links to groups that the administration has declared are "linked to terrorism" (by that metric, Rob Malda could be jailed at federal whim), demanded the right to demand information on books read and made it a federal crime to tell anyone that such information has been siezed, tortured prisoners...I'm not going to list them all. It would take hours just to list and cite atrocities and abuses associated with Iraq, much less other disagreeable things the administration has done.

The point is, it's easy to say "oh, it's just Bush". The thing is, he is our *elected representative* (well, more or less -- but he did get a lot of votes, and even if he lost the popular vote and it was dubious whether he won the electoral college vote, there are a lot of people that supported him to blame). One cannot pass off all the horrors of Soviet Russia on, say, Stalin. The people of the country chose to allow him to remain in place, granted him economic and military power, and the things he did to other countries were weighed against the Soviet people by foreigners. We, also, are judged by what Bush does.

If Bush retains office this autumn, it will be due to a complete failure of people to vote and guide their country, and a decision that will have far-reaching effects in people around the world.

It is goddamn scary that a U.S. citizen even has to consider posting information on foreign ground to achieve freedom of speech and press.

Sami Al-Hussayen is being tried under the Patriot Act right now for giving "aid and comfort" to "designated terrorist groups."

Al-Hussayen's "crime" was to set up a web site for groups the government claims support terrorism, and acting as few as sixteen times as a "moderator" in a discussion forum on that web site.

Ironically, Sami Al-Hussayen came to america to avoid arrest in Egypt for condemning Islamic violence.

Basically, Al-Hussayen's crime was to be associated with a web site that praised suicide bombing in Chechnia and Israel.

Now, I'm against terrorism in Israel (and also against the hard-line Likud land grabs, for that matter), but I'm not convinced the Chechens are not freedom fighters in their fight against the Russians as much as were the Afghans who fought the Soviet invasion in 1979.

Does that mean that if I set up a web site calling for support of Chechen independence, I'd go to prison? Apparently so. What happened to the right to hold an opinion and freely speak it?

Yes, today in the country that calls itself the "Land of the Free", where George Bush claims our enemies "hate us for our freedoms", you can go to Federal Prison for helping to set up a web site that the government later decides to outlaw.

This is liberty?

Modipodio, I've followed down thru some of your argument here, and, while I do disagree with your assertion that "Windows is a democracy", I applaud the strong argument you make for the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms as a Right to keep and bear fully automatic weapons, shoulder-to-air missiles, grenades, and tactical nukes. I agree 100%!

The Second Amendment, iirc, is the basis for postulated Right to Keep and Bear Arms that we all talk about; futhermore, the Amendment itself also provides a basis for such a broad interpretation.

For reference:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

Additionally, it is my understanding that, in part, at least, the intent of this "well-regulated militia" is to allow the citizens to unseat and replace any government to which they may find themselves subjected which becomes tyrannical. There is the definition of tyrannical to consider, and the acceptance of that definition as applying (or not) to any particular government at a given time, nevertheless, I think the intent is clear: It is not for the purpose of self-defense or taking game that the arms are to be kept and borne.

In short, I would say that I would agree with you insofar as the idea that the people's right to keep and bear such arms as may be required to overthrow any particular tyrannical regime must not be infringed.

Note that the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment doesn't seem to require prior membership in a well-regulated militia as a condition for keeping and bearing. The idea seems to be that I should personnally keep and bear my own cruise missiles against the need to mobilize my local, well-regulated militia in defense of Liberty. Since I'm probably the only person on my block who can afford my own cruise missile (not sure about the crack dealers across the street; they seem to have a lot of disposable income, even compared to me), I (for now) can only afford one cruise missile, so I should not be constrained from keeping and bearing other, miscellenous small arms as I might need, but ... where do you find a constitutional argument that my right to keep and bear a cruise missile should be infringed?

The only real argument against it is the idea that some people might not trust me with it, might be afraid of my intent with said missile. And what is it that we are supposed to be resisting in this "War on Terror?" Last time I was forced to listen to Dubya's blathering, he was rambling (agonizingly, I might add; must the man speak as though he just swallowed a fistful of Quaaludes?!) on about not giving in to FEAR and TERROR. The phrase "we must be strong" comes to mind, although I don't know if he actually said that. Anyway, I agree, in principle. We should should stand up against the fear of the citizen's right to keep and bear whatever weapons they might need to fulfil their duty to defend their Liberty.

Now, in the real world: How many cruise missiles did my taxes pay for over the last 10 years, and when do I get to start keeping and bearing them pursuant to my duty to overthrow whatever tyrannical govt may be oppressing my community?

This is not legal advice. You are not a client. I'm not even an attorney. If you want legal advice, contact an attorney admitted to your jurisdiction's bar. What I am saying here is probably 100% wrong and if you do anything in reliance upon it, you are a blithering idiot who deserves whatever bad shit is very likely to befall you.

Okay, now that the requisite idiot-proofing is out of the way . . .

The US Supreme Court passed on this issue a long time ago. The case was Brady v. Maryland 373 US 83 (1963). Quoth the headnote from the opinion:

Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Pp. 86-88.

This is not legal advice. You are not a client. I'm not even an attorney. If you want legal advice, contact an attorney admitted to your jurisdiction's bar. What I am saying here is probably 100% wrong and if you do anything in reliance upon it, you are a blithering idiot who deserves whatever bad shit is very likely to befall you.

Okay, now that the requisite idiot-proofing is out of the way . . .

The US Supreme Court passed on this issue a long time ago. The case was Brady v. Maryland 373 US 83 (1963). Quoth the headnote from the opinion:

Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Pp. 86-88.

At least in the US, a good lawyer can make a case that the PGP will self-incriminate based on the fifth amendment.

I dont know about the other parts of the world.

"(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire."

MS won the browser war... but a new war is brewing, and once again, it will revolve around API's and who controls them. Linking Mozilla closely or completely with MS proprietary API's would be equal to surrender, before this war has even begun. Make no mistake, MS will offer one sweet set of API's, custom written to lure the developers of projects which might threaten MS's control of the market. If successful... those API's will "evolve" to "offer a richer user experience" (i.e. hamstring the competition)

I started to look a the law but I really am not in the legal mood today. Perhaps somebody else wants to puzzle through it.

Your point about the fact that a certain type of question was asked not being an invented fact is well taken. Though I'm sure there are NDA type requirements for taking the test, the enforceability of which is probably suspect but sufficient to act as a threat against disclosure. I must take exception with your statement that fair use allows for copying of 10% of the original. I don't know where people get this from, it's simply nowhere in the statute or the caselaw. 17 U.S.C. 107(3) is the closest the Act gets to defining limits on the amount and it merely says that courts should consider "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." Courts have interpreted this to mean that the entirety of a copyrighted work may be copied while remaining a fair use:

Moreover, when one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work, see 17 U.S.C. 107(2) (1982 ed.), and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact that the entire work is reproduced, see 107(3), does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use.

This is /., not Fantasyland.

[Fantasyland is believed to be a registered trademark of the Walt Disney Corporation. It is used here without permission, but concurrent with the United States Supreme Court decision regarding Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc (1994) and the copyright laws of the United States protecting parody and satire.]

1. The Bible is perfect.
   
2. The Bible is explicitly not subject to amendment. It stands or falls on its own, according to what the original stated.
   
3. The Bible is well translated and (repeating this is getting tiresome) there is a huge corpus of work to support the validity of the translation. Look - if you disagree with this point anymore; you having studied the Bible yourself, why don't you just try to prove your point by stating _your opinion_ of a specific invalidly translated scripture (_not_ a secondhand "Googled" opinion - your opinion).
   
4. It makes prophecy of the world around you, far in advance of the actual happenings. When the predicted events happen, God expects you to believe what he said (Repeat: he's asking you to use your brain). For eg: (a) when science corroborates what the Bible says, or when (b) prophecy is corrobarated by events in human history (like the current happenings in the middle east).
   

I'm not seeing any real problem here. A right to privacy isn't a right to ba anonymous. The government, or anyone else for that matter, is welcome to watch and identify you in public. Their right ends at your door, however. That is what the right to privacy entails, that you can't be monitored in your home. It does not mean that you can always be totally anonymous when in public.

It is not as benign as you make it sound.

The Constitution protects our right to associate freely because the Framers recognized this right is critical for the democratic process. IANAL, but I believe that removing the ability to move around anonymously, without being monitored or recorded, has a chilling effect on free association. Suddenly the government knows where you are and who you are with all the time. It opens you up to the possibility of being persecuted, either by the government or by your peers.

Anyone who knows the constitutional law better than I do want to correct me or expand on that?

"According to the Supreme Court..."

It would help if you cited. I don't believe you for a simple reason, you can't speak in public without the distinct possibility that one of the listeners recognizes you. Wallah, not anonomys.

Far be it from me to suggest you might consider exerting a negligible amount of effort to get the facts for yourself rather than just say "I don't believe you," but about fifteen seconds on Google resulted in these:

• Talley v. California (1960)
• McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission (1995)

BTW, it's 'voila', not 'wallah'.

GreyPoopon wrote: Now that really doesn't make sense. If the Berne Convention makes copyright notices unnecessary, then it should be assumed that any image you find is copyrighted unless other notice is given. I don't think you can use cluelessness as a defence.

While it might be prudent to assume that everything is copyrighted unless you have knowledge to the contrary (which is why commercial publishers are usually so careful about copyright clearances), "cluelessness" can still be a useful defense.

There are several reasons for this. Even without considering criminal copyright infringement, one might be subject to greater liability if it were shown that the infringement was willful. See 17 USC 504. Statutory damages can be reduced to $200 for a "clueless" infringer (as you put it) and increased to $150,000 for a willful infringer.

GreyPoopon wrote: Now that really doesn't make sense. If the Berne Convention makes copyright notices unnecessary, then it should be assumed that any image you find is copyrighted unless other notice is given. I don't think you can use cluelessness as a defence.

While it might be prudent to assume that everything is copyrighted unless you have knowledge to the contrary (which is why commercial publishers are usually so careful about copyright clearances), "cluelessness" can still be a useful defense.

There are several reasons for this. Even without considering criminal copyright infringement, one might be subject to greater liability if it were shown that the infringement was willful. See 17 USC 504. Statutory damages can be reduced to $200 for a "clueless" infringer (as you put it) and increased to $150,000 for a willful infringer.

While some degree of importation is allowed per 602 and 109, this doesn't qualify

Let's go to the code, shall we?
US Code Title 17, Chapter 6, Sec. 602 Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords

(a) Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. This subsection does not apply to -
(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage;

MAI SYSTEMS CORP. v. PEAK COMPUTER didn't involve importing for personal use, so hardly applicable here.

And, as we learned from RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia (regarding the Diamond RIO MP3 player), facilitation of personal use gets broad protection under fair use.

So, is downloading MP3's from Russia importation or not? If it is importation, then personal use is covered under section 602. If it is not importation, then the duplication in the U.S. should still be covered under personal use; i.e., you legally bought the right in Russia to duplicate the copyrighted work to your Diamond RIO MP3 player for your personal use in the U.S.

It does enjoy an elevated status, but when your lawyer waives the privilege... you've got a malpractice claim. Privilege is very important. But it's easy to waive.

The general rule is that disclosure to any third party destroys the privilege. The attorney can maintain the privilege while allowing nonattorneys to handle documents if those nonattorneys are necessary to get the work done. But those nonattorneys carry the same duty as the attorney. If they release the information, the privilege is gone.

I didn't mean to imply that the Pentagon Papers case is conclusive at all. On the contrary, the nature of that case is that it provides no standard for the lower courts to follow, since the majority could not agree on one.

Yes, the First and Sixth Amendments are coequal, but when they conflict, they must be balanced. Rather than prevent the press from publishing information that it has legally acquired, the Supreme Court usually looks at alternative methods of preserving the defendant's rights, such as voir dire. According to the Supreme Court, it's good enough if you get 12 jurors to say that they will examine the case with an open mind.

Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart is a good case that deals with the balancing of a criminal defendant's rights and the freedom of the press. It doesn't deal specifically with attorney-client privilege.

Since I haven't read the order, I don't know on what basis the judge in this case made her decision. But I suppose another way of looking at it could be as an assertion of a property right. Jones Day might be arguing that since they own the documents, the newspaper has no right to do anything with them, and must simply return them. It seems to me that that sort of reasoning would not run afoul of the First Amendment.

Thanks for your excellent responses.

"under God" is respecting an establishment of religion, so it is forbidden for congress to pass such a law.

I've read elsewhere and I started reading caselaw which seems to suggest that "respecting" is actually more vauge than you might suspect (perhaps because of the second definition?) -- especially because of the previous proposals. In addition, I think the page also mentions that until the last century, the prevailing interpretation was generally less strict.

Not according to John Adams- according to the Treaty of Tripoli

The Treaty of Tripoli is interesting, but might be able to be relegated to strict semantics. From my understanding, it is likely that while the founders might believe that the US was founded upon Christian principles (or philosophy), they might also believe that it was not founded upon Christianity. i.e. the fact that the US is a secular government which does not defer to any Christian religious authority (e.g. the pope) might make it "not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion".

Of course, that phrase "not in any sense" seems quite damning to my position :), but the fact of the Christian religion being involved in the government processes (though without any legal authority) seems to directly conflict with at least some sense of being "founded on the Christian Religion"... not to mention documents such as the Declaration of Independence which makes reference to Nature's God and man's Creator from which certain unalienable Rights are endowed.

I'm also reminded of the virtually ubiquitous study of the Bible in schools of the day and numerous writings of founders which claim the necessity of the morality in religion. Religion was not always a dirty word associated with a corrupt heirarchy, molesters, and coercion (cf. organized religion as opposed to religion). Religion encompassed the highest ideals shared amongst people.

Please allow me to frame my perspective so that you do not think me a raving loon for my arguments :)

While I think the US was founded upon Christian ideals and morals, it is obviously a secular government (no deferment to religious authorities for legal power), as it should be. I certainly do not want the power of law behind any religion.

Then I wonder, what exactly is "religion"? Is it limited to faith in some God? Does religion require a leader who could make outrageous proclamations that must be followed? Does it require practices that some people don't understand or believe in? Is it basically just a set of morals and social norms and ideals amongst a group? Can a single person have his own religion? Though vital, morality is subjective. Perhaps the only objectivity is people's agreement upon certain aspects.

Could "Republican" and "Democrat" be considered religions? They certainly share many similarities with religions.

I especially wonder about religion in light of the MPAA teaching a particular morality (or ethics, if you prefer) in schools. I disagree with the MPAA, but what is to prevent morals (or beliefs) I disagree with from being promoted in schools? Then again, I also disagree with teaching bias (from my subjective perspective) in certain topics of History and any number of other subjective topics (note that I do not include the existant process of evolution in this to the extent that it has been proven).

There is much more to learn in life than objective science. At what point do people's biases and morality become a religion?

Just out of curiousity, how did you end up with a "bad" reference? If it was a former employer, you should know things like that are actionable. I've fired people for cause before, and even if someone calls, you can't say: "We fired him because he was a drunk". The best you can say is "Things did not work out with him".

(Here's a reference at FindLaw)

So, if this wasn't a business reference, was it a personal reference that went sour? That would be really sad... but I would have thought you might have known that this person was somewhat sour on you...

Not knocking you, just curious how this came about. I would never give a reference that wasn't a very positive one; I'd just omit those entirely! There's no rule that you have to give contact information and references for every job you've ever had.

You mentioned the tenth amendment. Far better evidence to support your view can be found in the ninth amendment.

Not true.
All rights with a very few exceptions are guaranteed by the Constitution. The bill of rights was merely an add on addendum which a lot of people disagreed with the necessity for at the time. It is a sad eulogy to those who forced it through that they were right to do it.

The constitution is mainly a granting of a few closely restricted powers granted to the government.

That's right. Allow me to quote it from the source for those that will disagree with you:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I think we can be thankful that the bill of rights was created though.

Luckily enough for all of us, those raped in jail deserve it. Its not supposed to be a nice place to be. There is supposed to be a deterrence factor to jail as much as there is supposed to be a rehabilitation factor.

Sounds like someone needs to go and reread the Eighth Amendment. Troll.

Candidate Kerry's family owns an SUV, according to him.

"Kerry thought for a second when asked whether his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had a Suburban at their Ketchum, Idaho, home. Kerry said he owns and drives a Dodge 600 and recently bought a Chrysler 300M. He said his wife owns the Chevrolet SUV.

"'The family has it. I don't have it,' he said."

Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He

I suppose the same could be said of the Gulfstream private jet he uses.

This is all the fault of the defendant and his lawyers.

The whole point of there being an attorney-client privilege is that both the attorney and the client have to keep the information private.

Apparently, someone at Jones Day has committed malpractice. That is not the newspaper's fault. It is Jones Day's fault, and it is Diebold's fault for hiring Jones Day.

If a newspaper can publish the name of a rape victim which it obtains through legal means, I fail to see why it should not be allowed to print information about Diebold.

In my opinion, Diebold's activities are of far more interest to the public than the name of a rape victim.

Law enforcement uses special equipment to "see through" walls and observe the occupants inside a building, without a warrant because it's observable from the street.

I don't recall if the Supreme Court made this decision or of it was a circuit court but I know there's been a federal decision that said the use of IR imaging to find indoor marijuana growers without a warrant was a violation of the 4th amendment. Using such high tech imaging is in no way a "plain view" case.

You can refuse to show your ID to a cop in some circumstances. As I understand it, if you are not driving and the police do not have "reasonable suspicion" that you have committed a crime, then you are free to say no.

From Brown vs Texas:

The application of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. 3 Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed.

</IANAL>

Here is another story at findlaw. another more in depth look, citing previous cases and courts findings. This writers take is that it IS a "broad sense" case, and he cites his reasons for that opinion. Me, I think a better test case could have been found, but, in modern soviet USA, "best test cases" find YOU!

California Penal Code SECTION 484-502.9 (Theft/Larceny)
US Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 501 (Infringement of Copyright)
LEARN THE DIFFERENCE!

Would my writing "American expression, Membership has its Privileges" in this post result in Slashdot getting a letter?

IANAL, and apparently neither are many of you, because three minutes of Googling turns up Henneford v Silas Mason Co., 300 US 577 (1937).

Of course, I'm not paid the big bucks to read boring legal cases from 1937, so I'm going to have this page from the Minnesota House offices interpret this for me. I'm told that, in this case, the Supreme Court specifically decided that the use tax did not violate the Commerce Clause.... basically because it's fair to expect local and mail-order businesses to compete on the same playing field.

So. Better hire a lawyer before failing to fill out that Use Tax line on the grounds that "this 'new' tax is unconstitutional"...