Slashdot Mirror

There exists a division between federal rights and states rights and your are entrusted to vote on state issues. The catch is that the state (little s) can not trump the State (big s). In theory anything the states do that violates the constitution will eventually be bitch slapped by the SCOTUS.

So yeah, the State gives you the illusion you have some power by letting you vote on some local issues. But in reality this is like deciding if you want your car in Black or if you want your car in Black, your choice!

Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Two senators per state doesn't seem very democratic, I give you that, but the House is much more democratic. Constituents get their own Congressman representing their Congressional district. Congressmen are of course elected by popular vote.

California for example has 52 Congressional districts currently, and a population of 34,501,130 as of 2001 (estimate). That's about 663,483 people per Congressman. Quite democratic. The Congressman, if he or she wants to be reelected, will use franking priviledges, credit claiming, and position taking to please the constituents. If they do not, the incumbent can be defeated in the next Congress or 1/3 replacement phase.

The House and Senate together represent the citizens to the federal government through their respective states. Its called indirect representative democracy.

Many businesses are 'work-at-will' businesses, meaning both that the employee or the employer can terminate the employment contract at any time.

IANAL, but a quick search for 'work-at-will' via Google produced links by people who are, which explain a little about work-at-will and also how some litigation has made work-at-will a little less 'you can be fired whenever for whatever reason'. But in general, you have less protection as an at-will employee than you might otherwise, and most employment contracts are work-at-will. So they likely could indeed fire him, though he might have grounds to challenge his dismissal.

One example:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20010911.htm l :)

As opposed to being legally pirated by thieves? Well, you got 1/2 out of 3 right. Piracy and theft (and stealing in general) are significantly different from copyright violation, and the illegality of downloading copyrighted songs is only true in some juristictions (e.g., it's legal in Canada). So your point is a non-sequitor since it doesn't really apply to the discussion at hand.

Actually, no you can't. You will be ticketed if you ride a bike, walk, or crawl on any interstate in the nation.

This nation decided that automobiles are the way to travel long before I was born, and probably before you were born.

Oh, and Pig Hogger (who wrote: "Okay. Show me where in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution where car driving is deemed to be an inalienable right, and I'll buy you a beer"), I would like a Black and Tan:

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

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but the right to privacy is not enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court has upheld in numerous cases that it nonetheless exists. Just because automobiles did not exist in 1786, and the Framers didn't have the foresight to include the right to drive automobiles in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that it does not exist.

This is not to say that I believe that there is such a "Natural Right," but in our society it is extremely unusual for someone to be denied a license. I think that the argument could easily be made that because of the construction of our cities and culture we do have the right to drive.

Perhaps the following discussion would better help you understand just how fucked up IP & Copyrights have now become.

There was a science fiction story many years ago (circa 1980, IIRC) in Analog (again IIRC) which predicted widespread networked home computers, and the threat of hostile programs spreading among them. In the story, the US government mandated installation of (what we would call) antivirus software, developed and provided by the government. An attorney successfully gets the program thrown out on Constitutional grounds, showing that it violates the Third Amendment, since a program guarding against national security threats is effectively a "soldier".

The FCC has lawmaking power because Congress gave it to them. Legislative delegations of rulemaking authority to federal administrative agencies happen all the time; it's the same reason why the FTC is empowered create a do-not-call list and require telemarketers to pay a fine if they don't abide by it. In each case, the agency is exercising authority delegated to it by the legislature. Nothing new there.

The more interesting issue, IMHO, is why it's so hard for Congress to overturn an agency rule with which it disagrees. It used to be that you didn't have to pass a law to overturn an agency regulation; you could just have one house of Congress issue a so-called "legislative veto." If that was still the law, then today's Senate vote would have been enough to overturn the FCC. However, the Supreme Court has said you can't have a one-house legislative veto. So if the FCC makes a rule with which Congress disagrees, Congress has to pass a new law overturning the rule. Cumbersome, but that's how the Court has said you have to do it.

Check this out then:

Before the Supreme Court overruled it, the Ninth Circuit had held that, like other non-negotiated terms in contracts of adhesion, forum selection clauses in cruise line tickets are not enforceable. Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 899 F.2d 377, 388 (9th Cir. 1990). The U. S. Supreme Court disagreed. Shute, 499 U.S. 585. Extending the "reasonableness" analysis, the Court held that, at least in the cruise line business, there are two reasons why a non-negotiated forum selection clause may be reasonable. 1. "[b]ecause a cruise ship typically carries passengers from many locales, it is not unlikely that a mishap on a cruise could subject the cruise line to litigation in several different fora. ..." 2. A forum selection clause would save the parties and the courts time and money by eliminating venue motions and would benefit passengers by reduced fares "reflecting the savings that the cruise line enjoys by limiting the fora in which it may be sued."

So there you have it. In order to save everyone time and money, the cruise ship companies get away with it. I'm sure there are other examples with other types of tickets.

So what this article is suggesting is compulsary licensing of P2P networks. I assume in this case it also requires licensees to ensure that no material is being shared that is subject to copyright control.

The fact that a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Oops, working link. Well, working at the time of posting. ;-)

Tape over that damned number.

Go ahead, if you don't care about violating federal law and giving the police a reason to believe that the car has been stolen. From U.S. Supreme Court case NEW YORK v. CLASS, 475 U.S. 106 (1986):

To facilitate the VIN's usefulness for these laudable governmental purposes, federal law requires that the VIN be placed in the plain view of someone outside the automobile: [475 U.S. 106, 112]

"The VIN for passenger cars [manufactured after 1969] shall be located inside the passenger compartment. It shall be readable, without moving any part of the vehicle, through the vehicle glazing under daylight lighting conditions by an observer having 20/20 vision (Snellen) whose eye point is located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar. Each character in the VIN subject to this paragraph shall have a minimum height of 4 mm." 49 CFR 571.115 (S4.6) (1984) (emphasis added).

• She only sued after Mcdonalds failed to settle for just the costs of treatment and time lost for work.
• McDonalds had already seen at least 700 complaints about the coffee tempature previously
• The jury awarded WAY more than she initially sued for. ($100,000 plus whatever the jury felt was fair punitive damages)
• The judge dropped the settlement to $640,000, which was still more than the initial suit was for because it was "appropriate to punish and deter" McDonalds

You must really hate that spam. or really hate freedom. nobody likes spam, sure, but this whole scene is really about encouraging the government to regulate communication. i find it amazing that the slashdot crowd who are usually such virulent defenders of an unfettered internet are more than willing to give the government more control when it comes to penis-pill ads!

Perhaps some references about the hot coffee case are in order.

What on earth makes you think you can't be convicted of something based only on circumstantial evidence? Happens all the time. For that matter, circumstantial evidence is in many cases thought to be better evidence than even eyewitness testimony according to various legal experts.

And don't forget that strong encryption is listed in the United States Munitions List under auxilary military equipment and restricted for export.

Speech isn't just books and forums. Software is speech damnit, and it's time that this fact be established in the eyes of US law.

14th amendment... The "due process" stuff. See this link and annotations for the real meat. Yup, the Constitution applies to corporations...

This is similar to a U.S. Supreme Court case, Gouled vs. U.S. Army, from the 1921. Some dude went into Gouled's office and took some papers without asking. He turned them over to law enforcement, then criminal charges were made against Gouled based on the stolen documents. They were ruled inadmissable because the man who took them at the time was not acting as a government agent, but when he handed them over he became one. Gouled (my great uncle) was found not guilty.

IANAL but I'd say that RIAA, by the terms of the DCMA, becomes an agent of the government and therefore is violating the fourth amendment.

The author of the article did much more analysis than that, but even that were all he did, I think that would still be legal given the purposes for which he did it. Not all copying is copyright infringement.

"[...] the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such as by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." Title 17, section 107.

I put the second "such as" in bold to emphasize that the list is just some examples. It is not intended to be complete. This point is covered The Nature of Copyright: A Law of User's Rights by L. Ray Patterson and Stanley W. Lindberg.

See also the doctrines of Scenes A Faire and, more importantly, Merger, which establish that when there is a limited number of ways to do something (I think poking bits in hardware registers qualifies), copyright shall not restrict expression of those ways. From a web search, "[...] the 'merger doctrine' of the United States indicates that the expression is not copyrightable if the idea embodied in the expression can only be effectively expressed in one or limited number of ways. One thing worth noticing is that this doctrine does not apply to fictional works. [...]"

I am not a lawyer. Do not use this as legal advice.

1. You're an asshole.

2. There are plenty of people who actually do die from a whiff of what they're allergic to.

3. The health refunds are there for a reason. Just because you have no need of them doesn't mean someone else might not legitimately need them

4. Look at the Income Tax ammendment (16th), at the section which reads "Income Taxable to Taxation", nowhere does it list income made within the USA by an individual. findlaw link

5. Article 1, Section 8, clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
-----> which it's just not

6. Article 5: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
----->The Income Tax ammendment was never properly ratified by 2/3 of the states, and is not valid because of that. It's still enforced, but it's not valid.


for verification on any of these go to: findlaw link

7. this is supposed to be a reply on how the author of the original article can preserve his reciepts, not what you think about hypochondriacs getting larger tax refunds than you.

1. You're an asshole.

2. There are plenty of people who actually do die from a whiff of what they're allergic to.

3. The health refunds are there for a reason. Just because you have no need of them doesn't mean someone else might not legitimately need them

4. Look at the Income Tax ammendment (16th), at the section which reads "Income Taxable to Taxation", nowhere does it list income made within the USA by an individual. findlaw link

5. Article 1, Section 8, clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
-----> which it's just not

6. Article 5: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
----->The Income Tax ammendment was never properly ratified by 2/3 of the states, and is not valid because of that. It's still enforced, but it's not valid.


for verification on any of these go to: findlaw link

7. this is supposed to be a reply on how the author of the original article can preserve his reciepts, not what you think about hypochondriacs getting larger tax refunds than you.

If you want to hang your own shingle as a software programmer and make a decent living, you'd better support at least a short time-limited copyright if you want to create your own products. Sure, you can contract yourself out to other companies to produce their programs for them, but if you ever want to make your own software as a living there's got to be incentive there. Without copyright law, as soon as one person has it the cat's out of the bag - so either gorge your first customer for the $60k you needed to live while writing it, or starve.

If you want a steady easy paycheck, but want rights to the work you do outside of your employment, you should negotiate it when signing up to work for a company. In the U.S. at least, it's standard to have a list of exemptions in the employee contract - make use of it. If it isn't there, write one and require that they sign it before signing yours. Hire a lawyer to whip one up for you if you need.

If you want rights to what you do at work - try talking them into doing it as open source. If it's a piece of code that would be of benefit to others, but wouldn't harm their competitiveness with other companies, you can probably succeed if you can voice your reasoning well and defend it. Of course, if what you are working on is trade secret for the company and is the heart of their business - good luck. Remember, those paychecks have to come from somewhere - usually its customers buying something they couldn't get for free at an equally high quality elsewhere.

If you want the law on your side - get a visa and move to California. They have some of the most employee-friendly state laws regarding copyright, patents, and other IP that I've seen. In some cases they may override your employer's contract. Hire a lawyer.

Here's an interesting article on copyright law with some pointers. I don't know how similar Australia's laws are.

IANAL, but I can't see how that claim could succeed.

"The courts have further defined the claim of tortious interference to require proof that the defendant did the following: (1) acted improperly and without privilege; (2) acted purposefully and maliciously with intent to injure; (3) induced a third party or parties not to enter into or continue a business relationship with the plaintiff; and (4) caused the plaintiff some financial injury." (from Findlaw)

A claim of tortious interference would surely fail on point 1 - AOL are perfectly within their rights to block mail from anyone they choose. Their FCC license after the TW merger didn't add any constraints in this regard.

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians.

The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians.

Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.

For example, a civilian who shoots a sholdier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups -- and thus endanger the civilian population -- are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

Its clear that if your platform is that everyone are POW's or that the distinction between soldiers and civilians is unneccisary than you simply have no understanding of the accords of the Geneva Conventions. And it appears you are trying to leverage on both those erroneous platforms.

"Illegal combatant" is not a term recognized by any international body or treaty. It's a term made up by the US so that it can deny people basic human rights.

Wrong, it is a term not explicitely defined. Neither is illegal immegrant, illegal transaction, illegal driver. Illegal combatant is a correct term used to describe people combatting illegally. Either as civilians, mercinaries, spies, terrorists etc... Its a perfectly valid term and is recognized while not being explicetly defined as a category. What is defined are what makes a combat legal, and if you don't do it when you engage in combate you are therefore an illegal combatant. Its not something Bush made up. In that link you'll find the synonymous term "unlawful combatant" as a part of a supreme court ruling in 1942. The terms have been used by several nations ever since.

Have you thought that maybe the people without uniforms could not afford them?

You really do not understand war or this situation do you. Afghanistan uniforms were not some expensive flack jacketed armored camouflaged thing. It can be as much as a particular headband (for some Mujuhadeen) to a band warn on their arms (Taliban). The US has very visible patches on the uniforms that designate them as combatants. This is not a case of "money".

How can you call yourself a christian and at the same time accept this bogus and illegal classification that was created just to circumvent the Geneva treaty.

Oh this is rich. Okay, you got me. I'll bite. Tell me what Christ's views on the Geneva convention were that I should follow them. I'm awaiting what would have to be your divine inspiration here since Christ died almost 2000 years before th

try this -- http://findlaw.com/casecode/

502 Remedies for infringement: Injunctions
(a) Any court having jurisdiction of a civil action arising under this title may, subject to the provisions of section 1498 of title 28, grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.
(b) Any such injunction may be served anywhere in the United States on the person enjoined; it shall be operative throughout the United States and shall be enforceable, by proceedings in contempt or otherwise, by any United States court having jurisdiction of that person. The clerk of the court granting the injunction shall, when requested by any other court in which enforcement of the injunction is sought, transmit promptly to the other court a certied copy of all the papers in the case on file in such clerk's office.

So why haven't they done it? It would put IBM, HP, RedHat and a host of others out of the Linux business quickly and effectively. What is in Title 28, section 498? Just the 3-year time limit and a bunch of reasons when government employees can sue. And that you can't sue anyone for anything developed for the US Government after 1918 (there goes a lot of code developed under government contracts).

Could it be that they have to swear, under penalty of perjury, that the filing is true? Could it be that this entire slide show was just another marketing dog and pony show to prop up the stock price?

Our word for the day is Equitable Estoppel. SCO can't say in court that the GPL is invalid and then turn around and distribute software under the same license. If the GPL is invalid they would have to go back to the Samba team and get a "valid" license before they could distribute it.

Wow Talking out your ass gets you modded to +5. Please tell me what article or what admendment in the constitution that even mentions copyrights. There is nothing.

For dumbfucks too lazy to google, lest others be misled by their inane spewage:

The US Constitution

clause 8:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


And for mindless trolls too literal to comprehend the above as it relates to US copyright and patent law:

Findlaw's Tretise of US copyright law.

I found at least one example quickly that begs to differ. Take a look at this tasty morsel found therein:

"[6] Larceny - Pawnbrokers - Conversion of Chattel - Good Faith Acquisition - Effect. In a prosecution of a pawnbroker for failure to restore a chattel to its true owner after an unauthorized pawn, it is immaterial that the pawnbroker obtained the chattel under a claim of title made in good faith."

Elsewhere, you'll find that good faith acquisition is a mitigating factor in the seriousness of the conversion, but it does not obviate the obligation to return the stolen property.

Here's another little bit I found on FindLaw:

Conversion
The tort of conversion is similar to the tort of trespass to chattel. Both require a defendant to interfere with another's right of possession in personal property. Likewise, a defendant must have intended to exercise control over the property in a manner inconsistent with the owner's rights. It is not required that the defendant know that the property belonged to another. However, for conversion, the interference must be so serious, in terms of duration and extensiveness of use, that it warrants that the defendant pay the personal property's full value.

In other words, either you give it back in good shape in a reasonable period of time, or you pay the rightful owner for it. So, I guess in one sense, you're right--you don't need to give it back. You are liable to pay for it, though, to the rightful owner. What you paid to the thief that sold it to you is immaterial.

The 2nd Amendment was made for times like this


The USA is a funny funny place! People seem to be worried about all sorts of crimes being comitted now that there are no lights. Riots, Murders, Home Invasions...possibly even an Army of Darkness attacking (Great Movie!).

Why are you so worried? You seem to be more afraid of each other, then other things!

Auckland CBD (New Zealand) was without power for several weeks. Us in Oz thought it was a bit of a joke. But people just went home. No big deal. I've been in major blackouts (obviously not as major as what just happened in the USA), but so far have never worried about being attacked. Go home early. See some stars. Snuggle. Have fun.

Is the veil of civilization so thin in the USA that simple darkness will create the downfall of mankind? In the past people thought it would take a nuclear war to break up civilisation. Now it seems turning out the lights will do it.

My other question is...isn't the 2nd Amendment about creating a mulitia to defend your country...not about defending your house? And is it the gun culture of the USA that brings about this fear?

Here is a link to the
second amendment text

Preemption of a license agreement is a dead loss argument these days. The Federal Circuit took up that question in a far more important context: enforceability of a no-reverse-engineering provision. Their answer: no preemption.

In the Bowers v. Baystate opinion , the Federal Circuit considered the enforceability under Copyright preemption of a shrink-wrap no-reverse engineering provision. They held that there can be no preemption of a contract, even if it flies squarely into fundamental Copyright Policy like fair use and first sale doctrine. The Section 117 provision argument here is a far, far more attenuated argument.

Though it is pretty clear to me that provisions like the no-reverse-engineering clauses are clearly unconstitutional, I couldn't get the Supreme Court to get excited enough to take up the case in my Amicus brief on behalf of IEEE policy on no-reverse-engineering clauses. Maybe next time.

But in the meanwhile, Boies et al. are running squarely into the teeth of the most recent Circuit Court case addressing the point, and it won't be pretty for them.

The problem with this definition is that it leads to the idea that the concepts themselves which are illustrated by GPL'd code are protected by copyright, and they are not.

Indeed. This is all spelled out in the law. From 17 USC Section 102(b)

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method
of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the
form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied
in such work.

The limitation of "derivative work", in the case of the GPL, can only work so long as the code still contains *SOME* number of lines of code that were originally GPL'd by some other author.

I am not familiar with the intracacies of this, but I doubt that your interpretation is valid. I surely wouldn't depend on this conclusion without strong assurances from a lawyer.

The GPL doesn't need to rigorously define what it means to form a "work based on the program," because this is covered by Copyright law in its definition of "derivative work."

According to copyright law, creating derivative works is an exlusive right of the copyright holder. The law defines "derivative work" in 17 USC Section 101. Without the GPL, creating a work that is falls under the definition of "derivative work" is illegal unless you are the copyright holder or you have permission from the copyright holder. The GPL grants you the right to create derivative works ("works based on the Program"), but only if you agree to its terms. If you do not, everything reverts back to normal copyright law and creating derivative works is illegal.

You're talking about a guy who named all 268 of his sons "George Foreman".

The hilarious part to this is that he has sold the use of the name "George Foreman", in perpetuity, to Salton, Inc for 110 million dollars.

Dumb boxer ain't so dumb, eh? :) I sold my Salton stock after finding that out. I don't guess his Sons will mind too much that he sold their soul, especially if the republicans get their way with the inheritance tax.

Here's where the GPL is stating the law incorrectly. First of all, fair use rights allow you to modify and distribute the program regardless of the copyright license, so the GPL should not say that "nothing else grants you permission." In addition, the claimed GPLd work may be in the public domain or covered by another licence, and so again such a statement is false.

First of all, if you want to get the law correct, fair use is not your "right" as much as you seem to believe... fair use is a defense to what otherwise would be considered copyright infringement. You must affirmatively prove that your use qualifies as fair, you cannot simply say "well, i can do whatever I want, claim fair use and you prove me wrong." see 17 USC 107 Secondly, the rest of that paragraph is utter garbage and serves no purpose other than flaimbait.

According to FindLaw:
The plain view doctrine is limited, however, by the probable cause requirement: officers must have probable cause to believe that items in plain view are contraband before they may search or seize them.

Also, it is well established that police are prevented from domestic spying without probable cause and a warrant. Whether or not I am a dick, this standard still applies.

• The jury's verdict.
• U.S. Patent 5,845,265.

The Supreme Court has a lot of case law regarding this. See in particular: Abrams et al. v. United States (1919), in which the Supreme Court decided that speech which advocates the overthrow of the US government is not necessarily protected by the First Amendment.

That particular case is notable in that the majority opinion and Holmes' dissent are in basic agreement about the constitutionality of the Espionage Act -- the disagreement was whether or not Abrams' pamphlet met the "clear and present danger" test.

"Clear and present danger" is not just a catchy title of a book. It is an important test, and if you are going to argue about justice in this sort of case, you ought to inform yourself about this test (even if you don't agree with it). It is very relevant to this case and others like it.

18 USC 842(p)(2) - Unlawful Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, etc...

In the search warrant are several quotes from raisethefist.com in which information about explosives is provided along side some comments that encourage this knowledge be used against police officers.

Here's the exact quote from 18 USC 842 (p)(2)(A):

to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence;

I reply:

From BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Missing from the Sherman case is imminence, the intent that the bombmaking information be used in furtherance of a particular crime.

See alsoHESS v. INDIANA, 414 U.S. 105 (1973)

Held: Appellant's language did not fall within any of the "narrowly limited classes of speech" that the States may punish without violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and since the evidence showed that the words he used were not directed to any person or group and there was no evidence that they were intended and likely to produce imminent disorder, application of the statute to appellant violated his rights of free speech.

18 USC 842(p)(2) - Unlawful Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, etc...

In the search warrant are several quotes from raisethefist.com in which information about explosives is provided along side some comments that encourage this knowledge be used against police officers.

Here's the exact quote from 18 USC 842 (p)(2)(A):

to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence;

I reply:

From BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Missing from the Sherman case is imminence, the intent that the bombmaking information be used in furtherance of a particular crime.

See alsoHESS v. INDIANA, 414 U.S. 105 (1973)

Held: Appellant's language did not fall within any of the "narrowly limited classes of speech" that the States may punish without violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and since the evidence showed that the words he used were not directed to any person or group and there was no evidence that they were intended and likely to produce imminent disorder, application of the statute to appellant violated his rights of free speech.

I'm all for free speech...and gladly advocate protecting people's right to make opposing viewpoints. That said, Title 18 has been around for a long time, and if you didn't know that it was illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of the government when you did it, then it sucks to be you.

This is not in the constitution itself, but is the US Code covering advocating the overthrow of the US government.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/ parts/i/chapters/115/sections/section_2385.html

I don't know about you, but all my quibbles with life here are relatively minor, compared to what they would be in most other places in the planet, and I don't think it's a good idea to let people run around taking up arms in revolution against the US.

I think that it's perfectly reasonable to jail those who advocate violent overthrow of the government, and I hardly believe that doing so makes the US a 'police state'...It simply makes us a nation of laws.

To those who wish that IBM or whoever would simply buy out SCO, consider the following:

1) America is rampant with frivolous lawsuits. Hell, we invented the term, along with nuiscience suit. What big company doesn't have one or more?

2)There will be more to follow. Count on it. When you get big enough, you get sued. If you're intimidated now(or your manager is), then you might as well drop Linux because this won't be the last. This lawsuit is as full of s*** as they come, and if we as a community concede to their desire for a buyout under these circumstances, we have no chance of surviving.

3)The only thing which gives this lawsuit any legitimacy is the fact that SCO bought some UNIX licenses in the past. Everything else about it is made up of lies and contradictions:

1. They attack Linus for not carefully checking and preventing proprietary code from infecting Linux, yet SCO itself continued(continues?) to distribute Linux, apparently oblivious to violation of their own IP.
2. Their inability to decide on what type of IP case this is; copyright? patents? contract violations?
3. They claim ownership of all code related to Unix. As the BSD case has established, this is impossible. If they claim ownership only of work derived specifically from Sys V, then all they can ask for is for those "stolen" parts to be removed.

4)The only thing that matters is what is done in court. "Cease and desist" letters, random claims of ownership of IP, threats to sue anyone and everyone, look pathetic. Despite all the fears of FUD scaring users away, most people understand this. This is why smart companies have a policy of silence during litigation.

5)Be grateful SCO's claims are so outrageous. It's as if I were to send Microsoft a letter claiming they stole some of my IP and therefore the entire company is mine. Or that some MS employee sneaked some SCO code into Windows, and therefore SCO owns all of Windows XP.

The best thing to do is point people to articles like Eric Raymond's and ANUPAM CHANDER's as well as the fact that in the first court challenge by LinuxTag, SCO backed off.

In vacating the injunction Amazon obtained to force Barnes and Noble to eliminate their single-click ordering function, the U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that the district court erred in failing to recognize that one of the references cited by BN - the CompuServe Trend System, which automatically charged purchasers' accounts 50 cents for each stock chart ordered - raised a substantial question of invalidity. The district court dismissed the significance of this system partly on the basis that it "was not a world wide web application," a distinction the U.S. Court of Appeals found irrelevant, noting that Amazon's '1-Click' patent specification explicitly notes that "[o]ne skilled in the art would appreciate that the single-action ordering techniques can be used in various environments other than the Internet."

Prohibition was created by women marching in the streets, complaining that their husbands had become drunks in the saloons.

Prohibition was created with the 18th amendment and women received the right to vote with the 19th amendment.

now I don't have the exact dates and don't feel like looking them up, but from how I think amendments are ratified, this does not agree with your statement.

Prohibition was created by women marching in the streets, complaining that their husbands had become drunks in the saloons.

Prohibition was created with the 18th amendment and women received the right to vote with the 19th amendment.

now I don't have the exact dates and don't feel like looking them up, but from how I think amendments are ratified, this does not agree with your statement.

This whole Snapster thing is just silly to me. If you're gonna go through that whole rigamarole, why not just dish out the measly 10 bucks a month and get unlimited streams from any number of the online streaming companies?

Elsewhere you wrote:

In theory, when you photocopy a book you are infringing copyright. But "fair use" means that if you don't do it with bad intentions or on an industrial scale, you don't go to jail. [emphasis mine]

That's often stated but not quite true. It's not the case that "fair use" is an infringement you get away with. It is defined (in the USCA) as specifically "not an infringement of copyright." I suppose it would be more accurate to say that you are doing something which would ordinarily be an infringement, but because it's fair use, it turns out not to be an infringement at all.

I suggest that a Fourth Amendment issue in a criminal trial is far different than a civil court ascertaining liability. I happen to know a lot about the latter.

I guess you've never heard of prohibition.