Slashdot Mirror

An insightful article by an AC which deserves to be modded up.

You say you're not sure what law media shifting comes from - the problem is that so much of this stuff doesn't come from law, but from court decisions. The court has always tried to balance the Constitutional command to issue copyrights against the free-speech provisions of the First Amendment. Fair use is what resulted from that balancing act.

The time-shifting basis, in particular, comes from the 1984 case SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC. It was also used as a defense in the Diamond Rio case (my company filed an amicus brief on Diamond's side in that one).

An important point many have been missing, as well, is that, if a company makes a copy, it's pretty much by definition for profit and a violation of copyright law if not performed under a license. It is certainly within your rights to copy a CD. It is just as certainly not within a corporation's, with the possible exception of reasonable backup provisions.

The flat bottom line is that the law is generally more resilient than this and just not that easy to hack. My favorite law hack is PGP, Inc.'s exportation of PGP 5.5i source code in books, but that was really an excercise in legal Judo, using the mass of the First Amendment against the ITAR arms control regime.

But generally speaking, while tech people tend to try to come up with clever routes around the legal system, the law is more resilient than that. Intent - both yours and the law-writers - matters, and so something that might look to be alright often ends up losing in court if it turns on too technical an interpretation.

In principle I agree with you that it should be that way, and I do fully accept that GPL defaults to copyright even if it fails the contract test, but perhaps I'm viewing it from a different point of view.

Specifically, I'm not saying that you're wrong, because there's nothing in findlaw either way, but I am saying that it would take a brave person to pay their mortage on the basis of the GPL being a non-revokable binding contract.

We really could do with some case law precendent on this to clear up whether the GPL binds (contract) as well as empowers (license). I hope that SCO will finally provide us with one.

A country or other jurisdiction (e.g., state, province, etc.) may either: (a) not have either statutory or case law that makes reverse engineering illegal, in which case it would be legal (i.e., that which is not legally forbidden is permitted); or (b) have either statutory or case law that affirmatively states reverse engineering is permitted.

You entirely miss the point. Most countries in the world have laws that explicitly make reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability legal and make any license provisions or contract clauses stating otherwise null and void.

My-my-my-my (U can't touch us)
SCO tries to bill me so hard
Makes me say, "Oh my Lord, thank you for blessing me
With a mind to think about the O from SC"
It feels good
When you know you're right
A superdope winner in a court fight
And SCO knows as much
And they'd just get beat-uh!
U can't touch us

I told you homeboys
U can't touch us
Yeah, that's how we livin' and you know
U can't touch us
Look in the GPL, man
U can't touch us
Yo, let me bust the funky code
U can't touch us

Stop! RICO time!

(With some apologies to MC Hammer, but mostly to the people who read this.)

The particular work (in this case a phone book) IS copyrightable. Just because the information is public record and/or easily obtainable does not mean that the actual text is not copyrightable.

basically because of a honeytoken like entity

someone at installshield had an entry in some internal company data source using her maiden name (and had used her maiden name nowhere else). she recieved solicitations from wise and got suspicious.

now installshield is sueing the hell out of wise, see this article, and this news release

is how much severance/warning AOL gave these workers. If anything less than 60 days, then I would be quite upset about this. I have been laid off with just a week severance and have worked at places were there was no severance given to the people laid-off, so it's an issue I take fairly seriously. If AOL did not give a good severance, then I would certainly take part in an active boycott (educating others to their employment practices), both for buying products and services from/through them and for people seeking employment there.

Even if your lay-offs aren't large enough to meet the requirements of the WARN act, an employer should still give good notification or severance.

The laws in regards to telephone lines, as I understand it, actually require the line owners to share the lines with other companies--originally with the purpose of enhancing telephone network inter-call-ability. Since these laws apply to DSL providors and the like, you can get, say, Earthlink DSL through Verizon lines.

There was a recent ruling that changed this. I don't have time to do the research on it right now, but here's an extract from Findlaw.com's analysys of The FCC'S UNE Triennial Review Order.

Article here

Line Sharing: Eliminated Over a Three-Year Period

The FCC eliminated line sharing as a UNE, to be phased out over a three-year period. Competing firms will only be entitled to acquire new customers during the first year and, during the three-year period, the price for the high frequency portion of the loop will increase incrementally towards the market cost of a full loop.

Competitive DSL services will be hit hard by this finding. The Commission apparently is betting on "intermodal" competition to prevent rate increases caused by its decision to eliminate DSL competition. For these competitors, a close reading of the language of the final order will be imperative to ascertain whether there is any basis for overturning this aspect of the decision.

The problem for you is that although you do not have a copy of the music, you are a contributory infringer because you assisted someone else in creating an unauthorized copy. See 17 U.S.C. sec 106, which gives the copyright owner the exclusive right "to authorize" another "to reproduce the copyrighted work". The language of the statute isn't precise, but think of it like aiding and abetting a crime.

The Court in recent years has clamped down on the Commerce Clause a bit. They've thrown out a few criminal laws that based their jurisdiction on nebulous commercial effects like those you mention. The Court has shown a new interest in these cases in protecting traditional state powers by requiring more direct connections commerce.

The idea is that modern commerce is virtually all of interstate nature due to technology, trade and other advances since the Constitution was written. These new cases are pushing back on the requirement that something is actually commercial. For example, national regulation of crime and illegal drugs in our country has been based on their indirect effects on the economy. It's not clear exactly how commercial something will have to be, but it is clear that the Court is starting to take the words Interstate Commerce as an actual restriction again.

Two cases to look up are Lopez and Morrison if you want to understand the modern contours of the Commerce Clause. You can find both at Findlaw.

There's also an excellent article by Lawrence Lessig called Translating Federalism that discusses the impact of these cases. You'll have to go to your nearest law library to fin dit.

The Court in recent years has clamped down on the Commerce Clause a bit. They've thrown out a few criminal laws that based their jurisdiction on nebulous commercial effects like those you mention. The Court has shown a new interest in these cases in protecting traditional state powers by requiring more direct connections commerce.

The idea is that modern commerce is virtually all of interstate nature due to technology, trade and other advances since the Constitution was written. These new cases are pushing back on the requirement that something is actually commercial. For example, national regulation of crime and illegal drugs in our country has been based on their indirect effects on the economy. It's not clear exactly how commercial something will have to be, but it is clear that the Court is starting to take the words Interstate Commerce as an actual restriction again.

Two cases to look up are Lopez and Morrison if you want to understand the modern contours of the Commerce Clause. You can find both at Findlaw.

There's also an excellent article by Lawrence Lessig called Translating Federalism that discusses the impact of these cases. You'll have to go to your nearest law library to fin dit.

The Court in recent years has clamped down on the Commerce Clause a bit. They've thrown out a few criminal laws that based their jurisdiction on nebulous commercial effects like those you mention. The Court has shown a new interest in these cases in protecting traditional state powers by requiring more direct connections commerce.

The idea is that modern commerce is virtually all of interstate nature due to technology, trade and other advances since the Constitution was written. These new cases are pushing back on the requirement that something is actually commercial. For example, national regulation of crime and illegal drugs in our country has been based on their indirect effects on the economy. It's not clear exactly how commercial something will have to be, but it is clear that the Court is starting to take the words Interstate Commerce as an actual restriction again.

Two cases to look up are Lopez and Morrison if you want to understand the modern contours of the Commerce Clause. You can find both at Findlaw.

There's also an excellent article by Lawrence Lessig called Translating Federalism that discusses the impact of these cases. You'll have to go to your nearest law library to fin dit.

Nice troll.
Fair use rights were established by the Supreme Court in several cases, for example, Sony vs. Colombia.

They weren't "taken away" because of "greedy pirates", and while nothing makes the media cartels ensure that they are easy to exercise, they are still rights and they still can be exercised. The practical ability of modern consumers to do so, and the impact that this will have on libraries, the free exchange of information, etc. is a whole different issue.

Harvey

"What US laws mention anything about "IP"?"

Just to name a couple:

The US Constitution, Article I, Section 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;"

17 USC

"Since when is an idea your property?"

Copyright does not protect an idea. This is a very common misconception by those who frequent Slashdot and it is further misconstrued by the morons who submit news and those who fail to properly and reasonably edit submissions. Copyright law protects the expression of an idea, that is all. Once an idea is fixed in a tangible medium (and yes, electronic format used by computers is considered a tangible medium) it is protected by copyright law. The key to understanding how copyright works is this very important point. If you fail to understand the concept of the expression then any further meaningful discussion is useless.

"What US laws mention anything about "IP"?"

Just to name a couple:

The US Constitution, Article I, Section 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;"

17 USC

"Since when is an idea your property?"

Copyright does not protect an idea. This is a very common misconception by those who frequent Slashdot and it is further misconstrued by the morons who submit news and those who fail to properly and reasonably edit submissions. Copyright law protects the expression of an idea, that is all. Once an idea is fixed in a tangible medium (and yes, electronic format used by computers is considered a tangible medium) it is protected by copyright law. The key to understanding how copyright works is this very important point. If you fail to understand the concept of the expression then any further meaningful discussion is useless.

ne answer would be to raise the age for voting, military, legal contracts, etc to 21.

We just lowered it to 18 a while ago.

Make the drinking age 21 or High School graduation.

How about using Germany as a model: 18 for everything, although kids of 16 can still buy beer and wine IIRC. This way they know how to drink and handle their alcohol, and it isn't special anymore by the time they get their driver's license at 18.

Are you daft? A right to vote implies a right to have that vote counted correctly. And you also have rights beyond what the Constitution explicitely lays out, Scalia notwithstanding. Read the Ninth Amendment and ponder its meaning.

I'll respond to points 2 & 3.

The reason I've been told that one isn't allowed to ask for an ID to vote is that it would be a violation of the Constitution - specifically, the 24th Amendment.

Now, you're asking yourself, "why would asking for an ID violate the prohibition of poll taxes?" Think about the time you got (or last renewed) your driver's licence. It wasn't free, was it? Ta-dah! A poll tax.

So, if you've got to show a photo ID to vote, the state's got to provide a free photo ID. And most states right now are too broke to even think about something like this.

And as far as point 3 - Purging of the voting roles led to big problems in the 2000 election in Florida. Basically, some voters that shouldn't have been purged were purged. When they showed up to vote, they were told they couldn't. Big disaster. I suspect most places would rather have voting roles with ineligible voters (99.99% of whom won't show up to vote, because they've moved or are dead - and if "they" do show up, it's unlikely anyone will find out about it, thus causing problems for the officials running the election) than voting roles missing eligible voters (who will make a huge stink if they show up and are told they can't vote, which will cause a problem for the officials running the election).

You can read about the Florida voting list purge here if you wish, and check the mention in the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' report here.

Gator and Uhaul "have argued that their ad-sales and delivery tactics are legal because consumers agree to receive the ads when they download and install their software."

It would seem to me that adjusting a hosts file is even more on affirmative decision on the part of the user. Of course, when you run your own ad server, slashdot doesn't generate an ad impression. Theoretically, some of these services might allow a ad impression, but subsequently overlay that ad with another. Slashdot still gets paid, but the correct advertisement never shows up.

The latter system could be construed (by a sufficiently aggrieved advertiser) as fraud. Eventually, though, rates for banner ads will decline even more, depriving advertiser supported sites of much needed revenue. Presumably, that's why the Washington Post sued Gator (and won a preliminary injunction last year-- from the same court, to boot)

They're acting on behalf, with the full permission of, the copyright holders, dumbass.

Which means they can present the case as attorneys but cannot be plaintiffs. Think the RIAA sued Napster? Wrong.

You can't be sued by a lawyer unless he has a plaintiff (or rarely, is one himself). So, the RIAA will not be "suing loads of people" the individual labels will, using RIAA attorneys to present the case.

Stop being so damn arrogant, and try to wrap your mind around the concept. It's not the RIAA suing, but record labels.

What is it about you people

"you people?"

always trying to find "loopholes" that are patently idiotic?

I'm not looking for a loophole, I'm simply pointing out the law. The law says the copyright owner (not his agent) must sue.

I'm glad you think the DMCA is idiotic. You're not alone in that opinion.

I'm sorry, you don't get to define what blackmail is
And you do?
These guys do.
Honestly, what part of "give in to our demands or we'll do this?" that Free-X said didn't you get? That's the very definition of blackmail.

Why, wouldn't you know it, IAAIPL (I am an IP lawyer)! Sadly, yes, this is enforceable. "Sniff" is too broad a term to trademark, but "sniffer" is certainly not. Check findlaw.com's take on trademark dilution. NAI believes these's peoples' use of the term "sniffer" dialates their trademark.

However, I think in this case they've gone too far. There's a C&D letter they also sent to the Children's Television Workshop after the Sesame Street producers gave Snuffleupagus HIV last year as part of a bid to raise kids' awareness of AIDS. Apparently NAI didn't want their trademark associated with wherever Snuffleupagus was keeping his "sniffer"

No one has a right to clog your mail server with unwanted mail. The right to freedom of speech does not mean the right to a free platform for that speech. If I walk into a shopping mall and start babbling about whatever issue at the top of my voice, the owner has the right to legally kick me out.

PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS

Pruneyard Scorecard (2001)

Pruneyard Scorecard (1996)

So far all of SCO's claimed violations are related to code in the Linux kernel. Therefore GNU has nothing to do with this lawsuit.

However, this Slashdot thread is discussing Professor Chander's article on the issue which repeatedly makes reference to "Linux" as an operating system:

[...] The suit arose because IBM has made a strong push towards using the ever more popular Linux operating system for computers. [...]

[...] Then, about a decade ago, a young Finn named Linus Torvalds introduced an operating system (named Linux, after its creator) that did some of what UNIX did. [...]

I am addressing his misuse of the term "Linux" which robs GNU of any credit at all. Your critique about SCO's claims should be directed to the professor because he clearly refers to the entire OS. The professor's reference is incorrect and does not indicate Professor Chander is cognizant of what Linux actually is--a part of the whole, something that deserves recognition, but not to the exclusion of other major pieces of the system (of which GNU is clearly one such piece).

To say GNU "has nothing to do with this lawsuit" is quite wrong. The license under which Linux is licensed came from the freedom-minded concerns of the GNU project (the GNU General Public License). It's great to be thankful for the software, but don't forget the community that grew up around the freedoms of free software. The GNU project proved we can all work together leveraging the power of a copyright regime against the proprietors that want our systems to vanish is also quite an accomplishment.

I'm very grateful to GNU for their software contributions, but to say that GNU and Linux are the only important components of the O.S. is the height of silliness.

Which I never claimed, I said they were both valuable chunks of the system. I am glad you chose to include GNU in your list of contributors. I hope whatever components you select as major regularly includes GNU. I happen to agree with the GNU project's FAQ on this matter. Thanks for recognizing the GNU project's contribution!

And you forget the way Congress has ignored it for six years.

I've been researching my own patent recently so this is interesting.

Wow, so they managed to keep it pending for 40 or so years. Most impressive. I understand it's actually better to do it that way because once you patent the technology becomes available for reverse-engineering. I thought you could only keep it patent pending for about six years though.

It appears that you can but that the legal ground is a little shaky. Current jurisprudence appears to indicate that this'll get thrown unless unless the chip company caves and settles.

rename the game

C'mon, people, you can find a lawyer very easily. Most offer a low price for the initial consultation. It is in your best interest to talk to one before you take any action, so that you understand the consequence and any repercussions that will arise from your decision. Even capitulation may have dire consequences.

I talked to laywer regarding an IP issue a while back and it only cost me $20 for a 1/2 hour (it would've cost $200 for the next hour---it would have been worth it---but I didn't need that long).

To claim that would be to claim that trademarks are capable of establishing a de facto copyright that might never expire with regards to derivative works based upon earlier, public domain works.

You're misinterpreting my statement, though I'll consent that in one area my statement overreached. It would be legal to display "Steamboat Willie" in any context, and to use the artwork in another form. It would not, however, be legal to create a new work with the character Mickey Mouse from the cartoon, since Mickey Mouse is a trademark continuously in use and thus protected.

When copyrights expire so does the exclusive right of the author to create works derivative of earlier works. If "Steamboat Willy" ever does hit the public domain, I CAN make my own Mickey Mouse cartoons. Or books. Or art. And print it on t-shirts.

Most likely the trademark would be partially genercized, that is, partially lost, once the copyright expired. Disney could still attach their name to distinguish their OWN cartoons. I couldn't claim that my own Mickey Mouse works were their works, just as if I made a Cinderella cartoon I couldn't stick the Disney name on it, though both our films would share the 'Cinderella' title, story, characters, etc.

No, you could create a derivative work of other characters on a steamboat like that one, since the steamboat isn't a trademark. But if you include Mickey in the work, you'd be in court in no time. You could make videos and sell the cartoon, you could print images from the cartoon on t-shirts or in books or put them in big frames and sell that. You could absolutely not create an entirely new work, claim you're deriving it from "Steamboat Willie", and use Mickey, a currently enforced trademark.

But trademarks on characters are comparatively new as these things go. The best case regarding this that I've seen so far has been, IIRC, New Line Cinemas v. Comedy III Productions, where copyright expiration trumped persisting trademarks.

Here enters a level of "reasonable" use. The three stooges film had indeed entered the public domain. The owners of the film tried to sue because the film violated their trademark on the three stooges. I quote from the case decision:

II.1 ... In order to prevail on a Lanham Act claim, a plaintiff must prove the existence of a trademark and the sub- sequent use of that mark by another in a manner likely to create consumer confusion.

and

II.2 To prevail on its trademark claim -- and those claims substantially dependent on a viable trademark claim 2 -- Com- edy III must show that the clip at issue is actually a cogniza- ble trademark. That is, Comedy III must demonstrate that "the public recognizes [its] symbol as identifying[its] goods or services and distinguishing them from those of others." Id. Comedy III must make this argument by claiming either that (a) its "symbol" is inherently distinctive, or (b) that even if not inherently distinctive, the symbol has become distinctive through the acquisition of "secondary meaning. " Id. It is upon this claim that Comedy III failed before the district court and fails before us.

That is to say, New Line Cinemas did not violate the trademark because they were using a short clip of film that was in the public domain. The case you cite has no bearing on whether they'd be entitled to create a new Three Stooges film based around public domain archives. In fact, were they to do so, I believe they'd be found guilty of infringing on Comedy III's trademark, even if they were re-enacting a scene from a public domain work.

Finally, the case decision includes in II.4.p2 a nice collection of citations that I assert agree with my analysis and disagree with yours. they were found largely irrelevant

Unfortunately, the US did not suffer as much as Canada did when this illegal tariff was put in. Many, many people lost their jobs, mills were shut down, and some of the smaller logging towns were left in financial ruin.

And by illegal, I mean illegal as ruled by the WTO.

Unfortunately, the damage is done. I know a logger who worked for 30 years in the same town, and then was put out of his job when the tariffs came through. The mill will likely never re-open.

I don't see what lawsuits you think are faced by not granting the right of reply, newspapers are largely exempt from libel in common law, provided that the publication does not appear to be intentionally malicious. So short of the most irresponsible, blatantly partisan newspapers, lawsuits should not be a huge concern. Again, this is the Anglo common-law precedent, and I have no idea how it is in your apparent home of Germany.

That your focus is on personal injury rather than freedom to report shows a rather different perspective from the American one. The general consensus of our Supreme Court is that freedom to communicate without fear of repurcussions, especially when the communication is critical or antagonistic towards those with more power, is a crucial check against tyranny; indeed, the press has often been referred to in the US as the fourth branch of government.

When faced with the risk of libellous speech versus that of restricted political speech, the prior is always more tolerable than the latter, in the US. The feeling is generally that the damage to one individual's reputation can indeed be severe, but that a) free speech does generally give him the opportunity to reply and b) regardless, the damage to one individual's reputation is far preferable to the damage to the democratic process.

Just imagine, any paper which prints an account of a politician screwing up has to print his account of how it happens; any paper which prints an expose on governmental corruption has to print the government's line as well. This effectively negates free political speech; any criticism is counterbalanced by a public relations spin.

The fact is that Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms just expresses things more realistically in relation to the requirements for a civil society. The 1st Amendment may sound absolute but it simply isn't in reality.

Some people have raised free speech concerns as if the U.S. might not do the same things the Europeans have. There are reasons to be suspicious.

The FCC used to have something called the fairness doctrine that applied to TV and radio. A media outlet would have to air all points of view if it aired any point of view on a subject.

The fairness doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Red Lion case. In that case, the issue was whether a person who thought he had been personally attacked in a broadcast had the right to air his defense on the station. The Supreme Court ruled:

"In view of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government's role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views, we hold the regulations and ruling at issue here are both authorized by statute and constitutional."

However, if we take the U.S. Supreme Court at its word in an Internet case, the fairness doctrine might well not be sustained on the Internet. As the Court said in Reno v. ACLU, striking down provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996:

"In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 557 (1975), we observed that "[e]ach medium of expression . . . may present its own problems." Thus, some of our cases have recognized special justifications for regulation of the broadcast media that are not applicable to other speakers, see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978). In these cases, the Court relied on the history of extensive government regulation of the broadcast medium, see, e.g., Red Lion, 395 U. S., at 399-400; the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 637-638 (1994); and its "invasive" nature, see Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 128 (1989). Those factors are not present in cyberspace."

Given the fact that some broadcasters use cyberspace, e.g. CNN, we can't be sure where our Supreme Court would end up on the freedom of speech issue.

Personally, I hope we don't have to find out.

At least not in the US. Such "right of reply" laws were ruled categorically unconstitutionl in the US a long tome ago. _Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo_, 418 U.S. 241 (1974). link

"Executive, administrative and professional workers. Workers who meet the rather stringent requirements to qualify as executive, administrative or professional are exempt from both minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA. This is the biggest category of exempt worker. And itâ(TM)s also the most controversial."

"...and professionals must perform mostly work that is considered to be intellectual to be deemed exempt."

"Computer professionals. Certain computer professionals who are paid at least $27.63 per hour are exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA."

Actually, it's a really old amendment:

Here's a clip from FindLaw

Referred to the state legislatures at the same time as those proposals that eventually became the Bill of Rights, the congressional pay amendment had long been assumed to be dead. This provision had its genesis, as did several others of the first amendments, in the petitions of the States ratifying the Constitution. It, however, was ratified by only six States (out of the eleven needed), and it was rejected by five States. Aside from the idiosyncratic action of the Ohio legislature in 1873, which ratified the proposal in protest of a controversial pay increase adopted by Congress, the pay limitation provision lay dormant until the 1980s. Then, an aide to a Texas legislator discovered the proposal and began a crusade that culminated some ten years later in its proclaimed ratification.

Now that the provision is apparently a part of the Constitution, it will likely play a minor role. What it commands was already statutorily prescribed, and, at most, it may have implications for automatic cost-of-living increases in pay for Members of Congress.

That's news to me, and I'm sure it was news to those legislators who drafted the 21st amendment. US Const. Amend. XXI, Sect. 1 states

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

We have this little legal precendent called the Betamax decision that says that an entity that creates a system with substantial legal uses (like photocopiers or VCRs) can't be held responsible if people use that system for piracy. Jordan created a system to make materials on his college's network easier to find; what people have on the network for the engine to find and what people search for aren't his responsibilities.

Finally, just so you know, just because Google only searches for web pages (and potentially copyrighted images, you forgot that) doesn't mean that I can't use it to find all kinds of illegal copyrighted files. The web is just full of pages with links to pirated material--not being able to search for the files directly hardly impedes my search at all, in the long run.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Oh boy. Here we go with that "it's not a right, it's a priviledge" crap. Nonsense. Prove to me it's not a right.

Any government has the right to restrict usage of its property. For example, you have no right to walk into the Whitehouse and run off with all the President's pens. You have no right to drive a car through the lobby of City Hall.

A car is a large and heavy piece of metal and plastic that is prone to move very fast. It puts wear on any road it moves on, and it puts anyone else on that road in risk of physical harm. It is perfectly reasonable for the owner of a road to put restrictions on the use of cars on that road.

Most roads are owned by some government body or another, whether it's the municipality in which the road is located, the county or the state (if I recall correctly, US Route and Interstate roads are still owned by the State government, not the Federal, they just have more access to Federal funds).

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to restrict and regulate the use of cars (driving) on its property (roads).

For more information, you might want to read the 1915 Supreme Court Decision in Hendrick v Maryland, and Hess v Pawloski. "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themself...a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safty and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles" (emphasis mine)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice. Drive carefully and walk with reckless abandon.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Oh boy. Here we go with that "it's not a right, it's a priviledge" crap. Nonsense. Prove to me it's not a right.

Any government has the right to restrict usage of its property. For example, you have no right to walk into the Whitehouse and run off with all the President's pens. You have no right to drive a car through the lobby of City Hall.

A car is a large and heavy piece of metal and plastic that is prone to move very fast. It puts wear on any road it moves on, and it puts anyone else on that road in risk of physical harm. It is perfectly reasonable for the owner of a road to put restrictions on the use of cars on that road.

Most roads are owned by some government body or another, whether it's the municipality in which the road is located, the county or the state (if I recall correctly, US Route and Interstate roads are still owned by the State government, not the Federal, they just have more access to Federal funds).

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to restrict and regulate the use of cars (driving) on its property (roads).

For more information, you might want to read the 1915 Supreme Court Decision in Hendrick v Maryland, and Hess v Pawloski. "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themself...a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safty and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles" (emphasis mine)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice. Drive carefully and walk with reckless abandon.

Oh? Show me where it says in the (US) Constitution you are entitled to unconditional privacy?

I wouldn't dream of showing you, since nine of the best legal minds in the nation have already created a detailed document doing exactly that. I couldn't hope to compete.

It's not unconditional privacy (nothing in law is "unconditional"), but I think it's what you're looking for.

The case is Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), and it unambiguously establishes a Constitutional right to privacy. It figured prominently in the much more famous Roe v. Wade decision. Read it; it might make you smarter.

Oh? Show me where it says in the (US) Constitution you are entitled to unconditional privacy?

Although I'm not a privacy nut, that's the wrong question to ask. The 10th Amendment specifically spells out that the constitution does NOT grant rights (particularly inalienable rights). In other words, what isn't specifically granted or prohibited by law is power reserved by the people.

That said, it would be absurd to argue that privacy is an inalienable right (although, there are a lot of absurd people on Slashdot that will try and argue it without thinking it through).

My all-time favorite quote from a US Supreme Court case:

"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We [U.S. Supreme Court] categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." Chief Justice Burger, U.S. Supreme Court
ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT., 397 U.S. 728 (1970).

It is their profits, not their freedom of speech, that would be threatened with my plan. Fuck their profits. They can earn their profits by making a product that people will want to recommend to their friends. They can also advertise non-intrusively (directed at the public, not at invidivuals, as I described in my original post). My plan only restricts intrusive advertising, not "all" advertising. It is as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the important government objective of keeping methods of communication useable and preventing waste. Spam alone costs our economy 10 billion dollars a year. There are no less restrictive means of achieving this objective, thus the Central Hudson test is clearly met.

Also, keep in mind the fact that any advertisement that says anything more than the brand name (i.e. a billboard with the coca cola logo and nothing more, I forget the term for such advertisements) is fraudulent in some way or another. Usually the fraud is de minimis (called "puff talk" or "puffery" in these circumstances) and excused. This fraudulent speech deserves no (ZERO) First Amendment protection (although one shouldn't be allowed to sue over it either... de minimis non curat lex).

Commercial speech can be regulated only if the government's interest in creating the restriction is substantial. The regulation must directly address that substantial interest and cannot be more restrictive than is necessary serve it. See, for example, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, (2001) 533 U.S. 525; Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557 (1980).

So while commercial speech can be regulated, it can't be outlawed altogether without repealing the First Amendment. And that? Would be bad.

Commercial speech can be regulated only if the government's interest in creating the restriction is substantial. The regulation must directly address that substantial interest and cannot be more restrictive than is necessary serve it. See, for example, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, (2001) 533 U.S. 525; Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557 (1980).

So while commercial speech can be regulated, it can't be outlawed altogether without repealing the First Amendment. And that? Would be bad.

Read more here

Cheers,
W00t

you can file a provisional patent for about $100. It's only good for a year, but your protected the same as if you had a patent. Gives you some time to go get money from people to build or license your idea.

When you have the cash, you can file for a regular patent, and the effective date is the date you filed for the provisional patent.

heres a link for info: link

On April 19, 1999, defendants [...] issued [a press release announcing] that the Enron Intelligent Network was tested, "lit," or operational, and ready to deliver [streaming media]. The press release stated that a software control layer powered by InterAgent was embedded on Enron's network [...] The press release stated that the InterAgent sofware provied built-in "intelligence" that allowed Enron to route data efficiently and reliably [...] All of these clams were false and misleading. Among other false claims, only a small part of the network was lit, the [streaming media product was] not functional, and the claimed network control software [InterAgent] did not exist.

J. W. Dean's essay on software reuse, reinvention and Patents

J. W. Dean's essay on software reuse, reinvention amd Patents

If I intentionally abandon an item on public property, under common law I lose all ownership rights in that item. After some reasonable period (providing evidence of abandonment) that item is free to be legally acquired by any passerby.

In addition, unless there are local ordinances to the contrary, placing trash on a public street curb causes the owner to immediately lose all rights of privacy and ownership in that material. (Not intellectual rights, of course)

See CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)