Slashdot Mirror

American courts have held that the Bill Of Rights states rights of all "persons," whether they are citizens or aliens. See, e.g., Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) (construing U.S. Const. Am. V ("nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"); holding that aliens may not be deported arbitrarily without "due process of law").

American courts have held that the Bill Of Rights states rights of all "persons," whether they are citizens or aliens. See, e.g., Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) (construing U.S. Const. Am. V ("nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"); holding that aliens may not be deported arbitrarily without "due process of law").

If you get Web Hosting Magazine, I have an article in the next issue (July) about the DMCA's effects on ISPs and Hosting Services, and how they should handle DMCA complaints.

(No, I can't post a link to the story. It's a *print* magazine, and that issue isn't out yet. Sorry.)

- Robin

• Now that eighteen-year-olds have the right to vote, it is obvious that they must be allowed the freedom to form their political views on the basis of uncensored speech before they turn eighteen, so that their minds are not a blank when they first exercise the franchise. And since an eighteen-year-old's right to vote is a right personal to him rather than a right to be exercised on his behalf by his parents, the right of parents to enlist the aid of the state to shield their children from ideas of which the parents disapprove cannot be plenary either. People are unlikely to become well- functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble.

• To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.

That's a good, realistic argument from a sitting judge.

For the unaware, Cliff was refering to John Stuart Mill, an 18th-century British philosopher who wrote of "the tyranny of the masses," or "the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling." Mill was noting that logic and reason were being subverted by emotional arguments that appealed to the masses. It's a elitist perspective, but IMHO it's a very valid observation.

This is exactly what's happening here -- as the Salon piece very elegantly expresses, there is no evidence that porn is harmful or that censorship is helpful. In fact, it seems to me only reasonable to think the opposite. I may be biased -- but I'm a 17-year-old who's seen plenty of porn (please don't take that the wrong way), but I'm not some psychotic, violent madman or a pedophiliac. In fact, I'm first in my high school class (finishing my Junior year within the week), I'm looking at top-teir colleges, and I spent my Tuesday night last week being a productive member of my community by lobbying against an issue before the local township council (I won't get into the details of that, but as long as I'm bragging, I think I'll note that I've also finally hit the karma cap =). To see people claim that I should have all kinds of mental problems is, to be, downright offensive. This categorization is wrong, but the majority of people believe it, and that is reflected by our society.

But I think that a lot of the Slashdot crowd sees the argument put forth in the Salon article -- that censorship does not protect children, but instead leaves them unable to cope with the realities of the outside world. (There's a very enlightened judge who ruled recently that children "cannot be raised in a bubble" -- see the ruling for more.) That's why I'm such a fan of peacefire's advocacy.

But I digress. The point is, Mill's quote is the perfect embodiment of the phenomenon we're seeing here -- that is, the popular view that children must be "protected." Unfortunately, as long as the masses remain uneducated, we're fighting a losing battle. I don't know what can be done to counteract this, but I sure it hope somebody else can come up with something, and soon -- before people like me are no longer able to access these things, and are no longer able to realize this common fallacy.

Once again, Kudos to Cliff for showing once again that occasionally the slashdot editors do make very insightful commentaries in and of themselves (especially Jamie, who's written many great anti-censorship articles). Hopefully we've enlightened another person or two today.

This kind of tortured reasoning has led to an incoherent patchwork of privacy rulings, which provide no clear guidance to law enforcement agents, nor to citizens.

The story asserted, "Fortunately, the courts found it violated both the First and Fourteenth Amendments (protection of interstate commerce, in case you were wondering). No direct reference was given. But on the page referenced by the single link supplied, one may arrive here, where one can read, "Tarnow also agreed with the ACLU that Public Act 33 violates the Commerce clause of the Constitution because it would unjustly regulate interstate commerce and regulate conduct that occurs outside of Michigan."

So what's the problem? It's that the 14th Amendment has nothing whatsoever to to with interstate commerce! I think some Americans occasionally forget that there was an original document to which the Amendments applied, and that is where the "Commerce Clause" is to be found. Article 1, Section 8 explicitly grants the Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes..." The 14th Amendment has mostly to do with mopping up after the Civil War, but the clause most applicable today enforces the equal protection of the laws to all citizens. It's an immensely important Amendment -- but it has nothing to do with this case.

No American who thinks this a minor or unimportant matter has any business prattling on about his "rights", when he plainly has either not read the document that protects them, has not understood it, or both.

The story asserted, "Fortunately, the courts found it violated both the First and Fourteenth Amendments (protection of interstate commerce, in case you were wondering). No direct reference was given. But on the page referenced by the single link supplied, one may arrive here, where one can read, "Tarnow also agreed with the ACLU that Public Act 33 violates the Commerce clause of the Constitution because it would unjustly regulate interstate commerce and regulate conduct that occurs outside of Michigan."

So what's the problem? It's that the 14th Amendment has nothing whatsoever to to with interstate commerce! I think some Americans occasionally forget that there was an original document to which the Amendments applied, and that is where the "Commerce Clause" is to be found. Article 1, Section 8 explicitly grants the Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes..." The 14th Amendment has mostly to do with mopping up after the Civil War, but the clause most applicable today enforces the equal protection of the laws to all citizens. It's an immensely important Amendment -- but it has nothing to do with this case.

No American who thinks this a minor or unimportant matter has any business prattling on about his "rights", when he plainly has either not read the document that protects them, has not understood it, or both.

It was draft card burning, in the O'Brien case, which was found not to be speech and to be illegal. The government was said to have a legitimate interest in preventing the destruction of official documents.

I suspect that this sort of thing (cooperation between two sides of a lawsuit) is highly illegal.

However, usually, the US Federal courts don't like collusive lawsuits. One reason for the dislike is that the US Constitution only gives the courts the power to judge "cases and controversies", so if there's no real controversy between the two parties, it's not the court's business. Another reason is that US courts use an adversary system, and so they depend on each side being motivated to bring up all the evidence and argument that would prove its point.

One of the classic friendly-lawsuit cases is Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Company vs. Wellman. Michigan passed a law regulating fares on railroads; the railroad had fares higher than the regulated rate; Wellman tried to buy a ticket at the regulated rate, was turned down, and sued. At trial, the railroad claimed that if it couldn't charge more than the regulated maximum, it would default on its loans, and Wellman said nothing to dispute this argument (there's the collusion). Then the railroad asked the court to declare that the fare-setting statute was unconstitutional. The trial court, the appeals court, and the US Supreme Court all refused to play along.
--

Sorry about that link.

Here's the non-safewebbed link to the
FindLaw.Com: Laws: Cases and Codes: U.S. Code: Keyword Search page.

--Blair
"-1: Doofus."

Sorry about that link.

Here's the non-safewebbed link to the
FindLaw.Com: Laws: Cases and Codes: U.S. Code: Keyword Search page.

--Blair
"-1: Doofus."

Sorry about that link.

Here's the non-safewebbed link to the
FindLaw.Com: Laws: Cases and Codes: U.S. Code: Keyword Search page.

--Blair
"-1: Doofus."

Sorry about that link.

Here's the non-safewebbed link to the
FindLaw.Com: Laws: Cases and Codes: U.S. Code: Keyword Search page.

--Blair
"-1: Doofus."

I just spent half an hour searching through the U.S. Code for the prohibition on interstate gambling, and the couple of things I found that talked about wire transmission were only about sports or horses. I recall seing a broader prohibition, but it's not coming up on that search engine, so maybe I recall incorrectly.

If Nevada allows the game, and your state allows the game, then federal law isn't involved, even though the games are coming over a wire. Even in the case of sports bets and betting information, which are spelled out clearly as illegal to transmit over interstate wires, there's a loophole for transmissions to and from states that permit that kind of sports betting. Intervening states can't stop it.

Of course, the Internet is pervasive, and completely insecure. If people in Atlantic City can log into video poker machines in Las Vegas, then so can the 12-year-old h4xx0r son of a Mormon Elder's Wife Number 9 in Salt Lake City, in between Jenna Jameson tapes and shots of Herradura.

--Blair

Actually, the Constitution has nothing to say about modifying source code or binaries or anything else for personal use. I suggest you spend some time reading it over again.

The only area where the Constiturion touches upon Copyright is found in Article 1, 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; "

The concept of fair use is covered in Copyright Law. I would recommend that you go over to FindLaw to learn a bit more about Copyright Law vs. what is in the Constitution.

It is common in software licenses - including source licenses - to have various rights that are granted or restricted. The right to "copy", "modify", "examine", or "display" are common rights that are granted or restricted.

If a licensor doesn't grant you the right to "modify", than you can't assume that you have it. Just as if I bought a painting, but wasn't given the right to "copy", I can't just go and make copies of them and sell them to all comers.

It wouldn't take the Supremes to shut you down. Any District Court judge would give summary judgement on a violation of a license where you weren't given the rights to modify the source and you modified it.

The needs that you have and addressing them, is what gave birth to the Open Source movement. You want a license that allows you to make needed modifications and share them with others. This is why many enterprise customers are seriously looking at Open Source, because you don't get these right in a standard license and they aren't included in fair use.

Even assuming that the phrase in the Bill of Rights is intended to limit those who are eligible rather than to simply give a reason for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment (and I think that assumption is false) [...]

Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

According the the U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311 the definition of militia is:

Note that the petitioner carefully neglects to quote the rest of Section 311, which clearly distinguishes between the "organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia" and the "unorganized militia, which consists of all members of the militia not members of the National Guard and the Naval Militia"; the latter, not being "well-regulated", are not included in the Second Amendment's "well-regulated militia".

The U.S. Code is, of course, trumpted by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that "The President shall be commander in chief [...] of the militia of the several states" -- which means that unless you took orders from Bill Clinton last year, you are not a member of the militia.

Further, under Article I, Section 8, "The Congress shall have power to [...] provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" -- which, combined with the preceding, strongly indicates that the militia was meant all along to be interpreted as a military body. This is the basis for the Supreme Court rulings cited by the esteemed AC, ruling that the National Guard now fills the role of the constitutional militia.

[And yes, I'm well aware that the NRA has become quite skilled in tying these rulings in pretzel knots trying to argue that they don't mean what they plainly say...]

The gun lobby has never won a Supreme Court case based on their interpretation of the Second Amendment.[*] An unbiased observer would conclude from this that the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is wrong.

[*] And only one federal court case (out of dozens before and since that rejected its misguided lead), which is currently under appeal.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;

Even assuming that the phrase in the Bill of Rights is intended to limit those who are eligible rather than to simply give a reason for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment (and I think that assumption is false) [...]

Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

According the the U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311 the definition of militia is:

Note that the petitioner carefully neglects to quote the rest of Section 311, which clearly distinguishes between the "organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia" and the "unorganized militia, which consists of all members of the militia not members of the National Guard and the Naval Militia"; the latter, not being "well-regulated", are not included in the Second Amendment's "well-regulated militia".

The U.S. Code is, of course, trumpted by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that "The President shall be commander in chief [...] of the militia of the several states" -- which means that unless you took orders from Bill Clinton last year, you are not a member of the militia.

Further, under Article I, Section 8, "The Congress shall have power to [...] provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" -- which, combined with the preceding, strongly indicates that the militia was meant all along to be interpreted as a military body. This is the basis for the Supreme Court rulings cited by the esteemed AC, ruling that the National Guard now fills the role of the constitutional militia.

[And yes, I'm well aware that the NRA has become quite skilled in tying these rulings in pretzel knots trying to argue that they don't mean what they plainly say...]

The gun lobby has never won a Supreme Court case based on their interpretation of the Second Amendment.[*] An unbiased observer would conclude from this that the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is wrong.

[*] And only one federal court case (out of dozens before and since that rejected its misguided lead), which is currently under appeal.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;

Findlaw is your friend.

2'nd Circuit Court ruling here.

Findlaw is your friend.

2'nd Circuit Court ruling here.

• For many purposes, corporations have been declared people by our laws and judicial system. They are not people, of course. They are creations of legislatures and entrepreneurs and lawyers. They do not have the same inalienable rights you and I have.

AFAIK, corporations are not the same as individuals in our judicial system:

• "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

  Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges.

  Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906)

Consumer time shifting is fair use (see Sony v. Universal City Studios ); but sharing your time-shifted copy of a TV show is probably not fair use. Sharing it in its entirety prior to airtime with everyone on the Internet is not fair use. (not that I'm saying it's wrong, just I'm confident it doesn't match the fair use factors of 17 USC 107 - in particular, see the part of the Sony opinion discussing the "market effect" fair use test.)

A contract has to have several elements in order to be a contract. These are (a) a 'meeting of the minds' or an agreement, (b) consideration (c) offer and acceptance and (d) mutuality of obligations.

From the FindLaw Legal Dictionary
Contract: an agreement between two or more parties that creates in each party a duty to do or not do something and a right to performance of the other's duty or a remedy for the breach of the other's duty.

License: a grant by the holder of a copyright or patent to another of any of the rights embodied in the copyright or patent short of an assignment of all rights.

A license is different from a contract. It is a grant of rights which dosn't need to be made for consideration. Implicit in a license is that the rights granted are rights reserved to to grantor.

The GPL is a license and not a contract. There is no consideration, the rights granted are gratis even though they come with limitations.

"Now that eighteen-year-olds have the right to vote, it is obvious that they must be allowed the freedom to form their political views on the basis of uncensored speech before they turn eighteen, so that their minds are not a blank when they first exercise the franchise. And since an eighteen-year-old's right to vote is a right personal to him rather than a right to be exercised on his behalf by his parents, the right of parents to enlist the aid of the state to shield their children from ideas of which the parents disapprove cannot be plenary either. People are unlikely to become well- functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble."

American Amusement Machine Assoc. v. Kendrick No. 00-3643 (7th Cir., March 23, 2001). http://laws.findlaw.com/7th/003643.html

I agree for the most part with your comment, but Scalia has never been the swing vote in cases like this. Look at nearly any decision in the last 10 years, and you will find Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas voting as a block against free speech, against separation of church and state, against equal protection, etc. (In the last case, check out Scalia's dissent in Romer v. Evans -- it's pretty sickening) . I'm pretty sure Scalia has already decided to vote for Son-of-CDA, in the interest of protecting "public morality" or some such tripe. The real swing votes here will be Kennedy or O'Connor, as always.

Want a good look at how the court will rule? Follow this link: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment annotated.

There seems to be a common notion that the purpose of copyright is to vest some special private interest in copyright holders. This could not be farther from the truth.

Article I, 8, of the Constitution provides:

"The Congress shall have Power . . . 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."

The US Supreme Court (SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)) pointed out that "The monopoly privileges...are not primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.

They go on to point out that "Creative work is to be [464 U.S. 417, 432] encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an `author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. `The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said, `lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors."

That's right! Copyright protections granted by the constitutions where not meant to grant special monopolies to the RIAA or the like. Copyright is meant to protect the rights of all of us /.ers to have access to the creative works.

Obviously many copyright holders and legislatures have lost sight of that vision.

A good question! As a matter of fact, it comes from the Supreme Court... they established (in Sony Corp. vs. Universal City Studios among others) that it is perfectly legal and within my rights to use a VCR to tape a show when it is on TV in order for me to watch it later.

If I can't "copy" the transmitted digital TV signal to my VCR (or Tivo/Replay/Ultimate) then I can't exactly time-shift it, now can I?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&saf e=off&q=Jurisline

As I recall... And I Am Not A Lawyer...
Westlaw prints the law books lawyers use... they 'added value' to the legal decisions judges wrote by putting in PAGE NUMBERS. This pagination was used as an attempt to defend their monopoly over the distribution of the content of the law as lawyers used that pagination to cite the law and the pagination was proprietary, value added content. Including the pagination in any duplication of the public domain work was (?is) illegal under copyright law. (I thought this was solved be the removal of the pagination).

Jurisline.com attempted an end run of the Reed Elsevier (/Lexis) publishing empire's hold over online access to public domain law (Reed ironically swiped the data from Westlaw). Apparently Jurisline lost while Elsevier/Lexis got away with it:

http://www.ambar.org/journal/aug00/nstartup.html

Jurisline's attempt to make this info freely available over the net is well chronicled at:

http://showcase.netins.net/web/trhalvorson/law/jur isline.shtml

As mentioned by other posters, the notion that changing the law would be an unlawful derivitive work of copyrighted material is Kafkaesque hilarious - only the original creator, not necessarily an elected legislator, could change the law...
A curious requiem for Douglas Adams, I hope his spirit (and executors!) accept what I believe is fair and fitting use of a portion of his work:

"""
"People of Earth, your attention
please," a voice said, and it was
wonderful. Wonderful perfect
quadrophonic sound with
distortion levels so low as to make
a brave man weep. "This is
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the
Galactic Hyperspace Planning
Council," the voice continued. "As
you will no doubt be aware, the
plans for development of the
outlying regions of the Galaxy
require the building of a
hyperspatial express route through
your star system, and regrettably
your planet is one of those
scheduled for demolition. The
process will take slightly less that
two of your Earth minutes. Thank
you." The PA died away.
Uncomprehending terror settled on
the watching people of Earth. The
terror moved slowly through the
gathered crowds as if they were
iron fillings on a sheet of board and
a magnet was moving beneath
them. Panic sprouted again,
desperate fleeing panic, but there
was nowhere to flee to. Observing
this, the Vogons turned on their
PA again. It said: "There's no point
in acting all surprised about it. All
the planning charts and demolition
orders have been on display in
your local planning department on
Alpha Centauri for fifty of your
Earth years, so you've had plenty
of time to lodge any formal
complaint and it's far too late to
start making a fuss about it now."
"""
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Exemptions may be made for fair 'non-infringing' use through the Library of Congress. In a hurry all I could find was:

http://www.ala.org/washoff/Rulemaking.PDF

Providing access to the Law the Citizen is required to abide by seems like a sensible exemption -- allowing unfettered access to this particular class of work through the web seems essential for the 21st Century Citizenry to uphold their civic responsibilities and be Law Abiding Citizens.

Law Links:
http://www.FindLaw.com
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

p.s. just because .Gov created/stewards it doesn't mean some politician or bureaucrat can't Sell it Cheap to one of their friends. (i.e. public lands for drilling/logging/railroads, air waves/spectrum for radio, the RIAA's attempt to make musicians creative efforts 'works for hire' in the middle of the night )-:

http://www.HavenWorks.com/
"Vote and be vigilant"
- http://www.HavenWorks.com/hermit/

I reserve the right to change my mind, especially when new or better evidence is brought to light. -Haven Hermit
j-)

Okay, I think we must be on completely different wavelengths because when you start talking about a market in what the law that bind you says you sound insane.

I'm not insane -- we're just operating under different assumptions.

I was talking only about fair use. One of the factors in determining fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". See 17 U.S.C. 107.

In the Veeck decision, the Fifth Circuit found that SBCCI had a valid copyright in the text of the building code.

I stated that there's no argument for fair use. SBCCI makes money by selling copies of the codes, so it's commercial use. Veeck took the entire work and put it on his website. Why pay SBCCI for a copy when you can get it online for free?

Your argument that the market is eliminated by submitting the work to the legislature really goes to the constitutional (due process) issue, and not the copyright issue. You're assuming that the model code's adoption as the law makes the copyright unenforceable; the Fifth Circuit, whether rationally or not, rejected that argument.

Thus, when considering the fair use argument, there's no difference between the model building code and the latest Stephen King novel. And so there's no fair use when you copy and republish the entire work.

This is not legal advice. Go to a lawyer, not /., for legal advice.

Okay, I think we must be on completely different wavelengths because when you start talking about a market in what the law that bind you says you sound insane.

I'm not insane -- we're just operating under different assumptions.

I was talking only about fair use. One of the factors in determining fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". See 17 U.S.C. 107.

In the Veeck decision, the Fifth Circuit found that SBCCI had a valid copyright in the text of the building code.

I stated that there's no argument for fair use. SBCCI makes money by selling copies of the codes, so it's commercial use. Veeck took the entire work and put it on his website. Why pay SBCCI for a copy when you can get it online for free?

Your argument that the market is eliminated by submitting the work to the legislature really goes to the constitutional (due process) issue, and not the copyright issue. You're assuming that the model code's adoption as the law makes the copyright unenforceable; the Fifth Circuit, whether rationally or not, rejected that argument.

Thus, when considering the fair use argument, there's no difference between the model building code and the latest Stephen King novel. And so there's no fair use when you copy and republish the entire work.

This is not legal advice. Go to a lawyer, not /., for legal advice.

The acutal case is Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, 241 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2001). (Link is to Findlaw version.)

Well, they don't own the copyright to the actual case law, but they have contracts to be the sole publisher for court documents. They then intermix the public domain case law with their own works so that it is extremely hard to seperate their copyrighted additions from the rest. You want to practice law? You will end up paying yearly fees to these companies. The courts see this as a big plus because they don't have to publish this stuff themselves and no tax dollars are spent.

The acutal case is Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, 241 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2001). (Link is to Findlaw version.)

Well, they don't own the copyright to the actual case law, but they have contracts to be the sole publisher for court documents. They then intermix the public domain case law with their own works so that it is extremely hard to seperate their copyrighted additions from the rest. You want to practice law? You will end up paying yearly fees to these companies. The courts see this as a big plus because they don't have to publish this stuff themselves and no tax dollars are spent.

The acutal case is Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, 241 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2001). (Link is to Findlaw version.)

It's a 2-1 decision from the 5th Circuit. The due process part of the decision appears to turn on the fact that the panel felt that no one was being denied access to the text of the code itself. The Fifth Circuit panel stated that "due process requires at a minimum that the codes should be available for inspection and copying at the city offices in towns where they have been adopted". However, Veeck admitted that the codes were available during times when city officials were available. So, I guess we want to ask ourselves, is 24-hour, online access a part of due process? Before the Internet, how many people had such ready access to the text of laws?

Also note that the Ninth Circuit has held that that the American Medical Association did not lose the right to enforce its copyright when use of its promulgated coding system was required by government regulations, and the Seocnd Circuit upheld the copyright of the "Red Book" projections of used car valuations...

This is not legal advice. If you need specific legal advice, consult with a lawyer, and not /.

> So the EULA is a completely one-sided "contract",

EULA's are non-binding contracts. A contract needs 2 people to sign (or both people give a verbal/oral agreement.)

You can find links here on Contract Law: http://www.studyweb.com/links/2972.html

This is an interesting link: http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/contracts/contract_2.h tml

(Incidentally, I should also say that the questioner's state may have state wage-and-hour laws that are more generous than the federal laws. Whether this is so naturally depends on the state.)

In the USA, the Fair Labor Standards Act requires (1) that hourly workers be paid for hours worked and (2) that they be paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40. The obvious question is how "on call" time fits into this system.

The Department of Labor's FLSA regulations, particularly this one, suggest that "on call" time doesn't count as work time for purposes of the FLSA. (If the employee is actually called, however, that would seem to be different -- see this regulation.)

This recent opinion from Wisconsin involving EMTs "on call" discusses a very close case, and is interesting.

Perhaps the monarchy idea was extreme. ;-)

However, a FindLaw article (read "Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power") suggests that in international issues, such as migratory birds, the treaty power might be strong enough to overwhelm the Tenth Amendment. And language used by Holmes in one ruling suggested a controversy over exact interpretation...

If the Government chooses to argue a compelling interest in international cooperation over computer crime or even easily-duplicated IP, the same logic may perhaps suffice.

To my knowledge, no President or Congressman has been raked over the legal coals solely for breaking his oath, although many have pushed blatantly unconstitutional acts (provisions of the Communications Decency Act, provisions of the Violence against Women act, calling for banning flags via law (rather than amendment)...). Not yet, anyway.

The only danger is sending out the wrong message. Drugs kill, and anyone advocating their use is little better than a killer.

Yet another person who is venomously opposed to drugs without getting the facts. I don't know about LSD but I know for a fact that after decades of study the health risks of marijuana are still debatable and there are few if any documented fatalities related to marijuana abuse.

The same goes for MDMA which is the primary ingredient of Ecstacy which has practically no ill after effects either in the short term or in the long term. Ecstacy is one place where regulation can help because the major problem with it is that most sellers cut it with harmful drugs to either enhance its effects or to short change buyers. Pure MDMA is thus hard to find so the Ecstacy consumed by most of the raver culture is actually more harmful than it has to be.

On the other hand, alcohol and cigarettes which are legal are amongst the leading causes of death in the U.S. either directly (lung and liver related diseases) or indirectly (drunk driving and second hand smoke).

Anyway, the War On Drugs is an acknowledged failure. As large a percentage of the U.S. population uses drugs as those in countries where the usage of certain drugs is not as frowned upon. The only successful thing about the war on drugs is that it has enabled the government to pass laws abridging due process (various seizure laws) and circumvent the 4th Ammendment.

This response is paraphrased from an earlier response on kuro5hin.

PS: If you want to read insightful discussion on the War On Drugs, I suggest reading one of the following articles and a few of the comments posted, Why Drugs Should Be Illegal or More Cluelessness In The War On Drugs.

--

The Supreme Court set this precedent in Terry v. Ohio (1968).

In that case, a police officer noticed two people walking past a store a couple dozen times. Suspecting that they were casing the place, the police officer stopped them and asked their names. The suspects "mumbled something," whereup the officer spun one suspect around and patted him down. The Supreme Court ruled that the officer had the right to pat the suspects down for his own protection.

The Supreme Court has since extended the right to conduct a search, so that police can now use criminal profiles based on secret criteria (I don't remember the case name. It involved a man who bought a round-trip airline ticked with cash).

Two relatively recent Supreme Court decisions which upheld parody and satire as forms of free speech:

Hustler Magazine, Inc. vs. Rev. Jerry Falwell, over a satirical account of Falwell's first sexual experience (with his mother).
2 Live Crew vs. Acuff-Rose Music, over a parody of the Roy Orbison song, "Pretty Woman."

The site seems to be down right now, but I've used findlaw in the past for information. They do have a section specific for forms too.

You can get a general flavor by doing a search for 'findlaw' on google and opening up the cached versions.

Hope this helps,
Phoenix_SEC

Congress has "granted" baseball an exemption insofar as it has not corrected the Supreme Court's decision, a decision which subsequent Supreme Court cases have treated as binding though they have more or less acknowledged that the original decision was wrong.

Congress has "granted" baseball an exemption insofar as it has not corrected the Supreme Court's decision, a decision which subsequent Supreme Court cases have treated as binding though they have more or less acknowledged that the original decision was wrong.

And dammit people read the entire ruling before commenting on the summary posted on /.

Personally, I'm all for a little more diversity, new thinking, and imagination out there...but there should always be a place for cartoony violent fun.

Violent conflict is the easiest form of gameplay to represent. It's immediate, doesn't require a rule book to understand, and is damn fun. Shoot blocks, shoot aliens, shoot zombies, throw dodgeball at face. Kids know this. Take, for example, X-Entertainment's funny breakdown of games we used to play. I mean, just because a kid makes a gun out of paper doesn't mean he's the next Charles Starkweather.

If you are of the unbelievably silly belief that a ban of this sort would in any way reduce the number of violent acts...well I don't know what to say to you...It seems pretty obvious that if people are given more reasons to live and let live through attentive/positive parenting, access to education, as well freedom from poverty and a host of persistent social ills we'll see a dramatic increase in the quality of life.

Remember school violence has actually gone down since 1990. Remember that politicians and media ideologues despise confronting the real issues of society...mainly because the solutions require folks to give up some of their self-serving attitudes and resources (time, money).

This Judge is the first to actually present a reasonable mainstream argument against the ignorant, do-nothing, "I'm not responsible for anything" crowd who likes their solutions quick and stupid. Although describing Mortal Kombat as a feminist game is a tad hilarious, it at least shows someone willing to waste several cycles thinking about as many aspects of the big picture as they are paid to.

Now I have to play some Counterstrike to prepare myself for the reckoning that is to come.

Well, I got two contradictory replies to the post, and so I decided to go look it up anyway: You lose.

Relevant Findlaw Article

As far as section 10, referenced above and most directly relevant, is concerned, imports and exports only apply to goods imported from or exported to foreign countires. Section 9, the other section in question, deals only with restricting Congress from imposing taxes on goods exported from the states (this was a sore point at the time because of England's prohibitive taxes on colonial imports and exports), not with states laying taxes on goods between themselves. Which, technically, these aren't anyway, because they're not being taxed exclusively on the basis of being either an import or an export, but simply the the fact of sale.

Ed

Having fought about this in my undergraduate years, I was surprised that the numerous individuals who were identified by various message boards and scholastic institutions (Bonsaikitten, anyone?) were not more forceful in dealing with their revelers.

Having fought about this in my undergraduate years, I was surprised that the numerous individuals who were identified by various message boards and scholastic institutions (Bonsaikitten, anyone?) were not more forceful in dealing with their revelers.

Having fought about this in my undergraduate years, I was surprised that the numerous individuals who were identified by various message boards and scholastic institutions (Bonsaikitten, anyone?) were not more forceful in dealing with their revelers.