Slashdot Mirror

So lets say I have a file called file.mp3 In order to make this fairly decryptable, yet random, let each user pick a offset number and tack it onto the front of the "encrypted" string.

here is an example with an offset of 4 attached to the front of the string and then use ASCII values for the characters plus the desired offset.

Example: Filename = file.mp3 Offset = 4:
4-106-109-112-105-50-113-116-55
or
4-(ASCII 'f' + 4)-(ASCII 'i' + 4)-(ASCII 'l' + 4)-(ASCII 'l' + 4)-(ASCII '.' + 4)-(ASCII 'm' + 4)-(ASCII 'p' + 4)-(ASCII '3' + 4)

this, in my opinion would create a LOT of filenames that napster would have to block.

offset5 = 5-107-110-113-106-51-114-117-56
offset6 = 6-108-111-114-107-52-115-118-57
and so on...

oh well.... I guess this is what happens when I haven't slept for 3 days.... I ramble out stuff like this :)

Steve

Yes, NASA faces budget cuts. NASA is illegal. It shouldn't have a budgegt AT ALL.

Of course, the legality of NASA clearly has nothing to do with its budget. And the word you're looking for is "unconstitutional", not "illegal".

The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 justifies the establishment of NASA by stating "The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities."

The Congress was given by the Constitution "Power To...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

The tenth amendment does not abridge that power.

Here's a transcript of an excellent panel discussion on the concept of federalism, states' rights, and the enumerated powers doctrine; with such gems as:

The states are in fact in favor of federalism - of a sort. Witness the support for devolution, the fight over unfunded mandates, and an endless stream of 10th and 11th Amendment cases. But the federalism they want isn't competitive federalism. It's what the antitrust lawyers among you will recognize as a horizontal-vertical conspiracy.

As Gordon Wood once put it, if you ask about the relationship of this federal Constitution to democracy, you have to understand that democracy was the problem to which the Constitutional Convention was called to frame a response. The problem of populist democracies in the state legislatures was part of the Convention debate as early as May 31. Randolph of Virginia observed that the general object of the Convention was to provide a cure for the evils under which the states labored - that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracies.

What speaks cleanest, the supremacy clause, actually binds state officers directly to federal law. As the Supreme Court said back at a time when it was a little closer to the beginning -- 1876, to be exact -- the laws of the United States are the laws in the states.

The choice is this -- are the basic decisions of Government going to be made by judges or by the people you elect? If judges insist that the propriety of legislation, or the necessity of it, be demonstrated to them, then they are really in charge. And you are not going to like that because you don't get to throw us out of office every two years or every four years or every six years. You know, it takes murder to get rid of a federal judge.

--

California Business & Professions Code 16600-16607.

Special point of interest:

16600. Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.

Note: IANAL

It's not clear. Copyright law has a big "gotcha" when contractors are involved. Without more info, I don't think the answer is clear.

The US Supreme Court gave a unanimous ruling interpreting "work for hire" in the case
COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE v. REID, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)

The case discusses how to tell an employee from an independent contractor, and what standard to apply in each case to identify a work for hire. For an indendent contractor, the work for hire condition exists only "if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." It also is only allowed for an enumerated class of works that doesn't appear to include computer programs.

In this case, Reid was a sculptor who made an oral agreement with CCNV to create a sculture for them. He did and they both tried to claim copyright on it. He was ruled an independent contractor and the contract did not create a work for hire because it was oral and because a sculpture isn't in the eligible class of works.

For this poster, it depends on what kind of employee he is. If he is an independent contractor, then he likely owns the copyright even without the agreement. If he is an employee, then he only owns the copyright if the agreement was in a written contract.

It sounds like things are even more complicated because he works for a contract agency. This presents a third possiblity. If he is an "employee" of the contracting firm, but there is no explicit written contract transfer of copyright from the contracting firm to the client as part of their contract, then the contracting firm would own the copyright.

However, a copyright licence like the GPL can be created much more easily than a transfer of copyright ownership. If the company agreed at any time to licence their copyright under the GPL, then that's probably definitive. The copyright owner can relicence the works they own, but they cannot revoke a licence already given, unless the licence specifically says so (and the GPL doesn't).

More seriously, for the pragmatic reason that the decision SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC doesn't apply, I think it has more to do with:

The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. It emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public at large, the noncommercial character of the use, and the private character of the activity conducted entirely within the home. Moreover, the court found that the purpose of this use served the public interest in increasing access to television programming, an interest that "is consistent with the First Amendment policy of providing the fullest possible access to information through the public airwaves. ... Even when an entire copyrighted work was recorded, [464 U.S. 417, 426] the District Court regarded the copying as fair use "because there is no accompanying reduction in the market for `plaintiff's original work.'"

Honestly, the same can't easily be said about Napster-based exchanges.

Sig: My Latest Censorware Essay:
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Actually, in TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) the supreme court ruled that "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." which would suggest that the First Amendment most certainly does apply to 8-year-olds.

A fully linked opinion is available on Findlaw at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=DC&navby=case&no=995430A.

You can get the opinion at either Findlaw(HTML) or at the Federal Circuit(MS-WORD) web pages.

The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a less price, and a sale at a less price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright.

So Michael, your correct, the Supreme Court refused to uphold book licenses. In fairness though, the publishing industry could have continued to fight the decision by revamping the licenses or by pushing Congress for a legislative change to the doctrine of first sale.

The big question I have, however, is if anyone has tried to apply the right of first sale to software? Anyone know?

-sk

I seem to recall a case in the 1800s involving counterfeit music rolls for player pianos. Judgement was something to the effect that, machine-read documents could be protected under copyright law the same as human-read ones.

You're probably thinking of White-Smith vs. Apollo, and if you are, your memory is wrong. The supreme court held that piano rolls were not covered by copyright. Obviously things are a little different today.
--

Part of it, of course, is wishful thinking-- they really WANT to pass a particular law, and uphold it, and so they make up a rationale.

There are two other issues, however. First, Congress is given the power and responsibility to pass laws for particular purposes, such as "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", and "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". This entirely contradicts the First Amendment, which would make much of that (especially the second quotation, about copyright) impossible. In fact, many amendments, taken to their logical extremes, would totally void much of the constitution, inclusing many of the other amendments.

Because of these contradictions, they have to make interpretations-- this is not under debate, because there are many well-recognized contradictions. But where you side on the interpretations is a large part of what political affiliation you might have. Your interpretation, of course, is Libertarian. I would guess that even the Libertarians (though I am not entirely familiar with their platforms), for the most part, agree with Justice Holmes, who stated: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

If you are interested in the history of the Constitution, from its creation to many of the interpretations of it, I highly recommend this FindLaw resource, which has an astonishing amount of content, decently organized.

From the US Constitution. Article I Section 8 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; . So copyright is a limited right. I actually think it is nessesary in our modern world, but I also think it is being abused by coperations.

Then there is the much ignored Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendments : The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people and The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is a quote I can't remember who to attribute it to that goes: "Your right ends where my right starts". Corperations seem to believe that their rights end some where around my lower intestine.

From the US Constitution. Article I Section 8 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; . So copyright is a limited right. I actually think it is nessesary in our modern world, but I also think it is being abused by coperations.

Then there is the much ignored Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendments : The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people and The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is a quote I can't remember who to attribute it to that goes: "Your right ends where my right starts". Corperations seem to believe that their rights end some where around my lower intestine.

From the US Constitution. Article I Section 8 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; . So copyright is a limited right. I actually think it is nessesary in our modern world, but I also think it is being abused by coperations.

Then there is the much ignored Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendments : The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people and The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is a quote I can't remember who to attribute it to that goes: "Your right ends where my right starts". Corperations seem to believe that their rights end some where around my lower intestine.

Jon, where in the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights) is the right of privacy specifically guaranteed? Other than the 4th amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure (which the Supreme Court seems hellbent on gutting) there is no guarantee of the right of a person to privacy. The ninth amendment is usually taken to constitute a right of privacy. though it doesn't specifically mention the word. IIRC, Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion in Roe v. Wade relied heavily on precedent involving the 9th amendment. Any constitutional lawyers feel like commenting?

--

That's a pretty fine line to be treading. The real reason why the public has a right to know isn't that we pay NASA's salary, but that our representatives oversee NASA and tell them what to do. The purpose of democracy is to force accountability on the government, and if mistakes can be kept secret, there's no accountability.

Obviously, there are certain types of information that we don't want the government putting on the Web right away (e.g., troop movements). But it's pretty dangerous to give the government a blank check to keep damning and/or embarrassing material secret forever under the pretext that it would "cause panics" if it were released. If there's no regular declassification procedure and if no one can review their decision without seeing the documents, then merely upsetting information could be labeled as panic-causing, and even the narrowest exceptions for national security would be abused.

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. kept all kinds of things secret, and tried to prevent the New York Times from publishing diplomatically embarrassing documents from the Pentagon Papers under the pretext of national security; luckily, the Supreme Court saw through it. Even though the release may have hurt us by showing all the nasty stuff we did in pre-war Vietnam, it was the kind of information the public had the greatest need to know -- so that we could hold accountable the people who had acted in our name.

Read the decision in Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines at findlaw.com.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=210&invol=339

Buckets,

pompomtom

For all there is wrong with WallMart, what about the action of the RIAA to prevent them from discounting CDs? It also violates this Supreme Court decision.

It seems to me that the federal government could easily make the argument that censorware is the least restrictive means for stopping students (who are minors) from viewing indecent speech; since the goal they outlined was preserving the rights of adults, the students are probably out of luck. Plus, since schools have special powers over students, there's generally little protection for those who would want to look at various banned materials through school computers.

Libraries, on the other hand, serve a general public (i.e., people over 18) and would probably be subject to a much greater degree of scrutiny. There, any filtering would impinge on adult speech (although it's possible that they would turn it off for 18-and-over). One court has already found that libraries can't use filterware to stop adults from viewing legal material, and it based its decision in part on that clause from the CDA opinion.

The upshot of this is that, unless the courts decide to change their minds, students will just have to use the public libraries more often...

(I wonder, though, whether it might be possible to challenge individual software programs one-by-one rather than go after the law on its face -- after all, it shouldn't be too hard to show that each one blocks perfectly legitimate sites and thus impermissibly restricts speech...)

If BT loses the suit because it cannot show that it holds a valid patent, the doctrine of res judicata would bar BT from relitigating that issue in future lawsuits.

If anyone's interested: Patent Law

To qualify for a utility patent, an invention must be new, useful, and "nonobvious."

I still have trouble seeing how GraceNote can claim what they are doing is "nonobvious" when so many other people were eaily able to emulate what they did with ease: just look at freedb.

Actually, the phone book is one of the few things that isn't copyrightable. The mere alphabetical arrangement of names isn't sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection.

See Feist v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

The funny thing is that this decision means very little in the battle for the Presidency. I don't need to state my claims for that, as I'm sure everyone's heard enough about that lately.

Where this decision does make a large difference is in state's rights, and more particularly, the power of a State's Supreme Court.

Here is how I read the situation:
According to Article II of the Constitution, the States shall chose electors as seen fit by the legislature. BUT the legislature is bound by that State's own constitution. So it is up to that State's Supreme Court to determine if the electos are chosen legally under that State's and the federal Constitution.
The problem is that that wasn't even the issue being addressed by either Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court was handed two contradictory statutes and told to rectify the problem from a judicial perspective. So they had a job to do: determine which statute was more "legal" than the other. They chose the importance of the recount over that of the deadline. So instead of scrapping either statute, they moved back the deadline. This was not creating legislation from nowhere, this was manipulating two contradictory statutes so that they would no longer conflict - that is what all judges must do when rulling on contradictory statutes.

The problem is, that their solution effectively did NOTHING. All that was done was they moved back the deadline just far enough to look like something was being done, but in effect to leave the exact same problem they were supposed to resolve. There was still not sufficient time for a full recount.

So what does this mean? The Florida Supreme Court made a ruling which did nothing except get a lot of people up in arms. Why complain about a ruling which accomplished nothing? Well, now the Supreme Court is in the place of being able to strip away power from State's Supreme Courts. Why? Because one court tried to look like it was doing The Right Thing(tm) while actually doing Nothing. Draw your own conclusions.

Most people don't understand that the states have a great deal of discretion in how elections are held. There isn't a constitutional requirement that a state hold an election to select the electors for the electoral college. A state could give that power to the Governor or legislature. See McPherson v. Blacker.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, whether or not people should have been able to "figure that out" isn't the real issue...especially since some reports now indicate that the ballot may actually have been illegal according to Florida state election law.

Check this link

Apparently, according to FL law, ballots are to be designed so that the X is made to the right of the candidate's name. Buchanan's hole should never have been located to the left of his name. This, to me, is the strongest case against the ballot.

See the ballot for yourself here.

A date has not yet been set for the hearing of this case.

This decision is not about the DMCA. This is about the Copyright Act of 1976, though parallels to recent failed efforts to sneak in clauses about work-for-hire are apparent.

The lower court ruled in favor of authors. Will the Supreme Court uphold that decision?

The decision was reached solely on statutory language and congressional intent, not constitutional language. The Supreme Court has historically given free reign to Congress to play with copyright however it wishes under Article I.

An important precedent not raised in this particular filing is Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., which held (unanimously) that corporations couldn't claim copyright on mere facts by copyrighting page numbers or other artifacts/artefacts of typography. A reversal of the lower decision would undermine Feist by allowing corporations to claim their own copyright irrespective of authorship simply by the act of publishing (inserting those typographical artifacts).

Nader LOST, so expect corporate interests to dominate an unfriendly Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. Had he won, he could've used his appointments to turn the Court arround, but the American people have spoken, and they've (we've) chosen the plutocratic enslavement of the populace by CEOs who've sublimated their testosterone-driven sexual energies into the pursuit of capital at all cost to the human (living!) experiences of their subjects. We had our chance, but we blew it, and now we have to live with an ineffectual corporate president and a divided congress.

This decision will come as the tenures of as many as four Supreme Court justices are in question in this next Presidential cycle. Expect Rehnquist to chalk this critical decision up on his legacy with Dickerson v. US (upholding Miranda), City of Boerne v. Flores (reasserting state sovereignty in the US system of federalism), etc. If Bush prevails in Florida, then Rehnquist will all but certainly retire in the next couple years.

A date has not yet been set for the hearing of this case.

This decision is not about the DMCA. This is about the Copyright Act of 1976, though parallels to recent failed efforts to sneak in clauses about work-for-hire are apparent.

The lower court ruled in favor of authors. Will the Supreme Court uphold that decision?

The decision was reached solely on statutory language and congressional intent, not constitutional language. The Supreme Court has historically given free reign to Congress to play with copyright however it wishes under Article I.

An important precedent not raised in this particular filing is Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., which held (unanimously) that corporations couldn't claim copyright on mere facts by copyrighting page numbers or other artifacts/artefacts of typography. A reversal of the lower decision would undermine Feist by allowing corporations to claim their own copyright irrespective of authorship simply by the act of publishing (inserting those typographical artifacts).

Nader LOST, so expect corporate interests to dominate an unfriendly Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. Had he won, he could've used his appointments to turn the Court arround, but the American people have spoken, and they've (we've) chosen the plutocratic enslavement of the populace by CEOs who've sublimated their testosterone-driven sexual energies into the pursuit of capital at all cost to the human (living!) experiences of their subjects. We had our chance, but we blew it, and now we have to live with an ineffectual corporate president and a divided congress.

This decision will come as the tenures of as many as four Supreme Court justices are in question in this next Presidential cycle. Expect Rehnquist to chalk this critical decision up on his legacy with Dickerson v. US (upholding Miranda), City of Boerne v. Flores (reasserting state sovereignty in the US system of federalism), etc. If Bush prevails in Florida, then Rehnquist will all but certainly retire in the next couple years.

The why isn't relevant, though, is it? The important part is the result. I mean, if you aren't sure which box to check to vote for your candidate, and the poll workers may not tell you, you're just as confused as if they may tell you but will not tell you.

Also, re the military vote, the only large military unit from Florida that potentially might be overseas is in fact at home (the USS JFK, an aircraft carrier based in Mayport, according to the Washington Post). The overseas voters from Florida who migh make a difference apparently include a number of US/Israeli dual citizens (~1000, heavily Democrat, and their votes wont be tallied until as late as the 17th) So there's a lot still up in the air.
Also, I highly recommend taking a look at the questionable ballot (Findlaw's picture)

itachi

The Ballot in Question

Ed

About actors in movies, and whether they should've gotten additional payments for re-releases on video would have depended on the contractual agreements made at the time they agreed to perform in the movie. Generally, under the present copyright act, an actor's contribution, if somehow copyrightable, would be covered by the "work for hire" provisions of the law, with copyright owned by whoever hired the actor. I would think though that whether an actor recieved further payments would depend on the actor's contracts with his or her studio, and not on any rights under copyright.

The case up for review, Tasini, is different in that the plaintiff-writers were all freelance contributors to newspapers or magazines, not employees, and thus there is no work for hire issue.

Tasini revolves around a provison of the copyright act aimed at periodical publications, privileging compilation publications (such as magazines or newspapers or encyclopedias), in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, to republish freelancers' contributions in later issues or editions or revisions of the publication, without incurring copyright infringement liability.

Very roughly summarized, the newspapers and magazines who have been sued in Tasini failed to secure electronic republication rights to the articles in question that were licensed to Lexis-Nexis and another firm, and so they are now trying to argue that the republication on Lexis-Nexis is merely a revision (as that is meant in the act) of the original paid-for publication of the freelancers' articles, and thus there is no infringement of the freelancers' copyrights.

I understand that it is now routine for freelancers to be required to agree to give up electronic republication rights, but six or seven years ago, when this case started, that was not so.

The Supremes don't often take Copyright cases, but when they do, the results are usually important. This one could turn out to be interesting. Considering who the defendants are, I would expect that we will hear quite a bit about this one before it is over: that's what happens when someone sues companies that buy ink by the barrel.

Ed

Standard dsclaimer applies. Not meant as specific legal advice, but for general info only. Talk to a lawyer if you need legal advice, and don't depend on a random posting you read on slashdot in making decisons, etc... Or you are a fool.

I don't have a URL on hand for the Atlantic Works decision, but that quote's been referenced many times by subsequent decisions, including A. & P. TEA CO. v. SUPERMARKET CORP..

The fact is, Roe v. Wade was upheld 5-4 in the last battle. So, if ONE Supreme Court justice is replaced by another yes-man like Clarence Thomas, abortion rights are history. If you look at the last major abortion opinion, Stenberg v. Carhart , you will find the following:

Five justices who voted to strike down the law restricting abortions: Breyer (delivered opinion), joined by Stephens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Souter. Notice that the two appointees of Clinton's, Breyer and Ginsburg, are solidly in the pro-choice camp.

Four justices voted to uphold the abortion restriction: Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Every one of these justices was appointed by a Republican. And, of course, Mr. Thomas was appointed by Bush, Sr.

Now, Justice O'Connor is sick (she has ovarian cancer), and justice Stephens is getting quite aged. It is very likely that one of these two liberal/middle-of-the-road justices will retire in the next four years. On the other hand, all of the conservative justices are young & healthy. So, the fact is your vote will affect a woman's right to choose.

Hope that clears up the confusion,

Thalia

A basic freedom? Really? This "basic freedom", by which I assume you mean "fair use" provisions was created by US Congress in the late 60s with the passage of the Copyright Act.

Yes, actually, fair use is a First Amendment freedom. You have the facts wrong about the 60's. Congress first "restated" the principle of fair use in 1976. They added to the Copyright Act, essentially unchanged, a "judge-made" doctrine enunciated in 1841, but with roots going back to the British Statute of Anne which predates the US Constitution.

Copyright has a special place in the Constitution in that it temporarily protects original "writings" Copyright is inherently a form of speech regulation, so any deviation from the Constitutional purpose should hit the sharp razor of the First Amendment. It is only because of fair use and a narrow focus of protection provided by Copyright to the exact expression rather than the underlying facts and ideas that saves the Copyright Act from the First Amendment Axe.

The Supreme Court spoke rather definitively on the subject of fair use in the case Harper & Row v Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) .

I just looked at the census laws and this looks interesting.

"(b) Subject to the limitations contained in sections 6(c) and 9 of this title, the Secretary may furnish copies of tabulations and other statistical materials which do not disclose the information reported by, or on behalf of, any particular respondent, and may make special statistical compilations and surveys..."

Other notes about the census laws indicate only under strict circumstances can they disclose personally identifiable information.

"(a) The Secretary may, upon written request, furnish to any respondent, or to the heir, successor, or authorized agent of such respondent, authenticated transcripts or copies of reports..."

The most interesting would be the following.

"(c) In no case shall information furnished under this section be used to the detriment of any respondent or other person to whom such information relates, except in the prosecution of alleged violations of this title."

And this section talks about the exchange of census information.

I just looked at the census laws and this looks interesting.

"(b) Subject to the limitations contained in sections 6(c) and 9 of this title, the Secretary may furnish copies of tabulations and other statistical materials which do not disclose the information reported by, or on behalf of, any particular respondent, and may make special statistical compilations and surveys..."

Other notes about the census laws indicate only under strict circumstances can they disclose personally identifiable information.

"(a) The Secretary may, upon written request, furnish to any respondent, or to the heir, successor, or authorized agent of such respondent, authenticated transcripts or copies of reports..."

The most interesting would be the following.

"(c) In no case shall information furnished under this section be used to the detriment of any respondent or other person to whom such information relates, except in the prosecution of alleged violations of this title."

And this section talks about the exchange of census information.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

The only law on the books requiring a certain method in state elections for federal office is the 1965 Voting Rights Act that requires single member districts be used to elect the US House. Numerous attempts to change this federal law have failed, most recently H.R. 1173

Cynically, one might argue that, since money = speech (Buckley vs Valeo 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ), this can be interpreted as allowing large wads of anonymous speech to be spent in Federal Elections...

Section 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Or perhaps ; ;SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) in which "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use".

"Fair Use" applies only to copyright... because the software is "licensed" under original strict terms that you agreed with before you ever first used it, the concept of "fair use" is no longer applicable as you've already waived any rights you might have had under fair use doctrine.

Nice try. Book publishers tried to do the very same thing in the early part of this century. They printed notices that the book was licensed, not sold and attempted to control the price at which copies were sold to the public.

There was a landmark Supreme Court case (210 U.S. 339) which said that attempts to restrict the sale of a copy of a copyrighted work with a license which impermissably expanded the right of the copyright holder beyond those granted by the copyright statute.

Now, I'm not aware of any case which has tried to apply this SC precedent to software sales, but the legal theory still stands. The sale of a copy of software is still the sale of a copy. You have rights stemming from Federal Copyright Law. The license "agreement" can not take those away.

And even in cases where there are both kinds of issues -- constitutional and nonconstitutional -- the Court will try to decide the case by resolving only the nonconstitutional question if it can.

Here's a list of which cases the supreme court has taken so far this term. Pretty much by definition, they're all cases of a constitutional dimension, which the DOJ v. Microsoft case is not. And, moreover, the supreme court still reserves the power to judge the case when it reaches them from the appellate circuit.

Bobbs-Merrill can in some ways be considered a "shrink-wrap" license case. In this case, the publisher Bobbs-Merrill had printed a novel, 'The Castaway' and had printed a notice in each book that it was not to be sold at retail for under $1. The Straus brothers, who owned and operated Macy's, sold the book at $0.89, despite the warning and were sued. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no contractual obligation between the 2 parties and copyright law did not grant the publisher control of the copies after they had been sold at wholesale. This finding is called the "first sale" doctrine.

Eventually, a modern "shrink-wrap"/UCITA vs. "first sale" case will reach the Supreme Court. Personally, I suspect "first sale" will win, though I'm not a lawyer...

I would like to point out a small technicality: this is not censorship. The library is choosing to provide internet access. It is not obligated to provide access at all, and it can provide access to whatever it wants on its own terms. A right to free speech and a right to government subsidized access to other people's free speech are two different things.

In US 1st Amendment law, blocking Email is not censorship, but filtering Web sites is. The govt is inder no obligation to create a forum, buy once it does so may not discriminate in its use by content. Findlaw Forum Analysis

I would like to point out a small technicality: this is not censorship. The library is choosing to provide internet access. It is not obligated to provide access at all, and it can provide access to whatever it wants on its own terms. A right to free speech and a right to government subsidized access to other people's free speech are two different things.

In US 1st Amendment law, blocking Email is not censorship, but filtering Web sites is. The govt is inder no obligation to create a forum, buy once it does so may not discriminate in its use by content. Findlaw Forum Analysis

The controlling cases here are Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier 484 U.S. 260 (1988). and Tinker vs Des Moines School Dist.393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Public Schools may censor the official school paper for content, but not Student initiated publications. They may limit distribution of unofficial publications on school grounds, but only with a showing that they are materiallly disruptive of normal class activities.