Slashdot Mirror

She is probably (hopefully?) only calling registered voters who provided their phone number when they registered. Qualified candidates can (for a small fee) purchase a list of registered voters which includes phone numbers (if the voter optionally provided one).

Exception f:

"(f) This article does not apply to any automatic
dialing-announcing device that is not used to randomly or
sequentially dial telephone numbers but that is used solely to
transmit a message to an established business associate, customer, or
other person having an established relationship with the person
using the automatic dialing-announcing device to transmit the
message, or to any call generated at the request of the recipient."

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/puc/2871-2876.html

Sorry...Bethel v. Fraser can be found at http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/675/ - hit submit a little too quickly.

Well, actually the "services" you describe are not likely to be realized anyway. Especially since it is known that the police have no duty to provide you any protection.

The actual role of a peace officer is mainly the collection of folks that owe, or people who the peace officer deems as such, the state monies. So they would show up after you have been killed, your wife raped, children murdered and shit stolen take a few pictures, ask a few questions, chat about the game this weekend, fill out some papers and hang out until the funeral home comes to pick your unprepared ass up.

The US constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy.

As opposed to the Alaska constitution section 22, which does.

I wasn't aware that the definition of "free speech" included "the right to remain anonymous".

It is, in certain cases. Here are several examples.

If you want to say something, just fucking say it. If you're in a position where saying something is illegal (e.g. criminal libel), why should you expect to be protected by the law?

That's essentially the rule. Free speech can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However libel, slander, violating gag orders, revealing sensitive information, and other actions are not free speech, and thus don't have any of these protections.

In cases like this, where the illegality of the speech is determined by the identity of the author (if they are a juror speaking of a case, it is illegal, but not if they are a random dude) it should be up to a judge to weight the burden of prosecution if they are acting illegaly, with the reasonable protection of someone who wasn't involved's privacy. That's why the users have the chance to file a counter-motion.

I wasn't aware that the definition of "free speech" included "the right to remain anonymous".

It is, in certain cases. Here are several examples.

If you want to say something, just fucking say it. If you're in a position where saying something is illegal (e.g. criminal libel), why should you expect to be protected by the law?

That's essentially the rule. Free speech can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However libel, slander, violating gag orders, revealing sensitive information, and other actions are not free speech, and thus don't have any of these protections.

In cases like this, where the illegality of the speech is determined by the identity of the author (if they are a juror speaking of a case, it is illegal, but not if they are a random dude) it should be up to a judge to weight the burden of prosecution if they are acting illegaly, with the reasonable protection of someone who wasn't involved's privacy. That's why the users have the chance to file a counter-motion.

I wasn't aware that the definition of "free speech" included "the right to remain anonymous".

It is, in certain cases. Here are several examples.

If you want to say something, just fucking say it. If you're in a position where saying something is illegal (e.g. criminal libel), why should you expect to be protected by the law?

That's essentially the rule. Free speech can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However libel, slander, violating gag orders, revealing sensitive information, and other actions are not free speech, and thus don't have any of these protections.

In cases like this, where the illegality of the speech is determined by the identity of the author (if they are a juror speaking of a case, it is illegal, but not if they are a random dude) it should be up to a judge to weight the burden of prosecution if they are acting illegaly, with the reasonable protection of someone who wasn't involved's privacy. That's why the users have the chance to file a counter-motion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/nyt060199.htm

Last but not least, the law itself:

http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/cp/004.00.000096.00.html

Nicaragua wasn't a democratically elected government, they overthrew Samoza, likewise in El Salvador, there was a government in place and an insurgency rose up that the US assisted with.

So yea, I'm justifying US involvement in El Salvador and Nicaragua.

"So arranging a coup in another country doesn't count as an armed conflict for you because the military wasn't deployed ?"

No a coup like Iran in the 1950s or a Soviet backed one like Grenada or Nicaragua don't count as armed conflict because the US isn't deploying combat forces to the countries.

"Armed conflict. A prolonged period of sustained combat involving members of the U.S. Armed Forces against a foreign belligerent. The term connotes more than a military engagement of limited duration or for limited objectives, and involves a significant use of military and civilian forces."

"(b) Examples of military actions that are not armed conflicts are as follows:
(1) The incursion into Lebanon in 1958, and the peacekeeping force there in 1983 and 1984.
(2) The incursions into the Dominican Republic in 1965 and into Libya in 1986."

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-1.1.1.4.27.0.56.3.html

The summary and the article linked within are (purposely) doing a poor job of representing the actual position of the attorneys. I wasn't comfortable thinking they were that blatantly stupid and greed, and so dug a little deeper:

(From http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/05/viacoms-friends-lend-support-in-youtube.html)

Viacom's friends lend support in YouTube case

Two groups supporting major copyright owners have filed amicus briefs in support of Viacom in its copyright suit against Google and YouTube.

The first, filed on behalf of a coalition including ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, Disney, NBC Universal, Warner Bros., and others, makes three main points:

  - Congress enacted the DMCA to combat -- not protect -- copyright infringement;

  - The DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor does not provide a defense to inducement liability;
and

  - Section 512(c)(1)(B)'s language denying the safe harbor where a site derives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service
provider has the right and ability to control such activity," should be interpreted consistent with the "right and ability to control" standard from common law vicarious liability.

The second, from the free market-oriented Washington
Legal Foundation, focuses on the legislative history and purpose of the DMCA's safe harbors, arguing that the law mandates a "shared responsibility" among copyright owners and online service providers in addressing infringement, and does not relieve sites like YouTube of all obligations to fight illegal use of others' works, especially while profiting from it.

So their argument goes a little deeper than 'waaaaaaaa' as some of my fellow slashdotters have summarized it.

Against the actual argument, however, I think YouTube's most logical response would be to stop policing the content themselves at all. The position here seems to be that YouTube is a facilitator by not completely blocking copywritten content. A fair response would be for YouTube to step out of that role and give the content providers the power to do this directly. Vis-a-vi, allow the big media companies to sue those providers directly. By the way, if you haven't noticed, the providers are the individuals making content and posting it to YouTube... you know, the end users.

That case was also almost a hundred years ago. The makeup of the court changes over time, and their decisions change as the nature of industry changes. For example, Bilski is likely to have a profound impact on software patentability and goes against many previous cases that were heard by the courts. I think the courts are finally starting to realize that patents in high tech are actively harming innovation and the progress of science and the useful arts.

Also, MPEG LA sold a license presumably to the camcorder manufacturer for use in a professional camcorder. There is no substantial noninfringing use of a professional camcorder other than professional use. There are a handful of people who would use one non-commercially, but this represents such an insignificant percentage of the users of professional camcorders that the courts would inevitably roll their eyes, call MPEG LA a bunch of idiots, and laugh them out of court if they tried to argue such a point.

General Talking Pictures Corp also differs substantively from this situation in that in that case, the licensor granted permission to sell the tube only to other companies to build products based on it in specific fields, not to sell the product only to companies that use the products in specific ways. Those two are very different things. Developing a product that would infringe a patent requires a patent license unless you have purchased a part that provides said license. Thus, if the seller of that part was not authorized to sell it to you, then without that license, you would not have the right to manufacture the larger good.

By contrast, because of the sheer infeasibility of licensing a piece of hardware sold on the general market, MPEG LA cannot have any reasonable expectation that the manufacturer can sell a finished good exclusively to individuals who intend to use it in a specific way (which is what they would need to show in order for patent grants to corporate users to be invalid while retaining the validity of patent grants to non-corporate users). Thus, IMO, the only way they could legitimately sue you for using a licensed device in an unlicensed manner (in the absence of any prior contract between you and MPEG LA, that is) would be to invalidate the patent license that they granted to the manufacturer across the board for the entire product line (or the license that they granted to the chip manufacturer that the chip manufacturer violated when they sold the chip for use in a pro camcorder), which would mean the manufacturer would have to buy back every unit it sold illegally and would be fully liable for any contributory infringement by their customers, including end users. If they tried that even once, no manufacturer would EVER trust MPEG LA again, and they would be as good as dead. I don't think they are that stupid.

If you'd like two other SCOTUS cases that support my position, look at Adams v Burke and (Motion Picture Patents Co v Universal Film Mfg. That last one says that as soon as the product was sold unconditionally, "the article sold being thereby carried outside the monopoly of the patent law and rendered free of every restriction which the vendor may attempt to put upon it". (MPPCvUFM).

So the only question is whether the sale to the end consumer is an unconditional sale. In the absence of any signed contract to the contrary, it's pretty hard to conclude anything other than that yes, it is. In short, the consumer cannot be held liable for infringement. However, the upstream seller could be. Thus, the people who should be really pushing against MPEG LA are camera manufacturers and dealers. They're the ones who have the most to lose if MPEG LA ever gets uppity.

That case was also almost a hundred years ago. The makeup of the court changes over time, and their decisions change as the nature of industry changes. For example, Bilski is likely to have a profound impact on software patentability and goes against many previous cases that were heard by the courts. I think the courts are finally starting to realize that patents in high tech are actively harming innovation and the progress of science and the useful arts.

Also, MPEG LA sold a license presumably to the camcorder manufacturer for use in a professional camcorder. There is no substantial noninfringing use of a professional camcorder other than professional use. There are a handful of people who would use one non-commercially, but this represents such an insignificant percentage of the users of professional camcorders that the courts would inevitably roll their eyes, call MPEG LA a bunch of idiots, and laugh them out of court if they tried to argue such a point.

General Talking Pictures Corp also differs substantively from this situation in that in that case, the licensor granted permission to sell the tube only to other companies to build products based on it in specific fields, not to sell the product only to companies that use the products in specific ways. Those two are very different things. Developing a product that would infringe a patent requires a patent license unless you have purchased a part that provides said license. Thus, if the seller of that part was not authorized to sell it to you, then without that license, you would not have the right to manufacture the larger good.

By contrast, because of the sheer infeasibility of licensing a piece of hardware sold on the general market, MPEG LA cannot have any reasonable expectation that the manufacturer can sell a finished good exclusively to individuals who intend to use it in a specific way (which is what they would need to show in order for patent grants to corporate users to be invalid while retaining the validity of patent grants to non-corporate users). Thus, IMO, the only way they could legitimately sue you for using a licensed device in an unlicensed manner (in the absence of any prior contract between you and MPEG LA, that is) would be to invalidate the patent license that they granted to the manufacturer across the board for the entire product line (or the license that they granted to the chip manufacturer that the chip manufacturer violated when they sold the chip for use in a pro camcorder), which would mean the manufacturer would have to buy back every unit it sold illegally and would be fully liable for any contributory infringement by their customers, including end users. If they tried that even once, no manufacturer would EVER trust MPEG LA again, and they would be as good as dead. I don't think they are that stupid.

If you'd like two other SCOTUS cases that support my position, look at Adams v Burke and (Motion Picture Patents Co v Universal Film Mfg. That last one says that as soon as the product was sold unconditionally, "the article sold being thereby carried outside the monopoly of the patent law and rendered free of every restriction which the vendor may attempt to put upon it". (MPPCvUFM).

So the only question is whether the sale to the end consumer is an unconditional sale. In the absence of any signed contract to the contrary, it's pretty hard to conclude anything other than that yes, it is. In short, the consumer cannot be held liable for infringement. However, the upstream seller could be. Thus, the people who should be really pushing against MPEG LA are camera manufacturers and dealers. They're the ones who have the most to lose if MPEG LA ever gets uppity.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
...
(a) "Obstruct" includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.

This is incredibly draconian and equates wounding a cop with (say) getting out of your car in a traffic stop. You also need to memorize large swaths of Michigan law (at the least, including lawful searches and questioning) to know what a lawful command is (since cops can and will issue illegal instructions, obeying which will be substantially to your detriment). It's basically a felony to look crosswise at a cop in Michigan, and all they need is the cop's word. Compare New York's law:

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration. Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

It's a misdemeanor, and you have to use physical violence, threats, a dangerous animal, or an independently unlawful act. This has seriously dampened my ardor for experiencing Michigan tourism. You can't drag me back to Mackinac Island!

In Ohio, looking crosswise at a cop is a misdemeanor.

(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

Shit, it looks like if you want to live on Lake Erie, New York is a veritable land of liberty. Who knew? Maybe you should move to Ontario (apparently they call it something else; I couldn't find the statute).

I felt like looking up one more state. In Massachusetts it looks like you can obstruct and lie to your heart's content (as long as you don't create a substantial risk of bodily injury) but it is illegal to belong to the Communist party (obviously a wildly unconstitutional statute). It looks like adultery will still net you three years as well...that's what you get for living in one of the thirteen colonies. Abortion will get you seven years (twenty-five if she dies). Have they read these laws lat

You've caught me red-handed. I was investigating the controlling decisions on drunk driving checkpoints, and noticed the references to immigration checkpoints, producing that post. I had not yet got around to seriously reading SB1070 (along with the near entirety of the media, apparently), and so the cases I highlighted would indeed be largely irrelevant (though they do outline what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is an illegal alien).

Now that I have studied the infamous paragraph, however (and the less infamous ones), the phrase lawful contact, seems intentionally ambiguous. In the Arizona seat belt law, it states that no one shall be stopped unless "the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe there is another alleged violation of a motor vehicle law of this state." A similar construction, only omitting the "motor vehicle law" phrase, could have been employed in SB1070 in the service of greater clarity.

It further seems like it would only be "practicable" to make a "reasonable attempt" to verify a person's immigration status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1373(c) if the person had already been arrested (for another cause). In that case, the effect of this law would only be to compel police officers to make an effort to enforce immigration laws on all the people already in the local lockup (a purpose explicitly borne out by language elsewhere in the law, e.g. in (2)(F)). But if that were the only intent of the law, why use such expansive language? The Arizona legislature certainly appears to be up to something, perhaps inviting the courts to let them get away with as much as the courts will allow, rather than trying to craft an inherently and rigorously constitutional law.

The discussion of this law has been widely hysterical and uninformed (and I was complicit), but I think there is still a reasonable argument to be made for a malign (well, unconstitutional) intent, albeit a more subtle and cautious one than has been generally claimed.

Well, in California selling lost property is equivalent to selling stolen property under certain conditions, mostly depending on whether the person who found it made reasonable efforts to return it to the owner first.

That's not quite accurate. Selling goods you don't own is stealing, yes, but you don't get to claim lost property simply because you think you made reasonable efforts to return it. Section 2080 of the California Code requires the finder of missing property, if they are unable or unwilling to find the owner in a reasonable time, to turn the lost goods in to the police and tell them what they know, so that police can attempt to contact the owner. The finder can only take possession of the lost goods after the police gives the owner a 97 day window to claim them first.

I don't think holding on to this phone for 3 weeks counts as reasonable efforts to return it, especially given that the guy was trying to sell it.

That reasoning applies only to driving, and the police still can't conduct a search, only speak (briefly) to the driver to determine sobriety. This is a result of the 6-3 (Stevens dissenting) Sitz decision.

More relevant here is probably United States v. Martinez-Fuerte , in which the court held (7-2, Stevens concurring) that fixed traffic checkpoints for illegal immigrants on roads near the border were legal, as long as the search is limited to (again, brief) questioning. This law would go far beyond what the court allowed in Martinez-Fuerte. Also, the justification for those stops (that there was no time to gather more probable cause in heavy traffic) would not apply to this law at all.

Finally, in United States v. Ortiz , the court held (9-0) that random border patrol suspicionless traffic stops with searches were unconstitutional. Of course, Justice Rehnquist opines on how he feels that the flood of illegal aliens and drugs across the Mexican border makes quite a lot of searches "reasonable."

Still, between those decisions and the more recent Hiibel, I think the justices would have to be considerably more insane than usual to uphold the Arizona law in full, even without Stevens. They are always attuned to the emotional implications of law, especially when it amounts to "papers, please."

That reasoning applies only to driving, and the police still can't conduct a search, only speak (briefly) to the driver to determine sobriety. This is a result of the 6-3 (Stevens dissenting) Sitz decision.

More relevant here is probably United States v. Martinez-Fuerte , in which the court held (7-2, Stevens concurring) that fixed traffic checkpoints for illegal immigrants on roads near the border were legal, as long as the search is limited to (again, brief) questioning. This law would go far beyond what the court allowed in Martinez-Fuerte. Also, the justification for those stops (that there was no time to gather more probable cause in heavy traffic) would not apply to this law at all.

Finally, in United States v. Ortiz , the court held (9-0) that random border patrol suspicionless traffic stops with searches were unconstitutional. Of course, Justice Rehnquist opines on how he feels that the flood of illegal aliens and drugs across the Mexican border makes quite a lot of searches "reasonable."

Still, between those decisions and the more recent Hiibel, I think the justices would have to be considerably more insane than usual to uphold the Arizona law in full, even without Stevens. They are always attuned to the emotional implications of law, especially when it amounts to "papers, please."

That reasoning applies only to driving, and the police still can't conduct a search, only speak (briefly) to the driver to determine sobriety. This is a result of the 6-3 (Stevens dissenting) Sitz decision.

More relevant here is probably United States v. Martinez-Fuerte , in which the court held (7-2, Stevens concurring) that fixed traffic checkpoints for illegal immigrants on roads near the border were legal, as long as the search is limited to (again, brief) questioning. This law would go far beyond what the court allowed in Martinez-Fuerte. Also, the justification for those stops (that there was no time to gather more probable cause in heavy traffic) would not apply to this law at all.

Finally, in United States v. Ortiz , the court held (9-0) that random border patrol suspicionless traffic stops with searches were unconstitutional. Of course, Justice Rehnquist opines on how he feels that the flood of illegal aliens and drugs across the Mexican border makes quite a lot of searches "reasonable."

Still, between those decisions and the more recent Hiibel, I think the justices would have to be considerably more insane than usual to uphold the Arizona law in full, even without Stevens. They are always attuned to the emotional implications of law, especially when it amounts to "papers, please."

Oh, please. You don't see a distinction between "your floppy discs ended up in our state" and "you receive orders from residents of our state and ship product to those residents"?

Not really, no. And you don't see a difference between this MA law and business not having to collect sales tax for out of state residences?

I have, repeatedly. Zippo. International Shoe. Maritz. Cybersell.

And I have repeatedly explained why this doesn't apply. Its not an example, and it doesn't even apply expect in Western PA.

[Citation needed]

Oh, I guess that's why when I purchase from newegg they collect sales tax. Oh wait, they don't. Or when I buy from a catalog with no physical presense in my state, they collect sales tax. Oh wait, again, they don't.

One of the things that might be throwing you off is that you keep going to the dormant commerce clause. Specific personal jurisdiction is where you want to look first - the state court needs personal jurisdiction in order to even reach the question of dormant commerce clause.

The main thing throwing you off is that the case you keep refering to 1) was never decided at a national level, which is why different federal courts have had differing opinions, and 2) believe that the courts have it right when treating internet orders differently from mail order. Read this case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=docket&no=9820770CV0

And explain how having a phone number to place orders, or a mail order form to place orders is in any real way different from allowing the website to take orders? It doesn't make sense, just like the Zippo case doesn't make sense.

The Zippo sliding scale is junk, and you need to realize that. Other courts have dismissed the sliding scale, and for good reason: it doesn't make sense to treat the internet differently than phone or mail order.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ca8/case_no-09-2914/case_id-0/

I didn't Google it and I'm not a lawyer or work with law enforcement. I had this explained to me by the police after a robbery. If the intent is theft you can be charged with burglary; if not, at the least you can be charged with criminal trespass. It may be more complicated, or not, but the bottom line is it's not okay to enter another person's private residence (and it's not limited to private residence) without permission. Blaming someone for having an easily copied key or weak security doesn't and shouldn't imply they are at fault. This is where you original criticism of the victim is weak.

Here is a definition of "Breaking and Entering" from lawyers.com: Breaking and entering. Here is the definition of privilege from the same source. According to that site those definitions are based on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law. Here is another site that discusses burglary in regards to B&E: Burglary.

2080.1. (a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.

I know what Gizmodo "says" happened, I read their article. I also know that the California law is very clear on this issue, and that "selling the found property to Gizmodo" is not a reasonable second step under that law.

Furthermore, California Penal Code, section 485 also defines theft as such:

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

So there's a pretty strong argument that the finder is also guilty of theft.

Almost nowhere are you required to report such things to the police. If you find an abandoned item, it's yours. Anything beyond that is good-Samaritan territory.

Not quite. According to California law you are required to report to the police if you find a thing that has been lost.

This is what it says in the CIVIL CODE SECTION 2080-2080.10

If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one undred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county.

"This is what happened with Spore,"

No, that is not what happened with Spore/EA.

I sued EA and they backed off.

...a class action lawsuit may convince them otherwise.

There is a class action on the way, from the same people as the Ewert v eBay class action. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-5:2007cv02198/case_id-191451/ case
Patricia A. Carlson, The Carlson Law Office & John Fabry of Bailey&Gaylen.

And I'd say, even if you don't use the other OS functionality, join the suit, you might get a few free bucks out of the deal...

Posting AC because I'm also part of the class.

Well, not the lawsuit you were referring to, but the Ewert v eBay attorneys are starting a class action. when I contacted them at carlson.law@live.com I received.

quote - First, a little about me. My name is Patricia (Trish) Carlson. I live and practice in San Antonio, Texas. I have been practicing since 1997 and mainly handle class actions and mass tort litigation. Currently, I am co-counsel in the Ewert v eBay class action pending in the United States District Court of California. Here is a link to the eBay case.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-5:2007cv02198/case_id-191451/

If you pull the public documents and look at the service page you will see my name and address/phone etc... That case is currently at the certification stage and the certification hearing is scheduled later this month.

I was contacted by a person familiar with that case and asked to take a look at the issues surrounding Sony's decision to eliminate the "other OS" function of the PS3. Without going into greater detail, we have read the EULA in question, considered all the relevant case law, and are extremely comfortable with proceeding.

So far, the response to the potential Sony class action has been very positive. I am presently working with additional counsel in South Texas and California. The suit will seek restitution/damages and likely an injunction prohibiting the Hobson's choice of updating to 3.21 or not. Simply put, we believe you are entitled to what you paid for. A PS3 with functioning secondary OS capabilities, the ability to access the PSN, and the ability to play all future PS3 games and blu-ray movies.

I hope this was helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I can be reached by e-mail or by the number listed below. This e-mail address is being used solely for the Sony case. "

Disclaimer - I don't know these people, I'm not even sure I'm going to join the class action, but I'm pissed that I lost a piece of functionality that I use heavily and paid for...

but I do want to see Sony, (and other companies that think they can just keep on stealing from customers) pay for their arrogance. Perhaps they may even learn a lesson. (OK, I thought it was funny, 'cause I know it'll never happen.)

Says who?

Says the Supreme Court:

"The Constitution orders an enumeration of free persons in the different states every ten years. The direction extends no further. Yet Congress has repeatedly directed an enumeration not only of free persons in the states but of free persons in the territories, and not only an enumeration of persons but the collection of statistics respecting age, sex, and production. Who questions the power to do this?"

LEGAL TENDER CASES, 79 U. S. 457 (1870)

Even if a police officer opens fire on you, your legal options are still to comply and then fight it out in court later.

Actually there is legal precedent that you have the right to defend yourself against unlawful arrest. Read up on John Bad Elk v. United States, which upheld the common law idea that "If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest."

Given our contemporary police state (mostly-benign, at least to the middle class, as it might be). I wouldn't necessarily expect this right to be recognized today -- some states have legislated against it, but whether such legislation would stand a Constitutional test, I dunno, IANAL, etc.

Of course, if some crazed cop has opened fire on me, I suppose my choices would be to wait around until he hits me, run away, or shoot back. If running away were not possible or safe, I'd have to say shooting back and hoping I survive to argue about it in court would probably be a better choice than waiting to take a bullet.

Police authority is pretty awesome

Police have power, what with guns and clubs and radios for calling other people with guns and clubs. But no person has any more authority over you than you choose to grant them.

But, welfare in the constitution doesn't mean what people today are trying to make it sounds like..it isn't 'welfare' like the entitlement.

From another of my posts:

"Trouble is, the welfare spoken of by the framers of the Constitution is not the welfare type of system YOU are speaking about. It is more about the ability of the feds to tax for the management of the resources and defense for the country as an entity, not handing out entitlements to individual citizens. And if this is wanted, it is supposed to be a responsibility of the states, not the federal govt. Remember the 10th amendment?"

So you say. Everyone is perfectly entitled to have any opinion they choose, but the only opinions that matter when it comes to interpreting the Constitution are those of the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees with you, then you have something. Until then, you have only your opinion (and I have mine).

Neither of us can claim to hold "the" truth on the matter.

In the local services, your comments are really not telling the whole story...

Fire departments? "Well, we'd love to put out the fire in your house, but you see, you don't pay the insurance company that we work for.

Actually, there is a trend toward fire departments charging insurance companies for certain services. And many fire departments (particularly in rural areas) aren't even paid; they are staffed by volunteers. As for other emergency services, namely ambulances, you should generally expect a (often hefty) bill to be paid by you or your insurance company.

Police? Or would you prefer to have privatized crime fighters? "Sorry, maam. You didn't pay, so we aren't interested in tracking down the person who shot your husband and kids and ran off with your jewellery".

Actually, a private crime fighter might be useful, if you actually want to be protected. See, the police actually have no duty to track down anyone or even to prevent you from harm (even rape or murder), even in the case of a prior restraining order, etc. So, if you actually want guaranteed protection, I wouldn't depend on the police. See South v. Maryland, Warren v. District of Columbia, Bowers v. DeVito, or, most recently, Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

From another of my posts:

"Trouble is, the welfare spoken of by the framers of the Constitution is not the welfare type of system YOU are speaking about. It is more about the ability of the feds to tax for the management of the resources and defense for the country as an entity, not handing out entitlements to individual citizens. And if this is wanted, it is supposed to be a responsibility of the states, not the federal govt. Remember the 10th amendment?"

"Yes, and a system of governance which is based upon "general welfare" (you know, the one from U.S. Constitution [wikipedia.org]) is social democracy "

Trouble is, the welfare spoken of by the framers of the Constitution is not the welfare type of system YOU are speaking about. It is more about the ability of the feds to tax for the management of the resources and defense for the country as an entity, not handing out entitlements to invidual citizens. And if this is wanted, it is supposed to be a responsibility of the states, not the federal govt. Remember the 10th amendment?

The problem is that that is an interpretation, not an accepted fact. At the end of the day, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court of the United States says it means (and out system of government makes the assumption they make such interpretations based on a hopefully deep reading of the laws themselves).

These same challenges were made 40 years ago when Social Security was passed, and were rejected by the Supreme Court at that time.

While it is possible that the Supreme Court might turn around 180 degrees (anything is possible), it isn't very likely.

Trouble is, the welfare spoken of by the framers of the Constitution is not the welfare type of system YOU are speaking about. It is more about the ability of the feds to tax for the management of the resources and defense for the country as an entity, not handing out entitlements to invidual citizens. And if this is wanted, it is supposed to be a responsibility of the states, not the federal govt. Remember the 10th amendment?

Quicktime today is h.264 video with AAC audio (Sorensen is gone).

h.264 is a licensed technology owned by MPEG LA. While it did go free for a few more years for usage, it was set to lose that until about a month ago and is still a licensed technology that can be used to lock.

iTMS files are AAC audio and fairplay is gone. Fairplay was easy to remove by yourself and Apple documented how to do so.

Again, AAC audio is not an open technology, it's a licensed one. The license is quite a easy one to stream and distribute (free), but to use the actual codec itself requires a company to obtain a license. This is why FOSS FAAC and FAAD software projects are only distributed in source code form only to avoid the patent issues. As for Fairplay, it was Apples way of keeping any songs bought from iTunes to only play on iPods. No other MP3 player was able to read the files helping Apple keep a monopoly, and is still being fought under the Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation Not to mention Fairplay is still being used by Apple. Also couldn't find anything on the Apple.com site on how to remove Fairplay from anything.

iTunes works with anything as long as anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes (the fact Palm doesn't understand how is Palm's failure). Some vendors even get sync functionality (many Motorola devices, following the ROKR partnership), not just the iPod as you say.

iTunes works as long as Apple says it's ok, not if anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes. Palm does know how and kept programming to make it work. It was Apple that kept altering iTunes to purposely break that connection to wall out Palm since they didn't want to jump through Apple's hoops.

What was your point again ? Oh right, outright lies.

No, that was your point to make outright lies.

Honestly, I don't generally mind Ticketmaster. They serve a fairly useful function, and it's my understanding that the convenience fee can often include promoter fees from which Ticketmaster takes no profit. Promoters would just rather that Ticketmaster absorb the public ill will.

That said, this falls well within the umbrella of principles leading to, say, the first sale doctrine. You should read up on Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus in which the court first established the first sale doctrine. More to the point, check out Northern Pacific R. Co v United States, in which the Supreme Court held that vertical price fixing agreements are per se illegal under the Sherman act. Ticketmaster could have terms-of-service that require that I kill the next person I meet after purchasing a ticket, but that would be an illegal agreement. Contractual restrictions illegal under the Sherman act count. Ticketmaster doesn't get to violate contract law just because they use computers.

More simply, you can't contractually agree to do something illegal, including price fixing. It's why there's an "S" (suggested) in MSRP and an "A" (Advertised) in MAP.

You do not have the legal right to the success of the business model of your choosing, and designing/implementing an easily-gamed system is your fault, not the fault of those who game it. If you ran a three-card monte game with clear plastic cups and then sued me when you realized that you'd lost your shirt, tough nuts.

My only bias is against being stupid...

Summary judgement is http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2007cv05744/395693/606/2.pdf IANAL, so this might not be what you're looking for

Perhaps you should reexamine what a "substantial nexus" is and how it is applied within the law.

Anyways, here are a few supreme court cases involving the exact same thing we are talking about.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/386/753/case.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quill.html

You should note that ion both cases, the substantial nexus is cited but you are wrong in the Corporate headquarters. MSLI or Microsoft's licensing incorporation is not located in the state of Washington at all and is incorporated in Nevada with it's offices in Nevada (and other areas outside of the State of Washington). Because MSLI is owned by MSTF is non-important in this distinction because under current law, federal, state, and yes, even Washington State laws, ownership of a corporation does not directly imply operation of the corporation and they are viewed as two completely separate entities. This is evident from bankruptcy laws in which MSTF or MSLI could go bankrupt without imposing any liabilities on the other. This is even true within the state of Washington.

I got to admit, you have heart, you just do not have all the information or the ability to competently process it.

I'm not sure that we've ever revoked a treaty; it's easier to break them. Ask the Indians.

Apparently the Supreme Court can invalidate all or part of a treaty if it's blatantly unconstitutional, but it seems that's about it.

Man that would be one expensive pr0n habit.

300 Megabit/sec Single Access (Ku band) TDRSS service was priced at USD$180 per minute in 1997. Adjusting for inflation, that would be over $240 in 2009, not accounting for likely price increases due to the growth in demand for satellite communications bandwidth during the GWOT.

I won't even mention the rather odious web content filtering that NASA uses these days...

I have a distinct warning to all frothy-mouthed Liberals that love the idea of a "Fairness Doctrine" which was used in the past to remove Communist influences in the media

[citation needed]

When was the "Fairness Doctrine" ever specifically used to remove any influences in the media, much less "Communist" influences, as opposed to, for example, give an author the chance to reply to an attack by a right-wing broadcaster who had accused the author of "[having] been fired by a newspaper for making false charges against city officials; [having] then worked for a Communist-affiliated publication; [having] defended Alger Hiss and attacked J. Edgar Hoover and the Central Intelligence Agency, and [having] now written a "book to smear and destroy Barry Goldwater.""

Now, in practice, there were concerns raised that enforcing the "Fairness Doctrine" might cause stations to avoid saying anything that might trigger "Fairness Doctrine" enforcement, having a "chilling effect" on free speech.

Those are all certainly good points but it's not nearly cut and dried unconstitutional as people are making it out to be. For example, I believe states can rightfully burden interstate commerce in the name of health and safety. Take an example from 1890 where states had different laws on the quality and inspection of meat that could be sold within their borders for human consumption. In the name of public safety, Minnesota was allowed to burden interstate commerce on foods not inspected within its borders after someone distributed rank meat acquired from Illinois and not certified by a Minnesota inspector.

Now, this requires Minnesota to prove that the coal generated electricity is a threat to health and or safety of its citizens. That's going to be hard to do. But as your other post pointed out, they've been going about this for quite sometime but I'm sure every year they feel closer to being able to prove this is legal on account of public safety.

From the ruling.

Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Pp. 31-41.

It does not say specifically that a devide that was in general public use would be allowed, but it did narrow this particular decision.

(c) Based on this criterion, the information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search. The Court rejects the Government's argument that the thermal imaging must be upheld because it detected only heat radiating from the home's external surface. Such a mechanical interpretation of the Fourth Amendment was rejected in Katz, where the eavesdropping device in question picked up only sound waves that reached the exterior of the phone booth to which it was attached. Reversing that approach would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology-including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home. Also rejected is the Government's contention that the thermal imaging was constitutional because it did not detect "intimate details." Such an approach would be wrong in principle because, in the sanctity of the home, all details are intimate details. See, e. g., United States v. Karo, 468 U. S. 705; Dow Chemical, supra, at 238, distinguished. It would also be impractical in application, failing to provide a workable accommodation between law enforcement needs and Fourth Amendment interests. See Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, 181. Pp. 35-40.

The court also drew a strict line at the barrier to the home. The three dissenters even said that in this case the product just measured the temperature of the exterior of the home, and that other factors such as melting snow in one area could be used to determine the same facts. The 6 member majority took the long view in calling it a search in the hopes of curtailing the use of future technology that would be able to "see inside" the home.

I would like to point out part of Stevens' dissent:

It would be far wiser to give legislators an unimpeded opportunity to grapple with these emerging issues rather than to shackle them with prematurely devised constitutional constraints.

It should be obvious that legislators do not do this, and also that law enforcement will use every tool at their disposal whether it invades privacy or not. We wouldn't have court cases like this, like the one about listening in with a hyper-sensitive microphone on a conversation in a phone booth or like tracking cars with GPS without a warrant if that weren't the case.

What could be discerned from just checking the temperature of the outside of the house? For one, couldn't you tell when someone was taking a hot shower or bath by how hot the outside of the bathroom wall was? It seems like the frequency and duration of bathing in ones own home would be something that normally couldn't be discerned without entry into the home. The protections aren't there for the protection of criminals, but to protect the entire public's privacy. It's not just about whether the evidence can be used in a court case, but whether the police should be performing the surveillance at all.

For another thing, I hope that it took a whole lot more evidence than the thermal tapes to get the warrant to search the house. My dad had a beautiful garden and use to raise plants indoors also. I would hate to think that the police would come knocking down our door for that reason, or because we had a tanning bed or heat lamp.

Yeah, HP shouldn't try patenting this...

In my time at the USPTO, I noticed that HP took the phrase "anything under the sun made by man" to the extreme and tried to patent everything under the sun made by man in every patent app filed. Each case was an absolute battle to get them to claim what they really invented. If the examiner wasn't willing to fight it out on the case, he or she could have just easily said "Screw it! They won't try to enforce it anyway..." and just allowed the case.

If the publisher who puts out the book received a percentage of the spoils from the robbery, then probably.

If the publisher (Google, Bing) has no knowledge of the crime, it's rather hard to make the claim that the publisher is an accessory.
And since these guys are dumb enough to file in a US Court, the DMCA exemptions and requirements makes all their claims go away.

Anyways, here's the case: BLUES DESTINY RECORDS, LLC v. GOOGLE, INC. et al
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flndce/3:2009cv00538/56427/1/

And here are the search terms being complained about:
"Roy Powers Firing Line"
"Peter McGraw More McGraw"
"Ronny Sessum"

Perhaps you do, and you might be moraly right. But at least in the US, the military draft was not ended by the national ban on slavery. The US federal courts and Supreme Court ruled it was not covered, and the draft continued off and on for another 110 years after the 13th Amendment. Other nations take pretty much the same attitude.

What's more, because US treaties are backed by the power of the Constitution, they are very difficult to repeal later down the road if they turn out to be a bad idea, or, as is more often the case, the other governments back out of the treaty and leave the US holding the bag. Few countries put as much force of law behind treaties as the US. This is also one of the reasons the US never signed on to Kyoto, because it was assumed that the other countries wouldn't be able to make the ambitious targets and would quietly back out, whereas the US would be stuck with it.

Not true. Treaties ratified under the Treaty Clause can be superseded by ordinary law. See the Head Money Cases (emphasis added):

The Constitution of the United States places such provisions as these in the same category as other laws of Congress by its declaration that

this Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.

. . . there is nothing in this law which makes it irrepealable or unchangeable. The Constitution gives it no superiority over an act of Congress in this respect, which may be repealed or modified by an act of a later date. . . .

A treaty is made by the President and the Senate. Statutes are made by the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. The addition of the latter body to the other two in making a law certainly does not render it less entitled to respect in the matter of its repeal or modification than a treaty made by the other two. If there be any difference in this regard, it would seem to be in favor of an act in which all three of the bodies participate. And such is, in fact, the case in a declaration of war, which must be made by Congress and which, when made, usually suspends or destroys existing treaties between the nations thus at war.

In short, we are of opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal.

In fact, treaties can be even easier to repeal than laws. There have been multiple occasions when the President has decided to withdraw from a treaty without even asking Congress – like Bush withdrawing from the ABM treaty.

On top of that, you can always implement a treaty in the form of an ordinary law. Treaties can be passed as "non-self-executing", in which case they have no legal force themselves at all. For instance, the United States ratified the Berne Convention, but 17 USC 104(c) says "No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. . . ." Instead, the Berne Convention was implemented as the Berne Convention Implementation Act, which was passed by both houses of Congress as a regular bill.

A treaty that we're a party to might not even necessarily have been implemented. I recall reading a Supreme Court case (sadly, I can't remember which) where a treaty we were party to would have prevented the execution of a Mexican citizen, but the Court dismissed the appeal, on the basis that the treaty was not passed as self-executing and wasn't implemented by any law. Thus although the international community recognized us as a party to the treaty, our own courts found it unenforceable under domestic law. The Supreme Court basically sai

It appears they can.

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html

I keep seeing this come up and I haven't seen anyone able to tell me how this meshes with the Nelson V. Sears decision:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/312/359/case.html

SCOTUS has already spoken on this issue. I thought taxation of interstate commerce was settled law.

Virgina v. Black was about burning a cross. Burning a cross in your front yard is not the same as someone saying "I'm going to kill you".

Brandenburg v. Ohio was a ruling regarding general statements made against a class of people, not specific statements made against a specific person.

In Watts v. United States it was determined that Watts' statement did not constitute an actual death threat against the president. From the decision: "[his comments were] held to be crude political hyperbole which, in light of its context and conditional nature, did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President within the coverage of 18 U.S.C. 871(a)." Watts was freed because he didn't threaten the president.

Google does not make you a lawyer.

Go ahead and threaten the president. See how long it takes for the Secret Service to show up at your door. They take even the most ludicrous threats seriously.

In addition:

Virginia Code Title 18.2-60 A. 1. Any person who knowingly communicates, in a writing, including an electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message, a threat to kill or do bodily injury to a person, regarding that person or any member of his family, and the threat places such person in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury to himself or his family member, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, any person who violates this subsection with the intent to commit an act of terrorism as defined in 18.2-46.4 is guilty of a Class 5 felony.

All fifty states have statutes similar to this one, or classify death threats as "coercion" (also a criminal offense). All fifty of them are perfectly constitutional.

Huh?

TA 21-604:
http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes/gtr/21-604.html

"(c) A person may not, if any other vehicle might be affected by the movement, turn a vehicle until he gives an appropriate signal in the manner required by this subtitle. "

Yes, you are entitled to protection against unreasonable searches or seizures in a rented hotel room. Stoner v. California set that precedent.