Slashdot Mirror

You would think so, but I bet that in a lot of cases, they'd just treat your possession of the contraband as prima facie evidence of a crime.

It's like drug possession -- if the cops toss your car and find a kilo of China White or a handgun with the serial number scratched off in the glove compartment, your insistence that it's not yours may not keep you out of trouble. Just having it, in a place that was under your control, is the crime. A demonstration of intent is not necessary. In effect, it means that the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant to explain themselves, and if they cannot provide a justification for the evidence, they're guilty.

Frankly I think "prima facie" laws in general are a travesty of justice; we ought to abolish the whole philosophy and get back to a more intent-focused jurisprudence. But of course if you tried to do that, you'd be keelhauled for being supportive of crime and criminals, because in the short term it would make the work of the police harder.

In general, a lot of "possession" laws (drug possession, weapon possession, pornography, "burglar's tools") are intentionally written this way so that a demonstration of intent is unnecessary, and many laws include the phrase "prima facie" verbatim. (See this Montana weapon law, for example.)

More information you might want to read:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htm (deals with torts, specifically in employment law, but discussed the general concept)
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=15 98&bold=

What you're arguing is like saying GAP owns any picture with people wearing their logo.

I don't know where to stand on this issue despite having studied it, but couldn't copyright itself be considered a form of censorship? If the US Constitution didn't have a clause specifically authorizing the creation of Patent & Copyright Offices, then a law forbidding publication of certain books by anyone but the owner of a magic "C" would violate the First Amendment, wouldn't it?

And copyright has been used in attempts at true censorship, as with Diebold's apparent attempt to suppress embarassing memos regarding flaws in its voting machines.

+10 points for using the Democratic talking point "word of the day" (defamation) incorrectly.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=defam ation&type=1

"n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error."

If you *did* cheat on your wife, and someone posted pictures online, that might be some other things, but it is not defamation, since the statement is true.

In London, we call those "Phoneboxes". You can get any perversion you want from the adverts in those.

If the ACLU or whoever they're representing is talking about illegal stuff with people overseas, then the government should probably be listening, right?

What if a lawyer in the employ of the ACLU is speaking to a client? What if a doctor calls up their patient to inform them of the results of some medical tests the doctor performed on the patient? What if someone calls their priest to confess something they've done?

If the government is listening in, and the conversation with the lawyer or the priest allows them to find some evidence that they would not have otherwise found, should that evidence be allowed? Should Medicare be allowed to use information the government overheard during the conversation to determine a person's coverage?

As much as I would love to agree with you, I can't. Did you forget that the top priority of the DoJ is currently fighting adult porn?

Two words: contributary negligence.

Everything I see regarding 'contributory negligence' refers to its use in personal injury cases, not in property theft cases.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected =341
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligen ce
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c125.htm
http://insurance.cch.com/Rupps/contributory-neglig ence.htm
http://www.west.net/~smith/negligence.htm
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/co ntributory_neg.html

Even in situations of contributory negligence, the injured (suing) party must have been negligent to the point that they could have been injured apart from the injuring (sued) party.

Perhaps if I had left all my car doors standing open and the car parked in the middle of the street, I would be contributorially negligent. If it's parked in front my my house with the windows open and gets stolen, I'm not negligent. Apart from the actions of the person stealing my car, I would not be "injured."

As with Microsoft - apart from the actions of those who take malicious action against computers, those computers would not be compromised.

Sorry, the:
they never chose to become actively involved in it
link fixed. I copied in the wrong tab... :o)

"I enjoy doing what I do and I think I've got a First Amendment right to annoy people and participate in the public square in the cultural war," Jack Thompson.

Explains why he keeps evading bans on Gamepolitics, and spewing his usual retarded drivel there. For someone who is "wining", he sure spends a lot of time posting and obsessing over GamePolitics. But what else can you say about someone who, among various absurd things, feels blogs are for losers(but not LiveJournal accounts to post PR pieces, trash talk, etc), whines when someone calls/mails him, and has non-existent/default "no page here yet" web sites? Guess the place holder is better then his text only Florida Bar attack site(which is now "no page here" humm....).

You know, a bunch of people have been wondering if Jack suffers from some sort of mental disability/defect. Given how he acts like some Usenet kooks I "know"(taking things to real life, being very hypocritical in their actions, claming credit for the work of others, claiming any darned thing is a victory for them, making absurd claims, etc), I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case. HELL, this makes a lot of sense, his last issue with the Florida bar in the 90s was over their forcing him to undergo psychiatric testing!

While he did pass and was awarded a $20,000 settlement, I have to wonder with all the advances in psychology and diagnosis of mental disabilities, if they will find something this time. And that is what I think is a good reason for his current mental breakdown, with the constant losing streak, inappropriate behavior, legal antics, and now the Florida bar, things are not looking too good for Jack despite his poker face & "I am going to win" attitude. He faces to lose a lot of creditablity, his profession, and greatly damages his "muder-sim p0rn0 games made them kill, they should be banned" cause.

He is at the end of his wits, grasping at straws, running out of time and deep down realizes that he not going to get anywhere in terms of what he wants. Thus like kooks he takes the safe route of all talk, little to no real action.

Intellectual property usually refers to copyrights, patents, and trademarks.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?searched=in tellectual+property&type=3&submit1.x=92&submit1.y= 9&submit1=Look+up
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/

Courtesy of a post on Groklaw, court costs don't include attorney fees (although they can be imposed, too). Another post in the Groklaw thread suggested a figure of about $2k (for the FSF's costs...), but PJ said probably lower. I understand Wallace has similar cases pending against RedHat, Novell, and IBM. He probably has similar chances of success. It's going to add up if he pushes...

I

Here you go. Straight from dictionary.law.com. Thought you might like to know. http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected =1586

The confusion is obviously that there are legal definitions, and dictionary definitions, and rarely the two shall meet.

bribery
n. the crime of giving or taking money or some other valuable item in order to influence a public official (any governmental employee) in the performance of his/her duties. Bribery includes paying to get government contracts (cutting in the roads commissioner for a secret percentage of the profit), giving a bottle of liquor to a building inspector to ignore a violation or grant a permit, or selling stock to a Congressman at a cut-rate price. Example: Governor (later Vice President) Spiro T. Agnew received five cents from the concessionaire for each pack of cigarettes sold in the Maryland capitol building. The definition has been expanded to include bribes given to corporate officials to obtain contracts or other advantages which are against company policy. http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=bribe &type=1&submit1.x=72&submit1.y=3&submit1=Look+up

Is salary legally defined as bribery? No. Technically? Yes. So you're both right.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=107521981976 0
http://www.aabany.org/dewey_ballantine.htm

Emails like the one referenced above can lead to things like half your partners leaving, golden parachutes in hand...with your customers...en masse...to another firm...the same firm...together. ...oddly enough, the same firm made famous by the "hard at work doing jack" dude.

Gotta love legal.

The whole point of the lawsuit was that McDonalds was found to have coffee much hotter than the _industry average_, and that this attitude was dangerous (go read the text referenced earlier). It is impossible to *drink* the coffee at the temperature McD was selling it. They had plenty of warning, they did nothing.

If you were married, your wife could sue the shower manufacturer for loss of consortium.

I don't see why they needed a warrant if it they knew the e-mail originated formt he Newton Library and were in hot pursuit, AKA fresh pursuit... http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=88 6&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C We already have laws in place for warrantless searches when probable cause comes into play, no?

A classic tactic in a patent infringement case where a deep-pocketed defendant is sued by a poorer plaintiff dictates that the former drag out the proceeding as long as possible. The idea is to spend the plaintiff into the ground and force a settlement on favorable terms for the defendant. As long as the defendant can hold the threat of an injunction at bay, the biggest downside is the possible payment of a reasonable royalty for use of the plaintiff's patents. "From a defendant's standpoint," Wallace explains, "if you can get into a district where the docket is very slow, go years and years, well, [the defendant] can basically stretch it out and avoid the threat." A major thrust of RIM's defense during the 13-day trial was an attempt to show that there was prior art that invalidated NTP's patents. Some of the most dramatic testimony dealt with a wireless device developed in the late 1980s by TekNow, a paging and computer engineering company based in Phoenix. David Kenney, TekNow's founder, was asked by RIM lawyer Mark Nelson, an associate at Jones Day, if the company's device was capable of sending e-mail in 1989. "Yes, that's what we were doing, delivering e-mail to a pager," Kenney replied. To demonstrate the TekNow system to the jury, Kenney typed into a computer this message: "Tommy, the deal is closed." A moment later, with a beep and few squawks, a TekNow pager printed out the message. Then, with a final flourish, Nelson presented the message to the jury. On cross-examination, however, Kenney acknowledged that the size of two of the software programs employed in the demonstration matched ones the company had produced in 1994 and 1997. Software from the 1980s, which TekNow had sent to RIM's legal department to set up the demonstration, did not work, Kenney said he was told by a RIM official. Kenney had then provided RIM's legal department with the later software to RIM, he said. In pushing on to trial, RIM might simply have miscalculated how strong a defense it could muster. RIM's initial response to NTP's patent claims was dismissive. A letter sent by NTP's first set of lawyers at Hunton & Williams in November 2000 had invited RIM to license NTP's patents, alluding pointedly to the possibility of infringement. Enclosed with the letter were some pages printed out from RIM's Web site, which "did not readily demonstrate any support for potential patent infringement," the Canadian company explained in a news release after NTP filed suit. A letter from Jones Day to NTP's lawyers in February 2002 seemed to capture the disdain with which RIM's lawyers viewed the patent-holding company's arguments, at least at first. The letter warned that Jones Day was contemplating a motion under rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contending that NTP had such a weak case that it had brought suit without a good-faith basis to do so. Jones Day never filed the motion, according to NTP lawyer James Wallace.

Neither yet have any articles been cited that mention the circumstances under which NPT acquired these patents (the inventor died of liver cancer in 2004) or the name of the inventor himself -- Tom Campana whose own business making wireless email devices was driven into the ground by the fact that he invented it in the late 80's and early 90's, before email had caught on.

I think we've got a case of crackberrys spamming the media and skewing the terms of the debate into "Evil Patent Trolls vs. The Good Tech Blackberry." Perhaps its more the case that a couple of dot com kiddies are trying ride the actual technological advances made half a decade earlier.

Of course I also know that the KA9Q crowd was doing all of this in the mid-80's which is pry the prior art the NPT patents will be thrown out on -- and you'd think the /. community would know about this, you guys being such big swinging technical dorks and all. But...guess not.

Please refer to a medical dictionary for the applicable definition of intoxication. Medical intoxication is the state of having enough intoxicating agent (poison) in your system to have an effect -- regardless of how severe that effect is.

Delirium is not necessary for medical intoxication. Nor is a general online dictionary a good source for legal definitions. Here's a better online dictionary for legal definitions.

The difference between intoxication and drunkenness, however, depends on the situation, and the terms are not completely analogous.

Assuming the existence of unbreakable DRM, what happens is that you, as the former copyright holder, can choose to make a non-restricted copy available at that time, or not. This is what I was getting at with my comment that a lot of works are already lost, even though they are now legally public domain. That, to me, is a tragedy.

IMHO, you have legal permission to engage in Fair Use, but (unless I missed something) you don't have the explicit right to do it. IE you can't force a copyright holder to provide you a DRMless file that you can sample from.

That's more or less correct. To be more precise, fair use is an affirmative defense, which is not a right, and not really "legal permission", depending on how you think about that phrase. Without getting overly legalistic, basically, when accused of copyright infringement, the defendant says, yes, I did that, but my actions are justified, and here's why. For fair use, there's a fairly specific 4 part test defined in the Copyright Act of 1976 that attempts to specify what fair use looks like. The burden is on the defendant to show that their actions qualify as fair use.

And of course you're correct that, absent a contract, there's no way anyone can force anyone to provide data in any particular format - that would be silly.

As always, IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.

Microsoft was declared a monopoly by a court in 1999, but I'm not sure if they ever fit the dictionary definition of monopoly as the submitter seems to now be holding them to:

Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Thing is, there is a difference between the common usage of the term 'monopoly' and the legal definition of the term monopoloy. The following is the definition from the law.com legal dictionary.

a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade. (emphasis mine)

Microsoft was declared a monopoly by a court in 1999, but I'm not sure if they ever fit the dictionary definition of monopoly as the submitter seems to now be holding them to:

Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Thing is, there is a difference between the common usage of the term 'monopoly' and the legal definition of the term monopoloy. The following is the definition from the law.com legal dictionary.

a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade. (emphasis mine)

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=113222911236 7 http://atheism.about.com/b/a/220978.htm http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/fait-j23 .shtml http://mediastudy.com/articles/av3-28-02.html http://ethics.lacity.org/EFS2003/index.cfm?fuseact ion=lobreports.clientbyfirm&year=2001 Search for Salvation Army, check later years too. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_thr ee_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_D_E.htm Search for Salvation Army

Last year, about 11 percent of the US Salvation Army's income came from the US government.

The Salvation Army's mission is to "preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination," according to the organization's Web site. This mission would be very laudable, if it were true in practice.

The US Salvation Army wants to take that taxpayer money and then harrass and discrimate against gays and lesbians in the hiring of the people that Americans' tax money is paying to hire. There are also allegations that the US Salvation Army discriminates in the providing of relief to gay and lesbian people.

Homophobia such as the Salvation Army and certain other "Christian" organizations is engendering has lead people to believe that discrimination, assaults, and even murder of gay men is somehow OK.

A recent article about a legal case regarding Salvation Army harrasmment and discrimination is at http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=113222911236 7 "

Respondeat Superior

Wrong. It's a civil trial. There is no such thing as "reasonable doubt" in civil cases; the standard is instead a preponderance of the evidence.

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.

It's not that it isn't property - it is property - it's just that the property right is limited to 20 years.

The definition of the property simply includes a time limitation.

It's not that it isn't property - it is property - it's just that the property right is limited to 20 years.

The definition of the property simply includes a time limitation.

Let's not also forget Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' hardline stance against porn depicting consenting adults as well. This is someone who is clearly the most dangerous man for the job.

And I'm speaking as a moderate conservative. This guy scares the shit outa me.

What particular church would you "call in to lend guidance? Oh, the one you belong to - what a surprise."

Well, let's see: The Jewish community was called in to consult with the Bush administration over the Holocaust memorial. George hasn't changed religious preferences has he? Anyone know if he's converted over lately?

What about Black history month? Did everyone suddenly become Southern Baptist?

Oh yeah, and even when the Satanist's won the right to do their own thing did everyone in government suddenly convert to Satanism?

Hedonism anyone? Druid? Budda? Didn't the president (OH MY!) see the Dalai Lama? Oh my god! Now he must be one-a those-there feriners!

And all because they lent their guidance to our government.

For shame on you! Spouting off about our government not listening to any church. Why, from where I sit - he listens to them all. And the important point is - they aren't even his church! My, what a surprise.

As to: The founding fathers were not using metaphors of marriage when they were writing the constitution.

Actually, marriage uses the LEGAL terms separation and divorce. Please note the part (in separation) where it states For people who want to avoid the supposed stigma of divorce, who hold strong religious objections to divorce or who hope to save a marriage, legal separation is an apparent solution. Sound familiar? Separation is NOT divorce.

Now, for those of you who go HUH?

You are a citizen of a country. Therefore you are a child of that country. Your governmental bodies are (in one sense) your parents. Not your biological parents - but as your parent in a legal sense in that it is the governmental bodies that give you the rules and regulations underwhich you have to abide so long as you are in your particular house->street->community->city->state->federal->Co untry. Which is to say you have the rules that you abide by at your house, on your street, in your community, in your city, state, federal, and country level. Most rules outside of your house are in (hopefully) harmony with each other. That is to say that if the federal government passes a law that says you have to wear your seatbelts they hope that the states will also pass a similar law and that your city will do the same. It is unlikely that your community, street, or even you in your house will pass any laws regulating your wearing of seatbelts so the cities and states take on the burden of enforcing the laws. Therefore, in a sense, they act as your surrogate parents once you are considered an adult and if you do wrong they take action against you by throwing you in jail or levying fines. Until you are an adult - it is the responsibility of your biological parents to take action against you and it is your parents that suffer any consequences due to your actions.

Which is why (as an example), when a kid shoots someone, the law attempts to convince a judge to prosecute them as an adult rather than a child. So it isn't the parents who suffer. (Although that is really putting things simply and the adults do still have to accept some of the burden of what their kid has done - it gets the point across I hope.)

What particular church would you "call in to lend guidance? Oh, the one you belong to - what a surprise."

Well, let's see: The Jewish community was called in to consult with the Bush administration over the Holocaust memorial. George hasn't changed religious preferences has he? Anyone know if he's converted over lately?

What about Black history month? Did everyone suddenly become Southern Baptist?

Oh yeah, and even when the Satanist's won the right to do their own thing did everyone in government suddenly convert to Satanism?

Hedonism anyone? Druid? Budda? Didn't the president (OH MY!) see the Dalai Lama? Oh my god! Now he must be one-a those-there feriners!

And all because they lent their guidance to our government.

For shame on you! Spouting off about our government not listening to any church. Why, from where I sit - he listens to them all. And the important point is - they aren't even his church! My, what a surprise.

As to: The founding fathers were not using metaphors of marriage when they were writing the constitution.

Actually, marriage uses the LEGAL terms separation and divorce. Please note the part (in separation) where it states For people who want to avoid the supposed stigma of divorce, who hold strong religious objections to divorce or who hope to save a marriage, legal separation is an apparent solution. Sound familiar? Separation is NOT divorce.

Now, for those of you who go HUH?

You are a citizen of a country. Therefore you are a child of that country. Your governmental bodies are (in one sense) your parents. Not your biological parents - but as your parent in a legal sense in that it is the governmental bodies that give you the rules and regulations underwhich you have to abide so long as you are in your particular house->street->community->city->state->federal->Co untry. Which is to say you have the rules that you abide by at your house, on your street, in your community, in your city, state, federal, and country level. Most rules outside of your house are in (hopefully) harmony with each other. That is to say that if the federal government passes a law that says you have to wear your seatbelts they hope that the states will also pass a similar law and that your city will do the same. It is unlikely that your community, street, or even you in your house will pass any laws regulating your wearing of seatbelts so the cities and states take on the burden of enforcing the laws. Therefore, in a sense, they act as your surrogate parents once you are considered an adult and if you do wrong they take action against you by throwing you in jail or levying fines. Until you are an adult - it is the responsibility of your biological parents to take action against you and it is your parents that suffer any consequences due to your actions.

Which is why (as an example), when a kid shoots someone, the law attempts to convince a judge to prosecute them as an adult rather than a child. So it isn't the parents who suffer. (Although that is really putting things simply and the adults do still have to accept some of the burden of what their kid has done - it gets the point across I hope.)

Or threaten to drag the host into a defamation suit against the blogger. The host isn't liable but may skip the hassle and cut off the blogger's access anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Forbes advocating barratry here? Something that happens to be illegal across the whole of the USA?

ICANN is contracted by the Department of Commerce, which is controlled by -- you guessed it -- Congress. Congress has several times in the past tried to make laws governing Internet content (Communications Decency Act, anyone?). Fortunately, thanks to a sane supreme court, the law was struck down and freedoms were preserved. Unfortunately, however, the Supreme Court isn't guaranteed to remain sane, and I (along with a not insignifican percentage of Americans, and most other people in the world) don't really trust the president to appoint non-wingnuts.

Also, just because political speech is generally protected at the moment doesn't mean our freedoms aren't being eroded. Certain political parodies can result nowadays in run-ins with the police. And if you're a member of the press, Don't try to take pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq. Oh, and if you try to pull any of that peaceful protest stuff where news cameras might see you near the president, don't be surprised if the police escort you off to a 'free speech zone.'

This gets its own paragraph because it's particularly worrisome.

As for other expression involving consenting adults, take a look at the War on Porn, for instance. Porn may not be political expression, but it is expression nonetheless, and tax dollars are being wasted trying to stamp it out because some people disapprove of it on religious grounds. That's to say nothing of the fact that in Texas, anal sex (once again between consenting adults) would still be illegal (yes, on religious grounds again) had the Supreme Court (which, again, isn't guaranteed to remain sane) not stepped in. Sex toys are still illegal in Alabama... what non-religious reason could there possibly be for banning them?

Also, the United States isn't one to talk about human rights violations (is it really just a few soldiers acting on their own, or does it go all the way to the top?). Or internment camps.

Other countries may also be nervous about our constant attempts at setting up massive surveillance networks.

You're right on a few counts: China and Cuba are a lot worse than we are. Also, European anti-hate-speech laws are a violation of free speech. That does not excuse this country's conduct. As long as we aren't the most free country in the world, America has a problem. Say it with me.

America has a problem.

The rest of the world sees it. Half of us see it. We're just not responsible enough to handle control of the internet right now.

This isn't a small lawsuit either. MP3.com wants $175

This isn't a small lawsuit either. MP3.com wants $175

>Before they sue anyone, simply have one of their employees download a few songs to their private PC from the defendant's system.
>There you go. Actual distribution. Actual copyright infringment. Known date and time.

I'm no legal expert, but that sounds like entrapment to me.

This is a civil trial -- there is no "pleading the 5th ammendment", no "court appointed attorney if you cannot afford one", and no "guilty beyond reasonable doubt."

And there is no entrapment.

Only law enforcement or government agents can entrap. That John Q Public induced/encouraged Suzy Q Public to commit a crime is no defense for Suzy Q Public.

And even then, entrapment can only be claimed during a criminal trial, not under tort law.

Sucks, huh?

This is a really important subject topic, especially given the case of the guy that was sued for an idea in his own and head and lost.

I'm guessing that here in the U.S. you probably wouldn't be able to get away with keeping one of those in your home or business, since booby-trapping of any kind is illegal in almost every state: http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=87 On the other hand, usually one is only held liable for injuries caused by a booby trap on one's property, so I suppose with some modification this could make for a nice non-dangerous way to deter burglars and such.

This isn't a small lawsuit either. MP3.com wants $175 million.

This isn't a small lawsuit either. MP3.com wants $175 million.

1. The Legal Definition of Theft - from The Legal Dictionary found at FreeDictionary.com

   theft n.

   the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

   This is the exact same definition found at Law.com

2. Using that definition, when one owns a domain, and owns a website, that is tacit ownership (tacit is defined as: Implied (as by an act or by silence) rather than express (a tacit admission)).
3. Hyperlinking has been previously defined in this forum, as versus hotlinking.
4. Copyright theft (or any other kind of intellectual theft) is "stealing something where nothing is lost" - there is actual LOSS. There is income loss, there is loss of reputation, and other losses (and if you don't think that loss of reputation is an actual loss, go talk to a lawyer - they will talk your ear off on how REAL the loss is).
5. Bandwidth theft is what is called a "tortious act" - Definition of TORT: n. from French for "wrong," a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the major areas of law (along with contract, real property and criminal law) and results in more civil litigation than any other category. Some intentional torts may also be crimes, such as assault, battery, wrongful death, fraud, conversion (a euphemism for theft) and trespass on property and form the basis for a lawsuit for damages by the injured party. Defamation, including intentionally telling harmful untruths about another-either by print or broadcast (libel) or orally (slander)-is a tort and used to be a crime as well. DEFINITION OF TORTIOUS ACT: adj. referring to an act which is a tort (civil wrong).
6. Illegal acts committed against private persons or corporations, sometimes do not fall into the sphere of criminal justice and are therefore required to fall into the sphere of civil justice. Such is the case with bandwidth theft, as well as copyright infringement.

IANAL, but, from dictionary.law.com:

verification (as is a verified complaint)- n. the declaration under oath or upon penalty of perjury that a statement or pleading is true, located at the end of a document. A typical verification reads: "I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have read the above complaint and I know it is true of my own knowledge, except as to those things stated upon information and belief, and as to those I believe it to be true. Executed January 3, 1995, at Monrovia, California. (signed) Georgia Garner, declarant." If a complaint is verified then the answer to the complaint must be verified.

If you look at the original complaint, you'll see at the bottom no one was willing to swear under penalty of perjury that it was true. The stuff you learn following links on slashdot!

What your forgeting is that many companies press thier right to works developed wile you are working for them. Even if it is developed on your own time. This has happened several time and the programers lost thier court cases (even one case were a programer dreamed of the idea and never put it ot paper untill after quiting). This means that the stuff donated to linux could actualy belong to microsoft and the right to release it GPL may not have been granted.

Thats how situation B could exist. If i release somethign under the GPL and later find i didn't own thr rights ot do so, It isn't GPLed. The programer doesn't even have to sign a wavier for this to happen. The company can place the policy in the company handbook and make him sign for reciet of it (Note: every reciet i have signed usualy says you have read it and agree to honor it but have to sign when you get it without the chance to read it.)

Now It doesn't have to be legit to be proven fud in a SCO like campain. Once the acusation is out, companies will again steer clear of linux or OSS because of the "threat of a law suite or forced to spend capitol to redo thier entire infrastructure". SCO's BS isn't going to prove true but look at the damage it has done. Microsoft as well as MS shills have come out and basicaly played on this to thier advantage. Even if you don't belive the money from the investment groups microsoft invested in was to quick pay SCO, you would have to admit microsoft made some money from the SCO lawsuites.

Remeber, SCO bigest complaint in the IBM lawsuite (about linux) is that IBM used code from UNIX to make parts of linux stronger. They stated the only proof of this is that IBM has access to UNIX code and donate code to LINUX and linux progressed in certain areas faster then is should have been able to. This is dumbing thier complaint down a little but it shouldn't be too hard form microsoft to claim active directory support for samba or NTFS support was obtained thier same way. Ofcourse we would see it as fud but it would be a situation like i described in B.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=112124551185 5

All it'll take is one spammer to file a lawsuit against these guys to stop them dead in their tracks.

Read about the clean hands doctrine and get back with us.

This is why you don't see drug dealers suing someone to collect a debt. Spammers are criminals, they simply cannot sue with regard to their criminal activities.

You might want to contact
http://www.answers.com/topic/president-pro-tempore -of-the-senate
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861736369/pro_t em.html
and
http://dictionary.law.com/
Since they need to be "corrected" as well.

Ample recedence? How? A civil court cannot convict anyone of anything. It can only award damages.

From a legal dictionary:

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=34 9&bold=||||

convict
1) v. to find guilty of a crime after a trial. 2) n. a person who has been convicted of a felony and sent to prison.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=35 0&bold=||||

conviction
n. the result of a criminal trial in which the defendant has been found guilty of a crime.

Tell me, how excatly can someone be "convicted" if the judgement is vacated? Actually, i did misspeak. It's the judgement that determines "guilt" or not.