Slashdot Mirror

The outside of your house is not your private life; it's your public life.

Even a cursory internet search will quickly show that you do not have the legal expectation of privacy in your yard or even in your house in front of a window if it is viewable from public areas. Please see this as it pertains to "peeping toms."

Generally speaking, what you can see from public areas you are permitted to photograph. How do you think that the paparazzi vermin shoot the pictures for the tabloids? If you must have that level of privacy, buy a house that cannot be seen from public areas.

____

Consumer Law: Warranty FAQ

Q: I feel the product I purchased is wearing out prematurely. Isn't this covered under my warranty?

A: Implied warranties are promises about the condition of products at the time they're sold, but they don't assure that a product will last for any specific length of time. (The normal durability of a product is, of course, one aspect of a product's merchantability or its fitness for a particular purpose.)

Nor does the law say that everything that can possibly go wrong with a product falls within the scope of implied warranties. For example, implied warranties don't cover problems such as those caused by:

* Abuse
* Misuse
* Ordinary wear
* Failure to follow directions
* Improper maintenance

___

I'd say a judge would tell you Microsoft isn't obliged to extend or replace an OEM license when the hardware it was bound to dies of natural causes.

...Ex-Lax.

It's better to use real accountants.

Q: Can a judgment obtained as a result of a wrongful death be discharged in bankruptcy?

A: Possibly. The bankruptcy code permits the discharge of negligence damages. But some bankruptcy courts may make damages resulting from "recklessness" or gross negligence non- dischargeable.

http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1001916~LDS/CRIME +ARREST+EVIDENCE.html#one

Joe Bailey and Eric Moorehead handled my case.

I don't know if they do appeals.

I wish they would do another tour in Flanders. I would know what to wear.
what to bring along.
And where to get someone to get me out of prison again.

His lawyer Jeffrey Wilens keeps a website at lawyers.com that also shows the current status of his other class actions and etc.
The US doesnt have a justice system .. but a legal system .. the results tied with the bank account.

>"...While I don't agree with the extortion tactics, let's at least be clear on this. Buying legitimate smartcard writers has never been an issue. DirecTV sends the extortion letters to people who have specifically purchased specialty smartcard readers whose design intent is to program DirecTV cards (i.e. Mikobu, etc). You're in no danger of receiving a threat letter if you purchase, say, a SDLogic writer, because it's not designed to work with DirecTV cards (but it can be made to with a flash upgrade...)"

Not true, but DirecTV would like you to believe that.

DirecTV has sent out many of these "extortion" letters to people who have merely purchased Netsignia 210 smartcard programmers because they bought them from a place DirecTV claims marketed the devices to DSS pirates. It's all about money and DirecTV will sue anyone they think they have a chance of winning a case against, or at least make it cheaper to settle than fight.

Additionally, DirecTV is taking a "sue them all and let God sort them out" approach where they do NO investigation prior to the filing of the suit. Only if someone decides to fight it do they take a look if they can find any evidence beyond a busted company's purchase order.

DirecTV Defense
DTVLawsuits
FreedomFight
Lakeshore Law DirecTV FAQ
Overhauser Law Offices
WUMarkus DirecTV Legal Forums
EFF Coordinates Fight Against DirecTV

>"...These antics stem from lawsuits here. I, for one, will be switching to DirecTV if they don't get this figured out."

Switch to DirecTV and instead of the stations you watch getting sued, YOU could get sued... for $3,500.00 and on up...

EFF Coordinates Fight Against DirecTV
DirecTV Defense
DirecTV Sues Anyone Who Bought Smartcard Reader?
FreedomFight.CA
DTVLawsuits
Lakeshore Law's DirecTV FAQ
Overhauser Law
WUMarkus' DirecTV Legal Info

Look for the MPAA to use the DMCA to sue anyone who disables the "anti-copy" circuit.

Or even worse than that, look for them to illegally sue anyone who purchases anything, like a soldering iron, that could be used to disable it.

Don't believe me? Look at how (1) (2) DirecTV is warping the DMCA in its own image. Sueing people for merely purchasing a smartcard reader!

Only 22,000+ people sued so far!

My one question. Why?

This is the same tatic that the BSA uses during the "Amnesty" periods. You promise to be a good boy for the rest of your life, and pay them tons of money and they will leave you alone. Its also the same game that DirecTV is pulling. Admit to doing wrong, pay us tons of money, and we won't sue you. Currently the RIAA does not want money from you, but maybe they will take DirecTv's and the BSA's idea and start requesting $X per song you admit to having.

Scott Wolf - Network Engineer
http://www.aginet.com

[This is my own story. In case kuro5hin is 404, for convenience I am reposting it in reply to your reference.]

Exposing the Happy Birthday story:
An editorial by J. Byron, May 2003, rev. June 2003

In this article, I attempt to answer three questions: 1 - What is that song Good Morning to All, and how does it relate to Happy Birthday to You? 2 - Is the melody to Happy Birthday to You public domain? 3 - Are the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You also public domain? There are many references to Happy Birthday on the Web. Most warn you of the copyright claim on it, and that the current owners rabidly defend it. Many of these "editorials" do not tell you about the song Good Morning to All - and the few that do, don't tell you about its undeniable legal status. Is this deliberate, or just ignorance of the facts? I don't know. Two such examples are an article at Attaché Magazine and the commonly cited article at snopes.com. In addition, some articles may unintentionally present inaccurate information. An article posted at lawyers.com incorrectly states that Good Morning to All was written in 1895 but unpublished. That assertion is untrue, and makes an important legal difference.

There is a 1935 copyright registration for Happy Birthday, but the melody Good Morning to All was formally published in 1893 as part of a collection, registered in October 1893, and is public domain by U. S. statute. (you just can't use the "Happy Birthday" lyrics in public without paying) However, one site listed in this editorial claims possession of some early publications that nullify the copyright to even the lyrics.

Good Morning to All [a.k.a. the birthday melody] included in:
Song Stories for the Kindergarten, pub. 1893
Song Stories for the Kindergarten, revised ed., pub. 1896
[and apparently other pre-1923 editions]
Words: Patty Hill (-1946) Music: Mildred Hill (-1916)

Good morning to you,
Good morning to you,
Good morning, dear children,
Good morning to all.

The song Good Morning to All - from which Happy Birthday was allegedly derived - is free to use (words and music) by U. S. federal statute. (Published before 1923, and furthermore published before 1909) Take a look at Lolly Gasaway's PD chart, or Cornell University's expanded chart. That version of the birthday melody may suffice for some people - instrumentalists in particular. Also note that titles cannot be protected by copyright, and no unique or proper names are involved. Naming an instrumental CD track Good Morning to All a.k.a. Happy Birthday to You should be legal. (The law of other countries might affect the song's status outside the U. S.)

Allegedly, after the publication of Good Morning to All in the Hill's songbook Song Stories for the Kindergarten, Robert Coleman, and others, published the "birthday" lyrics with the Good Morning to All melody. In the 1930's, the "Happy Birthday" lyrics combined with the Hill's published melody showed up on stage and in singing telegrams. The Hill family allegedly won a 1934 lawsuit for infringement. In 1935 the Hill family registered the "Happy Birthday" copyright mentioned endlessly on the Web. (Which does not affect today's public domain status of Good Morning to All.) Two sources for Good Morning to All sheet music are PD Info (a small studio, that also sells sheet music reprints) and

rename the game

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

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

Don't look now, but you're all about to get sued. I'd have e-mailed you, but most of your profiles don't have e-mail addresses with them. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. :-(

Here's what I just wrote up for a Slashdot story. It got rejected, but it ought to see the light of day somewhere. Hope posting in this thread doesn't make Ralsky take me to court ...

Deluged Spammer Threatens Suit Against Slashdotters

Spam king Alan Ralsky is now evidently receiving several tons of 'snail mail' spam per day thanks to an 'organized campaign' against him, according to Mike Wendland's column in today's Detroit Free Press. The story refers to Slashdot's previous articles and specifically quotes this comment by a Slashdot user. It also indicates that Ralsky has retained Michigan attorney Robert Harrison to bring suit against "the anti-spammers" responsible for his deluge, who he seems to think are the Slashdot users who commented in either of those threads.

[Got the news from Boing Boing.]

I note that you don't claim to be a lwayer yourself, nor give any references to confirm the assertions you make in your post.

Under currto put into service ent law, the rights on non-visual works include the right to distribute, copy, and modify (also known as derived works). IPFilter has a copyright statement, which removes any question that the author intended his work to have copyright protection. The license under IPFilter clearly states that the user may only copy and distribute the binary and source code.

Nobody is claiming that the author needs to specify exactly what rights he or she isn't giving away. However, if one explicitly grants a broad-sounding right such as the right to "use" the source, it seems ludicrous to suggest that the author can then "clarify" it so as to eliminate the right to use it in certain ways. The fundamental question, of course, is what exactly does the right to "use" source code entail? I haven't yet seen a definitive answer.

Oh, and the word "use" is used correctly. Remember, the layman's interpretation of "use" is not the same as the legal implications. While you and I might read his license and think that we may modify the source code, he uses the word correctly. We may not, without his permission.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. So you are aware of a legal precedent establishing what it means to "use" source code? Can you provide a reference? Exactly what rights does the right to "use" the software give you?

There's a legal dictionary at www.lawyers.com. I looked up "use"; the definition given for "use" as a verb is:

to put into service
have enjoyment of

Looking up "service" provides nothing meaningful in this context. The definition given for "enjoyment" is:

personal benefit, use, or possession (as of rights or property)
specif
the receipt of the fruits or profits of property

That looks to me to be at least as broad as the everyday sense of "to use".

Try www.lawyers.com. They have a searchable list of lawyers, by practice and location. I'm not sure they'll have one listed in your area, but it's a place to start.

Alternately, try the yellow pages for your area. Typically, firms advertise there, with a brief listing of their areas of expertise.

I'm not sure it's entirely true that anyone can be sued for any reason. It is at least expected that a plaintiff have a cause of action - that they have been wronged in some way, and that they attribute the wrong to the defendant. I can't sue someone for wearing an orange leisure suit, but I can sue someone for wearing an orange leisure suit if it made me violently ill.

Regrettably, I would be likely to lose this case.