Slashdot Mirror

In your mind you have equated the act of publication with the act of libel. This is not black-and-white and was addressed by the court, as well as other courts. The act of libel include the requirement of defamation of character and that took place in Ontario. See, for instance, The 'Lectric Law Library's definition of the act of defamation:

An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation.

The shame, ridicule, contempt, damaged reputation and the community in which it happened were all in Ontario, not Washington. He also lost his employment status and earnings, also not in Washington. This did not set a precedence, in fact the ruling referenced precedence. (Both Dow Jones & Company v. Gutnick and Upper Lakes Shipping Ltd. v. Foster Yeoman Ltd. were used.) The court did consider that the publication occured in D.C., but that the damaged to reputation occured in Ontario, so both forums would be relevant but neither was clearly more appropriate. The ruling didn't claim that Ontario was better, but neither was D.C. Based on precedence in the latter reference, without a clearly more appropriate forum he had to rule that the plaintiff's choice was appropriate. That you consider the location of publication more important than the location of damage is neither legally recognized (certainly not in the U.S., Canada, Australia, or many other countries) nor clearly logical.

"If a Canadian newspaper writes a story on..."
"If I write something here about Olymic athletes as a group..."
"How do you know that YOUR post doesn't violate Uzbekistan law?"

Again, if you actually read my last post, these are all interesting legal questions and are current points of contention in many places. In particular, if you read the article I referenced you'd see that this is an issue at the forefront of internet and the law, and in many cases there is a hyprocrisy (such as the U.S. exerting its laws on copyright violations in other countries while maintaining that it doesn't have to abide by laws of other countries, particularly France as noted in the article and that which you presented in your post).

However, as pointed out in the article and me in my last post, which you seem to have missed or ignored, all of the examples you provide are cases where the act is not illegal in the coutry of production but is in some other country. As I pointed out, the Washington Post case was illegal in both Ontario and D.C. so this is really a non-issue and there is a fairly long history of such cases. The examples you quote are the interesting ones being slowly worked out over time. An even more interesting case might be if I wrote something from one country to Slashdot which "published" it in another country (such as on U.S. servers), and was read in a third country. What if what I said was legal in the first two countries, and not the third. Or if in the first but not the second, or vice versa. There's a whole bunch of interesting cases. The Washington Post one is clear-cut and uninteresting.

"However your example is a reversal of the actual situation. It's people in Ontario "calling" Washington."

No, that's not a reversal, in fact it's a moot semantic. If the people in Ontario called the guy in Washington, and the guy in Washington made the sladerous remark over the speakerphone in Ontario, the defamation would still occur in Ontario. Nobody in Washinton heard it and no damage was done in Washington. Who actually initiated the call would be irrelevent.

One more note, you keep referring to my logic. I a

Well, they can try. Here's a good short explanation of U.S. precent law.

IIRC, precedent can only be used as a basis for defense if a defendant's legal team can convince the judge that the precedent applies, although the judge can use precedent to justify a ruling if s/he so chooses without the input of the lawyers.

but don't they lose the right to sue after it has infringed openly for some time?

Two answers to this:

1) Yes, after the patent expires they lose the right to enforce it. Though that's obvious, it's worth pointing out. Patents do not last nearly as long as copyrights do (yet!).

2) Yes, but only of the defender can prove the complainer knew about the violation and purposefully waited until the damages would be maximized or the remedy catastrophic to the defendant. It would then fall under the Doctrine of Laches. Specifically, Estoppel by Silence. If you know ahead of time, you can't let a roofing crew finish replacing your roof with a new one before telling them that they got the address wrong. Do that, and you'll be paying for a new roof.

But I ain't no lawyer, so read my comments in that light.

> This is just another instance of "hot coffee; do not spill!" and it truly saddens me to know that some people actually have to be told these things.

McDonald's purposely kept its coffee at 185 degrees, which is a lot higher than the homebrew temperature of about 140 degrees-- high enough to produce third degree burns, despite having received hundreds of complaints and injury reports and knowing that the temperature was likely to cause injury to the purchasers, just so they could save money on their electric bill. Admittedly the true.com label is stupid, but there _are_ some things people can't figure out themselves until it's too late. Considering that McDonald's only paid $600,000 for that one case, I'd say they did o.k.

There is lots of historical evidence (editorials, personal letters, memos, etc) to suggest that the phrase "well regulated militia" was _NOT_ meant by the founders to mean the same thing as the modern concept of an "organized militia", and that it actually means something a little closer to what the NRA thinks it means (i.e., _everyone_ should be able to own & use a weapon).

See this link for a reasonable analysis of the subject.

Whether or not the founders' reasoning seems valid with today's relatively easy access to implements of mass murder is a whole other discussion.

There are two problems with your theory.

First, Microsoft can inform you of what operating systems it is guaranteed to run on. It cannot legally enforce this, directly or indirectly, without violating anti-trust laws regarding product bundling. It's already been convicted of doing just that, so we'll see what happens next.

Second, if Microsoft actively leverages its customers to cease using Wine in this fashion, they are guilty of "Contract Interference". See "Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage" for more information. Companies selling products based on Wine for the purpose of running Office could likely sue on this basis.

Now, whether anything becomes of this is a whole different story.

-Hope

STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.

or put them on a hard drive.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i061.htm

Let me save you the time:

LACHES, DOCTRINE OF - Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another.

Laches is similar to 'statute of limitations' except is equitable rather than statutory and is a common affirmative defense raised in civil actions.

In general, when a party has been guilty of laches in enforcing his right by great delay and lapse of time, this circumstance will at common law prejudice and sometimes operate in bar of a remedy which is discretionary for the court to afford. In courts of equity delay will also generally be prejudicial.

Taken from http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm

There's nothing illegal (AFAIK) about asking someone to break a contract.

It isn't a crime, and therefore is not illegal in the strict sense, but yes, inducing someone to break a contract is a tort, something that the injured party can sue you for. It is called tortious interference. Here's a definition. You'll notice that one of the examples it gives is

having the employees commit wrongs such as disclosing the former employer's trade secrets

It's not entrapment to sell drugs at a standard street price (whatever that means) and is just standing there not yelling out "Drugs for sale CHEAP!", it is entrapment if they sell the drugs at prices so low that no drug dealer would ever sell them because then you're enticing a suspect with an irresistible deal.

Very good site at explaining what entrapment is and isn't.

legal definition of nuisance.. and this link has a lot of references as well

Now go to your state's statutes and look up alcohol and noise complaints, those are the two spots you will most likely find a statute about public nuisances. Just because you are too dumb to understand the law doesn't mean you are exempt from it.

-dk

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded...to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit... However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity... Entrapment

There is. It's considered privileged communication and neither the police nor the courts can compel a priest to divulge it.

I am not aware of any Protestant sect which practices Confession, so the issue wouldn't arise for them.

It can. You can have privileged communication with any priest of any faith; it can even be a private conversation with a Catholic priest outside of the confessional. All of it is protected.

Well, I should point out that my explanation isn't an oversimplification - the constitution really does say that. Check the findlaw link, honest. :) The fact that traffic cases have their own little corner of the law is pretty weird, actually.

Actually, it makes quite a bit of sense, considering that traffic offenses (in most localities) carry no jail time, and, the state doesn't necessarily provide an attorney for the prosecution of the case. Where I live, the Commonwealth doesn't provide any assistance to the police department in traffic-related matters. When the accused goes to court, it is him versus the complaining officer.

As for the jail rule, best I can imagine is it comes from Justice Clark's opinion in Gideon v. Wainwright . A fine is not a deprivation of liberty -- it's a deprivation of property. Jail, on the other hand....

But, where I've worked in the law before, that was always the rule. I did victim/witness work, and one of the hearings I had to notify about was the appointment of counsel hearings.

I'm sure there are lots of things you're not aware of.

Free clue.

"Not all agreements or arrangements that may have some restraint on trade are flatly prohibited. In fact, some agreements, such as arrangements with distributors for exclusive territories, agreements preventing former employees from competing or stealing business from their former employers, loss leader pricing and other practices are usually reasonable and acceptable."

The problem you're looking for, in this case, is:

Product tying - Here, a seller with a popular product, or one of limited supply, refuses to sell it unless the buyer also buys another product that the buyer otherwise wouldn't purchase. Forcing a buyer to purchase the weak product is usually illegal.

Thus, the question is whether the iTMS sells something that nobody else can suitably replace. That may not be an easy thing to prove, given the existence of several other on-line stores, not to mention CDs. Unlike Microsoft, whose Windows OS is all but necessary in many cases for interoperability, the iTMS is much less so. If you don't want to buy an iPod, then there's really very little reason to want to (and no reason to have to) use the iTMS.

Now, in the profit plan that you cited, it's generally legal to gain market share by selling below cost. However, at some point of your competitors' weakening you would've established a monopoly position in the market. It is at that point where you must stop doing that.

Note that state laws may differ:

California's competition statutes go far beyond the limited competition strictures of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, proscribing (for example) the use of loss leaders and locality discrimination in ways that federal antitrust laws do not address.

Sources: lectlaw.com and smartagreements.com

It's illegal to induce someone else to break their contract.

Tortious Interference

From the CAN-SPAM act:

• Sec. 1037. Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail

  `(a) IN GENERAL- Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly-- ....

  (4) registers, using information that materially falsifies the identity of the actual registrant, for five or more electronic mail accounts or online user accounts or two or more domain names, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from any combination of such accounts or domain names, ....

  "or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b)."

  (2) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both, if-- ...

  (B) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) and involved 20 or more falsified electronic mail or online user account registrations, or 10 or more falsified domain name registrations;

Note the "or conspires to do so" clause. Knowingly assisting in a criminal offense satisfies the legal definition of conspiracy. "Cloaking services" are in deep trouble if they knowingly provide that service for a spammer. Unlike ISP's, there's no "safe harbor" for them.

As for the "knowingly" part, whenever you find a spam associated with a "cloaked" domain, send a note to the cloaking service, and post that you've done so to some public spam forum that's indexed by search engines. That will put them on record as knowingly cooperating in a criminal conspiracy. The next person who gets a spam from the same party will have that information as legal ammunition.

When you've got that info, report it as Internet fraud..

OK. done that. now what?

OK, I see. look up laches as it refers to patent law. looks like I could be mistaken.

If Time Warner collaborated with the MPAA and attempted to go after usenet users _downloading_ from their feed (the only thing they could track), wouldn't it be some form of entrapment?

Do you understand the words "well-regulated?" The militia is not simply "the people."

Do YOU? Try reading about it.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees.

> This is not one of those McDonalds Hot coffee lawsuits

A lawsuit, which I might add, was very much justified. Remember, when politicians talk about tort reform, they're talking about protecting McDonalds.

As the parent poster notes, coffee doesn't stay that temperature for long. By the time I get to work - say 20 minutes later - it's starting to cool down to the point where I won't drink it.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

Source

Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

The lady in the lawsuit put the coffee between her legs and drove off, thus spilling it.

a) She wasn't driving
B) it wasn't between her legs

Read

OR...
Perhaps this is what Corporate America wants you to believe. That way it will be easier for them to pass laws that limit liability. Oh sure, it might limit your liability, but I guarantee that they will be first and foremost considered in the law.

I agree that some lawsuits are frivilous, but in order to actually win, negligence must be shown. You bring up the "Caution: Hot" label on coffee, but did you know that McDonalds actually served (and still does I believe) its coffee at temperatures that are not humanly consumable? It had known of over 700 cases of people getting burned by its coffee before that lawsuit. Look it up; it's fun stuff. If I was deciding the outcome of a trial and was shown this kind of information, I would side with the plaintiff as well.

I have done some research into the tort reform issue and have found that most sources state that lawsuits as a quantity have not gone up in the past 15 years and have actually dropped as a percentage of the population; although, the payouts have increased a bit faster than inflation.

When it comes down to it, litigation serves a very good purpose in scaring companies into behaving themselves. Without this, how do you make a company behave? Until we have another way that makes companies behave, you should not limit lawsuits. The government only does it when it suits their interests or becomes a public scandal.

I would like to point out that, I believe, almost all of the patent litigation is company versus company. Microsoft patents everything blankly as to prevent lawsuits. The three real problems with the patent law system:
1) Companies have enough funding where they can attack and defend almost indefintely.
2) It is almost impossible for an individual to successfully attack or defend against a company due to financial constraints.
3) Patents are entirely too broad, complex, and not verifiable.

Of course it may not be as effective in a theoretical loss-of-life situation (in a country where someone can successfully sue for spilling hot coffee on their own lap, anything can happen).

It is rather ironic that you make a case of being informed and properly prepared when you repeat the common misconception of that coffee case. ;-)

Well, I'm not a lawyer either...but I can Google like one:

read about waiving your rights

If you are granted a right, you can waive that right. The University granted you the right to live in the housing. You sign a contract where they have the ability to kick you out for their specified reasons.

On the other hand, when you are just renting a regular apartment, I really doubt you would sign something that says they can kick you out if you don't maintain at least a 2.0 average.

And YES- you can sign away your rights- even the first 10, the vaunted 'bill of rights'.

If you disagree, then obviously you've never been in the military, or served the government in one of the many, many positions where you do sign your rights away.

First: That the person knowingly and willfully devised a scheme to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false pretenses, representations or promises; and Second: That the person knowingly transmitted or caused to be transmitted by wire in interstate commerce some sound for the purpose of executing the scheme to defraud.

but... it goes on to state

It is not necessary that the Government prove all of the details concerning the precise nature and purpose of the scheme; or that the material transmitted by wire was itself false or fraudulent; or that the alleged scheme actually succeeded in defrauding anyone; or that the use of interstate wire communications facilities was intended as the specific or exclusive means of accomplishing the alleged fraud. What must be proved is that the person knowingly and willfully devised or intended to devise a scheme to defraud; and that the use of the interstate wire communications facilities was closely related to the scheme because the person either wired something or caused it to be wired in interstate commerce in an attempt to execute or carry out the scheme.

Smells like wire fraud to me...

Sorry, should have made that link clickable.

Age Of Majority

DVD comentaries are peppered with "We had to take this out." "We had to change that to show in England." "For some reason we were required to do abc while xyz was perfectly ok." Sounds a lot like prior restraint, though film makers do it "voluntarily" to avoid economic suicide.

I can't watch any film I like if it is not allowed to be made in the first place.

It's called "sovereign immunity". The Federal Tort Claims Act makes allowances for suits based on federal employee negligence, but I doubt any federal court would consider anything the USPTO does negligent enough to qualify as a valid FTCA suit.

It's called "sovereign immunity". The Federal Tort Claims Act makes allowances for suits based on federal employee negligence, but I doubt any federal court would consider anything the USPTO does negligent enough to qualify as a valid FTCA suit.

I think perhaps the jargon you are looking for is "barratry". Not only can you be "blocked from suing", you can be prosecuted.

Definition of Barratry

Since we have this notion of someone being "innocent until proven guilty," I can see why having a webcam on while someone is being *booked* can be a problem.

Actually, that's an especially good time for it. Arrests must be public. Yes, it's horribly embarrassing to be arrested, and I will feel ashamed if I am ever arrested, but secret arrests are tyrannical.

Your signature reads "The cure for 1984 is 1776." Well, why does the fourth amendment to the US constitution prohibit unreasonable seizures? It's because the british used arbitrary and secret arrests to lock up troublemakers (arguably they did so as well against the IRA). How can you have habeas corpus (or look here -- warning pdf) if you don't know who was arrested? (sorry, another pdf)

Once you've been convicted (or even once you're booked) it seems unreasonable though I agree with the poster who said he'd like it for his own protection!

Exactly how is this racketeering?

IF you are referring to the McDonalds Hot Coffee lawsuit, perhaps you need to read up on the facts of the case, the coffee wasn't merely hot, but was scalding.

From the link: The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for 20,000, but McDonalds refused.

A court will not award damages to a party that has 'unclean hands'. The scammers are attempting to negotiate a contract by which they have no itention of abiding--indeed, by which they cannot abide (they don't have eighteen billion dollars, now do they?)--and which would be illegal even if they could carry through their promises. Loosely speaking, the terms: Scammer gives Baiter $80, Baiter gives Scammer $18000, Scammer gives Baiter $millions.

Consequently, the doctrine of clean hands (Link, Link) would tend to preclude successful legal action by the scammers. No court would enforce the contract, and trying to get the original $80 back would expose the scammer to far more costs and probably criminal prosecution.

Um, no. Entrapment

A) only applies to agents of the government
B) only applies if the person wasn't inclined to commit the act anyway.

Aside from that, in an ironic twist, they can actually use the defense used by most torrent sites use: they're not hosting the content so they're not directly condoning the copying.

Steal - to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
I guess we should also crack down on all those bad thieves making off with Baseball bases.

Until the Lawyers change their definition of "Steal", then you're still going to be wrong.

STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.

What we're looking at here is "Copyright Violation"

> How many laws on the books in 1904, compared to now? Were we freer then,
> or are we freer now?

Depends on who "we" are. Ask a black person, or a woman, how "free" she would have been in 1904. Even white males didn't have all the freedoms we now take for granted; until the founding of the ACLU in 1920, nobody was willing to bring legal challenges against Bill-of-Rights violations by the government, and so a variety of ridiculously unconstitutional laws stood unchallenged. (If you follow the link, note the cases from 1931, 1937, 1938, and 1941. Consider how "free" we were under the laws that were struck down by these cases.)

I'll happily agree that the boundaries of our freedom have shifted since 1904 (as has the US' population density). But whether they have, overall, expanded or decreased is very much open to debate.

(The following statement with attachments was issued by Texas freshman Congressman Steve Stockman regarding a mysterious fax message his office received just as a bomb exploded at an Oklahoma City federal building. Also attached is a memorandum Stockman sent to Attorney General Janet Reno a month before the bombing inquiring about possible planned raids on "citizen's militias." In the memo, Stockman questioned the advisability and legality of the possible planned raids, suggesting that "a bloody fiasco like Waco" could result. A final attachment consists of a statement by an FBI spokesman that the Congressman's office acted properly in their handling of the fax.)

• late 30's or early 40's (Kaczynski was 53 when arrested);
  
• white male, 5'10"-6' tall, 165 pounds, with reddish-blond hair, a thin mustache and a ruddy complexion (Kaczynski is a white male, 5'8", weighed 143 when arrested, with brown hair, bearded and pale skin);
  
• a blue collar worker with a high school degree (Kaczynski hadn't had a job in the last 25 years and has a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Michigan in addition to being a graduate of Harvard University);
  
• a meticulously organized person, reclusive and having problems dealing with women (Kaczynski was a recluse who apparently did not deal with women at all, and he was slovenly and unkempt).
  

No one said he didn't commit a crime. The point is that the possible punishment seems grossly out of proportion to the crime committed; hence the query about the Eighth Amendment.

Anyway, it seems like giving the kid a good stint of community service would benefit everyone a whole lot more than throwing him in the slammer for a year, don't you think? After all, what damage was done? The free availability of some crappy recording isn't going to stop too many people from going to the theatre or buying the DVD.

Mod the parent down as -1,Wrong

Non-exempt employees get overtime pay, and are paid by the hour. look for yourself

Exempt do not (usually) get overtime pay. here

Mod the parent down as -1,Wrong

Non-exempt employees get overtime pay, and are paid by the hour. look for yourself

Exempt do not (usually) get overtime pay. here

I am sure there are pr0n websites with backend databases more relieable [sic] than what the government is using.

Now we understand why John Ashcroft is so hot to shut down those porn sites.

It's not just that he hates porn, he wants to seize their databases!

(After all, under civil forfeiture provisions, you don't even have to get a conviction. Some real horror stories here: click this link to learn about the couple who lost a house and two cars on the mere allegation that they stole some inexpensive clothes.)

This flies in the face of established contract law (other than allegations of procedural unconscionability). This is, however, dicta, since the judge dismissed for failure to state a claim, and did not rule on the merits of the contract claim. Even if he did, this case is not precedent, since it is not an appellate court, just a dumb trial judge editorializing.

The big problem is that the suit was poorly pleaded anyway. The dumb lawyer didn't allege a prima facie case for breach (didn't ask for contract damages), so there is no way the plaintiff could prevail on a contract cause of action. Malpractice! Jesus, I looked at the /. article, without even RTFA, and instantly thought "breach." Dumbass attorney.

Also, the judge suggests that a privacy policy is not actually part of the contract for air travel anyway, just an FYI, as in "hey, FWIW, this is our policy."

IAAL, but not your lawyer. This is not legal advice, and should not be construed as such. This is merely layman bullshit. Do not rely on it. Only a retarded baboon would do that.

While the insane legal interpretation may be that you admit the case had merit, that is rarely the case. This is why McDonalds coffee cups now have a printed warning that the contents may be hot. Duh.

It's nothing short of amazing that the case everyone mentions to invoke the image of meritless cases is possibly one of the most just cases in the last 20 years. Stella Liebeck was injured by 180+ degree coffee (over 40 degrees over the temperature which, if you set your water heater to, you are endangering your family's health.) It was an injury which McDonald's negligence had inflicted upon at least 700 people in the preceeding 10 years[see p5 in link], counting only the ones who filed suit, not the probably 10x more who were injured and took no legal action.

Also, Ms Liebeck was initially seeking the exorbinant sum of - wait for it - 20,000 - as compensation for the 8 days of hospitalization and skin grafts she underwent.

Finally, as far as admitting the case had merit, McDonalds never did - they fought, lost initially and finally entered into a secret agreement with the plantiff.