Slashdot Mirror

There is (Westlaw too). The problem is what to search for, considering the complexity of trials. Also, electronic filing is available in most jurisdictions these days, but is not mandatory, nor should it be. Really, this just looks like a case of the defense not doing their homework and the prosecution being dishonest.

Or at least, not "the" seminal work on copyright; that would have to be Nimmer on Copyright (http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/product/10441.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melville_Nimmer (work carried on by his son, David) ...), cited routinely by courts, including the Supreme Court.

Just so you know, that's not really how law school text books are laid out, with how-to's, winning strategies and such. Instead they're filled with case law as illustrative examples of legal principles.

Perhaps someday, David Nimmer will include a reference to SCO v. IBM in a revision of his father's* Nimmer on Copyright , but only insofar as it deals with copyrights. The only thing that would be of interest is SCO's novel theory of derivative rights, but it's such a bizarre theory that I doubt it would rate more than a footnote.

*The late Melville Bernard Nimmer.

is here

300 grand?? how??

But this guy was using a Times account to order outside services from LexisNexis and those guys ain't cheap. I suspect the victims will also be able to quantify how much it took to repair their system. However, I hope they're not counting the cost of closing the security holes since Lamo only exploited the holes -- he didn't make them.

This has nothing to do with the NY Times. All of the Times' articles in their database are copyrighted; you can't reproduce them without consent.

This bill is intended to protect compilations of non-copyrightable material such as, oh say, court opinions and statutes, like Westlaw and LexisNexis.

Interestingly enough, Thompson-West--though they can't copyright the opinions themselves--claims copyright on the page numbers of their bound volumes of the Federal Reporter, Federal Supplement, and other series of publications which all contain court opinions from various jurisdictions (they're typically the only place in which hard copies of opinions are actually published), thus stopping competitors from digitizing these books (with internal, citable page numbers in them) and creating their own databases. See Who owns the Law?

see this link
http://web.lexis.com/xchange/ccsubs/cc_prods.asp

They offer pay by credit card, and even allow you to have unlimited access to their service within a time period. (though not to everything it seems)

I don't think you have to be a fully accredited lawyer to get access to their system. You just have to pay them.

Name Removal Forms:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/privacy/data/remov al.asp
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lncc/about/removal_copy( 1).html

Obtain a copy of info:
https://web.lexis.com/consumeraccess2.0/consumerac cess.asp

1. Protected against the government: First, practically all of the individual rights conferred by the Constitution upon individuals protect only against government action. They do not protect a person against acts by other private individuals. (Example: Suppose P is a woman who's two months pregnant, and none of the private hospitals in her state will perform an abortion. P's substantive due process right to an abortion has not been violated, because the government has not interfered with that right.)

There is a single exception, having to do with the Thirteenth Amendment, which in the 1960's was siezed upon as the sole exception and - with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - forms the basis for civil rights lawsuits against private individuals and corporations.

However, I do believe that telcos that sell or otherwise share calling information does violate privacy and that we'll soon see this FCC ruling quashed. I certainly hope so anyway.

I wasn't trolling, I'm just your average opinionated jackass. :)

> I did a Lexus-Nexus search.

No, I'll bet you did a Lexis search, you moron. Get the name of the company right. Lexus is a car, Lexis is a legal service.
LexisNexis is the company.

> I did a Lexus-Nexus search.

No, I'll bet you did a Lexis search, you moron. Get the name of the company right. Lexus is a car, Lexis is a legal service.
LexisNexis is the company.

Here is the pricing schedule for Lexis-Nexis

This opens a particularly nasty can of worms. Let's say I have a computer, and for whatever reason a law enforcement agency is told that my computer may have something they want. They could storm into my home and take my personal posessions, and there is nothing I could do about it, since they have not viewed the data yet. I would have no right to ask what they needed the equipment for, or why, or when I would get the hardware back.

But they can do that. Seizing evidence is a part of any criminal investigation, and they can hold it until the investigation is complete (although I think they have to get court permission for more than a certain length of time). Seizing electronic evidence is a tricky business anyway.

And as this page states, "A warrant is usually required before a search or seizure takes place, unless there are 'exigent circumstances'"... in fact "there is no requirement in the Fourth Amendment that a warrantless search or seizure take place only upon probable cause", just reasonable suspicion. In this case, they had plenty of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and (critically) exigent circumstances.

You should look at Lexis/Nexis. They are most well known for their legal search and citation tools which use a custom indexing format to number and cite legal documents. IANAL, but from what I understand, Lexis/Nexis is the de facto standard for legal citations and that they used to charge a bloody fortune for access (it appears that their prices have dropped recently, though). (Legal folks; any comments?)

From what I understand, they've keep a stranglehold on the industry and have quickly killed off all competitors, even though logic would suggest that the US government should provide the same service for free ("What, I have to pay a 3rd party to search documents made by the US courts?!?")

Evidence obtained illegally is inadmissable in a court of law whether or not it was obtained by the police.

Right. It's called 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree', or more properly, The Exclusionary Rule. But, IIRC, that's only for use in a criminal trial.

Also, it's not a statutory rule; rather it is judge-made, even though there are a series of Supreme Court decisions affirming it.

Info link on the Exclusionary rule, it's standing, and it's exceptions.

Well,

let us look at it this way. I use Lexis.com all the time. It did not produce any of its content- the content there comes from state houses, law books and newspapers. It is a pay site (boy howdy is it) but I am happy to pay this because hundreds of people worked to construct the database- assembling the data and creating its indexing and search functions, which are better than Google even for first time accuracy.

AltaVista has a right to protect the work that it put into a unique indexing system and a unique set of research that cannot be replicated. I find it ironic that it is AltaVista doing this and not one of the better search engines, because the premier services would have a better case and a better chance of winning a legal battle for the patents.

I don't think patenting is the best way to protect this work, but there isn't currently a better way.

With apologies to Blair et al, there is a third option regarding "Internet vetting." I will preface this by saying that I agree with the author that there should be some kind of system to rate and interpret information. Although the raters would have some kind of control, this kind of system would allow for people who are not independent experts to get first time information from the Internet, rather than just confirming things read in far more exclusive venues of knowledge.

Ok, here is the third alternative between government and corporate control:

Popular control.

The reason we have government and corporations fighting over the domination of the Internet is most easily illustrated by imagining two lion prides fighting over a water hole while antelopes and zebras die of thirst. Although everyone, including the lions, would benefit from free access to the water for the zebras, only the lions are strong enough to wage the war.

In the case of information on the Internet, the entire system is organized towards marketing; the most valuable information, such as that on Lexis, is for pay. But, as many slashdotters are aware, freedom of information would encourage innovation.

How do we do it?

Michael Albert and others have outlined models of participatory economics (parecon) which rightly puts a high premium on knowledge, and the organization of knowledge, as something which is of very high value and is very political.

It also requires that experts abandon intellectual property and the exclusive rights accorded thereby, instead making propsperity dependent on free and easily accessible information for all people.

The model of educated, democratic input works on a small or a large scale, in capitalist or socialist economic systems, or as an economic system.

Sorry for the overly theoretical response, but I do not know enough about indexing, databases, or networks to be technical on this issue.