Slashdot Mirror

It take two people to use a tuning fork? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuning_fork#Radar_gun_calibration
Or does the nice officer even have to bother with that? http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/6245B0AB-9FC3-4F9B-81A1F43A63211870/104/308/214/QNA/

I am of course about to speculate, but I do believe that there is no national standard for calibration paperwork, and its not too hard to imagine that some locales simply use a log book written by the nice officer.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, and you mean ADJUSTING the unit calibration rather than CHECKING calibration. That doesn't fit the context at all though.

http://www.nolo.com/resource.cfm/catID/00E99E7C-76B3-406F-AE703233C2157E4E/310/101/

The [1] rejection of an offer to buy or sell that [2] makes a different offer during the course of negotiations, [3] changing the terms in some way.

The [1] rejection of an offer to buy or sell that [2] makes a different offer during the course of negotiations, [3] changing the terms in some way.

The US constitution prohibits people from being prosecuted for actions that were legal at the time, but have subsequently become illegal - you couldn't be charged with selling alcohol prior to prohibition. However the government has always held the right to not prosecute people under either a repealed/updated/active law.

I'm not sure how this law could grant the telco's immunity anyway - you can't legislate away the 4th amendment. The law can be construed to prohibit criminal prosecution (the government asking for an illegal act then prosecuting under it would be entrapment anyway), but I don't see how they can prohibit civil prosecution.

My big hope is that the 60' court case codifying the 'national security' defense comes back to bite the Shrub. In that case, which the AG is parading around, the govt refused to be sued for a plane crash - claiming that the crash report reveled information about classified electronics etc .... - when the report was de-classified later, the only secret was that the Air Force hadn't done proper maintenance on the plane. The whole defense was a fraud. To me that seems to be an important reason to not accept the defense without an in camera review of the reasoning and supporting documentation.

Exclusive licenses are contractually (therefore legally) protected.

Would the shareholders really allow that though. What you have with this idea, is that a single person could hold almost all the assets of a company. If you have a music/movie/tv production company, then one person would hold all the assets. You could never really ensure against that person leaving the company with all your copyrights. They could extort a lot of money out of the company by threatening to leave, and bring all the copyrights to some other competitor.

Companies make money on exclusively licensed ideas all the time. Also, guaranteeing that the idea is not also sold to a competitor is the whole idea behind an exclusive license.

The shareholders (stakeholders, in general) will allow it as long as the company makes money on the idea, and its interests are properly protected by the agreement.

Nolo clears things up nicely about self incrimination. While I don't know the accused or support his alleged crime, I do think that the judge is correct in his statement. Kudos to the judge! If the prosecution wishes to discover the contents of an encrypted file then they actually need to jump through the hoops of an investigation. Hell, getting a warrant and just installing a camera over his keyboard would sooner or later reveal the passphrase wouldn't it?

Libel, an untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community.

Strangely enough, you could argue that it may be (FYI, this is the cited precedent for most anti-tax situations). If you made a purchase for which sales tax would be applicable within your home state, and sales tax isn't included in the cost, then you may be responsible for declaring the purchase to the state and paying the tax accordingly.

This all assumes that you actually paid for that porn in the first place, though.

Gee, that's the exact opposite of every single definition of "defamation" available to check online.

This isn't legal advice, but while in a strict dictionary sense "defamation" might be anything said that hurts a reputation, truth is an affirmative defense. The articles linked above state that no action is called for and no damages occur when someone states a truth. The person whose reputation is tarnished by the truth earned that reputation. Speaking or printing the truth therefore does no damage to the rightful reputation. That seems to this non-attorney to mean you can call the speech or publication by any name you want, but you're not going to get money by suing someone for telling the truth.

Again, I am not a lawyer, but grade-school Social Studies teachers in the U.S. teach their students about John Peter Zenger and the case of New York v. Zenger. That case set forth truth as a defense for slander and libel in the common law of the North American colonies of England.

BTW, where are "defamiation" and "plaese" on any of the above sites? Do I need the latest edition of Black's? I can't find those definitions at all, oh careful and detail-oriented A. Coward. Without resolving those two issues, I'm having trouble following your carefully stated premise and well-reasoned arguments to your no doubt brilliant conclusion.

First, thanks for continuing the dialog. As it turns out, we have the same understanding of a right. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights )

However, I was just all wet about fair use. ( http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Copyright/faq. html http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Copyright/prin ciples.html http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/C3E49F67- 1AA3-4293-9312FE5C119B5806/ )

Please check out the links above and you'll see an on-going problem, IMO. We (whether it's you and I or others) are going to shear on syntax and definition forever w.r.t. fair use because of the nature of the following in law: entitlement, privilege and exception.

Here's what I knew - fair use curtails the rights of the copyright holder. Here's what I knew - rights not specifically granted to an individual (as opposed to constitutional law) may be interpreted by the courts.

Here's what else I knew - over the years, fair use has become accepted and reasonably understood - based on that word, reasonable.

I argued with you because I thought you were wrong w.r.t. fair use - and you were (or, may be), but not for the reasons I'd thought. If I rip a song from a CD to iTunes to iPod for my exclusive use, it's legal. But fair use? Whoa! Here's something that I never RTFA on, but am surprised to discover at this late point:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Fair use isn't just a defense - as I understand you to say. Neither is it a right (anymore) but neither is it merely an exception. It's a nice and gray privilege, granted a codified state in the US Copyright Office - and an interesting only-almost curtailment of the rights of the copyright holder.

I couldn't be right for the same reason that what I took as your narrow argument couldn't be right - fair use now has a mantle of codification outside of previously-understood reasonable. IOW, we can both be right (and are) or wrong (and are) - fair use as presently formulated is nothing more than a new playing field for the litigants. It's so whacked, both sides can posture that they have the moral right on their side, and their attorneys can assure them this is so with a straight face.

Attorneys can - and probably are - continuing the argument you and I have had albeit in a more edified form in juries across the land - with the mantle of codification allowing them to do so with a straight face.

Where court decisions set the reasonableness of fair use before, this won't and can't count now as before. The codification of fair use, in its present form, is simply fucked.

Most people don't realize this - I sure didn't. I only wish we'd had time to have this debate when the subject was still topical and front-page on slashdot. I wish everyone at slashdot could learn what I've learned. I don't know how to submit this as an article (not because I can't read the FAQ) but because I don't know how to make this an article.

I don't know whether to be depressed or pissed off. I wish I'd paid more attention to this years ago, instead of simply assuming.

Question for a lawyer: Does Microsoft's deliberate allowance of piracy create a case of estoppel?

Estoppel by silence: "A type of estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when she had both the duty and the opportunity to speak up earlier..."

Since Microsoft allows piracy, can the company lose its copyright?

Microsoft definitely encourages piracy, in my opinion. For years, local computer stores carried to office suite alternatives: Legal Microsoft Office, and pirated Microsoft Office for $50. Word Perfect and Lotus could not compete. I'm not sure what local computer stores are doing now.

I could give other examples.

Question for a lawyer: Does Microsoft's deliberate allowance of piracy create a case of estoppel?

Since Microsoft allows piracy, can the company lose its copyright?

Microsoft definitely encourages piracy, in my opinion. For years, local computer stores carried to office suite alternatives: Legal Microsoft Office, and pirated Microsoft Office for $50. Word Perfect and Lotus could not compete.

I'm not sure what local computer stores are doing now.

We can't have the whole story on the appeal. In CA apparently, he can appeal to superior court for a new trial. Random info off the web. After a verdict there, I bet the same appellate procedures that apply to any trial would apply to his, i.e., he could appeal to the CA Supreme Court, and if he's really lucky, it could go all the way to the US Supreme Court. I should say though, I have no actual knowledge of CA law.

And while we are clarifying...
One of the statements attributed to OU reads
Students who do want to use P2P for legal purposes have to call their IT department and "provide detailed information about the software you wish to use and your purposes for using it."
IANAL, but I have had occasion to research the subject for my role as Tech Support for an ISP, and
Nolo is of the opinion that
(page 2)
Under the DMCA, to avoid liability the ISP must:

* not obtain financial benefit from the infringement
* not have actual knowledge or awareness of facts indicating infringing transmissions
* upon learning of an infringing transmission, act quickly to remove or disable access to the
infringing transmission, and
* implement a policy of terminating the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers

If the above is true, OU seem to be running the risk of leaving themselves liable.

OK, so we are violating an unknown subset of your patents. Fair enough. It's possible you are right. If, however, you want to be able to enforce those patents later, you'll need to com e forward right away. Also, you might be needing to prove you didn't wait too long already.

You can't watch a contractor put a new roof on your home and then only afterwards inform him he's at the wrong house. Or, more specifically, you can, but you are paying for a new roof. That's how it works.

If Microsoft intentionally waited until these patents were entrenched and difficult to remove before they acted for the purposes of maximizing their own legal position, then mightn't the doctrine of Estoppel by Silence come into play? Just wondering. I'm no lawyer (though I have been arrested enough times to pass the bar, I think!), but what they are doing seems like it might not be, you know, legal and stuff?

Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/

Theyre'd be less confusion in these discussions if people read up on IP law, and if you don't want to buy the books, most libraries have copies. Doesn't mean one will not need a lawyer in some cases, but at least you all will be ahead in the discussions.

http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/
http://www.nolo.com/
http://www.sba.gov/smallbusinessplanner/index.html

Nolo. No contest. They have quite a bit of free information and you can buy their eBooks in DRM-free .pdf format in addition to the usual dead trees versions.

BTW, you almost certainly want to go LLC.

Yes I have. And after doing my own research, I'd still rather incorporate then be a sole proprietor.

And you obviously have no idea what a "close corporation" is. Here's a link: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/8E1B6E0E-A D70-4EFF-A3BF3EF03E96D60A/alpha/C/

"Piercing the Corporate Veil" is not as easy as you imply. Don't mix your personal and business funds and treat your business like a business and not your "alter ego" and the person suing you won't be able to get to you personally.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/corporat e_veil.html

I think you are the one with a poor grasp of English. Here's the definition of "assault" from a dictionary:

That's nice. Unfortunately for you they don't give a fuck about your dictionary in court. Assault has a legal definition. You have just proved that you are not qualified to participate in this discussion.

IANAL also.

Nolo press guides have sections on jury instructions.

http://search.nolo.com/query.html?qt=jury+instruct ions&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=search&col=b2sto re

I'm not saying a tax patent doesn't serve the inventor's purpose; I'm saying that if the law is changed it *cannot* serve the inventor's (or anybody's) purpose and therefore it is no longer an invention.

from nolo.com:

An invention is nonobvious if it would be viewed as an unexpected or surprising development by someone skilled in the technology of the particular field

Note that it needs to be unexpected to someone who knows something about the subject... just because no one has previously thought of something doesn't mean that it would be surprising once they did think about it. And that clause has (never?) been applied as written.

But back to "useful" ... who determines usefulness? me? you? the patent office? Since (still AFAIK) the purpose or use of the patent is not part of the patent, a change in the law that renders it useless in the original (unwritten!) purpose doesn't mean that it *might* not have some other purpose. Therefore, once granted it would be pretty dangerous to start invalidating patents where someone could argue that it's no longer useful. Beyond that, who would argue that it's no longer useful? probably just people who've found a new use for the patent...hehe.

Since 1998 according to this article

The HTML entity for the symbol is , while the HTML entity for ® is ®. On a Microsoft Windows computer with American keyboard layout, alt+0153 types , while alt+0174 makes ®. On Macintosh computers, opt+2 for and opt+r for ®, and their Unicode encodings are 2122 in hexadecimal/8482 in decimal for and 00AE in hexadecimal/174 in decimal for ®.

Charming and amusing paragraph. This certainly is the encyclopedia made by Slashdot.

On Feb. 22, 1983, by refusing to grant certiorari, the Supreme Court let stand a decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that invalidated the trademark registration of the term "MONOPOLY" for Parker Brothers' ever-popular real estate board game. The 9th Circuit declared that the term "MONOPOLY" had become generic, i.e. had become a common descriptive name for that type of board game and thus no longer afforded trademark rights to Parker Brothers, the owner of the "MONOPOLY" trademark registration. ...

http://www.nolo.com/resource.cfm/catID/00E99E7C-76 B3-406F-AE703233C2157E4E/310/101/

Stuff that _I_ upload? But _I_ am not doing anything, it's _them_ downloading stuff they know they shouldn't download.

People that _I_ shoot? But _I_ didn't do anything, it's the _bullet_ that hurts them.

Pulling the trigger is actively deciding to kill someone. Making copyrighted content available on P2P is simply letting people know what you have. If no one else wants anything, nothing is ever going to be downloaded. It's the other person's decision....not yours.

Making copyrighted content available on P2P is simply letting people know what you have. If no one else wants anything, nothing is ever going to be downloaded. It's the other person's decision....not yours.

(In point of fact, you are republishing copyrighted material when your computer sends it over in packets, so you are *also* directly breaking the law yourself.)

If you want an apt analogy, here goes:

Stuff that _I_ sell? But _I'm_ not doing anything; it's _them_ bringing the contraband to the register and _my employee_ that hands it to them! It's their choice to pick the items off of the shelf!!
---

BTW, amusingly, the downloaders make the reverse argument: "Stuff that _I'm_ downloading? _I'm_ not doing anything! I'm just making a copy of what's already being published on the web!"
---

None of this has any bearing on the morality of copyright laws. If you think (as I do) that copyright laws in their current form are a bad thing, then petition to have them changed. But don't pretend that P2P sharing of copyrighted material is somehow "white" or "gray": legally, it's "black."

Buying a Nolo book on legal protection is definitely well worth the $30-$50 investment, and the knowledge gained will carry over to any new businesses you might decide to start. Don't even consider paying a huge chunk of hard-earned money for a domain name without at least understanding the basics of legal rights that do (and don't) convey with it.

Get this book: http://www.nolo.com/product.cfm/ObjectID/139AEDE9- 69A0-4810-A7A87D2AD5422664/catid/00E99E7C-76B3-406 F-AE703233C2157E4E/310/101/

It has everything you want to know and alot more.

You are incorrect. You cannot trademark the sans-serif font (I believe that would be copywritten by the font foundry), but you can definitely trademark a particular word, written in a particular font. It's called a "Typed Drawing" in USPTOese.

Apple has half a dozen different trademarks on the "iPod" name, for various uses, but the 'Typed Drawing' trademark, as opposed to the trademark just on the word itself (the "standard character mark"), is 78089144. Here is a link, although I'm not sure if it will work. If it doesn't, you can also just search the USPTO's site for the trademark number.

And in looking at the iUpload's logo again, even if this weren't the case they might still be infringing, since when you look at their logo, becase of the font difference, "iPod" is readable almost as a distinct word from the rest of the letters; even if they just changed the font I think they'd still run into Apple's standard character mark.

At the end of the day, you also have to consider how much money Apple has, and how much cash they could burn protecting their trademarks. They've done it before -- with the vague iMac lookalikes a few years back -- and eventually won. So even if their case was lacking in merit, they could probably bankrupt a small firm through aggressive legal action (although in this case I think they'd have more than enough grounds).

(As for colors, you can trademark them also. Kodak, for example, has a trademark on a very distinct shade of yellow, when used in particular contexts. More on trade dress at Nolo.com.)

There is. One requirement of a patent is that it be non-obvious.

I'm sorry, that's incorrect.

The current administration has secretly authorized the NSA to break the law by warrantlessly monitoring all of us [Americans] that are making extraterritorial phone calls .

If conducting international business or having a chat with friends & family outside the country (perhaps Canada or Mexico) constitutes seditious behavior worthy of summary warrantless monitoring, then count a very great number of Americans under suspicion. A fishing expedition of the sort that the 4th Amendment was meant to prevent.

EPIC, EFF and other Slashdot faves take umbrage to this unconstitutional behavior by the executive administration of the US government, as do I.

Well, Heller is learning the modern lesson about corporations: if you cross them, they will slap (SLAPP?) you down HARD. The harder you cross them, the harder they will slap you down. In this case, crossing a highly Republican corporation in a politically-charged topic, the victim is facing THREE FELONIES.

Of course, if it were me, I'd go to prison with a big, shit-eating grin on my face. The corporations are trying to Rule the Earth, and so this is a war between normal citizens and the elite. In war, people get hurt; I accept that. Heller may be a necessary sacrifice. He can eat at my dinner table anytime, and he can always ask me for a job when he gets out of prison. I hope there are many citizens who feel the same way and will help him when he needs it.

I know how the rules are implemented, I'm just saying what I think makes sense. Seriously, how can you call an idea original if multiple people come up with the same thing on their own, with no knowledge of each other?

Note from the link that An invention is nonobvious if it would be viewed as an unexpected or surprising development by someone skilled in the technology of the particular field. Note that it's not nonobvious to joe-six-pack, but to someone who is knowledgeable in the field. Are we really to believe that the poor people down at the USTPO are experts in every field? Almost by definition, even if you start by hiring 'skilled' people, they lose their 'skilled' status as soon as they leave the field (due to changes in the field) to work the patent desk, and you end up with non-skilled people reviewing for obviousness.

The patent system as designed is set up to fail...it can end nowhere other than where we are today.

*some suggest independant review boards, but that smells like the old-boys club to me... i.e:the system will just be broken for some peope, not everyone. Perhaps patent review would be like jury-duty for engineers.... :)

Working for yourself by Stephen Fishman is an excellent resource on this topic.
It presents the facts clearly and offers up solutions for improving your tax situation.
It answers many questions like business form (LLC/S-Corp/C-Corp), what is and isn't deductible, proper reporting and accounting, tax benefits like health savings accounts, etc, etc.

Small Business Association

and someone mentioned NOLO which has a lot of articles (besides the publication mentioned) on legal stuff...

Good to get a sense of this stuff before seeing the accountant...

e.

There's always the doctrine of exigent circumstances.

Is there any gray area, any balance that can be struck between privacy and the desire of those charged with the protection of the United States to protect it, and indeed what I would regard a very important need to protect it from catastrophic harm?

This is the whole point, no more and no less, of the search warrant. Note that the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause, and the intervention of a judge (so the Executive Branch can't unilaterally put people on Double Secret Probation). As a side note, one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is exigent circumstances -- the link calls it the Emergency Exception.

If the collection of "human intelligence" is appropriate overseas, why is the same collection not appropriate in the context of people planning the same type of attacks against the US or its interests, but who are operating within our own borders?

Because we recognize a right of privacy to exist for our citizens, but not citizens of other countries.

"without copying the recipe, which as discussed above is illegal."

It's only illegal to produce a Coke clone if you stole the reciepe from Coke. Doing a chemical analysis on the drink and producing a clone is perfectly acceptable. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Read here for more info...
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/90781CA8- 0ECE-4E38-BF9E29F7A6DA5830/catID/1FBE2D95-203C-4D3 8-90A2A9A60C6FD618/310/119/FAQ/#D6A193A4-C763-46DB -B175A6514AEB0D71

Perhaps you should google first.

Georgia, Delaware, and Tennessee have small claims limits of $15k, according to the above website. (2 counties in TN have a limit of $25k!)

Perhaps the above poster is just an idiot and didn't try to collect on his claims. Depending on the state, you can get somewhat aggressive at collecting small claims, and you may even get interest on an unpaid claim!

Disclaimer: IANAL, I just looked this information up when I had to take someone to small claims court a few years back.

Laws that don't require "mens rea" -- that is, laws that punish people who may be morally innocent -- are called "strict liability laws." The usual justification for a strict liability law is that the social benefits of stringent enforcement outweigh the harm of punishing a person who may be morally blameless. Examples of strict liability laws include:

        * "Statutory rape" laws, which in some states make it illegal to have sexual intercourse with a minor, even if the defendant honestly and reasonably believed that the sexual partner was old enough to consent legally to sexual intercourse.

Nolo Press has a lot of good reference books and articles on this subject. http://www.nolo.com/

Uhm, have you ever heard of contract *law*? The only reason that contracts can be enforced is because law exists to enforce them. I would have thought that contract law being law would have been self-evident, but I guess that's not safe to assume on slashdot. See: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/topics/contracts .html

There is also specific state laws concerning NDAs and trade secrets, see:

http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/bar_journal/bppja n02.html
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/2ECF62E6- B334-4E83-9A94FA20A3FAFD38/catID/1FBE2D95-203C-4D3 8-90A2A9A60C6FD618/310/119/ART/

But hey, if want to believe that violating things that exist in the law books isn't illegal, go ahead.

In any case, I'd question the validity of an NDA which required somebody to keep secret a piece of information contrary to a large public good.

It's a good thing that you're not a judge nor lawyer then, because you can't violate an NDA just because you think it's not doing the public good. "Hey, I believe that keeping this technique for making super cheap LCD screens is against the public good, I'll just reveal it!"

For example, if I found out under an NDA that my employer was putting out a product that was killing people, and keeping it quiet, I'd be ethically bound to blow the whistle.

So Cisco is killing people? What's your point?

Certainly an NDA that forces you to break the law (such as by concealing knowledge of a crime) would be void.

What law is the NDA in question forcing the person to violate?

However, I would feel justified in doing so if I had clear evidence that an employer was committing a crime, or harming people and not doing something about it.

So do you actually have any reason to believe that Cisco/ISS are comitting a crime, or is that just 100% wild, rampant speculation?

Gee, I could use my mod points to mod parent down, or respond. Tough choice. http://www.nolo.com/resource.cfm/catID/CF015A63-6B 69-4EED-A34B6F4035C8BE0E/104/263/ (Link to book on how to beat ticket. See also http://freedomlaw.com./ ) Driving is a privilege. What happens in court involves your rights. There is also a right to travel, although it not absolute. A little study can arm you against the system. Drown them in paperwork with discovery requests. Demand a jury trial. I happen to live in a state where the right to trial by jury - for anything - is in the state constitution. (Slight overstatement for nonlawyers.) Ask nicely that your case be dismissed, and if not spend an hour politely asking the cop questions on the stand. If 8 people a day do this, the system grinds to a halt. Pretty soon they start dismissing your cases when they see you coming. Think of it as a seminar in due process. Have fun, bring coffee and donuts. Not to be construed as legal advice until your check clears.

I have a few speeding tickets on my record. (Four to be exact.) I like to go fast. I was really mad when I got my last ticket, and thought that there must be a way out of my ticket.

After some research I discovered NOLO. They provide digestible legal information on a variety of topics. The name of the appropriate book is "Beat Your Ticket: Go to Court & Win!" There is also a California version available.

Needless to say, NOLO has really helped me out. The books are also conveniently available as pdf documents.

I have a few speeding tickets on my record. (Four to be exact.) I like to go fast. I was really mad when I got my last ticket, and thought that there must be a way out of my ticket.

After some research I discovered NOLO. They provide digestible legal information on a variety of topics. The name of the appropriate book is "Beat Your Ticket: Go to Court & Win!" There is also a California version available.

Needless to say, NOLO has really helped me out. The books are also conveniently available as pdf documents.

I have a few speeding tickets on my record. (Four to be exact.) I like to go fast. I was really mad when I got my last ticket, and thought that there must be a way out of my ticket.

After some research I discovered NOLO. They provide digestible legal information on a variety of topics. The name of the appropriate book is "Beat Your Ticket: Go to Court & Win!" There is also a California version available.

Needless to say, NOLO has really helped me out. The books are also conveniently available as pdf documents.

Discussions like this would be less confusing if people referred to the documents in question as the Creative Commons Licenses. That's what they are: Licenses.

The breakdown runs like so:

• Copyright law assigns certain rights to the creator of a work.
• The CCLs explain how the creator wants to use those rights.

Licenses are important because we need some kind of legal document to fill the gap between, "no one is allowed to use this work but me," and "I hereby give up my rights to this work entirely." Licenses more or less boil down to, "I'm definitely holding onto the right to sue people, I'm just not going to sue you."

Usually, copyright holders hand out licenses to use the work in exchange for money. The document that lays out the exact details of that exchange is called a 'contract' because each party hands something over to the other.. one side supplies a big-bag-o-cash, the other supplies a license. Licenses can exist outside of a contract, though. As a copyright holder, I can exercise my rights any way I darn well please, and if I decide not to sue people who use my work, that's my decision.

Now, if I stand up and make a public declaration that I will not sue anyone who uses my work while wearing a green bowtie on a rainy Tuesday in Berlin, the courts will treat that statement as a binding license. If I try to sue somebody who can prove that they were wearing a green bowtie on a rainy Tuesday in Berlin, I'm gonna lose. If the courts ruled any other way, it would be way too easy for IP owners to trap people.

Thing is, writing a good IP license is tricky. It's generally the kind of thing you pay an IP lawyer a whole lot of money to do. The CCLs are just generic, check-the-appropriate-box licenses that have been written by people who know what they're talking about. Functionally, they're no different from the DIY legal kits you can get from www.nolo.com or the standard fill-in-the-blank contracts you'll find in any business.

The important thing the CCLs do is create nice, clean, well-defined boundaries between various kinds of IP use. As a creator, I can state cleanly and clearly whether I want to allow commercial or noncommercial use, attributed or unattributed use, and whether I do or don't want to allow other people to create derivative works.

And that's important, because if the license doesn't exist, or isn't written out clearly, the person who ultimately controls the rights will be the one with the most expensive IP lawyer.

I have no objection to Google Print. I'd be happy to see them make Fair Use of copyrighted works. I agree with you, though, that they should use Gutenberg editions of things like The Canterbury Tales.