How is this different from laws we have in the US where we require people in public protests to be "unmasked"? Example: The KKK used to do their marches in the full hoods and robes. states started passing laws requiring their faces to be revealed during their marches in order to "shame them" into not doing it. Those laws were ruled constitutional because their right to speak is impinged in any way shape or form.
I'm failing to see how this is different. A right to speak is not the same as a right to speak anonymously.
all such a rule would do is 1) force small inventors out of the patent field due to increased costs, and 2) SLAM the USPTO with applications which are virtually identical but have different claims instead of 20 claims in one patent, you'd have 20 patents, each with one claim.
Interestingly enough (from the wiki article on reboot)
"On June 1, 2008, it was announced that there will be a trilogy of ReBoot films coming to theaters. Jon Cooksey was assigned to write the script for the first film, but as of August 2008, he was dropped due to Rainmaker deciding to take a different direction with the story. At this time, it is unknown who will replace him.[10] The films are expected to follow a different story from the comic, but the overall plan is to continue the methodology in terms of engaging the fans.[11]
The movie is currently listed as in development on the IMDB website. It is currently listed for release in 2010.
A teaser trailer for the film was released on October 5, on Rainmaker's official site."
The current production company that owns the rights to "ReBoot" bought out Mainframe Inc. (creator of ReBoot) explicitly to get the rights to the show. Although the current crop of movies may be closer to duke nukem forever than is desirable.
alternately you could use a better damages analogy and say "can you imagine if I stole 7 pieces of jerky, broke it into bits and sold all those bits to several million people at a price of $1.00 per person"
See, the problem with your thinking is she's not being sued for downloading anything. She is being sued for uploading it to other people. HUGE difference.
If you find evidence of people being tortured the cops DON'T have to go back and get a new warrant. plain sight rule. If the Cops were there legally (IE searching for marijuana with a warrant) and they see evidence of an unrelated crime while they are searching within the scope of the warrant they can seize it for prosecution.
Examples: Searching for weed in a file cabinet, stumble across credit card fraud documents. OK to seize. Searching for dead body in a murder case, find weed in a shoebox in the top of the closet. most likely not OK to seize, as a dead body could not have been hidden in a shoebox in the top of a closet, so searching the box exceeded the scope of the warrant. (this presumes the box didn't accidentally fall open during a legitimate search.
IAAL, this is not legal advice, and it is "dumbed down" so all the nuances are not here.
Nitpick: in our society nobody is legally guilty until proven so in a court of law for criminal matters. In reality someone can still be guilty as sin even if they aren't convicted. If you are going to harp on someone's choice of words make sure that the word doesn't have different meaning in different contexts. In the context he used its clear that "guilty" is not refering to "legally guilty of a criminal offense."
I second this, and hope that however *does* buy it doesn't treat it the way WotC did when they owned it and give games made by other companies second class booths / rooms.
Also for the love of jeebus keep it in indy. Its not too far a drive from Mi for me.:-)
You forgot step 8) where the company suing pierces the corporate veil (really easy to do if you followed steps 1-7) and not only sues both your companies for all they are worth, but also sues YOU personally for all you are worth and then some.
Seriously. Giving bad advice to do illegal actions is one thing, but then it gets modded "interesting"?
A ruling came down from the board of patent appeals and interferences (BPAI) allowing Beauregard claims. a Beauregard claim is a claim for the steps of a method stored on a "computer-readable medium." The FedCirc could rule that the BPAI is wrong on appeal, but for the time being the PTO will still be allowing software claims using the computer readable medium language.
Practical effect: any patent using that language will still be enforceable. Since you can't violate a software patent without storing it somewhere, there is no downside to including that language in the claims.
Any first year torts student knows that Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is NOT an unconstitutionally vague offense, but is a well established tort cause of action.
The elements for IIED are typically as follows, however it varies from state to state.
1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
2. Defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3. Defendant's act is the cause of such distress; and
4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant's conduct.
... and an innovative new control scheme.
For some reason you left that out, even though it is the consoles strongest selling point.
It's just as easy to state that the 360 is just an XBOX with an upgraded processor, RAM, and video output, is it not?
The damages are based on DISTRIBUTION, not on what you own.
The actual damages would be $0.99*(the number of times you uploaded the song) for each song. if you were using bit torrent that number could be huge since the system is designed to have you upload to many people. honestly i think that 750 people might be a bit excessive, but it would be perffectly reasonable to estimate that in the course of downloading one song a person uploads copyrighted material to at least 100 people. (this would result in $100 compensatory, $650 punitive).
The right to a defense attorney in a CRIMINAL trial is implicit in the right to due process of law. I'm sure why you used that as your analogy for the right to bear arms. Due process of law (the garunteed right) is impossible if a party does not have the opportunity to have competent counsel.
Yes we do have the right to bear arms. That right however is not abridged when the government does not give everyone a gun. Just like you don't get a lawyer for civil trials, or misdemeanors.
The difference: Bering arms is a proactive right (ie you have the right to do X). The right to due process however is a reactive right (you have the right for the government not to do Y to you). The government does not abridge your rights by failing to help you do X, they do abridge your rights by doing Y to you.
i would guess we can't do this because, oh i don't know, possibly because we live in a republic where the majority of people identify with Christianity?
It's pretty hard to say "oh well you're all just wrong so we'll ignore you" when the "you" is picking the people who make the laws every time. As such we need to work around it./Full disclosure: I'm a pro-life Christian so if that adjusts what you think of this comment so be it.
That's wrong. Common carrier status is a legal status that only has any meaning when put in the context of a nation's laws. There is no such thing as international law. While the definitions of common carrier's may be teh same or nearly the same between countries, they are NOT set by a international rule.
It's different because getting a fancy sword in wow happens all the time, whereas having a hotel on "broadway" in Monopoly would require some white-out and a sharpie.
So you are actually arguing in SUPPORT of government funded private lawsuits for big business.
I never thought I would see the day when an argument for the government footing the bill for RIAA suits on slashdot got modded "Insightful."
Yes the copyright cops would be competing for funding with real crimes. OK. So they only get 3 million a year to do copyright suits. There is NOTHING in the bill that stops private copyright suits also. RESULT: RIAA continues its current racket of suing the little guy, and now the government jumps in on the action too!
but I forgot, if the white house opposes something we must be in favor of it.
It COULD be a way to prevent the large states (IE Texas, NY, California, etc.) from having absolute say and dominating the small states...
Yeagh, I'm pretty sure that at least played some part in why it was set up the way it was... You know, kind of like how the US has both a House of Representatives AND a Senate?
sure they have.
Attempt is defined as making a substantial step towards the completion of the crime.
I would argue that by providing the Scammer with their money / bank account they have taken such a step.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this different from laws we have in the US where we require people in public protests to be "unmasked"? Example: The KKK used to do their marches in the full hoods and robes. states started passing laws requiring their faces to be revealed during their marches in order to "shame them" into not doing it. Those laws were ruled constitutional because their right to speak is impinged in any way shape or form.
I'm failing to see how this is different. A right to speak is not the same as a right to speak anonymously.
all such a rule would do is 1) force small inventors out of the patent field due to increased costs, and 2) SLAM the USPTO with applications which are virtually identical but have different claims instead of 20 claims in one patent, you'd have 20 patents, each with one claim.
IAAPA
Interestingly enough (from the wiki article on reboot) "On June 1, 2008, it was announced that there will be a trilogy of ReBoot films coming to theaters. Jon Cooksey was assigned to write the script for the first film, but as of August 2008, he was dropped due to Rainmaker deciding to take a different direction with the story. At this time, it is unknown who will replace him.[10] The films are expected to follow a different story from the comic, but the overall plan is to continue the methodology in terms of engaging the fans.[11] The movie is currently listed as in development on the IMDB website. It is currently listed for release in 2010. A teaser trailer for the film was released on October 5, on Rainmaker's official site." The current production company that owns the rights to "ReBoot" bought out Mainframe Inc. (creator of ReBoot) explicitly to get the rights to the show. Although the current crop of movies may be closer to duke nukem forever than is desirable.
what gives "the contradictor"?
you bastards just totally F'd up my productivity for the day.
alternately you could use a better damages analogy and say "can you imagine if I stole 7 pieces of jerky, broke it into bits and sold all those bits to several million people at a price of $1.00 per person"
See, the problem with your thinking is she's not being sued for downloading anything. She is being sued for uploading it to other people. HUGE difference.
WRONG.
If you find evidence of people being tortured the cops DON'T have to go back and get a new warrant. plain sight rule. If the Cops were there legally (IE searching for marijuana with a warrant) and they see evidence of an unrelated crime while they are searching within the scope of the warrant they can seize it for prosecution.
Examples:
Searching for weed in a file cabinet, stumble across credit card fraud documents. OK to seize.
Searching for dead body in a murder case, find weed in a shoebox in the top of the closet. most likely not OK to seize, as a dead body could not have been hidden in a shoebox in the top of a closet, so searching the box exceeded the scope of the warrant. (this presumes the box didn't accidentally fall open during a legitimate search.
IAAL, this is not legal advice, and it is "dumbed down" so all the nuances are not here.
Nitpick: in our society nobody is legally guilty until proven so in a court of law for criminal matters. In reality someone can still be guilty as sin even if they aren't convicted. If you are going to harp on someone's choice of words make sure that the word doesn't have different meaning in different contexts. In the context he used its clear that "guilty" is not refering to "legally guilty of a criminal offense."
I second this, and hope that however *does* buy it doesn't treat it the way WotC did when they owned it and give games made by other companies second class booths / rooms.
Also for the love of jeebus keep it in indy. Its not too far a drive from Mi for me. :-)
You forgot step 8) where the company suing pierces the corporate veil (really easy to do if you followed steps 1-7) and not only sues both your companies for all they are worth, but also sues YOU personally for all you are worth and then some.
Seriously. Giving bad advice to do illegal actions is one thing, but then it gets modded "interesting"?
A ruling came down from the board of patent appeals and interferences (BPAI) allowing Beauregard claims. a Beauregard claim is a claim for the steps of a method stored on a "computer-readable medium." The FedCirc could rule that the BPAI is wrong on appeal, but for the time being the PTO will still be allowing software claims using the computer readable medium language.
Practical effect: any patent using that language will still be enforceable. Since you can't violate a software patent without storing it somewhere, there is no downside to including that language in the claims.
Any first year torts student knows that Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is NOT an unconstitutionally vague offense, but is a well established tort cause of action.
The elements for IIED are typically as follows, however it varies from state to state.
1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
2. Defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3. Defendant's act is the cause of such distress; and
4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant's conduct.
(see Wikipedia's entry on IIED for more).
... and an innovative new control scheme. For some reason you left that out, even though it is the consoles strongest selling point. It's just as easy to state that the 360 is just an XBOX with an upgraded processor, RAM, and video output, is it not?
Wrong.
The damages are based on DISTRIBUTION, not on what you own.
The actual damages would be $0.99*(the number of times you uploaded the song) for each song. if you were using bit torrent that number could be huge since the system is designed to have you upload to many people. honestly i think that 750 people might be a bit excessive, but it would be perffectly reasonable to estimate that in the course of downloading one song a person uploads copyrighted material to at least 100 people. (this would result in $100 compensatory, $650 punitive).
And this post, my dear friends, exemplifies why you should always preview your posts before posting them. Which I did not.
All the lakes DO however have international shipping lanes in them which is how they could justify it. But I see your point.
The right to a defense attorney in a CRIMINAL trial is implicit in the right to due process of law. I'm sure why you used that as your analogy for the right to bear arms. Due process of law (the garunteed right) is impossible if a party does not have the opportunity to have competent counsel.
Yes we do have the right to bear arms. That right however is not abridged when the government does not give everyone a gun. Just like you don't get a lawyer for civil trials, or misdemeanors.
The difference: Bering arms is a proactive right (ie you have the right to do X). The right to due process however is a reactive right (you have the right for the government not to do Y to you). The government does not abridge your rights by failing to help you do X, they do abridge your rights by doing Y to you.
Make sense?
I like that Michigan is one of the few elite states that is entirely within the constitution free zone. WOOO go us!
i would guess we can't do this because, oh i don't know, possibly because we live in a republic where the majority of people identify with Christianity?
It's pretty hard to say "oh well you're all just wrong so we'll ignore you" when the "you" is picking the people who make the laws every time. As such we need to work around it. /Full disclosure: I'm a pro-life Christian so if that adjusts what you think of this comment so be it.
If you tack the phrase "by the government" in between "censored" and "," then I agree with you.
I think responsible parenting requires certain levels of censorship though.
Seriously there is a huge non-trivial difference between what you said, and the way I changed it.
common carrier rules are international you say?
That's wrong. Common carrier status is a legal status that only has any meaning when put in the context of a nation's laws. There is no such thing as international law. While the definitions of common carrier's may be teh same or nearly the same between countries, they are NOT set by a international rule.
I propose a taste test.
I will provide the materials... but I will need several female volunteers between the ages of 18 and 25.
It's different because getting a fancy sword in wow happens all the time, whereas having a hotel on "broadway" in Monopoly would require some white-out and a sharpie.
WOW.
So you are actually arguing in SUPPORT of government funded private lawsuits for big business.
I never thought I would see the day when an argument for the government footing the bill for RIAA suits on slashdot got modded "Insightful."
Yes the copyright cops would be competing for funding with real crimes. OK. So they only get 3 million a year to do copyright suits. There is NOTHING in the bill that stops private copyright suits also. RESULT: RIAA continues its current racket of suing the little guy, and now the government jumps in on the action too!
but I forgot, if the white house opposes something we must be in favor of it.
Either that or...
It COULD be a way to prevent the large states (IE Texas, NY, California, etc.) from having absolute say and dominating the small states...
Yeagh, I'm pretty sure that at least played some part in why it was set up the way it was... You know, kind of like how the US has both a House of Representatives AND a Senate?
sure they have. Attempt is defined as making a substantial step towards the completion of the crime. I would argue that by providing the Scammer with their money / bank account they have taken such a step.