*Can't get behind the paywall to determine if benzos were considered to be antipsychotics
It's not really a paywall, since it doesn't actually ask you to pay anything (without getting into the discussion about whether "viewing ads" is another form of payment, which I believe it is). You do have to register, but that's it.
Here's a link to the study that the reporter used. linky
This. It's just not safe to assume that anything you put online is private, unless it's encrypted. And even then, there's room for doubt. Why worry about what Google may be tracking when 1) they tell you exactly what they're tracking, if you care to check it, and 2) any alphabet soup agency can get that info directly, without going through Google, and without telling you?
that really only happens in corporate law, or with those specialists who can command top dollar from clients that have piles of money. Not every lawyer is rich, or has clients that are rich. For work like divorces, real estate transactions, wills, etc, you charge what the market will bear (and these days the market bears less and less) and make your practice as efficient as possible. Even in the corporate law world, the trend is shifting away from the billable hour, to billing flat rate for work, where the emphasis is on efficiency over remorseless billing.
I'm sorry, I don't think the poster I was replying to had comity in mind when he said this: "if the CRIA gets fined for willful infringement, I hope that this is the precedent that ends up being applied to the United States, not the reverse."
Also, I noted when I downloaded the statement of claim from Dr. Geist's website, that the companies sued are actually Universal Canada, Sony Canada, etc. Presumably comity won't be an issue, as the Canadian subsidiaries will just pay out the judgment or face sanctions in Canada.
But thanks for the detailed lecture of comity and stare decisis, it's been a few months since I studied that stuff in class. I try not to make long, technical posts on legal stuff because I'm not a lawyer yet, only a student, and I might miss some of the subtleties that a lawyer would be better able to explain. Also, I find that providing overly detailed legal explanations on a computer technology site makes me sound like a pompous ass. Note though that this knowledge has come from me making some long-winded posts and stupid errors, and learning the error of my ways. YMMV.
Keep in mind that it's a class action settlement. Those are generally a matter of public record. Decision or not, settling this one is basically painting a big old target on their back.
They won't have much proof that they serve the artists, as it's the artists that are suing the labels. I don't think they'll be able to spin that one so easily.
1) judgments in Canadian law are not binding precedent in the US (though a court may judge them as persuasive). 2) the damages are whatever the statute says they are (statutory damages) and thus in the US the damages will be whatever the relevant statute says they should be 3) we don't know if the record companies are pulling this particular kind of scam in the US 4) the record companies losing this case doesn't stop them from going after other infringers, in fact it just strengthens their legal arguments because now they have more precedent to stand on.
The good news is, it looks like the labels are going to have to pay out on this, and it's going to give them a black eye in terms of public perceptions. Judges and juries may be less sympathetic to Warner, Sony and their ilk in the future.
Er, my impression has been that the secrecy around the treaty has been at the behest of the US government, and not countries like China (who don't believe in openness, but don't give two shits about protecting American copyrights, three-strikes laws, and DMCA style provisions).
This has been kept quiet because if all the details were leaked, the people of the "open" countries would shit a brick, and presumably start turfing out governments come election time.
Keep in mind that you can't trust the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) to give you an opinion on what the law actually says (and you can't trust TFAorS either). Just because they tell you that accidentally having child pornography is illegal, doesn't make it illegal. They are not giving you legal advice, they are making their own jobs easier. If you want to know whether something is illegal or not, read the statutes for yourself, and/or consult your lawyer.
He shouldn't have to prove it was accidental, the prosecutor has to prove intent, beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof applies to every element of the offence (usually; in Canada for example, someone found guilty of possession of drugs has to prove that he didn't intend to traffick drugs. This exception is rare and very controversial).
[citation needed] No seriously, I googled it, and I couldn't find anything remotely resembling a credible study staying that Britain had the highest crime-rate. I found a super-popular map that put Iceland at the top, but that sounds very odd to me.
Also keep in mind that the corporate lawyer's billable per hour doesn't reflect what that lawyer actually gets paid. Out of those billable hours has to come payment for support staff, plant overhead, liability insurance, some juice for the partners, etc. A lawyer billing out at $200/hour is seeing much much less than that, and as noted elsewhere, doesn't get paid for overtime.
I don't know how they will handle the sudden lack of WoW...
Most of them will never see a sudden lack of WoW. They'll leave first, causing the revenue to dry up. As long as there are sufficient numbers of them (and there are new ones every year) WoW will remain profitable. You've conflated cause and effect.
Slashdot Mirror
But would still not be enough to drive out the app stores.
And by this point, maybe laches as well.
"Meesa wansa cryptex!"
"Jub-jub."
Man, now that image is going to be stuck in my head aaaaaaalllllll day.
At second place, Canada's health care is still half as expensive as the US'. We can do better, but not by emulating the American system.
*Can't get behind the paywall to determine if benzos were considered to be antipsychotics
It's not really a paywall, since it doesn't actually ask you to pay anything (without getting into the discussion about whether "viewing ads" is another form of payment, which I believe it is). You do have to register, but that's it.
Here's a link to the study that the reporter used. linky
This. It's just not safe to assume that anything you put online is private, unless it's encrypted. And even then, there's room for doubt. Why worry about what Google may be tracking when 1) they tell you exactly what they're tracking, if you care to check it, and 2) any alphabet soup agency can get that info directly, without going through Google, and without telling you?
You must be a hit at parties.
that really only happens in corporate law, or with those specialists who can command top dollar from clients that have piles of money. Not every lawyer is rich, or has clients that are rich. For work like divorces, real estate transactions, wills, etc, you charge what the market will bear (and these days the market bears less and less) and make your practice as efficient as possible. Even in the corporate law world, the trend is shifting away from the billable hour, to billing flat rate for work, where the emphasis is on efficiency over remorseless billing.
Only Steve Jobs can fork reality.
(written from my macbook)
I'm sorry, I don't think the poster I was replying to had comity in mind when he said this: "if the CRIA gets fined for willful infringement, I hope that this is the precedent that ends up being applied to the United States, not the reverse."
Also, I noted when I downloaded the statement of claim from Dr. Geist's website, that the companies sued are actually Universal Canada, Sony Canada, etc. Presumably comity won't be an issue, as the Canadian subsidiaries will just pay out the judgment or face sanctions in Canada.
But thanks for the detailed lecture of comity and stare decisis, it's been a few months since I studied that stuff in class. I try not to make long, technical posts on legal stuff because I'm not a lawyer yet, only a student, and I might miss some of the subtleties that a lawyer would be better able to explain. Also, I find that providing overly detailed legal explanations on a computer technology site makes me sound like a pompous ass. Note though that this knowledge has come from me making some long-winded posts and stupid errors, and learning the error of my ways. YMMV.
Keep in mind that it's a class action settlement. Those are generally a matter of public record. Decision or not, settling this one is basically painting a big old target on their back.
They won't have much proof that they serve the artists, as it's the artists that are suing the labels. I don't think they'll be able to spin that one so easily.
There are problems with that: namely that
1) judgments in Canadian law are not binding precedent in the US (though a court may judge them as persuasive).
2) the damages are whatever the statute says they are (statutory damages) and thus in the US the damages will be whatever the relevant statute says they should be
3) we don't know if the record companies are pulling this particular kind of scam in the US
4) the record companies losing this case doesn't stop them from going after other infringers, in fact it just strengthens their legal arguments because now they have more precedent to stand on.
The good news is, it looks like the labels are going to have to pay out on this, and it's going to give them a black eye in terms of public perceptions. Judges and juries may be less sympathetic to Warner, Sony and their ilk in the future.
Officers of those corporations can (but probably not in this case).
Er, my impression has been that the secrecy around the treaty has been at the behest of the US government, and not countries like China (who don't believe in openness, but don't give two shits about protecting American copyrights, three-strikes laws, and DMCA style provisions).
This has been kept quiet because if all the details were leaked, the people of the "open" countries would shit a brick, and presumably start turfing out governments come election time.
Wait, what's the story again?
We're at war with Iran, we've always been at war with Iran. We've never been at war with Iraq.
Ridiculous. This is a great post, and nails the point of TFA right on the head.
Keep in mind it was people in who are now in their 40's who invented raves.
Just by way of correction, the presumption of trafficking was overturned in Canada some time ago. Whoopsie.
Keep in mind that you can't trust the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) to give you an opinion on what the law actually says (and you can't trust TFAorS either). Just because they tell you that accidentally having child pornography is illegal, doesn't make it illegal. They are not giving you legal advice, they are making their own jobs easier. If you want to know whether something is illegal or not, read the statutes for yourself, and/or consult your lawyer.
He shouldn't have to prove it was accidental, the prosecutor has to prove intent, beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof applies to every element of the offence (usually; in Canada for example, someone found guilty of possession of drugs has to prove that he didn't intend to traffick drugs. This exception is rare and very controversial).
[citation needed] No seriously, I googled it, and I couldn't find anything remotely resembling a credible study staying that Britain had the highest crime-rate. I found a super-popular map that put Iceland at the top, but that sounds very odd to me.
Did we ever care about the mentally ill in this society?
And shaved.
Also keep in mind that the corporate lawyer's billable per hour doesn't reflect what that lawyer actually gets paid. Out of those billable hours has to come payment for support staff, plant overhead, liability insurance, some juice for the partners, etc. A lawyer billing out at $200/hour is seeing much much less than that, and as noted elsewhere, doesn't get paid for overtime.
I don't know how they will handle the sudden lack of WoW...
Most of them will never see a sudden lack of WoW. They'll leave first, causing the revenue to dry up. As long as there are sufficient numbers of them (and there are new ones every year) WoW will remain profitable. You've conflated cause and effect.