It's a lawsuit until their legal department muscles away/intimidates/settles out the claims, bribes a judge to make it go away, or makes a closed-door deal in a class action lawsuit that gives everyone a free voucher for extended service in exchange for a promise never to sue again.
While as a rich man I might personally want to pay more, I'm not going to be very happy if when I step up to the plate to chip in everyone else holds back and I'm the one stuck holding the bag.
I'd rather have me and everyone else in my bracket marched along in unison.
And if the copyright lobby is any example, once that critical mass is reached you can bet that patent lifetimes are going to be expanded in the same way.
Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and heaven forbid Google will become the new Disneys.
And judging from Oracle trying to nuke stuff on the old Sun website and what archive.org found (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110810152617279), I'd say that Oracle is trying to pull a fast one.
I wonder if Oracle failing to recover the old website (which was conveniently nuked on the eve of trial) counts as spoliation of evidence.
It could have been deliberately posted on april 1st just to avoid scrutiny.
NK: "We're passing an outlandish law today" world: har har har har... NK: *enforces it* world: wtf you were serious? NK: "you snooze you lose. It's already entrenched try and stop us"
I also ask you to weigh the risk of losing a good trial vs the cost of constantly being forced to settle just to make the money grubbing lawyers go away.
Perhaps, but with the incentive to file bullshit lawsuits gone, a lot of the load in the legal system would drop out.
This would free up dockets, and take pressure off of judges and juries who could then take their time and think things through before they decide on verdicts.
I think that an enhancement to "loser pays" wherein one party offers a settlement that is rejected and litigation fails to be more favorable to the rejecting party than the settlement should be spared a portion of the winner's legal bills.
And as it is, you are already at present being forced into a legal budget wrestling match where who wins depends on who has bigger lawyers. And even here, the risk of "fate in the courtroom" doesn't go away because it still plays a role in the incentives on fighting vs settling, so I consider it a moot point since it would be the same with or without loser pays.
The basic premise is that being right should be free. It should only cost you money to be wrong.
You are NEVER obliged to self incriminate, during any trial civil or criminal. They can interpret your silence however they want, but they cannot force you to speak up. You can ALWAYS plead the 5th, and if you do so, any testimony you give can't be used against you in a criminal trial. The issue is whether what you say can be used against you criminally.
As for the hard drive, it's not a 5th amendment issue anyway because self incrimination only applies to your person, not to property.
It's a 4th amendment issue where they need to get a warrant for your hard drive by showing probable cause, after which if you fail to cough up the keys you can be held for obstruction.
You are only responsible for his activities if it's criminal liability and you somehow aided and abetted in his actions, either through lending actual assistance, covering him up, or failing to report if you have a duty to do so.
The bar for civil liability is even higher since often you don't have a duty to police your connection from misuse by others.
That said, however, the TOS from your service provider might have a joint and several liability clause that you are forced to agree to in the event that one of the users of your connection does something that gets your provider sued, and such a TOS may also permit your access to be terminated at the sole and final discretion of the provider, including but not limited to cases where a guest, authorized or otherwise, uses your connection in a way that violates the TOS.
So...you probably won't go to jail, you almost certaionly won't get sued, but you probably stand a good chance of kissing your internet goodbye.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a lawsuit until their legal department muscles away/intimidates/settles out the claims, bribes a judge to make it go away, or makes a closed-door deal in a class action lawsuit that gives everyone a free voucher for extended service in exchange for a promise never to sue again.
Sadly I've seen web forms get wise to this thing and reject that syntax.
Spammers are getting smarter.
While as a rich man I might personally want to pay more, I'm not going to be very happy if when I step up to the plate to chip in everyone else holds back and I'm the one stuck holding the bag.
I'd rather have me and everyone else in my bracket marched along in unison.
If the patent cartel goes the way the copyright cartel already has, those protections won't be so limited.
And if the copyright lobby is any example, once that critical mass is reached you can bet that patent lifetimes are going to be expanded in the same way.
Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and heaven forbid Google will become the new Disneys.
And judging from Oracle trying to nuke stuff on the old Sun website and what archive.org found (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110810152617279), I'd say that Oracle is trying to pull a fast one.
I wonder if Oracle failing to recover the old website (which was conveniently nuked on the eve of trial) counts as spoliation of evidence.
There's also something to be said for simple strength in numbers, which is the same reason Google is crying foul to the anti-trust police.
Considering how our rights are being eroded left and right I would call the GOVERNMENT the terrorist.
You might have enough power to SEND out to 50 miles, but do the people connecting have enough power to REPLY?
You need signals going BOTH directions to have a network. Otherwise it's just a broadcast.
Slander and libel are also civil torts, not crimes.
You get sued, not thrown in prison.
There's also civil vs. criminal.
What I'd like to know is WHY this thing is a criminal matter in the first place.
Shouldn't the victim's family just be able to sue the guy?
That doesn't excuse the UK parliament from passing the bullshit law that LET him get so harshly punished in the first place.
Or was it the queen that signed it?
I'm an American, so I don't know how the UK politico-legal process works precisely, but I know a restraint on free speech when I see it.
This should have been a civil matter and the victim's next of kin should sue the crap out of him. But leave the cops out of it.
It could have been deliberately posted on april 1st just to avoid scrutiny.
NK: "We're passing an outlandish law today" ...
world: har har har har
NK: *enforces it*
world: wtf you were serious?
NK: "you snooze you lose. It's already entrenched try and stop us"
I also ask you to weigh the risk of losing a good trial vs the cost of constantly being forced to settle just to make the money grubbing lawyers go away.
Perhaps, but with the incentive to file bullshit lawsuits gone, a lot of the load in the legal system would drop out.
This would free up dockets, and take pressure off of judges and juries who could then take their time and think things through before they decide on verdicts.
I think that an enhancement to "loser pays" wherein one party offers a settlement that is rejected and litigation fails to be more favorable to the rejecting party than the settlement should be spared a portion of the winner's legal bills.
And as it is, you are already at present being forced into a legal budget wrestling match where who wins depends on who has bigger lawyers. And even here, the risk of "fate in the courtroom" doesn't go away because it still plays a role in the incentives on fighting vs settling, so I consider it a moot point since it would be the same with or without loser pays.
The basic premise is that being right should be free. It should only cost you money to be wrong.
I dunno, but I'd donate a lot more if loser-pays could make sure I got my money back if my beneficiary is innocent.
The TOS can require you to indemnify the ISP if *they* get sued.
The standard for searches of property for criminal cases is found in the 4th amendment and is based upon probable cause.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is for conviction. Warrants have a lesser standard.
Doesn't work that way.
You are NEVER obliged to self incriminate, during any trial civil or criminal. They can interpret your silence however they want, but they cannot force you to speak up. You can ALWAYS plead the 5th, and if you do so, any testimony you give can't be used against you in a criminal trial. The issue is whether what you say can be used against you criminally.
As for the hard drive, it's not a 5th amendment issue anyway because self incrimination only applies to your person, not to property.
It's a 4th amendment issue where they need to get a warrant for your hard drive by showing probable cause, after which if you fail to cough up the keys you can be held for obstruction.
Depends on who made the agreement with the ISP.
Of course, intimidating a plaintiff into settling usually works pretty well too.
You are only responsible for his activities if it's criminal liability and you somehow aided and abetted in his actions, either through lending actual assistance, covering him up, or failing to report if you have a duty to do so.
The bar for civil liability is even higher since often you don't have a duty to police your connection from misuse by others.
That said, however, the TOS from your service provider might have a joint and several liability clause that you are forced to agree to in the event that one of the users of your connection does something that gets your provider sued, and such a TOS may also permit your access to be terminated at the sole and final discretion of the provider, including but not limited to cases where a guest, authorized or otherwise, uses your connection in a way that violates the TOS.
So...you probably won't go to jail, you almost certaionly won't get sued, but you probably stand a good chance of kissing your internet goodbye.
Only problem is that a system smart enough to do that is also a system I wouldn't trust because I know the government may wish to have subverted it.
They are not completely useless.
First of all they put you on notice that the contents are confidential, and zap any pretention that the person sending has granted express consent.
So they function more as evidence and notice than they do as a binding agreement.
Or giving Satan an EULA when he comes to collect your soul.