If the judge screws up when he gives the jury instructions, that is a reversible error of law.
The judge is the boss of the courtroom, and can't just screw it up like that. It's his job, as the law expert, to explain to the jury (who, btw, were too stupid to get out of jury duty) how the law is. If you screw up the instructions, you screw up the verdict.
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
It's so bad I think the judge should cover the court costs personally. Anyone screwing up like that as a lawyer would be slapped with malpractice. Should we not hold jusdges to the same standard?
If the FCC really wanted to help, they would have stepped aside and let the SEC and/or the FTC in to prevent this stupid monopoly from happening in the first place.
Come on FCC, ever heard of teamwork?
Heck, rumor has it that a lack of communication was behind the intelligence failure that permitted a sizable part of 9/11's success (at least, for the terrorists).
I agree, and would like to further add that the government's policy on treating encryption and security as munitions to be regulated or banned is complete BULLSHIT.
Pirates, scammers, crackers, and hackers, simply by outnumbering the government a bazillion to one, so to speak, are in a position to do loads MORE damage than the government can. This, combined with the fact that their intentions ARE malicious (we really DO want to hurt you) as opposed to misguided (we want to HELP you, we just suck at it), means that the criminal element poses a far greater danger to commerce and computing in general than does the government.
The government's presence, like it or not, prevents anarchy, and if you take away the police, you let the crooks run amok, and pretty soon you have a dictatorship police state headed by the mafia, since they'll be the ones on top of the black market etc and thus in a position to fill the power vaccuum that would be created without the government's presence. (Just look at Iraq. Soon as we topple the regime, radicals barge in.)
So let us defend ourselves against cybercrooks with encryption and security, the same way laymen defend themselves against robbers and burglars with guns and militias.
I think that the "right to bear arms" should be extended to firewalls, encryption, and so on.
If the government wants access to our networks for a GOOD reason, nothing is going to stop them from getting a warrant LIKE THEY SHOULD. If it's an emergency enough to make them panic and say "LET US IN NOW!!!" then they should already have enough to say "BECAUSE OF ", at least, to a judge. Either way, probable cause should be cake for the feds if there really is a need for access.
Bottom line, networks have ample enough cause to defend themselves against the REAL bad guys through encryption and passwording and to make it very much not worth weakening the defenses to make it easier for government snoops. The only legitimate access by the government is either through the front door, or in cases where there is probable cause and the government should be getting a warrant anyway.
You seem to be forgetting that the GPL is being used as a DEFENSIVE weapon here, not an OFFENSIVE weapon.
Using a sword to block a blow is defensive, and doesn't hurt anyone. Using a sword to attack is offensive, and DOES hurt.
The GPL is inclusive, and forbids exclusion. Note also, that you are not required to obey the GPL if you simply wish to use the software, or if you wish to change it for your own purposes. Unlike an EULA, you already have full rights to USE the software as you please (modulo other laws, of course).
What about a little thing called "probable cause"?
Has are government gotten so power hungry they have forgotten why the 4th amendment was passed in the first place? To stop exactly the sort of thing that ye olde King George was fond of doing...which is one of the reasons the revolution happened to begin with.
Unfortunately, I already know the answer: yes, they have.
Since we are at the mercy of fallible humans with political and authoritative clout, it is only natural that we will be abused.
What really sucks in this country is that all the technical legal arguments mean absolutely ZIP if you get unlucky and draw either a bonehead or an asshole for a judge.
In a courtroom, the judge's word is final, and furthermore, is presumed to be accurate unless challenged IMMEDIATELY, requiring an attorney to make every possible motion he could even hope to make, as anything that goes unchallenged becomes a waived opportunity. On the other hand, a lawyer that is too aggressive in protecting his or her client's interests is likely to wind up gagged and locked up on a contempt charge, leaving the client idling, or worse, scrambling to find a new lawyer if the old one gets dismissed by the judge.
The worst part is that if your case gets tanked by a bad judge, you still are bound by his blunder unless you protest in some fashion. Besides being likely to upset the judge even further and enable the "STFU or you'll REALLY be sorry" attitude from the judge, all it does is preserve it for appeal, for a HIGHER judge that likely is already so swamped with countless appeals that he or she doesn't have the time to actually fix anything.
And furthermore, under the CFR's or whatever you call that federal lawsuit procedure garbage, most administrative actions by a judge count as "an adjudication on the merits", which in a nutshell means that "the judge is always right because the federal law says he is". If a judge gets pissed and deviates from the facts of the case just because a lawyer broke the rules, his or her client has to pay the price in the form of punitive sanctions, including the dreaded "involuntary dismissal", which is an "adjudication on the merits" meaning the official trial record states that he lost his case fair and square, leaving a malpractice action against his lawyer as the only recourse.
The saddest part is that anything other than real merit that gets legally stamped as "an adjudication on the merits" joins along with much other cr*p into a huge river we like to call "legal precedent" which will further perpetuate the judicial tyranny that is the judge's word being the final one on both present AND FUTURE cases.
I'm all for maintaining order in a courtroom, and maybe even sanctioning bad lawyers. But don't make the clients suffer for it, and especially don't let a mistake get set in concrete only to be used as a battering ram against future litigants.
The american legal system is designed to be abused by money hungry judges and power hungry lawyers...or is it the other way around? Nah, probably both. Amazingly, I can't blame the judges for this, since they're already drowning in an endless deluge of paperwork, cases, motions, etc. (Donald Trump, _The Art of the Comeback_, commenting on an 8 year backlog in the New York court system)
Any industry that thrives on the misfortunes of others needs serious checks and balances to preserve any sense of fairness, and given the major backlog, we need some sort of incentive/discipline system that can punish litigants or attorneys who act in bad faith. Perhaps a mandatory attempt at mediation should precede all lawsuits.
Parent is right, but the RIAA is hardly the only one to blame for this.
The link you posted was for Digg, and I did some more snooping and it turns out that this issue in question was taken out of context and was simply a debate about how to handle a potential abusive account through an edit quota as a condition of his probation.
This was NOT intended for general users that have clean records at wikipedia.
The Digg link in question points to their Admin Noticeboard, which is where they discuss troublemakers.
This case needs to not just go away, it needs to get turned around and fired back in the form of legal precedent that would help smack down the RIAA's other cases.
Remember how the EFF and the NSL case got pulled before the court could make a "case law definitive" ruling on the matter? Thanks to withdrawal of complaint, the legality of the NSL itself was never actually challenged in court, sparing the federal government a most likely embarrasing defeat in the form of legal precedent.
I see parallels here...maybe the RIAA is scared the judge will hand their ass back to them after sharing it with the uptillion other judges who would use such a precedent to smack the RIAA in other cases.
This is hardly throwing in the towel...things are going south and the RIAA is just pulling the plug themselves before it gets its ass kicked even harder from the judge pulling it for them.
Actually, you might be an accomplice in that case.
Good point though...
Running a tracker for illegal content may make you an accessory if you are aware.
So I guess I should correct myself as follows:
If anyone tells TPB that they are tracking illegal content, they become aware of it and most likely have a duty to remove the trackers, and failure to do so would make them complicit in the pirating.
Since it's swedish law we're dealing with though, all bets are off.
Slashdot Mirror
If the judge screws up when he gives the jury instructions, that is a reversible error of law.
The judge is the boss of the courtroom, and can't just screw it up like that. It's his job, as the law expert, to explain to the jury (who, btw, were too stupid to get out of jury duty) how the law is. If you screw up the instructions, you screw up the verdict.
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
It's so bad I think the judge should cover the court costs personally. Anyone screwing up like that as a lawyer would be slapped with malpractice. Should we not hold jusdges to the same standard?
I have a friend who is a government subcontractor...and he has a security clearance.
Guard: Gimme your laptop
Buddy: It's classified!
Guard: wtf?
Buddy: That's right, you don't have clearance to search my laptop. Ha ha
Isn't a corporation an artificial person?
The charter serves pretty much the same purpose as a birth certificate.
Maybe the DOJ then.
If they've got balls enough to go after MSFT for monopolizing, then there's grounds aplenty for a case against Comcast.
Are they not both in the same position of using their monopoly power in an abusive manner?
"sanctions are inadvisable as customers have little alternative".
Uh, monopoly anyone? ... Helloooooo? DOJ? FTC? ... anyone?
I wouldn't be all that averse to patents if it weren't for all the damn loopholes that big fat corporations have lobbied for.
Perhaps this is the side effect of big corporates pressing their luck a little too hard and making it pop, springing a massive leak of backlash.
Sorta like annoying someone enough that they finally snap, lose their temper, and let you have it.
If the FCC really wanted to help, they would have stepped aside and let the SEC and/or the FTC in to prevent this stupid monopoly from happening in the first place.
Come on FCC, ever heard of teamwork?
Heck, rumor has it that a lack of communication was behind the intelligence failure that permitted a sizable part of 9/11's success (at least, for the terrorists).
Nope, you automatically gave us a license by posting.
Read the Slashdot EULA ;)
I agree, and would like to further add that the government's policy on treating encryption and security as munitions to be regulated or banned is complete BULLSHIT.
Pirates, scammers, crackers, and hackers, simply by outnumbering the government a bazillion to one, so to speak, are in a position to do loads MORE damage than the government can. This, combined with the fact that their intentions ARE malicious (we really DO want to hurt you) as opposed to misguided (we want to HELP you, we just suck at it), means that the criminal element poses a far greater danger to commerce and computing in general than does the government.
The government's presence, like it or not, prevents anarchy, and if you take away the police, you let the crooks run amok, and pretty soon you have a dictatorship police state headed by the mafia, since they'll be the ones on top of the black market etc and thus in a position to fill the power vaccuum that would be created without the government's presence. (Just look at Iraq. Soon as we topple the regime, radicals barge in.)
So let us defend ourselves against cybercrooks with encryption and security, the same way laymen defend themselves against robbers and burglars with guns and militias.
I think that the "right to bear arms" should be extended to firewalls, encryption, and so on.
If the government wants access to our networks for a GOOD reason, nothing is going to stop them from getting a warrant LIKE THEY SHOULD. If it's an emergency enough to make them panic and say "LET US IN NOW!!!" then they should already have enough to say "BECAUSE OF ", at least, to a judge. Either way, probable cause should be cake for the feds if there really is a need for access.
Bottom line, networks have ample enough cause to defend themselves against the REAL bad guys through encryption and passwording and to make it very much not worth weakening the defenses to make it easier for government snoops. The only legitimate access by the government is either through the front door, or in cases where there is probable cause and the government should be getting a warrant anyway.
SMART for flash drives anyone?
Sadly, it happens in the US.
Only we call it "civil forfeiture".
Google for "United States v. $124,000" or something.
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation ?
This is not supposed to be hacking.
At worst, this could be fraud.
I take exception to that statement.
You seem to be forgetting that the GPL is being used as a DEFENSIVE weapon here, not an OFFENSIVE weapon.
Using a sword to block a blow is defensive, and doesn't hurt anyone. Using a sword to attack is offensive, and DOES hurt.
The GPL is inclusive, and forbids exclusion. Note also, that you are not required to obey the GPL if you simply wish to use the software, or if you wish to change it for your own purposes. Unlike an EULA, you already have full rights to USE the software as you please (modulo other laws, of course).
Well stated, poorly worded.
Someone mod parent up for insightful.
They're only doing that because Congress forced them to.
One free credit report per year, per credit bureau.
These sharks are only doing it because the feds have a gun to their heads.
Anyone who thinks they are doing you a favor here is seriously deluded.
oh shit, there goes the planet.
Especially if some clown goes around screaming "Format C!!!"
What about a little thing called "probable cause"?
Has are government gotten so power hungry they have forgotten why the 4th amendment was passed in the first place? To stop exactly the sort of thing that ye olde King George was fond of doing...which is one of the reasons the revolution happened to begin with.
Unfortunately, I already know the answer: yes, they have.
Since we are at the mercy of fallible humans with political and authoritative clout, it is only natural that we will be abused.
What really sucks in this country is that all the technical legal arguments mean absolutely ZIP if you get unlucky and draw either a bonehead or an asshole for a judge.
In a courtroom, the judge's word is final, and furthermore, is presumed to be accurate unless challenged IMMEDIATELY, requiring an attorney to make every possible motion he could even hope to make, as anything that goes unchallenged becomes a waived opportunity. On the other hand, a lawyer that is too aggressive in protecting his or her client's interests is likely to wind up gagged and locked up on a contempt charge, leaving the client idling, or worse, scrambling to find a new lawyer if the old one gets dismissed by the judge.
The worst part is that if your case gets tanked by a bad judge, you still are bound by his blunder unless you protest in some fashion. Besides being likely to upset the judge even further and enable the "STFU or you'll REALLY be sorry" attitude from the judge, all it does is preserve it for appeal, for a HIGHER judge that likely is already so swamped with countless appeals that he or she doesn't have the time to actually fix anything.
And furthermore, under the CFR's or whatever you call that federal lawsuit procedure garbage, most administrative actions by a judge count as "an adjudication on the merits", which in a nutshell means that "the judge is always right because the federal law says he is". If a judge gets pissed and deviates from the facts of the case just because a lawyer broke the rules, his or her client has to pay the price in the form of punitive sanctions, including the dreaded "involuntary dismissal", which is an "adjudication on the merits" meaning the official trial record states that he lost his case fair and square, leaving a malpractice action against his lawyer as the only recourse.
The saddest part is that anything other than real merit that gets legally stamped as "an adjudication on the merits" joins along with much other cr*p into a huge river we like to call "legal precedent" which will further perpetuate the judicial tyranny that is the judge's word being the final one on both present AND FUTURE cases.
I'm all for maintaining order in a courtroom, and maybe even sanctioning bad lawyers. But don't make the clients suffer for it, and especially don't let a mistake get set in concrete only to be used as a battering ram against future litigants.
The american legal system is designed to be abused by money hungry judges and power hungry lawyers...or is it the other way around? Nah, probably both. Amazingly, I can't blame the judges for this, since they're already drowning in an endless deluge of paperwork, cases, motions, etc. (Donald Trump, _The Art of the Comeback_, commenting on an 8 year backlog in the New York court system)
Any industry that thrives on the misfortunes of others needs serious checks and balances to preserve any sense of fairness, and given the major backlog, we need some sort of incentive/discipline system that can punish litigants or attorneys who act in bad faith. Perhaps a mandatory attempt at mediation should precede all lawsuits.
Parent is right, but the RIAA is hardly the only one to blame for this.
Read The Friggin Article's Links
The link you posted was for Digg, and I did some more snooping and it turns out that this issue in question was taken out of context and was simply a debate about how to handle a potential abusive account through an edit quota as a condition of his probation.
This was NOT intended for general users that have clean records at wikipedia.
The Digg link in question points to their Admin Noticeboard, which is where they discuss troublemakers.
If so, I hope they do.
This case needs to not just go away, it needs to get turned around and fired back in the form of legal precedent that would help smack down the RIAA's other cases.
I think the RIAA is pulling a fed.
Remember how the EFF and the NSL case got pulled before the court could make a "case law definitive" ruling on the matter? Thanks to withdrawal of complaint, the legality of the NSL itself was never actually challenged in court, sparing the federal government a most likely embarrasing defeat in the form of legal precedent.
I see parallels here...maybe the RIAA is scared the judge will hand their ass back to them after sharing it with the uptillion other judges who would use such a precedent to smack the RIAA in other cases.
This is hardly throwing in the towel...things are going south and the RIAA is just pulling the plug themselves before it gets its ass kicked even harder from the judge pulling it for them.
Roger Wilco on that one ISS. I just hope you keep things clean whilst doing the experiment.
And wow, "neater" is indeed the captcha code this time.
topic says it all.
MS, sorry, but god beat you to it.
Actually, you might be an accomplice in that case.
Good point though...
Running a tracker for illegal content may make you an accessory if you are aware.
So I guess I should correct myself as follows:
If anyone tells TPB that they are tracking illegal content, they become aware of it and most likely have a duty to remove the trackers, and failure to do so would make them complicit in the pirating.
Since it's swedish law we're dealing with though, all bets are off.