What about music that's written with the intent that it be used as a backdrop to something else, like a film score? The intended use of that music is to be incorporated into something else that adds a layer of creativity. If you say "any use that adds something to the work is fair use" then film scores effectively lose ALL protection. The original film, for which they are written, wouldn't have to pay royalties because it would be adding something and making "fair use" of it.
Same for stock photography and stock video providers -- their GOAL is to provide raw material as input into a larger work. They spend a lot of time and money shooting and editing stock. If you claim any use of their work is fair use (it's always incorporated into a larger whole, and often transformed along the way) then stock photographers and videographers can't get paid (all use is fair use--why pay for it) and might just stop producing stock material. It's a huge benefit to illustrators and designers to have stock photography and video available. (As an aside, some stock photographers create really good work)
How does he address the fact that some people design work with the hopes of being paid by producers who will assemble it into a larger whole, and that producers are glad to have designer's work available?
It seems the above comment focuses on "will probably" without sources, much like the Raw Story unsigned editorial.
Has anybody actually SEEN the draft so that we can comment on it intelligently without relying on "I think the US government is bad, so I'm going to assume they're doing horrible things"? The PDF link in the Rawstory unsigned editorial doesn't work, so it's awfully hard to evaluate their claims. The homepage of Rawstory makes their bias pretty clear, so I'm inclined to not just take their word.
In contrast, I'm posting not as AC and taking the risk.
That said, there are NO sources for this statement. The PDF link gives a 404 and they don't explain what they meant other than using broad terms. It sounds like a lot of FUD without a source to back it up. Does anybody have the PDF? If not then I'd like to see more sources than just an un-signed editorial on Raw Story.
But if you're about to do something that feels wrong, there's an easy answer: ASK A LAWYER or LOOK IT UP.
You aren't expected to know 100% of the law yourself -- you're expected to be a resourceful person. Most laws probably don't apply to you. If you don't have any wetlands on your property you don't need to know wetland law. If you acquire property with wetlands then CALL A LAWYER or LOOK IT UP. Same for laws regulating the duties of stock brokers--if you're not a stock broker, it doesn't apply. If you become a stock broker, call a lawyer or look it up.
I'll bet that there are less than a thousand pages of law that apply to your life. You don't need to "know" them, you just need to know when they apply.
I saw a commercial for beer on TV that featured a hunk in a hot tub surrounded by beautiful women. I tried drinking their product and I found myself fat, alone, and depressed at home watching reruns. The marketing department should be ashamed! Their product doesn't actually cause the things the marketing department suggests it does!
Huh? Some states elect state judges, some states appoint state judges, and the federal government appoints federal judges. I'd argue pretty strongly that the appointment systems involve a lot of questions about knowing the law.
The problem with your statement is that there is a LOT of "the law." The United States Code -- the document that contains all federal laws currently in force -- runs more than 30,000 pages. Nobody ever could "know" all of that law. If you add state laws and federal regulations you're talking in the hundreds of thousands of pages of law.
Our judges are usually generalists. They hear all kinds of cases. So instead of forcing judges to memorize, we rely on the parties on each side of a lawsuit to present the law to the judge and to inform him what the correct law is. The judge then takes his general legal training and figures out which side is correct, instead of trying to memorize a 30,000-page body of law.
Good judges are usually good lawyers. They are usually very good at legal reasoning. They usually aren't good at memorizing 30,000 pages of text. I'd much rather have smart judges able to reason than judges who have memorized a huge book.
RTFA -- She claims that she misheard the question and thought they were still discussing downloads, not ripping from disc. Who knows if that's true or not, but it's probably more than enough of a defense against any kind of complaint.
To reach the level of perjury you need to show that she knowingly and intentionally lied. There are two problems here -- First, she only said it once and claims that she didn't hear the question. To really nail somebody on perjury you have to show that their entire testimony revolved around a big lie. For example, if the witness comes up with a whole story as to where he was on July 2, 2007 that turns out to be a total lie. Even then, it's tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness was entirely fabricating. Second, it has to be an actual statement of fact. The RIAA has announced that they're not pressing the argument that ripping is stealing, but there is an argument that copying a CD to a computer is still copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if it's a good argument or a bad argument (I think most/. readers think it's a bad argument). All that matters is that it's an argument that one could make with a straight face in court (there's a "copy" of the data on the CD created--hence copyright infringement). That's enough to make it not a lie.
Look, the RIAA does plenty of things wrong. Focus on the real ones rather than the little petty ones.
First -- If we "disbarred" every judge who didn't correct a lawyer's error then there would be no judges left in about a week. Seriously. Lawyers in court, especially in trial court, say dumb things on an hourly (if not more often) basis.
Second -- It's the job of the other party (here, the defense) to object when a lawyer on the other side says something improper. If the defense failed to object to it then they waived the right to appeal it. The idea is that you want to allow things to be corrected at the time (by telling the jury "that's not the law" or instructing them on what the law really is) rather than looking for mistakes after the fact and having to start all over. Trials are long, complicated, and expensive. If we looked for every mistake after the fact there'd never be any finality to any ruling. Instead, we rely on the defense to catch the plaintiffs' mistakes as trial goes (and vice-versa).
Third -- It depends on the state, but in most cases there is a judicial misconduct process that requires showing that the judge actively committed some wrong (took money from one side, or tried to intimidate a witness into not testifying, etc). Getting the law wrong happens all the time. That's why we have appeals. If we disciplined every judge who got the law wrong at some point there'd be no judges left and we'd have no reason to have an appeal process. Tens of thousands of cases get appealed every year, and almost every appeal is premised on a claim that the trial judge got the law wrong. That can't be a basis for discipline or we'd run out of judges within a week.
It doesn't seem like the real market is in vaccinating children -- it's in people who are voluntarily trying to quit use of cocaine through rehab and therapy. If I had a monkey on my back, was trying to quit, and knew that I could relapse at any moment I'd be quite happy to get pharmacological help in quitting. It's the same as heroin addicts who are in rehab and want methadone or the new drugs that block the action of street drugs.
In that case, it's great. You can argue about parents vaccinating their kids, but it's not clear that the vaccine would last long enough nor be priced right for it to be a routine part of kid therapy. But it could be a huge help for those who want to quit and fear relapse into addiction.*
*-You can argue whether cocaine is highly physically addictive or just slightly physically addictive, but there's no denying that there are plenty of people who are (at least) psychologically addicted to powder or rock.
Cobain dies in 1994, before Iraq/Afghanistan/Paul were stories of any sort
The first war in Iraq was in 1990-91. Iraq was a story before Cobain died.
Afghanistan should have been a major story in the early 1990s. The mujhadin took over the capital in 1992 and paved the way for the current government.
If the complaint is that there isn't enough "hard" news or "real" news then Kurt Cobain is a terrible example. He was important to rock, but Britney is important to pop.
No, what's really ironic is that an article summary complaining about the lack of "serious" and "important" news on TV uses the example of a rock star killing himself as "important" news. If the point is that Britney/Paris/Nicole aren't "real" news compared to actual events in Iraq/Afghanistan/RonPaul then why is Kurt Cobain somehow so important to deserve mention in the headline? It seems like the problem is one of music taste, not importance. If the news spent entire segments on rock stars (instead of pop stars) at the expense of Iraq/Afghanistan/RonPaul news I think the author would think that's just as bad.
Don't forget transmission costs--even if Morocco produced enough power for western Europe, the power would still be in Africa instead of Europe. Long-distance power lines are expensive, vulnerable to failure, and lose (at best) 10% of power transmitted. There's water between Europe and Africa, meaning that they'd either have to string really big lines across Gibralter or run a giant copper cable. Going underground through cable is expensive and leads to larger power losses because you can't run the same high voltages in the middle of a salt bath as you can from high-tension wires.
All of that assumes that having a single point of failure for all power in western Europe would be a good idea. Seems like it would make a lucrative target for political disruptions, a massive piece of negotiating leverage for Morocco, and vulnerable to all kinds of natural disasters.
And don't get me started on microwave power transmission. Haven't we all played enough SimCity to know how that can go horribly wrong?
If it really were that easy then greed would have caused Bronson (or somebody else) to have done it already. He's incredibly greedy but usually tells established business to go bugger itself and launches disruptive technologies when there's an opportunity to undercut the market.
-- you can't tell who, what, or when the incident occurred.
That's part of the point. The data collection is ANONYMOUS. The goal is that pilots will report MORE if they know that their voluntary reporting of incidents that don't require FAA reports will stay anonymous. Stuff happens up there. Sometimes it's bad stuff that's nobody's fault. But a pilot is far more likely to call attention to a potentially bad situation that's nobody's fault if he knows that it won't come back and bite him.
If you add the exact time and coordinates of every incident it wouldn't be hard to back-track and put names with each one. There are VERY detailed FAA records of who flew every flight leg in the country over the last few years. It's not hard to back-up anonymous data if you leave too many variables that can be referenced with outside data -- see what happened to Netflix/IMBD.
If it takes anonymity to get better data, then let's get better data. I'd much rather have more anonymous pilots reporting close calls truthfully than have fewer pilots reporting data and trying to put a positive spin on it. You can make as many laws as you want requiring disclosure, but every single pilot in the known universe will always put a positive spin on things if he knows that his job (and his family) are on the line.
Unless you feel like giving your money away in $30 chunks to those reputation management companies that have sprung up. I'm sure they'd be quite happy to take $30 a pop to get rid of your kegstands, bong hits, 4:20 celebrations, cross-dressing....
As is often the case, law and ethics diverge on the question of a duty to report crime.
It is the general rule in the the US that there is no duty to report crime absent a special relationship between the people involved. Teachers and nurses have to report child abuse, but if you witness a murder there is no duty to say a word unless you are subpoenaed to testify in a court. Hint: when you are being questioned ask "am I free to go?" and then go find legal representation. You can walk right past a crime scene and never call the cops if you don't want to. Of course, that assumes you had nothing to do with the murder -- if you were part of the conspiracy to commit the murder then your legal duties change pretty dramatically.
In general Europe has stronger duties to help/report, so law there might differ.
As always, check with YOUR attorney -- IANAL, state laws may vary, and there might be specific laws covering your situation.
Nobody can access the light projected on your retina, it's not a fixed copy. Nor are pressure waves a fixed means of expression. They are also transitory.
RAM is a question in the courts. The Ninth Circuit long ago held that RAM is a fixed copy for the purpose of copyright. See a description of the case, MAI v. Peak.
Intent doesn't matter in this area, unfortunately. It might under some kind of Universal Principles of Justice, but Congress didn't write the law that way.
Before you go out and buy a crate of CD-Rs, it's also illegal to import unlicensed copyrighted material and can be seized on import. See, for example, the Berne convention.
Sure thing, but not exactly for the reasons you think. Under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule the government can't use an illegal search to justify a later wiretap. Any evidence that was found as a result of the illegal search can't be used to justify a later warrant or wiretap. It's all a result ("fruit") of the first search (the "poisinous tree") so it must be discarded -- hence, "fruit of the poisonous tree."
In other words, let's say that government agents broke into Joe's house without a warrant and found child porn. We all agree that the evidence found in that search has to be excluded. But the government also can't use that first illegal search to get a warrant for a wiretap for a later search. That would be fruit of the poisonous tree -- the only way the government knew to get a warrant was an illegal search.
In contrast, the rule doesn't apply to non-government agents. A burglar breaks in and finds child porn, then the government can get a wiretap warrant or a search warrant.
And it's not clear that the evidence found by the burglar wouldn't be admitted. The risk that the burglar planted the evidence goes to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility. If the homeowner really wants to argue that the burglar was carrying child porn around and planted it then the homeowner is free to raise that argument. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
[As always, evidence laws vary by state -- check with a local attorney if you think a burglar left child porn in your house]
There's at least an argument that such a law would be unconstitutional as it would make computer repair technicians into agents of the state. It's one thing if they act voluntarily to report suspicious files (like here), it's another if there's a criminal penalty for failing to do so. I'm curious and will read up on it. Thanks for the tip.
The above raises a good point -- store your data in a manner that's not easily accessed.
But, this case raises TWO different questions that are getting confused.
1 -- Did the service technician violate the privacy of the computer owner by looking at files on the hard drive that might not have been required to perform the repair work? This is a question of civil law, and possibly of the contract between the user and technician.
2 -- Can the police use the evidence found by the technician to prosecute the computer owner? This is a question of constitutional law and criminal procedure.
The answers to 1 and 2 are not necessarily linked.
The constitution provides protection against GOVERNMENT searches of your property. The government can't, without a warrant or an emergency, take your computer away and look through your files. Nor can the government pay a repairman to do what the government can't do directly--for example, if the government paid repairmen to snoop through computer.
But, the constitution doesn't say anything about what OTHER people can do. If the repairman did snoop beyond the limits of his authorization then the computer owner might be able to sue the repairman. But, just because the repairman did a bad thing doesn't mean that the protections in the constitution against government invasion are automatically triggered. Take a different example -- a burglar breaks into a home, steals a lot of stuff, and also sees child porn on the way out the door. If the burglar gives an anonymous tip to the police (or bargains for a lighter sentence in exchange for testimony) then the evidence can probably still be used, even though the burglar had no right whatsoever to be in your house. In fact, it was CRIMINAL for the burglar to be inside your house at the time he saw the child porn, but it's still probably fair game in a prosecution.
The key difference is whether the STATE has violated your right to privacy. You can't bargain with the state to set a higher or lower expectation of privacy; we have a Constitution that sets a minimum floor of privacy for everyone. But, you can negotiate with a computer repair service--if one service offers "no privacy-we'll read all your files" and the other say "complete privacy, for a little bit more money" then you get to pick which one you like, and to sue the "complete privacy" company if they break their word.
Disclaimer: Before you do something dumb, speak with YOUR attorney. I am not an attorney and the law often turns on what seem like very small differences in facts; your situation is probably different and will require personalized advice.
"Hearsay" as a legal concept refers to repeating things said out-of-court while on the witness stand. The short version is that I can't say in court "Joe told me that Bob was the murderer" unless one of several exceptions applies. For example, I would be able to say "Bob admitted to me that he was the murderer" since there's usually an exception for statements made by the defendant in a criminal case.
But, "hearsay" means nothing to the law when we're talking about your friends sharing information you gave to them in confidence. It's technically hearsay in that he doesn't have first-hand knowledge, but that doesn't matter to the law in this case. If he goes around truthfully telling the world that you are a child-abuse victim when you told him that information in confidence (or if he acquired the information by improper means, like reading email over your shoulder using a surveillance camera) then in many states you will be able to sue him.
If somebody stole physical files from my doctor, the doctor could sue for theft since the doctor owned the physical files. I would have to sue for a privacy tort, such as invasion of privacy (see Wikipedia). Same goes if he just photocopied the files -- there's no "theft" since nothing physical was missing. Instead, you have to use a privacy tort.
I am not a US lawyer either, but I have studied US law. Don't rely on Slashdot or Wikipedia for legal advice.
Short answer: One can gain energy from fusing small things (Hydrogen + Hydrogen -> Helium) and splitting very large things (plutonium, uranium, etc). Everything ends up being closer to the middle than it was before.
The reason why that works has to do with the energy levels of the bonds between the sub-atomic components, but just think "fuse small, fiss big". Eventually we'll all just be helium.
"Defamation" does not include the truth, but "invasion of privacy" and "public disclosure of private information" both do. Let's say that you had HIV, but it was under control with medication. You'd hope that you would have a cause of action against your doctor if he revealed that information to the world, right? Or if you kept it a secret that you were a victim of child abuse and somebody published a full-page advertisement in the local newspaper calling you out on it. It's not necessarily something to be "ashamed of" but it might not be something you want the world to know.
Unless you're a public figure, the law in most states recognizes that there is true information that people have a right to keep to themselves. See, ironically,Wikipedia on invasion of privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
What about music that's written with the intent that it be used as a backdrop to something else, like a film score? The intended use of that music is to be incorporated into something else that adds a layer of creativity. If you say "any use that adds something to the work is fair use" then film scores effectively lose ALL protection. The original film, for which they are written, wouldn't have to pay royalties because it would be adding something and making "fair use" of it.
Same for stock photography and stock video providers -- their GOAL is to provide raw material as input into a larger work. They spend a lot of time and money shooting and editing stock. If you claim any use of their work is fair use (it's always incorporated into a larger whole, and often transformed along the way) then stock photographers and videographers can't get paid (all use is fair use--why pay for it) and might just stop producing stock material. It's a huge benefit to illustrators and designers to have stock photography and video available. (As an aside, some stock photographers create really good work)
How does he address the fact that some people design work with the hopes of being paid by producers who will assemble it into a larger whole, and that producers are glad to have designer's work available?
It seems the above comment focuses on "will probably" without sources, much like the Raw Story unsigned editorial.
Has anybody actually SEEN the draft so that we can comment on it intelligently without relying on "I think the US government is bad, so I'm going to assume they're doing horrible things"? The PDF link in the Rawstory unsigned editorial doesn't work, so it's awfully hard to evaluate their claims. The homepage of Rawstory makes their bias pretty clear, so I'm inclined to not just take their word.
In contrast, I'm posting not as AC and taking the risk.
That said, there are NO sources for this statement. The PDF link gives a 404 and they don't explain what they meant other than using broad terms. It sounds like a lot of FUD without a source to back it up. Does anybody have the PDF? If not then I'd like to see more sources than just an un-signed editorial on Raw Story.
The EFF's view isn't any more "what copyright law actually says" than the RIAA's until a judge rules on it. And even then it's subject to appeal.
But if you're about to do something that feels wrong, there's an easy answer: ASK A LAWYER or LOOK IT UP.
You aren't expected to know 100% of the law yourself -- you're expected to be a resourceful person. Most laws probably don't apply to you. If you don't have any wetlands on your property you don't need to know wetland law. If you acquire property with wetlands then CALL A LAWYER or LOOK IT UP. Same for laws regulating the duties of stock brokers--if you're not a stock broker, it doesn't apply. If you become a stock broker, call a lawyer or look it up.
I'll bet that there are less than a thousand pages of law that apply to your life. You don't need to "know" them, you just need to know when they apply.
I saw a commercial for beer on TV that featured a hunk in a hot tub surrounded by beautiful women. I tried drinking their product and I found myself fat, alone, and depressed at home watching reruns. The marketing department should be ashamed! Their product doesn't actually cause the things the marketing department suggests it does!
Huh? Some states elect state judges, some states appoint state judges, and the federal government appoints federal judges. I'd argue pretty strongly that the appointment systems involve a lot of questions about knowing the law.
The problem with your statement is that there is a LOT of "the law." The United States Code -- the document that contains all federal laws currently in force -- runs more than 30,000 pages. Nobody ever could "know" all of that law. If you add state laws and federal regulations you're talking in the hundreds of thousands of pages of law.
Our judges are usually generalists. They hear all kinds of cases. So instead of forcing judges to memorize, we rely on the parties on each side of a lawsuit to present the law to the judge and to inform him what the correct law is. The judge then takes his general legal training and figures out which side is correct, instead of trying to memorize a 30,000-page body of law.
Good judges are usually good lawyers. They are usually very good at legal reasoning. They usually aren't good at memorizing 30,000 pages of text. I'd much rather have smart judges able to reason than judges who have memorized a huge book.
RTFA -- "she", not "he"
/. readers think it's a bad argument). All that matters is that it's an argument that one could make with a straight face in court (there's a "copy" of the data on the CD created--hence copyright infringement). That's enough to make it not a lie.
RTFA -- She claims that she misheard the question and thought they were still discussing downloads, not ripping from disc. Who knows if that's true or not, but it's probably more than enough of a defense against any kind of complaint.
To reach the level of perjury you need to show that she knowingly and intentionally lied. There are two problems here -- First, she only said it once and claims that she didn't hear the question. To really nail somebody on perjury you have to show that their entire testimony revolved around a big lie. For example, if the witness comes up with a whole story as to where he was on July 2, 2007 that turns out to be a total lie. Even then, it's tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness was entirely fabricating. Second, it has to be an actual statement of fact. The RIAA has announced that they're not pressing the argument that ripping is stealing, but there is an argument that copying a CD to a computer is still copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if it's a good argument or a bad argument (I think most
Look, the RIAA does plenty of things wrong. Focus on the real ones rather than the little petty ones.
First -- If we "disbarred" every judge who didn't correct a lawyer's error then there would be no judges left in about a week. Seriously. Lawyers in court, especially in trial court, say dumb things on an hourly (if not more often) basis.
Second -- It's the job of the other party (here, the defense) to object when a lawyer on the other side says something improper. If the defense failed to object to it then they waived the right to appeal it. The idea is that you want to allow things to be corrected at the time (by telling the jury "that's not the law" or instructing them on what the law really is) rather than looking for mistakes after the fact and having to start all over. Trials are long, complicated, and expensive. If we looked for every mistake after the fact there'd never be any finality to any ruling. Instead, we rely on the defense to catch the plaintiffs' mistakes as trial goes (and vice-versa).
Third -- It depends on the state, but in most cases there is a judicial misconduct process that requires showing that the judge actively committed some wrong (took money from one side, or tried to intimidate a witness into not testifying, etc). Getting the law wrong happens all the time. That's why we have appeals. If we disciplined every judge who got the law wrong at some point there'd be no judges left and we'd have no reason to have an appeal process. Tens of thousands of cases get appealed every year, and almost every appeal is premised on a claim that the trial judge got the law wrong. That can't be a basis for discipline or we'd run out of judges within a week.
It doesn't seem like the real market is in vaccinating children -- it's in people who are voluntarily trying to quit use of cocaine through rehab and therapy. If I had a monkey on my back, was trying to quit, and knew that I could relapse at any moment I'd be quite happy to get pharmacological help in quitting. It's the same as heroin addicts who are in rehab and want methadone or the new drugs that block the action of street drugs.
In that case, it's great. You can argue about parents vaccinating their kids, but it's not clear that the vaccine would last long enough nor be priced right for it to be a routine part of kid therapy. But it could be a huge help for those who want to quit and fear relapse into addiction.*
*-You can argue whether cocaine is highly physically addictive or just slightly physically addictive, but there's no denying that there are plenty of people who are (at least) psychologically addicted to powder or rock.
Cobain dies in 1994, before Iraq/Afghanistan/Paul were stories of any sort
The first war in Iraq was in 1990-91. Iraq was a story before Cobain died.
Afghanistan should have been a major story in the early 1990s. The mujhadin took over the capital in 1992 and paved the way for the current government.
Ron Paul wasn't a story, but Ross Perot was.
If the complaint is that there isn't enough "hard" news or "real" news then Kurt Cobain is a terrible example. He was important to rock, but Britney is important to pop.
No, what's really ironic is that an article summary complaining about the lack of "serious" and "important" news on TV uses the example of a rock star killing himself as "important" news. If the point is that Britney/Paris/Nicole aren't "real" news compared to actual events in Iraq/Afghanistan/RonPaul then why is Kurt Cobain somehow so important to deserve mention in the headline? It seems like the problem is one of music taste, not importance. If the news spent entire segments on rock stars (instead of pop stars) at the expense of Iraq/Afghanistan/RonPaul news I think the author would think that's just as bad.
Otherwise, interesting article.
Don't forget transmission costs--even if Morocco produced enough power for western Europe, the power would still be in Africa instead of Europe. Long-distance power lines are expensive, vulnerable to failure, and lose (at best) 10% of power transmitted. There's water between Europe and Africa, meaning that they'd either have to string really big lines across Gibralter or run a giant copper cable. Going underground through cable is expensive and leads to larger power losses because you can't run the same high voltages in the middle of a salt bath as you can from high-tension wires.
All of that assumes that having a single point of failure for all power in western Europe would be a good idea. Seems like it would make a lucrative target for political disruptions, a massive piece of negotiating leverage for Morocco, and vulnerable to all kinds of natural disasters.
And don't get me started on microwave power transmission. Haven't we all played enough SimCity to know how that can go horribly wrong?
If it really were that easy then greed would have caused Bronson (or somebody else) to have done it already. He's incredibly greedy but usually tells established business to go bugger itself and launches disruptive technologies when there's an opportunity to undercut the market.
-- you can't tell who, what, or when the incident occurred.
That's part of the point. The data collection is ANONYMOUS. The goal is that pilots will report MORE if they know that their voluntary reporting of incidents that don't require FAA reports will stay anonymous. Stuff happens up there. Sometimes it's bad stuff that's nobody's fault. But a pilot is far more likely to call attention to a potentially bad situation that's nobody's fault if he knows that it won't come back and bite him.
If you add the exact time and coordinates of every incident it wouldn't be hard to back-track and put names with each one. There are VERY detailed FAA records of who flew every flight leg in the country over the last few years. It's not hard to back-up anonymous data if you leave too many variables that can be referenced with outside data -- see what happened to Netflix/IMBD.
If it takes anonymity to get better data, then let's get better data. I'd much rather have more anonymous pilots reporting close calls truthfully than have fewer pilots reporting data and trying to put a positive spin on it. You can make as many laws as you want requiring disclosure, but every single pilot in the known universe will always put a positive spin on things if he knows that his job (and his family) are on the line.
Unless you feel like giving your money away in $30 chunks to those reputation management companies that have sprung up. I'm sure they'd be quite happy to take $30 a pop to get rid of your kegstands, bong hits, 4:20 celebrations, cross-dressing....
Oh, crud, that was just last weekend's worth.
As is often the case, law and ethics diverge on the question of a duty to report crime.
It is the general rule in the the US that there is no duty to report crime absent a special relationship between the people involved. Teachers and nurses have to report child abuse, but if you witness a murder there is no duty to say a word unless you are subpoenaed to testify in a court. Hint: when you are being questioned ask "am I free to go?" and then go find legal representation. You can walk right past a crime scene and never call the cops if you don't want to. Of course, that assumes you had nothing to do with the murder -- if you were part of the conspiracy to commit the murder then your legal duties change pretty dramatically.
In general Europe has stronger duties to help/report, so law there might differ.
As always, check with YOUR attorney -- IANAL, state laws may vary, and there might be specific laws covering your situation.
Nobody can access the light projected on your retina, it's not a fixed copy. Nor are pressure waves a fixed means of expression. They are also transitory.
RAM is a question in the courts. The Ninth Circuit long ago held that RAM is a fixed copy for the purpose of copyright. See a description of the case, MAI v. Peak.
Intent doesn't matter in this area, unfortunately. It might under some kind of Universal Principles of Justice, but Congress didn't write the law that way.
Before you go out and buy a crate of CD-Rs, it's also illegal to import unlicensed copyrighted material and can be seized on import. See, for example, the Berne convention.
Sure thing, but not exactly for the reasons you think. Under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule the government can't use an illegal search to justify a later wiretap. Any evidence that was found as a result of the illegal search can't be used to justify a later warrant or wiretap. It's all a result ("fruit") of the first search (the "poisinous tree") so it must be discarded -- hence, "fruit of the poisonous tree."
In other words, let's say that government agents broke into Joe's house without a warrant and found child porn. We all agree that the evidence found in that search has to be excluded. But the government also can't use that first illegal search to get a warrant for a wiretap for a later search. That would be fruit of the poisonous tree -- the only way the government knew to get a warrant was an illegal search.
In contrast, the rule doesn't apply to non-government agents. A burglar breaks in and finds child porn, then the government can get a wiretap warrant or a search warrant.
And it's not clear that the evidence found by the burglar wouldn't be admitted. The risk that the burglar planted the evidence goes to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility. If the homeowner really wants to argue that the burglar was carrying child porn around and planted it then the homeowner is free to raise that argument. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
[As always, evidence laws vary by state -- check with a local attorney if you think a burglar left child porn in your house]
There's at least an argument that such a law would be unconstitutional as it would make computer repair technicians into agents of the state. It's one thing if they act voluntarily to report suspicious files (like here), it's another if there's a criminal penalty for failing to do so. I'm curious and will read up on it. Thanks for the tip.
The above raises a good point -- store your data in a manner that's not easily accessed.
But, this case raises TWO different questions that are getting confused.
1 -- Did the service technician violate the privacy of the computer owner by looking at files on the hard drive that might not have been required to perform the repair work? This is a question of civil law, and possibly of the contract between the user and technician.
2 -- Can the police use the evidence found by the technician to prosecute the computer owner? This is a question of constitutional law and criminal procedure.
The answers to 1 and 2 are not necessarily linked.
The constitution provides protection against GOVERNMENT searches of your property. The government can't, without a warrant or an emergency, take your computer away and look through your files. Nor can the government pay a repairman to do what the government can't do directly--for example, if the government paid repairmen to snoop through computer.
But, the constitution doesn't say anything about what OTHER people can do. If the repairman did snoop beyond the limits of his authorization then the computer owner might be able to sue the repairman. But, just because the repairman did a bad thing doesn't mean that the protections in the constitution against government invasion are automatically triggered. Take a different example -- a burglar breaks into a home, steals a lot of stuff, and also sees child porn on the way out the door. If the burglar gives an anonymous tip to the police (or bargains for a lighter sentence in exchange for testimony) then the evidence can probably still be used, even though the burglar had no right whatsoever to be in your house. In fact, it was CRIMINAL for the burglar to be inside your house at the time he saw the child porn, but it's still probably fair game in a prosecution.
The key difference is whether the STATE has violated your right to privacy. You can't bargain with the state to set a higher or lower expectation of privacy; we have a Constitution that sets a minimum floor of privacy for everyone. But, you can negotiate with a computer repair service--if one service offers "no privacy-we'll read all your files" and the other say "complete privacy, for a little bit more money" then you get to pick which one you like, and to sue the "complete privacy" company if they break their word.
Disclaimer: Before you do something dumb, speak with YOUR attorney. I am not an attorney and the law often turns on what seem like very small differences in facts; your situation is probably different and will require personalized advice.
YANAL.
"Hearsay" as a legal concept refers to repeating things said out-of-court while on the witness stand. The short version is that I can't say in court "Joe told me that Bob was the murderer" unless one of several exceptions applies. For example, I would be able to say "Bob admitted to me that he was the murderer" since there's usually an exception for statements made by the defendant in a criminal case.
But, "hearsay" means nothing to the law when we're talking about your friends sharing information you gave to them in confidence. It's technically hearsay in that he doesn't have first-hand knowledge, but that doesn't matter to the law in this case. If he goes around truthfully telling the world that you are a child-abuse victim when you told him that information in confidence (or if he acquired the information by improper means, like reading email over your shoulder using a surveillance camera) then in many states you will be able to sue him.
If somebody stole physical files from my doctor, the doctor could sue for theft since the doctor owned the physical files. I would have to sue for a privacy tort, such as invasion of privacy (see Wikipedia). Same goes if he just photocopied the files -- there's no "theft" since nothing physical was missing. Instead, you have to use a privacy tort.
I am not a US lawyer either, but I have studied US law. Don't rely on Slashdot or Wikipedia for legal advice.
You mean iron?
:)
Iron or nickel, depending on the path.
But yes.
Short answer: One can gain energy from fusing small things (Hydrogen + Hydrogen -> Helium) and splitting very large things (plutonium, uranium, etc). Everything ends up being closer to the middle than it was before.
The reason why that works has to do with the energy levels of the bonds between the sub-atomic components, but just think "fuse small, fiss big". Eventually we'll all just be helium.
"Defamation" does not include the truth, but "invasion of privacy" and "public disclosure of private information" both do. Let's say that you had HIV, but it was under control with medication. You'd hope that you would have a cause of action against your doctor if he revealed that information to the world, right? Or if you kept it a secret that you were a victim of child abuse and somebody published a full-page advertisement in the local newspaper calling you out on it. It's not necessarily something to be "ashamed of" but it might not be something you want the world to know.
Unless you're a public figure, the law in most states recognizes that there is true information that people have a right to keep to themselves. See, ironically, Wikipedia on invasion of privacy.