I am curious, why do the lawyers on slashdot always preface their statements with "this is not legal advice"? Is there some sort of conduct rule regarding that?
Of course it's kind of dumb, but it's an issue of "better safe than sorry." When a lawyer agrees to represent a client in a lawsuit, they lose the ability to freely back out of it if they decide later they don't want to represent them. The only way to get out is to request leave from the court. Now it's usually granted, but if it isn't you risk getting stuck with a client you hate, or won't pay you, etc.
When deciding whether an attorney-client relationship has been created, the test is basically whether the purported client reasonably believed the relationship was created. If you give legal advice, you risk creating that relationship. Additionally, if it sounds like we're giving legal advice to people in another state, that's the unlicensed practice of law.
On slashdot I don't think any of us really think we're going to get in trouble, but it's sort of a reflex that we don't want to risk losing.
The notion of "antitrust injury" grew from the recognition that a competitor may be
injured not only by prohibited anticompetitive activity, but also by competition itself, and that the
antitrust laws were not intended to afford the latter injuries a remedy. See Balaklaw v. Lovell, 14
F.3d 793, 797 (2d Cir. 1994). Antitrust injury, then, simply means "injury of the type the antitrust
laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful."
Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977); accord Paycom, 467
F.3d at 290. To demonstrate antitrust injury, "a plaintiff must show (1) an injury-in-fact; (2) that
has been caused by the violation; and (3) that is the type of injury contemplated by the statute."
Blue Tree Hotels Inv., Ltd. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 369 F.3d 212, 220 (2d
Cir. 2004). The antitrust injury requirement thus ensures that a "plaintiff can recover only if the
loss stems from a competition-reducing aspect or effect of the defendant's behavior." Atlantic
Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 344 (1990). ...
As described above, Lime Wire alleges a conspiracy among counter-defendants to fix
prices for licenses at both the wholesale and retail levels. At the wholesale level, Lime Wire
alleges that counter-defendants used their joint ventures, MusicNet and pressplay, "to effect a
price-fixing arrangement among horizontal competitors" (FAC 36) -- i.e., among the record
companies themselves.14 Although such a horizontal price-fixing arrangement is per se unlawful
under 1 of the Sherman Act, see Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS, Inc., ___ U.S. ___,Lime Wire has not established that it suffered injury-in-fact as a
Case 1:06-cv-05936-GEL Document 51 Filed 12/03/2007 Page 14 of 45
omitted). "Restraints that are per se unlawful include horizontal agreements among competitors
to fix prices or to divide markets." Id. (citations omitted).
Although Lime Wire asserts in 16 its memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to
dismiss that counter-defendants have "all refused to grant [Lime Wire] licenses to their catalogs
of recorded music even at . . . artificially high prices" (Counter-P. Mem. 6), this allegation does
not appear in the FAC itself, and thus cannot be considered by the Court in evaluating counterdefendants'
motion to dismiss. See Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir.
1993) (noting that on motion to dismiss, consideration of factual allegations is limited to those
allegations contained in complaint).
15
result of counter-defendants' purported arrangement. See Atlantic Richfield, 495 U.S. at 342
(noting that the "per se rule is a method of determining whether 1 of the Sherman Act has been
violated, but it does not indicate whether a private plaintiff has suffered antitrust injury").
Although Lime Wire "actively solicited licensed content" from "independent labels and
artists" and "independent retailers/distributors" (FAC 44), the FAC contains no allegation that
Lime Wire ever attempted to obtain or purchase a license from any of the counter-defendants or
their respective joint ventures.16 Lime Wire's retail competitors may have "faced excessive
wholesale prices" for licenses as a result of the alleged price-fixing scheme (id. 36), but Lime
Wire itself has not alleged any facts demonstrating that it suffered such harm. Although Lime
Wire's attempt to obtain hashes from counter-defendants suggests that it intended eventually to
obtain licenses from them, nothing in Lime Wire's pleading indicates that it has, in fact, sought
(or imminently will seek) such licenses from counter-defendants. Accordingly, Lime Wire
cannot claim that it has suffered injury-in-fact as a result of counter-defendants' wholesale pricefixing
scheme.
The casual gaming market may indeed be a very big one, only problem is you just can't sell a casual gamer on too much.
Hell I consider myself a real gamer and there are almost no Wii games I'm interested in buying. I almost regret buying the damn thing, should have gotten an xbox 360.
IAAL. But if anyone takes this as legal advice you're on crack.
The issue here is the subpoena is aimed at Google, not the anonymous person. I know in the federal courts a party can't object to a subpoena issued to a third party, unless the former has some sort of private right in the information/documents sought. In this case it might be, I don't know what any contract or license says regarding google's privacy policy. But in most places it would be up to Google to object to the subpoena, not the individual.
So, um. What kind of a corporate culture are these guys bringing in? Given the readiness with which the Putin government has been putting the boots to dissension (particularly in terms of media), I have to worry (because I don't have all the information) that increasingly Draconian laws over there might spill over into how the LJ TOS is adjudicated in general.
But that wouldn't fit into the article's argument about Greenpeace crusading against 'the gaming industry' now, would it?
It also wouldn't fit into Zonk's anti-Sony ideology either.
Re:Great show, decent movie
on
Futurama Returns!
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
One thing I've realized about Futurama is that, unlike most "adult cartoons," it actually has a lot of heart. The episodes about Fry's brother, his dog, Lela's parents, and of course the whole Lela and Fry subplot are quite sweet, and you it actually give a crap about the loserish characters.
In the end I think that's what makes Futurama past the Simpsons in terms of quality.
The entire point of all games (not just video games) is that they allow you to pretend to do things without the moral sanctions that normally apply.
There are several different reasons to play games, and I don't think escaping moral sanctions is the "entire point". I play games because I enjoy a challenge; whether intellectually, in the case of adventure or RPG games, or physically, in terms of racing or FPSes. And when I'm playing a game I generally play the good guy; I get a little squeamish about murdering people left and right. Yes, it's not "real," but I find I enjoy myself better if I act morally in the game.
Well I know anyone who criticizes Nintendo for any reason is drawn and quartered here, and even the word makes most slashdotters' (and all slashdot editors') critical thinking skills vanish in a puff of smoke...but my experience has been that if a company doesn't mention something, it's for a reason. If Nintendo is willing to brag about environmental steps they've taken, they're going to throw everything that possibly makes them look good in there. They're not going to fail to mention something positive out of humility or anything.
This is unsurprising, and should probably be patently obvious to anyone who has ever worked with children.
But it's not patently obvious to a lot of people on slashdot. Over the past 10 years I have gotten the sense that the majority of slashdotters are strong believers in IQ as genetically based and immutable. They're born smart, most of everyone else is dumb, end of story.
In fact, the group found that the industry grew by an astonishing 17% between 2003-2006, some 13% faster than the general US economy.
That's astonishing? 13% faster in 3 years is actually kind of weak, considering the fact that the videogame industry is still maturing, the fact that games used to be just for kids, but now have a much bigger audience than they did even in the 90s.
You'd think that, being a commercial website focused on delivering news and information to geeks, that, just perhaps, by now they'd have learned how to do a little research and actually provide some real information and intelligent articles instead of just blindly passing along whatever some troll dragged up off of a random news site.
What I've always wondered is what exactly to the editors do? Technical changes to the site occur at a glacial pace, from what I understand they have staff that handle the actual day-to-day computer systems that host it, and they're obviously not editing the articles that come in. Posting a few articles a day where the submitters do all the work must take literally a few minutes of time. What do they do with the other 7 hours and 45 minutes of the workday?
. Let LANCOR explain to the Nigerian government and people how their greed and abuse of patent law is screwing up the education of Nigeria's children and putting them at a serious disadvantage to the country's neighbors.
Just out of curiousity...If the OLPC project was violating the GPL, and the FSF brought a lawsuit against them, would everyone here be blasting them as well?
I don't know the facts of the situation, but if I was a Nigerian inventor and the OLPC, which is funded by some of the wealthiest corporations in the world, stole my ideas I'd be a little annoyed too.
Now who do we know that might file dozens or hundreds of frivolous lawsuits I wonder?
It has to REALLY be bad, though. I've only seen that done in the case of severely disturbed individuals who file delusional, conspiracy-laden complaints, stuff that makes Thompson's stuff look sane by comparison.
Someone with a law background correct me if I'm wrong, but being disbarred just means that he can't represent other people in court. IIRC, you can always represent yourself with or without a law license (no matter how bad an idea it is).
Yep, pretty much. In a very few cases a court will issue an injunction against particularly annoying pro se litigants (like the kind who file dozens or hundreds of frivolous lawsuits) prohibiting them from filing anything without it going through a lawyer first, but this is rare.
Slashdot Mirror
I am curious, why do the lawyers on slashdot always preface their statements with "this is not legal advice"? Is there some sort of conduct rule regarding that?
Of course it's kind of dumb, but it's an issue of "better safe than sorry." When a lawyer agrees to represent a client in a lawsuit, they lose the ability to freely back out of it if they decide later they don't want to represent them. The only way to get out is to request leave from the court. Now it's usually granted, but if it isn't you risk getting stuck with a client you hate, or won't pay you, etc.
When deciding whether an attorney-client relationship has been created, the test is basically whether the purported client reasonably believed the relationship was created. If you give legal advice, you risk creating that relationship. Additionally, if it sounds like we're giving legal advice to people in another state, that's the unlicensed practice of law.
On slashdot I don't think any of us really think we're going to get in trouble, but it's sort of a reflex that we don't want to risk losing.
After I finish Zelda, and if there are no other games that interest me, maybe I will. Thanks for the suggestion, I honestly didn't think about that.
The casual gaming market may indeed be a very big one, only problem is you just can't sell a casual gamer on too much.
Hell I consider myself a real gamer and there are almost no Wii games I'm interested in buying. I almost regret buying the damn thing, should have gotten an xbox 360.
IAAL. But if anyone takes this as legal advice you're on crack.
The issue here is the subpoena is aimed at Google, not the anonymous person. I know in the federal courts a party can't object to a subpoena issued to a third party, unless the former has some sort of private right in the information/documents sought. In this case it might be, I don't know what any contract or license says regarding google's privacy policy. But in most places it would be up to Google to object to the subpoena, not the individual.
So, um. What kind of a corporate culture are these guys bringing in? Given the readiness with which the Putin government has been putting the boots to dissension (particularly in terms of media), I have to worry (because I don't have all the information) that increasingly Draconian laws over there might spill over into how the LJ TOS is adjudicated in general.
Interestingly, SUP is run by an American...
I keep seeing people say "they know" editors are paid off for positive press, but nobody ever backs it up with proof.
We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are...kinds of evidence.
she got a Zune.
...which does everything the ipod does anyway, so they all lived happily ever after.
But that wouldn't fit into the article's argument about Greenpeace crusading against 'the gaming industry' now, would it?
It also wouldn't fit into Zonk's anti-Sony ideology either.
One thing I've realized about Futurama is that, unlike most "adult cartoons," it actually has a lot of heart. The episodes about Fry's brother, his dog, Lela's parents, and of course the whole Lela and Fry subplot are quite sweet, and you it actually give a crap about the loserish characters.
In the end I think that's what makes Futurama past the Simpsons in terms of quality.
We also recycle and reuse paper and and aluminum cans.
The difference is Nintendo DOES publicize these things. It would be like if your company publicized that you recycled paper, but not aluminum cans.
The entire point of all games (not just video games) is that they allow you to pretend to do things without the moral sanctions that normally apply.
There are several different reasons to play games, and I don't think escaping moral sanctions is the "entire point". I play games because I enjoy a challenge; whether intellectually, in the case of adventure or RPG games, or physically, in terms of racing or FPSes. And when I'm playing a game I generally play the good guy; I get a little squeamish about murdering people left and right. Yes, it's not "real," but I find I enjoy myself better if I act morally in the game.
Well I know anyone who criticizes Nintendo for any reason is drawn and quartered here, and even the word makes most slashdotters' (and all slashdot editors') critical thinking skills vanish in a puff of smoke...but my experience has been that if a company doesn't mention something, it's for a reason. If Nintendo is willing to brag about environmental steps they've taken, they're going to throw everything that possibly makes them look good in there. They're not going to fail to mention something positive out of humility or anything.
Whilst I'm pleased to see Nintendo pulling ahead of the XBox and the PS3
Why? Are you a stockholder?
This is unsurprising, and should probably be patently obvious to anyone who has ever worked with children.
But it's not patently obvious to a lot of people on slashdot. Over the past 10 years I have gotten the sense that the majority of slashdotters are strong believers in IQ as genetically based and immutable. They're born smart, most of everyone else is dumb, end of story.
I would much rather my children watch a something pronographic(my spelling) than something violent.
I'd rather the opposite. Young children inherently understand violence; they don't inherently understand sex.
In fact, the group found that the industry grew by an astonishing 17% between 2003-2006, some 13% faster than the general US economy.
That's astonishing? 13% faster in 3 years is actually kind of weak, considering the fact that the videogame industry is still maturing, the fact that games used to be just for kids, but now have a much bigger audience than they did even in the 90s.
Whoa dude you just blew my mind. Never thought about it that way.
But if they spend all that time reading slashdot, you'd think there wouldn't be so many dupes...
You'd think that, being a commercial website focused on delivering news and information to geeks, that, just perhaps, by now they'd have learned how to do a little research and actually provide some real information and intelligent articles instead of just blindly passing along whatever some troll dragged up off of a random news site.
What I've always wondered is what exactly to the editors do? Technical changes to the site occur at a glacial pace, from what I understand they have staff that handle the actual day-to-day computer systems that host it, and they're obviously not editing the articles that come in. Posting a few articles a day where the submitters do all the work must take literally a few minutes of time. What do they do with the other 7 hours and 45 minutes of the workday?
. Let LANCOR explain to the Nigerian government and people how their greed and abuse of patent law is screwing up the education of Nigeria's children and putting them at a serious disadvantage to the country's neighbors.
Just out of curiousity...If the OLPC project was violating the GPL, and the FSF brought a lawsuit against them, would everyone here be blasting them as well?
I don't know the facts of the situation, but if I was a Nigerian inventor and the OLPC, which is funded by some of the wealthiest corporations in the world, stole my ideas I'd be a little annoyed too.
Yes, definitely. Hell, I've been tempted lately to buy a PS2 just so I can play it again.
Ron Paul is a Republican and he doesn't seem narrow-minded at all.
Ron Paul is one of the most narrow-minded people in politics, by every definition of "narrow-minded" I can think of.
Now who do we know that might file dozens or hundreds of frivolous lawsuits I wonder?
It has to REALLY be bad, though. I've only seen that done in the case of severely disturbed individuals who file delusional, conspiracy-laden complaints, stuff that makes Thompson's stuff look sane by comparison.
Someone with a law background correct me if I'm wrong, but being disbarred just means that he can't represent other people in court. IIRC, you can always represent yourself with or without a law license (no matter how bad an idea it is).
Yep, pretty much. In a very few cases a court will issue an injunction against particularly annoying pro se litigants (like the kind who file dozens or hundreds of frivolous lawsuits) prohibiting them from filing anything without it going through a lawyer first, but this is rare.
May as well just go and get a low end tablet pc
I find reading books on computer screens for long periods of time to be very annoying; if I buy the kindle it will be for the e-ink screen.