->So what happens if people mirror the court records? Do you have to be "served" with notice that what you publish is sealed? I'm not a lawyer, so only qualification is being old..so I remember things like Pentagon papers. As far as relevance, I believe the court will seal the record, ie, you can't get a copy from them or any involved attornies, plaintiff, defendants. But I don't believe they can uphold any restriction to publish after being relased originally (w/o expectation of being reversed on appeal). I believe in pentagon papers where it was feds vs. washington post ? it was held that even if the papers were stolen and illegally taken, that did not prevent the press, not having been a party involved in stealing them, but simply a recipient, from publishing them. government was enjoined from any retrainst of the publication of them in full. (This is REAL old recollection, so I anyone has more brain cells left than i, please correct any error) The question being if the fact this isn't gov't but civil (but not civilized) will impact. But hey, the 1st is still the 1st.
I think the cat is truly out of the bag now. All it'd take is one media organization (yeah, i know, they own most of them) to publish what had been in the open court documents. I don't think any court would attempt to restrict publication, and should they try, I don't think it'd ever hold up. At that point it'd be MPAA against journalists, and you get the good ones they'll go to jail before pandering to anything they believe is an attempt to hinder the 1st. Thanks lawyers. It might even be damn difficult to get anyone to force removal of the court transacript, which was public prior to sealing, from ANY web site, let alone from some major print media. That's a whole different thing.
This is so perverted, but in this day and age logic and law doesn't seem to coexist - Why don't the defendants in the MPAA suits sue Xing, or attempt to force them to be a party to existing suit so MPAA is it's own members/licensee. After all, their failure to protect their own NDA was 'assisting and providing data necessary' to provide the decryption program.
Opting out of doubleclick is fine here, and if that causes a problem for site that use doubleclick for services, then that's too bad. Ethics you say? Ethical behavoir wouldn't include going through my wastebasket without my premission to put together all my receipts and sell the data with my name and address. How is doubleclick any different. If a RESPONSIBLE advertiser wishes to send me banner ads and that keeps web sites operating and provides them an income, then I'm all for it.
Interestingly, as people mention FTC complaints (which is good), one should also remember that doubleclick is now a public company, listed on the stock exchange with a LOT of stockholders that expect to make money. A little bad publicity about a lot of opt-outs, even if only temporarily, can cause a hefty hit to their share price with the way the market acts these days. They're after a buck, and their shareholders are certainly after an increase in revenues...and unlike celebrities, the market DOESN'T like bad publicity for a company, even if the press does spell their name correctly.
There is one VERY big flaw with your hypothesis. The lousy 5.00 t-shirt he 'stole' from the open safe was one he previously purchased, he didn't steel it, he simply retrieved his own property. As for impact on decryption of personal data by government, no implications, as the government doesn't OWN my personal data. Valenti and his cronies are nothing but an old west lynchmob. Using a similar hypothetical, I leave my t-shirt in a friends car. It's unlocked. I open the door and retrieve it. I don't think I'd get arrested. If it's locked I ask for the key. If I'm told 'no, you can only have your t-shirt when I say you can', he is holding my t-shirt hostage. It's a little like the MPAA seeling me a DVD then telling me they'll hold it hostage to be played when and where upon their conditions. I'll look, but does a DVD itself state that it can ONLY be played on official CCA licensed players? Is there any license I'm agreeing to when I PURCHASE a DVD stating that? I sure don't remember seeing anything to that effect. Maybe some lawyers should come from that direction??
Slashdot Mirror
->So what happens if people mirror the court records? Do you have to be "served" with notice that what you publish is sealed?
I'm not a lawyer, so only qualification is being old..so I remember things like Pentagon papers. As far as relevance, I believe the court will seal the record, ie, you can't get a copy from them or any involved attornies, plaintiff, defendants. But I don't believe they can uphold any restriction to publish after being relased originally (w/o expectation of being reversed on appeal). I believe in pentagon papers where it was feds vs. washington post ? it was held that even if the papers were stolen and illegally taken, that did not prevent the press, not having been a party involved in stealing them, but simply a recipient, from publishing them. government was enjoined from any retrainst of the publication of them in full. (This is REAL old recollection, so I anyone has more brain cells left than i, please correct any error) The question being if the fact this isn't gov't but civil (but not civilized) will impact. But hey, the 1st is still the 1st.
Based on the sales digures, I think it's much more than early adopters at this point. Hell, I gave them away as Christmas presents.
I think the cat is truly out of the bag now. All it'd take is one media organization (yeah, i know, they own most of them) to publish what had been in the open court documents. I don't think any court would attempt to restrict publication, and should they try, I don't think it'd ever hold up. At that point it'd be MPAA against journalists, and you get the good ones they'll go to jail before pandering to anything they believe is an attempt to hinder the 1st. Thanks lawyers. It might even be damn difficult to get anyone to force removal of the court transacript, which was public prior to sealing, from ANY web site, let alone from some major print media. That's a whole different thing.
This is so perverted, but in this day and age logic and law doesn't seem to coexist - Why don't the defendants in the MPAA suits sue Xing, or attempt to force them to be a party to existing suit so MPAA is it's own members/licensee. After all, their failure to protect their own NDA was 'assisting and providing data necessary' to provide the decryption program.
Opting out of doubleclick is fine here, and if that causes a problem for site that use doubleclick for services, then that's too bad.
Ethics you say? Ethical behavoir wouldn't include going through my wastebasket without my premission to put together all my receipts and sell the data with my name and address. How is doubleclick any different. If a RESPONSIBLE advertiser wishes to send me banner ads and that keeps web sites operating and provides them an income, then I'm all for it.
Interestingly, as people mention FTC complaints (which is good), one should also remember that doubleclick is now a public company, listed on the stock exchange with a LOT of stockholders that expect to make money. A little bad publicity about a lot of opt-outs, even if only temporarily, can cause a hefty hit to their share price with the way the market acts these days. They're after a buck, and their shareholders are certainly after an increase in revenues...and unlike celebrities, the market DOESN'T like bad publicity for a company, even if the press does spell their name correctly.
There is one VERY big flaw with your hypothesis. The lousy 5.00 t-shirt he 'stole' from the open safe was one he previously purchased, he didn't steel it, he simply retrieved his own property. As for impact on decryption of personal data by government, no implications, as the government doesn't OWN my personal data. Valenti and his cronies are nothing but an old west lynchmob.
Using a similar hypothetical, I leave my t-shirt in a friends car. It's unlocked. I open the door and retrieve it. I don't think I'd get arrested. If it's locked I ask for the key. If I'm told 'no, you can only have your t-shirt when I say you can', he is holding my t-shirt hostage. It's a little like the MPAA seeling me a DVD then telling me they'll hold it hostage to be played when and where upon their conditions.
I'll look, but does a DVD itself state that it can ONLY be played on official CCA licensed players? Is there any license I'm agreeing to when I PURCHASE a DVD stating that? I sure don't remember seeing anything to that effect. Maybe some lawyers should come from that direction??