The number of issues the law has covered thus far is not infinite, just very numerous. I meant to convey that there is no limit to the number or type of disputes that arise between human beings; in that sense the potential scope of the law is infinite.
While the idea might be nice in theory, it's unfortunately laughable in the real world.
The law is practically infinite.
West Publishing's Annotated California Code (a set of books containing a subset of California's legislative law, plus excepts and pointers to relevant cases that interpret, clarify, expand, and/or limit those statutes) has an index that is five encyclopedia-length volumes long. And the type's really small, too. The number of issues that the law covers is literally infinite. Just think of all the things you might need a lawyer to help you with and then realize there's a fully developed body of law on just about all of those issues.
Then factor in that there are federal, state, county, and municipal laws, laws like the tax code that are incredibly long and dense, international law (like treaties and maritime regulations), regulatory laws (the EPA, the FCC, etc.), and more, all operating in conjunction or conflict with each other, and you can see how a wiki-style CMS would not scale well to the law.
Then there are the specific unique elements of the law that would be hard to convert -- things like laws that are still on the books, but have been eviscerated by subsequent court decisions. For example, a state law making it illegal to have an abortion has been trumped by Roe v. Wade but may never have been repealed. Also, our common law (judge-made law) is rooted in the English common law -- meaning every case that has ever been decided in England (and then later in the United States) that has not been overruled or distinguished is still "good law" and needs to be considered if a similar dispute arises today.
To make a long story short, anything that is subject to any form of government regulation has its own "laws" and those laws run to an amazing length. Perhaps by "the law" the original poster meant federal and state statutes -- that is, legislature-made law. But the law is much more than that, and even keeping tabs on that would be neigh-impossible.
Why is it that no one has taken SCO to court to get an injunction filed against them, barring them from collecting money or sending 'extortion' letters until their case is proved in court?
There are some significant legal hoops one must jump through to obtain injunctive relief. Depending on the court, the party asking for the injunction could have to prove 'irreparable harm' that could not be made up for via money damages later, a significant likelihood of success on the merits of the case at trial, and/or that the burden created by not having the injunction is greater than the burden placed on SCO by granting the injunction.
The 'irreparable harm' bit seems to be the most tenuous here, as money damages will most likely suffice for any harm SCO causes.
The "amnesty" program appears to create a cause of action for breach of contract -- kind of a "backup" weapon against these egregious violators.
At first blush this appears to also be a means of getting around the general un-enforceable nature of "shrinkwrap" or click-through licensing. The record labels would love to bind everyone who buys a CD to a contract promising not to illegally distribute its contents... with a liquidated damages clause specifying that should they catch you on Kazaa they get some huge, pre-defined sum.
Such a contract would make their lawyers' lives much easier -- but there's no way to easily bind everyone who buys a CD in this way. The law generally requires people to know the terms of a contract for it to be enforceable, and the music industry does not want to cover the front of each CD with a dense batch of legalese. Putting the terms inside the CD wouldn't work either -- just look at the problems both companies and users have dealing with software licenses that require installing the software to view the license.
Therefore, it appears the music industry is choosing to pursue a top-down approach, where the end users most statistically likely to pirate -- those who have already done so with a reckless disregard for the law -- are legally bound to not do so again. There is no way for these traders to claim they thought their actions were legal after signing this affidavit.
The file-swapping "industry" follows the common model of a relatively few number of users are providing the vast majority of the content. The music industry, I believe, feels it can stem the tide of piracy by corralling these relative few.
Also, since copyright violations are much harder to prove than breach of a (relatively) plain-language contract, the record companies are cutting to the chase, tilting the odds of a pro-RIAA judgment further in their favor.
Slashdot Mirror
Point taken, AC. I was unclear.
The number of issues the law has covered thus far is not infinite, just very numerous. I meant to convey that there is no limit to the number or type of disputes that arise between human beings; in that sense the potential scope of the law is infinite.
While the idea might be nice in theory, it's unfortunately laughable in the real world.
The law is practically infinite.
West Publishing's Annotated California Code (a set of books containing a subset of California's legislative law, plus excepts and pointers to relevant cases that interpret, clarify, expand, and/or limit those statutes) has an index that is five encyclopedia-length volumes long. And the type's really small, too. The number of issues that the law covers is literally infinite. Just think of all the things you might need a lawyer to help you with and then realize there's a fully developed body of law on just about all of those issues.
Then factor in that there are federal, state, county, and municipal laws, laws like the tax code that are incredibly long and dense, international law (like treaties and maritime regulations), regulatory laws (the EPA, the FCC, etc.), and more, all operating in conjunction or conflict with each other, and you can see how a wiki-style CMS would not scale well to the law.
Then there are the specific unique elements of the law that would be hard to convert -- things like laws that are still on the books, but have been eviscerated by subsequent court decisions. For example, a state law making it illegal to have an abortion has been trumped by Roe v. Wade but may never have been repealed. Also, our common law (judge-made law) is rooted in the English common law -- meaning every case that has ever been decided in England (and then later in the United States) that has not been overruled or distinguished is still "good law" and needs to be considered if a similar dispute arises today.
To make a long story short, anything that is subject to any form of government regulation has its own "laws" and those laws run to an amazing length. Perhaps by "the law" the original poster meant federal and state statutes -- that is, legislature-made law. But the law is much more than that, and even keeping tabs on that would be neigh-impossible.
Why is it that no one has taken SCO to court to get an injunction filed against them, barring them from collecting money or sending 'extortion' letters until their case is proved in court?
There are some significant legal hoops one must jump through to obtain injunctive relief. Depending on the court, the party asking for the injunction could have to prove 'irreparable harm' that could not be made up for via money damages later, a significant likelihood of success on the merits of the case at trial, and/or that the burden created by not having the injunction is greater than the burden placed on SCO by granting the injunction.
The 'irreparable harm' bit seems to be the most tenuous here, as money damages will most likely suffice for any harm SCO causes.
The "amnesty" program appears to create a cause of action for breach of contract -- kind of a "backup" weapon against these egregious violators.
At first blush this appears to also be a means of getting around the general un-enforceable nature of "shrinkwrap" or click-through licensing. The record labels would love to bind everyone who buys a CD to a contract promising not to illegally distribute its contents... with a liquidated damages clause specifying that should they catch you on Kazaa they get some huge, pre-defined sum.
Such a contract would make their lawyers' lives much easier -- but there's no way to easily bind everyone who buys a CD in this way. The law generally requires people to know the terms of a contract for it to be enforceable, and the music industry does not want to cover the front of each CD with a dense batch of legalese. Putting the terms inside the CD wouldn't work either -- just look at the problems both companies and users have dealing with software licenses that require installing the software to view the license.
Therefore, it appears the music industry is choosing to pursue a top-down approach, where the end users most statistically likely to pirate -- those who have already done so with a reckless disregard for the law -- are legally bound to not do so again. There is no way for these traders to claim they thought their actions were legal after signing this affidavit.
The file-swapping "industry" follows the common model of a relatively few number of users are providing the vast majority of the content. The music industry, I believe, feels it can stem the tide of piracy by corralling these relative few.
Also, since copyright violations are much harder to prove than breach of a (relatively) plain-language contract, the record companies are cutting to the chase, tilting the odds of a pro-RIAA judgment further in their favor.
Look for this to become a trend.