Additionally, even if the court doesn't retain jurisdiction over this particular matter (and allows the RIAA to dismiss should it try to do so), the RIAA will presumably face the some potential problem in any new cases brought within the Second Circuit. This could be a far bigger problem than facing scepticism from district court judges.
+1. Media Player Classic has been so good on difficult files that if it fails, I generally just give up (on the assumption that figuring out how to play such a difficult file will be more trouble than it's worth).
Or just sign it and do whatever you want. Unless the agreement has some stated amount of damages (e.g. a liquidated damages provision), I'm not sure what the consequences of breach would be. How on earth could any direct damages be shown? The doctor would have to present a putative patient to the court who testifies that he or she would have obtained the doc's services but for the bad review. Good luck on that one. Injunctive relief? I'm not sure how that will actually play out since the bad reviews are not hosted by the patients but by a third party. I suppose a defamation claim could be brought. However, that is a claim based on tort and no contract is needed to support it (just libelous statements).
If the courts have good evidence that the defendant has hidden funds, there are ways to pressure disclosure. I imagine this would particularly be the case for a habitual offender. Here's an article about some of the more severe uses of such power: civil contempt
Perhaps this is a semantic quibble, but the rule is really the flip side. They can fire for *any* reason so long as there is not a law (or common law court decision) that specifically makes the reason unlawful. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, marital status, and pregnancy are just a few of the proscribed reasons. Various state statutes add a lot more. At one point, Oregon had a statute that prohibited employers from taking adverse action against employees based on their non-workplace use of tobacco products (I don't know if this is still on the books). The point being, unless it is a specifically prohibited reason, the employer can use it as a basis for termination. In practice, things get much more complex and employers often use non-prohibited reasons as a pretext for firing someone for a prohibited reason.
Employers with a religious purpose (churches immediately come to mind) have limited leeway with respect to employing people who share the same religious belief (at least with respect to positions that are overtly religious in nature). For regular companies that offer non-religious services and products, the rules are much more restrictive and you would have to look at actual conduct rather than the naked fact of religious affiliation. A wiccan might not be able to hold a job as an ED nurse if she were required by her religion to display numerous dangling body piercings that could become entangled in tubing, patient body parts, etc. (not to single out witches but this is a matter I actually had to deal with). In this particular case, I canmpt imagine any defense that has been approved by any appellate court. Novel defense indeed.
Nitrogen in the air supersatures the water when it is spilled. This doesn't happen when the water passes through the turbines because it is never exposed to the air (at least not to nearly the same degree). Do a quick google search for "nitrogen supersaturation dam spill" and you'll find more than you ever wanted to know. The phenomenon appears to be very well documented. What is less clear is whether it really has a net negative impact on fish (because spilling water has other beneficial aspects for fish).
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. There was recently an article in the local Portland, OR news about how the windfarms that have been installed in the Columbia River Basin may actually have a detrimental impact on salmon. Apparently, some parts of the electrical grid in this part of the country are operating near peak capacity. When the wind really kicks in and pushes the grid to its limits, other parts have to lower production. In our case, this means letting a lot more water spill over the dams. This, in turn, tends to introduce way too much nitrogen into the water, which harms the fishies. Or so goes the theory.
Or perhaps when you said "that would not fly" you were talking about the political fallout that might result from a statute repealing fair use (and not whether such a repeal was technically possible). A nice sentiment. However, given developments in US intellectual property law over the past 15-20 years, I question if there is any level of foolishness that can anger a critical mass of voters.
Not that I'm advocating this, but why can't you outlaw fair use? The doctrine of "fair use" was a part of the US common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976 (since we're talking about the DMCA I am focusing on US law). The only thing that would prevent a mere federal statute from modifying the doctrine (or eliminating it completely) is if the doctrine were somehow rooted in the US Constitution. Courts have already held that the power to enact protections for creators for "limited" periods of time doesn't prevent the insanely long copyright periods, so I would be surprised if repealing fair use would cause any renewed scrutiny on that front. Perhaps you could raise a substantive due process or freedom of speech argument, claiming that these portions of the Constitution are in conflict with Congress' enumerated copyright powers and that "fair use" is the proper compromise. But then again, I'm not a copyright (or constitutional) attorney.
Could be, but then again, I didn't really understand his analysis all that well. You see, I AM an attorney and have a well honed ability to ignore whatever facts I choose so long as my version of reality is the one that prevails.
For the most part, the article stays away from the legal conclusions and focuses instead on the factual bases for the legal conclusions. By showing that the factual bases cited in the decision were flawed, Haselton is trying to show that the legal conclusions must also therefore be flawed.
Ordinarily, this is a good approach. Unless, of course, the judge doesn't really care about the facts and recited them just so people wouldn't pester him about his insane conclusions.
Oregon has one of the most liberally construed state constitutional rights to free speech in the nation. That's one reason PDX boasts one of the highest numbers of strip clubs per capita of any major city in the US (see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003336880_portlandclubs02m.html). Although I guess the cause could also be all the guys at the OSDL offices.
Depends on what you mean by "recently." Brady v. Maryland (the case that gave rise to the prosecution's obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence) was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1963. Note that Brady hearings are an affirmative obligation for the prosecution. They generally have to disclose even if they aren't asked by the defense. In a civil setting, the other side generally has to ask for evidence advantageous to its side (an easy task for litigators with experience drafting broad interrogatories or conducting detailed depositions).
Does it? Proof may be difficult to come by. In the anti-trust world, market power is generally considered to be the ability to command prices above normally competitive levels. In this case, the Wii is priced well below all other competing consoles. Granted, it does not have the same hardware specifications as its competitors, but given the lower price and lack of clear comparables, a plaintiff might have a difficult time showing that the Wii is priced abnormally high.
It may not be a hard burden at all. The court held that vertical price fixing of this type of not per se illegal if (i) the seller doesn't have "market power" (i.e. such a high market percentage that it can influence prices throughout the entire market), and (ii) the seller can make an arguable justification for the price limits as improving competition. Note that "arguable" when used in this context means nothing more than presenting some argument that is not completely laughable. It does not mean proving the point beyond a reasonable doubt, with clear and convincing evidence, or with a preponderance of the evidence.
It depends on how fancy you want to get. Run on over to the fencing department at Home Depot and you can get a 4 inch diameter/8 foot long pole for about $10. That's what I've got sitting outside my office door (so much for my hopes of wining the office holiday decorating contest). Of course, given its relatively low strength/weight ratio, this is sort of like getting an artificial Xmas tree. And unfortunately, no one sells aluminum fencing post materials as far as I can tell.
That's a link to the old patent (covered by the Newton license), not the patent that is the basis of the current claim. Too bad, since the old patent is long expired.
Well, there is also Eugene and, to a lesser extent, Corvallis and Bend.
I have actually lived in Oregon for the past 15 years (PDX for the past 12 and 3 before that down in Eugene for law school). I also help manage our family-owned tree farm outside Corvallis. So I am very familiar with Oregon's conflicted politics and that my prior description of Oregonians is a gross generalization. I suppose what I was truly getting at is that we tend to be such iconoclasts that trying to apply such a simplistic label is impossible. And I wanted to work the word "druids" into my description somehow.
Oregon a redstate? Not a chance. A bunch of granola eating, tree hugging, hairy legged druids. Well, not literally, but the spirit is definitely there.
I wonder if forcing college kids to use sneaker net will increase or reduce the problem. I have actually become scared by the RIAA's tactics, even though I would occassionally download only a song or two (who wants to pay a $3,000 settlement for downloading a few cheesy 80s tunes). So, to avoid getting caught, I asked a neighbor for a copy of some of his 80s tunes. He brought over an external hard drive with everything he has, totalling over 700GB (more than 17,000 flac files). Too many to go through before giving the drive back so I just copied the entire drive. I have since listened to much more than I originally intended to get from my neighbor.
I have to wonder if, given how inexpensive external drives are and how close college students live to one another, forcing people into a mode where the standard is to share thousands (or tens of thousands) of songs in a single transaction is an effective way to reduce piracy. Sure, the number of people who do this might shrink, but the number of songs pirated might go up.
Most likely not in this instance. We're talking about legal theory, not evidence. It is a violation of any number of rules of professional conduct and statutes to withhold evidence.
In this particular situation, the local ethics rules would determine how close to the line the RIAA came. Citing cases that an attorney knows have been overturned is generally a no-no. It would not per se result in a loss for that attorneys side (it is really just an ethical breach). However, it would cast a huge shadow over the attorney's argument. In this case, it sounds like the case was not overturned when the RIAA cited it (I could be wrong because, of course, I haven't read the actual article). Even if they didn't actually cross the line, many judges would fly off the handle if a party cited a case of particular importance for a keystone point and failed to alert them that it had been overturned if the citing party knew it had been overturned (such as if the citing party were a party to the overturned case).
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, even if the court doesn't retain jurisdiction over this particular matter (and allows the RIAA to dismiss should it try to do so), the RIAA will presumably face the some potential problem in any new cases brought within the Second Circuit. This could be a far bigger problem than facing scepticism from district court judges.
+1. Media Player Classic has been so good on difficult files that if it fails, I generally just give up (on the assumption that figuring out how to play such a difficult file will be more trouble than it's worth).
Or just sign it and do whatever you want. Unless the agreement has some stated amount of damages (e.g. a liquidated damages provision), I'm not sure what the consequences of breach would be. How on earth could any direct damages be shown? The doctor would have to present a putative patient to the court who testifies that he or she would have obtained the doc's services but for the bad review. Good luck on that one. Injunctive relief? I'm not sure how that will actually play out since the bad reviews are not hosted by the patients but by a third party. I suppose a defamation claim could be brought. However, that is a claim based on tort and no contract is needed to support it (just libelous statements).
If the courts have good evidence that the defendant has hidden funds, there are ways to pressure disclosure. I imagine this would particularly be the case for a habitual offender. Here's an article about some of the more severe uses of such power: civil contempt
Perhaps this is a semantic quibble, but the rule is really the flip side. They can fire for *any* reason so long as there is not a law (or common law court decision) that specifically makes the reason unlawful. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, marital status, and pregnancy are just a few of the proscribed reasons. Various state statutes add a lot more. At one point, Oregon had a statute that prohibited employers from taking adverse action against employees based on their non-workplace use of tobacco products (I don't know if this is still on the books). The point being, unless it is a specifically prohibited reason, the employer can use it as a basis for termination. In practice, things get much more complex and employers often use non-prohibited reasons as a pretext for firing someone for a prohibited reason.
Employers with a religious purpose (churches immediately come to mind) have limited leeway with respect to employing people who share the same religious belief (at least with respect to positions that are overtly religious in nature). For regular companies that offer non-religious services and products, the rules are much more restrictive and you would have to look at actual conduct rather than the naked fact of religious affiliation. A wiccan might not be able to hold a job as an ED nurse if she were required by her religion to display numerous dangling body piercings that could become entangled in tubing, patient body parts, etc. (not to single out witches but this is a matter I actually had to deal with). In this particular case, I canmpt imagine any defense that has been approved by any appellate court. Novel defense indeed.
But what happens when the cash becomes worthless? Do you have a backup system that defaults to, say, wampum shells?
Nitrogen in the air supersatures the water when it is spilled. This doesn't happen when the water passes through the turbines because it is never exposed to the air (at least not to nearly the same degree). Do a quick google search for "nitrogen supersaturation dam spill" and you'll find more than you ever wanted to know. The phenomenon appears to be very well documented. What is less clear is whether it really has a net negative impact on fish (because spilling water has other beneficial aspects for fish).
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. There was recently an article in the local Portland, OR news about how the windfarms that have been installed in the Columbia River Basin may actually have a detrimental impact on salmon. Apparently, some parts of the electrical grid in this part of the country are operating near peak capacity. When the wind really kicks in and pushes the grid to its limits, other parts have to lower production. In our case, this means letting a lot more water spill over the dams. This, in turn, tends to introduce way too much nitrogen into the water, which harms the fishies. Or so goes the theory.
Valve is incorporated in the State of Washington.
Or perhaps when you said "that would not fly" you were talking about the political fallout that might result from a statute repealing fair use (and not whether such a repeal was technically possible). A nice sentiment. However, given developments in US intellectual property law over the past 15-20 years, I question if there is any level of foolishness that can anger a critical mass of voters.
Not that I'm advocating this, but why can't you outlaw fair use? The doctrine of "fair use" was a part of the US common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976 (since we're talking about the DMCA I am focusing on US law). The only thing that would prevent a mere federal statute from modifying the doctrine (or eliminating it completely) is if the doctrine were somehow rooted in the US Constitution. Courts have already held that the power to enact protections for creators for "limited" periods of time doesn't prevent the insanely long copyright periods, so I would be surprised if repealing fair use would cause any renewed scrutiny on that front. Perhaps you could raise a substantive due process or freedom of speech argument, claiming that these portions of the Constitution are in conflict with Congress' enumerated copyright powers and that "fair use" is the proper compromise. But then again, I'm not a copyright (or constitutional) attorney.
Could be, but then again, I didn't really understand his analysis all that well. You see, I AM an attorney and have a well honed ability to ignore whatever facts I choose so long as my version of reality is the one that prevails.
For the most part, the article stays away from the legal conclusions and focuses instead on the factual bases for the legal conclusions. By showing that the factual bases cited in the decision were flawed, Haselton is trying to show that the legal conclusions must also therefore be flawed.
Ordinarily, this is a good approach. Unless, of course, the judge doesn't really care about the facts and recited them just so people wouldn't pester him about his insane conclusions.
Is this Russia? This isn't Russia.
Oregon has one of the most liberally construed state constitutional rights to free speech in the nation. That's one reason PDX boasts one of the highest numbers of strip clubs per capita of any major city in the US (see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003336880_portlandclubs02m.html). Although I guess the cause could also be all the guys at the OSDL offices.
Depends on what you mean by "recently." Brady v. Maryland (the case that gave rise to the prosecution's obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence) was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1963. Note that Brady hearings are an affirmative obligation for the prosecution. They generally have to disclose even if they aren't asked by the defense. In a civil setting, the other side generally has to ask for evidence advantageous to its side (an easy task for litigators with experience drafting broad interrogatories or conducting detailed depositions).
Does it? Proof may be difficult to come by. In the anti-trust world, market power is generally considered to be the ability to command prices above normally competitive levels. In this case, the Wii is priced well below all other competing consoles. Granted, it does not have the same hardware specifications as its competitors, but given the lower price and lack of clear comparables, a plaintiff might have a difficult time showing that the Wii is priced abnormally high.
It may not be a hard burden at all. The court held that vertical price fixing of this type of not per se illegal if (i) the seller doesn't have "market power" (i.e. such a high market percentage that it can influence prices throughout the entire market), and (ii) the seller can make an arguable justification for the price limits as improving competition. Note that "arguable" when used in this context means nothing more than presenting some argument that is not completely laughable. It does not mean proving the point beyond a reasonable doubt, with clear and convincing evidence, or with a preponderance of the evidence.
It depends on how fancy you want to get. Run on over to the fencing department at Home Depot and you can get a 4 inch diameter/8 foot long pole for about $10. That's what I've got sitting outside my office door (so much for my hopes of wining the office holiday decorating contest). Of course, given its relatively low strength/weight ratio, this is sort of like getting an artificial Xmas tree. And unfortunately, no one sells aluminum fencing post materials as far as I can tell.
That's a link to the old patent (covered by the Newton license), not the patent that is the basis of the current claim. Too bad, since the old patent is long expired.
Well, there is also Eugene and, to a lesser extent, Corvallis and Bend.
I have actually lived in Oregon for the past 15 years (PDX for the past 12 and 3 before that down in Eugene for law school). I also help manage our family-owned tree farm outside Corvallis. So I am very familiar with Oregon's conflicted politics and that my prior description of Oregonians is a gross generalization. I suppose what I was truly getting at is that we tend to be such iconoclasts that trying to apply such a simplistic label is impossible. And I wanted to work the word "druids" into my description somehow.
Oregon a redstate? Not a chance. A bunch of granola eating, tree hugging, hairy legged druids. Well, not literally, but the spirit is definitely there.
I wonder if forcing college kids to use sneaker net will increase or reduce the problem. I have actually become scared by the RIAA's tactics, even though I would occassionally download only a song or two (who wants to pay a $3,000 settlement for downloading a few cheesy 80s tunes). So, to avoid getting caught, I asked a neighbor for a copy of some of his 80s tunes. He brought over an external hard drive with everything he has, totalling over 700GB (more than 17,000 flac files). Too many to go through before giving the drive back so I just copied the entire drive. I have since listened to much more than I originally intended to get from my neighbor.
I have to wonder if, given how inexpensive external drives are and how close college students live to one another, forcing people into a mode where the standard is to share thousands (or tens of thousands) of songs in a single transaction is an effective way to reduce piracy. Sure, the number of people who do this might shrink, but the number of songs pirated might go up.
Most likely not in this instance. We're talking about legal theory, not evidence. It is a violation of any number of rules of professional conduct and statutes to withhold evidence.
In this particular situation, the local ethics rules would determine how close to the line the RIAA came. Citing cases that an attorney knows have been overturned is generally a no-no. It would not per se result in a loss for that attorneys side (it is really just an ethical breach). However, it would cast a huge shadow over the attorney's argument. In this case, it sounds like the case was not overturned when the RIAA cited it (I could be wrong because, of course, I haven't read the actual article). Even if they didn't actually cross the line, many judges would fly off the handle if a party cited a case of particular importance for a keystone point and failed to alert them that it had been overturned if the citing party knew it had been overturned (such as if the citing party were a party to the overturned case).
Both? Is the MOAB thermbaric? I thought it used a solid explosive (e.g. like most conventional bombs).