Personally, I don't like the idea of the government requiring registration of anything that may conflict with my rights. And I am downright pissed at the expansion of police powers recently in regard to search and seizure and the electronic medium. In the legal sense, I am not sure that the government cannot require registration. The balance is always government interest (usually couched in administration or protecting the public terms) vs. the rights of the individual or groups. For example, a church must register to get tax-exempt status and not all religions can gain such status. It was deemed that this did not interfere with the right of freedom of religion. In free speech cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech is so essential to our form of government that they have to have a hugely compelling reason (my words, not theirs - see findlaw.com's annotated constitution for rulings) to abridge that right. I think they may have even dealt with the issue of registering printing presses but I can't remember. In any case, the second ammendment has been so little argued in Supreme Court cases that it is unclear how the court feels about that right.
I have to register to vote in elections. The question of registration would be the balancing of whatever the government said is the reason for the registration and the means for registering. If it created an undue hardship then it would be unconstitutional, otherwise a balance of interests would likely have to prevail. See discussions on Ammendment One on FreeLaw's annotated constitution site (http://supreme.findlaw.com/constitution). A permit is different from registration (understanding full well that many gun-control advocates are looking for permits not just registration).
As to curtailment of rights, all the examples you mentioned have been curtailed to some extent. Free speech does not allow obscenity, "clear and present danger" speech, libel, reprinting of copyrighted works, hate speech (Beauharnais v. Illinois), etc. The right to a jury trial in federal cases only applies to offenses that are not petty. Petty offenses includes those punishable by less than six months in prison (Lewis vs. United States). Child abuse victims can testify without needing to face the accused (Maryland vs. Craig) (Note the resoning in this case is that the attorney of the accused can cross-examine but it was a radical departure from the formerly sacrosanct face-to-face confrontation rulings - see Coy v. Iowa). Can't find any IRS seizure constitutionality information either, but searches have been widely expanded from their original. Every ammendment (with the exception of the third and, curiously, the second) have been defined over time and even reversed (see the recent rulings and opinions on the exclusionary rule).
This is an interesting question and I am not sure where I stand but... Registration of firearms in no way infringes anyone's ownership of a firearm as long as anyone could register a firearm. The ammendment mentions a well-regulated militia. Remember that when the constitution was written there were no (or very few) police forces. So what is meant by a well-regulated militia? It may refer to groups organized by states or communities and drilled for the common defense of the people. These were quasi-official groups that were under some regulation, usually by state or community officials. It is unclear as to whether the framers meant that any non-regulated individual would be covered. Also, the Supreme Court has frequently curtailed "rights" given by the Constitution to "the people". Free speech, rights to a jury trial, rights of a defendant to confront their accusers, unfair seizures, etc. The Court routinely balances the interests of the general public and the interests of the individual. The Courts have frequently said certain individuals or types of individuals are exceptions to rights guaranteed to "the people".
The portions of the commments that contain obvious copyright violations should be removed. They are not covered by free speech, nor by a "someone else did it - we don't own the comments" defense. Whether/. put them up or not,/. is continuing to display copyrighted material against the wishes of the owner of the copyrighted material and that is illegal and/. isn't above the law, nor should it be.
Remember that the original Kerberos spec isn't copyrighted by Microsoft so those portions can remain. Also, paraphrased Microsoft copyrighted material is not copyrighted so people can still mention (in their own words) what Microsoft is doing.
The rest of the comments should remain accessable. These include articles containing portions of the copyrighted work that is protected under fair use. The only way those portions should be removed is by court order, not the mere allegations of Microsoft.
Regardless of whether it is illegal for the commenters to post any portion of the work in question,/. didn't agree to the terms of the EULA, and so are not subject to it. (The terms of the EULA and the way Microsoft distributed it could be basis for invalidating part or all of the EULA - freely available trade secrets my hiney).
The link portion of the DMCA is worthy of a fight as a case could be made for free speech infringement. If this is an issue that/. cares about (and I think they should), then leave that comment available and force judicial review of the law if Microsoft so desires.
Also protected under free speech are comments containing information on how to circumvent the EULA. Providing code to do so might be illegal but discussing the action in general (even telling people how to do it) is protected. People probably shouldn't mention this EULA in particular though. Talk about circumventing any EULA - that speech is easier to protect. In any case, those comments are not subject to copyright laws at all.
As an aside, the legal liability of the copyright violation is probably small. If the copyright wasn't registered (which Microsoft may be scarambling to do) then statutory damages and attorney fees cannot be awarded for any violations before the date of registration. The only damages Microsoft could sue for would be actual damages and since they freely gave the copyrighted material away what damages would they have?
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I don't like the idea of the government requiring registration of anything that may conflict with my rights. And I am downright pissed at the expansion of police powers recently in regard to search and seizure and the electronic medium. In the legal sense, I am not sure that the government cannot require registration. The balance is always government interest (usually couched in administration or protecting the public terms) vs. the rights of the individual or groups. For example, a church must register to get tax-exempt status and not all religions can gain such status. It was deemed that this did not interfere with the right of freedom of religion. In free speech cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech is so essential to our form of government that they have to have a hugely compelling reason (my words, not theirs - see findlaw.com's annotated constitution for rulings) to abridge that right. I think they may have even dealt with the issue of registering printing presses but I can't remember. In any case, the second ammendment has been so little argued in Supreme Court cases that it is unclear how the court feels about that right.
I have to register to vote in elections. The question of registration would be the balancing of whatever the government said is the reason for the registration and the means for registering. If it created an undue hardship then it would be unconstitutional, otherwise a balance of interests would likely have to prevail. See discussions on Ammendment One on FreeLaw's annotated constitution site (http://supreme.findlaw.com/constitution). A permit is different from registration (understanding full well that many gun-control advocates are looking for permits not just registration).
As to curtailment of rights, all the examples you mentioned have been curtailed to some extent. Free speech does not allow obscenity, "clear and present danger" speech, libel, reprinting of copyrighted works, hate speech (Beauharnais v. Illinois), etc.
The right to a jury trial in federal cases only applies to offenses that are not petty. Petty offenses includes those punishable by less than six months in prison (Lewis vs. United States). Child abuse victims can testify without needing to face the accused (Maryland vs. Craig) (Note the resoning in this case is that the attorney of the accused can cross-examine but it was a radical departure from the formerly sacrosanct face-to-face confrontation rulings - see Coy v. Iowa). Can't find any IRS seizure constitutionality information either, but searches have been widely expanded from their original. Every ammendment (with the exception of the third and, curiously, the second) have been defined over time and even reversed (see the recent rulings and opinions on the exclusionary rule).
This is an interesting question and I am not sure where I stand but... Registration of firearms in no way infringes anyone's ownership of a firearm as long as anyone could register a firearm. The ammendment mentions a well-regulated militia. Remember that when the constitution was written there were no (or very few) police forces. So what is meant by a well-regulated militia? It may refer to groups organized by states or communities and drilled for the common defense of the people. These were quasi-official groups that were under some regulation, usually by state or community officials. It is unclear as to whether the framers meant that any non-regulated individual would be covered. Also, the Supreme Court has frequently curtailed "rights" given by the Constitution to "the people". Free speech, rights to a jury trial, rights of a defendant to confront their accusers, unfair seizures, etc. The Court routinely balances the interests of the general public and the interests of the individual. The Courts have frequently said certain individuals or types of individuals are exceptions to rights guaranteed to "the people".
The portions of the commments that contain obvious copyright violations should be removed. They are not covered by free speech, nor by a "someone else did it - we don't own the comments" defense. Whether /. put them up or not, /. is continuing to display copyrighted material against the wishes of the owner of the copyrighted material and that is illegal and /. isn't above the law, nor should it be.
/. didn't agree to the terms of the EULA, and so are not subject to it. (The terms of the EULA and the way Microsoft distributed it could be basis for invalidating part or all of the EULA - freely available trade secrets my hiney).
/. cares about (and I think they should), then leave that comment available and force judicial review of the law if Microsoft so desires.
Remember that the original Kerberos spec isn't copyrighted by Microsoft so those portions can remain. Also, paraphrased Microsoft copyrighted material is not copyrighted so people can still mention (in their own words) what Microsoft is doing.
The rest of the comments should remain accessable. These include articles containing portions of the copyrighted work that is protected under fair use. The only way those portions should be removed is by court order, not the mere allegations of Microsoft.
Regardless of whether it is illegal for the commenters to post any portion of the work in question,
The link portion of the DMCA is worthy of a fight as a case could be made for free speech infringement. If this is an issue that
Also protected under free speech are comments containing information on how to circumvent the EULA. Providing code to do so might be illegal but discussing the action in general (even telling people how to do it) is protected. People probably shouldn't mention this EULA in particular though. Talk about circumventing any EULA - that speech is easier to protect. In any case, those comments are not subject to copyright laws at all.
As an aside, the legal liability of the copyright violation is probably small. If the copyright wasn't registered (which Microsoft may be scarambling to do) then statutory damages and attorney fees cannot be awarded for any violations before the date of registration. The only damages Microsoft could sue for would be actual damages and since they freely gave the copyrighted material away what damages would they have?
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.