Why do you say that? Buying a book, or a CD or whatever, has ALWAYS given you the right to share, give away, resell, destroy, etc., that particular copy of the book or CD or whatever.
File sharing is reproduction and distribution -- it's not at all the same thing as giving a book to the library.
But half of me thinks he is, in his own way, still living in the 20th century.
Not to be an ass, but wasn't the 20th century only like 5 years ago?
In summary, music isn't scarce any more and it CAN be copied easily.
Music isn't scarce? Then why is everyone always complaining that there isn't any good music out there? Music as a whole may not be scarce, but I suspect that the amount of music worth listening to is a pretty small fraction of the music out there. Shouldn't those who produce something worth listening to be rewarded?
If our collective governments were wise, instead of letting the 20th century media barons cripple new technology, and force DRM-laden crap down our throats (Windows Vista and Intel's digitally restricted new chips spring to mind), they'd be busy devising new copyright laws that respect the fact that we all have "perfect copying machines" (computers) linked together in a worldwide network.
Do you honestly think that if the governments abolished copyrights that the record industry would just go away? Wouldn't it be MORE likely that the record companies would invest MORE money and effort into better and stronger DRM and other non-copying technology, since they can would no longer be able to rely on the courts to help them make a buck? Why does everyone automatically think the the RIAA and others would just throw in the towel if copyright went away?
How have software patents helped the United States? Do we see lots of bright individuals and small software companies getting rich on their duly won patents? Or perhaps do we see large software corporations filing hundreds of patents per day, getting ready to crush any one who writes a program that people like? Which situation do you think is happening?
Well, let me ask you this -- is there still a U.S. software industry? Are U.S. companies still making and selling software? Has there been a mass exodus out of the U.S. to get out from under these insidious software patents? Do people still come to the U.S. to form software companies, or do people leave the U.S. to form software companies where they are not hounded by the evil software patents?
Surely lying to a judge and jury is illegal for lawyers.
Of course it is. In fact, here's the relevant statute i California:
Professional Conduct, Rule 5-200
In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
(A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth;
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(C) Shall not intentionally misquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, or decision;
(D) Shall not, knowing its invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been overruled or a statute that has been repealed or declared unconstitutional; and
(E) Shall not assert personal knowledge of the facts at issue, except when testifying as a witness.
completely contradicting an earlier position makes me suspicious you were lying one of the times.
And that would be true, if the two factual situations were identical, or nearly so. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, there are specific facts that, when viewed in the context of all of the issues and facts in the litigation, would support a position that would appear, on its face, to contradict a position taken in an earlier case. Most cases are distinguishable from another when looked at carefully, even if they look the same after a brief glance.
For the parties involved, that's very true. But the attorneys themselves generally do not have a stake in the outcome.
Just because its a job doesn't mean you do whatever it takes.
Actually, you do have to do whatever it takes (as long as it is legal and ethical, that is) -- attorneys take an oath to do so. If an attorney didn't do everything legally and ethically possible to win his client's case, then he is not being the "zealous advocate" that he promised the state he would be when it issued him or her a license to practice law.
I know in engineering you have a code of ethics, but I'm not sure about lawyers.
Of course lawyers have a code of ethics -- and unlike the code of ethics for engineers, the code of ethics for lawyers is codified into law in every state in the U.S. Lawyers can lose their license or go to jail for violating ethics rules. Few other professionals face jail time for violating ethical, as opposed to legal, rules. For lawyers, their ethical obligations ARE legal rules.
If their code of ethics is to argue whatever side your on today, it's not a moral code of ethics.
Depends on how you define morals, I guess. If you believe the only way to be ethical is to always tell the truth, then maybe you have a point -- but remember, in a civil case at least, there are two sides to every story -- where the "truth" lies may not be apparent from either side. As I noted earlier, in civil trials, it is the jury, not the lawyers, who determine what the truth is based on the evidence and testimony presented.
Also, since IANAL, I wonder if the other side would be able to use the lawyers previous statements in the next case.
Generally not -- but that's because what the lawyer says in court is NOT testimony and usually doesn't have a lot to do with what the "truth" of the matter is. The testimony of witness and evidence presented, however, may, in certain cases, be brought up again in another trial. Usually a participant in a trial may not take a legal position if that same participant took a contrary position in a case where the facts and issues in the case were the same as before.
However, there are lots of things that many people might not find "ethical" about these aspects of being a lawyer, and I suppose that many might find what lawyers do immoral. But being a lawyer is a job, a job that you are obligated by law to do to the best of your ability.
Just FYI, if the patent office takes an extra long period of time to process your application, if it is eventually granted, you can get those "lost" days added on to your duration.
Of course, if the applicant is the one who takes his or her time getting back to the USPTO, then nothing is added to the duration -- but if the USPTO is slow (and it has to be pretty damn slow for this to apply) then the days can be added on to the patent's duration.
Lawyers dont have this long term morality thing that we do
Has nothing to do with morality -- being a lawyer is a job. A lawyer can argue one day about poor quality tools and the next day that those tools are high quality (as long as it is in a different case, that is!) because that's his or her job -- to zealously represent the interests of his or her client. Lawyers don't deal with "truth" in that way -- the truth is for the jury to determine -- so its not a moral issue of lying one day and telling the truth the next. Besides, maybe, based on the particular facts of the case, in the context of the facts the Sear's tools ARE poor quality in the context of one case and ARE high quality in the context of the other case.
Besides, other than the paycheck and their oath to zealously represent their clients, lawyers typically don't have "a dog in the fight" -- civil cases are typically not personal, so again, it's all just another job, and you do your best for your boss, whoever that might be on a particular day...
How about someone who lets a friend borrow their car, should they be held liable when the friend runs someone over with that car?
Just FYI, but in the U.S., generally the person who got run over could sue both the driver AND the owner of the car. Further, if that someone knew or should have known that the friend was intoxicated, or even just really reckless or otherwise shouldn't have been behind the wheel, the person could be liable for what is known as "negligent entrustment." Finally, the concept of "negligent entrustment" is also a crime in some circumstances.
Point taken, but on this point at least, not so deep in the stupid hole...
In the U.S. legal system, "not guilty" != "innocent."
Not guilty means that the prosectution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent means that you didn't do it. There is a lot of middle ground between "innocent" and "guilty."
Correct. Also, it is possible, after a not guilty verdict, for the defendant to make a motion to have the court declare him "factually innocent" -- but it's pretty hard, because it means that the defendant has to show that there was essentially NO evidence against him to begin with, and usually if that's the case, there wouldn't have been a trial to begin with.
"Not guilty" means that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt -- it does NOT mean that the defendant is innocent...
I saw that a couple of other people posted answers while I was posting mine -- I just wanted to point out that the other two posters are describing the situation from the point of view of the person inside the ship -- where you always appear to be accelerating at 1g, at time dialation takes care of things. I described the situation from the point of view of an observer in an inertial (non-accelerating) frame of reference, that's where the relativistic mass effect shows up...
How the flippin' hell does that mechanism work? What's there to slow the ship down; to act as the drag that requires increasing energy output to overcome it and keep my acceleration constant?
Intertia is what makes it more difficult to accelerate. As you approach the speed of light, your mass increases m = m0/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) (relativistic mass); mass has inertia, so as your mass goes up, inertia goes up, and it takes more and more energy to overcome the inertia and accelerate the body. At v = c, m -> infinity, so it would take an infinite amount of energy to overcome the inertia associated with an infinite amount of mass...
Do they promote them as having a extremely high top speed, or having a large acceleration? There are no limits on acceleration.
In California, we have "exhibition of speed" to cover that whole acceleration thingie. It's a separate charge from "speed contest" or "reckless driving." All 2-point offenses in Cali, just like drunk driving and driving the wrong way on a freeway...
But they DID commit copyright infringement -- vicarious and contributory infringement. The users committed the "direct" infringement, and the P2P software providers committed the vicarious and contributory infringement.
The section places NO WEIGHT on any single one of those, each is as equal when determining whether the usage is fair use or not.
That is correct, but caselaw certainly has determined which of the factors is most important, and it turns out that 4, the impact on the economic value, is considered the most important. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, for example (I think that's the right one!).
Another problem with "fair use" is that it is not a "right" that you can assert, but rather it is a defense to infringement -- you raise "fair use" as a defense once you've already been sued -- you can't scream "fair use" to keep people from suing you...
All well and good, but the Websters definition does not encompass what the antitrust laws actually say:
monopoly n. a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade. However, limited monopolies granted by a manufacturer to a wholesaler in a particular area are usually legal, since they are like "licenses." Public utilities such as electric, gas and water companies may also hold a monopoly in a particular geographic area since it is the only practical way to provide the public service, and they are regulated by state public utility commissions.
This is from the law.com online dictionary.
As you can see, no requirement that the monopolists extert "exclusive" control. The market percentages I gave above come from U.S. antitrust caselaw.
Also, here's the definition from Garner's "A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage:"
"Monopoly is generally understood to mean 'control by one supplier or producer over the commercial market within a given region.' Nonlawyers often believe that this control must be complete, but the law in various jurisdictions now sets the level of control at a fraction of the overall market. In England, for example, under the Monopolies and Mergers Acts of 1948 and 1965, a monopoly existed when the level of control reached one-third of a local or national market. That propertion was lessened by the Fair Trading Act of 1973, under which companies can be prevented from controliing more than one-fourth of the supply of a product or service."
So, it appears that in England, a 25% market share is sufficient for a monopoly -- hardly an "exclusive" situation. The dictionary definitions are all well and good, but since this is more-or-less a legal discussion, the LEGAL definitions of monopoly are the ones we should bepaying attention to.
Slashdot Mirror
His analogy is great.
Why do you say that? Buying a book, or a CD or whatever, has ALWAYS given you the right to share, give away, resell, destroy, etc., that particular copy of the book or CD or whatever.
File sharing is reproduction and distribution -- it's not at all the same thing as giving a book to the library.
But half of me thinks he is, in his own way, still living in the 20th century.
Not to be an ass, but wasn't the 20th century only like 5 years ago?
In summary, music isn't scarce any more and it CAN be copied easily.
Music isn't scarce? Then why is everyone always complaining that there isn't any good music out there? Music as a whole may not be scarce, but I suspect that the amount of music worth listening to is a pretty small fraction of the music out there. Shouldn't those who produce something worth listening to be rewarded?
If our collective governments were wise, instead of letting the 20th century media barons cripple new technology, and force DRM-laden crap down our throats (Windows Vista and Intel's digitally restricted new chips spring to mind), they'd be busy devising new copyright laws that respect the fact that we all have "perfect copying machines" (computers) linked together in a worldwide network.
Do you honestly think that if the governments abolished copyrights that the record industry would just go away? Wouldn't it be MORE likely that the record companies would invest MORE money and effort into better and stronger DRM and other non-copying technology, since they can would no longer be able to rely on the courts to help them make a buck? Why does everyone automatically think the the RIAA and others would just throw in the towel if copyright went away?
Artists should work on commission, and record companies sell CDs at the marginal cost of production.
Telling people how they should earn a living and telling a corporation what their profits should be is SOOOOO free market!
How have software patents helped the United States? Do we see lots of bright individuals and small software companies getting rich on their duly won patents? Or perhaps do we see large software corporations filing hundreds of patents per day, getting ready to crush any one who writes a program that people like? Which situation do you think is happening?
Well, let me ask you this -- is there still a U.S. software industry? Are U.S. companies still making and selling software? Has there been a mass exodus out of the U.S. to get out from under these insidious software patents? Do people still come to the U.S. to form software companies, or do people leave the U.S. to form software companies where they are not hounded by the evil software patents?
Surely lying to a judge and jury is illegal for lawyers.
Of course it is. In fact, here's the relevant statute i California:
Professional Conduct, Rule 5-200
In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
(A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth;
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(C) Shall not intentionally misquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, or decision;
(D) Shall not, knowing its invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been overruled or a statute that has been repealed or declared unconstitutional; and
(E) Shall not assert personal knowledge of the facts at issue, except when testifying as a witness.
completely contradicting an earlier position makes me suspicious you were lying one of the times.
And that would be true, if the two factual situations were identical, or nearly so. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, there are specific facts that, when viewed in the context of all of the issues and facts in the litigation, would support a position that would appear, on its face, to contradict a position taken in an earlier case. Most cases are distinguishable from another when looked at carefully, even if they look the same after a brief glance.
Civil cases are very personal.
For the parties involved, that's very true. But the attorneys themselves generally do not have a stake in the outcome.
Just because its a job doesn't mean you do whatever it takes.
Actually, you do have to do whatever it takes (as long as it is legal and ethical, that is) -- attorneys take an oath to do so. If an attorney didn't do everything legally and ethically possible to win his client's case, then he is not being the "zealous advocate" that he promised the state he would be when it issued him or her a license to practice law.
I know in engineering you have a code of ethics, but I'm not sure about lawyers.
Of course lawyers have a code of ethics -- and unlike the code of ethics for engineers, the code of ethics for lawyers is codified into law in every state in the U.S. Lawyers can lose their license or go to jail for violating ethics rules. Few other professionals face jail time for violating ethical, as opposed to legal, rules.
For lawyers, their ethical obligations ARE legal rules.
If their code of ethics is to argue whatever side your on today, it's not a moral code of ethics.
Depends on how you define morals, I guess. If you believe the only way to be ethical is to always tell the truth, then maybe you have a point -- but remember, in a civil case at least, there are two sides to every story -- where the "truth" lies may not be apparent from either side. As I noted earlier, in civil trials, it is the jury, not the lawyers, who determine what the truth is based on the evidence and testimony presented.
Also, since IANAL, I wonder if the other side would be able to use the lawyers previous statements in the next case.
Generally not -- but that's because what the lawyer says in court is NOT testimony and usually doesn't have a lot to do with what the "truth" of the matter is. The testimony of witness and evidence presented, however, may, in certain cases, be brought up again in another trial. Usually a participant in a trial may not take a legal position if that same participant took a contrary position in a case where the facts and issues in the case were the same as before.
However, there are lots of things that many people might not find "ethical" about these aspects of being a lawyer, and I suppose that many might find what lawyers do immoral. But being a lawyer is a job, a job that you are obligated by law to do to the best of your ability.
Just FYI, if the patent office takes an extra long period of time to process your application, if it is eventually granted, you can get those "lost" days added on to your duration.
Of course, if the applicant is the one who takes his or her time getting back to the USPTO, then nothing is added to the duration -- but if the USPTO is slow (and it has to be pretty damn slow for this to apply) then the days can be added on to the patent's duration.
Lawyers dont have this long term morality thing that we do
Has nothing to do with morality -- being a lawyer is a job. A lawyer can argue one day about poor quality tools and the next day that those tools are high quality (as long as it is in a different case, that is!) because that's his or her job -- to zealously represent the interests of his or her client. Lawyers don't deal with "truth" in that way -- the truth is for the jury to determine -- so its not a moral issue of lying one day and telling the truth the next. Besides, maybe, based on the particular facts of the case, in the context of the facts the Sear's tools ARE poor quality in the context of one case and ARE high quality in the context of the other case.
Besides, other than the paycheck and their oath to zealously represent their clients, lawyers typically don't have "a dog in the fight" -- civil cases are typically not personal, so again, it's all just another job, and you do your best for your boss, whoever that might be on a particular day...
Therefore nothing is stolen by simply publishing the contents of a CD that you rightfully paid for.
Agreed, but infringement has occured.
You are just aiming the rifle, doing nothing else, its not illegal per se.
Well, that COULD be assault in some cases...
How about someone who lets a friend borrow their car, should they be held liable when the friend runs someone over with that car?
Just FYI, but in the U.S., generally the person who got run over could sue both the driver AND the owner of the car. Further, if that someone knew or should have known that the friend was intoxicated, or even just really reckless or otherwise shouldn't have been behind the wheel, the person could be liable for what is known as "negligent entrustment." Finally, the concept of "negligent entrustment" is also a crime in some circumstances.
Point taken, but on this point at least, not so deep in the stupid hole...
In the U.S. legal system, "not guilty" != "innocent."
Not guilty means that the prosectution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent means that you didn't do it. There is a lot of middle ground between "innocent" and "guilty."
Point taken, but they don't use the "e" version anywhere in the U.S. legal system -- it's one of the things they instill on you in law school.
That, and the differences between "parol" and "parole"...
Correct. Also, it is possible, after a not guilty verdict, for the defendant to make a motion to have the court declare him "factually innocent" -- but it's pretty hard, because it means that the defendant has to show that there was essentially NO evidence against him to begin with, and usually if that's the case, there wouldn't have been a trial to begin with.
"Not guilty" means that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt -- it does NOT mean that the defendant is innocent...
Sorry, I had my sarcasm detector turned off. I am now preparing to receive the heaping scorn that, in this case, I deserve...
I deserved this one, that's for sure...
Unless a better energy source is found here on Earth
Just takes electricty. Seems like nuclear and solar power could create some of that needed electricity if oil or natural gas gets too expensive...
Ever hear of water?
I saw that a couple of other people posted answers while I was posting mine -- I just wanted to point out that the other two posters are describing the situation from the point of view of the person inside the ship -- where you always appear to be accelerating at 1g, at time dialation takes care of things. I described the situation from the point of view of an observer in an inertial (non-accelerating) frame of reference, that's where the relativistic mass effect shows up...
How the flippin' hell does that mechanism work? What's there to slow the ship down; to act as the drag that requires increasing energy output to overcome it and keep my acceleration constant?
Intertia is what makes it more difficult to accelerate. As you approach the speed of light, your mass increases m = m0/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) (relativistic mass); mass has inertia, so as your mass goes up, inertia goes up, and it takes more and more energy to overcome the inertia and accelerate the body. At v = c, m -> infinity, so it would take an infinite amount of energy to overcome the inertia associated with an infinite amount of mass...
Do they promote them as having a extremely high top speed, or having a large acceleration? There are no limits on acceleration.
In California, we have "exhibition of speed" to cover that whole acceleration thingie. It's a separate charge from "speed contest" or "reckless driving." All 2-point offenses in Cali, just like drunk driving and driving the wrong way on a freeway...
But they DID commit copyright infringement -- vicarious and contributory infringement. The users committed the "direct" infringement, and the P2P software providers committed the vicarious and contributory infringement.
The only right it gives me is the right to exclude others from using those drugs in that combination without my permission.
Except for doctors, of course -- 35 U.S.C. 287(c)(1)!
The section places NO WEIGHT on any single one of those, each is as equal when determining whether the usage is fair use or not.
That is correct, but caselaw certainly has determined which of the factors is most important, and it turns out that 4, the impact on the economic value, is considered the most important. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, for example (I think that's the right one!).
Another problem with "fair use" is that it is not a "right" that you can assert, but rather it is a defense to infringement -- you raise "fair use" as a defense once you've already been sued -- you can't scream "fair use" to keep people from suing you...
All well and good, but the Websters definition does not encompass what the antitrust laws actually say:
monopoly
n. a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade. However, limited monopolies granted by a manufacturer to a wholesaler in a particular area are usually legal, since they are like "licenses." Public utilities such as electric, gas and water companies may also hold a monopoly in a particular geographic area since it is the only practical way to provide the public service, and they are regulated by state public utility commissions.
This is from the law.com online dictionary.
As you can see, no requirement that the monopolists extert "exclusive" control. The market percentages I gave above come from U.S. antitrust caselaw.
Also, here's the definition from Garner's "A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage:"
"Monopoly is generally understood to mean 'control by one supplier or producer over the commercial market within a given region.' Nonlawyers often believe that this control must be complete, but the law in various jurisdictions now sets the level of control at a fraction of the overall market. In England, for example, under the Monopolies and Mergers Acts of 1948 and 1965, a monopoly existed when the level of control reached one-third of a local or national market. That propertion was lessened by the Fair Trading Act of 1973, under which companies can be prevented from controliing more than one-fourth of the supply of a product or service."
So, it appears that in England, a 25% market share is sufficient for a monopoly -- hardly an "exclusive" situation. The dictionary definitions are all well and good, but since this is more-or-less a legal discussion, the LEGAL definitions of monopoly are the ones we should bepaying attention to.