Promissory (or equitable) estoppel has nothing to do with the ideas of which you write. (Promissory estoppel is a method by which one may avoid the requirement of consideration for a contract by inducing the reasonable reliance of another.)
Furthermore, they need not have confronted him in writing; the only benefit of memorializing the encounter is that it provides a better evidentiary trail in the event litigation arises.
Extradition would be important only if the spammers were committing criminal offenses, and the California statute -- and its counterparts in other states -- would not impose criminal sanctions upon the spammers.
The important question is whether the defendants are judgment proof, that is, they have no assets (in the United States or otherwise) that are worth going after.
I will try to edify even in response to a flagrant troll: Yes, one may certify a class action against many defendants. It doesn't happen often. Usually, it is the plaintiffs who band together to take advantage of the class form so as to make the litigation of many, small claims worth the while of attorneys. A defendant class is most often certified in the context of fraudulent conveyance lawsuits, for example, when a person unlawfully sells shares in a company to many people, and the rightful owner needs to sue all of the purchasers to try to get the shares back. (I'm not opining on the likely success of such a suit.)
You are correct, of course. The type of pipe is important only as a vestige of history. Namely, the telephone companies (or company) laid their pipe as public utilities regulated by the federal government, and the cable companies did so as franchisees of various state agencies more recently.
Convergence is making all of these evolutionary tics look silly. Personally I root for the pipe that deregulates the quickest.
Why would it be awful if there are "less mom & pop ISPs in the next 2 years"? Personally, I do not care whether I access my broadband connection thanks to a sweet little old lady or because it is provided by a cold, heartless corporation. I care only that the connection is reliable and inexpensive. On both counts, it is more likely that a large corporation will meet my needs.
Do not fear consolidation. So long as it does not accord power over price or facilitate oligarchic coordination, there is much virtue in allowing big old corps to take advantage of their economies of scale. Similarly, do not lionize atomistic competition and tiny competitors. They are the companies that go under long before your warranty has expired.
That's correct, but it's not really absurd. The United States has asserted, and its courts have recognized, jurisdiction to exist over, for example, those engaged in price-fixing conspiracies where the effects are felt in the territorial U.S. I think the expansion would not be wise, but it would not be unprecedented.
That's not how Enron did things, my friend. They started out with a successful, specialized product, then they blew it by overexpanding into idiotic endeavors, like broadband. The shenanigans didn't come until long after the stupidity in that case.
Here, there was nothing but unvarnished shenanigans, and, I would venture, not enough clout or cash to purchase the help of politicos.
Err... he's an accused scalawag, not a proven scalawag. You'd be surprised at how strict drivers' privacy protection laws have become since the death of that actress from Kate & Alley a few years back. And the Supreme Court has upheld the restrictions over claims that they violate the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment.
For free? You call having to metamoderate ten posts every time I want to read an article free? We are supposed to metamoderate every day, right? After all, that's what the sign says.
What does the placement of the right in the Bill of Rights have to do with anything? Does that mean that the right not to have the government quarter soldiers in one's house during times of peace (the Third Amendment) is a more fundamental right than freedom from unreasonable searches (the Fourth) or one's right to counsel (the Sixth)? That's just silly, even putting to one side the insignificance of our bill of rights to the PRC.
All societies prohibit access to information. The government of the PRC does it to limit access to "subversive" thoughts. In other countries, they do it to protect the property rights of, say, those who manufacture DVDs. There is no overarching privilege to unfettered information.
That said, the Chinese attempts at censorship likely will fall on their own accord. Wealthier citizens are smarter citizens, and as the PRC continues to develop a strong middle class, the oligarchs there are going to lose their power.
In most cases, one is not able to contemplate whether the content of an e-mail will cause trouble for the sender.
Sure, there are easy cases: Bill Gates should not have sent e-mails about destroying Netscape, and all corporate officials should receive training in which buzzwords will always set off antitrust alarm bells.
That said, what about the cubicle monkey who sends pricing information that is unwittingly the focus of a Patman Act claim? Or the secretary who sends along an agenda and participants at a meeting between competitors? The point is, almost anything can be identified as worrisome ex poste. An auto-shredding system -- properly implemented -- is a good fail-safe.
Slashdot's not the government. It can silence whomever it pleases. If you do not like it, your recourse is to go to (or establish) a site of your own. That's a crucial difference.
If one says something (in a lecture, on the television, on the web, wherever) that indicates that he might be a flight risk, what's the harm to the First Amendment in allowing the Government to consider it in a bail hearing? That's very different from charging him for something that he said or thought.
Software code is the product of creativity. As is Einstein's theory of relativity, which Lessig submits as an example of a good that should not have been -- and was not -- copyrighted.
I am not mischaracterizing Lessig's arguments, but I think our disagreement springs from Lessig himself being deliberately ambiguous in his views. He would look like a moron if he said that copyright should not attach to certain goods, even if he does argue that society would benefit from just that regime. So when he faces an intelligent interlocutor in real time, like Jack Valenti, Lessig has to back down from his more ridiculous positions.
Lessig's lectures are a case in point. They are nonrivalrous goods. They are derivative insofar as they are based upon a compendium of existing knowledge upon which Lessig could draw at little or no cost. The cost to Lessig of providing his lecture notes over the internet would be negligible. In these ways, there is nothing that distinguishes his lectures from, for example, source code or the theory of relativity. So why doesn't he provide them to the public, consistent with his ideology?
I commend his book to you. Lessig lapses into this pseudo-sophisticate newspeak throughout, but the background chapters are interesting and, for the uninitiated -- to which category I am not assuming that you belong -- informative.
Also, Lessig looks like Dieter from Der Sprockets.
Seriously, congratulations to you both, if she accepts. Otherwise, congratulations to Kathleen for being the object of CmdrTaco's affection, and my condolences to CmdrTaco for being successful in his professional life, but a woeful failure in matters personal.
It's a "[v]ariant of whacky, probably from the phrase out of whack. See whack." Check the dictionary for how it's "spelt," chucklehead.
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=whacky
You obviously have not read Lessig's book (but have read too many of his press releases or one-page summations from his web site). In a court case, Eldred v. Reno, he argued -- without success -- that a recent extension of the Copyright Act was unconstitutional. So you are correct insofar as he once advocated that position. In his more recent book, on the other hand, he argues that some goods should not be copyrightable AT ALL, because the goods are more appropriately treated as held in common. (He gives the examples of, for example, the roads; they are not good examples; roads did not spring from thin air.) Please see his discussion of the "commons" in Chapters 1-2 of The Future of Ideas, a book that you obviously have not read.
I am just dying to set up my own version of the Creative Commons, using their content, the source code from their web site, etc. (Well, maybe not the source code from their web site, at least not until they put up something worth stealing.)
The thing that kills me about Lessig is, however he rails against the evils copyright and the virtues of the commons, I end up having to shell out $25 each time I want to read his book. And I have not yet seen him webcast his lectures which, if true to the form of most law school classes, cost about as much as a broadway show to attend.
Remember Phil Greenspun (of photo.net)? He wrote a book about designing web pages that was just fantastic. He charged more than $30 for the book, but he filled it with some great photography, so that it would be a coffee table book for those who purchased it. Then he went ahead and put the entire text of the book on the Internet, so that those who did not want to buy it could just browse it gratis. THAT's somebody who practices what he preaches about open source.
I ended up buying Greenspun's book. His stand made it well worth the thirty bucks, and the pictures make the book worth having around.
This is simply untrue, or at least, ridiculous. By that logic, all property rights exist only in the public interest, that is, because the people through their elected (or appointed) leaders have decided to protect those rights. Ditto for any other privileges that the state grants, such as drivers' licenses, etc. Your idea is an intriguing one ... for me to poop on.
This is a whacky idea. Do you think that there is an implied warranty in a charter declaring that the company will operate the public good? Where did you learn that? Yale Law School?
Your ideas about a "primary duty to perform a public good" have no support in any law. In fact, should the board of directors or the officers of a corporation decide to depart from profitability in order to pursue their own conception of what is the "public good," it is likely that they will be hit with a large and successful shareholder derivative lawsuit. Surely you are aware of that, no?
I could set up a corporation called "lawyamike" right now if I wanted. It's just a matter of filling out the forms, and then filing in Delaware, where the fees are low. Does that mean that I have to comport myself with the public interest in mind? Of course not. That's absurd, as is your idea.
But putting that to one side, who do you think decides whether a corporation is acting in the public good? The FTC? The state? The consumers? You?
Utility commissions, on the state and the federal level, regulate certain corporations based, in part, on how they serve the "public interest" or the "public good." That regime is the exception, however, and it occurs typically when the state has granted a monopoly -- not just a corporate charter -- to an entity in order to provide a good or service.
That's amazing stuff you wrote. What're you, some kind of Soviet?
The difference between sharing an article on the Internet with a community of friends and sharing an article around the water cooler is the same difference as that between sharing an MP3 file on the Internet with a community of friends and sharing it on a cassette.
If this is true -- and it might be -- the remedy would be for all holders of the license to use XP to bring a class action for breach against MS. I do not run XP, and I have not reviewed its license agreement, but if MS has warranted that it will reactivate copies of XP in order to permit upgrades to hardware, then denying the use of XP after a planned obsolesence would breach the license.
Of course, the damages for breach of the license would be very small. And it is a dicier question whether such a planned obsolesence would support a cause of action with better damages -- e.g., unfair trade practice, antitrust, etc.
That's not exactly analoguous, is it? I think that the problem is more like learning that a dealer will no longer fix exiting defects in an older automobile. That is, being sent to a vintage auto shop by Volkswagon because of engine problems on an otherwise working 1995 model.
Nearly all legal systems dating back to the Code of Justinian recognize the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se. The former refers to conduct that is criminal by diktat; the latter refers to to conduct that is criminal by its very nature.
In other words, were Sklyarov murdering people or depriving people of property, there might be a better case for not treating him with any leniency, particularly where his case has significant constitutional implications.
Slashdot Mirror
Promissory (or equitable) estoppel has nothing to do with the ideas of which you write. (Promissory estoppel is a method by which one may avoid the requirement of consideration for a contract by inducing the reasonable reliance of another.)
Furthermore, they need not have confronted him in writing; the only benefit of memorializing the encounter is that it provides a better evidentiary trail in the event litigation arises.
Extradition would be important only if the spammers were committing criminal offenses, and the California statute -- and its counterparts in other states -- would not impose criminal sanctions upon the spammers.
The important question is whether the defendants are judgment proof, that is, they have no assets (in the United States or otherwise) that are worth going after.
Heh. As an attorney who might want a piece of that action, I cannot understand why you think that repetitive litigation is unfortunate.
I will try to edify even in response to a flagrant troll: Yes, one may certify a class action against many defendants. It doesn't happen often. Usually, it is the plaintiffs who band together to take advantage of the class form so as to make the litigation of many, small claims worth the while of attorneys. A defendant class is most often certified in the context of fraudulent conveyance lawsuits, for example, when a person unlawfully sells shares in a company to many people, and the rightful owner needs to sue all of the purchasers to try to get the shares back. (I'm not opining on the likely success of such a suit.)
You are correct, of course. The type of pipe is important only as a vestige of history. Namely, the telephone companies (or company) laid their pipe as public utilities regulated by the federal government, and the cable companies did so as franchisees of various state agencies more recently.
Convergence is making all of these evolutionary tics look silly. Personally I root for the pipe that deregulates the quickest.
Why would it be awful if there are "less mom & pop ISPs in the next 2 years"? Personally, I do not care whether I access my broadband connection thanks to a sweet little old lady or because it is provided by a cold, heartless corporation. I care only that the connection is reliable and inexpensive. On both counts, it is more likely that a large corporation will meet my needs.
Do not fear consolidation. So long as it does not accord power over price or facilitate oligarchic coordination, there is much virtue in allowing big old corps to take advantage of their economies of scale. Similarly, do not lionize atomistic competition and tiny competitors. They are the companies that go under long before your warranty has expired.
That's correct, but it's not really absurd. The United States has asserted, and its courts have recognized, jurisdiction to exist over, for example, those engaged in price-fixing conspiracies where the effects are felt in the territorial U.S. I think the expansion would not be wise, but it would not be unprecedented.
That's not how Enron did things, my friend. They started out with a successful, specialized product, then they blew it by overexpanding into idiotic endeavors, like broadband. The shenanigans didn't come until long after the stupidity in that case.
Here, there was nothing but unvarnished shenanigans, and, I would venture, not enough clout or cash to purchase the help of politicos.
Err ... he's an accused scalawag, not a proven scalawag. You'd be surprised at how strict drivers' privacy protection laws have become since the death of that actress from Kate & Alley a few years back. And the Supreme Court has upheld the restrictions over claims that they violate the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment.
For free? You call having to metamoderate ten posts every time I want to read an article free? We are supposed to metamoderate every day, right? After all, that's what the sign says.
All societies prohibit access to information. The government of the PRC does it to limit access to "subversive" thoughts. In other countries, they do it to protect the property rights of, say, those who manufacture DVDs. There is no overarching privilege to unfettered information.
That said, the Chinese attempts at censorship likely will fall on their own accord. Wealthier citizens are smarter citizens, and as the PRC continues to develop a strong middle class, the oligarchs there are going to lose their power.
Sure, there are easy cases: Bill Gates should not have sent e-mails about destroying Netscape, and all corporate officials should receive training in which buzzwords will always set off antitrust alarm bells.
That said, what about the cubicle monkey who sends pricing information that is unwittingly the focus of a Patman Act claim? Or the secretary who sends along an agenda and participants at a meeting between competitors? The point is, almost anything can be identified as worrisome ex poste. An auto-shredding system -- properly implemented -- is a good fail-safe.
Slashdot's not the government. It can silence whomever it pleases. If you do not like it, your recourse is to go to (or establish) a site of your own. That's a crucial difference.
If one says something (in a lecture, on the television, on the web, wherever) that indicates that he might be a flight risk, what's the harm to the First Amendment in allowing the Government to consider it in a bail hearing? That's very different from charging him for something that he said or thought.
He shouldn't have been so verbose, and so stupid.
I am not mischaracterizing Lessig's arguments, but I think our disagreement springs from Lessig himself being deliberately ambiguous in his views. He would look like a moron if he said that copyright should not attach to certain goods, even if he does argue that society would benefit from just that regime. So when he faces an intelligent interlocutor in real time, like Jack Valenti, Lessig has to back down from his more ridiculous positions.
Lessig's lectures are a case in point. They are nonrivalrous goods. They are derivative insofar as they are based upon a compendium of existing knowledge upon which Lessig could draw at little or no cost. The cost to Lessig of providing his lecture notes over the internet would be negligible. In these ways, there is nothing that distinguishes his lectures from, for example, source code or the theory of relativity. So why doesn't he provide them to the public, consistent with his ideology?
I commend his book to you. Lessig lapses into this pseudo-sophisticate newspeak throughout, but the background chapters are interesting and, for the uninitiated -- to which category I am not assuming that you belong -- informative.
Also, Lessig looks like Dieter from Der Sprockets.
Seriously, congratulations to you both, if she accepts. Otherwise, congratulations to Kathleen for being the object of CmdrTaco's affection, and my condolences to CmdrTaco for being successful in his professional life, but a woeful failure in matters personal.
It's a "[v]ariant of whacky, probably from the phrase out of whack. See whack." Check the dictionary for how it's "spelt," chucklehead. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=whacky
Doesn't anybody mod flamebait like this anymore?
I am just dying to set up my own version of the Creative Commons, using their content, the source code from their web site, etc. (Well, maybe not the source code from their web site, at least not until they put up something worth stealing.)
The thing that kills me about Lessig is, however he rails against the evils copyright and the virtues of the commons, I end up having to shell out $25 each time I want to read his book. And I have not yet seen him webcast his lectures which, if true to the form of most law school classes, cost about as much as a broadway show to attend.
Remember Phil Greenspun (of photo.net)? He wrote a book about designing web pages that was just fantastic. He charged more than $30 for the book, but he filled it with some great photography, so that it would be a coffee table book for those who purchased it. Then he went ahead and put the entire text of the book on the Internet, so that those who did not want to buy it could just browse it gratis. THAT's somebody who practices what he preaches about open source.
I ended up buying Greenspun's book. His stand made it well worth the thirty bucks, and the pictures make the book worth having around.
This is simply untrue, or at least, ridiculous. By that logic, all property rights exist only in the public interest, that is, because the people through their elected (or appointed) leaders have decided to protect those rights. Ditto for any other privileges that the state grants, such as drivers' licenses, etc. Your idea is an intriguing one ... for me to poop on.
This is a whacky idea. Do you think that there is an implied warranty in a charter declaring that the company will operate the public good? Where did you learn that? Yale Law School?
Your ideas about a "primary duty to perform a public good" have no support in any law. In fact, should the board of directors or the officers of a corporation decide to depart from profitability in order to pursue their own conception of what is the "public good," it is likely that they will be hit with a large and successful shareholder derivative lawsuit. Surely you are aware of that, no?
I could set up a corporation called "lawyamike" right now if I wanted. It's just a matter of filling out the forms, and then filing in Delaware, where the fees are low. Does that mean that I have to comport myself with the public interest in mind? Of course not. That's absurd, as is your idea.
But putting that to one side, who do you think decides whether a corporation is acting in the public good? The FTC? The state? The consumers? You?
Utility commissions, on the state and the federal level, regulate certain corporations based, in part, on how they serve the "public interest" or the "public good." That regime is the exception, however, and it occurs typically when the state has granted a monopoly -- not just a corporate charter -- to an entity in order to provide a good or service.
That's amazing stuff you wrote. What're you, some kind of Soviet?
The difference between sharing an article on the Internet with a community of friends and sharing an article around the water cooler is the same difference as that between sharing an MP3 file on the Internet with a community of friends and sharing it on a cassette.
I can't think of a principled distinction.
If this is true -- and it might be -- the remedy would be for all holders of the license to use XP to bring a class action for breach against MS. I do not run XP, and I have not reviewed its license agreement, but if MS has warranted that it will reactivate copies of XP in order to permit upgrades to hardware, then denying the use of XP after a planned obsolesence would breach the license.
Of course, the damages for breach of the license would be very small. And it is a dicier question whether such a planned obsolesence would support a cause of action with better damages -- e.g., unfair trade practice, antitrust, etc.
That's not exactly analoguous, is it? I think that the problem is more like learning that a dealer will no longer fix exiting defects in an older automobile. That is, being sent to a vintage auto shop by Volkswagon because of engine problems on an otherwise working 1995 model.
Nearly all legal systems dating back to the Code of Justinian recognize the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se. The former refers to conduct that is criminal by diktat; the latter refers to to conduct that is criminal by its very nature.
In other words, were Sklyarov murdering people or depriving people of property, there might be a better case for not treating him with any leniency, particularly where his case has significant constitutional implications.