Actually, recipes as such aren't copyrightable. Only creative expression is copyrightable.
If you think about it, recipes are factual formulas for making something, technically they fall into the purview of patent law or trade secret law, not copyright.
For example, there is nothing wrong with telling you that a version of green goddess salad dressing may be made by combining the following in a blender:
1/2 cup yogurt 2 tablespoons oil 1/4 cup chopped parsley, and basil and/or cilantro (coriander leaves) 1 teaspoon chopped chives 1 tablespoon lemon juice 1/4 tablespoon salt optional: chopped scallion, and/or minced clove of garlic
However, there would be a lot of things wrong with my scanning and posting page 132 from "The New Laurel's Kitchen," 1986 edition, wherein the above formula may be found. That is because the expressive part of the cookbook cannot be copied without permission: things like the author's reminiscences of her days in Berkley, pictures of food, etc. It might even include the instructions for the recipe, depending on how elaborate they are. (I would argue that a line like "beat until smooth" is probably not expressive enough to trigger copyright protection.)
A few more suggestions, in addition to the excellent ones already put forth:
David Weber, the "Honor Harrington" series. Excellent military s-f, do not miss it.
Sherri Tepper ("Gate to Women's Country" is quite apropos right now, and I really liked "Fresco." But these may be too feminist for some)
C.S. Friedman--brilliant! Especially "This Alien Shore."
Elizabeth Moon, "Deed of Paksenarrion" is very good, but long (and you can hear the dice rolling in the background from time to time in book one), and the s-f stories about Herris Serrano of the space navy are excellent (the trilogy that starts with "Hunting Party is a fine choice for young women in particular, kind of like the McCaffrey "Pern" books but should be entertaining for everyone). For those who are leery of reading books with a military theme written by a woman, please note that Ms. Moon is a former Marine.
Lois McMaster Bujold. Great fun, even my 70 year old retired scientist father enjoys her books. Reminds me a little of Heinlein before he got really weird. "Cordelia's Honor" is a good place to start.
John Barnes, his characters also remind me of Heinlein.
I have read elsewhere that women do better at remembering where things are in relation to other things than men are: they use landmarks more than men do. It has been theorized that in hunter-gatherer societies (men) who did most of the hunting had only to find their way home quickly and directly after chasing down game, while the gatherers (women) had to remember where they saw that berry bush that should have ripe berries on it by now.
If this is the case, it is easy to understand how someone who relies on landmarks might have more trouble navigating if she were denied a wide view of the world, as in the case of a narrow display, as she moves through real or virtual space.
Another fun place in Chicago that fewer people know about is "Usable Materials" at 1434 N. Western Ave. Not so much electronic surplus, but lots of weird scrap metal, motors, wire, springs, old saw blades, greasy parts from unidentifiable mechanical devices, etc.
I have no trouble reading something the length of a magazine article from a computer screen-- can it possibly take any longer than reading the posts on Slashdot?
I suppose it all depends on how comfortable your chair is . . .
Actually, the "head" system is commonly used in figure drawing-- classical drawing as well as comic books. It is particularly useful for keeping things in proportion if you are trying to draw a figure from your imagination. There are different systems for figuring height of a figure in heads depending on if you are drawing a "realistic" figure, a "heroic" figure, etc.
Even fashion drawing uses the head system of proportioning the figure, it just changes the formula to distort the form so you wind up with unnaturally small heads on very long-legged bodies.
It makes sense to fight for physical objects, but to fight, compete for and attempt to own information in an information based society?
Actually, assuming that society is information-based, it makes perfect sense to fight for the ownership of it. Back in the 6th century, it made sense to fight over farmland in Europe for the same reason: society was based on farming.
To be very exact, however, "information" in the sense of "factual information" is not protected by copyright law. Copyright protects only creative expression. Similarly, patent law protects only ideas.
It is because facts are not protected that in recent years efforts have been made to pass some sort of database protection law in the U.S. You think that the DMCA and the copyright extension act are trouble? I think database protection would be worse. Then people really would be able to own information.
Not to get in the way of a good rant, but the typical vegetarian diet is much higher in fiber than that of the average omnivore. I would imagine that the hippie vegetarians would have an even worse problem than you do with the new water-saving flush toilets.
Have you considered sending a letter to your congress(wo)man? From what I understand, there had been talk of repealing the water-saving toilet requirements, but the commode manufacturers are against it because they didn't want to retool their factories again. A grassroots effort is clearly needed to overcome the lobbying by this special interest group!
It seems strange that they used goldfish, though...why not a fish that's more commonly used for food?
Goldfish are a type of carp. Large carp are edible-- they just aren't particularly popular now in the U.S. because of all the small bones. My father used to eat them all the time when he was growing up as it was a relatively inexpensive fish. He claimed that they are quite tasty, and if you fry them crisp enough you can eat them bones and all like a big anchovy.
To those with a little more capacity for intellect, this doesn't matter - we all know we can go to a real store and examine goods and then still order them online for less.
Ah, but then there is no instant gratification! When I want a book, I want it NOW. If the book is in the store, I buy it in the store, no waiting for three days (at best).
The things I buy online tend to be obscure things that I can't obtain locally. Often, I'll even special order a book from the local bookstore rather than order it online if I can, in order to save shipping. Sometimes it is faster as well. And I can pay cash if I want to! (On the other hand, Barnes & Noble can get books for you through their online store that their "real world" stores can't obtain at all. Strange.)
Time to run off home and rescue my latest UPS box full of books from the front porch . . .
The statute he was charged under, the "Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act" can be found at http://www.clark.net/pub/rothman/gacode.htm
My guess is that he was accused of "appropriating" the computers at the school, which the Act defines as "computer theft." But as I read the Act, it sounds like using one's work computer to visit a non-work-related website without one's employer's permission would also qualify as the crime of "computer theft," even if it were on your own time. In fact, it might be arguable that using one's work computer on one's own time to write a letter to one's congressman could be "computer theft" as defined under the Act, if your boss didn't give you permission to do it.
Take a look at it, it is pretty interesting reading . . .
I gave you an old link for the professor's page. Here's the current one: http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/OpposingC opyrightExtension/what.html
No, I'm sorry. You are incorrect about copyrights not having entered the public domain since 1979. I have no disagreement with your other points.
Here's the 1997 (pre-Bono) version of 17 USC 304, at section (b):
Copyrights in their renewal term or registered for renewal before January 1, 1978. The duration of any copyright, the renewal term of which is subsisting at any time between December 31, 1976, and December 31, 1977, inclusive, or for which renewal registration is made between December 31, 1976, and December 31, 1977, inclusive, is extended to endure for a term of seventy-five years from the date copyright was originally secured.
This means, in 1997, a work published in 1922 or before would be in the public domain.
The section quoted above was first made effective in 1976. Previously, a copyright would have a term of 28 years with a renewal term of 28 years. That means, in 1977, a work published in 1921 would have been about to expire, but instead its period was extended to 1996. The Bono Act, as we all know, was not passed until 1998.
I'm not arguing at all with your concerns that when 2018 rolls around, someone will have lobbied for another extension. (The above actually supports your position.) I'm just pointing out that a few materials have entered the public domain in recent memory. And as for doing something about it, I'm doing my best. I even called the White House repeatedly in 1998, begging Clinton to veto the Bono Act-- not that it helped.
Here is a chart of when various materials go into the public domain, as prepared by copyright expert Laura Gassaway:
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm
Here is another explanation of when materials go/went into the public domain, as explained by a law professor at Arizona State University:
http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/Opposin gC opyrightExtension/publicdomain/SearchC-R.html
As for doing something about it, I have and I am. I hope everyone else does the same.
But Congress has repeatedly extended copyright term during my lifetime, to the extent that no work has had its copyright term expire during my adult lifetime, nor can I expect any to expire during the remainder thereof.
Your adult lifetime must be pretty short, then, and your life expectancy pretty poor. Before the "Sony Bono Act" was passed in 1998, plenty of works were falling into the public domain each year that had been published more than 75 years before. (i.e. a book published in 1920 would have gone into the public domain in 1995.)
In most cases, the Bono Act extended the term by an additional 20 years. So, depending on your age and general health, you might reasonably expect some materials to enter the public domain 20 years after the Act was passed-- another 17 years.
The situation does get ugly with respect to the term of unpublished works, however, and you are correct that the term has been increased more than once during the term of protection of many existing works.
They could try, but that's not how prior art works. Prior art is something that is "prior" to the date that you invent something, which is assumed to be at the latest the date you file the patent application. So, in order to invalidate your patent in the way you envision, the person would have to show that they invented it before you did. Assuming that the person did not really invent it before you did, this might not be so easy to do . . .
FYI, the current law is that most patent applications are published 18 months after filing, whether they are granted are not.
Why would they want [the customer list]? It doesn't support their claim that Lindows doesn't infringe on the trademark. It doesn't have anything to do with the suit.
Well, someone must have thought it at least potentially has something to do with the suit. The essense of trademark infringement is a situation where customers are confused as to the source of a product. My guess would be that Microsoft's lawyers are considering contacting some of the customers to see if they were, in fact, confused. It could have something to do with showing *where* geographically the name was used. It might also be used as part of the evidence of Microsoft's alleged damage.
If Lindows is worried about the security of their list of e-mail addresses, they could certainly have attempted to obtain some sort of protective order. They could even have asked for an order that permits Microsoft's lawyers to look at the list, but not Microsoft itself.
As for the list becoming part of the court record, actually, it probably wouldn't unless it actually does get used directly as evidence of something in the case. Normally, unless they are admitted into evidence (a different process than just being "discoverable"), discovery documents would just be in the hands of the litigants themselves.
Karen Frito is correct. Although the lady was not able to do one particular job, she wasn't able to show that she could not do other, very similar jobs, and admitted that there were other jobs that she had previously done at Toyota that she was still capable of performing.
The case quotes the Code of Federal Regulations definition of an impairment in doing one's job sufficient to qualify as a disability:
"The term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working."
I think a particularly important point for all you professional programmers out there is the part that refers to the inability to perform a range of jobs as compared with someone with "comperable training, skills, and abilities." Assuming that there really isn't anything else that you are qualified to do, then carpal tunnel preventing you from typing might well be a disability.
I would also note that in Ms. Williams' case, she was able to do a large number of tasks that are not job-related. Many people with severe carpal tunnel have trouble doing things like combing their hair, opening soda cans, and sometimes even gripping things like cups, the telephone, etc. Even to a lesser extent, the inability to type might be a worse disability than the one cited by Ms. Williams (inability to work with her arms extended above her shoulders) in that it affects more kinds of jobs, and might even make it hard for one to go back to school-- you'd have to dictate all your papers and you'd probably have trouble taking notes even with pencil and paper.
If her typing skills were so vitally important to her livelihood that she felt the need to sue . ..
Actually, the lady didn't make any claims about her typing skills. Her claim was that the task she could not perform was "repetitive work with hands and arms extended at or above shoulder level for extended periods of time."
The court noted that this task is not an important part of most people's daily lives. Further, it observed that she was able to do the tasks required by other jobs she had held at the company. The standard the court set forth is whether or not a person is precluded from performing a class of jobs, not just one specialized assembly line job.
More detailed info on the PrintCafe lawsuit can be found at
http://pittsburgh.bcentral.com/pittsburgh/storie s/ 2001/12/03/story6.html
(Nov. 30, 2001 story from Pittsburgh Business Times.)
The California Court of Appeals opinion in the Intel v. Hamidi case is available as PDF and Word documents on the Court's website, in case anyone is interested in reading it for him or herself.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C 03 3076.PDF
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C 03 3076.DOC
Hamidi was represented by the ACLU, and the EFF also filed a brief in support of his position.
According to the opinion, Hamidi "repeatedly flooded Intel's e-mail system." On six different occasions he sent email to 8,000 to 35,000 Intel employees. When Intel found itself unable to block Hamidi's emails and he continued to send the email even after they sent him a letter asking him to stop, they filed a complaint for injunction, claiming "trespass to chattel." The court agreed that Hamidi was interfering with Intel's email server and adversely affecting productivity at the company.
The case did not involve any claim of defamation or libel.
Interestingly, on page 18 of the opinion, the court explained how it made a distinction between sending unwanted email and unwanted first class "snail mail"-- in the opinion of the court, it is easier to throw the snail mail out, and additionally, there is no danger of causing an email system crash. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Rowan v. U.S. Post Office, 397 U.S. 728, 736-37 (1970), the court also observed that a person may not send thousands of pieces of unwanted first class mail to a company, or make thousands of unwanted phone calls.
Most of the rest of the 34 page opinion deals the with free speech issues, and finds that there is no Constitutional problem, as the injunction merely prevents Hamidi from entering and using private property to spread his message. On page 29, the court states that a private email server is not a "traditional public forum."
The opinion is followed by a very well-reasoned dissent by Justice Kolkey. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if Hamidi takes an appeal.
Doesn't look like there is actually anything in the Audio Home Recording Act that says that the RIAA members can't do what they are doing. (Moral considerations aside.) Apparently, the drafters of the Act back in 1992 didn't think that there would ever be enough copy protection to worry about. Of course, that's why the Act was passed-- the recording industry was all whipped up about the revenue it was going to loose as a result of people making digital copies.
Here's the text of the Audio Home Recording Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html: (Arranged in easy to navigate sections from Cornell Law School)
http://www.hrrc.org/html/ahra.html
(Full text on one page from Audio Home Recording Rights Coalition)
Subchapter C is the part that is particularly interesting in that it sets out the details on royalty payments. You will have to cross reference to the definitions section is Subchapter A, however, in order to fully understand who is entitled to collect payments. Love the method of splitting up the royalty payments!
I don't know why everyone is so upset about 'N Sync being in the movie. They are not going to affect my enjoyment of the film (or lack thereof!) in the slightest amount for one simple reason: I wouldn't recognize any of those guys if they sat down on top of my desk and blocked my access to my keyboard. How are they going to be like any other extras in the movie? It's not like they are going to sing or anything.
And if the movie is as bad as it looks like it might be, I just won't bother seeing it-- I'll go see something else instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, this is a bit off topic, but . . .
Actually, recipes as such aren't copyrightable. Only creative expression is copyrightable.
If you think about it, recipes are factual formulas for making something, technically they fall into the purview of patent law or trade secret law, not copyright.
For example, there is nothing wrong with telling you that a version of green goddess salad dressing may be made by combining the following in a blender:
1/2 cup yogurt
2 tablespoons oil
1/4 cup chopped parsley, and basil and/or cilantro (coriander leaves)
1 teaspoon chopped chives
1 tablespoon lemon juice
1/4 tablespoon salt
optional: chopped scallion, and/or minced clove of garlic
However, there would be a lot of things wrong with my scanning and posting page 132 from "The New Laurel's Kitchen," 1986 edition, wherein the above formula may be found. That is because the expressive part of the cookbook cannot be copied without permission: things like the author's reminiscences of her days in Berkley, pictures of food, etc. It might even include the instructions for the recipe, depending on how elaborate they are. (I would argue that a line like "beat until smooth" is probably not expressive enough to trigger copyright protection.)
I almost forgot: "To Say Nothing of the Dog" by Connie Willis. Great fun!
A few more suggestions, in addition to the excellent ones already put forth:
David Weber, the "Honor Harrington" series. Excellent military s-f, do not miss it.
Sherri Tepper ("Gate to Women's Country" is quite apropos right now, and I really liked "Fresco." But these may be too feminist for some)
C.S. Friedman--brilliant! Especially "This Alien Shore."
Elizabeth Moon, "Deed of Paksenarrion" is very good, but long (and you can hear the dice rolling in the background from time to time in book one), and the s-f stories about Herris Serrano of the space navy are excellent (the trilogy that starts with "Hunting Party is a fine choice for young women in particular, kind of like the McCaffrey "Pern" books but should be entertaining for everyone). For those who are leery of reading books with a military theme written by a woman, please note that Ms. Moon is a former Marine.
Lois McMaster Bujold. Great fun, even my 70 year old retired scientist father enjoys her books. Reminds me a little of Heinlein before he got really weird. "Cordelia's Honor" is a good place to start.
John Barnes, his characters also remind me of Heinlein.
I have read elsewhere that women do better at remembering where things are in relation to other things than men are: they use landmarks more than men do. It has been theorized that in hunter-gatherer societies (men) who did most of the hunting had only to find their way home quickly and directly after chasing down game, while the gatherers (women) had to remember where they saw that berry bush that should have ripe berries on it by now.
If this is the case, it is easy to understand how someone who relies on landmarks might have more trouble navigating if she were denied a wide view of the world, as in the case of a narrow display, as she moves through real or virtual space.
I agree the movie is chock-full of eye candy. You forgot to add "Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburne" to your list.
American Science and Surplus is a blast!
Another fun place in Chicago that fewer people know about is "Usable Materials" at 1434 N. Western Ave. Not so much electronic surplus, but lots of weird scrap metal, motors, wire, springs, old saw blades, greasy parts from unidentifiable mechanical devices, etc.
I have no trouble reading something the length of a magazine article from a computer screen-- can it possibly take any longer than reading the posts on Slashdot?
I suppose it all depends on how comfortable your chair is . . .
Actually, the "head" system is commonly used in figure drawing-- classical drawing as well as comic books. It is particularly useful for keeping things in proportion if you are trying to draw a figure from your imagination. There are different systems for figuring height of a figure in heads depending on if you are drawing a "realistic" figure, a "heroic" figure, etc.
Even fashion drawing uses the head system of proportioning the figure, it just changes the formula to distort the form so you wind up with unnaturally small heads on very long-legged bodies.
It makes sense to fight for physical objects, but to fight, compete for and attempt to own information in an information based society?
Actually, assuming that society is information-based, it makes perfect sense to fight for the ownership of it. Back in the 6th century, it made sense to fight over farmland in Europe for the same reason: society was based on farming.
To be very exact, however, "information" in the sense of "factual information" is not protected by copyright law. Copyright protects only creative expression. Similarly, patent law protects only ideas.
It is because facts are not protected that in recent years efforts have been made to pass some sort of database protection law in the U.S. You think that the DMCA and the copyright extension act are trouble? I think database protection would be worse. Then people really would be able to own information.
Not to get in the way of a good rant, but the typical vegetarian diet is much higher in fiber than that of the average omnivore. I would imagine that the hippie vegetarians would have an even worse problem than you do with the new water-saving flush toilets.
Have you considered sending a letter to your congress(wo)man? From what I understand, there had been talk of repealing the water-saving toilet requirements, but the commode manufacturers are against it because they didn't want to retool their factories again. A grassroots effort is clearly needed to overcome the lobbying by this special interest group!
It seems strange that they used goldfish, though...why not a fish that's more commonly used for food?
Goldfish are a type of carp. Large carp are edible-- they just aren't particularly popular now in the U.S. because of all the small bones. My father used to eat them all the time when he was growing up as it was a relatively inexpensive fish. He claimed that they are quite tasty, and if you fry them crisp enough you can eat them bones and all like a big anchovy.
To those with a little more capacity for intellect, this doesn't matter - we all know we can go to a real store and examine goods and then still order them online for less.
Ah, but then there is no instant gratification! When I want a book, I want it NOW. If the book is in the store, I buy it in the store, no waiting for three days (at best).
The things I buy online tend to be obscure things that I can't obtain locally. Often, I'll even special order a book from the local bookstore rather than order it online if I can, in order to save shipping. Sometimes it is faster as well. And I can pay cash if I want to! (On the other hand, Barnes & Noble can get books for you through their online store that their "real world" stores can't obtain at all. Strange.)
Time to run off home and rescue my latest UPS box full of books from the front porch . . .
You should be able to find the showtimes for most of the locations on Fandango.com at http://www.fandango.com/movie_page.asp?mv=41170
However, I checked just now and there isn't a listing for San Francisco. Perhaps they haven't yet decided which theater will be showing it?
The statute he was charged under, the "Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act" can be found at http://www.clark.net/pub/rothman/gacode.htm
My guess is that he was accused of "appropriating" the computers at the school, which the Act defines as "computer theft." But as I read the Act, it sounds like using one's work computer to visit a non-work-related website without one's employer's permission would also qualify as the crime of "computer theft," even if it were on your own time. In fact, it might be arguable that using one's work computer on one's own time to write a letter to one's congressman could be "computer theft" as defined under the Act, if your boss didn't give you permission to do it.
Take a look at it, it is pretty interesting reading . . .
I gave you an old link for the professor's page. Here's the current one: http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/OpposingC opyrightExtension/what.html
Here's the 1997 (pre-Bono) version of 17 USC 304, at section (b):
This means, in 1997, a work published in 1922 or before would be in the public domain.
The section quoted above was first made effective in 1976. Previously, a copyright would have a term of 28 years with a renewal term of 28 years. That means, in 1977, a work published in 1921 would have been about to expire, but instead its period was extended to 1996. The Bono Act, as we all know, was not passed until 1998.
I'm not arguing at all with your concerns that when 2018 rolls around, someone will have lobbied for another extension. (The above actually supports your position.) I'm just pointing out that a few materials have entered the public domain in recent memory. And as for doing something about it, I'm doing my best. I even called the White House repeatedly in 1998, begging Clinton to veto the Bono Act-- not that it helped.
Here is a chart of when various materials go into the public domain, as prepared by copyright expert Laura Gassaway:
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm
Here is another explanation of when materials go/went into the public domain, as explained by a law professor at Arizona State University:
http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/Opposi
As for doing something about it, I have and I am. I hope everyone else does the same.
But Congress has repeatedly extended copyright term during my lifetime, to the extent that no work has had its copyright term expire during my adult lifetime, nor can I expect any to expire during the remainder thereof.
Your adult lifetime must be pretty short, then, and your life expectancy pretty poor. Before the "Sony Bono Act" was passed in 1998, plenty of works were falling into the public domain each year that had been published more than 75 years before. (i.e. a book published in 1920 would have gone into the public domain in 1995.)
In most cases, the Bono Act extended the term by an additional 20 years. So, depending on your age and general health, you might reasonably expect some materials to enter the public domain 20 years after the Act was passed-- another 17 years.
The situation does get ugly with respect to the term of unpublished works, however, and you are correct that the term has been increased more than once during the term of protection of many existing works.
They could try, but that's not how prior art works. Prior art is something that is "prior" to the date that you invent something, which is assumed to be at the latest the date you file the patent application. So, in order to invalidate your patent in the way you envision, the person would have to show that they invented it before you did. Assuming that the person did not really invent it before you did, this might not be so easy to do . . .
FYI, the current law is that most patent applications are published 18 months after filing, whether they are granted are not.
Why would they want [the customer list]? It doesn't support their claim that Lindows doesn't infringe on the trademark. It doesn't have anything to do with the suit.
Well, someone must have thought it at least potentially has something to do with the suit. The essense of trademark infringement is a situation where customers are confused as to the source of a product. My guess would be that Microsoft's lawyers are considering contacting some of the customers to see if they were, in fact, confused. It could have something to do with showing *where* geographically the name was used. It might also be used as part of the evidence of Microsoft's alleged damage.
If Lindows is worried about the security of their list of e-mail addresses, they could certainly have attempted to obtain some sort of protective order. They could even have asked for an order that permits Microsoft's lawyers to look at the list, but not Microsoft itself.
As for the list becoming part of the court record, actually, it probably wouldn't unless it actually does get used directly as evidence of something in the case. Normally, unless they are admitted into evidence (a different process than just being "discoverable"), discovery documents would just be in the hands of the litigants themselves.
The case quotes the Code of Federal Regulations definition of an impairment in doing one's job sufficient to qualify as a disability:
29 CFR 1630.2(j)(3), http://squid.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?
I think a particularly important point for all you professional programmers out there is the part that refers to the inability to perform a range of jobs as compared with someone with "comperable training, skills, and abilities." Assuming that there really isn't anything else that you are qualified to do, then carpal tunnel preventing you from typing might well be a disability.
I would also note that in Ms. Williams' case, she was able to do a large number of tasks that are not job-related. Many people with severe carpal tunnel have trouble doing things like combing their hair, opening soda cans, and sometimes even gripping things like cups, the telephone, etc. Even to a lesser extent, the inability to type might be a worse disability than the one cited by Ms. Williams (inability to work with her arms extended above her shoulders) in that it affects more kinds of jobs, and might even make it hard for one to go back to school-- you'd have to dictate all your papers and you'd probably have trouble taking notes even with pencil and paper.
If her typing skills were so vitally important to her livelihood that she felt the need to sue . . .
Actually, the lady didn't make any claims about her typing skills. Her claim was that the task she could not perform was "repetitive work with hands and arms extended at or above shoulder level for extended periods of time."
The court noted that this task is not an important part of most people's daily lives. Further, it observed that she was able to do the tasks required by other jobs she had held at the company. The standard the court set forth is whether or not a person is precluded from performing a class of jobs, not just one specialized assembly line job.
More detailed info on the PrintCafe lawsuit can be found ate s/ 2001/12/03/story6.html
http://pittsburgh.bcentral.com/pittsburgh/stori
(Nov. 30, 2001 story from Pittsburgh Business Times.)
The California Court of Appeals opinion in the Intel v. Hamidi case is available as PDF and Word documents on the Court's website, in case anyone is interested in reading it for him or herself.C 03 3076.PDF
C 03 3076.DOC
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/
Hamidi was represented by the ACLU, and the EFF also filed a brief in support of his position.
According to the opinion, Hamidi "repeatedly flooded Intel's e-mail system." On six different occasions he sent email to 8,000 to 35,000 Intel employees. When Intel found itself unable to block Hamidi's emails and he continued to send the email even after they sent him a letter asking him to stop, they filed a complaint for injunction, claiming "trespass to chattel." The court agreed that Hamidi was interfering with Intel's email server and adversely affecting productivity at the company.
The case did not involve any claim of defamation or libel.
Interestingly, on page 18 of the opinion, the court explained how it made a distinction between sending unwanted email and unwanted first class "snail mail"-- in the opinion of the court, it is easier to throw the snail mail out, and additionally, there is no danger of causing an email system crash. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Rowan v. U.S. Post Office, 397 U.S. 728, 736-37 (1970), the court also observed that a person may not send thousands of pieces of unwanted first class mail to a company, or make thousands of unwanted phone calls.
Most of the rest of the 34 page opinion deals the with free speech issues, and finds that there is no Constitutional problem, as the injunction merely prevents Hamidi from entering and using private property to spread his message. On page 29, the court states that a private email server is not a "traditional public forum."
The opinion is followed by a very well-reasoned dissent by Justice Kolkey. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if Hamidi takes an appeal.
Doesn't look like there is actually anything in the Audio Home Recording Act that says that the RIAA members can't do what they are doing. (Moral considerations aside.) Apparently, the drafters of the Act back in 1992 didn't think that there would ever be enough copy protection to worry about. Of course, that's why the Act was passed-- the recording industry was all whipped up about the revenue it was going to loose as a result of people making digital copies.
:
Here's the text of the Audio Home Recording Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
(Arranged in easy to navigate sections from Cornell Law School)
http://www.hrrc.org/html/ahra.html
(Full text on one page from Audio Home Recording Rights Coalition)
Subchapter C is the part that is particularly interesting in that it sets out the details on royalty payments. You will have to cross reference to the definitions section is Subchapter A, however, in order to fully understand who is entitled to collect payments. Love the method of splitting up the royalty payments!
I don't know why everyone is so upset about 'N Sync being in the movie. They are not going to affect my enjoyment of the film (or lack thereof!) in the slightest amount for one simple reason: I wouldn't recognize any of those guys if they sat down on top of my desk and blocked my access to my keyboard. How are they going to be like any other extras in the movie? It's not like they are going to sing or anything.
And if the movie is as bad as it looks like it might be, I just won't bother seeing it-- I'll go see something else instead.