You're right... Actually the 'tax' referred to is technically called the Road Fund License, you get a round thing to put in the window to show your vehicle is licensed. There is no british equivalent to the registration document, you just have a title (log book, V5) and a license disc. The license is required to be displayed on the vehicle if it is driven or parked on a public street. Drivers are not required to carry proof of insurance or drivers license but if you're not carrying it when an officer wants to see it you are given a few days to take them to a local police station.
Volcan eruptions tend to throw a staggering amount of rock & dust into the air... that's no easy feat to emulate. Compare the energy output of the Mt St Helens eruption with modern nuclear weapons for example.
Some statutes impose liability on parents for specific torts committed by their children, shoplifting comes to mind as an example in my Jurisdiction (washington state). These are pretty rare though and I've never heard of anybody trying to amend the copyright act to impose such liability.
But I thought it was understood as far as copyright goes that the purchaser (licensee) of a work make a copy for their own use on the understanding that if they resell the original then the copy must be transferred with the original or destroyed.
The DMCA encryption question is another deal, but I'm sure the argument can be made that CSS is not an *effective* copy protection measure.
I think effective is the key word here - encrypting the contents of the disc and then storing the encryption key on the disc seems not to be an effective copy protection measure.
It still seems like bad writing in this case as they've qualified their core allegation as a belief. I guess you don't get style points in a lawsuit though.
OK - Fair enough... but it apparently caught the attention of the defendants lawyer in the case who repeatedly says that they are in no position to admit or deny that the plaintiff believes something.
Moreover though, saying they should prove actual value lost is a nonsense and precisely that reason why a figure was legislated in the first place. You don't know how many people downloaded the song. You don't know how many of those people passed it on to others. You do know that the person put the music up for download onto a network where it was effectively available, without control, to millions of anonymous strangers.
Inability to prove your claim should not be grounds to relieve you of that burden.
You link deals with affidavits, where you are making sworn statement and wish to qualify something you don't have direct knowledge of. Complaints aren't written that way, a complaint is presented as a set of facts. The defendant can then admit or deny each fact alleged. You then have a trial or other proceeding to sort out the disputed facts (if any) or points of law as appropriate.
I'm not saying they need evidence, I'm saying they need to clearly and succintly explain what the alleged tort is. Instead they claim that they have a belief. I've seen a bunch of complaints and they aren't usually worded like this.
ok IANAL but the original complaint seems to be a terrible piece of writing :
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to download the Copyrighted Recordings, to distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public, and/or to make the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others. In doing so, Defendant has violated Plaintiffs' exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. Defendant's actions constitute infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright.
So they're alleging that they believe something ? Shouldn't their allegation be "Defendant illegally downloaded our stuff" and not "We believe the defendant illegally downloaded our stuff". If I were the judge I'd be included to say "Believe whatever you want, case closed!"
Also, the wire act only prohibits bets on sporting events, not poker, not casino games in general. The supreme court declined to overrule the lower courts ruling on this.
Correct, the USA explicitly committed to allow cross-border trade in gambling services when it ratified GATS. They did not request an exemption from those provisions.
Washington state expressly permits interstate/intrastate online betting on horse races. All other online gambling is a class C felony... the same as possession of child porn.
The "lefties" banned online gambling in washington state... but then the gambliing commission seems to be a bunch of micromanaging wack jobs here... for example we're legally required to call the police before holding a raffle for a non-profit org.
Oddly enough the supreme court refused to overturn a lower court ruling that the wire act only applies to telephone betting on sporting events. So online casino's techincally were not illegal and probably still aren't given the wooliness of the wording in the new act.
Slashdot Mirror
The state doesn't have power to grant privileges ... the people grant powers to the state.
You're right ... Actually the 'tax' referred to is technically called the Road Fund License, you get a round thing to put in the window to show your vehicle is licensed. There is no british equivalent to the registration document, you just have a title (log book, V5) and a license disc. The license is required to be displayed on the vehicle if it is driven or parked on a public street. Drivers are not required to carry proof of insurance or drivers license but if you're not carrying it when an officer wants to see it you are given a few days to take them to a local police station.
I don't mean to be a dickhead but what part of giving every car a unique license plate ever led you to believe that you'd be anonymous driving it ?
That part of town probably has a population equal to a decent sized American state with roads that were built for traffic levels of 200 years ago.
I never said they were massive profit machines just huge inefficient bureaucracies.
From your link : "The Romans identified him as Mars, the Roman god of war"
I was making a joke.
... call your medical insurer and ask why they spend $6 on overhead for every $4 in medical bills they pay.
But anyway
Volcanic even.
Volcan eruptions tend to throw a staggering amount of rock & dust into the air ... that's no easy feat to emulate. Compare the energy output of the Mt St Helens eruption with modern nuclear weapons for example.
The insurance industy, a more vile den of scum and villainy ....
Some statutes impose liability on parents for specific torts committed by their children, shoplifting comes to mind as an example in my Jurisdiction (washington state). These are pretty rare though and I've never heard of anybody trying to amend the copyright act to impose such liability.
Man they really misnamed the "One Laptop Per Child" project if it's supposed to be one per village.
But I thought it was understood as far as copyright goes that the purchaser (licensee) of a work make a copy for their own use on the understanding that if they resell the original then the copy must be transferred with the original or destroyed.
The DMCA encryption question is another deal, but I'm sure the argument can be made that CSS is not an *effective* copy protection measure.
I think effective is the key word here - encrypting the contents of the disc and then storing the encryption key on the disc seems not to be an effective copy protection measure.
You're right on the link.
It still seems like bad writing in this case as they've qualified their core allegation as a belief. I guess you don't get style points in a lawsuit though.
OK - Fair enough ... but it apparently caught the attention of the defendants lawyer in the case who repeatedly says that they are in no position to admit or deny that the plaintiff believes something.
Moreover though, saying they should prove actual value lost is a nonsense and precisely that reason why a figure was legislated in the first place. You don't know how many people downloaded the song. You don't know how many of those people passed it on to others. You do know that the person put the music up for download onto a network where it was effectively available, without control, to millions of anonymous strangers.
Inability to prove your claim should not be grounds to relieve you of that burden.
You link deals with affidavits, where you are making sworn statement and wish to qualify something you don't have direct knowledge of. Complaints aren't written that way, a complaint is presented as a set of facts. The defendant can then admit or deny each fact alleged. You then have a trial or other proceeding to sort out the disputed facts (if any) or points of law as appropriate.
I'm not saying they need evidence, I'm saying they need to clearly and succintly explain what the alleged tort is. Instead they claim that they have a belief. I've seen a bunch of complaints and they aren't usually worded like this.
ok IANAL but the original complaint seems to be a terrible piece of writing :
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or
consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to
download the Copyrighted Recordings, to distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public,
and/or to make the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others. In doing so,
Defendant has violated Plaintiffs' exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. Defendant's
actions constitute infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright.
So they're alleging that they believe something ? Shouldn't their allegation be "Defendant illegally downloaded our stuff" and not "We believe the defendant illegally downloaded our stuff". If I were the judge I'd be included to say "Believe whatever you want, case closed!"
Also, the wire act only prohibits bets on sporting events, not poker, not casino games in general. The supreme court declined to overrule the lower courts ruling on this.
Correct, the USA explicitly committed to allow cross-border trade in gambling services when it ratified GATS. They did not request an exemption from those provisions.
Washington state expressly permits interstate/intrastate online betting on horse races. All other online gambling is a class C felony ... the same as possession of child porn.
The "lefties" banned online gambling in washington state ... but then the gambliing commission seems to be a bunch of micromanaging wack jobs here ... for example we're legally required to call the police before holding a raffle for a non-profit org.
Oddly enough the supreme court refused to overturn a lower court ruling that the wire act only applies to telephone betting on sporting events. So online casino's techincally were not illegal and probably still aren't given the wooliness of the wording in the new act.