The Federal Government can't constitutionally tax property unless it's apportioned among the states according to population. See U.S. Const. Art. 1. Sec. 9. Income tax is different because of the sixteenth amendment. I should know, I'm a tax attorney.
I don't think you can really say that copyright laws have been "created almost entirely to meet corporate interests." Perhaps they have evolved over time to cater to the interests of businesses, but copyright was envisioned in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution (the Copyright Clause); long before the modern notions of a corporation (i.e., ones not chartered by a sovereign) were in existence in the US. Something cannot be created to meet the interests of something else that did not exist at the time.
You also claim that one must acknowledge that the current system is deeply flawed before we can make any progress to a better system. But is the current system only one point on potential copyright spectrum. The discussion must not only take into consideration the public, but the authors and even the interests of corporations, which are ultimately an abstraction of the individual shareholders. Your perspective might be that the system is flawed, and we need to throw out the current system and start over, but I think many would disagree (a good portion of whom were congressmen or senators that wrote the current copyright laws). Any discussion must take in to account the interests of all parties, not just those who "acknowledge that current copyright laws...are completely out of whack."
Correct. This is not that big of a deal. Wish them luck in collecting this money.
Why is that? Just because the guy didn't show up because he was in a different state doesn't mean that they won't be able to collect. The plaintiff can take this default judgment to Washington (where the defendant resides) and have it domesticated and be able to enforce it just as if the suit was originally brought there. This is mandated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Also, he won't be able to relitigate the case in Washington because of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
His best chance of getting out of this is a collateral attack on the Illinois court's personal jurisdiction. This would actually be a pretty good case based on his letter to the court and the state of flux that civil procedure law is in based on Internet contacts. His contacts with Illinois were pretty minor and might not meet "minimum contacts" for the federal court in Illinois to have personal jurisdiction. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
What he should have done is made a special appearance to contest the personal jurisdiction. (the appearance is "special" in that it won't subject you to personal jurisdiction by your presence in the state to contest the jurisdiction - a legal catch-22). Rather it sounds like he did a little Internet research and sent a letter to the judge instead of hiring a lawyer. I guess he thought he could try to get out cheap that way, he failed.
You seem to have a good knowledge of several terms that relate to law, but unfortunately the underlying concepts elude you. There is a reason that individuals usually go to law school for three years, and have to pass a rigorous examination before being able to practice law.
First, the Commerce Clause is not a basis for taxation, that would be Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises..."
Second, the First Sale Doctrine is not a constitutional doctrine, but a principle from the Copyright Act that an author loses the ability to control the distribution of a copyrighted work after it is lawfully made and sold. 17 U.S.C. Sec. 109. It does not relate to taxes whatsoever.
Third, it does not matter whether the federal government has authority under one part of the constitution for its regulation if it also violates another part of the constitution. For instance, a regulation that is valid pursuant to the Commerce Clause but which also violates the First Amendment is nevertheless invalid. See, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). Therefore even a valid tax under Art. I Sec. 8 would be invalid if its violative of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.
Fourth, while your description about direct and indirect taxes is mostly correct (though not actually related to the question posited), your example about what may be income, "(loans, etc.)," is wrong. A loan is not income because it comes with an offsetting obligation. See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) (giving the three-prong standard for what is "income" for tax purposes: (1) accession to wealth, (2) clearly realized, (3) over which the taxpayer has complete dominion). The offsetting obligation to repay the loan means its not an accession to wealth.
Finally, your statement that a state can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't violate its own constitution is clearly erroneous. State action as well as legislation are invalid or illegal if it violates the Federal Constitution. Often if a state actor violates the constitution you can sue for money damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Examples of state legislation being invalid would be, for instance, if a state and federal regulation were inconsistent. The state regulation would be preempted under the Supremacy Clause. See, e.g., Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982). Also, a state law that would violate the federal constitution is just as invalid as if the federal government had passed it. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (striking down Texas sodomy law as violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). An even better example is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) in which the Supreme Court struck down part of the Constitution of the State of Colorado as violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If part of a state constitution can be unconstitutional under the federal Constitution, a fortiori any state law passed pursuant thereto could also be held unconstitutional.
While I personally applaud any attempt to educate people about the law, this is not the way to do it. Giving people misleading or just plain wrong information can make them worse off than if they never had the information in the first place.
I am all but certain (as certain as you can be when it comes to the Supreme Court deciding things) that a tax like this would be held unconstitutional as a content-based restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment. The whole distinction between direct or indirect tax is of no consequence as this isn't a question of the Sixteenth Amendment or Article I Sec. 2.
Generally, the government can't treat certain speech differently than others âoebecause of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Depâ(TM)t v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972). This is of course only a general rule, and there are exceptions. Obscenity and "true threats" are obvious examples because they are not considered protected by the First Amendment at all. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973); United States v. Fulmer, 108 F.3d 1486 (1st Cir. 1997). Other forms of speech, such as child pornography can also be restricted because of the harm to children that they cause, not necessarily its affect on the speaker or receiver. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)
However the court has never held that violent speech receives anythings less than full protection of the First Amendment. Therefore any restriction that is based only upon the content of the speech is presumed invalid unless the government could meet what is referred to as strict scrutiny. To pass strict scrutiny the government would have to demonstrate that there is a compelling governmental interest, that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve the interest, and that it is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. It is highly unlikely that taxing of violent speech could be considered narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means to achieve any legitimate government interest relating to violent video games, if there even exists a legitimate compelling government interest in burdening adults in obtaining violent video games.
Basically, this is no more constitutional than if a state were to try to tax books that talked about homosexuality or magazines that had articles that condemned republicans.
But this has nothing to do with extradition, it's not about criminal cases at all. It's all about UK civil judgments for money damages which can be enforced in the US if you have "minimum contacts" with the UK. And these minimum contacts don't have to be physical, so you can never have set foot in the UK nor have any UK assets but still have to pay up.
Once you have a judgment in a foreign country they can try to bring that case to a US court to enforce it against you here. Most states have passed a version of the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act - which, as its title implies, allows people to enforce (called domesticating) foreign judgments in the States.
In order for a foreign judgment to be enforced the foreign court has to have, among other things, jurisdiction. But just because you've never gone to the UK doesn't mean they don't have jurisdiction. In general, to be subject to personal jurisdiction, you must have a sufficient level of personal or business contacts with the state in which the court sits that you could reasonably expect to be sued there. So if you directed speech to the UK the US court may find that you have sufficient contacts for specific personal jurisdiction, and would then enforce the UK judgment against your US assets.
UK judgments, and really those from any country, can be enforced against US citizens, even those that have never been to that country and have no assets anywhere other than in the US. Now a US court will require that the party trying to enforce the foreign judgment demonstrate that you had sufficient contacts with the foreign state to warrant personal jurisdiction, but directing speech to people in that country may be enough to enable the other party to enforce that judgment in the US. Its not just "oh, I don't live in the UK and have never been there, so I can't be sued there." Nothing is further from the truth. That is why is is a global threat to free speech.
Public schools, if this even was a public school, it could be private after all, are state government institutions, not federal. This is an important distinction because only works of the federal government are in the public domain, not works of state governments. See 17 USC Sec. 105 - "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government..." Works of state governments are entitled to copyright protection just like work of individuals or corporations.
Also, even if the notes were somehow in violation of copyright law there is no available self-help remedy in copyright. Meaning you're not allowed to go and take away infringing material from someone else, you have to rely on the courts to do that. Any time you try to take anything from anyone else by force - even if it's your property - that is a crime and a tort - like O.J.'s little escapade in Las Vegas.
Well it's not called theft when it is a civil matter, it's either trespass to chattels or conversion. If the item hasn't been destroyed and you want it back it is trespass to chattels where you can also get paid for depriving you of the use of your property while it was taken. If the teacher took it and burned it or threw it away you would sue for conversion. For conversion you would be entitled to the value of the item taken. You may also be able to get punitive damages for either of those, as they are intentional torts.
Actually there is a big difference between those people. First of all we don't know that he even goes to a public university, so therefore the teacher may not be a state employee. The other difference is if it was a public school they would be a state employee, not a federal employee like a Congressman or president. The Copyright act provides that works of the federal government are in the public domain, but says nothing about state employees. Therefore states do own the copyright of the works of their employees.
The police cannot just pull you over to check that you have an operating permit. Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), they must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or will occur in order to temporarily detain you (which is a seizure for 4th amendment purposes). Mind you, this is less of a burden than what is required for arrest - probable cause - but is a requirement nonetheless. Also, they can require that the person being stopped show ID, if allowed by state law. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).
There were not 44 patents in question, only one. This patent consisted of 44 claims. While 44 is more than average (the current USPTO rule is 25 total claims, instituted after this patent was filed), it's not significantly so. No where near as large as the combined claims of 44 patents.
The reason that patents are better than copyrights is they are much broader. Patents protect an idea, where copyright just protect the expression of an idea, the so called idea/expression dichotomy. Additionally, independent creation is an absolute defense to copyright infringement. Therefore, if I independently write my own code and it just happens to be very similar or even identical to your copyrighted code, yet I had no opportunity to copy it, then I have not infringed on your copyright. If I independently come up with software that conflicts with your patent, even if I didn't know or had no reason to know of your patent, I can still be liable for infringement. Patry on Copyright Sec. 3:29
Actually, it would not be void but voidable. There is a difference: a void agreement is one with no legal effect, a voidable agreement does have legal effect, but can be repudiated by the party lacking capacity to contract (the minor).
There could be large differences for purposes of the GPL. A voidable contract can still be binding on the party that is not lacking in capacity if the other party so wishes. E.g. a minor could enforce the provisions of the GPL if he does not wish to render it void.
It should also go without saying but, this information is not legal advice.
However, you must remember that Copyright Clause of the Constitution only allows for copyright for "limited times." "As long as the work is being actively revised, promoted..." looks like perpetuity to me.
There is a good reason that copyright formalities such as renewal were gotten rid of in the Copyright Act of 1976 - i.e. people inadvertently blew copyright because they forgot to renew. You may think it would be relatively easy to remember that you have to renew the copyright, but its not that easy to track when you need to do something seven years in the future. Plus there is the fact that most copyrights are never registered - as registration is optional, though it's required to file suit for infringement, and is prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright.
Yeah, but its not really that simple. If you don't recognize the ability to transfer copyrights, or even just not being able to transfer them to corporate-like entities, then you get rid of much of the incentive to create copyrighted work, i.e. so it can be sold. Few individuals would have the ability to create a complete copyrighted movie or large computer program on their own, so do you not want these to be created anymore? Sure you could say all the people that participated in the making of the movie or application would all be joint authors (as they would be if it wasn't a "work made for hire"), but there would not be any funding for these people to create them. It most certainly would not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
Well, the bad outcome would be very bad for the employer also. Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act prohibits discrimination or termination for exercising your rights under the act. If there was no protection from firing or discrimination companies would never comply with health and safety regs and just fire people that complain.
We'll, I'm not entirely sure what difference it would make for them to be regarded as a common carrier, but in the context of third party copyright liability (disregarding the DMCA safe-harbor) there are three ways that a person can be held liable for the copyright infringement of another: vicarious liability, contributory liability, and inducement. Vicarious liabilities applies when there is control and financial benefit. Here it may be hard to argue control, because the University doesn't really have control of what the students can do, except perhaps blocking infringing material, but they would have to already know that it exists. Also, a financial benefit would be very attenuated, and it generally requires a fairly direct financial benefit. Contributory liability requires knowledge and material contribution. Here the access is most likely material contribution to the infringing activity, but there must be actual knowledge of what is happening, that would be unlikely, and they would only be liable for infringing activity after the copyright holder notifies the university of copyrighted material that is infringing. Finally there is inducement, (the progeny of MGM v. Grokster) which requires that they actually try to induce someone to infringe copyright, and relies on the state of mind of the inducing party. Here it is very unlikely that it could be proven that there is intent to induce infringing activity on the part of the university, especially with the substantial non-infringing uses that universities usually would encourage.
Actually, under 17 USC Sec. 115(a)(2) - "A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved..." As long as you keep the melody pretty much the same you could make a rap version of a country song for all the copyright law cares. It's true that it would be considered a derivative if it modifies it extensively, and would therefore not be eligible for compulsory licensing. Likely though, the Guitar Hero song was not under a compulsory license, but a separately negotiated license, such as through the The Harry Fox Agency.
On a similar point, you can make it sound as close to the original as possible, as long as you don't use the actual recording. That is to say you make your own recording. Though you still have to license the underlying musical composition, which is a separate copyright than the recording of the performance. 17 USC 114(b).
Well, I commend you on having actually read the U.S. Constitution, that's more than can be said of many people, and the more case law the better.
Actually, I am not a lawyer, but I am a student at top law school about a mile outside of Boston. I have successfully completed courses in both Constitutional and Criminal law, and have spent most of my waking hours interpreting judicial opinions, the Constitution, and many statutes and applying them to many situations (law professors love hypothetical questions), so I have some prior experience.
There is obviously disagreement in the academic community regarding this very topic, and there has been no Supreme Court case on point. The right against self-incrimination is not a right against all self-incrimination. The pertinent part of the Fifth amendment is "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Supreme Court has held that the Fifth amendment only bars the production of "testimonial information." Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1998). The court also held that the testimony protected by the right was a statement that might "itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate[s] to a factual assertion or disclose information." Id. A cryptographic key is not necessarily, and in most cases will not be testimonial. Though there is an argument to be made that a particular key is testimonial, which I won't go into.
Additionally, even if a court were to hold that the cryptographic key were testimonial, the prosecutor could attempt to get around the self-incrimination problem by granting immunity for any communicative statements made in the disclosure of the key. A court could use this fact to compel the disclosure of the key, though knowledge of the key itself could be considered testimonial in some circumstances. It is true that you can't get inside the brain of the defendant to see if he knows the information, but that doesn't mean that it just ends the topic. The prosecution wouldn't have to prove that you know it by direct evidence, proof could be offered by the way of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution does have the burden of proof, but circumstantial evidence is still evidence. The burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond all possible doubt that anyone could imagine. If the prosecution makes their prima facie case, and you offer no evidence to rebut, then you can be found guilty.
There are other possible problems with this, but I won't go into them as I have not had time to research them at any length, and they are necessarily technical and hinge on varying interpretations of what is testimonial. Generally, if the judge orders you to disclose the information your best bet is to just do what the judge orders you to, object and appeal. The other alternatives are not very good, such as being held in contempt or being tried for obstruction of justice.
I imagine this topic will some day come before the Supreme Court and this question will be answered. Perhaps it's way up right now. My real point is this is an extremely complex legal topic, which is in wide dispute, and which a lay person would not have the knowledge or experience in order to make a persuasive argument about. Also, it would have to be a complex argument, not just blanket statements based on general knowledge of the existence of a right. Overall, blanket statements just end up confusing or misleading other people about what the Constitution actually protects.
Thats true, but there is a key difference between moving around links on a site and a service like TinyURL going offline, namely, a lot of times you can track down where the page is now if it is just moved. For instance if I wanted to go read an article posted at example.com/march2003/article.html it might not be there, but there is a decent chance that I could search the site and find it at example.com/03-2003.aspx because I know where it used to be. For TinyURL I just have a random hash. Google and the Wayback Machine don't cache the TinyURL links, but often have old web pages. There are many times where I can track down the original site for a dead link, but if a tiny url service were to go off line then good luck.
Slashdot Mirror
The Federal Government can't constitutionally tax property unless it's apportioned among the states according to population. See U.S. Const. Art. 1. Sec. 9. Income tax is different because of the sixteenth amendment. I should know, I'm a tax attorney.
I don't think you can really say that copyright laws have been "created almost entirely to meet corporate interests." Perhaps they have evolved over time to cater to the interests of businesses, but copyright was envisioned in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution (the Copyright Clause); long before the modern notions of a corporation (i.e., ones not chartered by a sovereign) were in existence in the US. Something cannot be created to meet the interests of something else that did not exist at the time.
You also claim that one must acknowledge that the current system is deeply flawed before we can make any progress to a better system. But is the current system only one point on potential copyright spectrum. The discussion must not only take into consideration the public, but the authors and even the interests of corporations, which are ultimately an abstraction of the individual shareholders. Your perspective might be that the system is flawed, and we need to throw out the current system and start over, but I think many would disagree (a good portion of whom were congressmen or senators that wrote the current copyright laws). Any discussion must take in to account the interests of all parties, not just those who "acknowledge that current copyright laws...are completely out of whack."
Based on my experience with the postal service, you must be using the adverb "reliably" in the loosest sense.
Correct. This is not that big of a deal. Wish them luck in collecting this money.
Why is that? Just because the guy didn't show up because he was in a different state doesn't mean that they won't be able to collect. The plaintiff can take this default judgment to Washington (where the defendant resides) and have it domesticated and be able to enforce it just as if the suit was originally brought there. This is mandated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Also, he won't be able to relitigate the case in Washington because of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
His best chance of getting out of this is a collateral attack on the Illinois court's personal jurisdiction. This would actually be a pretty good case based on his letter to the court and the state of flux that civil procedure law is in based on Internet contacts. His contacts with Illinois were pretty minor and might not meet "minimum contacts" for the federal court in Illinois to have personal jurisdiction. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
What he should have done is made a special appearance to contest the personal jurisdiction. (the appearance is "special" in that it won't subject you to personal jurisdiction by your presence in the state to contest the jurisdiction - a legal catch-22). Rather it sounds like he did a little Internet research and sent a letter to the judge instead of hiring a lawyer. I guess he thought he could try to get out cheap that way, he failed.
You seem to have a good knowledge of several terms that relate to law, but unfortunately the underlying concepts elude you. There is a reason that individuals usually go to law school for three years, and have to pass a rigorous examination before being able to practice law.
First, the Commerce Clause is not a basis for taxation, that would be Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises..."
Second, the First Sale Doctrine is not a constitutional doctrine, but a principle from the Copyright Act that an author loses the ability to control the distribution of a copyrighted work after it is lawfully made and sold. 17 U.S.C. Sec. 109. It does not relate to taxes whatsoever.
Third, it does not matter whether the federal government has authority under one part of the constitution for its regulation if it also violates another part of the constitution. For instance, a regulation that is valid pursuant to the Commerce Clause but which also violates the First Amendment is nevertheless invalid. See, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). Therefore even a valid tax under Art. I Sec. 8 would be invalid if its violative of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.
Fourth, while your description about direct and indirect taxes is mostly correct (though not actually related to the question posited), your example about what may be income, "(loans, etc.)," is wrong. A loan is not income because it comes with an offsetting obligation. See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) (giving the three-prong standard for what is "income" for tax purposes: (1) accession to wealth, (2) clearly realized, (3) over which the taxpayer has complete dominion). The offsetting obligation to repay the loan means its not an accession to wealth.
Finally, your statement that a state can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't violate its own constitution is clearly erroneous. State action as well as legislation are invalid or illegal if it violates the Federal Constitution. Often if a state actor violates the constitution you can sue for money damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Examples of state legislation being invalid would be, for instance, if a state and federal regulation were inconsistent. The state regulation would be preempted under the Supremacy Clause. See, e.g., Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982). Also, a state law that would violate the federal constitution is just as invalid as if the federal government had passed it. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (striking down Texas sodomy law as violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). An even better example is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) in which the Supreme Court struck down part of the Constitution of the State of Colorado as violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If part of a state constitution can be unconstitutional under the federal Constitution, a fortiori any state law passed pursuant thereto could also be held unconstitutional.
While I personally applaud any attempt to educate people about the law, this is not the way to do it. Giving people misleading or just plain wrong information can make them worse off than if they never had the information in the first place.
I am all but certain (as certain as you can be when it comes to the Supreme Court deciding things) that a tax like this would be held unconstitutional as a content-based restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment. The whole distinction between direct or indirect tax is of no consequence as this isn't a question of the Sixteenth Amendment or Article I Sec. 2.
Generally, the government can't treat certain speech differently than others âoebecause of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Depâ(TM)t v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972). This is of course only a general rule, and there are exceptions. Obscenity and "true threats" are obvious examples because they are not considered protected by the First Amendment at all. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973); United States v. Fulmer, 108 F.3d 1486 (1st Cir. 1997). Other forms of speech, such as child pornography can also be restricted because of the harm to children that they cause, not necessarily its affect on the speaker or receiver. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)
However the court has never held that violent speech receives anythings less than full protection of the First Amendment. Therefore any restriction that is based only upon the content of the speech is presumed invalid unless the government could meet what is referred to as strict scrutiny. To pass strict scrutiny the government would have to demonstrate that there is a compelling governmental interest, that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve the interest, and that it is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. It is highly unlikely that taxing of violent speech could be considered narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means to achieve any legitimate government interest relating to violent video games, if there even exists a legitimate compelling government interest in burdening adults in obtaining violent video games.
Basically, this is no more constitutional than if a state were to try to tax books that talked about homosexuality or magazines that had articles that condemned republicans.
But this has nothing to do with extradition, it's not about criminal cases at all. It's all about UK civil judgments for money damages which can be enforced in the US if you have "minimum contacts" with the UK. And these minimum contacts don't have to be physical, so you can never have set foot in the UK nor have any UK assets but still have to pay up.
Once you have a judgment in a foreign country they can try to bring that case to a US court to enforce it against you here. Most states have passed a version of the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act - which, as its title implies, allows people to enforce (called domesticating) foreign judgments in the States.
In order for a foreign judgment to be enforced the foreign court has to have, among other things, jurisdiction. But just because you've never gone to the UK doesn't mean they don't have jurisdiction. In general, to be subject to personal jurisdiction, you must have a sufficient level of personal or business contacts with the state in which the court sits that you could reasonably expect to be sued there. So if you directed speech to the UK the US court may find that you have sufficient contacts for specific personal jurisdiction, and would then enforce the UK judgment against your US assets.
UK judgments, and really those from any country, can be enforced against US citizens, even those that have never been to that country and have no assets anywhere other than in the US. Now a US court will require that the party trying to enforce the foreign judgment demonstrate that you had sufficient contacts with the foreign state to warrant personal jurisdiction, but directing speech to people in that country may be enough to enable the other party to enforce that judgment in the US. Its not just "oh, I don't live in the UK and have never been there, so I can't be sued there." Nothing is further from the truth. That is why is is a global threat to free speech.
Public schools, if this even was a public school, it could be private after all, are state government institutions, not federal. This is an important distinction because only works of the federal government are in the public domain, not works of state governments. See 17 USC Sec. 105 - "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government..." Works of state governments are entitled to copyright protection just like work of individuals or corporations.
Also, even if the notes were somehow in violation of copyright law there is no available self-help remedy in copyright. Meaning you're not allowed to go and take away infringing material from someone else, you have to rely on the courts to do that. Any time you try to take anything from anyone else by force - even if it's your property - that is a crime and a tort - like O.J.'s little escapade in Las Vegas.
Well it's not called theft when it is a civil matter, it's either trespass to chattels or conversion. If the item hasn't been destroyed and you want it back it is trespass to chattels where you can also get paid for depriving you of the use of your property while it was taken. If the teacher took it and burned it or threw it away you would sue for conversion. For conversion you would be entitled to the value of the item taken. You may also be able to get punitive damages for either of those, as they are intentional torts.
When I say public university I saw Econ and assumed university, but my comment would apply equally to secondary schools as well.
Actually there is a big difference between those people. First of all we don't know that he even goes to a public university, so therefore the teacher may not be a state employee. The other difference is if it was a public school they would be a state employee, not a federal employee like a Congressman or president. The Copyright act provides that works of the federal government are in the public domain, but says nothing about state employees. Therefore states do own the copyright of the works of their employees.
The police cannot just pull you over to check that you have an operating permit. Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), they must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or will occur in order to temporarily detain you (which is a seizure for 4th amendment purposes). Mind you, this is less of a burden than what is required for arrest - probable cause - but is a requirement nonetheless. Also, they can require that the person being stopped show ID, if allowed by state law. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).
There were not 44 patents in question, only one. This patent consisted of 44 claims. While 44 is more than average (the current USPTO rule is 25 total claims, instituted after this patent was filed), it's not significantly so. No where near as large as the combined claims of 44 patents.
The reason that patents are better than copyrights is they are much broader. Patents protect an idea, where copyright just protect the expression of an idea, the so called idea/expression dichotomy. Additionally, independent creation is an absolute defense to copyright infringement. Therefore, if I independently write my own code and it just happens to be very similar or even identical to your copyrighted code, yet I had no opportunity to copy it, then I have not infringed on your copyright. If I independently come up with software that conflicts with your patent, even if I didn't know or had no reason to know of your patent, I can still be liable for infringement. Patry on Copyright Sec. 3:29
Actually, it would not be void but voidable. There is a difference: a void agreement is one with no legal effect, a voidable agreement does have legal effect, but can be repudiated by the party lacking capacity to contract (the minor).
There could be large differences for purposes of the GPL. A voidable contract can still be binding on the party that is not lacking in capacity if the other party so wishes. E.g. a minor could enforce the provisions of the GPL if he does not wish to render it void.
It should also go without saying but, this information is not legal advice.
However, you must remember that Copyright Clause of the Constitution only allows for copyright for "limited times." "As long as the work is being actively revised, promoted..." looks like perpetuity to me.
There is a good reason that copyright formalities such as renewal were gotten rid of in the Copyright Act of 1976 - i.e. people inadvertently blew copyright because they forgot to renew. You may think it would be relatively easy to remember that you have to renew the copyright, but its not that easy to track when you need to do something seven years in the future. Plus there is the fact that most copyrights are never registered - as registration is optional, though it's required to file suit for infringement, and is prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright.
Yeah, but its not really that simple. If you don't recognize the ability to transfer copyrights, or even just not being able to transfer them to corporate-like entities, then you get rid of much of the incentive to create copyrighted work, i.e. so it can be sold. Few individuals would have the ability to create a complete copyrighted movie or large computer program on their own, so do you not want these to be created anymore? Sure you could say all the people that participated in the making of the movie or application would all be joint authors (as they would be if it wasn't a "work made for hire"), but there would not be any funding for these people to create them. It most certainly would not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
Well, the bad outcome would be very bad for the employer also. Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act prohibits discrimination or termination for exercising your rights under the act. If there was no protection from firing or discrimination companies would never comply with health and safety regs and just fire people that complain.
We'll, I'm not entirely sure what difference it would make for them to be regarded as a common carrier, but in the context of third party copyright liability (disregarding the DMCA safe-harbor) there are three ways that a person can be held liable for the copyright infringement of another: vicarious liability, contributory liability, and inducement. Vicarious liabilities applies when there is control and financial benefit. Here it may be hard to argue control, because the University doesn't really have control of what the students can do, except perhaps blocking infringing material, but they would have to already know that it exists. Also, a financial benefit would be very attenuated, and it generally requires a fairly direct financial benefit. Contributory liability requires knowledge and material contribution. Here the access is most likely material contribution to the infringing activity, but there must be actual knowledge of what is happening, that would be unlikely, and they would only be liable for infringing activity after the copyright holder notifies the university of copyrighted material that is infringing. Finally there is inducement, (the progeny of MGM v. Grokster) which requires that they actually try to induce someone to infringe copyright, and relies on the state of mind of the inducing party. Here it is very unlikely that it could be proven that there is intent to induce infringing activity on the part of the university, especially with the substantial non-infringing uses that universities usually would encourage.
Actually, under 17 USC Sec. 115(a)(2) - "A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved..." As long as you keep the melody pretty much the same you could make a rap version of a country song for all the copyright law cares. It's true that it would be considered a derivative if it modifies it extensively, and would therefore not be eligible for compulsory licensing. Likely though, the Guitar Hero song was not under a compulsory license, but a separately negotiated license, such as through the The Harry Fox Agency.
On a similar point, you can make it sound as close to the original as possible, as long as you don't use the actual recording. That is to say you make your own recording. Though you still have to license the underlying musical composition, which is a separate copyright than the recording of the performance. 17 USC 114(b).
Well, I commend you on having actually read the U.S. Constitution, that's more than can be said of many people, and the more case law the better.
... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Supreme Court has held that the Fifth amendment only bars the production of "testimonial information." Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1998). The court also held that the testimony protected by the right was a statement that might "itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate[s] to a factual assertion or disclose information." Id. A cryptographic key is not necessarily, and in most cases will not be testimonial. Though there is an argument to be made that a particular key is testimonial, which I won't go into.
Actually, I am not a lawyer, but I am a student at top law school about a mile outside of Boston. I have successfully completed courses in both Constitutional and Criminal law, and have spent most of my waking hours interpreting judicial opinions, the Constitution, and many statutes and applying them to many situations (law professors love hypothetical questions), so I have some prior experience.
There is obviously disagreement in the academic community regarding this very topic, and there has been no Supreme Court case on point. The right against self-incrimination is not a right against all self-incrimination. The pertinent part of the Fifth amendment is "No person
Additionally, even if a court were to hold that the cryptographic key were testimonial, the prosecutor could attempt to get around the self-incrimination problem by granting immunity for any communicative statements made in the disclosure of the key. A court could use this fact to compel the disclosure of the key, though knowledge of the key itself could be considered testimonial in some circumstances. It is true that you can't get inside the brain of the defendant to see if he knows the information, but that doesn't mean that it just ends the topic. The prosecution wouldn't have to prove that you know it by direct evidence, proof could be offered by the way of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution does have the burden of proof, but circumstantial evidence is still evidence. The burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond all possible doubt that anyone could imagine. If the prosecution makes their prima facie case, and you offer no evidence to rebut, then you can be found guilty.
There are other possible problems with this, but I won't go into them as I have not had time to research them at any length, and they are necessarily technical and hinge on varying interpretations of what is testimonial. Generally, if the judge orders you to disclose the information your best bet is to just do what the judge orders you to, object and appeal. The other alternatives are not very good, such as being held in contempt or being tried for obstruction of justice.
I imagine this topic will some day come before the Supreme Court and this question will be answered. Perhaps it's way up right now. My real point is this is an extremely complex legal topic, which is in wide dispute, and which a lay person would not have the knowledge or experience in order to make a persuasive argument about. Also, it would have to be a complex argument, not just blanket statements based on general knowledge of the existence of a right. Overall, blanket statements just end up confusing or misleading other people about what the Constitution actually protects.
Thats true, but there is a key difference between moving around links on a site and a service like TinyURL going offline, namely, a lot of times you can track down where the page is now if it is just moved. For instance if I wanted to go read an article posted at example.com/march2003/article.html it might not be there, but there is a decent chance that I could search the site and find it at example.com/03-2003.aspx because I know where it used to be. For TinyURL I just have a random hash. Google and the Wayback Machine don't cache the TinyURL links, but often have old web pages. There are many times where I can track down the original site for a dead link, but if a tiny url service were to go off line then good luck.