Leading case: Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1859)
Also check out the Uniform Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act, which has been enacted in a number of state jurisdicitons.
Did a quick search for 'foreign (judgment or judgement)' on google and was able to find PDFs of the forms necessary for claiming such a judgment in several state courts.
It still requires any publisher (meaning anyone with a website) to be an expert in the law of every jusridiction in the world.
Not really, as the guy pointed out this was the decision of an Australian, not a World court. So all publishers have to do is this: When publishing scurrilous accusations about Australian business moguls, make sure you have the facts to back up your assertions. That's what Australian publishers have to do, and they seem to manage.
it's a problem for dow jones because they have a presence in Australia. If you don't have any presence in Greater Bumfukia there's no civil come-back to you.
Yes there is. You take the record to an American court, tell them you were awarded $X by the Supreme Court of Bumfikia, and ask for an order awarding the amount you are entitled to. Easy.
If the person claiming libel, read the article, then it may be argued they agree.
Of course they didn't read it. Someone told them about it.:)
Usually a choice of law clause will read something like "... to litigate any dispute arising ouf of this subscription according to the law of..." Now the libel cannot be said to arise out of the subscription. In fact it is difficult to see how a clause could be broad enough (and still remain enforcable) to cover a situation like this.
try to get that judgment enforced. Unless the Defendant has assets in Vanuatu or is personally present there, the courts there have no power to do anything to him. You'll need to enforce the order somewhere where there's property to seize or where the defendant is within the personal jurisdiction of the court. And the recognition of foreign judgments is discretionary, at least in the sense that it isn't automatic.
That is more or less what I was getting at when I wrote "True having a presence within Australia will make it easier to get at the damages if they are awarded". I went on to say that there is some reciprocity at least between Australia and the US as regards foreign awards. I am not an American lawyer, but I believe there is both common law precedent (Hitlton v Guyot) and a uniform foreign money judgement code (which has been enacted by a number of states) and I would suspect a number of international agreements between like minded countries.
While the recognition of foreign judgements in the US is not automatic, neither AFAIK is it discretionary. Far from it, my impression is that a foreign judgement raises a prima facie presumption of liability, which it is then up to the defendant to negate, either by proving some lack of due process in the foreign judgement or whatever. One cannot presume that living in another country one is unreachable by decisions made offshore.
Sue in Vanuatu for an article posted on www.nytimes.com by somebody who resides in England
That essentially, is what this case is about. (Except that the residence of the author is of no relevance.)
First, it means that any legal person (ie, includes corporations) which has offices in Australia can now be held liable for posting information to a server in Uzbekistan, if that information is viewed by the relevant public in Australia.
I'm not sure that it is even a requirement that the tortfeasor have a presence within the juridsiction. What is necessary to grant jurisdiciton to the Victorian Supreme Court is that "the proceeding is brought in respect of damage suffered wholly or partly in Victoria and caused by a tortious act or omission wherever occurring," which is one of the requirements for serving outside the jurisdicition.
True having a presence within Australia will make it easier to get at the damages if they are awarded, but I think there are international agreements in place between Australia and the US as regards foreign money orders.
It can be used as precendent where the laws are comparable
Not exactly a precedent (ie binding), but certainly as pursasive. The other problem (from a publisher's point of view), is that if internet publishing isn't brought to its knees by Australian defamation actions, it will become a lot more difficult to argue that adopting a non-traditional view of where defamation takes place is vitally necessary for the survival of web based publication.
In most terms of use, it is customary to include choice of law and jurisdiction provisions.
Not relevant. The point is that a third party has prima facie had their reputation damaged. Any contractual agreements between the publisher and the reader cannot affect that third party's rights.
it certainly lacks the immediacy of reading a DTD. Against that, of course,... you XSD can express schemas which a DTD cannot describe (eg data types).
... but I'd definitely argue about the ease of XSD vs IDL
Never looked at IDL, but I definitely prefer working with an XML schema described as a DTD rather than in XSD. The DTD (i think an EBNF?) is much more easily readible for a start. You can glean all the information you need about an element with a glance. In XSD you have to check through the various levels of containment etc to work out what is what. Not that it's a major challange, but it certainly lacks the immediacy of reading a DTD. Against that, of course,
XSD, is however, extremely useful. I regard it not as a tool for "authoring" or editing schemas, but as a standard XML representation of schemas. With a DTD -> XSD (or, I guess, an IDL -> XSD) translator, you have a way of bringing your schema into the XML world, where it can be processed by standard XML tools. Very useful indeed.
In response the the question of where XML is used, from my perspective it looks like, everyfuckinwhere! That's because I'm working on an XML based project, mind. But seriously, it looks to me like XML is going to be the the '00s and '10s what ASCII was to the '80s and '90s, and then some.
The difference between fora and forums is completely different than the difference between crackers and hackers.
And you point is? What they do share (and indeed share with split infinitives, my other example) is the quality for which I invoked forums/fora as an example. Namely that despite what the purists might have wished for, common English usage has moved on to where it wanted to go.
The latter have two completely different meanings
Yes, but at the same time they also have equivalent meanings now. That was my very point.
Give it up. This one has been lost, just like split inifinitives or latin plurals. Why must we persist in calling fora forums?
Guess you just have to accept that the word 'hacker' now has more than one meaning, it happens to words sometimes. One of them is a synonym of 'cracker,' the other(s) is(are) something quite else.
They aren't meant to prevent anything. They're meant to punish someone after they've commited the crime.
No they are meant to prevent murders,and punishing people who commit murders is also meant to prevent murders.
The question is, how does the fact that some people still commit murders demonstrate that laws prohibiting murders don't prevent murders. Where's the control groups?
And stop politicising scientific issues. One of the big problems is that people seem to have gotten into the mindset of, "Ooh I'm a Democrat, therefore Global Warming is a big problem," or "Ooh, I'm a Republican,therefore I've gotta convince myself that Global Warming is all a big conspiracy to undermine the US." That's not going to get us anywhere.
There are guys with smarts on both side of the political divide (just as there are errant fools). What we want to do is to start electing representatives who "get it." It doesn't matter a toss what party they belong to.
All I was saying is that there is no guarantee of freedom oF speech in the Australian consitution (hell, maybe there is, I'd feel like an idiot, then).
Nope there is no explicit right to freedom of speech in the Constitution, but the High Court has discovered a 'freedom of political communication,' which might pose difficulties for the government. Notice however that they are stressing the 'violent' nature of the sites, so they are arguing that it is not pure political communication, but an actual incitment to criminal activity. I'm not sure that incitement would be protected under the 1st in the US either.
However, I find it questionable whether there really is such an explicit incitement on these sites, looks like typical Howard government spin to me.
Which is a completely redundant and wastefully expensive way to do it when the same effect can be achieved using an exhaustive preferential ('instant runoff') system.
I presume this is something to do with google's pageranking algorithms, whereby more heavily visited sites get listed higher up?
My impression was the Google ranked pages according to how frequently they were referenced (ie linked to) by other pages. Moreover, links from pages that are themselves highly ranked are more heavily weighted.
If SearchKing doesn't appear near the top, it must be that not many highly ranked pages are making hypertext references to them.
Yup, I realised that I soon as I posted. Because I type only English nowadays these typos creep in all over the place. Lucky I can still spell my name.:)
Growing up in hinduism, I saw the swastika on all the religious occasions..
In fact the word 'swastika' derives from the Sanskrit. In fact it is quite inaccurate to describe symbol on the "Nazi flag" as a 'swastika,' (although clearly it resembles one), it is in fact a 'Hackenkreuz.'
Hey, we're talking 'bout Australia. No DMCA there.
Hey, Australia is a member of the WTO, therefore it must implement the IP protocol outlined in the WTO's TRIPS agreement (the copyright provisions of which are basically the international form of the DMCA). You didn't think that trans-national corporations would be happy with inflicting their laws on a single country, did you?
The Australian version of the DMCA is called the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000. Information about it can be found here.
Slashdot has become home to a large contingent of Bush haters who use red herring privacy scares and politcally motivated activism by groups like the ACLU to do their bashing.
There comes a time, when one has to put aside one's normal political affiliations and realise that a government (any government of whatever political color) is drastically overstepping its mark. Clearly the Bush administration is such a regime. Committed Republicans should be just as (if not more) aghast at the inroads to current government is making into civil liberties
Positing Ashcroft's predictable repsonse to firearms registrations as his "first big privacy test" is simply too disingenuous.
Slashdot Mirror
Leading case: Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1859)
Also check out the Uniform Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act, which has been enacted in a number of state jurisdicitons.
Did a quick search for 'foreign (judgment or judgement)' on google and was able to find PDFs of the forms necessary for claiming such a judgment in several state courts.
Not really, as the guy pointed out this was the decision of an Australian, not a World court. So all publishers have to do is this: When publishing scurrilous accusations about Australian business moguls, make sure you have the facts to back up your assertions. That's what Australian publishers have to do, and they seem to manage.
Yes there is. You take the record to an American court, tell them you were awarded $X by the Supreme Court of Bumfikia, and ask for an order awarding the amount you are entitled to. Easy.
Of course they didn't read it. Someone told them about it. :)
Usually a choice of law clause will read something like "... to litigate any dispute arising ouf of this subscription according to the law of ..." Now the libel cannot be said to arise out of the subscription. In fact it is difficult to see how a clause could be broad enough (and still remain enforcable) to cover a situation like this.
That is more or less what I was getting at when I wrote "True having a presence within Australia will make it easier to get at the damages if they are awarded". I went on to say that there is some reciprocity at least between Australia and the US as regards foreign awards. I am not an American lawyer, but I believe there is both common law precedent (Hitlton v Guyot) and a uniform foreign money judgement code (which has been enacted by a number of states) and I would suspect a number of international agreements between like minded countries.
While the recognition of foreign judgements in the US is not automatic, neither AFAIK is it discretionary. Far from it, my impression is that a foreign judgement raises a prima facie presumption of liability, which it is then up to the defendant to negate, either by proving some lack of due process in the foreign judgement or whatever. One cannot presume that living in another country one is unreachable by decisions made offshore.
Sue in Vanuatu for an article posted on www.nytimes.com by somebody who resides in EnglandThat essentially, is what this case is about. (Except that the residence of the author is of no relevance.)
I'm not sure that it is even a requirement that the tortfeasor have a presence within the juridsiction. What is necessary to grant jurisdiciton to the Victorian Supreme Court is that "the proceeding is brought in respect of damage suffered wholly or partly in Victoria and caused by a tortious act or omission wherever occurring," which is one of the requirements for serving outside the jurisdicition.
True having a presence within Australia will make it easier to get at the damages if they are awarded, but I think there are international agreements in place between Australia and the US as regards foreign money orders.
Not exactly a precedent (ie binding), but certainly as pursasive. The other problem (from a publisher's point of view), is that if internet publishing isn't brought to its knees by Australian defamation actions, it will become a lot more difficult to argue that adopting a non-traditional view of where defamation takes place is vitally necessary for the survival of web based publication.
Not relevant. The point is that a third party has prima facie had their reputation damaged. Any contractual agreements between the publisher and the reader cannot affect that third party's rights.
Try again.http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ ct/2002/56.html
You can read the full judgement HERE
Nice conservative judgement in which the judges refused to redefine the law to suit the WWW (or Dow-Jones).
Ooops!
it certainly lacks the immediacy of reading a DTD. Against that, of course, ... you XSD can express schemas which a DTD cannot describe (eg data types).
Never looked at IDL, but I definitely prefer working with an XML schema described as a DTD rather than in XSD. The DTD (i think an EBNF?) is much more easily readible for a start. You can glean all the information you need about an element with a glance. In XSD you have to check through the various levels of containment etc to work out what is what. Not that it's a major challange, but it certainly lacks the immediacy of reading a DTD. Against that, of course,
XSD, is however, extremely useful. I regard it not as a tool for "authoring" or editing schemas, but as a standard XML representation of schemas. With a DTD -> XSD (or, I guess, an IDL -> XSD) translator, you have a way of bringing your schema into the XML world, where it can be processed by standard XML tools. Very useful indeed.
In response the the question of where XML is used, from my perspective it looks like, everyfuckinwhere! That's because I'm working on an XML based project, mind. But seriously, it looks to me like XML is going to be the the '00s and '10s what ASCII was to the '80s and '90s, and then some.
The difference between fora and forums is completely different than the difference between crackers and hackers.
And you point is? What they do share (and indeed share with split infinitives, my other example) is the quality for which I invoked forums/fora as an example. Namely that despite what the purists might have wished for, common English usage has moved on to where it wanted to go.
The latter have two completely different meanings
Yes, but at the same time they also have equivalent meanings now. That was my very point.
Give it up. This one has been lost, just like split inifinitives or latin plurals. Why must we persist in calling fora forums?
Guess you just have to accept that the word 'hacker' now has more than one meaning, it happens to words sometimes. One of them is a synonym of 'cracker,' the other(s) is(are) something quite else.
No they are meant to prevent murders,and punishing people who commit murders is also meant to prevent murders.
The question is, how does the fact that some people still commit murders demonstrate that laws prohibiting murders don't prevent murders. Where's the control groups?
And stop politicising scientific issues. One of the big problems is that people seem to have gotten into the mindset of, "Ooh I'm a Democrat, therefore Global Warming is a big problem," or "Ooh, I'm a Republican,therefore I've gotta convince myself that Global Warming is all a big conspiracy to undermine the US." That's not going to get us anywhere.
There are guys with smarts on both side of the political divide (just as there are errant fools). What we want to do is to start electing representatives who "get it." It doesn't matter a toss what party they belong to.
You won't find it in the text of the Contitution, you'll have to look here and in the subsequent jurisprudence of the High Court I'm afraid.
Nope there is no explicit right to freedom of speech in the Constitution, but the High Court has discovered a 'freedom of political communication,' which might pose difficulties for the government. Notice however that they are stressing the 'violent' nature of the sites, so they are arguing that it is not pure political communication, but an actual incitment to criminal activity. I'm not sure that incitement would be protected under the 1st in the US either.
However, I find it questionable whether there really is such an explicit incitement on these sites, looks like typical Howard government spin to me.
Which is a completely redundant and wastefully expensive way to do it when the same effect can be achieved using an exhaustive preferential ('instant runoff') system.
Acceptably yes, but remember the old adage:Real Programmers Don't Wear Suits. So a suit is hardly acceptable dress for a programmer.
My impression was the Google ranked pages according to how frequently they were referenced (ie linked to) by other pages. Moreover, links from pages that are themselves highly ranked are more heavily weighted.
If SearchKing doesn't appear near the top, it must be that not many highly ranked pages are making hypertext references to them.
Yup, I realised that I soon as I posted. Because I type only English nowadays these typos creep in all over the place. Lucky I can still spell my name. :)
In fact the word 'swastika' derives from the Sanskrit. In fact it is quite inaccurate to describe symbol on the "Nazi flag" as a 'swastika,' (although clearly it resembles one), it is in fact a 'Hackenkreuz.'
Hey, Australia is a member of the WTO, therefore it must implement the IP protocol outlined in the WTO's TRIPS agreement (the copyright provisions of which are basically the international form of the DMCA). You didn't think that trans-national corporations would be happy with inflicting their laws on a single country, did you?
The Australian version of the DMCA is called the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000. Information about it can be found here.
There comes a time, when one has to put aside one's normal political affiliations and realise that a government (any government of whatever political color) is drastically overstepping its mark. Clearly the Bush administration is such a regime. Committed Republicans should be just as (if not more) aghast at the inroads to current government is making into civil liberties
Positing Ashcroft's predictable repsonse to firearms registrations as his "first big privacy test" is simply too disingenuous.