Or perhaps they could see that the lenghts that they'd have to go to are so incredible that it wouldn't be a) possible or b) feasible. That's the optimist in me, of course.
First, the US and the Russians should be working togehter in theese matters. It has to be a give and take situation. The russians surely don't want to protect theese guys but they sure should have a fair amount of saying in the matter and that does not seem to have been the case. I agree that it would be really sweet to read the judges reasons whatever they might have been.
I definately agree with you here. Russians have crackers, we have crackers, we both outlaw them, hence we should collaberate. I've posted several times on this article, and I keep getting attacked by people thinking I'm saying "since he's the judge, he's obviously right."
And last but not least, even if you are highly skilled in the way of laws does not (automaticaly) make you a fairer judge. Some laws can be circumvented by reading the letter of the law instead of following the laws intention... Just take the "up-skirt" issue that was recently discussed.....
I disagree. There are some "bad apples." There have been many racist judges, for example. However, we can't assume that this Judge is one based on heresay. We must look at what he said. Also, there are issues with interpreting the letter of the law--but I see that as another reason to actually read the Judge's decision. It would be a bad thing if his decision happened to justify a double standard wherein we could ignore other the laws of other nations.
I checked the link regarding the info--does anyone know if the debate will be televised, streamed, radio broadcasted, or transcribed? I'd love to be able to read/hear/watch it somehow.
Invade another country, against the will of the international community, against established international law, and with little or no evidence.
Where are you getting your news from? Slashdot posts? University activists? There is plenty of evidence--listen to the Senate hearings of former UN weapons inspectors--most of them (two come to mind) have a very good handle on the situation and they can attest to the fact that Iraq is in fact a menace. I'm all for letting one last thourough weapons inspector in (Bush also proposed to "give peace a chance," as the song goes), but the claim that there is little or no evidence is plain wrong.
I'm not saying the Judges decision isn't right, or not worthy of scrutiny. I'm saying that it's definately not as simple as "our laws apply to them, but theirs don't apply to us cause we are above any other legitimate political force." The judge had more in mind which he doubtlessly explained in his decision, and because of an editorial troll everyone on/. is ranting about how evil America is based on something they haven't read.
Russian's state security service, the FSB, lodged a complaint against the FBI earlier this year, alleging that the FBI didn't have authorization to break into a computer system in Russia and download files.
The FBI countered, and the judge agreed, that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions.
The article here said:
They also mention how a U.S. judge found that the FBI wasn't breaking any laws in breaking into a Russian computer system, despite the fact that they were breaking a Russian law doing so.
The subtle yet immensly pertinent difference has been completely lost to everyone posting here. Now it's a complete freebie for anyone wanting to up their karma. All you have to say is, "No wonder everyone thinks Americans are jerks."
Is it any wonder why the rest of the world sees us as arrogant? We just keep acting like our laws are the only ones that are important.
Please, find the Judge's decision and read it. Others may think we're arrogant, but you can't make that kind of blanket statement without reading what the Judge actually said. Judges aren't dumb--they understand the implications behind their decisions better than you or I do. Do you actually think that the Judge, who went to law school, thinks that it's ok to break in to foreign computers but not ok for foreigners to break in to ours? Even if that's the case (and I doubt it is), surely he'd have reasons much better than that--he's a Judge.
Sheeesh. It's amazing how quickly wildly speculative and completely unsupported anti-American statements get modded up here. This is as bad as "we need to nuke those ! You don't mess with the USA!"
I do think you're point about the UN Security Counsel can be supported (though I disagree with it), but making a huge conclusion out of a statement from a post on Slashdot that has no references or anything to back it up is ridiculous.
They also mention how a U.S. judge found that the FBI wasn't breaking any laws in breaking into a Russian computer system, despite the fact that they were breaking a Russian law doing so.
Judges aren't stupid. If you're going to say something as bold as that, please provide a link to a court ruling where the reasons for the decision are made. With such a wording, and no support, the statement comes off as "Yankee judges think we have the right to hack into any computer system in the world 'cause we own the Internet," which is no doubt the intention.
Such a statement may very well be true, but please provide a link to where the Judge explains himself. He's probably a lot smarter than most of us. Even without beeing tech-saavy any judge would quickly pick up on the implications behind being able to break in to foreign systems without impunity.
Remember those Read-Along Story Books that came with a record? As you read the book, the record told you what was going on on the page you were looking at. That's exactly what we'll do here. When you hear the sound of a gavel banging, it's time to turn the page. Ready?
(bang!)
Clearly this was a collaborative effort of Dan Gookin, original author of DOS and C "for Dummies," and Mr. Rogers, of the Mr. Rogers fame. You think a 15-year old posing as a lawyer is odd? How about 6 year old dummies (the logical mixture of the two audiences)?
They can add technologcal "protection" -- a side effect of this being a free country. But who ever said they had the right to that, and the protection of copyright as well?
It's part of the right to create a product and sell it. The only time that right is not allowed is when, after having created and sold the item commercially, the said thing becomes illegal to sell. Can you think of a reason copy-protection is illegal for content? I can think of reasons for locking down computers themselves, but not a CD.
It's amazing how people here are so skeptical about things like this--I'm frankly overjoyed that finally there is a contender in the Fair Use v. Bloody Pirates debate instead of the "bad guys" getting their way. I seriously think it may be the Rep. bit before his name--the crowd here tends to be very liberal. Ok, here comes a rant:
From a non-partisan perspective, I find it interesting that bills for and against DRM and really any security or technical issue tend to come from both sides of the spectrum. The debate for civil liberties vs. safeguarding against terrorism has been fairly divided amongst party lines. That's a bad thing (err, Bad Thing (TM)), since because debates traditionally follow the two-party system, it really becomes tougher to come to a rational middle ground when there is no such dividing line. Right now DRM is not an issue that splits Congress in half--there are just a few members of Congress that have proposed and (in the case of the DMCA) hacked bills to the Oval Office. Boucher has brought in an opposing view, which has been much needed, but a real debate will be difficult because of the above reasons.
I don't want to know that the disk is copy-protected, I want a disk that IS NOT copy-protected, DRMed or screwed in any way to attempt to prevent me from making a copy for personal use. I also don't want DRM or copy-protection schemes built into the hardware I buy to play my copies on. I'd much rather pay additional fees in my media and components (as I already do) than be prevented (in some way someone will break) from making a copy.
You're asking too much--if the content providers want to place ridiculous restrictions, they have that right. They should of course be required to disclose that information--it goes against business ethics (which are normally near-impossible to legislate). In this case, however, it's a warning label, which has been done before.
If I want to sell a crappy product, you would agree that I have every right to do so. If a company, say McDonalds, were to take a high-selling product (let's say a Big Mac), cripple it by either raising prices or using tofu instead of beef (or whatever is really in there), they'd have every right.
The situation here is that the said crippling may not visibly worsen the product for most people (except for those who might try to play the CD on their computer--which is a lot). Also, you can't get most mainstream media without playing by *AA's rules, whereas one could go to Burger King or Wendy's instead of McDonalds.
This I think is a great argument for mandatory disclosure (like the one in this bill). Let people see that they're buying an inferior product, and they will start looking for other options. At that point people will still be willing to pay for music (again, I'm talking about average Joe here, not techies), and a new business model can emerge. Up until recently, the media companies haven't changed business models because they haven't had to--they think that after eliminating Napster, and (hopefully) P2P, things can return to normal. If the masses find out that they're getting sold crippled cd's, I think (and maybe I'm being overly optimistic) that they'll respond in such a way that things will change in a positive way.
The Fair Use doctrine is threatened today as never before.... Even people who have purchased and paid for copyrighted material would be liable if they bypass the technical protection for the purpose of making Fair Use of the work they have lawfully acquired.
I'm glad for one big thing here: there is now a debate between the rights of an individual and Fair Use and the rights of a corporation to protect their assets. As Michael said, in what I believe to be one of his more well-informed and insightful commentaries, this bill won't have direct impact considering November is just around the corner. Still, before now it seems like there have been few voices in opposition to Jack Valenti, Hilary Rosen, Fritz, etc. I hope this opens the floor for serious thought and action regarding the DMCA.
It's amazing how we grant corporations rights as if they were individuals in some cases, but not in others. A corporation isn't guaranteed the 5th amendment rights by any stretch of the imagination (or constitution), but it has been held many times that a corporation can excersize the first amendment rights as much as anyone. This of course in turn brings in issues of who can afford the larger microphone, hence making free speech only available to those who can pay for it.
I am struck by the above quote because it puts the situation exactly in the context of the way many of us that are both geeks and are outraged by the DMCA see it--Fair Use is no longer defined by an individual owners terms but by the providers; hence, the real "owner" becomes the provider.
The geeks amongst us should use this commonality to rise up and use our voice for progress and not petty squabbling.
Ever see Revenge of the Nerds? Or one of its trillion sequels? This would not be a pretty sight.
Re:Does everything have to become a movie?
on
Napster: The Movie
·
· Score: 1
Allright man, I looked over your post one more time, and I can see now that I definately overreacted. I see a lot of the sentiment that I accused you of around here and that really bothers me--not because it's striking a nerve in my "American pride" but because people get praised, modded up, and generally feel good about really dumb things--just like pointless M$ bashing.
Again, sorry I overreacted.
Re:Does everything have to become a movie?
on
Napster: The Movie
·
· Score: 1
I don't really disagree with anything you say, the part of the parent that upset me was the fact that he took the moral high ground by being Canadian. That kind of cultural arrogance is what many pin on Americans.
Re:Does everything have to become a movie?
on
Napster: The Movie
·
· Score: 2
So you would rather have fire fighters parading around on every TV station doing absolutely nothing? And have everyone talk about how heroic they are? Aren't we all sick of that?
I, for the most part, like Canadians. But there are a few (and of course there's always a few) that come on messageboards like/., that take any opportunity--or make it if there is none--to bash America. You, sir, are a troll.
Where have America's heroes gone? Probably where the rest of the world's heroes have gone--heroism, courage, etc., are all virtues that are sadly leaving almost all western societies. Yes, I have left America to see them. Many times. I have probably seen much more of the world than you have.
What Shawn Fanning did that was noteworthy doesn't even fall into the category of heroism--he wrote a program that, as you said, "pissed off the wrong people." Of course when phrased like that the entire host of implications get lost. But you don't care about that, do you? No, you just wanted to throw in your 2 cents--a huge blanket statement that assumes two very wrong things:
1) Movies must have a brave hero to be good.
2) Because we're making a movie that's not about a brave hero, we as a Nation are somehow cowardly and decidedly unheroic.
It may be the case that America is unheroic (I agree with that statement)--but so am I, you, and the rest of the world. So stop this silly America bashing, gain some real knowledge of the world, form a real opinion, and stop engaging in a 2 minute jerk off session every time you make a logically unsound and unsupported post bashing America.
Moderators: I apologize if this appears to be flamebait. I have tried to contain my frustration and kept my argument to sound, rational opinions.
Yes, I don't like her as much as the next man, but the big factory farmers here in Texas couldn't pin anything on Oprah (a national celebrity) for saying "I'll never eat beef again" (pp). How does this guy have a case against people posting in public forums? Or reporting it?
He will loseunless these defendant's can't get decent lawyers. But then again, the guys representing himself. Hence, he'll probably just lose.
"If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it."
The law says...
"This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends," Lofgren said in an interview Tuesday."
All you trolls on slashdot should pay attention and learn from Jack Valenti. He dishes out FUD with statements that are unsupported and wildly speculative (and in this case a complete lie).
What is your perspective on DRM? Specifically, do you think that the Fritz chip, Palladium, and lobbying of the MPAA/RIAA, will change the Internet fundamentally? Can the Internet be tamed at this point? If so, do you find this DRM and such to infringe upon fair use? Is there legitamacy to the common fear that in the future, computers themselves, in order to gain access to the Internet, will have so many restrictions that the Internet itself will begin to suffer from it?
Votester enables peers to automatically send recurring email messages and/or HTTP requests to a set of addresses associated with a digital demonstration. The rate at which messages/requests are sent by each peer to each address is determined by either (a) a function of the number of people in the digital demonstration, or (b) the peer-owner's individual preferences.
On first reading, this seems like it would be less effective than the flooding demonstration found in the slideshow from the link up top. The slideshow details basically a flood attack designed to essentially produce the "slashdot effect" to the website--this method just floods them with emails.
The/. method has the problem that the more bandwidth the target has, the less effective it is (and with demonstrations, it's likely we're going up against bigger purses). This e-mail deal seems way too easy to block and therefore does not solve the outstanding complications of the other.
I applaud their efforts (and to some extent success--consider Lufthansa), but since we're not anonymous in the digital world like we are in public, I think it'd take radical approaches to be effective. Of course, with the DMCA and it's broad verbiage, at what point is a digital demonstration an illegal digital riot? Imagine a few boxen on a webserver designed to filter out repeated protest e-mails--if the implementation mentioned above were improved enough to get past these filters, would that be breaking a security system?
I second that; often times when a court case is brought up here, much of the reasoning in the brief (or relevant court finding) is ignored, and even many of the +5 comments fall into the most basic category of opposition. They often say something like "the RIAA/M$/corporations" are somehow in control of everything and are pushing unconstitutional laws and are influencing the tech-unsavvy opinions of the judges.
The truth is that the judges are very, very smart people, and even if you disagree with them. briefs and findings of facts and such provide a more insight and lead to better debates.
There has been a recent trend in mom'n'pop (well just pop usually) mechanic stores fading away because of big companies sucking up all the businness. Ever seen those commercials that compare Joe Blow mechanic to a big time Jiffy Lube or NTB buff? Notice how the mechanic is portrayed as a greasy hungover hobo, and the friendly neighborhood WalMart-of-cars mechanic is clean cut, muscular, educated, and reviewing what appears to be a concise list of repairs with the client. I'm not against corporations coming to town on a political level, but it stinks to drive out in the country and seeing mom'n'pop stores taken over. And with all of the computer chips and advanced parts requiring really expensive tools to fix, it's nice to see something to go against that trend and empower the small guys again;)
In this section, we have collected the legal documents involved in the case. The case began in a federal district court. We appealed the decision of the district court to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That court's decision is now before the Supreme Court. Click on a link below to read the briefs and decisions at each state.
While the lawyers in Eldred v. Ashcroft are donating their time, litigation before the United States Supreme Court is still expensive. Your donation, however large or small, can support our fight to preserve the public domain.
If you would like to contribute, please send a check to:
Eldred Legal Defense Fund
c/o Carinne Johnson
Stanford Law School
Crown Quadrangle
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
Attach a logo to your web page
If you'd like to help spread awareness, take one of these sample buttons, save it to your site, and use the sample code provided to link back to this site.
Slashdot Mirror
Or perhaps they could see that the lenghts that they'd have to go to are so incredible that it wouldn't be a) possible or b) feasible. That's the optimist in me, of course.
I definately agree with you here. Russians have crackers, we have crackers, we both outlaw them, hence we should collaberate. I've posted several times on this article, and I keep getting attacked by people thinking I'm saying "since he's the judge, he's obviously right."
I disagree. There are some "bad apples." There have been many racist judges, for example. However, we can't assume that this Judge is one based on heresay. We must look at what he said. Also, there are issues with interpreting the letter of the law--but I see that as another reason to actually read the Judge's decision. It would be a bad thing if his decision happened to justify a double standard wherein we could ignore other the laws of other nations.
I checked the link regarding the info--does anyone know if the debate will be televised, streamed, radio broadcasted, or transcribed? I'd love to be able to read/hear/watch it somehow.
Where are you getting your news from? Slashdot posts? University activists? There is plenty of evidence--listen to the Senate hearings of former UN weapons inspectors--most of them (two come to mind) have a very good handle on the situation and they can attest to the fact that Iraq is in fact a menace. I'm all for letting one last thourough weapons inspector in (Bush also proposed to "give peace a chance," as the song goes), but the claim that there is little or no evidence is plain wrong.
I'm not saying the Judges decision isn't right, or not worthy of scrutiny. I'm saying that it's definately not as simple as "our laws apply to them, but theirs don't apply to us cause we are above any other legitimate political force." The judge had more in mind which he doubtlessly explained in his decision, and because of an editorial troll everyone on /. is ranting about how evil America is based on something they haven't read.
The article here said:
The subtle yet immensly pertinent difference has been completely lost to everyone posting here. Now it's a complete freebie for anyone wanting to up their karma. All you have to say is, "No wonder everyone thinks Americans are jerks."
Please, find the Judge's decision and read it. Others may think we're arrogant, but you can't make that kind of blanket statement without reading what the Judge actually said. Judges aren't dumb--they understand the implications behind their decisions better than you or I do. Do you actually think that the Judge, who went to law school, thinks that it's ok to break in to foreign computers but not ok for foreigners to break in to ours? Even if that's the case (and I doubt it is), surely he'd have reasons much better than that--he's a Judge.
Sheeesh. It's amazing how quickly wildly speculative and completely unsupported anti-American statements get modded up here. This is as bad as "we need to nuke those ! You don't mess with the USA!"
I do think you're point about the UN Security Counsel can be supported (though I disagree with it), but making a huge conclusion out of a statement from a post on Slashdot that has no references or anything to back it up is ridiculous.
Judges aren't stupid. If you're going to say something as bold as that, please provide a link to a court ruling where the reasons for the decision are made. With such a wording, and no support, the statement comes off as "Yankee judges think we have the right to hack into any computer system in the world 'cause we own the Internet," which is no doubt the intention.
Such a statement may very well be true, but please provide a link to where the Judge explains himself. He's probably a lot smarter than most of us. Even without beeing tech-saavy any judge would quickly pick up on the implications behind being able to break in to foreign systems without impunity.
Clearly this was a collaborative effort of Dan Gookin, original author of DOS and C "for Dummies," and Mr. Rogers, of the Mr. Rogers fame. You think a 15-year old posing as a lawyer is odd? How about 6 year old dummies (the logical mixture of the two audiences)?
It's part of the right to create a product and sell it. The only time that right is not allowed is when, after having created and sold the item commercially, the said thing becomes illegal to sell. Can you think of a reason copy-protection is illegal for content? I can think of reasons for locking down computers themselves, but not a CD.
From a non-partisan perspective, I find it interesting that bills for and against DRM and really any security or technical issue tend to come from both sides of the spectrum. The debate for civil liberties vs. safeguarding against terrorism has been fairly divided amongst party lines. That's a bad thing (err, Bad Thing (TM)), since because debates traditionally follow the two-party system, it really becomes tougher to come to a rational middle ground when there is no such dividing line. Right now DRM is not an issue that splits Congress in half--there are just a few members of Congress that have proposed and (in the case of the DMCA) hacked bills to the Oval Office. Boucher has brought in an opposing view, which has been much needed, but a real debate will be difficult because of the above reasons.
You're asking too much--if the content providers want to place ridiculous restrictions, they have that right. They should of course be required to disclose that information--it goes against business ethics (which are normally near-impossible to legislate). In this case, however, it's a warning label, which has been done before.
If I want to sell a crappy product, you would agree that I have every right to do so. If a company, say McDonalds, were to take a high-selling product (let's say a Big Mac), cripple it by either raising prices or using tofu instead of beef (or whatever is really in there), they'd have every right.
The situation here is that the said crippling may not visibly worsen the product for most people (except for those who might try to play the CD on their computer--which is a lot). Also, you can't get most mainstream media without playing by *AA's rules, whereas one could go to Burger King or Wendy's instead of McDonalds.
This I think is a great argument for mandatory disclosure (like the one in this bill). Let people see that they're buying an inferior product, and they will start looking for other options. At that point people will still be willing to pay for music (again, I'm talking about average Joe here, not techies), and a new business model can emerge. Up until recently, the media companies haven't changed business models because they haven't had to--they think that after eliminating Napster, and (hopefully) P2P, things can return to normal. If the masses find out that they're getting sold crippled cd's, I think (and maybe I'm being overly optimistic) that they'll respond in such a way that things will change in a positive way.
I'm glad for one big thing here: there is now a debate between the rights of an individual and Fair Use and the rights of a corporation to protect their assets. As Michael said, in what I believe to be one of his more well-informed and insightful commentaries, this bill won't have direct impact considering November is just around the corner. Still, before now it seems like there have been few voices in opposition to Jack Valenti, Hilary Rosen, Fritz, etc. I hope this opens the floor for serious thought and action regarding the DMCA.
It's amazing how we grant corporations rights as if they were individuals in some cases, but not in others. A corporation isn't guaranteed the 5th amendment rights by any stretch of the imagination (or constitution), but it has been held many times that a corporation can excersize the first amendment rights as much as anyone. This of course in turn brings in issues of who can afford the larger microphone, hence making free speech only available to those who can pay for it.
I am struck by the above quote because it puts the situation exactly in the context of the way many of us that are both geeks and are outraged by the DMCA see it--Fair Use is no longer defined by an individual owners terms but by the providers; hence, the real "owner" becomes the provider.
Ever see Revenge of the Nerds? Or one of its trillion sequels? This would not be a pretty sight.
Allright man, I looked over your post one more time, and I can see now that I definately overreacted. I see a lot of the sentiment that I accused you of around here and that really bothers me--not because it's striking a nerve in my "American pride" but because people get praised, modded up, and generally feel good about really dumb things--just like pointless M$ bashing.
Again, sorry I overreacted.
I don't really disagree with anything you say, the part of the parent that upset me was the fact that he took the moral high ground by being Canadian. That kind of cultural arrogance is what many pin on Americans.
So you would rather have fire fighters parading around on every TV station doing absolutely nothing? And have everyone talk about how heroic they are? Aren't we all sick of that?
I, for the most part, like Canadians. But there are a few (and of course there's always a few) that come on messageboards like /., that take any opportunity--or make it if there is none--to bash America. You, sir, are a troll.
Where have America's heroes gone? Probably where the rest of the world's heroes have gone--heroism, courage, etc., are all virtues that are sadly leaving almost all western societies. Yes, I have left America to see them. Many times. I have probably seen much more of the world than you have.
What Shawn Fanning did that was noteworthy doesn't even fall into the category of heroism--he wrote a program that, as you said, "pissed off the wrong people." Of course when phrased like that the entire host of implications get lost. But you don't care about that, do you? No, you just wanted to throw in your 2 cents--a huge blanket statement that assumes two very wrong things:
1) Movies must have a brave hero to be good.
2) Because we're making a movie that's not about a brave hero, we as a Nation are somehow cowardly and decidedly unheroic.
It may be the case that America is unheroic (I agree with that statement)--but so am I, you, and the rest of the world. So stop this silly America bashing, gain some real knowledge of the world, form a real opinion, and stop engaging in a 2 minute jerk off session every time you make a logically unsound and unsupported post bashing America.
Moderators: I apologize if this appears to be flamebait. I have tried to contain my frustration and kept my argument to sound, rational opinions.
Yes, I don't like her as much as the next man, but the big factory farmers here in Texas couldn't pin anything on Oprah (a national celebrity) for saying "I'll never eat beef again" (pp). How does this guy have a case against people posting in public forums? Or reporting it?
He will lose unless these defendant's can't get decent lawyers. But then again, the guys representing himself. Hence, he'll probably just lose.
All you trolls on slashdot should pay attention and learn from Jack Valenti. He dishes out FUD with statements that are unsupported and wildly speculative (and in this case a complete lie).
What is your perspective on DRM? Specifically, do you think that the Fritz chip, Palladium, and lobbying of the MPAA/RIAA, will change the Internet fundamentally? Can the Internet be tamed at this point? If so, do you find this DRM and such to infringe upon fair use? Is there legitamacy to the common fear that in the future, computers themselves, in order to gain access to the Internet, will have so many restrictions that the Internet itself will begin to suffer from it?
That's the best news I've heard all day...
On first reading, this seems like it would be less effective than the flooding demonstration found in the slideshow from the link up top. The slideshow details basically a flood attack designed to essentially produce the "slashdot effect" to the website--this method just floods them with emails.
The /. method has the problem that the more bandwidth the target has, the less effective it is (and with demonstrations, it's likely we're going up against bigger purses). This e-mail deal seems way too easy to block and therefore does not solve the outstanding complications of the other.
I applaud their efforts (and to some extent success--consider Lufthansa), but since we're not anonymous in the digital world like we are in public, I think it'd take radical approaches to be effective. Of course, with the DMCA and it's broad verbiage, at what point is a digital demonstration an illegal digital riot? Imagine a few boxen on a webserver designed to filter out repeated protest e-mails--if the implementation mentioned above were improved enough to get past these filters, would that be breaking a security system?
The truth is that the judges are very, very smart people, and even if you disagree with them. briefs and findings of facts and such provide a more insight and lead to better debates.
There has been a recent trend in mom'n'pop (well just pop usually) mechanic stores fading away because of big companies sucking up all the businness. Ever seen those commercials that compare Joe Blow mechanic to a big time Jiffy Lube or NTB buff? Notice how the mechanic is portrayed as a greasy hungover hobo, and the friendly neighborhood WalMart-of-cars mechanic is clean cut, muscular, educated, and reviewing what appears to be a concise list of repairs with the client. I'm not against corporations coming to town on a political level, but it stinks to drive out in the country and seeing mom'n'pop stores taken over. And with all of the computer chips and advanced parts requiring really expensive tools to fix, it's nice to see something to go against that trend and empower the small guys again ;)
In this section, we have collected the legal documents involved in the case. The case began in a federal district court. We appealed the decision of the district court to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That court's decision is now before the Supreme Court. Click on a link below to read the briefs and decisions at each state.
District Court (Jan 1999-Oct 1999)
Court Of Appeals (May 2000-July 2001)
Supreme Court (Oct 2001-present)
How You Can Help
Contribute to the Eldred Legal Defense Fund
While the lawyers in Eldred v. Ashcroft are donating their time, litigation before the United States Supreme Court is still expensive. Your donation, however large or small, can support our fight to preserve the public domain.
If you would like to contribute, please send a check to:
Attach a logo to your web page
If you'd like to help spread awareness, take one of these sample buttons, save it to your site, and use the sample code provided to link back to this site.
The logos are on this page.