You may be right. Unfortunately I'm not a connoisseur of the art form to where I can directly reply to your contention.
I will surmize that the autere's you mention are far shorter in supply than the demand for rave clubs. I would also guess that this is particularly true in medium sized urban areas, as the best ultimately move into the NY/London/Berlin et. al of the world.
Consequently, I imagine this innovation could improve the social scene in many areas.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing an adoptation for other scenes. Possibly track selection in non-live music social clubs.
"One final point: many people don't realize this, but a big part of what makes rave/club music sound the way that it does is the fact that it's on vinyl."
You may be right on this point. I can no longer find the article, but David Chesky once surmized that we respond to vinyl better because of its continuous waveform. He presumes that our evolutionary survival skills actually let us perceive the start/stops of the digitized wave.
I'd really love to see a blind test or a psychoacoustical survey on this topic. My main recreational outlet is listening to music, and I haven't been able to tell a great difference on similarly produced/mastered tracks except for on very expensive playback equipment. Then I (think I) can discern a more warm texture to music with natural sounds. I cannot tell much of a difference with artificial sounds, and I've never tried doing it blind to confirm that I really do hear a difference.
If the algorithm/key has not been licensed, I still think the use or assembly of subsequent DVD decoders can be enjoined.
The court overturned the injunction prospectively limiting Bunner's posting of the DeCSS source code. They did leave open the injunction for injunctions based on action rather than speech. Doing so could be made under a trade secret argument. Compiling or improperly using the trade secret would likely to be found as action rather than speech.
In fact if you look at the write up on some journalitic sites (e.g. Yahoo) their reporters suggest that while Bunner cannot be prospectively injoined from posting the source code, he could be injoined to remove the source code. I did not read that into the equation, but its a valid argument.
I've posted this in a couple of replies, so I am probably being redundant. However, I don't see this being discussed, and I think this will be a very important issue.
The appeals court still allows relief on any action that violates the trade secrets. It just allows the source code speech. My humble interpretation -- You can post the DeCss source code, but you can't compile it (object code not speech accd. to CA appeals court) or use it (action).
I would urge caution. The appeals court said that releif could be granted on action rather than speech. If Xine uses trade secrets, compiling the code or using the software would be close to action. Posting the code would be speech.
I'll try, but you could take a whole semester of contract law and still have some gaping wholes.
In legal jurisprudence, you can think of speech and conduct as a continuum. On the left is pure speech, "That dog is ugly." On the right is pure action-- You shoot the dog. In the middle there are actions that are between the two. For instance, take three actions considered to be speech - Burning a cross, burning a flag, wearing a T-shirt that says "Fuck the draft". In all cases you are performing an action, but the action involves expression, and the expression is protected. Take example 1. You could be sued for trespass when placing a burning cross on the yard; You could be sued for destruction of property, if it causes damage, but you could not be prosecuted under a hate crime because your expression was protected speech.
On the other end of the spectrum. If you saw an angry mob and you told them to go lynch someone, while that's style a spoken word, its more tantamount to action. You no your words will cause them to perpetrate the action.
In this case, its unclear about what that actually means; however, here is my bet. You can't sue someone for posting the DeCss algorithm, but you can sue them for using the DeCss software.
I don't know, but I'll speculate. Vertical search may be the marketing term for a depth first search that uses some type of relevance heuristic on key word matching inside of a pre-sorted dataset.
For all the search specialists, please correct this above statement. It would be valuable to my academic pursuits if you helped point out the flaws in my speculation.
I wish this was the case. Especially for the lexis legal research side.
I doubt they can replace these types of services in the immediate future. It takes tons of labor to acquire the material needed to put together these services. Especially if you offer a value-added component such as indexing and headnotes.
The promise of having this information on the internet has disappeared. During the economic boom, there were a lot of great web sites that took the time to digitize subsets of this information. They didn't index the material or offer the value-added features, but the raw content was still available.
Since we have dipped into a recession, these sites either cease to exist, or they are updated too infrequently to be relied upon.
To my knowledge the only companies that have these data stores are Lexis and for some legal and business matters, West Publishing. I don't see how Google can get the information without a licensing agreement from either company. If they have to pay for the license, I don't see how I could reap any benefits. Google's subscription couldn't be much lower than Thompson (Lexis) or West. Both services offer reasonable search capabilities in their present incarnation.
I really hope that your -1 score is a result of low karma and not having been modded down because you make a very good point.
I think/. is better for including a semi-periodic social commentary piece and allowing the readership to reply. I do not want to turn this feature off, nor do I want to stop reading slashdot, or any of the other take it or leave it style choices that are presented in the FAQ.
I never mistook Katz for G. Will, but I thought his posts were servicable. His original Hellmouth piece was pretty good, and he did manage to scoop some of the more prominent journalists.
When JK was flamed for spelling or stylistic matters, I could reasonably understand the "don't read him" solution proposed by the/. editorial staff.
The element that was hard to get used to was when Mr. Katz began repeatedly posting almost identical stories. For instance, how many Katz features said nearly the same thing about "old media versus new media."
I agree that the issue of media overblowing the crisis has been bantered about frequently, particularly by conservative news outlets. The subject matter is not that new. Nevertheless, I don't particularly mind this post, b/c the subject matter is new to/.
Ideally, I would prefer/. to have a columnist that:
(1) Posts regularly
(2) Writes well
(3) Covers socially relevant points in a fresh manner. Mr. Katz probably has the capacity to meet these three criteria, but sometimes falls short of the mark.
And to answer the inevitable question, if/. provided a columnist who did this well AND a columnist that could provide expert legal commentary (as opposed to "look at this, these guys patented style sheets.") I would pay for a subscription service.
Sorry for any jargon. I know our legal systems and education processes are very similar, I sometimes forget the differences. 3L - Means third year. Law school is a 3 year program that one may enter after finishing undergraduate studies. I waited about 8 years between undergraduate and law school phases, but I have now finished the first two years. Joint and Several - If a plaintiff wins a case against multiple tort defendants, there rights to collect the award depend on the forum state's laws. In the majority of US States, the law provides for contributory negligence. The jury finds Def A - 60% responsible Def B-20 % responsible, etc. The plaintiff can collect only the amount each party owes. For instance in a $1000 award, the jury can collect $600 from A, $200 from B, etc. Contributory negligence is a rather new concept in our jurisprudence. Although some states have adopted this scheme, many others allow for joint and several liability of all named parties. This means that the plaintiff can get their $1000 from any defendant. They can get all of it from B, even if B was only hypothetically 20% responsible. B would have to get his excess money back from the other defendants through contribution. If they refused, he would have a legal standing to collect it in a court. Most states abolished this b/c as a practical matter, attorney's would always joint a plaintiff that had huge resources. If they were found to be negligent, they would collect the whole award through the affluent plaintiff to avoid the risk of the other parties discharging the debt through bankrupcy. Not having practiced, I'm not sure if we have a practical equivalent of a sniff test. I'm sure that our judges would alert a party b/4 wasting too much court time. Its likely that the opposing said would file a "motion to dismiss as there is no claim upon which relief may be granted." This would create a motion battle in front of the judge as to the legal validity of the theory behind the claim. I personally find merit in your approach. If you ever have a chance to present the argument, please let me know of the outcome.
Thanks for the reply. While on the train last evening, I realized you were pursuing the other angle of owner's liability for a trespasser using the property for dangerous or illegal activity. I do not know of a case directly on that point; however, two torts theories come to mind. First is the "inherently dangerous" property doctrine. If an object is inherently dangerous, a property owner cannot use the community standard defense that allows them to only take the precautions that similarly situated businesses have taken. We could advocate that an unsecured computer is a potential weapon that could be used to cause massive disruptions of the economy through DDoS attacks. This would remove any defense of an owner claiming the cost of having a team of security analysts constantly monitoring their systems. Unfortunately, most applications of this doctrine generally involve risks to human life (e.g. firearms, explosive and combustable materials) and not economic hazards. Moreover, I have not seen this applied to anyone whose relationship to the material was not lawful (re: purchaser, licensee, or guest). If this doctrine could not be used, I would assume that you could make the full tort arguments. But for the unsecured computer, a DDos attack would not have been made. The negligence in security is also a reasonable proximate cause to the DDoS attack. A system admin knows or should know that script kiddies will usurp a non-secure system and use it for destructive purposes. Moreover, in our hypothetical fact pattern of the honey pot configured systems, its not costly or unduely difficult for the sysadmin to apply patches released to the general public. I am not sure this line has worked well in the US courts. A number of complaints have been directed at gun manufacturers trying to use the same arguments. While there cases may not be as similar, (i.e. this would be more analagous to suing Sun than XYZ company) there arguments are falling along the same lines. IMHO, it would be a difficult cause of action to sustain b/c of the political climate. There are heavy movements of: (1) try kids as adults (2) hackers are bad If I were defending this cause, I would definately demand a jury trial. Since the venue would be in my home area, I imagine I would get more sympathy as an employer and contributor to the economy than "those delinquent kids." If a jury did partition any liability my way it would be a small percentage. (Assuming its not a joint and several liability jurisdiction which are now a minority in most US States). I might change this strategy if a bigger contributor to the local economy was hit with a DDoS attack. They may receive enough sympathy to go after the corporate deep pockets. I do agree with your last statement, the risk is obvious and a non-biases trier of fact may grab on this concept. btw- IANAL, but a 3L law school student.
Unfortunately, I have no readily available means to comment or research British Law; however, I can say that American Law does favor an "attractive nuisance" doctrine in tort liability for the trespass of children.
In 1873, in Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, this court, in a turntable case, in a unanimous decision, strongly approved the doctrine that he who places upon his land, where children of tender years are likely to go, a construction or agency, in its nature attractive, and therefore a temptation, to such children, is culpably negligent if he does not take reasonable care to keep them away, or to see that such dangerous thing is so guarded that they will not be injured by it when following the instincts and impulses of childhood, of which all mankind has notice
However, they have limited the doctrine to apply only if the areas is visible from a lawful place. UNITED ZINC & CHEMICAL CO. v. BRITT, 258 U.S. 268 (1922). I would think the situation would be more closer to the latter facts. The kids were poisoned in a well of water; however, in order to see the water they had to trespass in the first place. I am not aware of a closer (US) authority.
Cpt. Thanks for your reply. I believe you are referring to the "first sale doctrine" establish in BOBBS-MERRILL CO. v. STRAUS, 210 U.S. 339 (1908) This did involve the minimum resale price set by a publisher and subsequently violated by Macy's. IIRC, ProCd intentionally did not delve into the copyright violations, and the applicability of the first sale doctrine. Instead, it found for the publisher on the contract theory. If there is a split in jurisdictions, please let me know. This would be vitally important to some of my research work. I do know that ProCd was denied certiori by the Supreme Court. This rather scares me b/c AFAIK it leaves it as the most persuasive authority in other jurisdictions. Thanks
I have heard that "devoid of consideration" argument in many circles; however, I was hoping to get a little more on the persons argument. Consideration may come in the form of an exchange of property, or through the forbarance of any legal right. IIRC from contracts, a man one a contract suit against the executors of his grandfather's estate when he agreed to give up smoking and gambling in exchange for a promise of cash. (too lazy to cite.) The developer of the software clearly gives up the right to alienate(that is keep them from using it in any way) a person from using his code. The consumer gives up the right to distribute the code, or any derivative work, without releasing any and all source code. If the software is totally public domain or res nullus, he would not have to agree to these provisions. He could do whatever he wished. Furthermore, if he added significant value in a derivative work, he could make a claim to the property under doctrines of accession (I have added so much to this property it should be mine, not yours.), or even in using portions of the code under fair use. By agreeing to the GPL, he forfits these rights. As best I can tell, the only way there is not consideration would be if the consumer has the legal right to distribute the code, thus, he has given up nothing. As may be evidenced on/., its clearly of interest to the developer to keep the software free. Obviously, I am missing something in the analysis b/c some legal scholars agree with the "devoid of consideration" argument. Unfortuantely, I cannot get anyone to expand their premise further. If you have information on their argument, please let me know.
From my experience, the one thing/.ers can do VERY well is research. If you ignore the troll posts and turn moderation off, you can find a plethora of information on the subject at hand.
When I was working as an RA for one of my professors on an Internet Law Book, I found/. to be more valuable than Lexis, Westlaw or Findlaw for researching facts. Lately,/.ers have been applying these skills toward legal precedent. IIRC, Zittrain mentioned the same when discussing the initial successes of Berkman's OpenLaw forum.
For what its worth US News Rates the top IP law schools; however, it might be a good idea to talk with professors and former students who have been to the schools on your short list. When I started law school, I was limited b/c I had to continue working. Do you want to go full time (3 years) or part time (4 years)? If you are considering any law schools in New England, I'll be happy to relay my experiences, please feel free to email me.
As for the proposal of a consurtium of geeks to write the laws relating to technology, it's not a bad idea as far as it goes. As a practical matter, the consortium should include a few lawyers simply to supply the necessary expertise in how best to frame laws and make them workable. Don't hold your breath for this to happen any time soon, though. The politicians have gotten themselves a near-total monopoly on making laws, and don't look likely to give up on it any time soon. I could not agree with you more; however, do you think there is a horizon when this will change? Without too much social commentary, its clear that there are a common group of legal/moral/ethical ideas that are espoused on/. Whether or not these rise to the level of a cultural movement, I do not know. However, I would imagine that enough people share these ideas that would be: (1) In high school (2) undergrads (3) or young enough to make a career change. Inevitably, some of them will follow the law. Also, it appears that the market has pushed so much young talent into IT, people making the transition have a chance to be leaders in the legal industry. Wouldn't the introduction of these ideas move the law close to the division of law makers that understand tech. I know the horizon may be long; and I'm not sure how far away you are from law school; however, I do recognize the impact of the sixties in my law school professors. In the interim, there may be opportunities for impact./. alone appears to encourage people to make their voices heard. The Berkman OpenLaw forum appears to be an early success. The content of many of the amicus briefs occur from non-lawyers. I have found that most counsel, and even law school professors, have a very limited understanding of mainstream tech, much less advance tech. However, some of the most popular CLE programs deal with Scientific Evidence and Using the Internet. The state bar periodicals (at least in MA) have started to include sections on using tech in practice. What type of time horizon do you see b/4 there can be real impact by a generation of technology understanding lawyers.
There does appear to be a burgeoning market. I still make my living in software and information related environments. I recently finished my second year of law school, and find most of the horizons relatively bright.
From my experience, the IP firms recruit vary heavily; however, I've seen approaches that extend far beyond IP. Increasingly, you see regulatory provisions (re: FCRA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, etc.) start to embrace the technology. In simple contracts, there is still a lively debate on whether click-through, click-wraps are binding agreements. IMHO, criminal law is a wide-open area. Barry Scheck has made a huge impact by being a lawyer that understood DNA enough to challenge expert testimony. Wouldn't you think that *NIX skills would work in offering or debunking evidence testimony. I think the antitrust possibilities speak for themselves.
I am not sure if the media is pushing the market or vice-versa, but IP has been the area that seems to offer the highest marketability in my area of the country.
As for my peer-students, the number of computer professionals is surprisingly small. I am the only one I know who has done programming. I do have a classmate who works as an admin consultant for Cisco, and another who sold GPS software.
The classes can be fun as well. Many of the professors appear to be fascinated by the impending changes due to information tech. and biotech. Many classes resemble slashdot style forums (re: Professor brings in news clip, and spends a portion of class on debating outcomes) albeit with a different demographic.
The only downside (IMHO) can be time. I still have a growing family to support and have to work. Law classes due require time, and even the part-time programs require 10-12 hour courseloads per semester.
I know there are lawyers and law students that contribute here. It might be interesting to see how they view the horizon.
I understand your point and I agree. I also hate to admit that I've never heard any of Britany Spears material. The closest I came was seeing a parody of a Spears video by Nicole Sullivan on Mad TV.
But to answer your question
D. Gibson - last I heard she was playing Eponine in Les Miserables on Broadway. Not a bad post bubble gum career. Tiffany - Did a little research which indicates she signed a contract with Modern Records. Samantha Fox - Not a clue.
We might also add Alanis Morissette. I think she was doing bubble gum, and resurrected herself in angst/grunge/pop a decade later.
I do not know whether Ms. Spears has talent or not; however, there have been some artists that started in a limited medium and moved to other areas. While it may have been a new sound to the popular masses, early Beatles toons were kind of simple. Later work certainly showed innovation (the early stuff is still good) The Sex Pistols were organized to capitalize on a cultural movement, and Lydon has still had a respectable career, even mocking the celeb status with PiL.
Ironically, some of the more interesting interviews that I have heard was with ex-factory products who have sought a career after the popularity faded: Rob Van Winkle, aka Vanilla Ice, talking about the struggle he had with agreeing to be a product and the depression afterwards (interview with Nick Carter on WBCN, Boston). I haven't heard his new stuff, but even if you feel he brough it on himself it was very emotional. More on point was Barry Williams on the Howard Stern show. Barry wanted to promote a new album and his recent growing up Brady material. Stern forced him to do a set with his "backside boys" musicians. While Barry still may not be the greatest musical talent in the world, he stood in and made the result sound musical. I also wish that I could turn on the radio and hear wonderful music rather than the studio star of the day. I also think that the people who get their 15 minutes b/c of a look should count their good fortune. I hope they make more than the numbers quoted by Ms. Love. I mean would you want to go through life being known as Vanilla Ice.
If you want some pre-1982 REM, most of it will be bootleg material of live shows. The REM Web Boot Discography does a good job of cataloguing their shows and known boots. There is some pre-82 material available. Underneath the Bunker offers a website and Hotline client connection information for facilitating trade.
I would agree with one minor exception. It is more of the executive branch's duty to carry out the laws than the judiciary. While it is true that a new president could not prevent the court from ruling on the case at hand; they could do a truckload of damage in enforcing the decree. First, the new chief executive could greatly restrict the budget and staff of the antitrust department. As a result, if Microsoft were to violate a potential or existing ruling (e.g. engaging in a prohibitive practice), the antitrust department would be severly limited in the resources to bring them to task. More importantly, they could establish a hands-off policy similar to the Reagan approach of supply-side economics. (IMHO, one of the reasons why there are so many potential illegal monopolies. They grew during this administration.)* Even worse, they could dilute the talent pool of the organization. If the government moves away from enforcing the decision, the brighter attorney's will leave for greater challenge and their replacements could be marginal. After all, who wants to receive less pay to do a job that offers no challenge, and would have diluted prestige value. The judicial branch lacks the resources to oversee their decision. AFAIK, and without additional research, the only time a court has buried themselves into enforcement was the aftermath of the segregation cases (re: Brown v. Board of Education). While they have a staff of federal marshalls and can initiate contempt orders, they are most often seen as the "Least Dangerous Branch" (coined by someone famous, but I forget the citation). Consequently, many members of the judiciary do sway toward executive policy. In fact, some may even be considered executive shills. It provides little utility to bring down a decision they cannot enforce. Congress also throw a monkey wrench into the situation. While your situation of drafting a law that says Microsoft is not a monopoly (or more probably drafting M$ favorable exemptions in the Sherman or Clayton Act) is possible, they already act as gatekeepers to judicial appointments. Lately, they have used this power to ensure that federalist judges receive nominations, and remove anyone who would be considered an activist. Whether or not this is good policy is moot, the net effect in this instance is that sitting and future judges would be more likely to promote executive policy. Consequently, the cheif executive could exert control over the M$ ruling. Even in a favorable federal administration, M$ does have to face an army of state AG's who may use their resources to enforce a final decision. Unfortunately, they may also flow with the political tide and lack the teeth that a well-funded justice department. While these powers are far less than "This how it is, deal with it," it is enough to make a serious impact in the future of M$.
* - I know that Jackson is a Reagan appointee, and I would argue that his M$ ruling is an exception rather than a general rule of Reagan antitrust policy and its progency. Moreover, I question whether he would have been appointed if the Reagan admin. had a crystal ball that could foresee these decisions. The major point is that since businesses new that the AG would not prosecute, they increasingly built "barriers to entry" for competition. Since this practice was RARELY challenged, they increasingly escalated this practice. In today's economy, these unchecked practices border on being violative of the Clayton and Sherman act (regardless of individual opinion on the utility of these acts.)
Slashdot Mirror
A day late, but congratulations not the less.
You may be right. Unfortunately I'm not a connoisseur of the art form to where I can directly reply to your contention.
I will surmize that the autere's you mention are far shorter in supply than the demand for rave clubs. I would also guess that this is particularly true in medium sized urban areas, as the best ultimately move into the NY/London/Berlin et. al of the world.
Consequently, I imagine this innovation could improve the social scene in many areas.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing an adoptation for other scenes. Possibly track selection in non-live music social clubs.
"One final point: many people don't realize this, but a big part of what makes rave/club music sound the way that it does is the fact that it's on vinyl."
You may be right on this point. I can no longer find the article, but David Chesky once surmized that we respond to vinyl better because of its continuous waveform. He presumes that our evolutionary survival skills actually let us perceive the start/stops of the digitized wave.
I'd really love to see a blind test or a psychoacoustical survey on this topic. My main recreational outlet is listening to music, and I haven't been able to tell a great difference on similarly produced/mastered tracks except for on very expensive playback equipment. Then I (think I) can discern a more warm texture to music with natural sounds. I cannot tell much of a difference with artificial sounds, and I've never tried doing it blind to confirm that I really do hear a difference.
If the algorithm/key has not been licensed, I still think the use or assembly of subsequent DVD decoders can be enjoined.
The court overturned the injunction prospectively limiting Bunner's posting of the DeCSS source code. They did leave open the injunction for injunctions based on action rather than speech. Doing so could be made under a trade secret argument. Compiling or improperly using the trade secret would likely to be found as action rather than speech.
In fact if you look at the write up on some journalitic sites (e.g. Yahoo) their reporters suggest that while Bunner cannot be prospectively injoined from posting the source code, he could be injoined to remove the source code. I did not read that into the equation, but its a valid argument.
I've posted this in a couple of replies, so I am probably being redundant. However, I don't see this being discussed, and I think this will be a very important issue.
The appeals court still allows relief on any action that violates the trade secrets. It just allows the source code speech. My humble interpretation -- You can post the DeCss source code, but you can't compile it (object code not speech accd. to CA appeals court) or use it (action).
I would urge caution. The appeals court said that releif could be granted on action rather than speech. If Xine uses trade secrets, compiling the code or using the software would be close to action. Posting the code would be speech.
I'll try, but you could take a whole semester of contract law and still have some gaping wholes.
In legal jurisprudence, you can think of speech and conduct as a continuum. On the left is pure speech, "That dog is ugly." On the right is pure action-- You shoot the dog. In the middle there are actions that are between the two. For instance, take three actions considered to be speech - Burning a cross, burning a flag, wearing a T-shirt that says "Fuck the draft". In all cases you are performing an action, but the action involves expression, and the expression is protected. Take example 1. You could be sued for trespass when placing a burning cross on the yard; You could be sued for destruction of property, if it causes damage, but you could not be prosecuted under a hate crime because your expression was protected speech.
On the other end of the spectrum. If you saw an angry mob and you told them to go lynch someone, while that's style a spoken word, its more tantamount to action. You no your words will cause them to perpetrate the action.
In this case, its unclear about what that actually means; however, here is my bet. You can't sue someone for posting the DeCss algorithm, but you can sue them for using the DeCss software.
>What is a vertical search?
I don't know, but I'll speculate. Vertical search may be the marketing term for a depth first search that uses some type of relevance heuristic on key word matching inside of a pre-sorted dataset.
For all the search specialists, please correct this above statement. It would be valuable to my academic pursuits if you helped point out the flaws in my speculation.
I wish this was the case. Especially for the lexis legal research side.
I doubt they can replace these types of services in the immediate future. It takes tons of labor to acquire the material needed to put together these services. Especially if you offer a value-added component such as indexing and headnotes.
The promise of having this information on the internet has disappeared. During the economic boom, there were a lot of great web sites that took the time to digitize subsets of this information. They didn't index the material or offer the value-added features, but the raw content was still available.
Since we have dipped into a recession, these sites either cease to exist, or they are updated too infrequently to be relied upon.
To my knowledge the only companies that have these data stores are Lexis and for some legal and business matters, West Publishing. I don't see how Google can get the information without a licensing agreement from either company. If they have to pay for the license, I don't see how I could reap any benefits. Google's subscription couldn't be much lower than Thompson (Lexis) or West. Both services offer reasonable search capabilities in their present incarnation.
I really hope that your -1 score is a result of low karma and not having been modded down because you make a very good point.
/. is better for including a semi-periodic social commentary piece and allowing the readership to reply. I do not want to turn this feature off, nor do I want to stop reading slashdot, or any of the other take it or leave it style choices that are presented in the FAQ.
/. editorial staff.
/.
/. to have a columnist that:
/. provided a columnist who did this well AND a columnist that could provide expert legal commentary (as opposed to "look at this, these guys patented style sheets.") I would pay for a subscription service.
I think
I never mistook Katz for G. Will, but I thought his posts were servicable. His original Hellmouth piece was pretty good, and he did manage to scoop some of the more prominent journalists.
When JK was flamed for spelling or stylistic matters, I could reasonably understand the "don't read him" solution proposed by the
The element that was hard to get used to was when Mr. Katz began repeatedly posting almost identical stories. For instance, how many Katz features said nearly the same thing about "old media versus new media."
I agree that the issue of media overblowing the crisis has been bantered about frequently, particularly by conservative news outlets. The subject matter is not that new. Nevertheless, I don't particularly mind this post, b/c the subject matter is new to
Ideally, I would prefer
(1) Posts regularly
(2) Writes well
(3) Covers socially relevant points in a fresh manner. Mr. Katz probably has the capacity to meet these three criteria, but sometimes falls short of the mark.
And to answer the inevitable question, if
Isn't that kind of like saying, "I am going to resign to spend more time with my family."
Not sure when you were there, but did you have Zittrain? I'd rather see him. Lessig appears to be too much a poser.
Posting to undue an inadvertent moderation.
Sorry for any jargon. I know our legal systems and education processes are very similar, I sometimes forget the differences. 3L - Means third year. Law school is a 3 year program that one may enter after finishing undergraduate studies. I waited about 8 years between undergraduate and law school phases, but I have now finished the first two years. Joint and Several - If a plaintiff wins a case against multiple tort defendants, there rights to collect the award depend on the forum state's laws. In the majority of US States, the law provides for contributory negligence. The jury finds Def A - 60% responsible Def B-20 % responsible, etc. The plaintiff can collect only the amount each party owes. For instance in a $1000 award, the jury can collect $600 from A, $200 from B, etc. Contributory negligence is a rather new concept in our jurisprudence. Although some states have adopted this scheme, many others allow for joint and several liability of all named parties. This means that the plaintiff can get their $1000 from any defendant. They can get all of it from B, even if B was only hypothetically 20% responsible. B would have to get his excess money back from the other defendants through contribution. If they refused, he would have a legal standing to collect it in a court. Most states abolished this b/c as a practical matter, attorney's would always joint a plaintiff that had huge resources. If they were found to be negligent, they would collect the whole award through the affluent plaintiff to avoid the risk of the other parties discharging the debt through bankrupcy. Not having practiced, I'm not sure if we have a practical equivalent of a sniff test. I'm sure that our judges would alert a party b/4 wasting too much court time. Its likely that the opposing said would file a "motion to dismiss as there is no claim upon which relief may be granted." This would create a motion battle in front of the judge as to the legal validity of the theory behind the claim. I personally find merit in your approach. If you ever have a chance to present the argument, please let me know of the outcome.
Thanks for the reply. While on the train last evening, I realized you were pursuing the other angle of owner's liability for a trespasser using the property for dangerous or illegal activity. I do not know of a case directly on that point; however, two torts theories come to mind. First is the "inherently dangerous" property doctrine. If an object is inherently dangerous, a property owner cannot use the community standard defense that allows them to only take the precautions that similarly situated businesses have taken. We could advocate that an unsecured computer is a potential weapon that could be used to cause massive disruptions of the economy through DDoS attacks. This would remove any defense of an owner claiming the cost of having a team of security analysts constantly monitoring their systems. Unfortunately, most applications of this doctrine generally involve risks to human life (e.g. firearms, explosive and combustable materials) and not economic hazards. Moreover, I have not seen this applied to anyone whose relationship to the material was not lawful (re: purchaser, licensee, or guest). If this doctrine could not be used, I would assume that you could make the full tort arguments. But for the unsecured computer, a DDos attack would not have been made. The negligence in security is also a reasonable proximate cause to the DDoS attack. A system admin knows or should know that script kiddies will usurp a non-secure system and use it for destructive purposes. Moreover, in our hypothetical fact pattern of the honey pot configured systems, its not costly or unduely difficult for the sysadmin to apply patches released to the general public. I am not sure this line has worked well in the US courts. A number of complaints have been directed at gun manufacturers trying to use the same arguments. While there cases may not be as similar, (i.e. this would be more analagous to suing Sun than XYZ company) there arguments are falling along the same lines. IMHO, it would be a difficult cause of action to sustain b/c of the political climate. There are heavy movements of: (1) try kids as adults (2) hackers are bad If I were defending this cause, I would definately demand a jury trial. Since the venue would be in my home area, I imagine I would get more sympathy as an employer and contributor to the economy than "those delinquent kids." If a jury did partition any liability my way it would be a small percentage. (Assuming its not a joint and several liability jurisdiction which are now a minority in most US States). I might change this strategy if a bigger contributor to the local economy was hit with a DDoS attack. They may receive enough sympathy to go after the corporate deep pockets. I do agree with your last statement, the risk is obvious and a non-biases trier of fact may grab on this concept. btw- IANAL, but a 3L law school student.
Cpt. Thanks for your reply. I believe you are referring to the "first sale doctrine" establish in BOBBS-MERRILL CO. v. STRAUS, 210 U.S. 339 (1908) This did involve the minimum resale price set by a publisher and subsequently violated by Macy's. IIRC, ProCd intentionally did not delve into the copyright violations, and the applicability of the first sale doctrine. Instead, it found for the publisher on the contract theory. If there is a split in jurisdictions, please let me know. This would be vitally important to some of my research work. I do know that ProCd was denied certiori by the Supreme Court. This rather scares me b/c AFAIK it leaves it as the most persuasive authority in other jurisdictions. Thanks
I have heard that "devoid of consideration" argument in many circles; however, I was hoping to get a little more on the persons argument. Consideration may come in the form of an exchange of property, or through the forbarance of any legal right. IIRC from contracts, a man one a contract suit against the executors of his grandfather's estate when he agreed to give up smoking and gambling in exchange for a promise of cash. (too lazy to cite.) The developer of the software clearly gives up the right to alienate(that is keep them from using it in any way) a person from using his code. The consumer gives up the right to distribute the code, or any derivative work, without releasing any and all source code. If the software is totally public domain or res nullus, he would not have to agree to these provisions. He could do whatever he wished. Furthermore, if he added significant value in a derivative work, he could make a claim to the property under doctrines of accession (I have added so much to this property it should be mine, not yours.), or even in using portions of the code under fair use. By agreeing to the GPL, he forfits these rights. As best I can tell, the only way there is not consideration would be if the consumer has the legal right to distribute the code, thus, he has given up nothing. As may be evidenced on /., its clearly of interest to the developer to keep the software free. Obviously, I am missing something in the analysis b/c some legal scholars agree with the "devoid of consideration" argument. Unfortuantely, I cannot get anyone to expand their premise further. If you have information on their argument, please let me know.
What about ProCd? Much to my chagrin, I thought this clearly established that agreeing to the hidden shrinkwrap license was part of the offer, and payment at checkout was acceptance? Correct me if I'm wrong.
From my experience, the one thing /.ers can do VERY well is research. If you ignore the troll posts and turn moderation off, you can find a plethora of information on the subject at hand.
/. to be more valuable than Lexis, Westlaw or Findlaw for researching facts. Lately, /.ers have been applying these skills toward legal precedent. IIRC, Zittrain mentioned the same when discussing the initial successes of Berkman's OpenLaw forum.
When I was working as an RA for one of my professors on an Internet Law Book, I found
For what its worth US News Rates the top IP law schools; however, it might be a good idea to talk with professors and former students who have been to the schools on your short list. When I started law school, I was limited b/c I had to continue working. Do you want to go full time (3 years) or part time (4 years)? If you are considering any law schools in New England, I'll be happy to relay my experiences, please feel free to email me.
As for the proposal of a consurtium of geeks to write the laws relating to technology, it's not a bad idea as far as it goes. As a practical matter, the consortium should include a few lawyers simply to supply the necessary expertise in how best to frame laws and make them workable. Don't hold your breath for this to happen any time soon, though. The politicians have gotten themselves a near-total monopoly on making laws, and don't look likely to give up on it any time soon. I could not agree with you more; however, do you think there is a horizon when this will change? Without too much social commentary, its clear that there are a common group of legal/moral/ethical ideas that are espoused on /. Whether or not these rise to the level of a cultural movement, I do not know. However, I would imagine that enough people share these ideas that would be: (1) In high school (2) undergrads (3) or young enough to make a career change. Inevitably, some of them will follow the law. Also, it appears that the market has pushed so much young talent into IT, people making the transition have a chance to be leaders in the legal industry. Wouldn't the introduction of these ideas move the law close to the division of law makers that understand tech. I know the horizon may be long; and I'm not sure how far away you are from law school; however, I do recognize the impact of the sixties in my law school professors. In the interim, there may be opportunities for impact. /. alone appears to encourage people to make their voices heard. The Berkman OpenLaw forum appears to be an early success. The content of many of the amicus briefs occur from non-lawyers. I have found that most counsel, and even law school professors, have a very limited understanding of mainstream tech, much less advance tech. However, some of the most popular CLE programs deal with Scientific Evidence and Using the Internet. The state bar periodicals (at least in MA) have started to include sections on using tech in practice. What type of time horizon do you see b/4 there can be real impact by a generation of technology understanding lawyers.
There does appear to be a burgeoning market. I still make my living in software and information related environments. I recently finished my second year of law school, and find most of the horizons relatively bright.
From my experience, the IP firms recruit vary heavily; however, I've seen approaches that extend far beyond IP. Increasingly, you see regulatory provisions (re: FCRA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, etc.) start to embrace the technology. In simple contracts, there is still a lively debate on whether click-through, click-wraps are binding agreements. IMHO, criminal law is a wide-open area. Barry Scheck has made a huge impact by being a lawyer that understood DNA enough to challenge expert testimony. Wouldn't you think that *NIX skills would work in offering or debunking evidence testimony. I think the antitrust possibilities speak for themselves.
I am not sure if the media is pushing the market or vice-versa, but IP has been the area that seems to offer the highest marketability in my area of the country.
As for my peer-students, the number of computer professionals is surprisingly small. I am the only one I know who has done programming. I do have a classmate who works as an admin consultant for Cisco, and another who sold GPS software.
The classes can be fun as well. Many of the professors appear to be fascinated by the impending changes due to information tech. and biotech. Many classes resemble slashdot style forums (re: Professor brings in news clip, and spends a portion of class on debating outcomes) albeit with a different demographic.
The only downside (IMHO) can be time. I still have a growing family to support and have to work. Law classes due require time, and even the part-time programs require 10-12 hour courseloads per semester.
I know there are lawyers and law students that contribute here. It might be interesting to see how they view the horizon.
I understand your point and I agree. I also hate to admit that I've never heard any of Britany Spears material. The closest I came was seeing a parody of a Spears video by Nicole Sullivan on Mad TV.
But to answer your question
D. Gibson - last I heard she was playing Eponine in Les Miserables on Broadway. Not a bad post bubble gum career.
Tiffany - Did a little research which indicates she signed a contract with Modern Records.
Samantha Fox - Not a clue.
We might also add Alanis Morissette. I think she was doing bubble gum, and resurrected herself in angst/grunge/pop a decade later.
I do not know whether Ms. Spears has talent or not; however, there have been some artists that started in a limited medium and moved to other areas. While it may have been a new sound to the popular masses, early Beatles toons were kind of simple. Later work certainly showed innovation (the early stuff is still good) The Sex Pistols were organized to capitalize on a cultural movement, and Lydon has still had a respectable career, even mocking the celeb status with PiL.
Ironically, some of the more interesting interviews that I have heard was with ex-factory products who have sought a career after the popularity faded:
Rob Van Winkle, aka Vanilla Ice, talking about the struggle he had with agreeing to be a product and the depression afterwards (interview with Nick Carter on WBCN, Boston). I haven't heard his new stuff, but even if you feel he brough it on himself it was very emotional.
More on point was Barry Williams on the Howard Stern show. Barry wanted to promote a new album and his recent growing up Brady material. Stern forced him to do a set with his "backside boys" musicians. While Barry still may not be the greatest musical talent in the world, he stood in and made the result sound musical.
I also wish that I could turn on the radio and hear wonderful music rather than the studio star of the day. I also think that the people who get their 15 minutes b/c of a look should count their good fortune. I hope they make more than the numbers quoted by Ms. Love. I mean would you want to go through life being known as Vanilla Ice.
If you want some pre-1982 REM, most of it will be bootleg material of live shows. The REM Web Boot Discography does a good job of cataloguing their shows and known boots. There is some pre-82 material available. Underneath the Bunker offers a website and Hotline client connection information for facilitating trade.
I would agree with one minor exception. It is more of the executive branch's duty to carry out the laws than the judiciary. While it is true that a new president could not prevent the court from ruling on the case at hand; they could do a truckload of damage in enforcing the decree.
First, the new chief executive could greatly restrict the budget and staff of the antitrust department. As a result, if Microsoft were to violate a potential or existing ruling (e.g. engaging in a prohibitive practice), the antitrust department would be severly limited in the resources to bring them to task.
More importantly, they could establish a hands-off policy similar to the Reagan approach of supply-side economics. (IMHO, one of the reasons why there are so many potential illegal monopolies. They grew during this administration.)* Even worse, they could dilute the talent pool of the organization. If the government moves away from enforcing the decision, the brighter attorney's will leave for greater challenge and their replacements could be marginal. After all, who wants to receive less pay to do a job that offers no challenge, and would have diluted prestige value.
The judicial branch lacks the resources to oversee their decision. AFAIK, and without additional research, the only time a court has buried themselves into enforcement was the aftermath of the segregation cases (re: Brown v. Board of Education). While they have a staff of federal marshalls and can initiate contempt orders, they are most often seen as the "Least Dangerous Branch" (coined by someone famous, but I forget the citation).
Consequently, many members of the judiciary do sway toward executive policy. In fact, some may even be considered executive shills. It provides little utility to bring down a decision they cannot enforce.
Congress also throw a monkey wrench into the situation. While your situation of drafting a law that says Microsoft is not a monopoly (or more probably drafting M$ favorable exemptions in the Sherman or Clayton Act) is possible, they already act as gatekeepers to judicial appointments. Lately, they have used this power to ensure that federalist judges receive nominations, and remove anyone who would be considered an activist. Whether or not this is good policy is moot, the net effect in this instance is that sitting and future judges would be more likely to promote executive policy. Consequently, the cheif executive could exert control over the M$ ruling.
Even in a favorable federal administration, M$ does have to face an army of state AG's who may use their resources to enforce a final decision. Unfortunately, they may also flow with the political tide and lack the teeth that a well-funded justice department.
While these powers are far less than "This how it is, deal with it," it is enough to make a serious impact in the future of M$.
* - I know that Jackson is a Reagan appointee, and I would argue that his M$ ruling is an exception rather than a general rule of Reagan antitrust policy and its progency. Moreover, I question whether he would have been appointed if the Reagan admin. had a crystal ball that could foresee these decisions. The major point is that since businesses new that the AG would not prosecute, they increasingly built "barriers to entry" for competition. Since this practice was RARELY challenged, they increasingly escalated this practice. In today's economy, these unchecked practices border on being violative of the Clayton and Sherman act (regardless of individual opinion on the utility of these acts.)