Take care to read Justice Scalia's Dissent. In it, he shows a good understanding of how internet service works and what this means legally.
His point is that the cable companies are prodviding two services:
communications from your home to their ISP facility.
their ISP facility connects you to the rest of the Internet.
The second is an "information service" under the law. The first is a "telecommunication service". The cable company is bundling them together exactly to get around the regulations by claiming that the joint offering is an "information service", but they shouldn't be allowed to play such shenannigans.
The terms "information device" and "telecommunication device" have a strict, legal, meaning in this context -- they are defined in the Telecommunications Act (see link in the story heading). They don't necessarily mean what everyday language says they do.
In other words, the SCt weaseled out of a definitive ruling on the P2P question.
Actually, the SCt tries to "weasel out" of definitive rulings as much as possible, in the sense that they try to restrict their rulings as much as possible. The general doctrine is that
However, in the present case they didn't "weasel out". In fact, they ruled that P2P, as of itself, it definitely legal. What the ruling says is that contributory and vicarious copyright infringement can be deduced in two ways: either by direct acts, or indirectly from the properties of the device being marketed. In the second case [which was the situation in the Sony Betamax case], the existence of "substantial non-infringing" uses is enough. The first case [e.g. Grokster and StreamCast] falls under the usual rules. The 9th Circuit erred by only applying the second case, forgetting that you can also prove infringement the direct way.
For example, let's consider BitTorrent. This software is being distributed non-comercially, and its developers don't gain from any infringement by the users. Moreover, they aren't suggesting that users should infringe copyrights.
It is true that, as to the indirect way, the main opinion expressly refused to rule whether the current non-infringing uses of P2P are "substantial" [because this was irrelevant to the case at hand]. However, this is not the full story. The two concurrences are exactly about this point -- and they disagreed.
Cable providers also sell digital phone services over the same cable. Why then is this not a 'telecommunication service?'
In fact, there have been recent court rulings that internet telephony is a telecommunicaiton device, and subject to FCC regulation. For example, this has been used to force VoIP to include 911 service. However, just because the VoIP part is a regulated service doesn't mean that the underlying infrastrcture is -- that depends on the definitions in the telecommuncations act, which the FCC is in charge of interpreting. The supreme court decided that their interpretation is not unreasonable and therefore due deference from the judicial branch.
Now it is clear, it is legal to distribute a device to infringe copyright.
It is not legal to promote the illegal uses of that device.
I think you hit somewhat off the mark. The word "promote" is not used in the advertizing-a-use sense but in the "encourage, make happen" sense. The ruling is that it is illegal to distribute a device with the intent of causing more copyright infringement, regardless of how you market it. Still, I agree that the ruling makes good legal sense.
First, the court determines the purpose of the file-sharing networks, from the point of view of Grokster and StreamCast. First of all, they note that:
"StreamCast's executives monitored the number of songs
by certain commercial artists available on their networks,
and an internal communication indicates they aimed to
have a larger number of copyrighted songs available on
their networks than other file-sharing networks."
"Morpheus in fact allowed users to search
specifically for "Top 40" songs, id., at 735, which were
inevitably copyrighted. Similarly, Grokster sent users a
newsletter promoting its ability to provide particular,
popular copyrighted materials."
Secondly, "the business models
employed by Grokster and StreamCast confirm that their
principal object was use of their software to download
copyrighted works." This logic for this is the most important part the ruling, and is found on page 8 of the Opinion of the Court:
"Grokster and StreamCast receive no
revenue from users,">
"Instead, both companies generate income by
selling advertising space, and they stream the advertising
to Grokster and Morpheus users while they are employing
the programs. As the number of users of each program
increases, advertising opportunities become worth more."
"... the evidence shows that substantive
volume is a function of free access to copyrighted work."
"Finally, there is no evidence that either company made
an effort to filter copyrighted material from users'
downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted files."
The reason this is so important, is that this is the logic future courts will apply to new cases. In particular number 4 is telling -- it seems to create a burden on distributors of P2P software to include a filtering feature.
On the other hand, there is a major victory on the "Betamax" front. MGM was urging the supreme court to revisit its ruling from 1984 that the VCR was legal because it had "substantial non-infringing uses", but quantifying the term "substantial". The refuse to do so on page 17 of the ruling. Instead, they explain that in that case, the only evidence about the intents of Sony was what could be deduced from the properties of the device itself, while in the present case there is other evidence (see the list in the previous paragraph). In their words:
mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing
uses would not be enough here to subject a distributor
to liability. Nor would ordinary acts incident to product
distribution, such as offering customers technical support
or product updates, support liability in themselves.
Finally, the court didn't even rule that Grokster and StreamCast are liable -- it only said there is some evidence to indicate that, and that they are not immune to such claims as a matter of law. The question of whether what they did was enough to make them liable will be decided by the lower court on remand.
Absolutely the best weblog for supreme court coverage is the SCOTUS Blog, sponsored and operated by the DC law firm of Goldstein & Howe, who argue many cases in front of the supreme court. In addition to all the information you could need there is great legal commentary from many guest bloggers.
How can they directly contradict a previous ruling? How is it possible that the constitution says one thing one day and another another day... Reform time? The supreme court is becoming more and more pointless every day IMHO....
I'll bite: first of all, the previous rulings could have been wrong (try Korematsu v. US). Secondly, a good part of the US legal community (especially on the so-called "liberal" side), believes that the meaning of the constitution does depend on time. For example, that a citizen's right "due process of law" could encompass different things 200 years after it was written. Just becase the internet didn't exist in 1790 doesn't mean that your due process rights don't extend there, right?
I happen to be much more of an originalist than the "changing community standard re: death penalty" supreme court, but the "living document" view is not outright wrong.
Finally, the circumstances of this case might be different from the last one. Hence the differing result!
I'd recommend you wait to read the ruling before pronouncing that it does not make sense. The question is legal in nature, and is not about whether P2P is legal -- read the updated header above!. After we RTFR we'll know what really happened.
I think we should wait for the text of the ruling to be posted online
(to happen here) before
rushing to say "the sky is falling". We'll be much wiser after reading what they had to say.
AP has a story. It seems the ruling turned on the grounds that they distributed the software "with the object of promoting infringement of copyright", and that they may be liable for third-party infringement by their users, depending on how egregious this promition was. We'll only know had bleak the future is though after reading what the justices had to say.
This is certainly constitutional -- under the "Necessary and Proper" Clause. Your right to free speech is secured by the constitution, and the 14th amendment incorporates it against the states. For the right to actually be worth anything, you have to be able to enforce it, and Congress is charged with setting the procedures for that. They though it "Necessary and Proper" to give you two ways to do that:
Obtain an injunction from a federal court.
Sue for damages under 42 USC 1983.
The point is that making a state respect an injunction from a federal court might require sending in the army (remember school desgregation?). So the first avenue wasn't sufficient, and the second was had to be created.
Regarding the meaning of "public use": The second and third definitions were established by the USSC after the founding, probably after the 14th amendment. I personally agree with the second and disagree with the third. I was merely pointing out that today's ruling is far out of any reasonable interpretation of "public use".
In your second paragraph, you seem to be somewhat confused about the difference between the several states and the United States. The only case I'm aware of where the federal government seized blighted property was in Washington D.C. The Constitutional authority for that is given in Section 8 of Article I:
[Congress has the power] [t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States"
Elsewhere, it has been the states (or even cities) who made laws to clear urban blight. This is certainly ok w.r.t. the federal constitution.
I think the dissent has a simple, winning argument: that "public use" should be read literally. They argue that eminent domain should only be used to seize property that will actually be used by the public -- this certainly means public roads and public buildings (schools, courthouses, military facilities), private equivalents under common-carrier requirements (railroads, for example),
and potentially also private places open to the public (private roads, sports arenas).
You may ask "what about using eminent domain to clear urban blight?". This is nicely discussed by Justice Thomas. The power to do this comes from the state police power via so-called "nuisance laws". The logic is that when property is used in ways that harm the public, the public can defent itself by taking the property from its current owner and giving it to someone else.
In fact, it is wrong to use the "eminent domain" power as a justification for such laws.
Regarding "absolute right to private property": Just because the government can legally take away your property doesn't mean you don't have a right to it. For example, the government can ban sedition despite the free speech guarantee of the first amendment, and no-one complains. You certainly have some right to your property, and the question is: how strong is this right? The Constitution struck a balance between government power and your property rights -- they were supposed to only take away your property for "public use". Also, they have to compensate you adequately [though if this was the only point, the Due Process clause would have been enough]. Now this balance has shifted radically, and not by amending the constitution.
Right, and the vote as I understand it is to allow it to go to a state judge for them to decide if the taking of land was in the public's good.
Have you bothered to read the ruling before posting? The vote is for three things:
The phrase "public use" in the federal constitution doesn't mean what it literally says, but includes anything which might conceivable benefit the public, however tangentially. It has hardly any meaning of it own.
The states are free to elaborate on that, and give "public use" a stricter meaning if they so choose by state law or state constitution
.
Finally, courts should defer to the legislature (in this case, the city council) as to what would benefit the public.
State judges are not discusse at all.
There is no argument about 3, but the discussion shouldn't have reached that stage. The question is not whether the taking is good for the public, but whether "public use" is the same as "a use which will benefit the public". The problem with what the majority is that they are eviscerating the constitutional guarantee to extend that it has become meaningless.
"For Ms. Dery, there's no amount of compensation that the city or developers can provide. All she wanted to do was to die in the same house in which she was born."
True. In other words, she will find no amount of money worth it for her to leave. However, this doesn't mean she deserves no compensation at all for this non-economic value she ascribes to the house. And, if this was a sensible case of eminent domain (the confiscation was made to build a road, say), I would agree that there's a limit to what the public will pay.
However, this case is very different. Here, Pfizer Co. wants her house to build a factory there instead, so they can generate profits for their stockholders. In a civilized society this would be an entirely private matter and she would simply have the right to refuse their offer (in other words, set the price at the true value of the house to her). In the wild west, Pfizer would have hired some thugs to harass her off the property. In the 21st century, Pfizer has hired the city of New London to remove Ms. Dery, by promising to pay paying more taxes than she does. This is not the NLPD's fault, but they will be acting as Pfizer's hired thugs this time.
Basically they said what the Conservatives would normally say, the states have the power.
Ah, but usually when conservatives say this it's when the federal government does something which is not authorized by the constitution, i.e. wields some power which should be reserved to the states. In this case, on the other hand, the constitution specifically and literally guarantees that property will not be taken except for "public use", and the 14th amendment says the states have to respect this.
For example, it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that the Federal Government can ban drugs (remember when they needed to amend the constitution to ban alcohol?). The constitution does specify that the feds and the states may not take away your home except for public use.
Why should Congress limit eminent domain if we can vote for the people who exercise it?
This point is made by the majority, and nicely refuted by the dissent. The problem is that the people most likely to be hurt by this ruling are the poor and uneducated, who have much less access to and influence over the political process. On the other hand the people who benefit are the rich, who do wield considerable influence. When is the last time eminent domain was used to take away a $1,000,000 home to make way for affordable housing?
To make the point another way, if the electoral process provided a sufficient check over abuse of eminent domain, there would be no need for a Constitutional guarantee against that abuse. The case in point shows the need for a secured right.
guess there's not much chance Congress would consider limiting eminent domain to the more 'traditional' uses like roads, schools, etc.
Actually, I'm not sure they have the authority to do that. They can certainly limit the Federal Government's eminent domain power, but that's rarely used and almost always for genunine public uses (military bases, federal buildings, etc). Limiting the several States' eminent domain power is a different question. Perhaps Congress can claim that a federal definition of "public use" is "Neccessary and Proper" for the Takings Clause to take effect under the 14th amendment.
Reading the ruling,
I find the dissents by O'Connor and Thomas much more perusasive. The ruling amounts to saying that, starting today, if others can use your property in a way that will be better for the general public, for example if:
they will pay more taxes than you do now; or,
the public will find the house they will build more aesthetically pleasing than yours is; or,
they bribe the local politicians more than you can afford.
then the government can simply take away your property and give it to them.
Of course you have to be "justly compensated". However, all this means is you will get back the "market value" of your property, i.e. what it is worth to a random person on the street. That could be very different from what it is worth to you, or even what it is worth to the developer who will get it and profit from it. Unlike normal economics, where the developers will have to pay based on what they can use the property for, the fair market value will depend on what you are using the property for today. And you personal enjoyment of living in a home you've owned for a long time doesn't factor into that.
Do you think Ms. Dery, who is 87 years old and lives in the house she was born in will be compensated for value of that? She only will be compensated for the value of the house assuming it was sold for profit.
Second that. However, the town tried to weasel out of giving the GIS data by using a completely different security claim: rather than asserting they didn't have to release the data because it could be used for bad purposes, they relied on a statutory exemption for information that would "pose a threat to the security of the town's information technology system" (emphasis mine). I think this exemption was put it to prevent the disclosure of/etc/passwd , not/mount/data/GIS/.
"How does one go about making sure that your source code hasn't been "misappropriated" (read stolen) and placed into a closed source app?"
The short answer is: you can't be sure. In practice, however, people who write programs keep abreast of other software in their field (e.g. people who write an IM client quickly hear about other IM clients). Hwoever, it usually takes an alert user to notice suspicious similarities to existing software. It seems the first tell-tale sign is the directory structure. In almost every case posted to slashdot, it was noted that the directory structures were the same.
If you become suspicious, the next thing is to extract the strings utility. The first thing to look for is the error message strings, but if the executable is not stripped then you can see your function names and source file names.
Finally, there's the question of proving that they "stole" your source code, wher your legal claim will usually be that they violated your copyright. Most of the time, they know they are in the wrong and just contacting them is enough. However, not all offenders cooperate. Harald Welte has successfuly won a preliminary injunction in a German court against a company which violated the GPL when using code form the ipfilter/iptables firewall project.
"Most Americans believe the government should do more to make the Internet safe, but they don't trust the federal institutions that are largely responsible for creating and enforcing laws online, according to a new industry survey."
I'd say "Most Americans believe the government should do more to make the Internet safe, but either:
don't know that the internet extends beyond the United States; or,
think the USA should try to control the internet even outside their territories.
For those who may wonder: I am aware that the Internet was started and mostly created in the US, in large part by DARPA. However, today's internet is a global phenomenon. To understand the gulf in perception, note that the word "American" means one thing in USA English and something rather more general in the rest of the world.
Nice to see he thinks the right way, but Mr. Boucher should check his facts. Steamboat Willie was created by Disney. The character was later renamed Mickey Mouse, but it is certainly their original creation.
I found it difficult to figure out what the story was. It begins thusly:
Microsoft seems to think it can be the better Bittorrent. You know faster and more well-behaved.
The first sentence would have benefitted from quoting "better Bittorrent" or amending "the" to "a". The second from the writer understanding the difference between colloquial and written English. Aren't the editors responsible for fixing such problems before stories appear on the main page?
Slashdot Mirror
Take care to read Justice Scalia's Dissent. In it, he shows a good understanding of how internet service works and what this means legally.
His point is that the cable companies are prodviding two services:
- communications from your home to their ISP facility.
- their ISP facility connects you to the rest of the Internet.
The second is an "information service" under the law. The first is a "telecommunication service". The cable company is bundling them together exactly to get around the regulations by claiming that the joint offering is an "information service", but they shouldn't be allowed to play such shenannigans.The terms "information device" and "telecommunication device" have a strict, legal, meaning in this context -- they are defined in the Telecommunications Act (see link in the story heading). They don't necessarily mean what everyday language says they do.
In fact, there have been recent court rulings that internet telephony is a telecommunicaiton device, and subject to FCC regulation. For example, this has been used to force VoIP to include 911 service. However, just because the VoIP part is a regulated service doesn't mean that the underlying infrastrcture is -- that depends on the definitions in the telecommuncations act, which the FCC is in charge of interpreting. The supreme court decided that their interpretation is not unreasonable and therefore due deference from the judicial branch.
The ruling has been posted as one PDF file.
I think you hit somewhat off the mark. The word "promote" is not used in the advertizing-a-use sense but in the "encourage, make happen" sense. The ruling is that it is illegal to distribute a device with the intent of causing more copyright infringement, regardless of how you market it. Still, I agree that the ruling makes good legal sense.
First, the court determines the purpose of the file-sharing networks, from the point of view of Grokster and StreamCast. First of all, they note that:
- "StreamCast's executives monitored the number of songs
by certain commercial artists available on their networks,
and an internal communication indicates they aimed to
have a larger number of copyrighted songs available on
their networks than other file-sharing networks."
- "Morpheus in fact allowed users to search
specifically for "Top 40" songs, id., at 735, which were
inevitably copyrighted. Similarly, Grokster sent users a
newsletter promoting its ability to provide particular,
popular copyrighted materials."
Secondly, "the business models employed by Grokster and StreamCast confirm that their principal object was use of their software to download copyrighted works." This logic for this is the most important part the ruling, and is found on page 8 of the Opinion of the Court:- "Grokster and StreamCast receive no
revenue from users,">
- "Instead, both companies generate income by
selling advertising space, and they stream the advertising
to Grokster and Morpheus users while they are employing
the programs. As the number of users of each program
increases, advertising opportunities become worth more."
- "... the evidence shows that substantive
volume is a function of free access to copyrighted work."
- "Finally, there is no evidence that either company made
an effort to filter copyrighted material from users'
downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted files."
The reason this is so important, is that this is the logic future courts will apply to new cases. In particular number 4 is telling -- it seems to create a burden on distributors of P2P software to include a filtering feature.On the other hand, there is a major victory on the "Betamax" front. MGM was urging the supreme court to revisit its ruling from 1984 that the VCR was legal because it had "substantial non-infringing uses", but quantifying the term "substantial". The refuse to do so on page 17 of the ruling. Instead, they explain that in that case, the only evidence about the intents of Sony was what could be deduced from the properties of the device itself, while in the present case there is other evidence (see the list in the previous paragraph). In their words:
Finally, the court didn't even rule that Grokster and StreamCast are liable -- it only said there is some evidence to indicate that, and that they are not immune to such claims as a matter of law. The question of whether what they did was enough to make them liable will be decided by the lower court on remand.
- The Opinion of the Court, but Justice Souter.
- The Concurrence of Justice Ginsburg, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy.
- The Concurrence of Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor.
Starting to readAbsolutely the best weblog for supreme court coverage is the SCOTUS Blog, sponsored and operated by the DC law firm of Goldstein & Howe, who argue many cases in front of the supreme court. In addition to all the information you could need there is great legal commentary from many guest bloggers.
I'd recommend you wait to read the ruling before pronouncing that it does not make sense. The question is legal in nature, and is not about whether P2P is legal -- read the updated header above!. After we RTFR we'll know what really happened.
I think we should wait for the text of the ruling to be posted online (to happen here) before rushing to say "the sky is falling". We'll be much wiser after reading what they had to say.
AP has a story. It seems the ruling turned on the grounds that they distributed the software "with the object of promoting infringement of copyright", and that they may be liable for third-party infringement by their users, depending on how egregious this promition was. We'll only know had bleak the future is though after reading what the justices had to say.
- Obtain an injunction from a federal court.
- Sue for damages under 42 USC 1983.
The point is that making a state respect an injunction from a federal court might require sending in the army (remember school desgregation?). So the first avenue wasn't sufficient, and the second was had to be created.Regarding the meaning of "public use": The second and third definitions were established by the USSC after the founding, probably after the 14th amendment. I personally agree with the second and disagree with the third. I was merely pointing out that today's ruling is far out of any reasonable interpretation of "public use".
In your second paragraph, you seem to be somewhat confused about the difference between the several states and the United States. The only case I'm aware of where the federal government seized blighted property was in Washington D.C. The Constitutional authority for that is given in Section 8 of Article I:
Elsewhere, it has been the states (or even cities) who made laws to clear urban blight. This is certainly ok w.r.t. the federal constitution.I think the dissent has a simple, winning argument: that "public use" should be read literally. They argue that eminent domain should only be used to seize property that will actually be used by the public -- this certainly means public roads and public buildings (schools, courthouses, military facilities), private equivalents under common-carrier requirements (railroads, for example), and potentially also private places open to the public (private roads, sports arenas).
You may ask "what about using eminent domain to clear urban blight?". This is nicely discussed by Justice Thomas. The power to do this comes from the state police power via so-called "nuisance laws". The logic is that when property is used in ways that harm the public, the public can defent itself by taking the property from its current owner and giving it to someone else. In fact, it is wrong to use the "eminent domain" power as a justification for such laws.
Regarding "absolute right to private property": Just because the government can legally take away your property doesn't mean you don't have a right to it. For example, the government can ban sedition despite the free speech guarantee of the first amendment, and no-one complains. You certainly have some right to your property, and the question is: how strong is this right? The Constitution struck a balance between government power and your property rights -- they were supposed to only take away your property for "public use". Also, they have to compensate you adequately [though if this was the only point, the Due Process clause would have been enough]. Now this balance has shifted radically, and not by amending the constitution.
Have you bothered to read the ruling before posting? The vote is for three things:
- The phrase "public use" in the federal constitution doesn't mean what it literally says, but includes anything which might conceivable benefit the public, however tangentially. It has hardly any meaning of it own.
- The states are free to elaborate on that, and give "public use" a stricter meaning if they so choose by state law or state constitution
- .
- Finally, courts should defer to the legislature (in this case, the city council) as to what would benefit the public.
State judges are not discusse at all.There is no argument about 3, but the discussion shouldn't have reached that stage. The question is not whether the taking is good for the public, but whether "public use" is the same as "a use which will benefit the public". The problem with what the majority is that they are eviscerating the constitutional guarantee to extend that it has become meaningless.
True. In other words, she will find no amount of money worth it for her to leave. However, this doesn't mean she deserves no compensation at all for this non-economic value she ascribes to the house. And, if this was a sensible case of eminent domain (the confiscation was made to build a road, say), I would agree that there's a limit to what the public will pay.
However, this case is very different. Here, Pfizer Co. wants her house to build a factory there instead, so they can generate profits for their stockholders. In a civilized society this would be an entirely private matter and she would simply have the right to refuse their offer (in other words, set the price at the true value of the house to her). In the wild west, Pfizer would have hired some thugs to harass her off the property. In the 21st century, Pfizer has hired the city of New London to remove Ms. Dery, by promising to pay paying more taxes than she does. This is not the NLPD's fault, but they will be acting as Pfizer's hired thugs this time.
Ah, but usually when conservatives say this it's when the federal government does something which is not authorized by the constitution, i.e. wields some power which should be reserved to the states. In this case, on the other hand, the constitution specifically and literally guarantees that property will not be taken except for "public use", and the 14th amendment says the states have to respect this.
For example, it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that the Federal Government can ban drugs (remember when they needed to amend the constitution to ban alcohol?). The constitution does specify that the feds and the states may not take away your home except for public use.
This point is made by the majority, and nicely refuted by the dissent. The problem is that the people most likely to be hurt by this ruling are the poor and uneducated, who have much less access to and influence over the political process. On the other hand the people who benefit are the rich, who do wield considerable influence. When is the last time eminent domain was used to take away a $1,000,000 home to make way for affordable housing?
To make the point another way, if the electoral process provided a sufficient check over abuse of eminent domain, there would be no need for a Constitutional guarantee against that abuse. The case in point shows the need for a secured right.
Actually, I'm not sure they have the authority to do that. They can certainly limit the Federal Government's eminent domain power, but that's rarely used and almost always for genunine public uses (military bases, federal buildings, etc). Limiting the several States' eminent domain power is a different question. Perhaps Congress can claim that a federal definition of "public use" is "Neccessary and Proper" for the Takings Clause to take effect under the 14th amendment.
Reading the ruling, I find the dissents by O'Connor and Thomas much more perusasive. The ruling amounts to saying that, starting today, if others can use your property in a way that will be better for the general public, for example if:
- they will pay more taxes than you do now; or,
- the public will find the house they will build more aesthetically pleasing than yours is; or,
- they bribe the local politicians more than you can afford.
then the government can simply take away your property and give it to them.Of course you have to be "justly compensated". However, all this means is you will get back the "market value" of your property, i.e. what it is worth to a random person on the street. That could be very different from what it is worth to you, or even what it is worth to the developer who will get it and profit from it. Unlike normal economics, where the developers will have to pay based on what they can use the property for, the fair market value will depend on what you are using the property for today. And you personal enjoyment of living in a home you've owned for a long time doesn't factor into that.
Do you think Ms. Dery, who is 87 years old and lives in the house she was born in will be compensated for value of that? She only will be compensated for the value of the house assuming it was sold for profit.
Second that. However, the town tried to weasel out of giving the GIS data by using a completely different security claim: rather than asserting they didn't have to release the data because it could be used for bad purposes, they relied on a statutory exemption for information that would "pose a threat to the security of the town's information technology system" (emphasis mine). I think this exemption was put it to prevent the disclosure of /etc/passwd , not /mount/data/GIS/.
The short answer is: you can't be sure. In practice, however, people who write programs keep abreast of other software in their field (e.g. people who write an IM client quickly hear about other IM clients). Hwoever, it usually takes an alert user to notice suspicious similarities to existing software. It seems the first tell-tale sign is the directory structure. In almost every case posted to slashdot, it was noted that the directory structures were the same.
If you become suspicious, the next thing is to extract the strings utility. The first thing to look for is the error message strings, but if the executable is not stripped then you can see your function names and source file names.
Finally, there's the question of proving that they "stole" your source code, wher your legal claim will usually be that they violated your copyright. Most of the time, they know they are in the wrong and just contacting them is enough. However, not all offenders cooperate. Harald Welte has successfuly won a preliminary injunction in a German court against a company which violated the GPL when using code form the ipfilter/iptables firewall project.
I'd say "Most Americans believe the government should do more to make the Internet safe, but either:
For those who may wonder: I am aware that the Internet was started and mostly created in the US, in large part by DARPA. However, today's internet is a global phenomenon. To understand the gulf in perception, note that the word "American" means one thing in USA English and something rather more general in the rest of the world.
Nice to see he thinks the right way, but Mr. Boucher should check his facts. Steamboat Willie was created by Disney. The character was later renamed Mickey Mouse, but it is certainly their original creation.
For a far better example, compare Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island and Disney's Treasure Planet.
I found it difficult to figure out what the story was. It begins thusly:
The first sentence would have benefitted from quoting "better Bittorrent" or amending "the" to "a". The second from the writer understanding the difference between colloquial and written English. Aren't the editors responsible for fixing such problems before stories appear on the main page?