If they were to allow public libraries to use these systems, lawyers would just send their clerks (who are generally students) to the local public library.
Why do you think law firms hire law students as clerks? (Hint: free Lexis/Westlaw at school. And, no, students are not supposed to use it for that purpose).
Now, it is easier, because of computerized search engines.
Actually, using the West digests at your local law library is often easier and more efficient than computerized terms-and-connectors research. Incidentally, the headnotes (and the West key numbers) predate Lexis and Westlaw by over 100 years.
VersusLaw is $8.95 per month for a basic subscription, is fairly comprehensive for case law (although not entirely), and offers boolean searching. IAAL, and I find it to be a useful tool. Of course, any law library should have regional reporters as well as federal and its own state's stuff. You can find these libraries at law schools and courthouses.
And don't the prosecution have to prove that he intended to use the computer to commit forgery? Which would require showing for example that he was in the process of making fake drivers' licences or something similar?
The prosecution would have to prove that he had "intent to use" or intent "to aid or permit another to use" the computer "for purposes of forgery." A jury can infer intent from just about anything in evidence; the prosecution probably doesn't have to prove a substantive offense of forgery to prove possession of forgery devices under the statute.
What was particularly interesting, by the way, is that the RIAA trains NYPD officers to identify illegal copies of music compact discs (this was in an affidavit in support of a search warrant). Doesn't the NYPD have more important business than that?
We had a client (in NYC) who got nailed for essentially the same thing (wound up being convicted for trademark counterfeiting). One of the counts (of which he was acquitted) was Criminal Possession of Forgery Devices (Penal Law s. 170.40): "... with intent to use, and to aid and permit another to use, the same purposes of forgery, made and possessed a device, apparatus, equipment and article capable of and adaptable to such use, namely, a computer."
I'm pretty sure that RCA was heavily into electronic TV by 1936 (it was invented in 1927, after all).
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
Copyright is telling people that they cannot do things that they can trivially do. Simply because I write a book that by no means should be taken as indicating that only I can copy that book -- any idiot can.
Any idiot can commit murder, or steal your car. Why should the law protect your life or your personal property?
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
Why then do pharmeceutical companies refuse to license drugs to third-world countries? (Don't tell me that its because those countries can't afford them. If you don't lower your price to the maximum limit a customer can afford, then you're losing a sale.)
You're also creating a competitor if you do license your IP. Generally, monopolies reduce supply (and a patent holder is the classic example of a monopoly), in order to keep prices high, and increase marginal profits. In particular, if increasing production of a product increases demand (and thus the cost) of the materials to make the product, you'd rather restrict the supply, to the extent that you can maximize your profit.
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
How did this get modded up?
In the first place, it was created to protect individuals against corporations.
IP law predates the development of the modern corporation (while there were limited-liability entities called corporations in centuries past, large public corporations are a relatively recent development). IP law was developed to encourage innovation.
Patents, copyrights, and 'intellectual property' has got to go. If not, then when we, as a society, manage to convert fully to a non-scarcity based economy, those who have the ownership rights to information will be kings and everyone else will be paupers.
They tried the "non-scarcity based economy" in Eastern Europe for a while. It didn't work. In any event, your statement that "those who have the ownership rights to information will be kings and everyone else will be paupers" assumes that something in your New Economy will be based on scarcity, which is self-contradictory.
Re:Just read the Constitution, fer chrissakes.
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
You shouldn't be able to sell the right to your creation to someone, at least in my opinion. You want to let someone manufacture or produce your product, go for it. You want to limit your copywrite so that only they can produce and no one else, that's fine too. But you shouldn't be able to sell off or transfer your copywrite. A copywrite is designed to protect the inventor and his right to benifit from his own work, once it's transfered, it protects no one it only provides a monetary gain.
Your position ignores that the copyright holder benefits because the assignee can make money from holding the copyright. Why would I pay you for a copyright assignment when I can make no money from it? The more I can benefit, the more I'll pay you for the assignment. Thus, the "inventor" (sic) benefits.
The only reason a "monopoly" is illegal is because of post Constitutional acts and laws written to protect the 'little guy.' Why? Because the big guys were treating their workers very poorly, in addition to steamrolling the competition. Now it can be argued that Microsoft, prior to DRM, was doing a good thing, treating their workers well, and making everyone richer
Antitrust law has nothing to do with the treatment of workers. It's about preserving competition in the marketplace (the hallmark of a free market), which improves allocative efficiency.
Incidentally, I'm always amused that antitrust advocates are described as "left-wing" and "socialist" in forums such as this. Antitrust is the antithesis of leftist thinking, which embraces (state-run) monopolies and rejects competition as a means to allocative efficiency.
If Dell or Gateway or Compaq started preloading Linux on their machines, what is microsoft going to do? Say, "OK, we aren't selling windows licenses to Dell anymore." I don't think so. Especially since that is where they get their huge user base. Because most PCs COME WITH WINDOWS ON THEM!
MS can add ten or fifteen bucks per unit to the Windows license price, which eats a significant piece of the very thin margins that OEMs enjoy. They still sell Windows, but they make less money doing so.
Now they might be so arrgant as to think if they stop selling copies of Windows to Gateway, Gateway will cease to be. But I don't think this is the case.
Windows has well over 90% market share due to the network effect. Gateway becomes a bit player immediately. Odds are, Gateway wouldn't bring enough revenues to cover its overhead and debt, and Chapter 11 would be on the horizon.
White collar criminals generally get to go to federal "a set of tennis followed by nine holes of golf" prison camp. The other ones that you mentioned are generally reserved for urban drug dealers.
Probably not, since you can testify that you clicked "no" and didn't install it. Of course, that opens the can of worms of discovery - the manufacturer will want your hard drive to determine that you are actually telling the truth, and blah blah blah. I haven't actually been counsel on such a case, but if I represented the big software company (which I probably never will), every HD you own would be mine for enough time to dredge it for clues as to whether you ever clicked the "yes" button. If you didn't, under the 7th Circuit's reasoning, you didn't accept the contract.
The Seventh Circuit basically said that if you click through the license and try out the software, you have accepted the terms, in ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). In other words, if the contract contains terms you don't want to agree to, stop at that point and return the software for a refund. Of course, this assumes that consumers actually read the license, so it's probably naive.
Are pornos illegal? No. Limiting certain games to adults only won't result in them becoming illegal, just as limiting some movies to adults hasn't made those movies illegal.
I only read the Nando article, so it may have garbled the issues, but if something is not "protected speech," it can be banned. It strikes me that a better (and narrower) rationale for upholding the statute is that the games at issue fall into the category of "indecent" speech (think George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words bit), which can be regulated so as to prevent accidental access by children, but not banned outright.
The quotation in the article suggests that this particular judge doesn't think that the games qualify as "speech" at all, which sounds sort of ridiculous, but it may have been taken out of context.
I believe it's called "summary judgement". It's the same thing Felten tried to get, and one of the music trading companies (Aimster, I think). It's not so much a suit against someone but more like a preemptive strike to prevent others from filing suit against 321 in the future.
It's an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, I'd presume. If you are under threat of impending litigation, you can jump the gun and file your own action, seeking a declaration from the court that your conduct is not illegal. (This is also used to challenge the validity of some criminal statutes under the constitution - file your civil suit now, rather than being prosecuted later).
Section 1001 was originally enacted in response to a plethora of false claims (for money) made to the federal government, and since that time it has been warped to apply to criminal defendants who falsely proclaim their innocence to FBI agents during questioning. (Tip: if you are accused of committing a crime, let your lawyer do the talking). It only applies to statements made to the federal government (i.e., "officers" of the federal government), not to state or local authorities.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think law firms hire law students as clerks? (Hint: free Lexis/Westlaw at school. And, no, students are not supposed to use it for that purpose).
Actually, using the West digests at your local law library is often easier and more efficient than computerized terms-and-connectors research. Incidentally, the headnotes (and the West key numbers) predate Lexis and Westlaw by over 100 years.
VersusLaw is $8.95 per month for a basic subscription, is fairly comprehensive for case law (although not entirely), and offers boolean searching. IAAL, and I find it to be a useful tool. Of course, any law library should have regional reporters as well as federal and its own state's stuff. You can find these libraries at law schools and courthouses.
Try ~/.mplayer/config
vo = x11
etc.
Dunno, but I'm a lawyer who does pro bono work. In fact, some of the most interesting cases I've had were for no fee.
Somehow I doubt that the RIAA was paying the cop's salary during the investigation (or even during the training, for that matter).
The prosecution would have to prove that he had "intent to use" or intent "to aid or permit another to use" the computer "for purposes of forgery." A jury can infer intent from just about anything in evidence; the prosecution probably doesn't have to prove a substantive offense of forgery to prove possession of forgery devices under the statute.
What was particularly interesting, by the way, is that the RIAA trains NYPD officers to identify illegal copies of music compact discs (this was in an affidavit in support of a search warrant). Doesn't the NYPD have more important business than that?
We had a client (in NYC) who got nailed for essentially the same thing (wound up being convicted for trademark counterfeiting). One of the counts (of which he was acquitted) was Criminal Possession of Forgery Devices (Penal Law s. 170.40): "... with intent to use, and to aid and permit another to use, the same purposes of forgery, made and possessed a device, apparatus, equipment and article capable of and adaptable to such use, namely, a computer."
I'm pretty sure that RCA was heavily into electronic TV by 1936 (it was invented in 1927, after all).
Any idiot can commit murder, or steal your car. Why should the law protect your life or your personal property?
You're also creating a competitor if you do license your IP. Generally, monopolies reduce supply (and a patent holder is the classic example of a monopoly), in order to keep prices high, and increase marginal profits. In particular, if increasing production of a product increases demand (and thus the cost) of the materials to make the product, you'd rather restrict the supply, to the extent that you can maximize your profit.
In the first place, it was created to protect individuals against corporations.
IP law predates the development of the modern corporation (while there were limited-liability entities called corporations in centuries past, large public corporations are a relatively recent development). IP law was developed to encourage innovation.
Patents, copyrights, and 'intellectual property' has got to go. If not, then when we, as a society, manage to convert fully to a non-scarcity based economy, those who have the ownership rights to information will be kings and everyone else will be paupers.
They tried the "non-scarcity based economy" in Eastern Europe for a while. It didn't work. In any event, your statement that "those who have the ownership rights to information will be kings and everyone else will be paupers" assumes that something in your New Economy will be based on scarcity, which is self-contradictory.
Your position ignores that the copyright holder benefits because the assignee can make money from holding the copyright. Why would I pay you for a copyright assignment when I can make no money from it? The more I can benefit, the more I'll pay you for the assignment. Thus, the "inventor" (sic) benefits.
Last year I represented a guy who sold 0.034 slugs of heroin. He was in a peck of trouble, and got 97 months in prison.
Antitrust law has nothing to do with the treatment of workers. It's about preserving competition in the marketplace (the hallmark of a free market), which improves allocative efficiency.
Incidentally, I'm always amused that antitrust advocates are described as "left-wing" and "socialist" in forums such as this. Antitrust is the antithesis of leftist thinking, which embraces (state-run) monopolies and rejects competition as a means to allocative efficiency.
MS can add ten or fifteen bucks per unit to the Windows license price, which eats a significant piece of the very thin margins that OEMs enjoy. They still sell Windows, but they make less money doing so.
Now they might be so arrgant as to think if they stop selling copies of Windows to Gateway, Gateway will cease to be. But I don't think this is the case.
Windows has well over 90% market share due to the network effect. Gateway becomes a bit player immediately. Odds are, Gateway wouldn't bring enough revenues to cover its overhead and debt, and Chapter 11 would be on the horizon.
Konqueror is at 3.0, and he tested 2.2.1. Sheesh. I expect that when 3.1 comes out, he'll test 2.2.2.
White collar criminals generally get to go to federal "a set of tennis followed by nine holes of golf" prison camp. The other ones that you mentioned are generally reserved for urban drug dealers.
That's not the same guy. This Boucher works for the State Department; he's not the congressman the article is discussing.
Probably not, since you can testify that you clicked "no" and didn't install it. Of course, that opens the can of worms of discovery - the manufacturer will want your hard drive to determine that you are actually telling the truth, and blah blah blah. I haven't actually been counsel on such a case, but if I represented the big software company (which I probably never will), every HD you own would be mine for enough time to dredge it for clues as to whether you ever clicked the "yes" button. If you didn't, under the 7th Circuit's reasoning, you didn't accept the contract.
The Seventh Circuit basically said that if you click through the license and try out the software, you have accepted the terms, in ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). In other words, if the contract contains terms you don't want to agree to, stop at that point and return the software for a refund. Of course, this assumes that consumers actually read the license, so it's probably naive.
I only read the Nando article, so it may have garbled the issues, but if something is not "protected speech," it can be banned. It strikes me that a better (and narrower) rationale for upholding the statute is that the games at issue fall into the category of "indecent" speech (think George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words bit), which can be regulated so as to prevent accidental access by children, but not banned outright.
The quotation in the article suggests that this particular judge doesn't think that the games qualify as "speech" at all, which sounds sort of ridiculous, but it may have been taken out of context.
Anyone have a link to the text of the decision?
It's an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, I'd presume. If you are under threat of impending litigation, you can jump the gun and file your own action, seeking a declaration from the court that your conduct is not illegal. (This is also used to challenge the validity of some criminal statutes under the constitution - file your civil suit now, rather than being prosecuted later).
The statute is 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq .
Section 1001 was originally enacted in response to a plethora of false claims (for money) made to the federal government, and since that time it has been warped to apply to criminal defendants who falsely proclaim their innocence to FBI agents during questioning. (Tip: if you are accused of committing a crime, let your lawyer do the talking). It only applies to statements made to the federal government (i.e., "officers" of the federal government), not to state or local authorities.
Nah, if they did that, they'd just build a crystal radio from a toilet paper roll and avoid all this MP3 crap.