Unfortunately, one of the ethical standards is that lawyers must represent their clients to the best of their ability without stepping across legality lines (misleading the judge/jury/opposing council, breaking the law, etc).
Much of the time, this involves working technicalities in the law and other things that many people would consider immoral.
Like many people view defense lawyers as scum because they routinely put together defenses that work because the evidence was poisonous or another reason and not because their client is innocent, and thus get even murderers off scott-free. I don't view those types of things as necessarily bad, but a lot of people will put justice for that individual's acts above justice in the process.
You can set it so that you have separate taskbars. Not sure where; I don't see it during a quick survey of the options, but it definitely does it on my computer.
And I trust that you stay away from doctor and dentist offices, hospatials, and other places where you can recieve artifical medical care? Hell, you should leave the band-aids on the shelf... just let nature run its course.
As others have said many, many places, the new Supes movie has been in production for a long time. When I was still a huge Superman nerd like 10 years ago or something and running around the school playground with a red cape they were working on Superman 5. Nicholas Cage was considered for Superman's role, and Luthor's headquarters was supposed to be the PPG building in Pittsburgh (which, by the way, is awesome). See http://home.netcom.com/~speaker6/what/superman.htm l; it's from 1997, and says Cage is playing Superman. That's over 7 years ago.
What I don't see any mention of in the replies is that Douglas Adams had been working on producing the movie since at least the early 90's, and it didn't get much of anywhere.
"Dean Cain was a better Clark Kent, but Reeve will never be topped as Superman."
I disagree... I think one of the most brilliant thing about Reeve's performance was the difference between how he played Clark Kent and how he played Superman. I mean, you really could have put them beside each other and convinced me they were different actors.
The scene in Lois's apartment right after Superman left and Clark showed up and Lois is wandering around the apartment stunned, and Clark takes off his glasses, stands up straight, and says "Lois, there's something I have to tell you," illustrates this perfectly. There's such a difference between timid, bumbling Clark Kent and majestic (for lack of a better word) Superman.
"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent." 271 USC 35
News reporter: "Another malfunction, another delay. What could be going through a man's mind at a time like this?" Shepard: (looks around uncomfortably) "Gordo? Gordo, I have to urinate..."
Some senator/representative probably: "How do you go to the bathroom in space?" Jim Lovell: "Well, I tell you, it's a complicated procedure involving rolling down the window and looking for a gas station." -Apollo 13
"If someone walks into a bar and shoots 10 patrons dead, one can't say that it was a single murder."
Yeah, because the law against murder doesn't have a provision that a serial murder is one murder. Copyright infringement does have such a provision: "For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work." (Last sentence 17 USC 504, (c)(1))
"It may be also argued that he used the illegally obtained materials for profit"
How? He's not selling them. He's not selling ad space. He's not using them to promote himself. Hell, the only clue we have to his identity from what I see is a gmail address.
"Finally, if anyone gets hurt or killed because of his disclosure, he goes to jail. That scenario is not impossible at all if, for example, some of photographed people have more than one {boy,girl}friend who is violent and jealous."
EXTREMELY unlikely, even if that were the case. The disconnect between the act of putting what are pretty typical pictures up online and causing someone else to voluntarily commit battery is really pushing the limits of forseeability. Even in a civil case it would be very hard hard to prove negligence, and criminal negligence (let alone recklessness or intent) is an even higher standard.
"so i stole $5 from the person who dropped the $5 bill in the parking lot. no one was to be seen, it was the middle of the night. i hardly think you're right here"
Depends on where you are. For instance, in 1993 a Mass DA had to decide whether to apply a statute requiring people who find property over $3 to turn it in to the police station in the case of a family that found a $10,000 lottery ticket. (The actual owner later looked for it in the same location.) Ultimately, the family was not charged. Though it's an interesting question to ponder if the father had not been the local fire chief and a very respected member of the town if the outcome would have been different.
So unless you've looked at NY law specifically, don't think you know what it says.
(I personally have not looked either, so I remain neutral. I apologize if you have.)
I mean, there's nothing the author does differently when the month changes; it's all posted daily. I think the best argument you could make is that it's a weekly serial, since there aren't posts on weekends.
I'd have to go through and look at court decisions though to try to find out more specifically. Maybe if I get some free time and a sadistic streak I'll go after the Shepard's volumes in the library...
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, one of the ethical standards is that lawyers must represent their clients to the best of their ability without stepping across legality lines (misleading the judge/jury/opposing council, breaking the law, etc).
Much of the time, this involves working technicalities in the law and other things that many people would consider immoral.
Like many people view defense lawyers as scum because they routinely put together defenses that work because the evidence was poisonous or another reason and not because their client is innocent, and thus get even murderers off scott-free. I don't view those types of things as necessarily bad, but a lot of people will put justice for that individual's acts above justice in the process.
Two wrongs could spur reform though.
No, Sony does. (Maybe slightly NSFW depending on what picture thumbnails are randomly chosen.)
Just like cigarette ads aren't intended to target kids either...
You can set it so that you have separate taskbars. Not sure where; I don't see it during a quick survey of the options, but it definitely does it on my computer.
They are all posted within an absolute limit of just under two minutes of each other, so it's not your standard redundant post.
And I trust that you stay away from doctor and dentist offices, hospatials, and other places where you can recieve artifical medical care? Hell, you should leave the band-aids on the shelf... just let nature run its course.
As others have said many, many places, the new Supes movie has been in production for a long time. When I was still a huge Superman nerd like 10 years ago or something and running around the school playground with a red cape they were working on Superman 5. Nicholas Cage was considered for Superman's role, and Luthor's headquarters was supposed to be the PPG building in Pittsburgh (which, by the way, is awesome). See http://home.netcom.com/~speaker6/what/superman.htm l; it's from 1997, and says Cage is playing Superman. That's over 7 years ago.
What I don't see any mention of in the replies is that Douglas Adams had been working on producing the movie since at least the early 90's, and it didn't get much of anywhere.
"Dean Cain was a better Clark Kent, but Reeve will never be topped as Superman."
I disagree... I think one of the most brilliant thing about Reeve's performance was the difference between how he played Clark Kent and how he played Superman. I mean, you really could have put them beside each other and convinced me they were different actors.
The scene in Lois's apartment right after Superman left and Clark showed up and Lois is wandering around the apartment stunned, and Clark takes off his glasses, stands up straight, and says "Lois, there's something I have to tell you," illustrates this perfectly. There's such a difference between timid, bumbling Clark Kent and majestic (for lack of a better word) Superman.
Most people involved in the shooting deny that the 'Carrie!' line happened. The soundtrack is rather muttled, so it's not clear either way.
From reading the relevant statutes it sounds like both manufacturer and distributer is culpable.
I don't see an article, and the summary only lists like 3 of 34 companies being sued, so they are probably going after everyone.
"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
271 USC 35
I'm not sure most people would agree that $1K is "quite cheap". Even on the cost of, say, a $25K car, that's quite a bit...
The idea of being rescued by a rat may not appeal to many people
I bet it'd appeal more to most people than 'don't be rescued' though...
News reporter: "Another malfunction, another delay. What could be going through a man's mind at a time like this?"
Shepard: (looks around uncomfortably) "Gordo? Gordo, I have to urinate..."
-The Right Stuff
Some senator/representative probably: "How do you go to the bathroom in space?"
Jim Lovell: "Well, I tell you, it's a complicated procedure involving rolling down the window and looking for a gas station."
-Apollo 13
"so if the owner of Mona Lisa disagrees with you publishing that photo, you're open for lawsuits."
I don't think there's much to worry about in that department...
Did your brain block out the "and under $1K" bit of that? Even distribution without commercial gain is criminal if actual damages are above $1,000.
"If someone walks into a bar and shoots 10 patrons dead, one can't say that it was a single murder."
Yeah, because the law against murder doesn't have a provision that a serial murder is one murder. Copyright infringement does have such a provision: "For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work." (Last sentence 17 USC 504, (c)(1))
Well, I would say that if the card wasn't claimed within a week, it would be the best way...
But I would bet that this guy got home, went "damn it, I left my card in the taxi", and gave them a call to see if anyone turned it in.
They'd be derivitive works if not blatant copies of the original, and you would be equally liable for posting them.
"It may be also argued that he used the illegally obtained materials for profit"
How? He's not selling them. He's not selling ad space. He's not using them to promote himself. Hell, the only clue we have to his identity from what I see is a gmail address.
"Finally, if anyone gets hurt or killed because of his disclosure, he goes to jail. That scenario is not impossible at all if, for example, some of photographed people have more than one {boy,girl}friend who is violent and jealous."
EXTREMELY unlikely, even if that were the case. The disconnect between the act of putting what are pretty typical pictures up online and causing someone else to voluntarily commit battery is really pushing the limits of forseeability. Even in a civil case it would be very hard hard to prove negligence, and criminal negligence (let alone recklessness or intent) is an even higher standard.
"so i stole $5 from the person who dropped the $5 bill in the parking lot. no one was to be seen, it was the middle of the night. i hardly think you're right here"
Depends on where you are. For instance, in 1993 a Mass DA had to decide whether to apply a statute requiring people who find property over $3 to turn it in to the police station in the case of a family that found a $10,000 lottery ticket. (The actual owner later looked for it in the same location.) Ultimately, the family was not charged. Though it's an interesting question to ponder if the father had not been the local fire chief and a very respected member of the town if the outcome would have been different.
So unless you've looked at NY law specifically, don't think you know what it says.
(I personally have not looked either, so I remain neutral. I apologize if you have.)
Just reading the statute, I think it's unlikely.
I mean, there's nothing the author does differently when the month changes; it's all posted daily. I think the best argument you could make is that it's a weekly serial, since there aren't posts on weekends.
I'd have to go through and look at court decisions though to try to find out more specifically. Maybe if I get some free time and a sadistic streak I'll go after the Shepard's volumes in the library...
Uh, read the law... it makes a big difference if it is for commercial gain or not.
Infringement for personal commercial gain is a criminal offense; infringement without personal commercial benefit (and under $1K) is not.