I work in a team that, among other things, does forensic acquisitions of electronic devices on a regular basis, including with the police.
This type of scenario is what we scare the new recruits with when we have them in day-1 training. So much effort goes into acquiring devices (warrants, court orders, co-ordination, deployment, police presence, etc) and there's so much riding on the (potential) evidence on them that it would be devastating to go through all of that effort only to be foiled by a remote wipe.
It is best practice to turn the device on airplane mode as soon as the device comes into your possession, and/or put it in a faraday bag. There are special ones made specifically for mobile phones that have windows in them so you can see the device's screen. They cost $200. The acquisition and chain of custody forms you have to fill in when acquiring a device in the field usually even have a box you have to tick to indicate that you have put it in flight mode.
tldr; there are robust best practises in place, they weren't followed in this case.
Google US is in the US. Google UK is in the UK and follows local law with no regard for US law. And so on and so forth ad infinitum. You are right, of course, to apply US law in the US. My point with this post is just that you should not assume that the law you state above will be the case everywhere, merely because Google has its HQ in the US.
2. Reach a ruling that is in contradiction to the law as written. Being the Supreme Court this is not really a appealing option so the path of least resistance were chosen. Screw over a bunch of cocky nerds by not granting their appeal.
The Supreme Court cannot 'reach a ruling in contradiction with the law'. While courts can interprate the law, they cannot operate outside of it or even create law. That is for Parliament to do. The Courts job is to apply the law.
Here's my translation of the letter they sent them. Anything in []'s are my own additions.
Participation in copyright infringement
The Rights Alliance represent among others Noble Entertainment, Nordic Film and SF [Swedish Film], companies which hold the copyright to many Swedish movies that without permission are made available to the public through the Pirate Bay. The Pirate Party and Serious Tubes provide internet access to the Pirate Bay.
In February 2012 the Supreme Court decided to not allow an appeal in the so called Pirate Bay case. Through that decision it was established that not only those who administrate an illegal file sharing service but also those that provide internet access to such an illegal service make themselves guilty of a crime. Despite the fact that the Court has made this clear you continue to do so [provide the internet access]. Since all legal avenues have been exhausted, the only thing left for us to do is request that you cease providing internet access to the Pirate Bay
Through this letter you are formally informed that infringement of rights that are protected by copy right law are occurring through the Pirate Bay and that you participate in these infringements by providing internet access to the Pirate Bay.
Copyright law provides that an injunction can be imposed on those that participate in copyright infringement, fines being the consequence of non-compliance. Liability for damages for any harm caused is also established. These rules apply to among others juridical persons [companies], including non-profit/charitable organisations like the Pirate Bay and Serious Tubes, their board of directors and other associates.
According to copy right law, participating in copyright infringement is extensive. Four people have been handed prison terms and significant damages for participation in copyright infringement for, inter alia [among other things], participation in the running of and the supply of broadband internet/internet access to the Pirate Bay. Furthermore, Svea Hovratt [the Court of Appeal, inferior only to the Supreme Court] have forbidden two companies with threats of fines of 500000 SEK (US$ 80000; £52000) from in the first case supplying internet access to Pirate Bay and in the second case from providing internet access to a tracker that was used for illegal file sharing (Svea Hovratt Case No. Ö 7131-09, Case No. Ö 8873-09 and Case No. Ö 10146-09. Furthermore, Stockholm District Court established by judgment of the 16th of October 2012 the injunctions established by Svea Hovratt in Svea Hovratt Case No’s Ö 7131-09 and 8873-09 (Stockholm District Court Case No. T 7540-09 and Case No. T 11712-09.
With this as a background the copyright holders that we represent request that the Pirate Party and Serious Tubes immediately cease supplying internet access to the Pirate Bay. If notification of having done so has not been received by latest the 26th of February 2013 the Rights Alliance will pursue legal action against you without further communications.
If you would like more information you are welcome to contact us.
Kind regards,
Sara Lindback The Rights Alliance.
-------
They're using scare tactics. They are referring to cases and trying to make it look like those cases have established that what they are doing is illegal by analogy, but I seriously doubt any Court would entertain that notion and I would expect that they would try any case fully on its merits. I think that becomes even more apparent when they threaten to go after the board of directors personally and threaten that they can be held liable for damages for the copyright infringement in personam [out of their own pockets].
Thank you for this robust answer - I was just gearing up to write something similar when I came upon your retort.
As a Swede and a University of London LL.B. finalist, having followed this discussion for some time now, I have seriously questioned why people seem to think that Sweden would be more likely than the UK (a United States war ally) to extradite to the US. It is an absurd assumption.
There are areas of the law where there is presumed consent. They are 'desirable' activities so to speak. These include sports (particularly contact sports), the fact that you may get jostled on the underground in the morning on your way to work, etc.
Well, kind of. The actors wouldn't be off the hook if they did something that the photographers and other present would be liable for since you cannot consent to sex akin to BDSM (you cannot consent to bodily harm that isn't desirable ie contact sports/surgery): R v Brown (the Spanner Case): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown (this was a 1993 case in which homosexual men consentually engaged in BDSM were all sentenced).
In law school the above case is taught alongside (well it was at mine anyway) a 1996 case (after R v Brown), R v Wilson, in which a man used an iron poke to brand his wifes ass. The act was considered to be akin to tattoo and consent was a defence. The man was not held liable because it could not be established that this was 'undesirable' activity, and contrasted to R v Brown where in fact none of the men were 'hurt' per se. In R v Slingsby (1995) a man who fisted his wife whilst wearing a ring tore her vagina and she developed a blood infection and eventually died. Because this sexual act gave 'pleasure' and was consentual this was held to be a defence. (???)
There is a terrible discrepency in how the law is applied to heterosexual couples and how it is applied to homosexuals engaged in seemingly LESS culpable acts. There were demonstrations at Russell Square in London in the 90s when these cases were coming about.
The ISP I currently use (AAISP) are certainly not blocking it (see http://revk.www.me.uk/2012/05/blocking-pirate-bay.html for a blog entry oin the subject from one of the ISP's senior people), and no doubt many of the smaller ISPs are not either.
The reason for this is that it would have been too costly and time-consuming to bring an action against every last ISP in the UK. It sufficed to go after the six main ones because they hold 94% of the UK internet users, which I assume they felt was 'good enough'.
From the first line of the judgement:
Dramatico Entertainment Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch)
Judgment
Arnold J.: Introduction
1 The claimants are record companies claiming on their own behalf and in a representative capacity on behalf of the other members of BPI (British Recorded Music Industry) Ltd (“BPI”) and Phonographic Performance Ltd (“PPL”). The Defendants are the six main retail internet service providers (“ISPs”). Between them they have a fixed line market share of some 94 per cent of UK internet users. By this claim the claimants seek an injunction against the defendants pursuant to s.97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”), which implements art.8(3) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (“the Information Societ
I'm English and most of my fellow countrymen are quite happy for Scotland to be independent. Think it would do both countries a lot of good to be honest..
Either full independence, or atleast lets introduce a federal system here. The current system where Westminster has devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament (and the Welsh Assembly and the NI Assembly) is unmanageable for several reasons.
I think the most important one must be that Westminster can at will take back all of those powers (and has! Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and then again in 1991. I think they only got back to full devolution in May of 2007). Another is the Westlothian question where there has become an assymetry of polities due to the assymetrical nature of the UK devolution. English MPs cannot vote in the Scottish Parliament on matters regarding Scotland (which makes perfect sense), but Welsh, Irish and Scottish MPs can vote on matters which affect only England in Westminster. Since creating an English Parliament would be overly costly (and where are we going to get a new cohort of politicians, and how will we mobilise an already lack-lustre voting population to vote in yet another election?), I think writing a constitution and creating a federal system somewhere along the lines of the American system would be a good idea. And introduce a constitutional court perhaps! And start a serious investigation into the problems facing us for a future codification of laws.
I'm not an IP lawyer, but I think this judgment makes sense. To use an analogy, they cannot be any more guilty than the post-office is when somebody posts scheduled substances in the mail. Legally (and again this isn't my area), usually when a third party (like the post office, or an ISP) transports something, for the duration of time that they are in possession they are 'merely custodians' or bailiffs. They have no responsibility themselves for the contents.
It would also be, as the BBC article points out, terribly unjust to impose upon them such liability when their only recourse is to terminate the contract with the end user. Courts like business (almost as much as they like consumers). They wouldn't uphold that and certainly wouldn't set such precedent.
I don't know about the US, but not in the UK. I would assume not in the US. On the other hand, if you and I were to talk about visiting those sites, that would be conspiracy, and that would be a crime!
Last week we had an American guy come in and give us a two hour lecture on the topic of Tort. I was surprised when he said that in the US you don't have a tutorial system (true?).
The way undergraduate uni is taught here (UK) is that you get issued about 2-3 hours of reading for the lecture, and then you attend it. Then you get issued more reading + questions and a week later you meet in your allocated tutorial group (10-15 students + lecturer/someone from the dept that is in charge of taking the tutorials for that course) for an hour and discuss the questions. So there are essentially three stages to it. I think it works quite well. I have found that particularly having done reading before the lecture makes you able to take in a lot more since you already have an idea of what is going on, and then the tutorials solidify the material and gives you a deeper understanding. Another pro is that I really don't take very much notes during the lectures since a) i already have notes from my readings, so i just scribble additions to those where necessary and b) i'll have to write more notes for the tutorial, so its more helpful to have paid attention in the lecture than to have tried to take notes furiously for two hours.
I think that the main point of his argument was not to offend anyone but to establish the defenses to copyright infringement, as evidence by his concluding statement: "It is a complete defense in the US though, to prove you never saw the original.". There will be a legal test to determine whether or not you are guilty and never having seen it accomplishes that, hence a complete defense.
I couldn't find a case concerning Monopoly in general but here is one by Hasbro on copyright infringement for Play-Doh that is good law (precedent), on which the facts seem similar enough to apply.
Status: Positive or Neutral Judicial Treatment Positive or Neutral Judicial Treatment *474 Hasbro Inc, Hasbro SA and Hasbro UK Ltd v 123 Nahrmittel GmbH and Marketing & Promotional Services Ltd
High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (England and Wales)
11 February 2011 [2011] EWHC 199 (Ch) [2011] E.T.M.R. 25
Floyd J. :
February 11, 2011
Confusion; Declarations of invalidity; Descriptive names; Honest practices; Infringement; Passing off; Revocation; Trade marks
H1 Community and national trade marks—PLAY-DOH (Classes 16, 25, 28—toys and modelling compositions)—Use by competitor of strap line “The edible play dough”—Action for trade mark infringement and passing off—Counterclaim for declaration of invalidity and revocation—Mark held validly registered—Counterclaims rejected—Infringement found—Whether defence of honest commercial use—Defence dismissed.
H2 The claimant companies, which made and sold among other products a children’s pre-mixed modelling composition, marketed that product under the trade mark PLAY-DOH for which the first claimant was the registered proprietor of one Community trade mark in Classes 16, 25 and 28 and two United Kingdom trade marks, dating back to 1970 and 1986 respectively, for goods in Class 16. The first defendant manufactured abroad, and sold in the United Kingdom, a powdered dough mix under the name YUMMY DOUGH. The YUMMY DOUGH product was promoted in the United Kingdom as “The edible play dough”, these words being printed in a single strap line across the bottom of the packet (illustrated in the judgment). In addition to the strap line, the words “PLAY DOUGH MIX” appeared in the top left-hand corner of the YUMMY DOUGH packet and the words “COLOURED EDIBLE PLAY DOUGH MIX” appeared in a smaller type size than that of the strap line on the side of the packet.
H3 Alleging that the defendants’ importation and sale of its YUMMY DOUGH in packaging that alluded to their own PLAY-DOH trade mark constituted an infringement of the rights in their mark, the claimants commenced infringement proceedings against the defendant. Following an application for interim injunctive relief a consent order was made in which each of the defendants gave temporary undertakings “not to undertake any material re-brand prior to judgment or further order in this action ”. The undertakings were very wide and, if they were to be made permanent at trial, their effect would be to freeze the defendants’ marketing of YUMMY DOUGH within very tight constraints in perpetuity. *475
H4 At trial, the claimants’ case rested on two separate bases: (i) infringement of each of their registered trade marks; (ii) passing off, this claim being based on the goodwill which the claimants maintained that they had acquired through use of the PLAY-DOH mark in the United Kingdom. The defendants counterclaimed for: (i) a declaration that the claimants’ registered trade marks had been invalidly registered because they lacked distinctiveness or were descriptive, and (ii) revocation of the claimants’ registered trade marks on the basis that the words “play dough” had become a common term in the trade for the products in question or on account of the claimants’ inactivity. The defendants also raised a defence to the action for trade mark infringement that their use of the signs complained of was an indication of the kind of goods they sold and that such use was in accordance with honest practices in industrial commercial matters under art.6 of the Trade Mark Directive .
H5 Held , by the High Court, that the claimants’ trade marks were valid and that they had been infringed.
I would have to disagree with you and agree with eln, the only pre-requisite as far as how many times it has happened to amount to a tortious claim in harassment is that it has happened more than once one more than one occasion. To give you an example, if your girlfriend dumps you and you call her all afternoon, that does not constitute harassment: you would have to do it again the next day.
You would have no recourse in the criminal law, the calls would have to amount to a battery arising from an immediate apprehension of fear of physical violence (subjective). Civil litigation would be the way to go and the test is set out for you above.
IANAL, but I have fun with a DSLR, and educate myself on what I legally can or can't do with it.
IAAL and you have fundamentally misunderstood what has happened here. Since you like to educate yourself, I'll share some of my precious time;)
This is not happening pursuant to any general laws relating to photography, which are probably quite similar in the UK and the US, but under under contract law.
As I understand this situation... When the occupant (that is the resident owner, or leaseholder) of private property (eg. a shopping centre) sets conditions of entry, and displays these conditions of entry in a place visible to the entrant, the entrant is taken to have agreed to those conditions by virtue of entering the premises. The quid pro quo here is that you agree to be bound by the conditions of entry, in return for an undertaking by the occupant not to sue you in trespass.
This is, for example, what gives supermarkets the "right" (it isn't a right, you've just given permission) to search your bags where this is stipulated in the conditions of entry.
The shopping centre in question apparently made it a condition of entry that no photographs be taken by entrants. And this gentleman was apparently in breach. I have not read the conditions of entry, but they may have included an agreement to surrender all "... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.
I doubt that this works very differently in the US, the UK or indeed any other common law country, (although there may be some variance as to what limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable).
Confiscation of cameras in the US is theft.
"Confiscation" without a statutory right of confiscation (as some LEOs may have) or the consent of the owner, has been a common-law crime in Britain since at least the 12th century and a statutory one since the 19th, known variously as 'larceny' and 'theft.' Without reading the actual conditions, however, we don't know whether or not the gentleman in question had agreed (albeit unwittingly) to hand over his camera.
The story, I'm led to believe, has a happy ending, the corporation in question having agreed to remove this onerous condition.
The larger problem --the privatisation of the High Street and the concomitant abrogation of individual rights this involves --is, in the face of the relentless invasion of the mall, unlikely to be so happily resolved.
I'm a law student and while I agree with the fundamental points which you make here but I do have some concerns regarding the onerous (a legal term which means, in this context, unfair) terms set out in these supposed notices.
I believe that it was in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking where Lord Denning said that some terms are so onerous that you would have to have those terms printed in big red letters with arrows pointing towards them (bless him).
In Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd an exemption on the part of the hotel (in the case) was not held to give rise to an exemption because the notice was presented too late. To apply this to this case I should think that the notice would have to be a quite large sign (large enough to be noticed by a reasonable man taking reasonable efforts) on the outside of the mall - that is to say before entry as entry would constitute offer and acceptance and the contract would be formed (you would at that point have agreed to the terms). If they didn't go to reasonable lengths to inform this man and his child (the sign wasn't sufficiently large or something like that) then Parker v SE Railways Co may give relief.
You, sir, have the finest licensing agreement that I have ever seen in the introduction of your book. I was genuinely moved.
I enjoyed that too!
However I am in law school and that is a pretty air-tight agreement.
"You are allowed to use it, view it, modify it without permission of the author Eugene Blanchard, provided that you agree to the following"
So let's say you wanted to do the most basic thing with this book, all you wanted to do was read it. That would come under "use" in the above. So if you want to read this book without the authors permission you would have to fulfill all of the following conditions:
* That you will try to be a better person today than yesterday.
* That you will exercise your body as well as your mind.
* That you will tell the persons dear to you that you love them.
* That you will defend the rights of those who are unable to defend themselves.
* That you will not hurt your family members emotionally or physically.
* That you will respect your elders and care for them in time of need.
* That you will respect the rights of others in their religious beliefs.
* That you will respect the rights of others in their sexual orientation.
* That every man, woman and child has the right to be here and is equal regardless of race, creed or color.
* That you will act honorably in all aspects of your personal and business life.
* That your family is first and foremost the most important thing in your life.
* That when you make a mistake, that you admit it and make amends.
Perhaps the agreement should have been worded differently. That one should try to aspire to these goals rather than that they are pre-requisites for use:P Even a saint couldn't do all of these things and if Mr. Blanchard wanted to sue, any two-bit lawyer could prove that the defendant fell short of at least one of these clauses.
On another note, I doubt it will come to that and having to read boring contracts all day long, I enjoyed this one:) Thanks.
It wasn't a "silly rant against capitalism", it was criticism towards the fact that in a country that boasts free market and capitalism, you are limited to a quasi-communistic "if you need glasses, you can either have the blue ones, or the red ones".
I am born and raised in a socialist country, and now loving in Phoenix, AZ, and I must insist that i feel very small in the run of things here. I am free to walk into any store, sure, but if I choose one store over the other, the impact is negligible.
Where I come from, if I do the same thing, I actually feel like I make a difference in choosing the store that offers better customer service.
Since 42nd is a kind of major street, it would be very cool to have it renamed after Douglas Adams! We could open a Don't Panic Coffee Shop (or electronic gadget store).
Or, A Restaurant At The End Of The Universe.
Or, even cooler, a Bar At The End Of The Universe, the signiature drink being a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaste.
Recently, we have seen several full-length features from our favorite TV-series. Family Guy, the movie. Simpsons, the movie.
One thing both of these lacked were going back and not only recalling, but intertwining our favorite side-characters into the plot.
Futurama does this beautifully and we see not only commonly featured side-characters, but characters that hard-core fans will rejoice to see, and I _wont_ give any examples here, because every element of surprise in this movie is what makes it worth watching.
I want to stress that I was very critical to the idea of a movie after such a long pause, and I was a die-hard fan. I signed the online petition all of those years ago when it got canceled (rumor has it all those signatures got printed and transported to box the CEO of FOX into his office, but thats only a rumor as far as I know). Having said this, I want to ensure everyone that even if you go into the movie with high expectations - they will be exceeded.
The plot may seem tangled, but the writers don't leave anything out. Nothing is "forgotten", like in Lost.
If you watched the TV-series, you will love this. If you didn't - tough luck (but you will probably wind up loving it anyway). Its literally a celebration of all of the five seasons aired on television, and its impressive that they did this without repeating anything.
All of the old themes are brought back - its like the show never went off the air. You will straight off the bat be able to re-identify with characters and feel the same way about the show you did all of those years ago.
A few years ago, I had an Ericsson T28 (GSM), and it had a function called Cell Info. All of my others phones (GSM) have had it, but I only ever noticed it when I was in Denmark in 2003. Living in Stockholm (Sweden), I never noticed it, and turning it on did nothing - but as soon as I crossed the bridge, it would tell me exactly where I was, right under where it told me which operator I was connected to.
(example) S Comviq Main Boulevard 3, Copenhagen
My guess at the time was that three (or more) towers were triangulating me, and that the towers had some built in map, since it was sending me that information. My guess isn't any better today, and I haven't gotten cell info again since then, but I also haven't been back to Copenhagen.
Pretty cool - but as far as privacy issues go.. if anyone could program a phone to ask the network - or clone that phones ID - and have the towers tell you where subscriber with phone number 123 456 789 is, that wouldn't be all to great. It also isn't impossible that people working for the operator could query this.
In case anyone didnt get that (even though usually you can grok the meaning in context), Hauptbahnhof = Central Station, Flughafen = Airport.
And I have to say that I agree with the parent, I was in Frankfurt two months ago, had never been there before. Rode the normal s-bahn from the hauptbahnhof to the flughafen. It was really straight-forward and it only took 10-15 minutes, I dont see a need to cut that trip in half.
Slashdot Mirror
I work in a team that, among other things, does forensic acquisitions of electronic devices on a regular basis, including with the police.
This type of scenario is what we scare the new recruits with when we have them in day-1 training. So much effort goes into acquiring devices (warrants, court orders, co-ordination, deployment, police presence, etc) and there's so much riding on the (potential) evidence on them that it would be devastating to go through all of that effort only to be foiled by a remote wipe.
It is best practice to turn the device on airplane mode as soon as the device comes into your possession, and/or put it in a faraday bag. There are special ones made specifically for mobile phones that have windows in them so you can see the device's screen. They cost $200. The acquisition and chain of custody forms you have to fill in when acquiring a device in the field usually even have a box you have to tick to indicate that you have put it in flight mode.
tldr; there are robust best practises in place, they weren't followed in this case.
John Stankey's email address is JS9991@att.com.
Google US is in the US. Google UK is in the UK and follows local law with no regard for US law. And so on and so forth ad infinitum. You are right, of course, to apply US law in the US. My point with this post is just that you should not assume that the law you state above will be the case everywhere, merely because Google has its HQ in the US.
2. Reach a ruling that is in contradiction to the law as written. Being the Supreme Court this is not really a appealing option so the path of least resistance were chosen. Screw over a bunch of cocky nerds by not granting their appeal.
The Supreme Court cannot 'reach a ruling in contradiction with the law'. While courts can interprate the law, they cannot operate outside of it or even create law. That is for Parliament to do. The Courts job is to apply the law.
Here's my translation of the letter they sent them. Anything in []'s are my own additions.
Participation in copyright infringement
The Rights Alliance represent among others Noble Entertainment, Nordic Film and SF [Swedish Film], companies which hold the copyright to many Swedish movies that without permission are made available to the public through the Pirate Bay. The Pirate Party and Serious Tubes provide internet access to the Pirate Bay.
In February 2012 the Supreme Court decided to not allow an appeal in the so called Pirate Bay case. Through that decision it was established that not only those who administrate an illegal file sharing service but also those that provide internet access to such an illegal service make themselves guilty of a crime. Despite the fact that the Court has made this clear you continue to do so [provide the internet access]. Since all legal avenues have been exhausted, the only thing left for us to do is request that you cease providing internet access to the Pirate Bay
Through this letter you are formally informed that infringement of rights that are protected by copy right law are occurring through the Pirate Bay and that you participate in these infringements by providing internet access to the Pirate Bay.
Copyright law provides that an injunction can be imposed on those that participate in copyright infringement, fines being the consequence of non-compliance. Liability for damages for any harm caused is also established. These rules apply to among others juridical persons [companies], including non-profit/charitable organisations like the Pirate Bay and Serious Tubes, their board of directors and other associates.
According to copy right law, participating in copyright infringement is extensive. Four people have been handed prison terms and significant damages for participation in copyright infringement for, inter alia [among other things], participation in the running of and the supply of broadband internet/internet access to the Pirate Bay. Furthermore, Svea Hovratt [the Court of Appeal, inferior only to the Supreme Court] have forbidden two companies with threats of fines of 500000 SEK (US$ 80000; £52000) from in the first case supplying internet access to Pirate Bay and in the second case from providing internet access to a tracker that was used for illegal file sharing (Svea Hovratt Case No. Ö 7131-09, Case No. Ö 8873-09 and Case No. Ö 10146-09. Furthermore, Stockholm District Court established by judgment of the 16th of October 2012 the injunctions established by Svea Hovratt in Svea Hovratt Case No’s Ö 7131-09 and 8873-09 (Stockholm District Court Case No. T 7540-09 and Case No. T 11712-09.
With this as a background the copyright holders that we represent request that the Pirate Party and Serious Tubes immediately cease supplying internet access to the Pirate Bay. If notification of having done so has not been received by latest the 26th of February 2013 the Rights Alliance will pursue legal action against you without further communications.
If you would like more information you are welcome to contact us.
Kind regards,
Sara Lindback
The Rights Alliance.
-------
They're using scare tactics. They are referring to cases and trying to make it look like those cases have established that what they are doing is illegal by analogy, but I seriously doubt any Court would entertain that notion and I would expect that they would try any case fully on its merits. I think that becomes even more apparent when they threaten to go after the board of directors personally and threaten that they can be held liable for damages for the copyright infringement in personam [out of their own pockets].
Thank you for this robust answer - I was just gearing up to write something similar when I came upon your retort.
As a Swede and a University of London LL.B. finalist, having followed this discussion for some time now, I have seriously questioned why people seem to think that Sweden would be more likely than the UK (a United States war ally) to extradite to the US. It is an absurd assumption.
There are areas of the law where there is presumed consent. They are 'desirable' activities so to speak. These include sports (particularly contact sports), the fact that you may get jostled on the underground in the morning on your way to work, etc.
Well, kind of. The actors wouldn't be off the hook if they did something that the photographers and other present would be liable for since you cannot consent to sex akin to BDSM (you cannot consent to bodily harm that isn't desirable ie contact sports/surgery): R v Brown (the Spanner Case): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown (this was a 1993 case in which homosexual men consentually engaged in BDSM were all sentenced).
In law school the above case is taught alongside (well it was at mine anyway) a 1996 case (after R v Brown), R v Wilson, in which a man used an iron poke to brand his wifes ass. The act was considered to be akin to tattoo and consent was a defence. The man was not held liable because it could not be established that this was 'undesirable' activity, and contrasted to R v Brown where in fact none of the men were 'hurt' per se. In R v Slingsby (1995) a man who fisted his wife whilst wearing a ring tore her vagina and she developed a blood infection and eventually died. Because this sexual act gave 'pleasure' and was consentual this was held to be a defence. (???)
There is a terrible discrepency in how the law is applied to heterosexual couples and how it is applied to homosexuals engaged in seemingly LESS culpable acts. There were demonstrations at Russell Square in London in the 90s when these cases were coming about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_(criminal_law)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown
Wish I had mod points to mod you up. What is going on in this country?!
Only the larger ISPs are blocking it, it seems.
The ISP I currently use (AAISP) are certainly not blocking it (see http://revk.www.me.uk/2012/05/blocking-pirate-bay.html for a blog entry oin the subject from one of the ISP's senior people), and no doubt many of the smaller ISPs are not either.
The reason for this is that it would have been too costly and time-consuming to bring an action against every last ISP in the UK. It sufficed to go after the six main ones because they hold 94% of the UK internet users, which I assume they felt was 'good enough'.
From the first line of the judgement:
Dramatico Entertainment Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch)
Judgment
Arnold J.:
Introduction
1 The claimants are record companies claiming on their own behalf and in a representative capacity on behalf of the other members of BPI (British Recorded Music Industry) Ltd (“BPI”) and Phonographic Performance Ltd (“PPL”). The Defendants are the six main retail internet service providers (“ISPs”). Between them they have a fixed line market share of some 94 per cent of UK internet users. By this claim the claimants seek an injunction against the defendants pursuant to s.97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”), which implements art.8(3) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (“the Information Societ
I'm English and most of my fellow countrymen are quite happy for Scotland to be independent. Think it would do both countries a lot of good to be honest. .
Either full independence, or atleast lets introduce a federal system here. The current system where Westminster has devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament (and the Welsh Assembly and the NI Assembly) is unmanageable for several reasons.
I think the most important one must be that Westminster can at will take back all of those powers (and has! Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and then again in 1991. I think they only got back to full devolution in May of 2007). Another is the Westlothian question where there has become an assymetry of polities due to the assymetrical nature of the UK devolution. English MPs cannot vote in the Scottish Parliament on matters regarding Scotland (which makes perfect sense), but Welsh, Irish and Scottish MPs can vote on matters which affect only England in Westminster. Since creating an English Parliament would be overly costly (and where are we going to get a new cohort of politicians, and how will we mobilise an already lack-lustre voting population to vote in yet another election?), I think writing a constitution and creating a federal system somewhere along the lines of the American system would be a good idea. And introduce a constitutional court perhaps! And start a serious investigation into the problems facing us for a future codification of laws.
I'm not an IP lawyer, but I think this judgment makes sense.
To use an analogy, they cannot be any more guilty than the post-office is when somebody posts scheduled substances in the mail.
Legally (and again this isn't my area), usually when a third party (like the post office, or an ISP) transports something, for the duration of time that they are in possession they are 'merely custodians' or bailiffs. They have no responsibility themselves for the contents.
It would also be, as the BBC article points out, terribly unjust to impose upon them such liability when their only recourse is to terminate the contract with the end user. Courts like business (almost as much as they like consumers). They wouldn't uphold that and certainly wouldn't set such precedent.
I don't know about the US, but not in the UK. I would assume not in the US.
On the other hand, if you and I were to talk about visiting those sites, that would be conspiracy, and that would be a crime!
It's a funny one.
Last week we had an American guy come in and give us a two hour lecture on the topic of Tort. I was surprised when he said that in the US you don't have a tutorial system (true?).
The way undergraduate uni is taught here (UK) is that you get issued about 2-3 hours of reading for the lecture, and then you attend it. Then you get issued more reading + questions and a week later you meet in your allocated tutorial group (10-15 students + lecturer/someone from the dept that is in charge of taking the tutorials for that course) for an hour and discuss the questions. So there are essentially three stages to it. I think it works quite well. I have found that particularly having done reading before the lecture makes you able to take in a lot more since you already have an idea of what is going on, and then the tutorials solidify the material and gives you a deeper understanding. Another pro is that I really don't take very much notes during the lectures since a) i already have notes from my readings, so i just scribble additions to those where necessary and b) i'll have to write more notes for the tutorial, so its more helpful to have paid attention in the lecture than to have tried to take notes furiously for two hours.
I think that the main point of his argument was not to offend anyone but to establish the defenses to copyright infringement, as evidence by his concluding statement: "It is a complete defense in the US though, to prove you never saw the original.". There will be a legal test to determine whether or not you are guilty and never having seen it accomplishes that, hence a complete defense.
I couldn't find a case concerning Monopoly in general but here is one by Hasbro on copyright infringement for Play-Doh that is good law (precedent), on which the facts seem similar enough to apply.
Status: Positive or Neutral Judicial Treatment Positive or Neutral Judicial Treatment
*474 Hasbro Inc, Hasbro SA and Hasbro UK Ltd v 123 Nahrmittel GmbH and Marketing & Promotional Services Ltd
High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (England and Wales)
11 February 2011
[2011] EWHC 199 (Ch)
[2011] E.T.M.R. 25
Floyd J. :
February 11, 2011
Confusion; Declarations of invalidity; Descriptive names; Honest practices; Infringement; Passing off; Revocation; Trade marks
H1 Community and national trade marks—PLAY-DOH (Classes 16, 25, 28—toys and modelling compositions)—Use by competitor of strap line “The edible play dough”—Action for trade mark infringement and passing off—Counterclaim for declaration of invalidity and revocation—Mark held validly registered—Counterclaims rejected—Infringement found—Whether defence of honest commercial use—Defence dismissed.
H2 The claimant companies, which made and sold among other products a children’s pre-mixed modelling composition, marketed that product under the trade mark PLAY-DOH for which the first claimant was the registered proprietor of one Community trade mark in Classes 16, 25 and 28 and two United Kingdom trade marks, dating back to 1970 and 1986 respectively, for goods in Class 16. The first defendant manufactured abroad, and sold in the United Kingdom, a powdered dough mix under the name YUMMY DOUGH. The YUMMY DOUGH product was promoted in the United Kingdom as “The edible play dough”, these words being printed in a single strap line across the bottom of the packet (illustrated in the judgment). In addition to the strap line, the words “PLAY DOUGH MIX” appeared in the top left-hand corner of the YUMMY DOUGH packet and the words “COLOURED EDIBLE PLAY DOUGH MIX” appeared in a smaller type size than that of the strap line on the side of the packet.
H3 Alleging that the defendants’ importation and sale of its YUMMY DOUGH in packaging that alluded to their own PLAY-DOH trade mark constituted an infringement of the rights in their mark, the claimants commenced infringement proceedings against the defendant. Following an application for interim injunctive relief a consent order was made in which each of the defendants gave temporary undertakings “not to undertake any material re-brand prior to judgment or further order in this action ”. The undertakings were very wide and, if they were to be made permanent at trial, their effect would be to freeze the defendants’ marketing of YUMMY DOUGH within very tight constraints in perpetuity. *475
H4 At trial, the claimants’ case rested on two separate bases: (i) infringement of each of their registered trade marks; (ii) passing off, this claim being based on the goodwill which the claimants maintained that they had acquired through use of the PLAY-DOH mark in the United Kingdom. The defendants counterclaimed for: (i) a declaration that the claimants’ registered trade marks had been invalidly registered because they lacked distinctiveness or were descriptive, and (ii) revocation of the claimants’ registered trade marks on the basis that the words “play dough” had become a common term in the trade for the products in question or on account of the claimants’ inactivity. The defendants also raised a defence to the action for trade mark infringement that their use of the signs complained of was an indication of the kind of goods they sold and that such use was in accordance with honest practices in industrial commercial matters under art.6 of the Trade Mark Directive .
H5 Held , by the High Court, that the claimants’ trade marks were valid and that they had been infringed.
I would have to disagree with you and agree with eln, the only pre-requisite as far as how many times it has happened to amount to a tortious claim in harassment is that it has happened more than once one more than one occasion. To give you an example, if your girlfriend dumps you and you call her all afternoon, that does not constitute harassment: you would have to do it again the next day.
You would have no recourse in the criminal law, the calls would have to amount to a battery arising from an immediate apprehension of fear of physical violence (subjective). Civil litigation would be the way to go and the test is set out for you above.
IANAL, but I have fun with a DSLR, and educate myself on what I legally can or can't do with it.
IAAL and you have fundamentally misunderstood what has happened here. Since you like to educate yourself, I'll share some of my precious time ;)
This is not happening pursuant to any general laws relating to photography, which are probably quite similar in the UK and the US, but under under contract law.
As I understand this situation... When the occupant (that is the resident owner, or leaseholder) of private property (eg. a shopping centre) sets conditions of entry, and displays these conditions of entry in a place visible to the entrant, the entrant is taken to have agreed to those conditions by virtue of entering the premises. The quid pro quo here is that you agree to be bound by the conditions of entry, in return for an undertaking by the occupant not to sue you in trespass.
This is, for example, what gives supermarkets the "right" (it isn't a right, you've just given permission) to search your bags where this is stipulated in the conditions of entry.
The shopping centre in question apparently made it a condition of entry that no photographs be taken by entrants. And this gentleman was apparently in breach. I have not read the conditions of entry, but they may have included an agreement to surrender all " ... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.
I doubt that this works very differently in the US, the UK or indeed any other common law country, (although there may be some variance as to what limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable).
Confiscation of cameras in the US is theft.
"Confiscation" without a statutory right of confiscation (as some LEOs may have) or the consent of the owner, has been a common-law crime in Britain since at least the 12th century and a statutory one since the 19th, known variously as 'larceny' and 'theft.' Without reading the actual conditions, however, we don't know whether or not the gentleman in question had agreed (albeit unwittingly) to hand over his camera.
The story, I'm led to believe, has a happy ending, the corporation in question having agreed to remove this onerous condition.
The larger problem --the privatisation of the High Street and the concomitant abrogation of individual rights this involves --is, in the face of the relentless invasion of the mall, unlikely to be so happily resolved.
I'm a law student and while I agree with the fundamental points which you make here but I do have some concerns regarding the onerous (a legal term which means, in this context, unfair) terms set out in these supposed notices.
I believe that it was in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking where Lord Denning said that some terms are so onerous that you would have to have those terms printed in big red letters with arrows pointing towards them (bless him).
In Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd an exemption on the part of the hotel (in the case) was not held to give rise to an exemption because the notice was presented too late. To apply this to this case I should think that the notice would have to be a quite large sign (large enough to be noticed by a reasonable man taking reasonable efforts) on the outside of the mall - that is to say before entry as entry would constitute offer and acceptance and the contract would be formed (you would at that point have agreed to the terms). If they didn't go to reasonable lengths to inform this man and his child (the sign wasn't sufficiently large or something like that) then Parker v SE Railways Co may give relief.
Does this make any sense?
You, sir, have the finest licensing agreement that I have ever seen in the introduction of your book. I was genuinely moved.
I enjoyed that too!
However I am in law school and that is a pretty air-tight agreement.
"You are allowed to use it, view it, modify it without permission of the author Eugene Blanchard, provided that you agree to the following"
So let's say you wanted to do the most basic thing with this book, all you wanted to do was read it. That would come under "use" in the above.
So if you want to read this book without the authors permission you would have to fulfill all of the following conditions:
* That you will try to be a better person today than yesterday.
* That you will exercise your body as well as your mind.
* That you will tell the persons dear to you that you love them.
* That you will defend the rights of those who are unable to defend themselves.
* That you will not hurt your family members emotionally or physically.
* That you will respect your elders and care for them in time of need.
* That you will respect the rights of others in their religious beliefs.
* That you will respect the rights of others in their sexual orientation.
* That every man, woman and child has the right to be here and is equal regardless of race, creed or color.
* That you will act honorably in all aspects of your personal and business life.
* That your family is first and foremost the most important thing in your life.
* That when you make a mistake, that you admit it and make amends.
Perhaps the agreement should have been worded differently. That one should try to aspire to these goals rather than that they are pre-requisites for use :P
Even a saint couldn't do all of these things and if Mr. Blanchard wanted to sue, any two-bit lawyer could prove that the defendant fell short of at least one of these clauses.
On another note, I doubt it will come to that and having to read boring contracts all day long, I enjoyed this one :) Thanks.
It wasn't a "silly rant against capitalism", it was criticism towards the fact that in a country that boasts free market and capitalism, you are limited to a quasi-communistic "if you need glasses, you can either have the blue ones, or the red ones".
I am born and raised in a socialist country, and now loving in Phoenix, AZ, and I must insist that i feel very small in the run of things here. I am free to walk into any store, sure, but if I choose one store over the other, the impact is negligible.
Where I come from, if I do the same thing, I actually feel like I make a difference in choosing the store that offers better customer service.
Or, A Restaurant At The End Of The Universe.
Or, even cooler, a Bar At The End Of The Universe, the signiature drink being a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaste.
Recently, we have seen several full-length features from our favorite TV-series. Family Guy, the movie. Simpsons, the movie.
One thing both of these lacked were going back and not only recalling, but intertwining our favorite side-characters into the plot.
Futurama does this beautifully and we see not only commonly featured side-characters, but characters that hard-core fans will rejoice to see, and I _wont_ give any examples here, because every element of surprise in this movie is what makes it worth watching.
I want to stress that I was very critical to the idea of a movie after such a long pause, and I was a die-hard fan. I signed the online petition all of those years ago when it got canceled (rumor has it all those signatures got printed and transported to box the CEO of FOX into his office, but thats only a rumor as far as I know). Having said this, I want to ensure everyone that even if you go into the movie with high expectations - they will be exceeded.
The plot may seem tangled, but the writers don't leave anything out. Nothing is "forgotten", like in Lost.
If you watched the TV-series, you will love this. If you didn't - tough luck (but you will probably wind up loving it anyway). Its literally a celebration of all of the five seasons aired on television, and its impressive that they did this without repeating anything.
All of the old themes are brought back - its like the show never went off the air. You will straight off the bat be able to re-identify with characters and feel the same way about the show you did all of those years ago.
The ending is _beautiful_.
This is for the fans.
FUTURAMA - -- ---- ---- STAY DEAD!
A few years ago, I had an Ericsson T28 (GSM), and it had a function called Cell Info.
All of my others phones (GSM) have had it, but I only ever noticed it when I was in Denmark in 2003.
Living in Stockholm (Sweden), I never noticed it, and turning it on did nothing - but as soon as I crossed the bridge, it would tell me exactly where I was, right under where it told me which operator I was connected to.
(example)
S Comviq
Main Boulevard 3, Copenhagen
My guess at the time was that three (or more) towers were triangulating me, and that the towers had some built in map, since it was sending me that information. My guess isn't any better today, and I haven't gotten cell info again since then, but I also haven't been back to Copenhagen.
Pretty cool - but as far as privacy issues go.. if anyone could program a phone to ask the network - or clone that phones ID - and have the towers tell you where subscriber with phone number 123 456 789 is, that wouldn't be all to great. It also isn't impossible that people working for the operator could query this.
Je nais sais pas.
First post!
In case anyone didnt get that (even though usually you can grok the meaning in context), Hauptbahnhof = Central Station, Flughafen = Airport.
And I have to say that I agree with the parent, I was in Frankfurt two months ago, had never been there before. Rode the normal s-bahn from the hauptbahnhof to the flughafen. It was really straight-forward and it only took 10-15 minutes, I dont see a need to cut that trip in half.