No, lawn darts didn't go away "because we no longer have the promise of parental oversight." They went away because they were hazardous, were responsible for several deaths, and because one man whose daughter died because of a negligently designed product made it his mission to see that it didn't happen again.
As for the rest of what you said, it has no relation whatsoever to my response.
Sorry, guys; you would have loved a childhood in the early 60's and 70's. So long as you survived. And really, aren't a few dead kids worth the Bag O Glass staying on the market?
How is that bribery? From what you've said, it wasn't that the drug company had paid for the vacation / samples that influenced his prescribing behavior, but rather the availability of the samples and his heightened knowledge of how it worked. Thus, even if a neutral third-party had provided him with the information and the free samples, his prescribing habits would have changed.
It already does, although not labeled as such. It's one of the canons of statutory interpretations: legislatures don't write statutes to produce absurd results. A court might hold that clearly, the Congress could not have meant to allow this sort of thing with the Copyright Act, so it's invalid.
No. The court held that summary judgment was inappropriately granted, because there is a material question of fact regarding whether or not Google engaged in illegal conduct. In other words, if a jury were to believe everything Reid presented, and make reasonable inferences from that evidence, they could reasonably conclude that Google engaged in age discrimination.
Your summary of this case isn't correct. In this case, Quanta purchased licensed chips from Intel. The question presented to the court is whether a clause in LG's license prevents the patent rights from exhaustion when Intel sells the chips to others.
Yet LG only licenses its patents with a clause preventing exhaustion. If such clauses are allowed, the first sale doctrine is meaningless, because patent-holders who want to "dip" multiple times will simply include similar language in their contracts.
If the girl says: I use the the CC, attr. and I allow anyone to use it... why is the "likeness rights" something she has to waive extra (IF she can waive it)? If you can't use her pic under the conditions she agreed to under the CC, then, in practise, you can't use that pic under the conditions of the CC, period. Because "likeness rights" aren't copyright, and the contract that was offered was a release of copyright, and nothing more. It's not true that the picture couldn't be used under the conditions of the CC under any circumstances; a use which did not involve her likeness would be usable. I'm not an expert on likeness rights (not having bothered to take Sports and Entertainment Law), but presumably cropping the picture so that only the "peace sign" that she was holding up would be fine under the CC license used, without the possibility of some sort of "likeness rights" suit. Certainly, using the background would be fine. You're looking too narrowly at the facts in the instant case.
A licence may not be a contract, but you agree to use the licence nevertheless. A license is a contract.
If you waive your rights with a broad claim that anyone may use it, one shouldn't whine if they use it in a way you don't agree with. That's not what the CC does. It says that you won't sue the user for copyright infringement. Further, the human-readable version makes absolutely clear: "Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights."
The CC doesn't deal with other things, true. It just says it can be used as long as there is attribution. There was attribution, so logic would dictate it can be used. No, it doesn't say that at all. It says that, in exchange for the "consideration" of attribution, the copyright holder waives all copyright claims arising from that use of the work.
Your mistake is in assuming that the CC is broader than it really is. All it does is get you past the point of arguing over the right to reproduce, make derivative works, and the like. It's not intended to do more, and it doesn't infringe on "the spirit of the agreement" if one later files claims on another matter.
If I put a picture out in the public domain, thereby waiving any and all copyright claims to it (much more than what CC does), that still doesn't mean that the picture can be used to any purpose under the sun, and it's not hypocritical to attack certain purposes. For instance, if that picture is of me, and is used in a libelous manner, I haven't waived a right to sue for libel over that picture.
Similarly, if I release a bit of code as GPL, that doesn't mean that someone could then use that code to exploit a vulnerability with impunity. The GPL signifies a lifting of copyright claims, not a lifting of any claims under the sun.
CC is not a general license to use a work for whatever the hell anyone wants to use it for. It is a copyright license, and the intent of someone using a CC license is to free the work of the restraints of copyright law. As soon as you stop seeing it as a contract that allows anyone to do anything they want with the work, you'll understand why your argument is baseless.
The Creative Commons license is a COPYRIGHT license. It only governs COPYRIGHT restrictions. The license chosen said, in laymen's terms, "I'm not going to sue you for copyright infringement if you use this image for commercial purposes." Likeness rights are another issue entirely, and one that any marketing department should be familiar with.
There was no sharp practice here. Only a marketing department that didn't do its job, and a few Slashdot posters who are seemingly incapable of understanding that releasing copyright claims doesn't entail releasing all claims.
Copyright licenses only deal with copyright. It doesn't free you from other areas of the law.
Even if the photographer had put the photos up as public domain, waiving all copyright claim to them, Virgin would *still* be liable, because the photographer released his copyright claims, not all possible claims arising from use.
Well, from what I understand of PR, the relevant test is whether a "reasonable person" would consider you to be their attorney when the advice is given. For instance, if you give advice to someone you consider to be a prospective client, you can be sued for malpractice, because that person would reasonably believe that you were giving them sound advice, and take action accordingly. However, if you emphatically tell that person that you're not giving them legal advice, and that if they want legal advice, they should seek out an attorney of their own, you're in the clear.
As to what happens when a non-lawyer looks up a statute, it's unclear, because it's unclear what "practicing law" means, so it's unclear whether you'd be liable for some penalties. I should point out, though, that if you were to held liable for "malpractice," you'd have a lot more to worry about than civil penalties; practicing law without a license is generally a criminal offense. However, you probably don't have to worry. If someone consults with you, knowing that you're not a lawyer, a belief that you are providing "legal advice" in the sense necessary to sustain a malpractice claim would necessarily be "unreasonable," and therefore you'd be off the hook. The moral of the story: if you're going to do that, make sure the person that you're talking to understands that you're a layman.
The reason that I have the disclaimer (and, I suspect, why other Slashdot lawyers / law students do) is because, lawyer jokes aside, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. Since I frequently discuss issues of the law here, I felt it necessary to clarify that my idle musings are just that - statements based on my knowledge, but not intended to serve as legal advice to anyone. No sense in getting myself in trouble before I even have my degree.
CC is a copyright license. It doesn't deal with other things like likeness rights. Putting something up as CC doesn't mean anyone can do anything they want with it... hell, putting something up as public domain doesn't mean anyone can do anything they want with it.
Just taking the picture from a United States server (of a U.S. citizen) would seem to fulfill International Shoe's requirements of minimal contacts related to a claim.
Maybe we skipped that part in my Professional Responsibility class, but my prof was pretty damn clear - no malpractice claim can be had unless there's an attorney-client relationship. There can't be a relationship if one party is screaming at you, "I'M NOT YOUR LAWYER. I'M NOT GIVING YOU LEGAL ADVICE."
They're not providing legal services to clients any more than I am by posting on Slashdot.
First, "Article I" was never ratified, and is therefore irrelevant.
You also neglected to look at the appropriate place in the original Constitution to see how the proposed Amendment would fit with the existing text. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 (original version, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment):
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut, five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. "Persons" refers to the "Numbers" of the Several States. This is a case where its meaning is specifically bounded by context. In the vast majority of places within the Constitution, it is not so bounded.
Please, leave the constitutional interpretation to the people who know what the hell they're talking about.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause is the only section of the Fourteenth that applies only to citizens, and it's a dead letter, constitutionally speaking. It's had no real meaning since the Slaughter-House Cases.
Both the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth and the Equal Protection Clause discuss "persons," not "citizens." The states may not, for instance, deny due process of law to a visitor from another state (who is, therefore, not a citizen of the state in question), or deny due process to a visitor from another country (who is neither a citizen of the state or of the United States).
However, your legal education is clearly lacking, because this is a federal action we're talking about, and the Fourteenth is binding upon the states. The Equal Protection Clause, for instance, is only binding upon the federal government because it has been reverse-incorporated through the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
The Fifth Amendment states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The protections of the Due Process Clause apply to everyone, not just citizens.
Yes, on it's face, the MCA doesn't apply to U.S. citizens. However, you're not thinking about this clearly, or you'd notice how the existence of the MCA denies habeas to everyone.
Let's say, for whatever reason, the military comes to your home and takes you away to Guantanamo or some other military installation. You demand to be let go, of course, because you've done nothing wrong, and what's more, you're a U.S. citizen and they aren't legally allowed to do this to you. They say, "No, you're not a citizen." Well, now what? Normally, you'd file a habeas corpus claim challenging your detention. But, since they're alleging you're not a citizen, you have no habeas claim to challenge your detention. No court can hear your case. You have no way to prove that you're a U.S. citizen, and therefore no way to free yourself. Congratulations, you've just been disappeared.
When you take habeas corpus rights away from any class of people, you necessarily remove them from every class of people; all the government has to do to disappear anyone is allege that they are in the non-habeas class, and the detained will be unable to prove that they are not.
Or you failed to understand what he was saying. If you require a standard format, you introduce competition to the industry and allow the market to solve the problem. As it stands now, there's a high barrier to entry for competitors.
Fine, let's change the analogy. Now, instead of writing a fake letter, the post office writes "REFUSED: A, stop writing me!" on the front of a letter and sends it back. If A sent it first class mail, and B had done so, A would receive the letter back. So, as far as A can tell, B has requested that he cease communication.
Of course, this is largely irrelevant because I reject your premise that initiating communication isn't "tangible information." If something happens because of a packet, it clearly had some sort of "tangible information." If there were a packet that had "no tangible information," it would be ignored as useless.
Why not? Comcast is, by sending out fraudulent packets, sending information which states, "The computer you're connected to has terminated the TCP connection."
To analogize, A and B are two people, with a significant geographical distance between them. They send a truly ridiculous amount of letters back and forth, and the postal carriers don't want to carry them. Thus, a postal carrier sends a letter to A, in all ways looking as if it came from B, telling A that B never wanted to speak with A again. Is it an exact analogy? Of course not (exact analogies aren't all that useful anyway); however, the fact remains that in both scenarios a common carrier fraudulently represents themselves as one party in communication in order to influence the other party.
Slashdot Mirror
No, lawn darts didn't go away "because we no longer have the promise of parental oversight." They went away because they were hazardous, were responsible for several deaths, and because one man whose daughter died because of a negligently designed product made it his mission to see that it didn't happen again.
As for the rest of what you said, it has no relation whatsoever to my response.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/10/surprise-pto-co.html
Interesting that there were no amicus briefs for the Patent Office.
Shortly followed by garden-variety natural selection, when they starve to death after being unable to get a new job.
How is that bribery? From what you've said, it wasn't that the drug company had paid for the vacation / samples that influenced his prescribing behavior, but rather the availability of the samples and his heightened knowledge of how it worked. Thus, even if a neutral third-party had provided him with the information and the free samples, his prescribing habits would have changed.
It already does, although not labeled as such. It's one of the canons of statutory interpretations: legislatures don't write statutes to produce absurd results. A court might hold that clearly, the Congress could not have meant to allow this sort of thing with the Copyright Act, so it's invalid.
No. The court held that summary judgment was inappropriately granted, because there is a material question of fact regarding whether or not Google engaged in illegal conduct. In other words, if a jury were to believe everything Reid presented, and make reasonable inferences from that evidence, they could reasonably conclude that Google engaged in age discrimination.
Your summary of this case isn't correct. In this case, Quanta purchased licensed chips from Intel. The question presented to the court is whether a clause in LG's license prevents the patent rights from exhaustion when Intel sells the chips to others.
Yet LG only licenses its patents with a clause preventing exhaustion. If such clauses are allowed, the first sale doctrine is meaningless, because patent-holders who want to "dip" multiple times will simply include similar language in their contracts.
Your mistake is in assuming that the CC is broader than it really is. All it does is get you past the point of arguing over the right to reproduce, make derivative works, and the like. It's not intended to do more, and it doesn't infringe on "the spirit of the agreement" if one later files claims on another matter.
If I put a picture out in the public domain, thereby waiving any and all copyright claims to it (much more than what CC does), that still doesn't mean that the picture can be used to any purpose under the sun, and it's not hypocritical to attack certain purposes. For instance, if that picture is of me, and is used in a libelous manner, I haven't waived a right to sue for libel over that picture.
Similarly, if I release a bit of code as GPL, that doesn't mean that someone could then use that code to exploit a vulnerability with impunity. The GPL signifies a lifting of copyright claims, not a lifting of any claims under the sun.
CC is not a general license to use a work for whatever the hell anyone wants to use it for. It is a copyright license, and the intent of someone using a CC license is to free the work of the restraints of copyright law. As soon as you stop seeing it as a contract that allows anyone to do anything they want with the work, you'll understand why your argument is baseless.
No, I'm really not missing anything at all.
The Creative Commons license is a COPYRIGHT license. It only governs COPYRIGHT restrictions. The license chosen said, in laymen's terms, "I'm not going to sue you for copyright infringement if you use this image for commercial purposes." Likeness rights are another issue entirely, and one that any marketing department should be familiar with.
There was no sharp practice here. Only a marketing department that didn't do its job, and a few Slashdot posters who are seemingly incapable of understanding that releasing copyright claims doesn't entail releasing all claims.
Copyright licenses only deal with copyright. It doesn't free you from other areas of the law.
Even if the photographer had put the photos up as public domain, waiving all copyright claim to them, Virgin would *still* be liable, because the photographer released his copyright claims, not all possible claims arising from use.
Well, from what I understand of PR, the relevant test is whether a "reasonable person" would consider you to be their attorney when the advice is given. For instance, if you give advice to someone you consider to be a prospective client, you can be sued for malpractice, because that person would reasonably believe that you were giving them sound advice, and take action accordingly. However, if you emphatically tell that person that you're not giving them legal advice, and that if they want legal advice, they should seek out an attorney of their own, you're in the clear.
As to what happens when a non-lawyer looks up a statute, it's unclear, because it's unclear what "practicing law" means, so it's unclear whether you'd be liable for some penalties. I should point out, though, that if you were to held liable for "malpractice," you'd have a lot more to worry about than civil penalties; practicing law without a license is generally a criminal offense. However, you probably don't have to worry. If someone consults with you, knowing that you're not a lawyer, a belief that you are providing "legal advice" in the sense necessary to sustain a malpractice claim would necessarily be "unreasonable," and therefore you'd be off the hook. The moral of the story: if you're going to do that, make sure the person that you're talking to understands that you're a layman.
The reason that I have the disclaimer (and, I suspect, why other Slashdot lawyers / law students do) is because, lawyer jokes aside, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. Since I frequently discuss issues of the law here, I felt it necessary to clarify that my idle musings are just that - statements based on my knowledge, but not intended to serve as legal advice to anyone. No sense in getting myself in trouble before I even have my degree.
CC is a copyright license. It doesn't deal with other things like likeness rights. Putting something up as CC doesn't mean anyone can do anything they want with it... hell, putting something up as public domain doesn't mean anyone can do anything they want with it.
Just taking the picture from a United States server (of a U.S. citizen) would seem to fulfill International Shoe's requirements of minimal contacts related to a claim.
Maybe we skipped that part in my Professional Responsibility class, but my prof was pretty damn clear - no malpractice claim can be had unless there's an attorney-client relationship. There can't be a relationship if one party is screaming at you, "I'M NOT YOUR LAWYER. I'M NOT GIVING YOU LEGAL ADVICE."
They're not providing legal services to clients any more than I am by posting on Slashdot.
First, "Article I" was never ratified, and is therefore irrelevant.
You also neglected to look at the appropriate place in the original Constitution to see how the proposed Amendment would fit with the existing text. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 (original version, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment): Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut, five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. "Persons" refers to the "Numbers" of the Several States. This is a case where its meaning is specifically bounded by context. In the vast majority of places within the Constitution, it is not so bounded.
Please, leave the constitutional interpretation to the people who know what the hell they're talking about.
Both the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth and the Equal Protection Clause discuss "persons," not "citizens." The states may not, for instance, deny due process of law to a visitor from another state (who is, therefore, not a citizen of the state in question), or deny due process to a visitor from another country (who is neither a citizen of the state or of the United States).
However, your legal education is clearly lacking, because this is a federal action we're talking about, and the Fourteenth is binding upon the states. The Equal Protection Clause, for instance, is only binding upon the federal government because it has been reverse-incorporated through the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
The Fifth Amendment states: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The protections of the Due Process Clause apply to everyone, not just citizens.
Yes, on it's face, the MCA doesn't apply to U.S. citizens. However, you're not thinking about this clearly, or you'd notice how the existence of the MCA denies habeas to everyone.
Let's say, for whatever reason, the military comes to your home and takes you away to Guantanamo or some other military installation. You demand to be let go, of course, because you've done nothing wrong, and what's more, you're a U.S. citizen and they aren't legally allowed to do this to you. They say, "No, you're not a citizen." Well, now what? Normally, you'd file a habeas corpus claim challenging your detention. But, since they're alleging you're not a citizen, you have no habeas claim to challenge your detention. No court can hear your case. You have no way to prove that you're a U.S. citizen, and therefore no way to free yourself. Congratulations, you've just been disappeared.
When you take habeas corpus rights away from any class of people, you necessarily remove them from every class of people; all the government has to do to disappear anyone is allege that they are in the non-habeas class, and the detained will be unable to prove that they are not.
Maybe NeoOffice is superior, but I don't have any of those problems with it.
Or you failed to understand what he was saying. If you require a standard format, you introduce competition to the industry and allow the market to solve the problem. As it stands now, there's a high barrier to entry for competitors.
"De minimis fraud" is still fraud.
Damages are a separate question.
Fine, let's change the analogy. Now, instead of writing a fake letter, the post office writes "REFUSED: A, stop writing me!" on the front of a letter and sends it back. If A sent it first class mail, and B had done so, A would receive the letter back. So, as far as A can tell, B has requested that he cease communication.
Of course, this is largely irrelevant because I reject your premise that initiating communication isn't "tangible information." If something happens because of a packet, it clearly had some sort of "tangible information." If there were a packet that had "no tangible information," it would be ignored as useless.
Why not? Comcast is, by sending out fraudulent packets, sending information which states, "The computer you're connected to has terminated the TCP connection."
To analogize, A and B are two people, with a significant geographical distance between them. They send a truly ridiculous amount of letters back and forth, and the postal carriers don't want to carry them. Thus, a postal carrier sends a letter to A, in all ways looking as if it came from B, telling A that B never wanted to speak with A again. Is it an exact analogy? Of course not (exact analogies aren't all that useful anyway); however, the fact remains that in both scenarios a common carrier fraudulently represents themselves as one party in communication in order to influence the other party.