Just for everyone's information, here's the statute they might be prosecuted under. According to the sentencing provision, a third degree felony carries a maximum penalty of up to 7 years imprisonment (18 Pa.C.S.A. 1103) and a max $15,000 fine (18 Pa.C.S.A. 1101).
(a) Offense defined. A person commits the offense of computer trespass if he knowingly and without authority or in excess of given authority uses a computer or computer network with the intent to:
(1) temporarily or permanently remove computer data, computer programs or computer software from a computer or computer network;
(2) cause a computer to malfunction, regardless of the amount of time the malfunction persists;
(3) alter or erase any computer data, computer programs or computer software;
(4) effect the creation or alteration of a financial instrument or of an electronic transfer of funds; or
(5) cause physical injury to the property of another.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section shall constitute a felony of the third degree.
I've got to be honest - I dont see how the RIAA lawyers can come down on this one. This kind of "Tivo like" software seems to be just a natural extension of the VCR time shifting as mentioned in the Sony Betamax case. As such, it is a perfectly legal use, regardless of what the RIAA fears that it will or could be used for.
Everybody say it with me now: estoppel. if they waited this long to assert their patent rights, while all along constructively assuring the public that they wouldn't sue, they have to be equitably estopped in some manner. (meaning they waited too long and by their conduct they lead everyone to believe that they wouldn't be sued, so they lost their right to sue here.)
I took a patent law class this year at school, and the professor started the class with a video put out by the patent office. it went something like this - an inventor creates an invention. he sees a lawyer who will fill out some documents for the invention and sends it to the patent office. once at the patent office, it gets sorted and passed to the examiner's office, where it SITS IN A PILE AND WAITS ITS TURN! AFTER ALL THE EXAMINER IS VERY BUSY, AND THE DOCUMENTS MUST WAIT THEIR TURN!
I am in roughly the same position, except I am finishing up my third year of law school. I went to Villanova and am now at their Law School. Overall the curriculum is pretty standard, especially for first year (torts, contracts, property, criminal law/procedure, and civil procedure), but you get to choose some electives second and third year. My advice to you (not that you asked for it, but, well, whatever...) is to check out the class lists and see what is available first. I love VLS, dont get me wrong, but there was only three or four classes I could take that dealt with technology - Intellectual Property in Cyberspace, Cyberlaw, First Amendment in Cyberspace, and Privacy and Communication Law. If I were you, I'd find a school that has a decent listing of classes and work from there. See which ones tend to integrate the core classes into the class description. Those will inherently teach you the most.
If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line.
I own a liquor store in northern NJ, and let me tell you I've never once seen our Bud salesman walking our coldbox with a handheld. They might know the products of theirs we carry, but that's about it. Secondly, there is no difference in price, or SKU, between cold and warm beer, so "tracking" those sales seems really suspect to me. Hell, even I dont know what beer came from the box and what came from the back.
And I agree with a lower poster - this is REALLY stretching YRO to its limits.
One last word - if you're going to buy a bud product, get Anheuser Select. Its like Heineken/Becks only cheaper.
Two points - The professor has no right to force a shutdown of the site, lawsuit threat or not. He can insist and plead, but short of an injunction (or the ISP taking the site down, as is their right), the host could keep his site up. The professor might not like what content was up there, but his remedy is against the AUTHOR of the statements, not the SITE. Second, this seems to me to be a case of the site getting a threat of suit and just caving in to the threat. Under 47 USC 230(c), the site would not be liable as an author of the posts, foreclosing suit against them. Given that, I would really like to see what legal grounds they have to stand on.
Disclaimer - The foregoing is only to be used for the purpose of discussion and should not be construed as legal advice related to any current or future problem, nor should it be relied upon by anyone without consulting a licensed attorney.
Well, the antispammers have won a major battle against EMarketersAmerica.org (now offline, but mirror here). The judge involved with the case has dismissed the case with prejudice, which means that all of the spammers arguments were denied. The win is a big one for the antispam community."
First off, let me begin with a disclaimer - that article is not even the slightest bit clear, so the following is based on what I think happened.
It's not necessarily true that all the spammers arguments were denied. If the plaintiff/spammers decided to prematurely end their case and ask the court for dismissal, the court can dismiss with or without prejudice. Usually if the plaintiff has already dismissed once they will need the court's permission and the second dismissal will be with prejudice (and thus they cannot refile). However, if the case was dismissed by the defendants motion to dismiss, this decision has more significance. Essentially it would mean that the plaintiff failed to state a claim that they could recover on. This would indicate that the court felt that the spammer/plaintiff did not demonstrate sufficiently any injury that they could recover on. More likely (again, from my reading of the press release) it seems that the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. This would hold much more significance, since the court would have determined that as a matter of law the plaintiff/spammers argument did not hold water.
While not precedent setting (since it is at the trial court level), the decision could be guiding for other courts, at least in that state. Additionally, if summary judgment were granted for the defendants, the argument they put forth could be adopted by others facing similar suits.
The new complaint allegedly asks for declaratory judgment, which I presume would cover the whole she-bang, in which case the GPL would not get to go to court, no?.
Actually, the issue of the GPL will go to trial regardless of any declaratory relief given. IBM in counterclaim 6 claims breach of contract. This issue will be need to be litigated to determine the extent of any breach by SCO, and in the process SCO will undoubtedly attack the GPL as a defense. So in my opinion, there will be some portion of the trial dedicated to the GPL and its scope and enforeceability. However, since less than 2% of all cases actually go to trial, the odds are that this will settle in some manner.
note that this is just the opinion of a law student, not a lawyer.
You are in a sense somewhat correct in my opinion. The RIAA would need to prove by preponderance of the evidence, not reasonable doubt (thats criminal, what the RIAA is pursuing here is a civil action), that you infringed on their copyrights. I cannot remember if there is case law that says making copyrighted files available to the world via, say, napster, is per se infringement. (i think i remember a case that said that, but i'm not sure.) In the absence of that, a defendant could put them to their proof. However, given that the cost of litigation nowadays is easily in the 6 digit range, who is going to go to trial? Most people will likely settle before going to trial or even before it gets to the pleadings. That's my take on the matter.
When ICA found out about this they sued and the court ruled that this was a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Well, not quite. The 9th Cir. reversed the trial court's dismissal of certain claims made by the plaintiffs. They did not hold that this conduct of serving overbroad, deceptive and illegal subpoenas per se violates the CFAA. Essentially, what the court did say was that there was enough questions of law and fact to go to trial on the issue. The opinion is on the 9th Circuit's website
And to answer the poster below, there are certain times when parties to a litigation can issue subpoenas (under the FRCP), and some statutes authorize subpoena power without requiring the person to whom you are going to serve to be a party (ex. DMCA). But no, not just anyone can issue an subpoena, even though today it may look like it!
Here's where the GPL is stating the law incorrectly. First of all, fair use rights allow you to modify and distribute the program regardless of the copyright license, so the GPL should not say that "nothing else grants you permission." In addition, the claimed GPLd work may be in the public domain or covered by another licence, and so again such a statement is false.
First of all, if you want to get the law correct, fair use is not your "right" as much as you seem to believe... fair use is a defense to what otherwise would be considered copyright infringement. You must affirmatively prove that your use qualifies as fair, you cannot simply say "well, i can do whatever I want, claim fair use and you prove me wrong." see 17 USC 107 Secondly, the rest of that paragraph is utter garbage and serves no purpose other than flaimbait.
Overture sued FindWhat.com in February 2002 after FindWhat filed a summary judgment request in a New York federal court in an attempt to fend off any potential infringement charge from Overture.
Yeah, it's declaratory judgment, not summary. Summary judgment is a motion filed in an action, whereas declaratory judgments are used to define legal rights. However, since it doesnt really make a difference in the substance of the story, carry on...... I'm such a tool.
Yes you are correct, defending a baseless suit is time consuming and very expensive. That is why the federal rules of civil procedure provide rule 11, for just this kind of situation. If a lawyer files suit on behalf of a client that he knows does not have a case, he can be sanctioned and the plaintiff can be forced to compensate the defendant for their time and $$ spent. I too hope that directv gets taken to task for this, and i'm 2/3 of the way to being a lawyer!
Someone please tell me how a suit filed in canada is going to have any effect over a US corporation. Unless there is some treaty that allows for them to execute their judgment here, or a US court enforcing a judgment, i just cant see anything actually happening as a result. Seems more of a futile gesture then anything that will have a real effect.
and then when you turn to page 36, ah ha... the page has a full page advertisment of the software only
and then you think, where the.... is paragraph 3, line 7, word 2?
funny, classic sierra gaming suddenly comes to mind....
Check out 18 USC 2701, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (and possibly 18 USC 1030) they just violated. So yeah, if this case is getting lots of media attention, just wait for the FBI to ring in.
ok, for starters, your 50k cap is ludicrous, especially where the doctor has made a major medical mistake that they should not have made. I am assuming you are male for my example, but what if the doctor told you you had testicular cancer, took your balls, and then turned around two months later after you had treatment and told you oops, i made a mistake, or it was the lab that blew it. should that same physician be held only to pay 50k for all the problems he has just caused you for the rest of your life? mistakes such as that should NEVER happen.. EVER. you can tell me that they're only human and that errors happen, but that is no excuse in my mind. and dont think things equally as horrible (maybe not the exact same scenario) dont happen every day, because they do.
Secondly, if such a major portion of medmal lawsuits are frivolous, then how do they get to the jury in the first place? If they are so outlandish that no reasonable jury could find for them in the first place, then judgement as a matter of law would be given to the defendant doctor. the fact that the jury gets the case and awards damages should tell you that these suits are not as frivolous as the physicians lobby would have you believe.
With regard to capping awards, I have to ask you, what is fair about that? why take that element from the judicial system? if the doctor has done nothing wrong, then that will be shown at trial. if he has done something egregious, then why should there be a ceiling on what he could be forced to lose? should the bad doctors not be drummed out one way or another?
First of all, Slashdot is definately not the right forum for this discussion, but that being said, I will get into it anyway. I believe one of the other posters said it best in that you, the doctors, allow the others to bring you down. Doctors cry about outrageous malpractice insurance rates and awards, and love to tell stories about frivolous lawsuits against them. What they fail to mention are stories about those doctors that cut off the wrong limb, make the wrong diagnosis, or even take a woman's breasts and find out later from a lab error that she never had cancer at all. Now you tell me, what is fair about limiting their recovery for your, the physician's, horrendous error? How much to you value your limbs/breasts/etc...
The plain fact remains that doctors are supossed to be extremely smart people and come up with the correct diagnosis and treatment each and every time. In a field where people live and die by your judgment call, you had damn well better be right, and when you're not, you should pay.
this program sounds great, teaching kids about security and all, but it would seem to open the school up to potential liabiltiy should one of their students get caught hacking the wrong person's computer. you gotta wonder how closely these kids are screened, or at very least their temperments - potentially training the next set of black hats could be a disaster. it would be a great start for people to learn if they want to get into the security business, but what a shit storm will result if these kids take it too far.
Your texas example only furthers my point. In texas, if you are involved in the commission of a traffic accident, it gives rise to a legal duty to stop and render assistance. In this case, you are correct. However, what I was talking about was a third party's duty to report a crime. A third party, say another driver who saw the accident, has no responsibilty to stop and render aid, only the driver who actually hit the other car. If the third driver decides to stop, great; if not, he doesn't have to.
As for the illinois law, and please note I'm not being a wiseass on this, but do you know what it is called/can you find it on the statute books? I would really like to read what that law actually prohibits and some of the cases on it. To me it is incredulous that they could pass such a law and actually enforce it.
danoatvulaw
Not a lawyer yet (so dont take what I say as legal advice), but 2/3 of the way there!
you are not an accessory after the fact, nor are you liable in ANY event for the simple non-reporting of crime, unless you are under a legal duty to report the same. You are however, liable, should you take ACTIVE steps to conceal that a crime was comitted. It is the active concealing of the crime that makes you liable, and failing to report is not an active event, it is a passive omission. See 18 USCA sec 4 (the annotations), US v Warters 885 F2d 1266 (Tex C.A.5 1989) and US v. Cabrales 118 S.Ct. 1772, 1776 (1998) for the principle that to be an accessory you need to take an active step.
Slashdot Mirror
Just for everyone's information, here's the statute they might be prosecuted under. According to the sentencing provision, a third degree felony carries a maximum penalty of up to 7 years imprisonment (18 Pa.C.S.A. 1103) and a max $15,000 fine (18 Pa.C.S.A. 1101).
(a) Offense defined. A person commits the offense of computer trespass if he knowingly and without authority or in excess of given authority uses a computer or computer network with the intent to:
(1) temporarily or permanently remove computer data, computer programs or computer software from a computer or computer network;
(2) cause a computer to malfunction, regardless of the amount of time the malfunction persists;
(3) alter or erase any computer data, computer programs or computer software;
(4) effect the creation or alteration of a financial instrument or of an electronic transfer of funds; or
(5) cause physical injury to the property of another.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section shall constitute a felony of the third degree.
I've got to be honest - I dont see how the RIAA lawyers can come down on this one. This kind of "Tivo like" software seems to be just a natural extension of the VCR time shifting as mentioned in the Sony Betamax case. As such, it is a perfectly legal use, regardless of what the RIAA fears that it will or could be used for.
.02
Just my
Everybody say it with me now: estoppel. if they waited this long to assert their patent rights, while all along constructively assuring the public that they wouldn't sue, they have to be equitably estopped in some manner. (meaning they waited too long and by their conduct they lead everyone to believe that they wouldn't be sued, so they lost their right to sue here.)
.02
Just my
I took a patent law class this year at school, and the professor started the class with a video put out by the patent office. it went something like this - an inventor creates an invention. he sees a lawyer who will fill out some documents for the invention and sends it to the patent office. once at the patent office, it gets sorted and passed to the examiner's office, where it SITS IN A PILE AND WAITS ITS TURN! AFTER ALL THE EXAMINER IS VERY BUSY, AND THE DOCUMENTS MUST WAIT THEIR TURN!
If that's not a prime example of inefficiency....
I am in roughly the same position, except I am finishing up my third year of law school. I went to Villanova and am now at their Law School. Overall the curriculum is pretty standard, especially for first year (torts, contracts, property, criminal law/procedure, and civil procedure), but you get to choose some electives second and third year. My advice to you (not that you asked for it, but, well, whatever...) is to check out the class lists and see what is available first. I love VLS, dont get me wrong, but there was only three or four classes I could take that dealt with technology - Intellectual Property in Cyberspace, Cyberlaw, First Amendment in Cyberspace, and Privacy and Communication Law. If I were you, I'd find a school that has a decent listing of classes and work from there. See which ones tend to integrate the core classes into the class description. Those will inherently teach you the most.
If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line.
I second that motion.
I own a liquor store in northern NJ, and let me tell you I've never once seen our Bud salesman walking our coldbox with a handheld. They might know the products of theirs we carry, but that's about it. Secondly, there is no difference in price, or SKU, between cold and warm beer, so "tracking" those sales seems really suspect to me. Hell, even I dont know what beer came from the box and what came from the back.
And I agree with a lower poster - this is REALLY stretching YRO to its limits.
One last word - if you're going to buy a bud product, get Anheuser Select. Its like Heineken/Becks only cheaper.
only on weeknights when the temperature drops to below freezing.. but i stress ONLY ON WEEKNIGHTS!
Two points - The professor has no right to force a shutdown of the site, lawsuit threat or not. He can insist and plead, but short of an injunction (or the ISP taking the site down, as is their right), the host could keep his site up. The professor might not like what content was up there, but his remedy is against the AUTHOR of the statements, not the SITE. Second, this seems to me to be a case of the site getting a threat of suit and just caving in to the threat. Under 47 USC 230(c), the site would not be liable as an author of the posts, foreclosing suit against them. Given that, I would really like to see what legal grounds they have to stand on.
Disclaimer - The foregoing is only to be used for the purpose of discussion and should not be construed as legal advice related to any current or future problem, nor should it be relied upon by anyone without consulting a licensed attorney.
Well, the antispammers have won a major battle against EMarketersAmerica.org (now offline, but mirror here). The judge involved with the case has dismissed the case with prejudice, which means that all of the spammers arguments were denied. The win is a big one for the antispam community."
First off, let me begin with a disclaimer - that article is not even the slightest bit clear, so the following is based on what I think happened.
It's not necessarily true that all the spammers arguments were denied. If the plaintiff/spammers decided to prematurely end their case and ask the court for dismissal, the court can dismiss with or without prejudice. Usually if the plaintiff has already dismissed once they will need the court's permission and the second dismissal will be with prejudice (and thus they cannot refile). However, if the case was dismissed by the defendants motion to dismiss, this decision has more significance. Essentially it would mean that the plaintiff failed to state a claim that they could recover on. This would indicate that the court felt that the spammer/plaintiff did not demonstrate sufficiently any injury that they could recover on. More likely (again, from my reading of the press release) it seems that the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. This would hold much more significance, since the court would have determined that as a matter of law the plaintiff/spammers argument did not hold water.
While not precedent setting (since it is at the trial court level), the decision could be guiding for other courts, at least in that state. Additionally, if summary judgment were granted for the defendants, the argument they put forth could be adopted by others facing similar suits.
The new complaint allegedly asks for declaratory judgment, which I presume would cover the whole she-bang, in which case the GPL would not get to go to court, no?.
Actually, the issue of the GPL will go to trial regardless of any declaratory relief given. IBM in counterclaim 6 claims breach of contract. This issue will be need to be litigated to determine the extent of any breach by SCO, and in the process SCO will undoubtedly attack the GPL as a defense. So in my opinion, there will be some portion of the trial dedicated to the GPL and its scope and enforeceability. However, since less than 2% of all cases actually go to trial, the odds are that this will settle in some manner.
note that this is just the opinion of a law student, not a lawyer.
You are in a sense somewhat correct in my opinion. The RIAA would need to prove by preponderance of the evidence, not reasonable doubt (thats criminal, what the RIAA is pursuing here is a civil action), that you infringed on their copyrights. I cannot remember if there is case law that says making copyrighted files available to the world via, say, napster, is per se infringement. (i think i remember a case that said that, but i'm not sure.) In the absence of that, a defendant could put them to their proof. However, given that the cost of litigation nowadays is easily in the 6 digit range, who is going to go to trial? Most people will likely settle before going to trial or even before it gets to the pleadings. That's my take on the matter.
When ICA found out about this they sued and the court ruled that this was a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Well, not quite. The 9th Cir. reversed the trial court's dismissal of certain claims made by the plaintiffs. They did not hold that this conduct of serving overbroad, deceptive and illegal subpoenas per se violates the CFAA. Essentially, what the court did say was that there was enough questions of law and fact to go to trial on the issue. The opinion is on the 9th Circuit's website
And to answer the poster below, there are certain times when parties to a litigation can issue subpoenas (under the FRCP), and some statutes authorize subpoena power without requiring the person to whom you are going to serve to be a party (ex. DMCA). But no, not just anyone can issue an subpoena, even though today it may look like it!
Here's where the GPL is stating the law incorrectly. First of all, fair use rights allow you to modify and distribute the program regardless of the copyright license, so the GPL should not say that "nothing else grants you permission." In addition, the claimed GPLd work may be in the public domain or covered by another licence, and so again such a statement is false.
First of all, if you want to get the law correct, fair use is not your "right" as much as you seem to believe... fair use is a defense to what otherwise would be considered copyright infringement. You must affirmatively prove that your use qualifies as fair, you cannot simply say "well, i can do whatever I want, claim fair use and you prove me wrong." see 17 USC 107 Secondly, the rest of that paragraph is utter garbage and serves no purpose other than flaimbait.
Overture sued FindWhat.com in February 2002 after FindWhat filed a summary judgment request in a New York federal court in an attempt to fend off any potential infringement charge from Overture.
Yeah, it's declaratory judgment, not summary. Summary judgment is a motion filed in an action, whereas declaratory judgments are used to define legal rights. However, since it doesnt really make a difference in the substance of the story, carry on...... I'm such a tool.
Yes you are correct, defending a baseless suit is time consuming and very expensive. That is why the federal rules of civil procedure provide rule 11, for just this kind of situation. If a lawyer files suit on behalf of a client that he knows does not have a case, he can be sanctioned and the plaintiff can be forced to compensate the defendant for their time and $$ spent. I too hope that directv gets taken to task for this, and i'm 2/3 of the way to being a lawyer!
danoatvulaw
3L Villanova Law
Someone please tell me how a suit filed in canada is going to have any effect over a US corporation. Unless there is some treaty that allows for them to execute their judgment here, or a US court enforcing a judgment, i just cant see anything actually happening as a result. Seems more of a futile gesture then anything that will have a real effect.
and then when you turn to page 36, ah ha... the page has a full page advertisment of the software only .... is paragraph 3, line 7, word 2?
and then you think, where the
funny, classic sierra gaming suddenly comes to mind....
Check out 18 USC 2701, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (and possibly 18 USC 1030) they just violated. So yeah, if this case is getting lots of media attention, just wait for the FBI to ring in.
ok, for starters, your 50k cap is ludicrous, especially where the doctor has made a major medical mistake that they should not have made. I am assuming you are male for my example, but what if the doctor told you you had testicular cancer, took your balls, and then turned around two months later after you had treatment and told you oops, i made a mistake, or it was the lab that blew it. should that same physician be held only to pay 50k for all the problems he has just caused you for the rest of your life? mistakes such as that should NEVER happen.. EVER. you can tell me that they're only human and that errors happen, but that is no excuse in my mind. and dont think things equally as horrible (maybe not the exact same scenario) dont happen every day, because they do.
Secondly, if such a major portion of medmal lawsuits are frivolous, then how do they get to the jury in the first place? If they are so outlandish that no reasonable jury could find for them in the first place, then judgement as a matter of law would be given to the defendant doctor. the fact that the jury gets the case and awards damages should tell you that these suits are not as frivolous as the physicians lobby would have you believe.
With regard to capping awards, I have to ask you, what is fair about that? why take that element from the judicial system? if the doctor has done nothing wrong, then that will be shown at trial. if he has done something egregious, then why should there be a ceiling on what he could be forced to lose? should the bad doctors not be drummed out one way or another?
what a classic quote!
i'll take the blonde, you take the one in the turban..
you haven't touched your food doctor.... there! you happy? now i've touched it!
First of all, Slashdot is definately not the right forum for this discussion, but that being said, I will get into it anyway. I believe one of the other posters said it best in that you, the doctors, allow the others to bring you down. Doctors cry about outrageous malpractice insurance rates and awards, and love to tell stories about frivolous lawsuits against them. What they fail to mention are stories about those doctors that cut off the wrong limb, make the wrong diagnosis, or even take a woman's breasts and find out later from a lab error that she never had cancer at all. Now you tell me, what is fair about limiting their recovery for your, the physician's, horrendous error? How much to you value your limbs/breasts/etc...
The plain fact remains that doctors are supossed to be extremely smart people and come up with the correct diagnosis and treatment each and every time. In a field where people live and die by your judgment call, you had damn well better be right, and when you're not, you should pay.
this program sounds great, teaching kids about security and all, but it would seem to open the school up to potential liabiltiy should one of their students get caught hacking the wrong person's computer. you gotta wonder how closely these kids are screened, or at very least their temperments - potentially training the next set of black hats could be a disaster. it would be a great start for people to learn if they want to get into the security business, but what a shit storm will result if these kids take it too far.
just my thoughts...
Your texas example only furthers my point. In texas, if you are involved in the commission of a traffic accident, it gives rise to a legal duty to stop and render assistance. In this case, you are correct. However, what I was talking about was a third party's duty to report a crime. A third party, say another driver who saw the accident, has no responsibilty to stop and render aid, only the driver who actually hit the other car. If the third driver decides to stop, great; if not, he doesn't have to.
As for the illinois law, and please note I'm not being a wiseass on this, but do you know what it is called/can you find it on the statute books? I would really like to read what that law actually prohibits and some of the cases on it. To me it is incredulous that they could pass such a law and actually enforce it.
danoatvulaw
Not a lawyer yet (so dont take what I say as legal advice), but 2/3 of the way there!
you are not an accessory after the fact, nor are you liable in ANY event for the simple non-reporting of crime, unless you are under a legal duty to report the same. You are however, liable, should you take ACTIVE steps to conceal that a crime was comitted. It is the active concealing of the crime that makes you liable, and failing to report is not an active event, it is a passive omission. See 18 USCA sec 4 (the annotations), US v Warters 885 F2d 1266 (Tex C.A.5 1989) and US v. Cabrales 118 S.Ct. 1772, 1776 (1998) for the principle that to be an accessory you need to take an active step.