People who send angry emails are often acting on impulse without taking time to calm down. It's the long distance communication equivalent of road rage. We are insulated by distance and the transitory nature of the medium, just as when we drive, we are insulated by the fact that the other driver will not know us for more than a few minutes, and we are separated by glass and steel. As the incident happens, we are already moving on from it.
Letters require more forethought and more steps (finding envelope and stamp, going to mailbox, etc.). They require premeditation. Snail mail letters are also harder to trace and thus less likely to result in a visit from the FBI.
Someone with a real mental delusion, making real threats is obviously more likely to use snail mail when compared with the average angry constituent who just wants to let out their frustration.
If you have the urge to rape people, I would urge you to talk to a psychiatrist. Even if you never act on those urges, it's a sign of something you should be dealing with.
It would also change where the offender is imprisoned and the type of activities they can participate in while in prison. Quite likely it would. But that's up to the Department of Corrections. They could make those changes even if she didn't escape.
But of course if you were already in for life, you can't get additional time. They could make it consecutive and it could make a difference for purposes of when she could be paroled.
Of course, in this situation it probably wouldn't make much difference, since she is so old now and only served 2 years of her sentence after her conviction.
In my state, a person convicted of a felony who escapes from prison can be charged with the crime of Escape. If they are then convicted of the escape, they can be sentenced up to an additional ten years.
If "basic human urges" could not be punished, prostitution would be legal in every state.
The gPC is built using tiny components, but put inside a full-size case because research indicates that Wal-Mart shoppers are so unsophisticated they equate physical size with capability. What would a tiny case cost, and does this thing need loud fans? Might be a good deal for a small-footprint device if you can get a smaller case for cheap.
they won't be able to bring affidavits but will have to bring witnesses I thought this was similar to a motion for summary judgment, where you can file affidavits to show what the testimony would be if it went to trial.
If your defendant is in default, why would you have to do anything more than state a claim?
Forgive my ignorance, I don't practice in Federal court. Last time I moved for a default judgment, it was granted and I didn't have to present ANY evidence.
So what are they going to come to the hearing with? Evidence they've sworn under oath doesn't exist? I figure they'll just present whatever records they got from the guy's ISP that show he was using the IP address and then hire another expert who will sign an affidavit explaining how the IP protocol works and that the IP address is unique to the defendant's account at that particular time. They'll then have the investigator who downloaded the song file an affidavit explaining how and at what time he downloaded the song from that IP address. If they really want to go nuts, I suppose they could do something like subpoena the defendant's landlord to testify that he's the only one who lives at that residence.
If these were criminal cases, I'd have a field day defending these folks, but with the standard of proof in a civil case, it's got to be tough for a defendant to win.
But I defer to your judgment, as you're the expert. I really appreciate your contribution here.
the headline were "Judge grants Defendant's summary judgment motion against the RIAA".
All this story says is that the RIAA didn't win yet. The judge denied the RIAA's motion for summary judgment, so there are issues of fact that will have to be decided by a jury. Sounds like the motion didn't have any merit anyway.
They will go to trial and some jury will decide that since the Defendant's name is "Jeff" and his username was "heavyjeffmc" he probably is the same guy. Unless there is some evidence of another guy named Jeff using the defendant's internet connection.
It doesn't apply to the UK, but for an American context, the Grokster decision says that "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."
It's not much of a reach to call a web page, website, or html link a "device".
The question then is whether the distribution of this particular link, site, or page is shown by clear expression or ather affirmative steps to be for the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright.
Obviously it is. The link points directly to copyrighted content being distributed by an infringing third party.
They market it as an "internet tablet", but it runs Linux. There is a community behind these devices (maemo.org), where hundreds of apps can be downloaded.
Now that it has a keyboard, you can do a lot with it that you couldn't do with the older versions.
Will this version be the one that brings this product line out of obscurity? Probably not, but it is a step in the right direction, and it won't be the last.
I have a 770, and am very happy with it. But the lack of a keyboard seriously limits its uses.
This new device looks like a larger version of my cell phone, the Nokia 9300. The problem with the 9300 is that it doesn't run Linux. The N810 does.
There are a lot of people who want an affordably-priced UMPC. I think Nokia is going in the right direction with this. Eventually, they will market it (or the a later version) as a UMPC, but they are adding features incrementally, and not pretending that it is anything special... yet.
So, by this logic I can send Verizon a letter/notice of a $100 per letter-opening fee unless they specifically call me to Opt-Out? And if they don't pay, send them to collections and/or small claims? No.
You are talking about something that would require formation of a contract.
Verizon is simply providing notice to their customers that they will be sharing personal information.
Look at it this way: FriendA wants FriendB's phone number. Do you need to get a contract (or even permission) from FriendB to give FriendA his phone number? No! It would be the right thing to do, but you don't have to. Verizon is a big company with a lot of personal information, so they have to follow Federal regulations on this. But they still don't need a contract.
I know this is common practice, but I'd still like to believe that this would be a non-binding contract. Especially since there's no mutual consideration. Here's an excerpt from the Michigan Law Review regarding Silence as Acceptance of an Offer: Contract has nothing to do with it. Obviously, you can't send someone a letter and form a contract just because they didn't bother to respond. The reason they can get away with this is because they have Congress in the palm of their hands.
It was just a few years ago that everyone was up in arms about companies sharing our personal information. Congress was pressured to create some regulations to stop it. Instead of going for an "Opt-in Rule" where companies would only be allowed to share or sell your information if you affirmatively acted in telling them it was ok, they passed an "Opt-out Rule."
Under the current scheme, all a company has to do is tell you about it's information sharing policies and give you an opportunity to Opt-out. They don't need a contract. They don't need a meeting of the minds, consideration, offer and acceptance or anything but your silence. If you don't want your information shared, you'll need to get busy and start notifying every company you've ever done business with. You can thank Congress for this.
That is a legal issue. It's going to be up to the appellate court to decide whether or not copyright can be violated by "making available" or if actual distribution must be proved.
The appeal is going to be a lot more interesting than the trial.
Appeals are where precedents get set. If the appellate court rules that the trial court erred in its instruction that "making available" equals copyright violation, then that will blow up the RIAA's current business model.
do they actually have any obligation to point out to the judge when case law contradicts their stance? Contrary to popular belief, a lawyer's obligations go further than just his client. Yes, a lawyer has a duty to his client, a very important duty. But also important is the lawyer's duty to the court.
A lawyer is an "officer of the court" and must be truthful to the court. A lawyer must inform a court of law that is on point and contradicts his argument. He can argue for a change in the law or for a finding that it is unconstitutional, but he cannot simply ignore bad law in hopes of fooling a judge.
That doesn't mean there aren't lawyers who break the rules. But those of us who care about the profession do not admire attorneys who lie to judges, opposing counsel, or anyone else for that matter.
We're only speechless because we're still trying to figure out what the catch is. IBM is a company, companies as a rule of thumb aren't nice when it means they're not making money for their shareholders. Just take a look at their comments, it wreaks of PR-speak. And what does PR stand for?
I mean, the information has yet to be leaked and for $2000, I would bet plenty of people would have found a way to get into contact with this guy and purchase it for themselves. Yeah, except that unless they were buying the stuff to give it back to its rightful owner, they'd be guilty of theft by receiving. What would be surprising is if Speilberg or his company don't pay the money. It's probably worth millions to them, so why not pay a couple grand to get it back?
Something just seems unbelievable here. Not really. This kind of criminal activity happens all the time. The only thing notable is that it was Spielberg's office. Otherwise, it's just garden variety idiot criminals trying to fence their stolen loot. Sounds like they are in over their heads and probably didn't plan on raiding Speilberg's office ahead of time.
I guess somebody should tell Sony about all the devices Sony produces that allow this stealing to occur!" It does sound almost like they are conceding guilt for contributory infringement.
On the other hand, I don't think Sony-BMG is the same corporate entity as Sony Electronics. But I could be wrong about that.
Yeah... Let's see you tell upper management that they need to pay to retrain the entire user base so that they can use *your* desktop operating system of choice rather than the desktop OS that both the company and everyone else in their business space has been using successfully for over a decade. What are you a flamebot or something? Take your tired knee-jerk response to a post that makes sense. I'm talking about what makes sense for me and MY firm. Nothing more, nothing less.
I AM upper management you incompetent loon! To be more specific, I'm the owner.
Let's see you do that so you can get fired. Sounds like someone is still in school and has never had a real job. Trust me, kid, when you get out into the real world your thinking is going to get much more realistic. What are YOU doing trolling slashdot during work hours?
"Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn't?"
The one that doesn't, of course.
To me, that's like asking, "Do you want the wrench that works with the Edsel, or the one that doesn't?"
I guess if I was an Edsel mechanic, that would matter. But since the Edsel sucks, and my business isn't repairing other people's Edsel's, I really couldn't care less... Yes, I am being glib, and I understand the needs of "the Enterprise"... but my enterprise needs computers that work and people who are competent enough to use something like pre-installed Ubuntu (hoo boy, guess they'll have to go back to school for that!)
But why would Creative Commons hold any liability? They basically host many different versions of a license, and the content creator goes to their site, browses the licenses there, and picks the one he likes. It's still the photographer, not Creative Commons, who licenses the picture. I think that Creative Commons should be let out of this one, I just can't see where they have any liability. I don't know. Maybe the photographer is saying that the license was associated with his photograph without his permission and that this was through an agreement between Flickr and Creative Commons.
But without having seen the complaint, we can only speculate.
then why isn't she suing the photographer who submitted the image to the photograph and through negligence selected the license that allowed this to happen? Because the license does NOT allow this to happen.
The license is a copyright license for the photographer.
The photographer does not have the ability to give away the model's rights without something in writing from the model, and the photographer never pretended to have that.
why is she only suing the involved parties who are corporations, including the only party in this whole debacle that has shit loads of cash? Um, because they are the guilty parties. She apparently does not have a problem with the photographer taking the picture and putting it on Flickr. What she has a problem with is her picture being used to sell mobile phones. Normally, someone would get paid some money to have their picture used for this purpose. But apparently Virgin Mobile decided to go the cheap route, and it may turn out to be costlier in the long run.
the invasion of privacy happened when the image was submitted to flickr, not when it was used according to its license in an ad campaign. One might argue (and many might agree) that having your picture used in a national advertising campaign is a far more egregious violation of privacy than having your picture on a website mixed in with a lot of other pictures that only people who choose to look (your friends and anyone else who was there) are likely to see.
how is the slogan 'virgin to virgin' derogatory to a faithful churchgoing 16 year old? aren't girls like that supposed to be proud to be virgins? There are a lot of ways it could be taken. But it seems to be a comment on her appearance, just as the other ads show people who one could believe were virgins, based on their appearance.
the only party i can see that has any fault is the party who put the image on flickr, the only party too poor to get any cash out of Even if he intended to release the picture under that license (which it seems he is saying he did not), that was only the copyright license. The rights of the model are a completely different issue. By releasing it under that license, he did not provide any warranty that the model had released her rights.
Virgin Mobile has lawyers that know how this stuff works. Maybe they think that by using American photos in an Australian campaign, they can avoid problems because, (a) the subjects are less likely to discover that their likeness has been used in another country, and (b) if they do discover it, they will have to sue Virgin Mobile in Australia, since VM's Australian corporate entity probably has no presence in the US.
Copyright only covers the right of the photographer and/or editor of the picture.
A big company like Virgin Mobile aught to know better than to just grab a photo off the web, no matter what some supposed license on a website states. This is fraught with dangers.
1. What if the website stole the pictures from somewhere else? Your going to base your entire ad campaign on some text that you found online without even contacting the photog and getting it in writing? What happens when the real photog shows up?
2. There are other rights involved with a photograph besides just copyright. The right of the person whose picture was taken is one. She may have various rights to privacy, to proceeds from her publicity and to not be shown in a false light. Smiling for the photograph doesn't mean she waived those rights. How was she supposed to know that it would even be posted online, much less that it would be used in a national ad campaign?
3. The model and other elements in the photograph may also have their own copyright to items that appear in the photograph, especially if it is a picture of some kind of performance.
4. If you are going to be insulting the people in the photographs, you damn well better pay special attention to these things. This particular ad is only slightly insulting. Some of the other ones are far worse.
So the city lawyer used a criminal case to gain an advantage in a civil case.
That's on shaky ground ethically speaking
DR 7-105. THREATENING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
(A) A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. Whether he threatened to present the charges *solely* to gain an advantage in the civil case would be the point of argument. The prosecutor would say that it wasn't solely to gain an advantage, because it was the police officer who made the arrest, and the prosecutor just prosecutes whatever cases come to him. However, if the case is not supported by probable cause, he's not allowed to go forward.
DR 7-103. PERFORMING THE DUTY OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OR OTHER GOVERNMENT LAWYER.
(A) A public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when he knows or it is obvious that the charges are not supported by probable cause. I would argue that the only reason the prosecutor threatened to go forward was to get the waiver of liability in the civil case. There was no merit to this case. An officer needs some level of suspicion to search a person or to require a showing of ID. There was no level of suspicion whatsoever here. There was no merit to this criminal case... at least according to what this fellow is telling us. One thing I've learned in my practice is that sometimes people charged with crimes lie... yeah, I know, hard to imagine.
Slashdot Mirror
People who send angry emails are often acting on impulse without taking time to calm down. It's the long distance communication equivalent of road rage. We are insulated by distance and the transitory nature of the medium, just as when we drive, we are insulated by the fact that the other driver will not know us for more than a few minutes, and we are separated by glass and steel. As the incident happens, we are already moving on from it.
Letters require more forethought and more steps (finding envelope and stamp, going to mailbox, etc.). They require premeditation. Snail mail letters are also harder to trace and thus less likely to result in a visit from the FBI.
Someone with a real mental delusion, making real threats is obviously more likely to use snail mail when compared with the average angry constituent who just wants to let out their frustration.
Of course sex is a basic human urge... but rape?
People do it, but I'd hardly call it basic.
If you have the urge to rape people, I would urge you to talk to a psychiatrist. Even if you never act on those urges, it's a sign of something you should be dealing with.
Of course, in this situation it probably wouldn't make much difference, since she is so old now and only served 2 years of her sentence after her conviction.
In my state, a person convicted of a felony who escapes from prison can be charged with the crime of Escape. If they are then convicted of the escape, they can be sentenced up to an additional ten years.
If "basic human urges" could not be punished, prostitution would be legal in every state.
If your defendant is in default, why would you have to do anything more than state a claim?
Forgive my ignorance, I don't practice in Federal court. Last time I moved for a default judgment, it was granted and I didn't have to present ANY evidence.
If these were criminal cases, I'd have a field day defending these folks, but with the standard of proof in a civil case, it's got to be tough for a defendant to win.
But I defer to your judgment, as you're the expert. I really appreciate your contribution here.
the headline were "Judge grants Defendant's summary judgment motion against the RIAA".
All this story says is that the RIAA didn't win yet. The judge denied the RIAA's motion for summary judgment, so there are issues of fact that will have to be decided by a jury. Sounds like the motion didn't have any merit anyway.
They will go to trial and some jury will decide that since the Defendant's name is "Jeff" and his username was "heavyjeffmc" he probably is the same guy. Unless there is some evidence of another guy named Jeff using the defendant's internet connection.
It doesn't apply to the UK, but for an American context, the Grokster decision says that "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."
It's not much of a reach to call a web page, website, or html link a "device".
The question then is whether the distribution of this particular link, site, or page is shown by clear expression or ather affirmative steps to be for the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright.
Obviously it is. The link points directly to copyrighted content being distributed by an infringing third party.
They market it as an "internet tablet", but it runs Linux. There is a community behind these devices (maemo.org), where hundreds of apps can be downloaded.
Now that it has a keyboard, you can do a lot with it that you couldn't do with the older versions.
Will this version be the one that brings this product line out of obscurity? Probably not, but it is a step in the right direction, and it won't be the last.
I have a 770, and am very happy with it. But the lack of a keyboard seriously limits its uses.
This new device looks like a larger version of my cell phone, the Nokia 9300. The problem with the 9300 is that it doesn't run Linux. The N810 does.
There are a lot of people who want an affordably-priced UMPC. I think Nokia is going in the right direction with this. Eventually, they will market it (or the a later version) as a UMPC, but they are adding features incrementally, and not pretending that it is anything special... yet.
You are talking about something that would require formation of a contract.
Verizon is simply providing notice to their customers that they will be sharing personal information.
Look at it this way: FriendA wants FriendB's phone number. Do you need to get a contract (or even permission) from FriendB to give FriendA his phone number? No! It would be the right thing to do, but you don't have to. Verizon is a big company with a lot of personal information, so they have to follow Federal regulations on this. But they still don't need a contract.
It was just a few years ago that everyone was up in arms about companies sharing our personal information. Congress was pressured to create some regulations to stop it. Instead of going for an "Opt-in Rule" where companies would only be allowed to share or sell your information if you affirmatively acted in telling them it was ok, they passed an "Opt-out Rule."
Under the current scheme, all a company has to do is tell you about it's information sharing policies and give you an opportunity to Opt-out. They don't need a contract. They don't need a meeting of the minds, consideration, offer and acceptance or anything but your silence. If you don't want your information shared, you'll need to get busy and start notifying every company you've ever done business with. You can thank Congress for this.
That is a legal issue. It's going to be up to the appellate court to decide whether or not copyright can be violated by "making available" or if actual distribution must be proved.
The appeal is going to be a lot more interesting than the trial.
Appeals are where precedents get set. If the appellate court rules that the trial court erred in its instruction that "making available" equals copyright violation, then that will blow up the RIAA's current business model.
A lawyer is an "officer of the court" and must be truthful to the court. A lawyer must inform a court of law that is on point and contradicts his argument. He can argue for a change in the law or for a finding that it is unconstitutional, but he cannot simply ignore bad law in hopes of fooling a judge.
That doesn't mean there aren't lawyers who break the rules. But those of us who care about the profession do not admire attorneys who lie to judges, opposing counsel, or anyone else for that matter.
Public Relations.
And why is PR important?
Because it relates to the bottom line.
Any more questions?
On the other hand, I don't think Sony-BMG is the same corporate entity as Sony Electronics. But I could be wrong about that.
I AM upper management you incompetent loon! To be more specific, I'm the owner. Let's see you do that so you can get fired. Sounds like someone is still in school and has never had a real job. Trust me, kid, when you get out into the real world your thinking is going to get much more realistic. What are YOU doing trolling slashdot during work hours?
"Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn't?"
... but my enterprise needs computers that work and people who are competent enough to use something like pre-installed Ubuntu (hoo boy, guess they'll have to go back to school for that!)
The one that doesn't, of course.
To me, that's like asking, "Do you want the wrench that works with the Edsel, or the one that doesn't?"
I guess if I was an Edsel mechanic, that would matter. But since the Edsel sucks, and my business isn't repairing other people's Edsel's, I really couldn't care less... Yes, I am being glib, and I understand the needs of "the Enterprise"
But without having seen the complaint, we can only speculate.
The license is a copyright license for the photographer.
The photographer does not have the ability to give away the model's rights without something in writing from the model, and the photographer never pretended to have that. why is she only suing the involved parties who are corporations, including the only party in this whole debacle that has shit loads of cash? Um, because they are the guilty parties. She apparently does not have a problem with the photographer taking the picture and putting it on Flickr. What she has a problem with is her picture being used to sell mobile phones. Normally, someone would get paid some money to have their picture used for this purpose. But apparently Virgin Mobile decided to go the cheap route, and it may turn out to be costlier in the long run. the invasion of privacy happened when the image was submitted to flickr, not when it was used according to its license in an ad campaign. One might argue (and many might agree) that having your picture used in a national advertising campaign is a far more egregious violation of privacy than having your picture on a website mixed in with a lot of other pictures that only people who choose to look (your friends and anyone else who was there) are likely to see. how is the slogan 'virgin to virgin' derogatory to a faithful churchgoing 16 year old? aren't girls like that supposed to be proud to be virgins? There are a lot of ways it could be taken. But it seems to be a comment on her appearance, just as the other ads show people who one could believe were virgins, based on their appearance. the only party i can see that has any fault is the party who put the image on flickr, the only party too poor to get any cash out of Even if he intended to release the picture under that license (which it seems he is saying he did not), that was only the copyright license. The rights of the model are a completely different issue. By releasing it under that license, he did not provide any warranty that the model had released her rights.
Virgin Mobile has lawyers that know how this stuff works. Maybe they think that by using American photos in an Australian campaign, they can avoid problems because, (a) the subjects are less likely to discover that their likeness has been used in another country, and (b) if they do discover it, they will have to sue Virgin Mobile in Australia, since VM's Australian corporate entity probably has no presence in the US.
Copyright only covers the right of the photographer and/or editor of the picture.
A big company like Virgin Mobile aught to know better than to just grab a photo off the web, no matter what some supposed license on a website states. This is fraught with dangers.
1. What if the website stole the pictures from somewhere else? Your going to base your entire ad campaign on some text that you found online without even contacting the photog and getting it in writing? What happens when the real photog shows up?
2. There are other rights involved with a photograph besides just copyright. The right of the person whose picture was taken is one. She may have various rights to privacy, to proceeds from her publicity and to not be shown in a false light. Smiling for the photograph doesn't mean she waived those rights. How was she supposed to know that it would even be posted online, much less that it would be used in a national ad campaign?
3. The model and other elements in the photograph may also have their own copyright to items that appear in the photograph, especially if it is a picture of some kind of performance.
4. If you are going to be insulting the people in the photographs, you damn well better pay special attention to these things. This particular ad is only slightly insulting. Some of the other ones are far worse.
That's on shaky ground ethically speaking DR 7-105. THREATENING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
(A) A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. Whether he threatened to present the charges *solely* to gain an advantage in the civil case would be the point of argument. The prosecutor would say that it wasn't solely to gain an advantage, because it was the police officer who made the arrest, and the prosecutor just prosecutes whatever cases come to him. However, if the case is not supported by probable cause, he's not allowed to go forward. DR 7-103. PERFORMING THE DUTY OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OR OTHER GOVERNMENT LAWYER.
(A) A public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when he knows or it is obvious that the charges are not supported by probable cause. I would argue that the only reason the prosecutor threatened to go forward was to get the waiver of liability in the civil case. There was no merit to this case. An officer needs some level of suspicion to search a person or to require a showing of ID. There was no level of suspicion whatsoever here. There was no merit to this criminal case... at least according to what this fellow is telling us. One thing I've learned in my practice is that sometimes people charged with crimes lie... yeah, I know, hard to imagine.