Did the officer give consent to his own interception? Sure. But the statute indicates "such interception", where the interception is that of a person of [...] oral communication, and the officer obviously didn't consent to the other fellow's videotaping.
The defendant is not charged with "videotaping." He is charged with intercepting the oral communication... the same oral communication that the officer was (presumably) recording with his camera.
Cops that do traffic stops have a microphone on their body that transmits wirelessly to the camera in their car. That's why when you watch "Most Outrageous Police Chases" on latenight TV, you can hear what they are saying when they approach a stopped car on foot.
Yeah, he might have turned off the mic and only recorded video if he didn't want there to be a record of what he was saying... but do you really think a prosecutor is going to make that argument in front of a jury?
"Folks, this defendant would be innocent, except that the officer decided to turn off his microphone so that noone could hear the verbal abuse that he unleashed on these kids. By turning off his microphone, he withdrew his consent, therefore the defendant is guilty."
While your argument falls flat (it was a weak attempt to split hairs to start with)
You obviously know very little about the law. The law--especially the criminal law--is all about splitting hairs. Due Process does not allow you to be convicted for something that is "kinda sorta" illegal. But I'm not the one splitting hairs here. You are.
The NCAA naturally wants to control access to live (and recorded) broadcasts of games (and currently has the legal right to do so), whether they be video, audio, or even text. How or why is "blogging" magically different or protected?
"Blogging" or "reporting" is different from broadcasting video/audio of the event. The latter is covered by copyright law and can actually result in some serious penalties.
Reporting facts is a lot different, because the most that can happen is what happened here. They ejected the guy and revoked his credentials. They are within their rights to do this. And their reasoning is sound--restrict live reporting to those who have paid NCAA for the privilege.
But that is the most they can do. They will have a hard time preventing this in the future, what with computers and cell phones converging and making it possible for someone in the stands to do this sort of reporting without even having a press pass.
That fourth factor is the "single most important element" according to the Supreme Court.
For a non-commercial use (which a completely personal use would be), the plaintiff bears the burden of proof for that factor. So how is a music publisher going to possibly prove that a completely private and personal use of the work (legally acquired and with no distribution) significantly damages their business? I don't know either.
The Betamax case held that copying an entire television show for personal viewing was protected by the Fair Use Doctrine. I can't think of a single reason why transcribing guitar tabs for personal use would be treated differently. It only becomes different when you start distributing the tabs to other people.
And they're right. Under copyright law, merely transcribing a song by ear (even without sending it to a website) is copyright infringement. Specifically, unauthorized creation of a derivative work. That is an illustration of how nasty and flawed the entire system of copyright is.
Transcribing a song for your own study and private performance is covered under the Fair Use exception. Publishing it is not.
The rights owner can prevent others from publishing an exact copy or a derivative work. That's what makes a copyright valuable. Publishing a composition in a different notation style is still publishing the composition.
Sure it's sad that there isn't another source for these tablatures. Maybe the publishers are thinking of getting into the tablature business. Maybe they are just really short-sighted and think that they can force people to buy the standard notation versions. Maybe the publishing companies will suffer by doing this. But that is their prerogative.
But when you use that EMF to access a computer system, therein lies the difference.
Notice that I mentioned "as long as you aren't recording it."
There is a big difference under the law. If you want to make some sort of scientific argument why it is the same thing, fine. But the law is not science. It is what legislatures decide, for better or worse.
I'm having trouble seeing where there is any fraudulent intent (as required by the MI statute). I assume there was a sign somewhere that says "Free Wifi _for customers_." Still, it seems like a wee bit of a stretch to call it fraudulent.
...people who can sit outside a baseball stadium or concert from some vantage point and watch the game/performance for free are also commiting a felony.
Light is not a computer system.
Like air, it is a natural resource that flows from one property to another, and is not owned by either property owner.
So long as you are lawfully present and you don't record the baseball game, you are not committing a crime.
Wouldn't a patent law which does NOT promote science and arts be unconstitutional? Or am I misreading the constitution?
Depends on how you interpret the Constitution.
Courts have interpreted the interstate commerce clause to justify regulation of almost any activity that would even remotely affect interstate commerce. That trend towards expanding Federal authority has reversed with a more conservative Supreme Court (not trying to make a value judgment here), but it's still pretty wide.
Even if a patent regulation doesn't fit with the "securing for limited times to authors and inventors" clause, the commerce clause is probably sufficient to uphold those patents, especially if the product crosses state lines.
Well, at least in this world, we would be able to defend ourselves from **AA claiming free speech.
Unfortunately, no.
Copyrights are specifically allowed by the Constitution. Both the Copyright Clause and the Free Speech clauses were written by the same people, at about the same time. There is no historical indication that Free Speech was meant to repeal Congress's authority enact a system of copyrights and patents.
Even if a court agreed with Verizon's First Amendment argument, the decision would have no effect on copyrights.
If I could mod someone up for responding to my own post, I would. In typical slashdot fashion, I merely skimmed the article, which mentions the Petition the Government clause as if it were a subset of the Free Speech clause, rather than an independent right also outlined in the First Amendment. (Ha! Sue me, people!)
But the Petition the Government clause is a much better argument than the general Free Speech clause would be, because it specifically covers communications to the government.
Like you, I still think this will go down in flames. The Petition the Government clause is not as broad as Verizon would like it to be. The right is to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." But Verizon was responding to a government inquiry. It doesn't appear they had any independent knowledge of wrongdoing by the plaintiffs, outside of what the government asked for.
Since Free Speech is enshrined directly in the Constitution while Privacy is not (it's an indirect right. See Roe Vs Wade for more info), they could have a good (legally, not morally) argument.
Give me a break.
There is no way in hell the courts will let this argument fly. Verizon's lawyers are just throwing it out there and seeing if it'll stick.
Imagine if you will, instantly losing all privacy rights toward any private actor. Your doctor... your lawyer... your accountant... all 3 credit bureaus... it goes on.
Imagine the credit bureaus selling your personal info to identity thieves. Oh wait... you don't have to imagine it, cause it's already happened! The only difference under Verizon's world is that there would be no consequence to the credit bureaus. Hell, there's not even a market consequence if they don't sell to consumers.
Imagine any interested party being able to get your full medical history for a price.
Imagine the lawyer in your divorce switching sides after the case is over and using info that you gave him in confidence against you.
Obvious bad results aside, speech requires an expression of something more than just data. Verizon did not create the data. And even if they had, it is not a creative or opinionated work. It is simply bits and bytes.
If the transfer of any set of bits and bytes constitutes free speech, then we are well and truly screwed, because the sale of your personally identifiable information to any criminal becomes constitutionally protected.
Typically, countries will assert jurisdiction over acts committed within their geographic territory or acts committed by their own citizens wherever they may be. Sometimes a country will assert that a foreign national--though not actually setting foot in the country--has reached out to its jurisdiction by some act, thus invoking "the long arm of the law." Examples would include sending a mail bomb, or breaking into a computer over the internet.
This case does not appear to be based on any of those theories of jurisdiction. According to the article, the US charged Mr. Griffiths with conspiracy. Under conspiracy, any one conspirator is liable for the acts of any other person in the conspiracy.
This is very troublesome when applied to such a mundane crime as copying works and giving them to people who never would have bought them in the first place. The actual effect of the conspiracy is arguably insignificant. It doesn't seem as troublesome when applied to something who planned the 9/11 attacks, where the effect is very significant. But the theory of jurisdiction is the same: conspiracy with people who committed criminal acts inside the prosecuting country.
Hah! I don't know why I would give any prosecutor the benefit of the doubt.
But it's rather interesting to see how everybody on Slashdot was so quick to condemn Hans Reiser as soon as he was charged... and now everyone is so quick to say that he was framed.
How about a little bit of "We don't know?" Is it too much to ask of a few geeks that they admit they don't actually know the answer to every question ever asked???
It's unclear when Sturgeon made the confession -- he would say only, "I have cooperated since day one." Asked why he had confessed at all, he responded with this question: "In a murder case, if somebody has killed, who is a witness, is it relevant? Yes or no?"
When this reporter responded that it was relevant, Sturgeon said, "Then you have the answer to your question."
Sturgeon added that confessing was one of the most difficult decisions of his life. He also regrets being a source of distraction in the case, joking that he is not so much a red herring as a "red Sturgeon."
Yep... a regular old Hannibal Lechter. Do you think he might have had some sort of grudge against Reiser? Spurned love, and then his friend gets the girl... yathink? Maybe he set it up so that not only does Reiser lose his wife... but then has to defend a murder case for killing her.
From what's been in the press, it seems that all the evidence is circumstantial. A criminal case can be proven by circumstantial evidence, but only when it's enough to exclude all other reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. Looks like this shoots the prosecution right out of the water.
On the other hand, if the prosecution had this confession a long time ago and they are still moving forward, it's possible they have some other evidence that we don't know about yet.
Why is it that we can train a young child to control their bowel movements, yet expecting an adult to control their sexuality is somehow considered oppressive? If a child can learn to defer bowel movement until the appropriate time and place, why can't an adult defer their sexuality until an appropriate time and place?
If you are telling your children to defer their bowel movements for months or years at a time, I want to know where you live, cause my next phone call will be to your Department of Family and Children Services.
Or is it too much to expect an adult to have full control over their own body?
Yes, it is. Is that a serious question?
People can learn self-control. The fact that self-control of one's own sexuality is considered somehow repressive is indicative of a lax and selfish attitude with respect to others. Sex deeply affects people emotionally, spiritually, and (surprise!) physically.
Yep. And so does the lack of sex. Your ignorance of this is... indicative of a naive and dogmatic attitude with respect to your knowledge of self and the world in general.
To reduce it to a mere matter of personal health is ignorant of the fact that it is much more than a mere physical release. It is not merely as simple as relieving a physical urge - if it was, NASA would just tell the astronauts to masturbate and leave it at that.
Exactly. Masturbation != sex. You cannot rely on masturbation alone to satisfy all the needs that sex satisfies.
If we can require an astronaut go through extensive training so that they can cope with the effects of zero gravity for months at a time, why wouldn't we likewise train them to maintain control over their sexual urges under the same circumstances?
Training for sexual deprivation and for dealing with sexual relationships in space is going to be vital.
These are people on a ship that will travel millions of miles. You cannot expect them to steadfastly follow the rules that you set for them when they are gone that long. They are human beings. Humans are animals that have urges and instinctive actions just like any other animal. The intellect that humans benefit from allows them to come up with solutions that take those urges and instincts into account.
If we ignored these facts of life and told them to "just hold it" until they get back, we'd be dooming the mission to failure.
Essentially, the RIAA was asking for a declaratory judgment against the ISPs. But the ISPs aren't even parties to the case. It makes far more sense for the court to provide the limited order than to give some sweeping declaration of the law on an ex parte motion.
They (the RIAA) are really reaching for anything that will make this easier for them. But going after an unknown defendant is never easy.
Hell, it's hard enough to go after a known defendant and collect your money after you've already won a judgment against him.
I wonder what kind of return they are getting on their investment here. If they can't even get a settlement proposal to a defendant before going to a judge, and more of those who do get served are fighting it... I would think the returns will begin to diminish.
Coupled with the good will they are losing (assuming they even factor that in), they may decide this is a lost battle at some point... But that's just rampant speculation. I'm curious if NewYorkCountryLawyer thinks that this insanity will ever end... If not, maybe I should change my area of practice (that would be defending the criminally accused, an area of the law which is almost completely lacking in geekery).
Communication occurs over various "ports," which are similar in concept to frequencies in the radio world.
With any "layman's definition," you have to make analogies to things that the layman already understands. Otherwise, you would have to go into great technical detail. Sen. Stevens problem was that he simply repeated someone else's analogy (a telco/cableco lobbyist's for certain) but he does not understand it himself.
The analogy he used was not appropriate for explaining the internet, but it was appropriate for advocating a legislative position. By simply repeating it as if it were a scientific lesson, he made himself look like a buffoon.
I'm sure there must be case law on the roommate scenario, since it probably comes up often in drug cases. Does anyone know what the precedents are?
Under the Equal Access Doctrine, proof that they both had the same access to the contraband--if there's no other evidence--would be insufficient to convict either one of possession.
But according to the article, the porn was found in the defendant's room, and the "roommate" had a different room.
The defendant didn't attack the substance of the charge. He entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence.
His argument that there was no probable cause because he had an open access point is ridiculous. For one thing, it would require the police to triangulate any wifi signals near a suspect's home prior to applying for a search warrant. And assuming they had someone on their payroll with the technical know-how for that, they would have no way of knowing whether an access point was on at the time of an offense.
He could have taken it to trial and blamed the roommate. But unfortunately, a defendant in Federal court is likely to face a considerable increase in prison time if convicted after a trial. So either he knew he would lose at trial, or he decided it wasn't worth the risk of an extra few years in prison.
you americans think you are free? here in the UK . ..
You're in the UK? The country whose prime minister sucks Bush's dick? Go outside and wave at the police cameras you retarded limey.
Say what you want about my country, but I already KNOW that it's a police state. You're so deluded that you think the UK is better?
Get real. You're the 51st state. The only difference is that you're money has a bitch printed on it and you talk like there's a turd in your mouth. Other than that, you're in the same boat.
Slashdot Mirror
Did the officer give consent to his own interception? Sure. But the statute indicates "such interception", where the interception is that of a person of [...] oral communication, and the officer obviously didn't consent to the other fellow's videotaping.
The defendant is not charged with "videotaping." He is charged with intercepting the oral communication... the same oral communication that the officer was (presumably) recording with his camera.
Cops that do traffic stops have a microphone on their body that transmits wirelessly to the camera in their car. That's why when you watch "Most Outrageous Police Chases" on latenight TV, you can hear what they are saying when they approach a stopped car on foot.
Yeah, he might have turned off the mic and only recorded video if he didn't want there to be a record of what he was saying... but do you really think a prosecutor is going to make that argument in front of a jury?
"Folks, this defendant would be innocent, except that the officer decided to turn off his microphone so that noone could hear the verbal abuse that he unleashed on these kids. By turning off his microphone, he withdrew his consent, therefore the defendant is guilty."
While your argument falls flat (it was a weak attempt to split hairs to start with)
You obviously know very little about the law. The law--especially the criminal law--is all about splitting hairs. Due Process does not allow you to be convicted for something that is "kinda sorta" illegal. But I'm not the one splitting hairs here. You are.
"Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent."
The officer DID consent to have the conservation recorded. In fact, he was recording it with his own audio/video system.
He didn't consent to have it on the defendant's tape... but unless the statute draws that line, the court should not either.
The NCAA naturally wants to control access to live (and recorded) broadcasts of games (and currently has the legal right to do so), whether they be video, audio, or even text. How or why is "blogging" magically different or protected?
"Blogging" or "reporting" is different from broadcasting video/audio of the event. The latter is covered by copyright law and can actually result in some serious penalties.
Reporting facts is a lot different, because the most that can happen is what happened here. They ejected the guy and revoked his credentials. They are within their rights to do this. And their reasoning is sound--restrict live reporting to those who have paid NCAA for the privilege.
But that is the most they can do. They will have a hard time preventing this in the future, what with computers and cell phones converging and making it possible for someone in the stands to do this sort of reporting without even having a press pass.
That fourth factor is the "single most important element" according to the Supreme Court.
For a non-commercial use (which a completely personal use would be), the plaintiff bears the burden of proof for that factor. So how is a music publisher going to possibly prove that a completely private and personal use of the work (legally acquired and with no distribution) significantly damages their business? I don't know either.
The Betamax case held that copying an entire television show for personal viewing was protected by the Fair Use Doctrine. I can't think of a single reason why transcribing guitar tabs for personal use would be treated differently. It only becomes different when you start distributing the tabs to other people.
And they're right. Under copyright law, merely transcribing a song by ear (even without sending it to a website) is copyright infringement. Specifically, unauthorized creation of a derivative work. That is an illustration of how nasty and flawed the entire system of copyright is.
Transcribing a song for your own study and private performance is covered under the Fair Use exception. Publishing it is not.
The rights owner can prevent others from publishing an exact copy or a derivative work. That's what makes a copyright valuable. Publishing a composition in a different notation style is still publishing the composition.
Sure it's sad that there isn't another source for these tablatures. Maybe the publishers are thinking of getting into the tablature business. Maybe they are just really short-sighted and think that they can force people to buy the standard notation versions. Maybe the publishing companies will suffer by doing this. But that is their prerogative.
But when you use that EMF to access a computer system, therein lies the difference.
Notice that I mentioned "as long as you aren't recording it."
There is a big difference under the law. If you want to make some sort of scientific argument why it is the same thing, fine. But the law is not science. It is what legislatures decide, for better or worse.
Coffee shop owner offers free wifi.
Person uses free wifi.
I'm having trouble seeing where there is any fraudulent intent (as required by the MI statute). I assume there was a sign somewhere that says "Free Wifi _for customers_." Still, it seems like a wee bit of a stretch to call it fraudulent.
...people who can sit outside a baseball stadium or concert from some vantage point and watch the game/performance for free are also commiting a felony.
Light is not a computer system.
Like air, it is a natural resource that flows from one property to another, and is not owned by either property owner.
So long as you are lawfully present and you don't record the baseball game, you are not committing a crime.
Wouldn't a patent law which does NOT promote science and arts be unconstitutional? Or am I misreading the constitution?
Depends on how you interpret the Constitution.
Courts have interpreted the interstate commerce clause to justify regulation of almost any activity that would even remotely affect interstate commerce. That trend towards expanding Federal authority has reversed with a more conservative Supreme Court (not trying to make a value judgment here), but it's still pretty wide.
Even if a patent regulation doesn't fit with the "securing for limited times to authors and inventors" clause, the commerce clause is probably sufficient to uphold those patents, especially if the product crosses state lines.
Uhm... hasn't he always had a job?
Sounds like this Hilf guy is trying to imply that Linux has lost so much momentum that Linus had to go out and get a job.
That's some of the biggest bullshitting I've ever heard.
Well, at least in this world, we would be able to defend ourselves from **AA claiming free speech.
Unfortunately, no.
Copyrights are specifically allowed by the Constitution. Both the Copyright Clause and the Free Speech clauses were written by the same people, at about the same time. There is no historical indication that Free Speech was meant to repeal Congress's authority enact a system of copyrights and patents.
Even if a court agreed with Verizon's First Amendment argument, the decision would have no effect on copyrights.
If I could mod someone up for responding to my own post, I would. In typical slashdot fashion, I merely skimmed the article, which mentions the Petition the Government clause as if it were a subset of the Free Speech clause, rather than an independent right also outlined in the First Amendment. (Ha! Sue me, people!)
But the Petition the Government clause is a much better argument than the general Free Speech clause would be, because it specifically covers communications to the government.
Like you, I still think this will go down in flames. The Petition the Government clause is not as broad as Verizon would like it to be. The right is to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." But Verizon was responding to a government inquiry. It doesn't appear they had any independent knowledge of wrongdoing by the plaintiffs, outside of what the government asked for.
Since Free Speech is enshrined directly in the Constitution while Privacy is not (it's an indirect right. See Roe Vs Wade for more info), they could have a good (legally, not morally) argument.
Give me a break.
There is no way in hell the courts will let this argument fly. Verizon's lawyers are just throwing it out there and seeing if it'll stick.
Imagine if you will, instantly losing all privacy rights toward any private actor. Your doctor... your lawyer... your accountant... all 3 credit bureaus... it goes on.
Imagine the credit bureaus selling your personal info to identity thieves. Oh wait... you don't have to imagine it, cause it's already happened! The only difference under Verizon's world is that there would be no consequence to the credit bureaus. Hell, there's not even a market consequence if they don't sell to consumers.
Imagine any interested party being able to get your full medical history for a price.
Imagine the lawyer in your divorce switching sides after the case is over and using info that you gave him in confidence against you.
Obvious bad results aside, speech requires an expression of something more than just data. Verizon did not create the data. And even if they had, it is not a creative or opinionated work. It is simply bits and bytes.
If the transfer of any set of bits and bytes constitutes free speech, then we are well and truly screwed, because the sale of your personally identifiable information to any criminal becomes constitutionally protected.
Typically, countries will assert jurisdiction over acts committed within their geographic territory or acts committed by their own citizens wherever they may be. Sometimes a country will assert that a foreign national--though not actually setting foot in the country--has reached out to its jurisdiction by some act, thus invoking "the long arm of the law." Examples would include sending a mail bomb, or breaking into a computer over the internet.
This case does not appear to be based on any of those theories of jurisdiction. According to the article, the US charged Mr. Griffiths with conspiracy. Under conspiracy, any one conspirator is liable for the acts of any other person in the conspiracy.
This is very troublesome when applied to such a mundane crime as copying works and giving them to people who never would have bought them in the first place. The actual effect of the conspiracy is arguably insignificant. It doesn't seem as troublesome when applied to something who planned the 9/11 attacks, where the effect is very significant. But the theory of jurisdiction is the same: conspiracy with people who committed criminal acts inside the prosecuting country.
Paging Mike Nifong! Crystal Mangum on line 1!
Hah! I don't know why I would give any prosecutor the benefit of the doubt.
But it's rather interesting to see how everybody on Slashdot was so quick to condemn Hans Reiser as soon as he was charged... and now everyone is so quick to say that he was framed.
How about a little bit of "We don't know?" Is it too much to ask of a few geeks that they admit they don't actually know the answer to every question ever asked???
It's unclear when Sturgeon made the confession -- he would say only, "I have cooperated since day one." Asked why he had confessed at all, he responded with this question: "In a murder case, if somebody has killed, who is a witness, is it relevant? Yes or no?"
When this reporter responded that it was relevant, Sturgeon said, "Then you have the answer to your question."
Sturgeon added that confessing was one of the most difficult decisions of his life. He also regrets being a source of distraction in the case, joking that he is not so much a red herring as a "red Sturgeon."
Yep... a regular old Hannibal Lechter. Do you think he might have had some sort of grudge against Reiser? Spurned love, and then his friend gets the girl... yathink? Maybe he set it up so that not only does Reiser lose his wife... but then has to defend a murder case for killing her.
From what's been in the press, it seems that all the evidence is circumstantial. A criminal case can be proven by circumstantial evidence, but only when it's enough to exclude all other reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. Looks like this shoots the prosecution right out of the water.
On the other hand, if the prosecution had this confession a long time ago and they are still moving forward, it's possible they have some other evidence that we don't know about yet.
Why is it that we can train a young child to control their bowel movements, yet expecting an adult to control their sexuality is somehow considered oppressive? If a child can learn to defer bowel movement until the appropriate time and place, why can't an adult defer their sexuality until an appropriate time and place?
... indicative of a naive and dogmatic attitude with respect to your knowledge of self and the world in general.
If you are telling your children to defer their bowel movements for months or years at a time, I want to know where you live, cause my next phone call will be to your Department of Family and Children Services.
Or is it too much to expect an adult to have full control over their own body?
Yes, it is. Is that a serious question?
People can learn self-control. The fact that self-control of one's own sexuality is considered somehow repressive is indicative of a lax and selfish attitude with respect to others. Sex deeply affects people emotionally, spiritually, and (surprise!) physically.
Yep. And so does the lack of sex. Your ignorance of this is
To reduce it to a mere matter of personal health is ignorant of the fact that it is much more than a mere physical release. It is not merely as simple as relieving a physical urge - if it was, NASA would just tell the astronauts to masturbate and leave it at that.
Exactly. Masturbation != sex. You cannot rely on masturbation alone to satisfy all the needs that sex satisfies.
If we can require an astronaut go through extensive training so that they can cope with the effects of zero gravity for months at a time, why wouldn't we likewise train them to maintain control over their sexual urges under the same circumstances?
Training for sexual deprivation and for dealing with sexual relationships in space is going to be vital.
These are people on a ship that will travel millions of miles. You cannot expect them to steadfastly follow the rules that you set for them when they are gone that long. They are human beings. Humans are animals that have urges and instinctive actions just like any other animal. The intellect that humans benefit from allows them to come up with solutions that take those urges and instincts into account.
If we ignored these facts of life and told them to "just hold it" until they get back, we'd be dooming the mission to failure.
Isn't there something in the DMCA or some other stupid statute or caselaw that requires the court to do this?
I'm not arguing that it's "right." But I thought that was the procedure they were supposed to use (file a John Doe lawsuit and subpoena the ISP).
How did the courts accept a one sided case? Any outcome of this would be crapish.
The defendants are currently "Does 1-9," so at this point, there are no known defendants.
The court noted that the cable companies can move to quash the subpoenas when they get served, so it's not necessarily going to stay one-sided.
Essentially, the RIAA was asking for a declaratory judgment against the ISPs. But the ISPs aren't even parties to the case. It makes far more sense for the court to provide the limited order than to give some sweeping declaration of the law on an ex parte motion.
They (the RIAA) are really reaching for anything that will make this easier for them. But going after an unknown defendant is never easy.
Hell, it's hard enough to go after a known defendant and collect your money after you've already won a judgment against him.
I wonder what kind of return they are getting on their investment here. If they can't even get a settlement proposal to a defendant before going to a judge, and more of those who do get served are fighting it... I would think the returns will begin to diminish.
Coupled with the good will they are losing (assuming they even factor that in), they may decide this is a lost battle at some point... But that's just rampant speculation. I'm curious if NewYorkCountryLawyer thinks that this insanity will ever end... If not, maybe I should change my area of practice (that would be defending the criminally accused, an area of the law which is almost completely lacking in geekery).
"Sooo, you're saying that the wirelessly connected computer I'm posting this from isn't on the internet?"
No. It's an analogy. Read the whole post.
I'll grant that it's not the best analogy that anyone came up with, but that's all it is.
Jeez, geeks and their devotion to pedantic detail.
Wires connecting a lot of computers.
Communication occurs over various "ports," which are similar in concept to frequencies in the radio world.
With any "layman's definition," you have to make analogies to things that the layman already understands. Otherwise, you would have to go into great technical detail. Sen. Stevens problem was that he simply repeated someone else's analogy (a telco/cableco lobbyist's for certain) but he does not understand it himself.
The analogy he used was not appropriate for explaining the internet, but it was appropriate for advocating a legislative position. By simply repeating it as if it were a scientific lesson, he made himself look like a buffoon.
I'm sure there must be case law on the roommate scenario, since it probably comes up often in drug cases. Does anyone know what the precedents are?
Under the Equal Access Doctrine, proof that they both had the same access to the contraband--if there's no other evidence--would be insufficient to convict either one of possession.
But according to the article, the porn was found in the defendant's room, and the "roommate" had a different room.
The defendant didn't attack the substance of the charge. He entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence.
His argument that there was no probable cause because he had an open access point is ridiculous. For one thing, it would require the police to triangulate any wifi signals near a suspect's home prior to applying for a search warrant. And assuming they had someone on their payroll with the technical know-how for that, they would have no way of knowing whether an access point was on at the time of an offense.
He could have taken it to trial and blamed the roommate. But unfortunately, a defendant in Federal court is likely to face a considerable increase in prison time if convicted after a trial. So either he knew he would lose at trial, or he decided it wasn't worth the risk of an extra few years in prison.
Yes, it is true. America is a police state. Freedom and equal protection are just ideas here. We have them on paper, but no one really believes in it.
Here in Georgia we have a guy sitting in prison because when he was 17 he received consensual oral sex from a 15 year old classmate.
His sentence? Ten years. No parole.
It was the minimum sentence allowed for "aggravated child molestation." Aggravated, because oral sex is "sodomy."
you americans think you are free? here in the UK . . .
You're in the UK? The country whose prime minister sucks Bush's dick? Go outside and wave at the police cameras you retarded limey.
Say what you want about my country, but I already KNOW that it's a police state. You're so deluded that you think the UK is better?
Get real. You're the 51st state. The only difference is that you're money has a bitch printed on it and you talk like there's a turd in your mouth. Other than that, you're in the same boat.