Don't forget that the courtroom is not about justice. It's about two teams, with money and careers to maintain, who need to create legal briefs which will ultimately give them the win.
That's true of the courtrooms you see on TV. But in a grand jury courtroom, it's about one team (the prosecution) and a supposedly neutral group of citizens (the grand jury).
The US attorney wants the tape for himself so that he can show only what he deems fit to the grand jury.
And he's entitled to do that. You don't even have a right to have your lawyer in the room if you are called to testify in front of a grand jury. It is a one-sided proceeding by design. It's not adversarial process. It's the gateway to adversarial process.
Things can be very convenient when your government has a centralized database of all of its citizens, and isn't hampered by things like: Human rights Privacy rights Civil rights
Non-Mutual collateral estoppel or "offensive estoppel" applies to legal theories of liability, not just to facts.
There has been no litigation of the RIAA's theory of liability in this case.
They voluntarily dismissed their case.
And besides that, this story is not about the voluntary dismissal, which is old news. This story is about the award of attorney's fees. You're the one barking up the wrong tree.
Me like. If that can be said to be a precedent, it means...
Some explaining is in order.
I know y'all aren't lawyers, so I shouldn't expect you to get the lawyer-speak right, but I have noticed lots and lots of misuse of this term.
"Precedent" in the context of a court's decision doesn't mean much at the trial court level.
That's because a court is only bound by the decisions of the courts ABOVE it. Since a trial court is basically the lowest court, you don't have trial courts setting "precedents" that anyone has to follow.
Appeals courts set precedent that the trial courts (aka district courts) must follow within their circuits. The Supreme Court also sets precedent that the Courts of Appeal and district courts must follow. But district courts do not set precedent that anyone else must follow.
I suppose any time someone decides something it can be called a "precedent". But usually, when we say that about courts, we are talking about something that has to be followed.
A court does not have to follow its own precedents, though they tend to do so, absent a good reason to change course. This tendency is called stare decisis, and it is not a requirement. The Supreme Court reverses itself fairly regularly, and that's why some people worry that Roe v. Wade (or another decision) might get overturned.
While a district court sets precedent in the sense that decisions in that same court will probably follow it, they do not set precedent that anyone outside of that court's jurisdiction needs to follow. Someone else may or may not find that judge's reasoning persuasive.
This is only going to become a paid service for those who want to host it themselves. If you are going to continue to use Google's server's then the price remains free.
Where do you get that information? It wasn't in the article.
When I signed up for Google Apps for Your Domain a few months ago, they said that they would eventually start charging for new user accounts, but user accounts that already exist will remain free when they transition to a paid service.
Seems like a piece of software that would only be useful in a few applications, but VERY useful in those applications.
It's not going to be useful to someone who needs precise measurements, like a contractor. Those people will use a measuring tape, which is more than 99.5% accurate when used properly.
But for estimators and appraisers this sounds like a killer app. Usually one would charge a lot more than $99 for such a niche application. Because of its niche status, there will not be as much competition from other software vendors. And for the intended customer, it is likely to become a must-have item.
Of course, the more they charge, the more likely it is that competitors will materialize.
Were he to call up the prosecutor and ask them not to go forward, it would be a clear statement that Russia is a banana republic. A rich guy can just make them fall over and do what he wants? Well, probably it's true, and Gorbachev obviously sees it that way.
But the article you linked mentions that Putin has already said that prosecuting this guy is ridiculous. If Putin can use some pressure to stop the prosecution, it makes him look good. If you make Putin look good, the doors open even wider for you in Russia.
Gates and MS are not dummies. This will end up working out quite well for them.
It's absurd only because it is an annoying dance, and I can't imagine anyone would really want to do it.
How could I "copy" a dance move, unless I had the same body?
How can you copy a book without the same font? How can you copy the melody of a song without the same voice? Or another musical work without the same instrument? You don't just run these things through diff to see if they match. It's a human judgment. It's what judges and juries are for.
Who has a copyright on head shakes, snapping fingers, or on "showing the hand?" Or do you get a copyright on a certain number of coordinated moves and the simple ones are free domain. It's amazing that so many things became part of our culture, and nobody thought to copyright them. Who would now be licensing the Rhumba today? Copyright was designed to help the consumer, to avoid confusion in the marketplace. Can anyone "sell me" the Funky Chicken dance?
Copyright was not designed to help the consumer in a direct way. It was designed to promote creativity by providing the incentive of a limited monopoly to the creator. In turn, this benefits the consumer (in theory) by creating a market.
Copyright doesn't have anything to do with "avoiding confusion in the marketplace". That's what trademark is for.
It seems to be pedantic, but coreography is the coordination of dancers. Electric slide only requires one dancer, and what the others on the dance floor do is almost totally irrelevant (barring collision).
I think you are the one "bending the english language". Look in the dictionary. Choreography is the planned movement of dancers. Does that mean exclusively plural? Of course not.
But even if one were to take your view that choreography has to be more than one dancer, it still wouldn't mean no protection for solo dances. It would fall under the "pantomimes" category.
Why do you feel that a solo dancer deserves less protection of their artistic work than a ballroom dancer? Are you a dance-snob? (kidding! kidding!)
The summary for this story is just weird. The DMCA is just the method of enforcement, because the performance is being displayed online.
Choreography is just one of the items that are protected by copyright, which is listed in 17 USC 102:
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works.
This statute was last revised in 1990. The DMCA did not add anything to it. I don't know how long choreography has been protected by copyright, but I would gamble that it's been at least fifty years or so.
I believe it is SOP in most states. It's very similar to the procedure that the police go through. The difference is that it's much easier for the police to arrest you BEFORE a judge rules on probable cause.
While a civilian can sometimes do a "citizen's arrest," it's a very risky thing. If you turn out to be wrong, you can be criminally prosecuted for kidnapping and/or sued for false imprisonment. So it's a pretty rare thing. In contrast, the warrant application procedure gives the accused an opportunity to make his case in front of the judge for why there isn't probable cause.
Don't know the answer to your question about federal procedure.
AFAIK, a civil court (which is where MySpace would have to sue Samy) doesn't ban people from the internets or sentance them to community service. And TFA says he pleaded guilty in LA Superior Court... you don't plead guilty in civil court.
True that it's not normal, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. And for what it's worth, it's not a "civil court" versus a "criminal court". Generally a superior court can handle both civil and criminal **cases**.
Also, it is possible for an individual (or company) to institute criminal proceedings. In Georgia, you would just go to Magistrate court, fill out an application and there would be a "pre-warrant hearing". If the judge finds probable cause, a warrant issues for the defendant's arrest and the case is sent to the District Attorney for prosecution.
Linus became upset about FSF encouraging use of the name "GNU/Linux." The article and summary comply with Linus's preference, and refer to the whole OS as Linux, even though Linux (the kernel) is not a subject of this.
Does Linus approve of this action done in the name of the Linux operating system?
Or does he now think everyone needs to call it GNU/Linux so that it sounds less like he is responsible for it?
People don't switch to Linux because it's easier, at least not yet. In most areas, it isn't easier.
If someone is intelligent and enough of an abstract thinker to understand the benefit of FOSS even when they don't how to program, then they will want to use Linux, regardless of how much harder it is than Windows.
But there are few non-developers who can comprehend the value of FOSS (I am one of them.). All things being equal, people are resistant to change. There has to be a damn good reason for them to do it. If it is difficult, they simply won't.
The few times I have been asked about Linux, I've just told the person that it requires more work than Windows, but if you like working with computers, then it might be the thing for you.
Also, you have to remember that Linux is not an operating system, it is a kernel. Rather than going into a long and drawn out explanation of this, I think it's best to just recommend the current most user-friendly distro out there. "It's not what I'm using, but it's good for a beginner."
If they weren't going to sue before, this may make them angry enough to do so now-- and they might have a better case.
I tend to think the opposite.
The anonymous reader (assuming he isn't a big old liar) is justifiably pissed off. His company hadn't had a taste of what can happen when everyone in the IT community knows what Grade A assholes they are. Perhaps they will get the message from this.
I tend think they would be less likely to follow through, not more. But it really depends on a bunch of details that we don't have.
BTW, why is it that software is the only product where supply and demand and mass production rules don't apply? Everything else that is mass produced comes down in price, software stays the same or gets more expensive.
It's called copyright law.
Market forces don't matter as much when you have a legal monopoly... this is even more true when you use an illegal monopoly to stifle alternatives to your legal monopolies, as Microsoft has done frequently.
I meant to explain that I was browsing at Best Buy and tried out their main display computer running Vista. It was set up at the end of an aisle with signs and speakers proclaiming what a great step up Vista was.
I guess I need a marketing department of my own to vet my posts before I click submit.
And so far MS's marketing is sucking really bad from what I've seen.
Tried to open Office 2007 and got a message about a license key and if I wanted to enter it. I clicked "No," and the entire screen went black and wouldn't come back up.
Isn't the most effective way to "protest" it just not buy, to explain to your friends and workplaces why they shouldn't buy it, and most particularly, to aggressively pursue a refund for any bundled versions that you're forced to buy with hardware?
The point of protesting is to make your voice heard. If you get enough people involved, then word spreads about the problem. While the things you mention would be somewhat effective, the best predictor of effectiveness is probably the amount of people you can get involved.
IMO, telling your friends or pursuing a refund would not be nearly as effective as an online petition and a story on slashdot.
That's not to imply that any of these things will really make a significant difference. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that the courtroom is not about justice. It's about two teams, with money and careers to maintain, who need to create legal briefs which will ultimately give them the win.
That's true of the courtrooms you see on TV. But in a grand jury courtroom, it's about one team (the prosecution) and a supposedly neutral group of citizens (the grand jury).
The US attorney wants the tape for himself so that he can show only what he deems fit to the grand jury.
And he's entitled to do that. You don't even have a right to have your lawyer in the room if you are called to testify in front of a grand jury. It is a one-sided proceeding by design. It's not adversarial process. It's the gateway to adversarial process.
Any more questions?
Troll much?
You think saying China has issues with human rights is a "pronouncement?"
Have you ever read a fucking newspaper???
Things can be very convenient when your government has a centralized database of all of its citizens, and isn't hampered by things like:
Human rights
Privacy rights
Civil rights
The summary implies that all schools in Russia will be switching over.
But the linked article only says that schools in the Perm region will switch to Linux.
Non-Mutual collateral estoppel or "offensive estoppel" applies to legal theories of liability, not just to facts.
There has been no litigation of the RIAA's theory of liability in this case.
They voluntarily dismissed their case.
And besides that, this story is not about the voluntary dismissal, which is old news. This story is about the award of attorney's fees. You're the one barking up the wrong tree.
Sure you are a lawyer?
I didn't say I was a lawyer. I might be.
Regardless, it's quite obvious that YOU are not a lawyer.
"Non Mutual Collateral Estoppel" means the judge's decision is binding in any case in the future the RIAA brings.
Collateral estoppel refers to the principle that a party may not relitigate an issue that has already been determined in another case.
So, the RIAA will not be allowed to relitigate the question of whether Debbie Foster is entitled to attorney's fees.
Whoop-de-frickin-doo!
Me like. If that can be said to be a precedent, it means ...
Some explaining is in order.
I know y'all aren't lawyers, so I shouldn't expect you to get the lawyer-speak right, but I have noticed lots and lots of misuse of this term.
"Precedent" in the context of a court's decision doesn't mean much at the trial court level.
That's because a court is only bound by the decisions of the courts ABOVE it. Since a trial court is basically the lowest court, you don't have trial courts setting "precedents" that anyone has to follow.
Appeals courts set precedent that the trial courts (aka district courts) must follow within their circuits. The Supreme Court also sets precedent that the Courts of Appeal and district courts must follow. But district courts do not set precedent that anyone else must follow.
I suppose any time someone decides something it can be called a "precedent". But usually, when we say that about courts, we are talking about something that has to be followed.
A court does not have to follow its own precedents, though they tend to do so, absent a good reason to change course. This tendency is called stare decisis, and it is not a requirement. The Supreme Court reverses itself fairly regularly, and that's why some people worry that Roe v. Wade (or another decision) might get overturned.
While a district court sets precedent in the sense that decisions in that same court will probably follow it, they do not set precedent that anyone outside of that court's jurisdiction needs to follow. Someone else may or may not find that judge's reasoning persuasive.
This is only going to become a paid service for those who want to host it themselves. If you are going to continue to use Google's server's then the price remains free.
Where do you get that information? It wasn't in the article.
When I signed up for Google Apps for Your Domain a few months ago, they said that they would eventually start charging for new user accounts, but user accounts that already exist will remain free when they transition to a paid service.
Seems like a piece of software that would only be useful in a few applications, but VERY useful in those applications.
It's not going to be useful to someone who needs precise measurements, like a contractor. Those people will use a measuring tape, which is more than 99.5% accurate when used properly.
But for estimators and appraisers this sounds like a killer app. Usually one would charge a lot more than $99 for such a niche application. Because of its niche status, there will not be as much competition from other software vendors. And for the intended customer, it is likely to become a must-have item.
Of course, the more they charge, the more likely it is that competitors will materialize.
Were he to call up the prosecutor and ask them not to go forward, it would be a clear statement that Russia is a banana republic. A rich guy can just make them fall over and do what he wants? Well, probably it's true, and Gorbachev obviously sees it that way.
But the article you linked mentions that Putin has already said that prosecuting this guy is ridiculous. If Putin can use some pressure to stop the prosecution, it makes him look good. If you make Putin look good, the doors open even wider for you in Russia.
Gates and MS are not dummies. This will end up working out quite well for them.
That, at the end of the day, Scientology will be laughed out of court, and this guy set free. Think SCO vs IBM.
Hate to burst your bubble. He will be set free after he serves his 6 month sentence.
Even if he could still appeal (the deadline having passed many years ago), it would take more than 6 months for his appeal to be ruled on.
He has 3 (quite unlikely) ways of avoiding it now:
a) escape again
b) get a pardon from Arnold Schwarzenegger, or
c) get the California legislature to repeal the law with retroactive effect.
You don't see this as absurd?
It's absurd only because it is an annoying dance, and I can't imagine anyone would really want to do it.
How could I "copy" a dance move, unless I had the same body?
How can you copy a book without the same font? How can you copy the melody of a song without the same voice? Or another musical work without the same instrument? You don't just run these things through diff to see if they match. It's a human judgment. It's what judges and juries are for.
Who has a copyright on head shakes, snapping fingers, or on "showing the hand?" Or do you get a copyright on a certain number of coordinated moves and the simple ones are free domain. It's amazing that so many things became part of our culture, and nobody thought to copyright them. Who would now be licensing the Rhumba today? Copyright was designed to help the consumer, to avoid confusion in the marketplace. Can anyone "sell me" the Funky Chicken dance?
Copyright was not designed to help the consumer in a direct way. It was designed to promote creativity by providing the incentive of a limited monopoly to the creator. In turn, this benefits the consumer (in theory) by creating a market.
Copyright doesn't have anything to do with "avoiding confusion in the marketplace". That's what trademark is for.
It seems to be pedantic, but coreography is the coordination of dancers. Electric slide only requires one dancer, and what the others on the dance floor do is almost totally irrelevant (barring collision).
I think you are the one "bending the english language". Look in the dictionary. Choreography is the planned movement of dancers. Does that mean exclusively plural? Of course not.
But even if one were to take your view that choreography has to be more than one dancer, it still wouldn't mean no protection for solo dances. It would fall under the "pantomimes" category.
Why do you feel that a solo dancer deserves less protection of their artistic work than a ballroom dancer? Are you a dance-snob? (kidding! kidding!)
The summary for this story is just weird. The DMCA is just the method of enforcement, because the performance is being displayed online.
Choreography is just one of the items that are protected by copyright, which is listed in 17 USC 102:
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
This statute was last revised in 1990. The DMCA did not add anything to it. I don't know how long choreography has been protected by copyright, but I would gamble that it's been at least fifty years or so.
I believe it is SOP in most states. It's very similar to the procedure that the police go through. The difference is that it's much easier for the police to arrest you BEFORE a judge rules on probable cause.
While a civilian can sometimes do a "citizen's arrest," it's a very risky thing. If you turn out to be wrong, you can be criminally prosecuted for kidnapping and/or sued for false imprisonment. So it's a pretty rare thing. In contrast, the warrant application procedure gives the accused an opportunity to make his case in front of the judge for why there isn't probable cause.
Don't know the answer to your question about federal procedure.
AFAIK, a civil court (which is where MySpace would have to sue Samy) doesn't ban people from the internets or sentance them to community service. And TFA says he pleaded guilty in LA Superior Court... you don't plead guilty in civil court.
True that it's not normal, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. And for what it's worth, it's not a "civil court" versus a "criminal court". Generally a superior court can handle both civil and criminal **cases**.
Also, it is possible for an individual (or company) to institute criminal proceedings. In Georgia, you would just go to Magistrate court, fill out an application and there would be a "pre-warrant hearing". If the judge finds probable cause, a warrant issues for the defendant's arrest and the case is sent to the District Attorney for prosecution.
Linus became upset about FSF encouraging use of the name "GNU/Linux." The article and summary comply with Linus's preference, and refer to the whole OS as Linux, even though Linux (the kernel) is not a subject of this.
Does Linus approve of this action done in the name of the Linux operating system?
Or does he now think everyone needs to call it GNU/Linux so that it sounds less like he is responsible for it?
People don't switch to Linux because it's easier, at least not yet. In most areas, it isn't easier.
If someone is intelligent and enough of an abstract thinker to understand the benefit of FOSS even when they don't how to program, then they will want to use Linux, regardless of how much harder it is than Windows.
But there are few non-developers who can comprehend the value of FOSS (I am one of them.). All things being equal, people are resistant to change. There has to be a damn good reason for them to do it. If it is difficult, they simply won't.
The few times I have been asked about Linux, I've just told the person that it requires more work than Windows, but if you like working with computers, then it might be the thing for you.
Also, you have to remember that Linux is not an operating system, it is a kernel. Rather than going into a long and drawn out explanation of this, I think it's best to just recommend the current most user-friendly distro out there. "It's not what I'm using, but it's good for a beginner."
If they weren't going to sue before, this may make them angry enough to do so now-- and they might have a better case.
I tend to think the opposite.
The anonymous reader (assuming he isn't a big old liar) is justifiably pissed off. His company hadn't had a taste of what can happen when everyone in the IT community knows what Grade A assholes they are. Perhaps they will get the message from this.
I tend think they would be less likely to follow through, not more. But it really depends on a bunch of details that we don't have.
The net result is that you might have to pay extra for OS hardware support.
Or perhaps your hardware manufacturer will have to satisfy Microsoft for the "right to let users run its hardware".
I don't see much other use for this. I've never heard of a hardware manufacturer charging its customers extra for a Windows driver.
Looks like another tool for a monopoly, and not much else.
BTW, why is it that software is the only product where supply and demand and mass production rules don't apply? Everything else that is mass produced comes down in price, software stays the same or gets more expensive.
It's called copyright law.
Market forces don't matter as much when you have a legal monopoly... this is even more true when you use an illegal monopoly to stifle alternatives to your legal monopolies, as Microsoft has done frequently.
something happened to my message...
I meant to explain that I was browsing at Best Buy and tried out their main display computer running Vista. It was set up at the end of an aisle with signs and speakers proclaiming what a great step up Vista was.
I guess I need a marketing department of my own to vet my posts before I click submit.
And so far MS's marketing is sucking really bad from what I've seen.
Tried to open Office 2007 and got a message about a license key and if I wanted to enter it. I clicked "No," and the entire screen went black and wouldn't come back up.
I shook my head and laughed as I walked away.
Isn't the most effective way to "protest" it just not buy, to explain to your friends and workplaces why they shouldn't buy it, and most particularly, to aggressively pursue a refund for any bundled versions that you're forced to buy with hardware?
The point of protesting is to make your voice heard. If you get enough people involved, then word spreads about the problem. While the things you mention would be somewhat effective, the best predictor of effectiveness is probably the amount of people you can get involved.
IMO, telling your friends or pursuing a refund would not be nearly as effective as an online petition and a story on slashdot.
That's not to imply that any of these things will really make a significant difference. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.