I agree. And if you both want to do this, and maintain some ethical standard, I would suggest getting a lawyer. Granted this is going to take some money, but find yourself a lawyer, and see what your options you have, realistically. This is the safest way to go about it.
There are whistle blower laws carved out all over the place, but they're often narrow, and complex. It's not the kind of thing you want to take lightly or without some extreme care.
Sending someone an item with directions on does not constitute a contract to follow those directions.
However, if the person accepts the offer (the directions are the offer), that does likely constitute a contract. Despite what might seem intuitive. (I should have been more precise and said acceptance of an 'offer'.)
Sending the item constitutes an offer, and using the item can constitute acceptance. If someone does nothing with the item that's not acceptance, however exercising control over the item as an owner will in most cases constitute acceptance.
There have been a number of references made to why this is the case, including the Restatement of Contracts, the UCC, and a few cases posted by others (including 7th circuit's Hill).
There is also the additional complication that items sent through the mail are covered by federal statute; however, that statute is limited to "unrequested" gifts. The question then becomes one of statutory interpretation. I'm not arguing that point. I'm just point out that contracts may indeed be formed by accepting merchandise, even if you never "asked" for the merchandise in the first place.
Unilateral offers are accepted everyday and are far from unique.
I'm also unsure if sending a gift and "requiring" consideration is criminal. I do not think that 39 USC 3009 makes it criminal, although I might be wrong about that.
"is accepting the CD sufficient to create a contract"
With nothing more, the answer, under common law and under the UCC, is yes.
That may seem counterintuitive, but believe me -- exercising control over the property is sufficient to constitute acceptance of the contract, even if you didn't "ask" for the contract in the first place. Calling it a "gift" (if you're using that word in any legal sense) presupposes the answer. Note that I was careful to not use the word "gift" for that reason.
If, on the other hand, you do not exercise control over the merchandise then it's not acceptance. As I've said before, this rule is different when things are sent through the mail but this is only because of statute (39 USC 3009).
As the childs to this post have indicated, with additional citations, this is far from an open and shut issue. So please, provide some analysis or citation next time--your assertion is not enough.
I don't know if there was or wasn't, but let's assume you're right and there's not a preexisting contract.
That doesn't change the fact that the recipient's use of the CD might constitute an acceptance of a contract with the sender.
Now, I'll grant that the fact this was sent through the mail complicates the issue (and probably makes this a gift), but let's say it was delivered by personal courier. In that case, I think it's very hard to say that there was no contract. Under traditional notions of contract law, use of the CD after acceptance by a courier, preexisting contract or not, would be an offer-acceptance and, a contract.
Point is, there's nothing in first sale to stop copyright holders from implying additional terms through contract law. If you want to get into that debate (which is definitely one worth having) it happens with the copyright preemption statute.
That's exactly the question. Calling the CD a gift also answers the question. It would be better to frame it as "is accepting the CD sufficient to create a contract."
That's an open question. Despite what some people have said on here, acceptance can be manifested by "any act inconsistent with the seller's ownership" UCC 2-608. Silence is not acceptance, but it's a thin line to acceptance.
Through the mail may be a different issue, but remember this is because of 39 USC 3009, not inspite of it.
Despite what the snippet claims, this is NOT about first sale at all.
First off, even in a world without copyright law, UMG would argue that they had a contract with whoever got the CD to never redistribute it. If this contract was in fact made (offer and acceptance for consideration) then BOOM, contract law does the rest. This issue is complicated because while the items were unrequested, they were subsequently used by those who received them (which normally is enough since there was clearly some pre-existing contact here), and is further complicated because they were sent through the mail (which makes it almost surely a gift).
So, either it's not a gift and there's a contract, or it's a gift and there's no contract.
Then fair use / copyright comes into play. Normally 17 USC 106(3) makes it a violation to publicly distribute (including sell) protected material. However, 109 says you can do what you want to it (this is first sale) so long as you meet some requirements: * Copy must have been made lawfully * Seller must be an owner
The first of these doesn't seem to be a problem. The second is the issue. If these aren't gifts, and they didn't accept the contract, then they aren't owners--they are tortfeasors who have converted--and don't get protection from 109. That's how this would play out.
There's a lot of FUD going on out there. Feel free to correct me, but let's keep the analytical structure in mind here. (Note: I'm going off of the brief snippet; I haven't read the extensive briefs/filings)
First off, sending a gift is not abandonment. It might be relinquishing your own ownership or title, but abandonment it is not. Second, contracts can continue to operate even absent ownership. Any number of contracts have nothing to do with ownership--let's say a lease on an apartment. The contracts are simply you do X and I do Y, and we have a deal. That's what's at issue here. The question is a classic contract law question--was there a contract.
Both posts are true, but before we talk about the hyperbole of "absolutely clear cut" and "they should be disbarred" a point of clarification is in order.
At common law in most of the U.S. and England, when there's a prior relationship between the parties--even if unrequested (that may well be the case here; it's not as if they're sending these out of the blue), treating unsolicited merchandise as your own may constitute an acceptance. If it's not an acceptance, it's the tort of conversion.
See both the Restatement (Second) of Contracts  69 and Section 2-606 of the Uniform Commercial Code. There is an exception, however, in modern U.S. law for items sent through the postal service. See 39 U.S.C.  3009.
Before we rant too much, you ought to have some sense of the history here. Again, this is not a COPYRIGHT case--fair use is a red herring here. This is a contract case.
Actually, the burden may well be on the plaintiff to prove the license terms.
While the registration certificate creates a prima facie presumption of the works' protectability, it does not create a presumption of infringement. That burden still rests on the plaintiff.
Additionally, unlike fair use, the question of whether or not permission to use the work is an affirmative defense is unclear.
While the existence of a license is an issue the defendant must prove, the terms of the license, at least in the 2nd circuit, is a burden borne by the plaintiff. See Bourne v. Walt Disney, 68 F.3d 621, 631.
Now, as a practical matter you might be right, but as a technical matter, in the scenario you describe, it's possible the burden remains on the plaintiff.
Maybe i'm missing something here, but the description lists the following steps
1. Get the current Unix epoch time to the nearest minute: minute 2. Get the name of the mirage being shimmered: name 3. Get the shared secret: secret 4. Calculate the SHA-256 hash of a combination of minute, name and secret to create a 256-bit Rijndael key that depends on time (changing every minute) and a shared secret: key. 5. Use key to AES encrypt the numbers 0 through 15 to obtain 16 seeds for port numbers: seeds. 6. Map each seed to a port number in the range specified for the mirage using a simple modulus operation to obtain a list of ports: ports. 7. The first port generated (corresponding to the first seed from encrypting 0) is the port that will be forwarded, the other 15 are traps.
Why are steps 4 and 5 required? Why not simply use 0-15 numbers as salts to the hash described in 4.
The only thing that seems useful is a concern that the SHA hash appears less random than the AES ciphertext. First, I'm fairly sure that such an attack is not publicly known (see comments to linux/dev/random char device), and second, the hash sets the key anyway. In any event, it seems unnecessary to go through these steps to randomize two bytes.
You're absolutely wrong. Your quick search on google has revealed merely the typical offer and acceptance (invitation to treat in the UK). Auctions are a unique kind of offer, similar to a unilateral offer. The replies before me are mostly correct. For the precise wording, see the Restatement of Contracts 28. I've provided the relevant text here:
28 Auctions (1) At an auction, unless a contrary intention is manifested, (a) the auctioneer invites offers from successive bidders which he may accept or reject; (b) when goods are put up without reserve, the auctioneer makes an offer to sell at any price bid by the highest bidder, and after the auctioneer calls for bids the goods cannot be withdrawn unless no bid is made within a reasonable time; (c) whether or not the auction is without reserve, a bidder may withdraw his bid until the auctioneer's announcement of completion of the sale, but a bidder's retraction does not revive any previous bid. (2) Unless a contrary intention is manifested, bids at an auction embody terms made known by advertisement, posting or other publication of which bidders are or should be aware, as modified by any announcement made by the auctioneer when the goods are put up.
Additionally, it should be noted that eBay is not really the final arbiter here. While eBay's policies may well be incorporated as terms of the contract, they only have effect insofar as they are incorporated as terms. If parties have a contrary understanding, that understanding may well govern.
Contract law is not some ethereal mystery. Contracts pretty much mean what they say. As much as slashdot likes to talk about legal issues, courses in contracts, copyright, and administrative law are in order.
If the only right they have to using the papers is a fair use defense then that would mean they didn't have ownership of the copyright in the first place. No ownership means they don't have standing to sue for infringement. If someone else could come across the same papers and assert a similar fair use defense, they could do the same.
As to the first part, I understand the sentiment you're getting at, but there's the difficult problem of defining what a "huge profit" is. Even more, is that the standard we ought to be using? If someone takes menial copyrighted work, adds massive amounts of value, then why should the copyright holder recoup the added work by the other party? Perhaps huge added value should permit huge profits. There wouldn't be capital to do these great value adding things if people didn't expect great value adding profits in the end. I'm not sure we should attack "profits."
The parent is mostly correct, in all of these regards. But more generally, there is way too much FUD going on in this discussion.
First off, assignment and license are different. VERY generally: Assignment is like selling. Licensing is like renting.
Exclusive licenses and assignments MUST be in writing, and very explicit. Non-exclusive licenses do not, and can be implied -- likely what's happening here. For non-exclusive licenses, a "signed document" is not required.
Works for hire only applies to employees (and independent contractors, but they require it to be in writing). And not in this high school legal theorizing kind of way, but actually employees. Students are not employees.
I won't get into the normative arguments here, other than to say that "snagging ideas" for a paper is itself not covered by copyright law, nor should it be, nor should someone who likes the free-culture/copyleft/constitution be comfortable with the idea that copyright should govern "ideas." You may find it morally problematic--that's fine; it's not copyright though. Notably, that doesn't seem to be what's going on here either.
I agree, this seems wrong, and it feels good for copyright to be used against these kinds of people, but let's be logical about this. We want a broad fair use right. If they weren't copying papers, but were copying books so that you could search them, would you feel the same way? Many of the same arguments we'd make about why this is ok for Google -- it doesn't decrease the value of the student's work, it doesn't cut into a secondary market for the student's work, it is in a sense different use of the student's work than for what the student could claim value from -- apply here.
Now, if it's a case between big company gets to do it but no one else does, then I understand your point, but if we're trying to establish a consistent position here, then we need to be rational about this and not give into our distaste for the litigants.
No. This is completely untrue in the U.S. I have no clue what Canada's law is.
In the U.S., however, transfers of a copyright (which means assignments or exclusive licenses) must be made in writing and generally have to be explicit about it. Additionally, students are not employees and so they're not covered by work for hire.
There is a good possibility though that students are, however, giving an implied license to the school. This means that the school can use their work non-exclusively in ways that the implied license would permit. This is a far cry from "any content that you submit as part of a course becomes the intellectual property of the school, unless they explicitly say otherwise."
For the ensuing discussion, let's get some legal concepts down first. If the case ever gets to the merits, will come down to the issue of licenses and fair use.
Some points then: * There is no "formally copyrighted" process. There is registration. Registration helps with damages, proof, and some other things, but it is not necessary. Fixing a creative work in a tangible form is about all that's needed for a copyright.
* The students, writing for a school, are not employees and they were not making works for hire. They are not employees. Even if they are independent contractors, there is nothing in writing.
* The students, going to a school, necessarily permit some uses of their copyrighted work. This is particularly clear if it was known that this sort of copying was going on in the first place.
* This case might involve fair use. I know what the company is doing feels a little slimy, but for those of us that care about free culture/constitution/whatever you want to call it, we ought to advocate for a version of fair use that is expansive enough to cover this activity. If Google should be able to copy books so that we can search them (as google should), then this company should be able to do something similar with term papers. Remember, these rules apply to everyone, not just the companies we feel good about.
I'm not sure the percise details of the RIAA's arrangement with the various copyright holders, but organizations that represent a set of members can sue on behalf of those members for things related to why they're a part of that organization in the first place.
I'm pretty sure this came up in connection with environmental groups suing for various kinds of environmental damage.
There won't be any precedent setting; not in any real sense, by a district court judge. District court opinions are non-binding. They're what's called "persuasive authority" and not "binding authority." Even more important, a fact based question like "can he withstand the discovery" is not a legal issue that sets precedent.
As to that case about the songs on the computer, I could be mistaken but I think that was an appeals court decision (so the only appeal would be to the supreme court), and I also understood that as a criminal case, but I could be wrong.
This isn't a tort. It's a copyright lawsuit. Copyright law doesn't even proceed on a tort theory. I think you intend to say the underlying evidence isn't very strong; that's probably true.
When facing a summary judgment the defending party has to produce something more than their initial pleadings. Usually that includes discovery. If they haven't had discovery yet, or for very long, this isn't that unusual.
Not to be a buzz kill, but civil discovery typically doesn't allow "impounding" someone's home. In fact, it's pretty easy to get a protective order if the RIAA tried to do something that extreme.
This is probably the wrong place to be asking this question, and the advice being given on these boards are enough proof of that (e.g. "walk to your bank and invest in a mutual fund" - first banks don't administer mutual funds - they can't legally do so - and third, mutual funds are not risk-free investments).
First, you should buy a book on investing. Not some get rich quick book, but a real investing book. I have no suggestions here.
Second, what you seem to be looking for is a nearly 0 risk investment that yields better than a bad savings account. You should contemplate US treasury bonds.
Right now they yield around 5%. These bonds are typically considered "risk free" in that, as long as the U.S. government is around, they will print you dollars to pay you back. Of course, if there's lots of inflation that money they print for you will buy a lot less, but then again, you have the same exact problem with your savings account. You can do practically the same thing with a bank issued CD, but treasury bonds are fungible on the open market, unlike CDs. That means, if you have a 5 year note treasury bond, you can sell it on the open market before it matures, or you can wait for it to mature. With a CD you will pay a penalty (which will negate the benefit of having had it in a CD) if you try to cash out early.
Last I checked, you can buy the bonds in $1000 lots from the fed government. In short, you buy the bond for some amount less than the face value, (e.g. $950) and then in a defined amount of time (based on the maturity you select (3 month, 6 month, 2 year, 5 year, 30 year) it will pay you the face value ($1000). You should check out the Treasury website. This is extremely easy for US citizens, and I think it's still doable for those outside the US.
Either of these options though is substantially safer than investing in stocks, mutual funds, private bonds, etc. Of course, as always, you should be wary of what you read on a message board, and no investment is 100% safe, and that includes savings accounts. I'm not a professional and I could be wrong about anything I just said.
The decision was unanimous, however the reasoning was far from it. There remains a split over whether denying an injunction is the norm. What the appellate court did was stick to a "general rule" - it was that rule the court struck down.
The New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/technology/16bi zcourt.html) is good.
First off, this was on appeal. The 7th Circuit court of appeals, and Posner is an appellate Judge. Second, and slashdot purposefully makes this unclear, this is not a criminal case. Nobody's criminally indicted as far as I can tell (at least, not yet). However, this is a criminal statute, and if they can prove the same things in criminal court, perhaps he is facing the punishments. I find the result disturbing.
The first sentence should make both of my points clear: "This appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for failure to state a claim mainly requires us to interpret the word "transmission" in a key provision of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030."
I'm as disturbed as you are about the holding here... but we need to be clear on the terms of what's been going on.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. And if you both want to do this, and maintain some ethical standard, I would suggest getting a lawyer. Granted this is going to take some money, but find yourself a lawyer, and see what your options you have, realistically. This is the safest way to go about it. There are whistle blower laws carved out all over the place, but they're often narrow, and complex. It's not the kind of thing you want to take lightly or without some extreme care.
However, if the person accepts the offer (the directions are the offer), that does likely constitute a contract. Despite what might seem intuitive. (I should have been more precise and said acceptance of an 'offer'.)
Sending the item constitutes an offer, and using the item can constitute acceptance. If someone does nothing with the item that's not acceptance, however exercising control over the item as an owner will in most cases constitute acceptance.
There have been a number of references made to why this is the case, including the Restatement of Contracts, the UCC, and a few cases posted by others (including 7th circuit's Hill).
There is also the additional complication that items sent through the mail are covered by federal statute; however, that statute is limited to "unrequested" gifts. The question then becomes one of statutory interpretation. I'm not arguing that point. I'm just point out that contracts may indeed be formed by accepting merchandise, even if you never "asked" for the merchandise in the first place.
Unilateral offers are accepted everyday and are far from unique.
I'm also unsure if sending a gift and "requiring" consideration is criminal. I do not think that 39 USC 3009 makes it criminal, although I might be wrong about that.
"is accepting the CD sufficient to create a contract"
With nothing more, the answer, under common law and under the UCC, is yes.
That may seem counterintuitive, but believe me -- exercising control over the property is sufficient to constitute acceptance of the contract, even if you didn't "ask" for the contract in the first place. Calling it a "gift" (if you're using that word in any legal sense) presupposes the answer. Note that I was careful to not use the word "gift" for that reason.
If, on the other hand, you do not exercise control over the merchandise then it's not acceptance. As I've said before, this rule is different when things are sent through the mail but this is only because of statute (39 USC 3009).
As the childs to this post have indicated, with additional citations, this is far from an open and shut issue. So please, provide some analysis or citation next time--your assertion is not enough.
I don't know if there was or wasn't, but let's assume you're right and there's not a preexisting contract.
That doesn't change the fact that the recipient's use of the CD might constitute an acceptance of a contract with the sender.
Now, I'll grant that the fact this was sent through the mail complicates the issue (and probably makes this a gift), but let's say it was delivered by personal courier. In that case, I think it's very hard to say that there was no contract. Under traditional notions of contract law, use of the CD after acceptance by a courier, preexisting contract or not, would be an offer-acceptance and, a contract.
Point is, there's nothing in first sale to stop copyright holders from implying additional terms through contract law. If you want to get into that debate (which is definitely one worth having) it happens with the copyright preemption statute.
That's exactly the question. Calling the CD a gift also answers the question. It would be better to frame it as "is accepting the CD sufficient to create a contract."
That's an open question. Despite what some people have said on here, acceptance can be manifested by "any act inconsistent with the seller's ownership" UCC 2-608. Silence is not acceptance, but it's a thin line to acceptance.
Through the mail may be a different issue, but remember this is because of 39 USC 3009, not inspite of it.
Despite what the snippet claims, this is NOT about first sale at all.
First off, even in a world without copyright law, UMG would argue that they had a contract with whoever got the CD to never redistribute it. If this contract was in fact made (offer and acceptance for consideration) then BOOM, contract law does the rest. This issue is complicated because while the items were unrequested, they were subsequently used by those who received them (which normally is enough since there was clearly some pre-existing contact here), and is further complicated because they were sent through the mail (which makes it almost surely a gift).
So, either it's not a gift and there's a contract, or it's a gift and there's no contract.
Then fair use / copyright comes into play. Normally 17 USC 106(3) makes it a violation to publicly distribute (including sell) protected material. However, 109 says you can do what you want to it (this is first sale) so long as you meet some requirements:
* Copy must have been made lawfully
* Seller must be an owner
The first of these doesn't seem to be a problem. The second is the issue. If these aren't gifts, and they didn't accept the contract, then they aren't owners--they are tortfeasors who have converted--and don't get protection from 109. That's how this would play out.
There's a lot of FUD going on out there. Feel free to correct me, but let's keep the analytical structure in mind here. (Note: I'm going off of the brief snippet; I haven't read the extensive briefs/filings)
First off, sending a gift is not abandonment. It might be relinquishing your own ownership or title, but abandonment it is not. Second, contracts can continue to operate even absent ownership. Any number of contracts have nothing to do with ownership--let's say a lease on an apartment. The contracts are simply you do X and I do Y, and we have a deal. That's what's at issue here. The question is a classic contract law question--was there a contract.
Both posts are true, but before we talk about the hyperbole of "absolutely clear cut" and "they should be disbarred" a point of clarification is in order.
At common law in most of the U.S. and England, when there's a prior relationship between the parties--even if unrequested (that may well be the case here; it's not as if they're sending these out of the blue), treating unsolicited merchandise as your own may constitute an acceptance. If it's not an acceptance, it's the tort of conversion.
See both the Restatement (Second) of Contracts  69 and Section 2-606 of the Uniform Commercial Code. There is an exception, however, in modern U.S. law for items sent through the postal service. See 39 U.S.C.  3009.
Before we rant too much, you ought to have some sense of the history here. Again, this is not a COPYRIGHT case--fair use is a red herring here. This is a contract case.
Actually, the burden may well be on the plaintiff to prove the license terms.
While the registration certificate creates a prima facie presumption of the works' protectability, it does not create a presumption of infringement. That burden still rests on the plaintiff.
Additionally, unlike fair use, the question of whether or not permission to use the work is an affirmative defense is unclear.
While the existence of a license is an issue the defendant must prove, the terms of the license, at least in the 2nd circuit, is a burden borne by the plaintiff. See Bourne v. Walt Disney, 68 F.3d 621, 631.
Now, as a practical matter you might be right, but as a technical matter, in the scenario you describe, it's possible the burden remains on the plaintiff.
Maybe i'm missing something here, but the description lists the following steps
/dev/random char device), and second, the hash sets the key anyway. In any event, it seems unnecessary to go through these steps to randomize two bytes.
1. Get the current Unix epoch time to the nearest minute: minute
2. Get the name of the mirage being shimmered: name
3. Get the shared secret: secret
4. Calculate the SHA-256 hash of a combination of minute, name and secret to create a 256-bit Rijndael key that depends on time (changing every minute) and a shared secret: key.
5. Use key to AES encrypt the numbers 0 through 15 to obtain 16 seeds for port numbers: seeds.
6. Map each seed to a port number in the range specified for the mirage using a simple modulus operation to obtain a list of ports: ports.
7. The first port generated (corresponding to the first seed from encrypting 0) is the port that will be forwarded, the other 15 are traps.
Why are steps 4 and 5 required? Why not simply use 0-15 numbers as salts to the hash described in 4.
The only thing that seems useful is a concern that the SHA hash appears less random than the AES ciphertext. First, I'm fairly sure that such an attack is not publicly known (see comments to linux
You're absolutely wrong. Your quick search on google has revealed merely the typical offer and acceptance (invitation to treat in the UK). Auctions are a unique kind of offer, similar to a unilateral offer. The replies before me are mostly correct. For the precise wording, see the Restatement of Contracts 28. I've provided the relevant text here:
28 Auctions
(1) At an auction, unless a contrary intention is manifested,
(a) the auctioneer invites offers from successive bidders which he may accept or reject;
(b) when goods are put up without reserve, the auctioneer makes an offer to sell at any price bid by the highest bidder, and after the auctioneer calls for bids the goods cannot be withdrawn unless no bid is made within a reasonable time;
(c) whether or not the auction is without reserve, a bidder may withdraw his bid until the auctioneer's announcement of completion of the sale, but a bidder's retraction does not revive any previous bid.
(2) Unless a contrary intention is manifested, bids at an auction embody terms made known by advertisement, posting or other publication of which bidders are or should be aware, as modified by any announcement made by the auctioneer when the goods are put up.
Additionally, it should be noted that eBay is not really the final arbiter here. While eBay's policies may well be incorporated as terms of the contract, they only have effect insofar as they are incorporated as terms. If parties have a contrary understanding, that understanding may well govern.
Contract law is not some ethereal mystery. Contracts pretty much mean what they say. As much as slashdot likes to talk about legal issues, courses in contracts, copyright, and administrative law are in order.
Of course others should be able to do the same.
If the only right they have to using the papers is a fair use defense then that would mean they didn't have ownership of the copyright in the first place. No ownership means they don't have standing to sue for infringement. If someone else could come across the same papers and assert a similar fair use defense, they could do the same.
As to the first part, I understand the sentiment you're getting at, but there's the difficult problem of defining what a "huge profit" is. Even more, is that the standard we ought to be using? If someone takes menial copyrighted work, adds massive amounts of value, then why should the copyright holder recoup the added work by the other party? Perhaps huge added value should permit huge profits. There wouldn't be capital to do these great value adding things if people didn't expect great value adding profits in the end. I'm not sure we should attack "profits."
Almost certainly the $45 is for registering the copyright. Last I heard, $45 was the going registration fee. Those numbers seem suspiciously similar :P
The parent is mostly correct, in all of these regards. But more generally, there is way too much FUD going on in this discussion.
First off, assignment and license are different. VERY generally: Assignment is like selling. Licensing is like renting.
Exclusive licenses and assignments MUST be in writing, and very explicit. Non-exclusive licenses do not, and can be implied -- likely what's happening here. For non-exclusive licenses, a "signed document" is not required.
Works for hire only applies to employees (and independent contractors, but they require it to be in writing). And not in this high school legal theorizing kind of way, but actually employees. Students are not employees.
I won't get into the normative arguments here, other than to say that "snagging ideas" for a paper is itself not covered by copyright law, nor should it be, nor should someone who likes the free-culture/copyleft/constitution be comfortable with the idea that copyright should govern "ideas." You may find it morally problematic--that's fine; it's not copyright though. Notably, that doesn't seem to be what's going on here either.
I agree, this seems wrong, and it feels good for copyright to be used against these kinds of people, but let's be logical about this. We want a broad fair use right. If they weren't copying papers, but were copying books so that you could search them, would you feel the same way? Many of the same arguments we'd make about why this is ok for Google -- it doesn't decrease the value of the student's work, it doesn't cut into a secondary market for the student's work, it is in a sense different use of the student's work than for what the student could claim value from -- apply here.
Now, if it's a case between big company gets to do it but no one else does, then I understand your point, but if we're trying to establish a consistent position here, then we need to be rational about this and not give into our distaste for the litigants.
No. This is completely untrue in the U.S. I have no clue what Canada's law is.
In the U.S., however, transfers of a copyright (which means assignments or exclusive licenses) must be made in writing and generally have to be explicit about it. Additionally, students are not employees and so they're not covered by work for hire.
There is a good possibility though that students are, however, giving an implied license to the school. This means that the school can use their work non-exclusively in ways that the implied license would permit. This is a far cry from "any content that you submit as part of a course becomes the intellectual property of the school, unless they explicitly say otherwise."
For the ensuing discussion, let's get some legal concepts down first. If the case ever gets to the merits, will come down to the issue of licenses and fair use.
Some points then:
* There is no "formally copyrighted" process. There is registration. Registration helps with damages, proof, and some other things, but it is not necessary. Fixing a creative work in a tangible form is about all that's needed for a copyright.
* The students, writing for a school, are not employees and they were not making works for hire. They are not employees. Even if they are independent contractors, there is nothing in writing.
* The students, going to a school, necessarily permit some uses of their copyrighted work. This is particularly clear if it was known that this sort of copying was going on in the first place.
* This case might involve fair use. I know what the company is doing feels a little slimy, but for those of us that care about free culture/constitution/whatever you want to call it, we ought to advocate for a version of fair use that is expansive enough to cover this activity. If Google should be able to copy books so that we can search them (as google should), then this company should be able to do something similar with term papers. Remember, these rules apply to everyone, not just the companies we feel good about.
Alright, now have at it.
I'm not sure the percise details of the RIAA's arrangement with the various copyright holders, but organizations that represent a set of members can sue on behalf of those members for things related to why they're a part of that organization in the first place.
I'm pretty sure this came up in connection with environmental groups suing for various kinds of environmental damage.
There won't be any precedent setting; not in any real sense, by a district court judge. District court opinions are non-binding. They're what's called "persuasive authority" and not "binding authority." Even more important, a fact based question like "can he withstand the discovery" is not a legal issue that sets precedent.
As to that case about the songs on the computer, I could be mistaken but I think that was an appeals court decision (so the only appeal would be to the supreme court), and I also understood that as a criminal case, but I could be wrong.
This isn't a tort. It's a copyright lawsuit. Copyright law doesn't even proceed on a tort theory. I think you intend to say the underlying evidence isn't very strong; that's probably true.
When facing a summary judgment the defending party has to produce something more than their initial pleadings. Usually that includes discovery. If they haven't had discovery yet, or for very long, this isn't that unusual.
Not to be a buzz kill, but civil discovery typically doesn't allow "impounding" someone's home. In fact, it's pretty easy to get a protective order if the RIAA tried to do something that extreme.
This is probably the wrong place to be asking this question, and the advice being given on these boards are enough proof of that (e.g. "walk to your bank and invest in a mutual fund" - first banks don't administer mutual funds - they can't legally do so - and third, mutual funds are not risk-free investments).
First, you should buy a book on investing. Not some get rich quick book, but a real investing book. I have no suggestions here.
Second, what you seem to be looking for is a nearly 0 risk investment that yields better than a bad savings account. You should contemplate US treasury bonds.
Right now they yield around 5%. These bonds are typically considered "risk free" in that, as long as the U.S. government is around, they will print you dollars to pay you back. Of course, if there's lots of inflation that money they print for you will buy a lot less, but then again, you have the same exact problem with your savings account. You can do practically the same thing with a bank issued CD, but treasury bonds are fungible on the open market, unlike CDs. That means, if you have a 5 year note treasury bond, you can sell it on the open market before it matures, or you can wait for it to mature. With a CD you will pay a penalty (which will negate the benefit of having had it in a CD) if you try to cash out early.
Last I checked, you can buy the bonds in $1000 lots from the fed government. In short, you buy the bond for some amount less than the face value, (e.g. $950) and then in a defined amount of time (based on the maturity you select (3 month, 6 month, 2 year, 5 year, 30 year) it will pay you the face value ($1000). You should check out the Treasury website. This is extremely easy for US citizens, and I think it's still doable for those outside the US.
Either of these options though is substantially safer than investing in stocks, mutual funds, private bonds, etc. Of course, as always, you should be wary of what you read on a message board, and no investment is 100% safe, and that includes savings accounts. I'm not a professional and I could be wrong about anything I just said.
Ebay bids are binding contractual agreements. There's nothing unique about a computer transaction that somehow removes it from being legally binding.
Some disambiguation first.
i zcourt.html) is good.
The decision was unanimous, however the reasoning was far from it. There remains a split over whether denying an injunction is the norm. What the appellate court did was stick to a "general rule" - it was that rule the court struck down.
The New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/technology/16b
First off, this was on appeal. The 7th Circuit court of appeals, and Posner is an appellate Judge. Second, and slashdot purposefully makes this unclear, this is not a criminal case. Nobody's criminally indicted as far as I can tell (at least, not yet). However, this is a criminal statute, and if they can prove the same things in criminal court, perhaps he is facing the punishments. I find the result disturbing.
The first sentence should make both of my points clear:
"This appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for failure to state a claim mainly requires us to interpret the word "transmission" in a key provision of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030."
I'm as disturbed as you are about the holding here... but we need to be clear on the terms of what's been going on.