First, if you can estabolish with proper chain of evidence that the email came from the defendant than it would be admissible as under at least two exceptions to the hearsay rule: party admission and/or business records exceptions. Second, warrants can be easily tailored to meet the DOJ guidelines; it's done every day with regular mail. Finally, warrants are irrelevant here as email stored on third party servers can be examined without warrant under the Stored Communications Act of 1986. The constitutionality of that Act is what's at issue in this case.
You analysis is wrong. The government has always had the ability to obtain a search warrant on your porperty held by third parties upon a sufficient showing of probably cause. There's nothing new in that and they don't have to give you notice of the warrant either although the third party custodian often will.
Here, the government is contending it can dispense with the warrant requirement for email stored on third party servers under the Stored Communications Act of 1986. The plaintiff in the case mentioned in the article is challenging the constitutionality of that act.
I can't prove that. But I couldn't find any substantial criticism of a democratic administration. It's a very lengthy list and I could have easily missed something as I did not read every item thoroughly. The items they do list are deplorable if accurate. But I can't believe Bush invented this type of nonsense; he's not smart enough for that. In fact, I've become so cynical that I'm certain democratic administrations supress/distort scientific findings with equal vigor when their politcal constituencies so demand; it's called politics.
Have you ever read the GPL or any EULA? I have yet to read any software license, whether blessed by the FSF or not, that does not contain disclaimers in bold type for any significant consequential damages, eg. lost profits.
Well yeah, except that no-one actually believed Microsoft could sue anyone but now a couple of million dollars on the table says Novell's lawyers think they can (otherwise it's just a bit circlejerk, and hey, that's likely too).
Doesn't make any sense to me. Companies that claim you are violating their IP generally don't give you several hundred million dollars as a settlement of that claim. The money on the table was from MS to Novel, not the other way around.
They are sometimes wrong, sometimes right, but often somewhere in between. I don't believe there is the huge, evil environmentalist conspiracy that I see in your post.
Your observation re people being somewhere in between certainly seems accurate. But I doubt you'll ever get most environmentalists to espouse this evenhanded approach. Generally, if they have an ounce of right, they act like they have a ton of it; their position is almost always way overstated. And those that point out the defects in the environmentalist position are savagely attacked. It's not a question of an evil conspiracy really - it's a failure of judgment on their part, one that dogs all true believers - they can't tolerate or accept any contrary evidence.
And it took Einstein about 10 years to get out of the Swiss patent office because of his unorthodox views. If it wasn't for Max Planck's support, he probably would have died there. Bucking the current accepted wisdom will generally cost you in science as in most other fields.
I'm glad to see the environmental movement has rethought its position on nuclear power. Thirty years ago the movement opposed nuclear power with the same zeal they now reserve for global warming issues and they were, by and large, successful in stopping the construction of any new nuclear power plants in the US. Of course this ironically led to an increase in the emission of green house gasses from the conventionally powered plants that were built instead of the nuclear plants.
I wonder were the movement will be in another thiry years.
Now what will they say to the public? "Oh folks, I tried, but those damn activist judges ruled against me. So sorry." It's so easy to shift the blame when the public doesn't care whether those in power respect the constitution.
No one even vaguely familiar with the federal judiciary will ever accuse the Seventh Circuit of being activist judges. Actually, this result is pretty well settled precedent at this point in all the federal circuits. These type of laws have been routinely struck down everywhere so the result here is hardly surprising.
I couldn't agree with you more; this was a stupid election year stunt and everyone knew the law would be struck down in the courts.
No it didn't work for the Egyptians. The destruction of the Library at Alexandria is considered one of the greatest losses to our understanding of the ancient world. This library was considered to be the Library of Congress of its day and was totally destroyed in a fire. To be fair though, the Greeks had taken over by this time so it wasn't really hieroglyphics.
The retarded judge will also see that MS paid Novel $500 million for that deal. Even a retarded judge will see that an IP holder doen't normally pay an infringer a half billion dollars as part of a settlement of its infringement claim. The notion that the Novel deal will somehow add credibility to a subsequent lawsuit against others is nonsense.
MS is not about to sue anyone any time soon; they have too much to loose by doing so. First, their claims are very weak at best and second, they have way too much exposure on potential couterclaims from those they would sue. Unlike SCO, MS has very deep pockets and would make a very attractive defendant for anyone asserting a couterclaim. Their code could most likely not withstand an audit which would undoubtedly occur if a couterclaim were asserted.
MS has been on the receiving end of several IP lawsuits and has gotten burned every single time IIRC. I'm sure that lesson was not lost on Balmer and company which is the main reason why they have carried this IP fight on by proxy until now.
Isn't the real question why is the US so easy on a convicted monopolist?? The answer to that question is things that negatively impact MS will have a negative effect on the US economy. MS employs a large number of US citizens, pays a lot of taxes and is a very large exporter of US goods which could greatly effect the balance of payments if exports of MS goods were reduced. You could probably throw in political bribes in the form of campaign contributions, etc. as well but I assume they do that world wide.
These consideratioons are not present in the EU so you get more even handed enforcement of the antitrust laws. It's also a chance to stick it to one of the EU's main economic competitors, the US which I guess is the gist of your comment. But make no mistake about it, MS is as dirty as hell in both the US and the EU. Can you imagine what would have happened to MS in the US courts if it was a French company?
The author of this opinion, Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, is from the University of Chicago and is very highly respected, particularly for his opinions dealing with economic issues. He is a Reagan appointee and is noted as a very intelligent and intellectual free market proponent, in keeping with his U of C econ background. His opinions carry a lot of weight among other judges within the federal judiciary, particularly on commercial and antitrust issues.
He also has a reputation of not suffering fools lightly and he can be extremely confrontational in oral argument. I've argued two appeals before him and it's an experience I'll never forget. At any rate, the fact that this opinion came from Judge Easterbrook will carry a great deal of weight. The precedent isn't tarnished by the lackluster plaintiff. Nobody else would have the balls to contend the GPL violates antitrust laws; it's a frivolous argument from a nut. I'm sure Easterbrook tore this guy a new one in oral argument.
Any number of lower level non-IT staff have access to executive comunications. These include secretaries, file clerks, mailroom staff, cleaning people. The list goes on and on and this has always been the case. Nothing new here except now the info is on a computer and sysadmins have access.
You have to factor in the known age of the universe. The best evidence today is that its 13 to 15 billion years old. That's not infinite. If the probablity of the event happening is 1 in 10exp1000, that event is still extremely unlikely to occur within the time frame of the known universe by random chance.
Labor saving devices like you describe mean nothing in a country where you can pay someone 5 cents an hour to do the grunt work of duplicating and checking disks.
Asset purchase agreements of this magnitude typically contain broad indemnification agreements from seller(YouTube) to buyer(Google) to protect the buyer if they are sued because of some acts of the seller before the closing date and usually part of the purchased price is escrowed for a set time period to cover potential indemnification liability of the seller. I haven't seen the asset purchase agreement but I wouldn't be surprised if there are these types of indemnification provisions in there.
I can assure you that Google was represented by top tier counsel in this acquisition and that all potential liabilities and risks were carefully considered by experts in their field. I think their opinions/judgments should carry a little more weight than posters on slashdot that have to preface their opinions with IANAL.
The Debian Common Core Alliance(DCCA) was already slapped down by the Debian Project for the unauthorized use of "Debian" in the DCCA's name. Oh, the irony!!
Rehab is just one purpose for criminal punishment. Others include deterrence, restraint(confining dangerous people for society's safety) and retribution(satisying the very real human need for vengeance when a terrible crime has been committed), just to name a few. The need for deterrence is particularly relevant in the present case.
Copyright enforcement is not the basis of the counterclaim from the little we can glean from the article. I would assume that limewire is contending the RIAA members have illegally conspired to stifle the legal online distribution of music and to fix the prices they charge to online music distributers like itunes. Price fixing is pretty straightforward and the RIAA members have been caught doing this in the past. The other part of the claim would rest on the contention that the RIAA's motive in going after limewire is to shutdown an alternative means of legal music distribution not controlled by its members. Limewire's argument to the court would be that while some users of their service may improperly trade copyrighted material, the RIAA should go after the infringers ; you can't sue xerox every time someone illegally photocopies a copyrighted work even if xerox knows this probably happens every day. Limewire will argue that shutting them down will have an anticompetitive effect on the legal online distribution of music and that was the RIAA's intent all the long, all of which amounts to an illegal conspiracy among the RIAA members to stifle competition in violation of US antitrust laws.
You've just exposed my favorite tactic re McDonalds. We go into McDonalds and order five double chesseburgers at $1.00 each, refuse the offer to buy fries or a drink with that, and demand five glasses of water. Man, does that piss them off, especially if the manager takes your order.
Law stundents have unique issues when it comes to cheating, at least in the US. In order to get a license to practice law, you have to pass the bar exam AND be approved by a "Character and Fitness Committee". If you get caught cheating in law school, most likely you will be permanently barred from the practice of law. At least you run a significant risk of that occurring. There probably is a lower incidence of cheating among law stundents due to the greater risk they run if caught. It's not about flunking a class; it's about permanently ending your legal career.
The bank has done plenty wrong - they've allowed an unauthorized party to access your account and withdraw funds. They've cultivated a business model where financial transactions can be conducted over and insecure network without adequate identity verification and they've done so knowing full well that the network is rife with phishing scams which capitalize on those weaknesses. If they can now shift any loses back to the customer, there will be no incentive for the banks to improve security.
Slashdot Mirror
First, if you can estabolish with proper chain of evidence that the email came from the defendant than it would be admissible as under at least two exceptions to the hearsay rule: party admission and/or business records exceptions. Second, warrants can be easily tailored to meet the DOJ guidelines; it's done every day with regular mail. Finally, warrants are irrelevant here as email stored on third party servers can be examined without warrant under the Stored Communications Act of 1986. The constitutionality of that Act is what's at issue in this case.
You analysis is wrong. The government has always had the ability to obtain a search warrant on your porperty held by third parties upon a sufficient showing of probably cause. There's nothing new in that and they don't have to give you notice of the warrant either although the third party custodian often will. Here, the government is contending it can dispense with the warrant requirement for email stored on third party servers under the Stored Communications Act of 1986. The plaintiff in the case mentioned in the article is challenging the constitutionality of that act.
I can't prove that. But I couldn't find any substantial criticism of a democratic administration. It's a very lengthy list and I could have easily missed something as I did not read every item thoroughly. The items they do list are deplorable if accurate. But I can't believe Bush invented this type of nonsense; he's not smart enough for that. In fact, I've become so cynical that I'm certain democratic administrations supress/distort scientific findings with equal vigor when their politcal constituencies so demand; it's called politics.
Have you ever read the GPL or any EULA? I have yet to read any software license, whether blessed by the FSF or not, that does not contain disclaimers in bold type for any significant consequential damages, eg. lost profits.
And it took Einstein about 10 years to get out of the Swiss patent office because of his unorthodox views. If it wasn't for Max Planck's support, he probably would have died there. Bucking the current accepted wisdom will generally cost you in science as in most other fields.
I wonder were the movement will be in another thiry years.
No one even vaguely familiar with the federal judiciary will ever accuse the Seventh Circuit of being activist judges. Actually, this result is pretty well settled precedent at this point in all the federal circuits. These type of laws have been routinely struck down everywhere so the result here is hardly surprising.
I couldn't agree with you more; this was a stupid election year stunt and everyone knew the law would be struck down in the courts.
Especially since our tax dollars are paying for all this.
No it didn't work for the Egyptians. The destruction of the Library at Alexandria is considered one of the greatest losses to our understanding of the ancient world. This library was considered to be the Library of Congress of its day and was totally destroyed in a fire. To be fair though, the Greeks had taken over by this time so it wasn't really hieroglyphics.
MS is not about to sue anyone any time soon; they have too much to loose by doing so. First, their claims are very weak at best and second, they have way too much exposure on potential couterclaims from those they would sue. Unlike SCO, MS has very deep pockets and would make a very attractive defendant for anyone asserting a couterclaim. Their code could most likely not withstand an audit which would undoubtedly occur if a couterclaim were asserted.
MS has been on the receiving end of several IP lawsuits and has gotten burned every single time IIRC. I'm sure that lesson was not lost on Balmer and company which is the main reason why they have carried this IP fight on by proxy until now.
These consideratioons are not present in the EU so you get more even handed enforcement of the antitrust laws. It's also a chance to stick it to one of the EU's main economic competitors, the US which I guess is the gist of your comment. But make no mistake about it, MS is as dirty as hell in both the US and the EU. Can you imagine what would have happened to MS in the US courts if it was a French company?
He also has a reputation of not suffering fools lightly and he can be extremely confrontational in oral argument. I've argued two appeals before him and it's an experience I'll never forget. At any rate, the fact that this opinion came from Judge Easterbrook will carry a great deal of weight. The precedent isn't tarnished by the lackluster plaintiff. Nobody else would have the balls to contend the GPL violates antitrust laws; it's a frivolous argument from a nut. I'm sure Easterbrook tore this guy a new one in oral argument.
Any number of lower level non-IT staff have access to executive comunications. These include secretaries, file clerks, mailroom staff, cleaning people. The list goes on and on and this has always been the case. Nothing new here except now the info is on a computer and sysadmins have access.
You have to factor in the known age of the universe. The best evidence today is that its 13 to 15 billion years old. That's not infinite. If the probablity of the event happening is 1 in 10exp1000, that event is still extremely unlikely to occur within the time frame of the known universe by random chance.
Labor saving devices like you describe mean nothing in a country where you can pay someone 5 cents an hour to do the grunt work of duplicating and checking disks.
Asset purchase agreements of this magnitude typically contain broad indemnification agreements from seller(YouTube) to buyer(Google) to protect the buyer if they are sued because of some acts of the seller before the closing date and usually part of the purchased price is escrowed for a set time period to cover potential indemnification liability of the seller. I haven't seen the asset purchase agreement but I wouldn't be surprised if there are these types of indemnification provisions in there. I can assure you that Google was represented by top tier counsel in this acquisition and that all potential liabilities and risks were carefully considered by experts in their field. I think their opinions/judgments should carry a little more weight than posters on slashdot that have to preface their opinions with IANAL.
The Debian Common Core Alliance(DCCA) was already slapped down by the Debian Project for the unauthorized use of "Debian" in the DCCA's name. Oh, the irony!!
Rehab is just one purpose for criminal punishment. Others include deterrence, restraint(confining dangerous people for society's safety) and retribution(satisying the very real human need for vengeance when a terrible crime has been committed), just to name a few. The need for deterrence is particularly relevant in the present case.
Copyright enforcement is not the basis of the counterclaim from the little we can glean from the article. I would assume that limewire is contending the RIAA members have illegally conspired to stifle the legal online distribution of music and to fix the prices they charge to online music distributers like itunes. Price fixing is pretty straightforward and the RIAA members have been caught doing this in the past. The other part of the claim would rest on the contention that the RIAA's motive in going after limewire is to shutdown an alternative means of legal music distribution not controlled by its members. Limewire's argument to the court would be that while some users of their service may improperly trade copyrighted material, the RIAA should go after the infringers ; you can't sue xerox every time someone illegally photocopies a copyrighted work even if xerox knows this probably happens every day. Limewire will argue that shutting them down will have an anticompetitive effect on the legal online distribution of music and that was the RIAA's intent all the long, all of which amounts to an illegal conspiracy among the RIAA members to stifle competition in violation of US antitrust laws.
You've just exposed my favorite tactic re McDonalds. We go into McDonalds and order five double chesseburgers at $1.00 each, refuse the offer to buy fries or a drink with that, and demand five glasses of water. Man, does that piss them off, especially if the manager takes your order.
Law stundents have unique issues when it comes to cheating, at least in the US. In order to get a license to practice law, you have to pass the bar exam AND be approved by a "Character and Fitness Committee". If you get caught cheating in law school, most likely you will be permanently barred from the practice of law. At least you run a significant risk of that occurring. There probably is a lower incidence of cheating among law stundents due to the greater risk they run if caught. It's not about flunking a class; it's about permanently ending your legal career.
Hunsaker is the fall guy here. You can almost hear Dunn saying, "But my attorney said it was OK."
The bank has done plenty wrong - they've allowed an unauthorized party to access your account and withdraw funds. They've cultivated a business model where financial transactions can be conducted over and insecure network without adequate identity verification and they've done so knowing full well that the network is rife with phishing scams which capitalize on those weaknesses. If they can now shift any loses back to the customer, there will be no incentive for the banks to improve security.