This. I live in fucking Austin, Texas, the so-called "Silicon Hills" because it has a tremendous amount of tech companies here. Despite this, I have only one internet option where I live (in an affluent area of Austin, no less!): Time Warner Cable. There is no DSL option. TWC is the only cable option. FIOS is not here.
Your link does not establish what lawyers bill. It establishes what courts charge in administrative fees to have your case heard. There are clerks, judges, bailiffs, stenographers, electricity bills, etc. to pay.
Yeah, and what if the murder weapon you found in my house was planted there by someone who looks similar to me?
That's what factfinders (e.g., the jury) are for: to weigh evidence. You don't just block evidence because there's some explanation (however unlikely) that it is not conclusive.
Remember that it's not just copyright actions that have statutory damages. Wrongful discharge for discrimination also usually entails statutory damages. Do you want to make the poor single person prove beyond reasonable doubt that her big corporation terminated her because she's black?
That's because in a civil trial, it's all about equity and balancing interests. Requiring a unanimous verdict in civil trials would result in iniquity. But because the interest in criminal trials is not equity, but rather about punishment of guilty and acquittal of non-guilty, it is important to require unanimity among jurors.
Conflating civil and criminal interests is very poor public policy, and thank God we do not do so in the US (I don't know about other countries, though).
In the US, the presumption of innocence is a criminal doctrine, not a civil doctrine. In civil procedure, you have a stage called discovery where you have to reveal documents if they are responsive to interrogatories, subpoenas, etc. If you don't have it, no biggie. If you don't have it and there is evidence you got rid of it in order to gain a benefit at trial, then the rule of omnia presumuntur contra spoliatorem (assume all against the wrongdoer) applies.
2. Why did you become one (I'm assuming it's rewarding)?
3. When/how old/circumstances for you? Like, are your kids graduated from college, are you unable to have kids, do you have a genetic defect and so wanted kids but without risking passing on a bad gene?
I ask only because I'm interested in it one day after I have my own genetic offspring provided I am financially successful in life (duty to help society and all that), but I'm only 25, so I've still a few years. It's just that you don't meet foster parents that often, so I thought I'd ask while I have the chance.
Yeah, but whether Thomas wins or loses, there is still path for appeal. The only way your argument supports the assertion that "district court sets precedent" is if by "precedent" you mean "sets path for appeal." And any decision "sets path for appeal." This would imply, under your argument, that "sets precedent" is equivalent to "trial ends." However, this removes all meaning from the word "precedent."
Not to mention you want a PDF of a book that doesn't look like someone merely printed a text file to the PDF file. Most books that are available to download infringingly have a shitty font, no chapter markers, misspellings, and other godawful things.
But that's not an issue here. According to the summary (I'm not going to go digging through actual court filings), the guy argued that CC didn't have a right to snoop. He didn't argue that the evidence was untrustworthy because of the chain of custody. Thus, your point doesn't touch on this case (you can't introduce new theories in further appeals; you're limited to what you argued originally).
A better lawyer would have argued that and likely would have won.
unless the guy had child pornography as his wallpaper, the techs had to actively go looking for it, and would not find it doing the repair that he had asked for.
Did you conduct the repair? How do you know the pics weren't on his desktop? (granted I didn't RTFA in glorious/. tradition)
Dismissing damning evidence on technicalities is not just.
That's very short-sighted. Technicalities exist for a reason, and that is to provide long-term security against infringement of rights. Here, there is no technicality upon which to dismiss the charge. The guy's lawyer tried to create a new technicality, and the courts didn't agree. But technicalities exist for a reason (assuming we're in an ideal world where lawmakers do not get bribed or make mistakes, inb4slashdotcynicism), and to do away with a technicality because in a handful of instances we'd get an unjust result would be more detrimental than to let that handful of people go freely when we "know" they did it.
In the US, you have no duty to report misdemeanors (at least in all the jurisdictions I'm familiar with). There is the crime of "misprision of a felony" at the federal level:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
18 USC 4.
Of course, I think that language about concealing the felony is an important factor. I was told once by a US attorney that it's really only used against people who were around when a conspiracy occurred, may have helped, but weren't so much involved as to have taken part in the conspiracy. I could be misremembering, though.
Jammie Thomas was sued in 2005. Her lawyer didn't step down until 2009. That's four years of representation. I don't know what the fee arrangement was, but she agreed to it, took four years of service from him, and didn't pay him at all.
And I'd imagine litigating against the RIAA doesn't leave time for too many other cases.
But I haven't started practicing yet, so don't take my word as gospel.
Remember he could lose and set more case precident in favor of the RIAA.
Goddammit, district courts don't set binding precedent on any court! I keep hearing "precedent" get thrown around, but it doesn't work the way you think it works!
please recall her previous lawyer allowed fees to climb to $150,000 and then pulled the lawyering services when Jammie couldn't pay-up.
Are you suggesting the lawyer should have accepted non-payment? Lawyers have to eat, too, and very few lawyers make the kind of money the general public thinks all lawyers make. There's a bimodal distribution of lawyer salaries, with a ton of them making way under $100K/yr.
IIRC, the lawyer had actually negotiated a lower rate for her and she still never paid up.
Pixar's first three movies were Disney contracts for things they didn't write;
What? A Bug's Life was written by Joe Ranft while he was at Pixar, Toy Story was written by John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, and Raft while they were all at Pixar, and three of the same four wrote Toy Story 2 while they were with Pixar.
The contract with Disney was a distribution contract, nothing more.
Nice ad hominem: GP never once claimed that the current state of affairs is good. I think it's pretty obvious that he was posting as a sort of jab at the (in my opinion very short-sighted) anti-copyrightists here on/.
Slashdot Mirror
This. I live in fucking Austin, Texas, the so-called "Silicon Hills" because it has a tremendous amount of tech companies here. Despite this, I have only one internet option where I live (in an affluent area of Austin, no less!): Time Warner Cable. There is no DSL option. TWC is the only cable option. FIOS is not here.
In Austin, Texas, man.
You assume that circumstantial evidence is not permitted in court.
Your link does not establish what lawyers bill. It establishes what courts charge in administrative fees to have your case heard. There are clerks, judges, bailiffs, stenographers, electricity bills, etc. to pay.
Fixed that one for you.
I wasn't aware that criminal piracy outfits force you to buy their CD-Rs.
Yeah, and what if the murder weapon you found in my house was planted there by someone who looks similar to me?
That's what factfinders (e.g., the jury) are for: to weigh evidence. You don't just block evidence because there's some explanation (however unlikely) that it is not conclusive.
Remember that it's not just copyright actions that have statutory damages. Wrongful discharge for discrimination also usually entails statutory damages. Do you want to make the poor single person prove beyond reasonable doubt that her big corporation terminated her because she's black?
Hence why the hard drive was requested in discovery.
This is a civil trial. There is no prosecution.
That's because in a civil trial, it's all about equity and balancing interests. Requiring a unanimous verdict in civil trials would result in iniquity. But because the interest in criminal trials is not equity, but rather about punishment of guilty and acquittal of non-guilty, it is important to require unanimity among jurors.
Conflating civil and criminal interests is very poor public policy, and thank God we do not do so in the US (I don't know about other countries, though).
In the US, the presumption of innocence is a criminal doctrine, not a civil doctrine. In civil procedure, you have a stage called discovery where you have to reveal documents if they are responsive to interrogatories, subpoenas, etc. If you don't have it, no biggie. If you don't have it and there is evidence you got rid of it in order to gain a benefit at trial, then the rule of omnia presumuntur contra spoliatorem (assume all against the wrongdoer) applies.
Indeed. Adirondack Park in upstate NY looks to be about 20% of the entire state's surface area.
Few quick questions:
1. How did you become a foster parent?
2. Why did you become one (I'm assuming it's rewarding)?
3. When/how old/circumstances for you? Like, are your kids graduated from college, are you unable to have kids, do you have a genetic defect and so wanted kids but without risking passing on a bad gene?
I ask only because I'm interested in it one day after I have my own genetic offspring provided I am financially successful in life (duty to help society and all that), but I'm only 25, so I've still a few years. It's just that you don't meet foster parents that often, so I thought I'd ask while I have the chance.
Thanks.
Yeah, but whether Thomas wins or loses, there is still path for appeal. The only way your argument supports the assertion that "district court sets precedent" is if by "precedent" you mean "sets path for appeal." And any decision "sets path for appeal." This would imply, under your argument, that "sets precedent" is equivalent to "trial ends." However, this removes all meaning from the word "precedent."
Not to mention you want a PDF of a book that doesn't look like someone merely printed a text file to the PDF file. Most books that are available to download infringingly have a shitty font, no chapter markers, misspellings, and other godawful things.
But that's not an issue here. According to the summary (I'm not going to go digging through actual court filings), the guy argued that CC didn't have a right to snoop. He didn't argue that the evidence was untrustworthy because of the chain of custody. Thus, your point doesn't touch on this case (you can't introduce new theories in further appeals; you're limited to what you argued originally).
A better lawyer would have argued that and likely would have won.
Did you conduct the repair? How do you know the pics weren't on his desktop? (granted I didn't RTFA in glorious /. tradition)
That's very short-sighted. Technicalities exist for a reason, and that is to provide long-term security against infringement of rights. Here, there is no technicality upon which to dismiss the charge. The guy's lawyer tried to create a new technicality, and the courts didn't agree. But technicalities exist for a reason (assuming we're in an ideal world where lawmakers do not get bribed or make mistakes, inb4slashdotcynicism), and to do away with a technicality because in a handful of instances we'd get an unjust result would be more detrimental than to let that handful of people go freely when we "know" they did it.
In the US, you have no duty to report misdemeanors (at least in all the jurisdictions I'm familiar with). There is the crime of "misprision of a felony" at the federal level:
18 USC 4.
Of course, I think that language about concealing the felony is an important factor. I was told once by a US attorney that it's really only used against people who were around when a conspiracy occurred, may have helped, but weren't so much involved as to have taken part in the conspiracy. I could be misremembering, though.
Jammie Thomas was sued in 2005. Her lawyer didn't step down until 2009. That's four years of representation. I don't know what the fee arrangement was, but she agreed to it, took four years of service from him, and didn't pay him at all.
And I'd imagine litigating against the RIAA doesn't leave time for too many other cases.
But I haven't started practicing yet, so don't take my word as gospel.
Goddammit, district courts don't set binding precedent on any court! I keep hearing "precedent" get thrown around, but it doesn't work the way you think it works!
Are you suggesting the lawyer should have accepted non-payment? Lawyers have to eat, too, and very few lawyers make the kind of money the general public thinks all lawyers make. There's a bimodal distribution of lawyer salaries, with a ton of them making way under $100K/yr.
IIRC, the lawyer had actually negotiated a lower rate for her and she still never paid up.
Well, the Fox execs would revive shows.......but they are already in their pajamas.
While most of your point is well-taken, no one deserves to rake in royalties for his heirs.
What? A Bug's Life was written by Joe Ranft while he was at Pixar, Toy Story was written by John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, and Raft while they were all at Pixar, and three of the same four wrote Toy Story 2 while they were with Pixar.
The contract with Disney was a distribution contract, nothing more.
Nice ad hominem: GP never once claimed that the current state of affairs is good. I think it's pretty obvious that he was posting as a sort of jab at the (in my opinion very short-sighted) anti-copyrightists here on /.