Except that there's no trademark infringement here because they're not actually using the trademark. Also, it's entirely permissible for a markholder to license another person to use their trademark.
Sadly, with the advent of home shrink wrapping equipment, it doesn't even have to be an open box.
My former landlord (I rented a room) ran a shoplifting ring out of the living room. He and his friends would hit a Best Buy, Target, you name it, and buy high end computer equipment and new computer games with cash. Then, they'd open it up, remove the product, and re-shrink wrap it (depending on the product, they might put some weight into it). Then, they'd carefully remove the stickers from the old shrink wrap and replace it on the new shrink wrap.
The next day, they'd return it saying that they'd just gotten one as a gift or some other lie. Since they were using cash, there was no way to track the purchase. And since the product was still shrink wrapped, it went back on the shelf.
Sounds like this guy was the victim of the same scam.
--G
And for the record, once I found out what was going on, I moved out and contacted the local police department and retailers.
Except that you're ignoring the historical context of the Eighth Amendment.
Let's make this nice and clear: prior to 1970, never, in the history of the United States or the United Kingdom (from whence we get our common law) has any court seriously considered civil damage awards to be subject to the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
So when you talk about the principles that the eighth amendment stands for, and try to expand those principles to the context of a civil damages provision, you do so without any historical basis. Because the very thought that a jury's damages award might somehow implicate the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment would have been anathema to the Founders.
Moreover, given the kinds of punishments (and executions) used in English and American prisons during the Revolutionary War period, it's highly unlikely that anything we do to actual prisoners today runs afoul of the 8th Amendment. A big fine just doesn't trigger the cruel and unusual punishment clause.
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
FROST: So, that in other words, really you were saying in that answer, really, between the burglary and murder, again, there's no subtle way to say that there was murder of a dissenter in this country because I don't know any evidence to that effect at all. But, the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president's judgment?
NIXON: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind, that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. I don't know whether it can be done today or not.
Yes, it's true that the US doesn't have conscription, but once you're in, you're in. There's no getting out. Unlike your job, a soldier in the army has no right to quit. Soldiers are required to serve out their contracts. In addition (and maybe like the mafia), even when your time is up, they can keep pulling you back in. The army has the capacity to extend your service beyond the term you signed up for.
Not only that, but a lot of the kids serving now signed up with noble reasons. Some of them signed up immediately after 9/11, and wanted to protect their country. Some of them signed up based on the propaganda provided by the administration about WMD in Iraq. Some of them signed up because service in this country's military has long been considered a noble calling. The fact that they've been ordered, on pain of imprisonment or death to fight a war in Iraq isn't their fault.
But, on to the jury. Each juror swears an oath to apply the law to the facts as they find them. Maybe, just maybe, the jury did not believe a word that the defendant said. And maybe they believed every witness presented by the RIAA. That alone is enough to justify what they did. Unlike so many Slashdotters, maybe these twelve (or six) people (who had the opportunity to see the defendant testify and were in an infinitely better position to learn the facts than you or I) looked at all the facts and determined that the defendant broke the law. Once they made that determination, it was up to them to consider all the factors that they knew about to decide what the proper penalty would be.
Just because people here happen to disagree with them, doesn't make the jury wrong.
DISCLAIMER: * I am not a fan of the way copyright law currently exists in this country. I dislike the statutory damages scheme Congress has put in place. This post is not intended to ratify what the RIAA has done. It is merely intended for informational purposes and to clarify the relationship between property rights and IP rights. *
If "IP ownership" is entirely a legal fiction, then so is property ownership in general.
Bear with me here. This is going to sound weird.
The fundamental nature of property ownership is that an owner has a number of legally enforceable rights to control the property. These rights are not specifically enumerated. For real property (your house and the land it sits on) the rights include (but are not limited to) ownership of crops, ownership of the minerals below it, the right to be free from noxious incursions from your neighbor's property (smoke, sewage, etc.), and the right to exclude other people from it. The only thing that makes that property yours is the fact that you can go into a courthouse and ask the local muscle (the State) to enforce those rights. Most relevant here, however, is the right to control another's access to your property. You can sell, or give away, a limited right of use of your property--an easement, for example.
For personal property, (your rolex), you've got some similar rights. Most importantly, you've got the right to exclusive possession. If I take your Rolex, I can be sued for conversion (to compensate you for the loss of your Rolex). I can also be subjected to the police powers of the State for violating your property rights. You can also loan that Rolex to someone else, giving them possession under limited circumstances.
Otherwise, if I'm stronger than you, I can just take your stuff from you and evict you from your home.
Copyright merely gives a content creator a parallel right in the content he or she has created. It gives the right holder the ability to give another the property under a set of restrictions. The fundamental restriction in copyright is the right to make a copy (obvious, isn't it).
It's true that violation of the copyright does not deprive the right holder of the property. If you copy my CD, I still have the CD. But, that's not what the civil action for copyright infringement is designed to remedy. Its purpose is to remedy the violation of my right, as a copyright holder, to control how my content is copied. Because when my content is copied, my legally enforceable right becomes worthless.
It isn't a legal fiction, but it isn't about "theft" either. It's about providing a remedy for a violation of my right. Just like a trespass suit is about providing a remedy for my right to control access to my land. In a trespass case, it doesn't matter if you were super careful and didn't leave any signs of your passing. You've still violated my ownership right, and therefore, I'm entitled to compensation.
--AC
DISCLAIMER: * I am not a fan of the way copyright law currently exists in this country. I dislike the statutory damages scheme Congress has put in place. This post is not intended to ratify what the RIAA has done. It is merely intended for informational purposes and to clarify the relationship between property rights and IP rights. *
Actually, I have litigated a case like this against Micro$oft.
The cases and legislative history are pretty clear. Congress intended that the statutory damages include a punitive element to discourage the behavior. The reason statutory damages are available in these kinds of cases is that proving actual damages is nearly impossible. It's not like the willful infringer keeps a detailed list of the individuals to whom he or she sold or gave the intellectual property. A smart infringer would never do that. So how do you prove damages? You cannot just post an ad in the paper asking everyone who purchased or received a copy of the infringing property to fess up. There is also the problem of downstream infringement.
I am not saying that this is the way it ought to be. In my case, we challenged the constitutionality of the statutory damages provision under the theory that the statutory damages were so grossly out of proportion to the actual harm caused that they were a violation of due process. This argument was built on the cases that have held that excessive punitive damage awards violate due process.
Sadly, the judge did not buy our argument.
What I am saying is that I can understand the rationale behind large statutory damage awards, and that there are some legitimate reasons therefore.
IAALBNYL (ATINLA)*--
In civil rights cases that challenge the legitimacy of a statute, courts often apply an overinclusive/underinclusive analysis to determine whether the State's claimed reason for a statute is legitimate (whether it's legitimate and whether the reason is sufficient depends on the kind of right involved).
In this case, the purpose of the law was to prevent minors from being exposed to "inappropriate violence." What the court is saying by calling the law underinclusive is "if you want to protect kids from 'inappropriate violence,' the method you've chosen is completely inadequate, because they can be exposed to it from other media such as books and movies. Therefore, your law doesn't pass muster."
Realize, that this analysis depends largely on the stated purposes of a statute, and the specific analysis followed by the court will usually be more complex than "your law doesn't pass muster."
--AC
Nevertheless, the rightholder has suffered an injury to his or her right.
Copyright is the right to control how your original expression is copied (there's some more sticks in this bundle of rights, but this definition should be adequate for the purposes of our conversation). When I copy your original expression, without your permission, I damage your ownership of the right. Now, I may go on to purchase the copied expression, in which case your injury is de minimis, but it is nevertheless interference with your right.
A comparable example would be if I entered your home and wandered around it, without disturbing anything. My conduct, although not harmful to you, still interferes with your right to dominion and control over your home.
Absolutely. Circuit splits are one of the key ways to get the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari (which is fancy lawyer-speak for "listen to a case"). However, the Supreme Court may exercise discretion and not hear these cases based on a split between only two circuits. It often likes to allow the different Courts of Appeals to consider the issues and develop their own ways of interpreting the law. This lets them reap the benefits of all the brain damage the circuit courts have inflicted on themselves.
Actually, the United States Code has had provisions for criminal copyright infringement since at least 1982. It's not really anything new. Think back to when you first rented a VHS movie, and the FBI warning came up . . . the find and imprisonment mentioned therein were the penalties for criminal copyright infringement.
While I understand the difference between intellectual property and personal property (especially as it relates to the term theft), intellectual property right holders do suffer losses from the unrestricted copying of their property. Generally, in this country, when a person's rights are being violated they have two options: go to the police or go to court. It's not uncommon for there to be both civil and criminal penalties to protect an individual's rights. For example, if you steal my car, you can be prosecuted for theft. I can also sue you for conversion (and in some states, civil theft). The criminal prosecution is brought in the name of the People and is meant to extract justice for society. The civil suit is meant to compensate me for my losses.
Criminal copyright infringement (as opposed to a civil suit) is meant to serve the same purpose: justice for society.
The precedential value of this case is very low. It's a single ruling by a trial judge. In all likelihood, the actual opinion won't even be published.
Now, if these folks decide to appeal this ruling, and the relevant Court of Appeals decides to affirm, then there's a real precedent you've got to worry about.
My God, I must have been in a coma for a decade. Tell me, who won the Presidential election in 2008? How's the stock market? Did Lost ever start to make sense?
Deep Impact's impactor struck Tempel 1 on July 4, 2005. Before you infer a failure of science, please check your facts.
I can see it now: An alien race needs styrofoam to truly thrive. Billions of years ago, they send out little bits of organic materials precoded to end up with styrofoam. Time passes. Dinosaurs evolve and die (not due to any meteor strike, but because their DNA has an innate kill switch). Mankind evolves and learns to extract the decayed leftovers of the dinosaurs from the Earth's crust. We develop the technology to make styrofoam.
Now that we've fulfilled our evolutionary purpose, it's our time to go away like the dinosaurs.
Of course, the aliens who created us, they're thinking . . . "okay, these things we've created . . . they can be killed by viruses right? Okay, and they like sex a whole lot, right? So what we need is a deadly virus that is passed by sex."
Is it any surprise that the AIDS epidemic really took off about the same time McDonald's stopped using Styrofoam? I think not!
But didn't the Administration argue to SCotUS that U.S. Courts had no jurisdiction over individuals in Gitmo?:-)
I realized this argument is specious, since the regulation refers to persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, rather than places subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but it'd be a fun argument to make.
Actually, it's not even legal for a U.S. Citizen to buy a Cuban cigar.
The Office of Foreign Asset Control, the entity which enforces the embargo against Cuba, has promulgated regulations (at 31 C.F.R. Part 515) that "prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from purchasing, transporting, importing, or otherwise dealing in or engaging in any transactions with respect to any merchandise outside the United States if such merchandise (1) is of Cuban origin; or (2) is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or (3) is made or derived in whole or in part of any article which is the growth, produce or manufacture of Cuba."
IAAL, and email is a commonly used method of communication, both here in my office and in the legal community at large. In fact, in the jurisdiction (Federal and State) where I live and work all pleadings filed with the court are filed in electronic format, and service of those pleadings is largely accomplished via email.
It makes life a lot easier. For example, if you've got a deadline and you're not going to be able to make it to the court by 4:45 to file a motion, you can e-file at any time up until midnight (this is especially nice when the case is filed in a court that's 150 miles away). Also, our postage costs (which are paid by the client) have been reduced significantly. We also get immediate notice of filings in our cases, without having to wait for the USPS to deliver the goods.
That said, there have been days where I'd like to be able to run stuff to the courthouse myself. Like the day our ISP collapsed and no one could connect to the e-filing service from the office.
But overall, I'd say it's a great improvement over "the old days."
The game has the hopes and dreams of the thousands of gamer geeks who played System Shock and System Shock 2 pinned on it. It's a "spiritual successor" to those games which did a lot to advance the genre beyond "run and gun."
--G
Actually, it's unlikely that the reasoning that permits regulation of broadcast speech will impact the Internet at all.
Unlike the Internet, regulation of broadcast speech is grounded in the theory that the broadcast stations are licensees using a scarce public resource who agree as part of their license to be regulated. Thus, it's a voluntary arrangement.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes, the old golden rule!
Them with the gold, makes the rules.
--AC
Except that there's no trademark infringement here because they're not actually using the trademark. Also, it's entirely permissible for a markholder to license another person to use their trademark.
--AC
Sadly, with the advent of home shrink wrapping equipment, it doesn't even have to be an open box.
My former landlord (I rented a room) ran a shoplifting ring out of the living room. He and his friends would hit a Best Buy, Target, you name it, and buy high end computer equipment and new computer games with cash. Then, they'd open it up, remove the product, and re-shrink wrap it (depending on the product, they might put some weight into it). Then, they'd carefully remove the stickers from the old shrink wrap and replace it on the new shrink wrap.
The next day, they'd return it saying that they'd just gotten one as a gift or some other lie. Since they were using cash, there was no way to track the purchase. And since the product was still shrink wrapped, it went back on the shelf.
Sounds like this guy was the victim of the same scam.
--G
And for the record, once I found out what was going on, I moved out and contacted the local police department and retailers.
Except that you're ignoring the historical context of the Eighth Amendment.
Let's make this nice and clear: prior to 1970, never, in the history of the United States or the United Kingdom (from whence we get our common law) has any court seriously considered civil damage awards to be subject to the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
So when you talk about the principles that the eighth amendment stands for, and try to expand those principles to the context of a civil damages provision, you do so without any historical basis. Because the very thought that a jury's damages award might somehow implicate the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment would have been anathema to the Founders.
Moreover, given the kinds of punishments (and executions) used in English and American prisons during the Revolutionary War period, it's highly unlikely that anything we do to actual prisoners today runs afoul of the 8th Amendment. A big fine just doesn't trigger the cruel and unusual punishment clause.
--AC
Or at least, that's what the Nixon doctrine says.
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
FROST: So, that in other words, really you were saying in that answer, really, between the burglary and murder, again, there's no subtle way to say that there was murder of a dissenter in this country because I don't know any evidence to that effect at all. But, the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president's judgment?
NIXON: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind, that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. I don't know whether it can be done today or not.
--G
Ah, irony.
Yes, it's true that the US doesn't have conscription, but once you're in, you're in. There's no getting out. Unlike your job, a soldier in the army has no right to quit. Soldiers are required to serve out their contracts. In addition (and maybe like the mafia), even when your time is up, they can keep pulling you back in. The army has the capacity to extend your service beyond the term you signed up for.
Not only that, but a lot of the kids serving now signed up with noble reasons. Some of them signed up immediately after 9/11, and wanted to protect their country. Some of them signed up based on the propaganda provided by the administration about WMD in Iraq. Some of them signed up because service in this country's military has long been considered a noble calling. The fact that they've been ordered, on pain of imprisonment or death to fight a war in Iraq isn't their fault.
But, on to the jury. Each juror swears an oath to apply the law to the facts as they find them. Maybe, just maybe, the jury did not believe a word that the defendant said. And maybe they believed every witness presented by the RIAA. That alone is enough to justify what they did. Unlike so many Slashdotters, maybe these twelve (or six) people (who had the opportunity to see the defendant testify and were in an infinitely better position to learn the facts than you or I) looked at all the facts and determined that the defendant broke the law. Once they made that determination, it was up to them to consider all the factors that they knew about to decide what the proper penalty would be.
Just because people here happen to disagree with them, doesn't make the jury wrong.
--AC
Sadly, the eighth amendment (prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment) applies only to criminal punishments.
As this was a civil case, the eighth amendment does not apply.
--AC
DISCLAIMER: * I am not a fan of the way copyright law currently exists in this country. I dislike the statutory damages scheme Congress has put in place. This post is not intended to ratify what the RIAA has done. It is merely intended for informational purposes and to clarify the relationship between property rights and IP rights. *
If "IP ownership" is entirely a legal fiction, then so is property ownership in general.
Bear with me here. This is going to sound weird.
The fundamental nature of property ownership is that an owner has a number of legally enforceable rights to control the property. These rights are not specifically enumerated. For real property (your house and the land it sits on) the rights include (but are not limited to) ownership of crops, ownership of the minerals below it, the right to be free from noxious incursions from your neighbor's property (smoke, sewage, etc.), and the right to exclude other people from it. The only thing that makes that property yours is the fact that you can go into a courthouse and ask the local muscle (the State) to enforce those rights. Most relevant here, however, is the right to control another's access to your property. You can sell, or give away, a limited right of use of your property--an easement, for example.
For personal property, (your rolex), you've got some similar rights. Most importantly, you've got the right to exclusive possession. If I take your Rolex, I can be sued for conversion (to compensate you for the loss of your Rolex). I can also be subjected to the police powers of the State for violating your property rights. You can also loan that Rolex to someone else, giving them possession under limited circumstances.
Otherwise, if I'm stronger than you, I can just take your stuff from you and evict you from your home.
Copyright merely gives a content creator a parallel right in the content he or she has created. It gives the right holder the ability to give another the property under a set of restrictions. The fundamental restriction in copyright is the right to make a copy (obvious, isn't it).
It's true that violation of the copyright does not deprive the right holder of the property. If you copy my CD, I still have the CD. But, that's not what the civil action for copyright infringement is designed to remedy. Its purpose is to remedy the violation of my right, as a copyright holder, to control how my content is copied. Because when my content is copied, my legally enforceable right becomes worthless.
It isn't a legal fiction, but it isn't about "theft" either. It's about providing a remedy for a violation of my right. Just like a trespass suit is about providing a remedy for my right to control access to my land. In a trespass case, it doesn't matter if you were super careful and didn't leave any signs of your passing. You've still violated my ownership right, and therefore, I'm entitled to compensation.
--AC
DISCLAIMER: * I am not a fan of the way copyright law currently exists in this country. I dislike the statutory damages scheme Congress has put in place. This post is not intended to ratify what the RIAA has done. It is merely intended for informational purposes and to clarify the relationship between property rights and IP rights. *
Actually, I have litigated a case like this against Micro$oft.
The cases and legislative history are pretty clear. Congress intended that the statutory damages include a punitive element to discourage the behavior. The reason statutory damages are available in these kinds of cases is that proving actual damages is nearly impossible. It's not like the willful infringer keeps a detailed list of the individuals to whom he or she sold or gave the intellectual property. A smart infringer would never do that. So how do you prove damages? You cannot just post an ad in the paper asking everyone who purchased or received a copy of the infringing property to fess up. There is also the problem of downstream infringement.
I am not saying that this is the way it ought to be. In my case, we challenged the constitutionality of the statutory damages provision under the theory that the statutory damages were so grossly out of proportion to the actual harm caused that they were a violation of due process. This argument was built on the cases that have held that excessive punitive damage awards violate due process.
Sadly, the judge did not buy our argument.
What I am saying is that I can understand the rationale behind large statutory damage awards, and that there are some legitimate reasons therefore.
--AC
IAALBNYL (ATINLA)*-- In civil rights cases that challenge the legitimacy of a statute, courts often apply an overinclusive/underinclusive analysis to determine whether the State's claimed reason for a statute is legitimate (whether it's legitimate and whether the reason is sufficient depends on the kind of right involved). In this case, the purpose of the law was to prevent minors from being exposed to "inappropriate violence." What the court is saying by calling the law underinclusive is "if you want to protect kids from 'inappropriate violence,' the method you've chosen is completely inadequate, because they can be exposed to it from other media such as books and movies. Therefore, your law doesn't pass muster." Realize, that this analysis depends largely on the stated purposes of a statute, and the specific analysis followed by the court will usually be more complex than "your law doesn't pass muster." --AC
Nevertheless, the rightholder has suffered an injury to his or her right.
Copyright is the right to control how your original expression is copied (there's some more sticks in this bundle of rights, but this definition should be adequate for the purposes of our conversation). When I copy your original expression, without your permission, I damage your ownership of the right. Now, I may go on to purchase the copied expression, in which case your injury is de minimis, but it is nevertheless interference with your right.
A comparable example would be if I entered your home and wandered around it, without disturbing anything. My conduct, although not harmful to you, still interferes with your right to dominion and control over your home.
--AC
I'm on the Internet. I'm already an anonymous coward.
This way, people can track what I say and determine if it's worth it.
--AC
Absolutely. Circuit splits are one of the key ways to get the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari (which is fancy lawyer-speak for "listen to a case"). However, the Supreme Court may exercise discretion and not hear these cases based on a split between only two circuits. It often likes to allow the different Courts of Appeals to consider the issues and develop their own ways of interpreting the law. This lets them reap the benefits of all the brain damage the circuit courts have inflicted on themselves.
--AC
IAALBNYL*--
Actually, the United States Code has had provisions for criminal copyright infringement since at least 1982. It's not really anything new. Think back to when you first rented a VHS movie, and the FBI warning came up . . . the find and imprisonment mentioned therein were the penalties for criminal copyright infringement.
While I understand the difference between intellectual property and personal property (especially as it relates to the term theft), intellectual property right holders do suffer losses from the unrestricted copying of their property. Generally, in this country, when a person's rights are being violated they have two options: go to the police or go to court. It's not uncommon for there to be both civil and criminal penalties to protect an individual's rights. For example, if you steal my car, you can be prosecuted for theft. I can also sue you for conversion (and in some states, civil theft). The criminal prosecution is brought in the name of the People and is meant to extract justice for society. The civil suit is meant to compensate me for my losses.
Criminal copyright infringement (as opposed to a civil suit) is meant to serve the same purpose: justice for society.
--AC
IAALBNYL*--
The precedential value of this case is very low. It's a single ruling by a trial judge. In all likelihood, the actual opinion won't even be published.
Now, if these folks decide to appeal this ruling, and the relevant Court of Appeals decides to affirm, then there's a real precedent you've got to worry about.
--AC
*I Am A Lawyer, But Not Your Lawyer
You're absolutely right, and I intended to do so. However, I was banging this out before I left for work and was a little rushed.
--AC
Twelve years since Deep Impact!!!
My God, I must have been in a coma for a decade. Tell me, who won the Presidential election in 2008? How's the stock market? Did Lost ever start to make sense?
Deep Impact's impactor struck Tempel 1 on July 4, 2005. Before you infer a failure of science, please check your facts.
--AC
I can see it now: An alien race needs styrofoam to truly thrive. Billions of years ago, they send out little bits of organic materials precoded to end up with styrofoam. Time passes. Dinosaurs evolve and die (not due to any meteor strike, but because their DNA has an innate kill switch). Mankind evolves and learns to extract the decayed leftovers of the dinosaurs from the Earth's crust. We develop the technology to make styrofoam.
Now that we've fulfilled our evolutionary purpose, it's our time to go away like the dinosaurs.
Of course, the aliens who created us, they're thinking . . . "okay, these things we've created . . . they can be killed by viruses right? Okay, and they like sex a whole lot, right? So what we need is a deadly virus that is passed by sex."
Is it any surprise that the AIDS epidemic really took off about the same time McDonald's stopped using Styrofoam? I think not!
--AC
But didn't the Administration argue to SCotUS that U.S. Courts had no jurisdiction over individuals in Gitmo? :-)
I realized this argument is specious, since the regulation refers to persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, rather than places subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but it'd be a fun argument to make.
--AC
Actually, it's not even legal for a U.S. Citizen to buy a Cuban cigar.
The Office of Foreign Asset Control, the entity which enforces the embargo against Cuba, has promulgated regulations (at 31 C.F.R. Part 515) that "prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from purchasing, transporting, importing, or otherwise dealing in or engaging in any transactions with respect to any merchandise outside the United States
if such merchandise (1) is of Cuban origin; or (2) is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or (3) is made or derived in whole or in part of any article
which is the growth, produce or manufacture of Cuba."
So keep that in mind the next time you go abroad.
--AC
Only if your name is Grendel.
--AC
IAAL, and email is a commonly used method of communication, both here in my office and in the legal community at large. In fact, in the jurisdiction (Federal and State) where I live and work all pleadings filed with the court are filed in electronic format, and service of those pleadings is largely accomplished via email.
It makes life a lot easier. For example, if you've got a deadline and you're not going to be able to make it to the court by 4:45 to file a motion, you can e-file at any time up until midnight (this is especially nice when the case is filed in a court that's 150 miles away). Also, our postage costs (which are paid by the client) have been reduced significantly. We also get immediate notice of filings in our cases, without having to wait for the USPS to deliver the goods.
That said, there have been days where I'd like to be able to run stuff to the courthouse myself. Like the day our ISP collapsed and no one could connect to the e-filing service from the office.
But overall, I'd say it's a great improvement over "the old days."
--AC
The game has the hopes and dreams of the thousands of gamer geeks who played System Shock and System Shock 2 pinned on it. It's a "spiritual successor" to those games which did a lot to advance the genre beyond "run and gun." --G
Jumpgate was awesome.
It's not so dead as you might think.
http://www.netdevil.com/
--AC
Actually, it's unlikely that the reasoning that permits regulation of broadcast speech will impact the Internet at all.
Unlike the Internet, regulation of broadcast speech is grounded in the theory that the broadcast stations are licensees using a scarce public resource who agree as part of their license to be regulated. Thus, it's a voluntary arrangement.
--AC