>Lots of beer brewed in America is really good (and I say this as a British Real Ale drinker). The problem is that it's becomes increasingly difficult to >get it when you are more than about 20 miles from the brewery.
Oh good, then. I have one brewery literally in the same building as my office, and another one a few steps from the door.
>Security guards on private property only have you the power to leave and, if you refuse, escort you from the premises.
They have all the rights of any other citizen, which does in some instances, include the right to use force (e.g., self-defense, stopping a violent crime). Depends on the locale. I wouldn't push my luck in Arizona. Regardless of them being mere "security guards", simply as citizens they are allowed to carry firearms. And if they want to make a case that something like shoplifting includes "aggravated trespass" they can actually shoot and would probably get away with it.
A shopping mall is definitely private property, and not "considered a public place", regardless of whether you are allowed to "walk in and out freely without needing a key."
>On the other hand, you can remove all the regulations that govern newspapers and tv stations and maybe we'll have more than a handful of those.
What regulations do you imagine, apply to newspapers? Or aside from broadcast spectrum, tv stations? Do you honestly believe the US government regulates content (beyond the "compelling state interest" stuff?)
>Seriously, though, if the police put a tracker on my car, and are unable to produce documentation demonstrating that they have done so, is the tracker >mine if I discover it before they remove it?
If you sell the car, the police have even less pretext to track the next owner than they had for you, and even less claim to the property. You probably can automatically have a mechanic's lien against the modifications they made to your vehicle.
The real problem here is that the police probably aren't wantonly putting GPS devices on everybody's car.
The problem (for the individual) is that they are probably pretty consistent about doing it to people who are actually suspected of a crime. Now I understand the "chilling effect" and civil liberties arguments here, but, fighting this will be a LOT easier if you get the GPS treatment and it so happens that you really *aren't* doing whatever it is they suspect you of doing. OR, if you can show that they are tracking you for specific purely political reasons.
The price of justice goes WAY up if you're actually guilty. And the police tend to be ham-handed, but they also make it a tough row to hoe if you want them to stop investigating you while you are actually doing the illegal thing they are investigating for.
I am equally proficient on Piano, Guitar, and Flute. I have university degrees based on two of those. It's actually hard to remember what I answered, and it kept coming up as a question on some website.
What is your mother's maiden name?
This one is weak in both gender-specific and age-specific ways, as well as being culturally biased toward that segment where women "marry" and "change their names."
EULAs are not contracts. That assertion has plenty of "backing".
Where's the consideration? Where's the meeting of the minds? Even if it's a contract of adhesion, where are the parties' rights in terms of "reasonable expectations?"
Quickly now, list the four criteria required to make an agreement "a contract" under US law.
>copyright protects *copy rights* including: copying, redistribution, performance, and broadcast.
Yes, I know. I've studied and practiced entertainment law.
I'm not willing to go down the "copy to your hard drive in order to use it" road with you right now, although I understand the argument, including the Blizzard case.
It is not. It is a license that makes a limited grant of distribution rights, rights that would otherwise be fully reserved by default under copyright law.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "end users", and even goes as far as to explicitly point this out (even though it is not necessary to do so).
A EULA would be valid if it were a contract (with a meeting of minds, agreement on the subject matter, and consideration), but most EULAs are not contracts, and therefore serve little purpose aside from "notice" (and "notice" does have some value in a legal sense).
Rights that are asserted under copyright, are not surrendered based on any money changing hands.
You have two concepts confused: Rights are reserved, not granted, but contracts require consideration. I think you have the ideas of a "License" and a "Contract" conflated. A contract is not valid without consideration (e.g., "money changing hands"), but rights are reserved by default.
>or is a legal distinction made between license for personal use vs. license for redistribution?
Yes, there is such a distinction from the start -- copyright protects distribution, not use. You need a specific contract if you want your license to speak to use. For distribution, you reserve all rights under copyright law, license or no license.
>They are covered up well, quickly fixed, or not noticed, but they are there
I learned this when I saw a circus fire and noticed that the clowns put the fire out while making it look like part of the act. It was both comforting and frightening at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
>Lots of beer brewed in America is really good (and I say this as a British Real Ale drinker). The problem is that it's becomes increasingly difficult to >get it when you are more than about 20 miles from the brewery.
Oh good, then. I have one brewery literally in the same building as my office, and another one a few steps from the door.
>A mall can kick you out and trespass you if they don't like your haircut.
What if they don't like your haircut because you are Sikh?
What if they don't like your skin color, ethnic origin, disability, gender, etc.?
There's more to it than "they can kick you out for any reason they want."
>Their property, their rules. Don't like it, leave.
Their rules have to be legal.
They can't hang a sign "No Niggers."
>Seldom do mall or store security guards carry guns.
Don't shoplift in Arizona.
>Security guards on private property only have you the power to leave and, if you refuse, escort you from the premises.
They have all the rights of any other citizen, which does in some instances, include the right to use force (e.g., self-defense,
stopping a violent crime). Depends on the locale. I wouldn't push my luck in Arizona. Regardless of them being mere "security guards",
simply as citizens they are allowed to carry firearms. And if they want to make a case that something like shoplifting includes "aggravated
trespass" they can actually shoot and would probably get away with it.
A shopping mall is definitely private property, and not "considered a public place", regardless of whether you are allowed to "walk in and out freely without needing a key."
>This has given me roughly 4 hours a day back to me instead of driving.
People underestimate the value of this. I don't understand why.
For me, it was worth $60,000 of home value (25%!)
Others don't value their own lives so much.
>IANAL but isn't there something in patent law that says that if a patent isn't being exploited by the holder, you're free to use their idea?
No. There is no such "something", full stop. Get this idea out of your head.
>Yawn. Everyone thinks that at first.
I don't think that, I know it.
I'm willing to own two cars (one for daily urban life, and another
for my frequent backcountry trips).
But when we factor in the cost of owning two vehicles, we're into a whole new
realm.
>If more people move away from gas powered vehicles we will also need to alter how taxes are collected to maintain our roads.
What "maintenance" actually goes on is horribly inefficient. Maybe the taxpayer doesn't need to pick up all the slack.
>On the other hand, you can remove all the regulations that govern newspapers and tv stations and maybe we'll have more than a handful of those.
What regulations do you imagine, apply to newspapers? Or aside from broadcast spectrum, tv stations?
Do you honestly believe the US government regulates content (beyond the "compelling state interest" stuff?)
>Despite having a metric shit-ton of money to throw at this trial, previous legal decisions don't look good for Apple in this case.
But you do usually need a lot of money if you're going to trial guilty/responsible/etc.
The cost of justice is way lower when you're in the right.
>Seriously, though, if the police put a tracker on my car, and are unable to produce documentation demonstrating that they have done so, is the tracker
>mine if I discover it before they remove it?
If you sell the car, the police have even less pretext to track the next owner than they had for you, and even less claim to the property.
You probably can automatically have a mechanic's lien against the modifications they made to your vehicle.
The real problem here is that the police probably aren't wantonly putting GPS devices on everybody's car.
The problem (for the individual) is that they are probably pretty consistent about doing it to people who are actually suspected of a crime.
Now I understand the "chilling effect" and civil liberties arguments here, but, fighting this will be a LOT easier if you get the GPS treatment
and it so happens that you really *aren't* doing whatever it is they suspect you of doing. OR, if you can show that they are tracking you for specific purely political reasons.
The price of justice goes WAY up if you're actually guilty. And the police tend to be ham-handed, but they also make it a tough row to hoe if you want them to stop investigating you while you are actually doing the illegal thing they are investigating for.
>In most cases being able to reset password with a question like "what's your mother's maiden name?" is worse than making your password "12345".
For a really large number of people, the mother's maiden name IS their name.
What musical instrument do you play?
I am equally proficient on Piano, Guitar, and Flute. I have university degrees based on two of those. It's actually hard to remember what I answered, and it kept coming up as a question on some website.
What is your mother's maiden name?
This one is weak in both gender-specific and age-specific ways, as well as being culturally biased toward that segment where women "marry" and "change their names."
>>most EULAs are not contracts
>An assertion without backing.
EULAs are not contracts. That assertion has plenty of "backing".
Where's the consideration? Where's the meeting of the minds? Even if it's a contract of adhesion, where are the parties' rights in terms of "reasonable expectations?"
Quickly now, list the four criteria required to make an agreement "a contract" under US law.
Adding mass to your vehicle has a non-zero fuel cost.
>copyright protects *copy rights* including: copying, redistribution, performance, and broadcast.
Yes, I know. I've studied and practiced entertainment law.
I'm not willing to go down the "copy to your hard drive in order to use it" road with you right now,
although I understand the argument, including the Blizzard case.
>I never understood why the GPL was a eula?
It is not. It is a license that makes a limited grant of distribution rights, rights that would otherwise be fully reserved by default under copyright law.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "end users", and even goes as far as to explicitly point this out (even though it is not necessary to do so).
A EULA would be valid if it were a contract (with a meeting of minds, agreement on the subject matter, and consideration), but most EULAs are not contracts, and therefore serve little purpose aside from "notice" (and "notice" does have some value in a legal sense).
Rights that are asserted under copyright, are not surrendered based on any money changing hands.
You have two concepts confused: Rights are reserved, not granted, but contracts require consideration.
I think you have the ideas of a "License" and a "Contract" conflated. A contract is not valid without
consideration (e.g., "money changing hands"), but rights are reserved by default.
>or is a legal distinction made between license for personal use vs. license for redistribution?
Yes, there is such a distinction from the start -- copyright protects distribution, not use.
You need a specific contract if you want your license to speak to use. For distribution, you
reserve all rights under copyright law, license or no license.
>It was an attack to keep that population from declaring independence from the rest of the state.
Any such attack, only justifies the people declaring independence.
...and people wonder why i have trouble sleeping at night...
> it's about copyright, and was probably automatically removed based just on the title.
Titles are immune from copyright protection.
>They are covered up well, quickly fixed, or not noticed, but they are there
I learned this when I saw a circus fire and noticed that the clowns put the fire out while making it look like part of the act. It was both comforting and frightening at the same time.