A dorm is not a public place. It's an private building full of even more private places. People who leave their dorm rooms without locking the doors do not have enough brains to be away from Mom & Dad, let alone in college.
the issue is not punishment or justice or whether possessin is illegal (it is only for _child_ porn in most cases), it is whether burning some images to a removable optical medium is PUBLISHING and DISTRIBUTION.
The words "publishing," "distribution," "possession," and all of their variants do not even appear in the statute under which the defendant appealed.
The issue is whether burning images of kiddie porn to a CD-R constitutes making "child sexually abusive materials."
The statutes defines such materials to include any "computer storage device... containing such a photograph... or any reproduction, copy, or print of such a photograph..."
You begin with a blank CD-R. You finish with a CD-R containing kiddie porn. You made "child sexually abusive materials."
Disturbing? I find it comforting that appellate judges take the time to verify that what they think the law means is what most of society thinks it means.
Miles, if you are studying or practicing law, stop before you get sued.
this decision is problematic because possession without distribution should certainly not bear the same penalty as creation of child pornography.
Distribution is not at issue. The issue is whether the defendant "made" child porn. If he made a warehouse full of it and never distributed or intended to distribute any of it, he still earned 20 years under Michigan law.
Aside from the obvious policy problems the decision generates..."
I don't know about your private policy, but public policy clearly opposes any increase in the amount of child porn existing in society. The defendant inarguably increased the amount of child porn in existence, first by reproducing a particular item on his hard drive in the process of downloading it from a remote server, and second by copying that local copy to CD-R - not just once, but many times!
it's also premised upon a very poor statutory construction.
This is where you truly make a fool of yourself. You toss out legal terms and define them in utterly unheard of ways. You claim the appellate court did things that the record shows it never did. You raise speculative issues that did not arise in this case.
there's a principle called "ejusdem generis" to be applied in interpreting statutes--lists of words are taken to have related meanings. In this case, the verbs "arranges for, produces, makes, or finances" should be given similar meanings. In this case, the shared meaning must reasonably involve *creation* of child pornography.
Horseshit. "Ejusdem generis" means no such thing, particularly when it would yield such absurd results as equating "creation" with "financing" or either term with "arranging for."
First, the court has improperly imported the word "reproduction" from the definitional provision and substituted it for "production" in the offence provision, which runs contrary to principles of statutory interpretation.
The court did no such thing. It correctly noted that the production (making) of reproductions (copies) of child porn is a crime under the plain wording of the statute.
the mental element to the offence (mens rea), specified in the end of the provision, may not make any sense in the context of simple media reproduction.
Irrelevant to this case. The defendant did not assert that he did not know what he was copying to CD-R.
there's a maxim of "strict construction" applied to criminal statutes, at least in Canada (and I would think all over the Western world): in the case of legislative ambiguity in criminal provisions, they are to be given an interpretation most favourable to the accused.
More horseshit. "Strict construction" is an interpretation based solely on the literal meanings of a statute's words, without regard to externalities such as leglislative intent or words that the legislature did not include.
The Michigan statute does not include the word "creation" or any variant of it. It includes the word "make." The word has various meanings but none of them is ambiguous. Many of those meanings are applicable to the Michigan statute and consistent with the rest of its language. The court chose, as merely one example, a meaning that is quite pertinent to this case:
"to bring into existence by shaping, changing, or combining material[.]" Random House Webster's College
Dictionary (2001)
As the court observed, "Defendant acquired child sexually abusive material via the Internet, and he shaped, formed, and combined the material through placement of various selected pictures, videos, and images onto specific DD-Rs, bringing into existence something that had not previously existed, i.e., distinctly created and compiled child-pornography CD-Rs."
It's just you. A basic principle of jurisprudence is that words are to be given their common, everyday meanings so that ordinary people can read the law and understand what it says.
Your apparent understanding of the distribution chain suggests that you obtain most of your digital goods illegally.
Ingram Micro distributes Windows XP. It may do so by installing copies of XP on computers and selling them to dealers and end users, under license from Microsoft. I assure you, Ingram does not make copies of retail boxed versions of XP. It buys them by the truckload and resells them.
Distributors of music CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes, etc., do not buy one copy and sell reproductions of it.
I have seldom read such disingenuous bullshit.
The Michigan law prohibits the making of "Child sexually abusive material," which is defined as "any depiction... including... a computer or computer-generated image... which is of a child or appears to include a child engaging in a listed sexual act..."
Note that the focus of the law is on the making of depictions of child sexual abuse. The so-called "creative act" of sexually abusing a child is a separate crime.
The original recording of an image of child sexual abuse is a crime. So is the making of every subsequent copy of that original image.
The law does not qualify this crime with "intent to distribute" or "for financial gain." Comparison to marijuana laws that make such distinctionns is inappropriate.
Downloading such an image is a crime, because it creates a new copy of the image that did not exist before.
Burning such an image to CD-R from a copy on another medium is a crime, because it creates a new copy of the image that did not exist before.
"Transferring between media" does not happen, as every slashdotter knows. One does not move a particular image from a hard drive to a CD-R. What really happens is that a new copy is made and then the copy from which it was made is deleted. Under Michigan's law, the act of making that new copy is a crime, regardless of one's intended use for that copy or whether any money changes hands.
The court correctly ruled that the defendant made a depiction of child porn when he burned it to CD-R. It could also rule that he made anothe depiction when he downloaded a copy of such an image.
I still don't see where the "producer" label comes from. "Distributor" seems much more accurate.
No. A distributor buys a finished product and resells it. A producer makes products... CDs, in this case.
The RIAA has made this argument in all of its suits against individual file sharers. It doesn't have a case unless making copyrighted files available for distribution is a crime all by itself. The RIAA has never anyone in the act of distributing a file.
The First Amendment deals only with the government's suppression of speech. Private parties can choose to associate only with like-minded parties, and sever their associations with contrary-minded parties.
"... it's not easy to highlight, markup and take notes on a public computer or a loaned out laptop."
It's even tougher on a library book, if you're caught.
On both counts. Using GEICO in the text of an ad without permission is wrong. Using GEICO to trigger display of the ad is wrong.
Google is offering its Adwords customers the use of the trademark GEICO for commercial purposes. Google has no right to do that without GEICO's permission.
OK, I'm going to stop after the first sentence:
"When readying to buy a printer, you must first decide not only upon the kind of usage you will be putting it through but also on the type of usage."
Reminds me of a feedback comment on eBay:
"You are happy and enjoy transaction that make me pleasure also!Thank you!!"
I'm not sure which Google you're using:-) but mine instantly fingers Lew Tucker as Sun Microsystems' director of developer relations.
So how did either Lew Tucker manage to get his personal PC so overrun with malware that he had to throw it out?
I saw a news flash the other day about some large company that plans to charge extra for speaking to a U. S.-based customer service rep. You can't understand our Hindi CSRs? That's OK, here's one in Kansas. That'll be five bucks, please.
The question is, who gets the five bucks?
Slashdot Mirror
A dorm is not a public place. It's an private building full of even more private places. People who leave their dorm rooms without locking the doors do not have enough brains to be away from Mom & Dad, let alone in college.
the issue is not punishment or justice or whether possessin is illegal (it is only for _child_ porn in most cases), it is whether burning some images to a removable optical medium is PUBLISHING and DISTRIBUTION. The words "publishing," "distribution," "possession," and all of their variants do not even appear in the statute under which the defendant appealed. The issue is whether burning images of kiddie porn to a CD-R constitutes making "child sexually abusive materials." The statutes defines such materials to include any "computer storage device... containing such a photograph... or any reproduction, copy, or print of such a photograph..." You begin with a blank CD-R. You finish with a CD-R containing kiddie porn. You made "child sexually abusive materials."
Disturbing? I find it comforting that appellate judges take the time to verify that what they think the law means is what most of society thinks it means.
this decision is problematic because possession without distribution should certainly not bear the same penalty as creation of child pornography.
Distribution is not at issue. The issue is whether the defendant "made" child porn. If he made a warehouse full of it and never distributed or intended to distribute any of it, he still earned 20 years under Michigan law.
Aside from the obvious policy problems the decision generates..."
I don't know about your private policy, but public policy clearly opposes any increase in the amount of child porn existing in society. The defendant inarguably increased the amount of child porn in existence, first by reproducing a particular item on his hard drive in the process of downloading it from a remote server, and second by copying that local copy to CD-R - not just once, but many times!
it's also premised upon a very poor statutory construction.
This is where you truly make a fool of yourself. You toss out legal terms and define them in utterly unheard of ways. You claim the appellate court did things that the record shows it never did. You raise speculative issues that did not arise in this case.
there's a principle called "ejusdem generis" to be applied in interpreting statutes--lists of words are taken to have related meanings. In this case, the verbs "arranges for, produces, makes, or finances" should be given similar meanings. In this case, the shared meaning must reasonably involve *creation* of child pornography.
Horseshit. "Ejusdem generis" means no such thing, particularly when it would yield such absurd results as equating "creation" with "financing" or either term with "arranging for."
http://law.web-tomorrow.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/Ej usdemGeneris
First, the court has improperly imported the word "reproduction" from the definitional provision and substituted it for "production" in the offence provision, which runs contrary to principles of statutory interpretation.
The court did no such thing. It correctly noted that the production (making) of reproductions (copies) of child porn is a crime under the plain wording of the statute.
the mental element to the offence (mens rea), specified in the end of the provision, may not make any sense in the context of simple media reproduction.
Irrelevant to this case. The defendant did not assert that he did not know what he was copying to CD-R.
there's a maxim of "strict construction" applied to criminal statutes, at least in Canada (and I would think all over the Western world): in the case of legislative ambiguity in criminal provisions, they are to be given an interpretation most favourable to the accused.
More horseshit. "Strict construction" is an interpretation based solely on the literal meanings of a statute's words, without regard to externalities such as leglislative intent or words that the legislature did not include.
The Michigan statute does not include the word "creation" or any variant of it. It includes the word "make." The word has various meanings but none of them is ambiguous. Many of those meanings are applicable to the Michigan statute and consistent with the rest of its language. The court chose, as merely one example, a meaning that is quite pertinent to this case:
"to bring into existence by shaping, changing, or combining material[.]" Random House Webster's College Dictionary (2001)
As the court observed, "Defendant acquired child sexually abusive material via the Internet, and he shaped, formed, and combined the material through placement of various selected pictures, videos, and images onto specific DD-Rs, bringing into existence something that had not previously existed, i.e., distinctly created and compiled child-pornography CD-Rs."
It's just you. A basic principle of jurisprudence is that words are to be given their common, everyday meanings so that ordinary people can read the law and understand what it says.
The opinion quotes the statute, which does require "intent to distribute."
Your apparent understanding of the distribution chain suggests that you obtain most of your digital goods illegally. Ingram Micro distributes Windows XP. It may do so by installing copies of XP on computers and selling them to dealers and end users, under license from Microsoft. I assure you, Ingram does not make copies of retail boxed versions of XP. It buys them by the truckload and resells them. Distributors of music CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes, etc., do not buy one copy and sell reproductions of it.
I have seldom read such disingenuous bullshit. The Michigan law prohibits the making of "Child sexually abusive material," which is defined as "any depiction... including ... a computer or computer-generated image... which is of a child or appears to include a child engaging in a listed sexual act..."
Note that the focus of the law is on the making of depictions of child sexual abuse. The so-called "creative act" of sexually abusing a child is a separate crime.
The original recording of an image of child sexual abuse is a crime. So is the making of every subsequent copy of that original image.
The law does not qualify this crime with "intent to distribute" or "for financial gain." Comparison to marijuana laws that make such distinctionns is inappropriate.
Downloading such an image is a crime, because it creates a new copy of the image that did not exist before.
Burning such an image to CD-R from a copy on another medium is a crime, because it creates a new copy of the image that did not exist before.
"Transferring between media" does not happen, as every slashdotter knows. One does not move a particular image from a hard drive to a CD-R. What really happens is that a new copy is made and then the copy from which it was made is deleted. Under Michigan's law, the act of making that new copy is a crime, regardless of one's intended use for that copy or whether any money changes hands.
The court correctly ruled that the defendant made a depiction of child porn when he burned it to CD-R. It could also rule that he made anothe depiction when he downloaded a copy of such an image.
I still don't see where the "producer" label comes from. "Distributor" seems much more accurate. No. A distributor buys a finished product and resells it. A producer makes products... CDs, in this case.
The RIAA has made this argument in all of its suits against individual file sharers. It doesn't have a case unless making copyrighted files available for distribution is a crime all by itself. The RIAA has never anyone in the act of distributing a file.
Divorce lawyers, definitely. Tattoo artists. Little League, PeeWee Football, and Youth Hockey coaches (for the parents).
My newspaper has a policy of publishing no more than one letter per month from the same reader.
This is no end-of-year list. It was published in March!
The First Amendment deals only with the government's suppression of speech. Private parties can choose to associate only with like-minded parties, and sever their associations with contrary-minded parties.
What data is not considered information? You're reading it, silly!
Well, yes, I suppose there will be only one 2005 on the record. So it will be the warmest!
"... it's not easy to highlight, markup and take notes on a public computer or a loaned out laptop." It's even tougher on a library book, if you're caught.
On both counts. Using GEICO in the text of an ad without permission is wrong. Using GEICO to trigger display of the ad is wrong. Google is offering its Adwords customers the use of the trademark GEICO for commercial purposes. Google has no right to do that without GEICO's permission.
OK, I'm going to stop after the first sentence: "When readying to buy a printer, you must first decide not only upon the kind of usage you will be putting it through but also on the type of usage." Reminds me of a feedback comment on eBay: "You are happy and enjoy transaction that make me pleasure also!Thank you!!"
... don't ask the "Windows team." This was a job for a trademark researcher!
Who helps the weak get in and out of this thing?
I'm not sure which Google you're using :-) but mine instantly fingers Lew Tucker as Sun Microsystems' director of developer relations.
So how did either Lew Tucker manage to get his personal PC so overrun with malware that he had to throw it out?
A copy of the big, fat Sunday NY Times would be marvelous to me right now. I'm packing to move.
I saw a news flash the other day about some large company that plans to charge extra for speaking to a U. S.-based customer service rep. You can't understand our Hindi CSRs? That's OK, here's one in Kansas. That'll be five bucks, please. The question is, who gets the five bucks?
I suspect Cerf's movie producers were interested in BitTorrent distribution to theaters, not individuals.