Thought that authors publishing under the various free and open-source licenses like the GPL and derivatives were espressly waiving many of their rights, but still making sure that when people make changes in the future that it stays open.
And with GNU Art and Wikipedia it seems that open-licensing and copyright waiving is becoming a big trend and not just limited to computer fields, either.
I would never argue for the compulsory abolish of copyright laws, but I fully support the open and free software communities.
Copyright registration may not really be the best solution. My term paper that I produce is a copryight protected piece of intellectual property. Of course, some might say it's a POS and I may never want it to re-surface. As my property that's my choice. To force me to pay a registration fee and register it or else lose protections would force me to either register everything: because perhaps in the future the idea would be valuable?? And still it would really favor large company's with extensive legal department and be a disservice to small time artists, software developers, writers, and others.
Ever see how expensive it is to file and renew patents? What if you write a novel and it never takes off until you're 50?
I've thought about those. Some times they are run by a private group on-base like a cooperative. There's a network that does that in many places and they tell the troops that lots of times prices are better than at a Defense Commissary Store. Even if the crime were to occur on base I think that it would be listed as a simple theft and not the charge that the author looked up.
To the contrary, thanks to copyright law lots of works perish every year, because it is illegal to copy them. From the work's point of view copying is a healthy activity, as it will help its dissemination.
If I waive my right to copy them then you can copy it all you like and then it wouldn't perish as you say. Or maybe I want my copyrighted IP to go away because it was poor.
and in fact there are accounting methods you can use to charge off expenses to "good will."
No, there aren't. At least not for a public corporation like Google that would need its financial statements to be attested to be an independent auditor.
The only goodwill that can end up in the balance sheet of a company is when it buys another company. The excess of what the buyer paid to the purchased company less the fair market value of its tangible assets would lead to goodwill. Goodwill is tested, when required, to see if it is impaired and if so then reduced by a one-time charge to the company as an expense (a write-off).
18 USC 641 which it cites as an example to be used for application in a shoplifting casing couldn't apply to almost any situation.
Which government stoare have you been to that sells DVD's?
Also, very importantly, the intent of the law is to help differntiate between different crimes.
If I were to shoplift a fur coat or nice cell phone no copyrigh law could obviously apply in this case. But on the other hand I could shoplift a DVD or computer software and then go further and help pirate it: now I've broken more than one law, obviously. First, I have stolen from the merchant and his or her harm is limited to the $20 in retail sales lost. But my piracy activity takes on another crime in another form: criminal copyright activity.
I think the difference isn't neccesarily the same. If I were an author, publish, programmer I would want me original creative work to be more protected than just one copy that got the "five finger discount." I would see the greater danger to my business, my property, and livelihood in the rampant privacy not in the occassional theft. That's why the crimes are differentiated. Also, the harm to society is worse if on a grand scale my copyright is abused and damanged then if one merchants single copy is lifted.
Shoplifting isn't a violation of Federal law in any case.
Virginia
18.2-96. Petit larceny defined; how punished.
Any person who:
1. Commits larceny from the person of another of money or other thing of value of less than $5, or
2. Commits simple larceny not from the person of another of goods and chattels of the value of less than $200, except as provided in subdivision (iii) of 18.2-95, shall be deemed guilty of petit larceny, which shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(Code 1950, 18.1-101; 1960, c. 358; 1966, c. 247; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1980, c. 175; 1992, c. 822.)
And in Virginia:
(a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
Exactly, however commercial and private free speech is strictly limited.
Rights and duties go hand in hand.
Such that I always have a right to speak up, for, or against the government and the government always owes me the duty to bear that speech. I can say almost anything about George Bush since he occupies the Office of the President of the USG. owes me that duty as a public figure and also since he is head of state and head of government.
On the other hand, I can't go around and disparage Bill Gates or Microsoft. Bill Gates and Microsoft do not owe me that duty hence I have no right.
There are numerous provisions that would effect me if I were to publish items against Bill Gates or Microsoft. Slander and libel come into play, but so does interefernece with business relations a criminal and civil offense.
Example: The FTC does not want you to disparage other company's products or services. This applies to advertising, customer service, development, and other areas.
try to copy&paste some webpage in a Office application and get something more then plain-text
Try Edit | Paste Special | and select one of the unformatted text options.
I completely disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts
Implied in fact or implied in law
An implied contract can either be implied in fact or implied in law. A contract which is implied in fact is one in which the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. For example, by going to a doctor for a physical, a patient agrees that he will pay a fair price for the service. If he refuses to pay after being examined, he has breached a contract implied in fact.
It actually must be a contract otherwise it's not enforceable. And the only limits that would apply would be court and legal provisions of the Copyright Law. But in a contract you and I can voluntarily agree or disagree to waive some of our rights.
Like for example a regular audio CD from Barns and Nobles doesn't come with a license. Its use is only limited by copyright law and doctrines such as fair use. Fair use typically includes the ability to share copies with friends and relatives and listen to it all I want in any platform. Converting this to computers means with one copy of Windows I can give it my family, run it on 4-5 of my personal computers and only pay for it once.
However, Microsoft doesn't want this, and I understand why. So they license it under a contract with you the customer.
Frequently, I have seen EULA modified and company's discuss the exact verbiage. I have worked for a large computer security firm and also a financing company and both had many customers altering the contract. Some changes would be okay with us and others would be unacceptable, and yet most often: if a customer wanted to change a term it would result in a change in the price.
This is what it's all about! If you want Microsoft to provide full protection and warranty that's not limited, they might, if you discuss it with them...but with anything else, they'll only do it for the right price. For the right price I'll sell you insurance that says I'll pay you if you get a paper cut!
Acceptance of the terms and conditions of a contract does not have to be in writing. Like when you pump gas and then the guy expects you to pay for it: that's an implied-by-fact contract. It's implied by the factual circumstances surrounding the issue. Other contracts maybe implied-by-law. An example would be, let's say a painter comes to my house by mistake (my neighbor asked to get his house painted.) I'm home and figure what they hey I can get a free paint job! Wrong...Unless I was on vacation or had a really good excuse why I didn't make a reasonable attempt to let the painter know that he is at the wrong house my acceptance of the contract is based on the acceptance of his work.
The GNU Software License is a contract.
The validity of the contract requires that offer, acceptance, and consideration be present and that it satisfies the mirror image rule. The mirror image rule requires a contract be able to be written in both directions. (Hence, I will pay you $5,000 to paint my house and on the other side You can tell yourself "I will get $5,000 for painting his house).
Offer-- You may use GPL software pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the GPL software license.
Acceptance-- Implied by fact if the software is used.
Consideration-- Legal right to use the software (valuable consideration).
and the mirror image:
Offer-- You can use my GPL software in accordance with the GPL-license.
Acceptance-- Your usage of my software.
Consideration-- Your promise to abide by the GPL.
Promises exchanged by both parties are considered "valuable consideration."
Any good NDA would be binding by making it a two-party NDA. I promise not to divulge your secrets if you promise not to release my secrets. I personally believe that an NDA that's one directional and not supported by consideration would NOT be binding. (However, employment and salary are obviously consideration, too!).
Sue for money. The girl who made a confederate dress for her prom, but was thrown out because of it made a pretty penny: at least $25,000!
At least eventually we can bankrupt the school system into submission.
But, then, lots of people also confuse the 1st amendment and think because of it one can say anything they would like about a private party.
The First Amendment provides only protection against your speech, thoughts, and print when the government is a party. Your right to speak up, against, or disparage a private third party whether it's Microsoft, McDonalds, or Coke is severely restricted. As it should be. I wouldn't want someone out there spreading untruths about me.
But the government is held to a higher standard. I could always say Bush is a criminal or whatever. Since Bush is a public figure (politician) and holds the Office of the President of the USG he is subject to the highest duty: he owes me the duty to print almost anything about him.
And just because something is deemed secret doesn't prevent its publication. See the Pentagon Papers case (NY Times v. United States)
But to call Microsoft or Bill Gates a criminal without proper evidence would be an invitation to a huge lawsuit.
That's a huge difference in Free Speech that many people easily forget in their haste to demonize others.
You're correct and it's not socialistic or communistic or anything else.
Commonwealths "States" of this country are Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Virginia. VA doesn't have a Secretary of State -- they have a Secretary of Commonwealth.
Curious why some states are commonwealths?
Read the FAQ -- Why is VA a Commonwealth?
Starts with:
There is no such entity as the "State" of Virginia. While generally categorized as a state, Virginia has been the "Commonwealth" since independence from Great Britain. Virginia is first of four states that are Commonwealths, to include our daughter Commonwealth of Kentucky, which was formed from Virginia in 1792.
Finally, Puerto Rico is technically a commonwealth, but that's under a different situation, since it is not a State of the Union.
It's just the name and form of its local government.
Each State of the Union is guaranteed sovereignty and a repulican form of government: thus they really are like 50 mini-countries.
However, they each agreed by compact upon admission or ratification of the Constitution for the original 13-states that they would have a Government of the United States of America (USG) to operate in certain areas and that this government would also be a sovereign, too.
How each state wants to operate in its sovereign form is up to the people as long as its republic in nature. If New Jersey would like to call itself the "Free and Independent Peoples Democratic Place of the Principality of New Jersey, formerly known as the State of New Jersey." That's up to itself.
However, from the point of view of the USG each state is just like any other state. That's why we just call them the fifty states. From the national point of view: All states are equal in that they have two senators, elect the president via the electoral college through whatever selection process the state would like to select, and can't be destroyed by Congress.
But then Norway's Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court decision according to the AP story...So, actually, the District Court decision was correct and the sensible choice.
Not to mention that any prosecutor worth his or her salt will go after me as an accessory / accomplice since I materially participated in identity theft by aiding and abetting the direct participants. So connecting it with criminal copyright violations requiring the attention of the US Attorneys' Office wouldn't be that far-fetched.
Just because its not your social security number doesn't mean it's okay to steal...or help steal. another form of intellectual property.
But this case in particlar was a civil suit so I left my analysis to that.
I think that most posts on this subject err to differentiate criminal (government) charges versus civil liability issues (private).
You have no free speech right against me a private person. Your first amendment right protects you only against the government. My property, including my intellectual property, is not the government's. So when I try to sue you to protect my property you can't use rights you don't have as a defense!
Let's analyze this in a way that would make the naysayers think twice.
Let's say I compile, using only legal search engines, a list of all your social security numbers, dates of birth, and other information. You know the stuff that any identity thief would love to get his or her hands on : to ruin your financial life.
Now let's go one step further and say that I place convenient links to where people can go and see this. All I did was provide links.
But now look at how I am aiding in the transaction as an information conduit. The information is the valuable piece of the puzzle and that's the problem.
Do I have a free speech right to do this? Perhaps, I can argue that the government can't lock me up because of the way I collected the information. And that I did not break any privacy law since I did not owe any of the people any privacy duty. (Since they are not my customers, employees, or have any status with me their rights are severely limited). Now I have a pretty good argument against a criminal offense case.
BUT
My actions were deliberate and reckless. Also, they did assist in the violation of the law which I should have had reasonable belief would occurr. The damages that my indirect victims become my liability. They can pursue me directly because of the damages they suffered from me doing what I wasn't supposed to do.
So in this case: when this kid published links and helped people break the law he became an agent and conduit just like I could have become with your identities. He was sued and lost because of his actions. Now if the government tries to toss in him in jail, that would be another story. However, there is the possibility that they could....
Slashdot Mirror
Thought that authors publishing under the various free and open-source licenses like the GPL and derivatives were espressly waiving many of their rights, but still making sure that when people make changes in the future that it stays open. And with GNU Art and Wikipedia it seems that open-licensing and copyright waiving is becoming a big trend and not just limited to computer fields, either. I would never argue for the compulsory abolish of copyright laws, but I fully support the open and free software communities. Copyright registration may not really be the best solution. My term paper that I produce is a copryight protected piece of intellectual property. Of course, some might say it's a POS and I may never want it to re-surface. As my property that's my choice. To force me to pay a registration fee and register it or else lose protections would force me to either register everything: because perhaps in the future the idea would be valuable?? And still it would really favor large company's with extensive legal department and be a disservice to small time artists, software developers, writers, and others. Ever see how expensive it is to file and renew patents? What if you write a novel and it never takes off until you're 50?
Also, if it were to occur on a military base shouldn't it be covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and not Title 18 USC?
I've thought about those. Some times they are run by a private group on-base like a cooperative. There's a network that does that in many places and they tell the troops that lots of times prices are better than at a Defense Commissary Store. Even if the crime were to occur on base I think that it would be listed as a simple theft and not the charge that the author looked up.
To the contrary, thanks to copyright law lots of works perish every year, because it is illegal to copy them. From the work's point of view copying is a healthy activity, as it will help its dissemination. If I waive my right to copy them then you can copy it all you like and then it wouldn't perish as you say. Or maybe I want my copyrighted IP to go away because it was poor.
and in fact there are accounting methods you can use to charge off expenses to "good will."
No, there aren't. At least not for a public corporation like Google that would need its financial statements to be attested to be an independent auditor.
The only goodwill that can end up in the balance sheet of a company is when it buys another company. The excess of what the buyer paid to the purchased company less the fair market value of its tangible assets would lead to goodwill. Goodwill is tested, when required, to see if it is impaired and if so then reduced by a one-time charge to the company as an expense (a write-off).
18 USC 641 which it cites as an example to be used for application in a shoplifting casing couldn't apply to almost any situation.
Which government stoare have you been to that sells DVD's?
Also, very importantly, the intent of the law is to help differntiate between different crimes.
If I were to shoplift a fur coat or nice cell phone no copyrigh law could obviously apply in this case. But on the other hand I could shoplift a DVD or computer software and then go further and help pirate it: now I've broken more than one law, obviously. First, I have stolen from the merchant and his or her harm is limited to the $20 in retail sales lost. But my piracy activity takes on another crime in another form: criminal copyright activity.
I think the difference isn't neccesarily the same. If I were an author, publish, programmer I would want me original creative work to be more protected than just one copy that got the "five finger discount." I would see the greater danger to my business, my property, and livelihood in the rampant privacy not in the occassional theft. That's why the crimes are differentiated. Also, the harm to society is worse if on a grand scale my copyright is abused and damanged then if one merchants single copy is lifted.
Shoplifting isn't a violation of Federal law in any case.
Virginia
18.2-96. Petit larceny defined; how punished.
Any person who:
1. Commits larceny from the person of another of money or other thing of value of less than $5, or
2. Commits simple larceny not from the person of another of goods and chattels of the value of less than $200, except as provided in subdivision (iii) of 18.2-95, shall be deemed guilty of petit larceny, which shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(Code 1950, 18.1-101; 1960, c. 358; 1966, c. 247; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1980, c. 175; 1992, c. 822.)
And in Virginia:
(a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
Exactly, however commercial and private free speech is strictly limited.
m
a rticle?AID =/20050123/BIZ01/501230336/1002/BIZ
r ticle?AID =/20050123/BIZ01/501230335/1002/BIZ
Rights and duties go hand in hand.
Such that I always have a right to speak up, for, or against the government and the government always owes me the duty to bear that speech. I can say almost anything about George Bush since he occupies the Office of the President of the USG. owes me that duty as a public figure and also since he is head of state and head of government.
On the other hand, I can't go around and disparage Bill Gates or Microsoft. Bill Gates and Microsoft do not owe me that duty hence I have no right.
There are numerous provisions that would effect me if I were to publish items against Bill Gates or Microsoft. Slander and libel come into play, but so does interefernece with business relations a criminal and civil offense.
Example: The FTC does not want you to disparage other company's products or services. This applies to advertising, customer service, development, and other areas.
Cite: Carter Products, Inc., 60 F.T.C. 782 modified [1963 trade cases 70,902], 323 F.2d 523 (5th Cir. 1963)
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.ht
And of course the best case on this subject that I know of, so far:
Issues over online complaints spread out as sites increase
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
'Gripe sites' for consumers face lawsuits, legal threats
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a
try to copy&paste some webpage in a Office application and get something more then plain-text Try Edit | Paste Special | and select one of the unformatted text options.
No, just used them as a reference point.
If you prefer to use the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University or another source that's okay with me.
That's the law...Consult any competend US-based attorney.
And consideration doesn't have to include money.
So "Free" software may stipulate terms and conditions on its license.
If you and I enter into a "free" Non-disclosure agreement it will satisfy the mirror image rule as long as the promise flows both ways.
Offer-- To keep your information private.
Acceptance-- Your acceptance.
Consideration-- You agree to keep my information private.
The mirror image would be the exact opposite and this would be a binding contract.
I completely disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts Implied in fact or implied in law An implied contract can either be implied in fact or implied in law. A contract which is implied in fact is one in which the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. For example, by going to a doctor for a physical, a patient agrees that he will pay a fair price for the service. If he refuses to pay after being examined, he has breached a contract implied in fact.
It actually must be a contract otherwise it's not enforceable. And the only limits that would apply would be court and legal provisions of the Copyright Law. But in a contract you and I can voluntarily agree or disagree to waive some of our rights. Like for example a regular audio CD from Barns and Nobles doesn't come with a license. Its use is only limited by copyright law and doctrines such as fair use. Fair use typically includes the ability to share copies with friends and relatives and listen to it all I want in any platform. Converting this to computers means with one copy of Windows I can give it my family, run it on 4-5 of my personal computers and only pay for it once. However, Microsoft doesn't want this, and I understand why. So they license it under a contract with you the customer. Frequently, I have seen EULA modified and company's discuss the exact verbiage. I have worked for a large computer security firm and also a financing company and both had many customers altering the contract. Some changes would be okay with us and others would be unacceptable, and yet most often: if a customer wanted to change a term it would result in a change in the price. This is what it's all about! If you want Microsoft to provide full protection and warranty that's not limited, they might, if you discuss it with them...but with anything else, they'll only do it for the right price. For the right price I'll sell you insurance that says I'll pay you if you get a paper cut!
Acceptance of the terms and conditions of a contract does not have to be in writing. Like when you pump gas and then the guy expects you to pay for it: that's an implied-by-fact contract. It's implied by the factual circumstances surrounding the issue. Other contracts maybe implied-by-law. An example would be, let's say a painter comes to my house by mistake (my neighbor asked to get his house painted.) I'm home and figure what they hey I can get a free paint job! Wrong...Unless I was on vacation or had a really good excuse why I didn't make a reasonable attempt to let the painter know that he is at the wrong house my acceptance of the contract is based on the acceptance of his work.
The GNU Software License is a contract.
The validity of the contract requires that offer, acceptance, and consideration be present and that it satisfies the mirror image rule. The mirror image rule requires a contract be able to be written in both directions. (Hence, I will pay you $5,000 to paint my house and on the other side You can tell yourself "I will get $5,000 for painting his house).
Offer-- You may use GPL software pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the GPL software license.
Acceptance-- Implied by fact if the software is used.
Consideration-- Legal right to use the software (valuable consideration).
and the mirror image:
Offer-- You can use my GPL software in accordance with the GPL-license.
Acceptance-- Your usage of my software.
Consideration-- Your promise to abide by the GPL.
Promises exchanged by both parties are considered "valuable consideration."
Any good NDA would be binding by making it a two-party NDA. I promise not to divulge your secrets if you promise not to release my secrets. I personally believe that an NDA that's one directional and not supported by consideration would NOT be binding. (However, employment and salary are obviously consideration, too!).
I like the Free State Project, but now that it's selected to be in such a cold climate, I'd rather welcome our police-state overseers.
Now if this was a school paper...they wouldn't let you write that, would they?
Welcome to the Naturalization Self Test! If you weren't born here -- would they let you in?
Welcome to the Naturalization Self Test! To begin the self test, click the Generate Questions button.
Sue for money. The girl who made a confederate dress for her prom, but was thrown out because of it made a pretty penny: at least $25,000! At least eventually we can bankrupt the school system into submission.
Sorry for the bad link! New York Times v. the United States http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/g oodsb1.htm
But, then, lots of people also confuse the 1st amendment and think because of it one can say anything they would like about a private party.
The First Amendment provides only protection against your speech, thoughts, and print when the government is a party. Your right to speak up, against, or disparage a private third party whether it's Microsoft, McDonalds, or Coke is severely restricted. As it should be. I wouldn't want someone out there spreading untruths about me.
But the government is held to a higher standard. I could always say Bush is a criminal or whatever. Since Bush is a public figure (politician) and holds the Office of the President of the USG he is subject to the highest duty: he owes me the duty to print almost anything about him.
And just because something is deemed secret doesn't prevent its publication. See the Pentagon Papers case (NY Times v. United States)
But to call Microsoft or Bill Gates a criminal without proper evidence would be an invitation to a huge lawsuit.
That's a huge difference in Free Speech that many people easily forget in their haste to demonize others.
What's he thinking?? :)
You're correct and it's not socialistic or communistic or anything else.
Commonwealths "States" of this country are Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Virginia. VA doesn't have a Secretary of State -- they have a Secretary of Commonwealth.
Curious why some states are commonwealths? Read the FAQ -- Why is VA a Commonwealth?
Starts with: There is no such entity as the "State" of Virginia. While generally categorized as a state, Virginia has been the "Commonwealth" since independence from Great Britain. Virginia is first of four states that are Commonwealths, to include our daughter Commonwealth of Kentucky, which was formed from Virginia in 1792.
Finally, Puerto Rico is technically a commonwealth, but that's under a different situation, since it is not a State of the Union. It's just the name and form of its local government.
Each State of the Union is guaranteed sovereignty and a repulican form of government: thus they really are like 50 mini-countries.
However, they each agreed by compact upon admission or ratification of the Constitution for the original 13-states that they would have a Government of the United States of America (USG) to operate in certain areas and that this government would also be a sovereign, too.
How each state wants to operate in its sovereign form is up to the people as long as its republic in nature. If New Jersey would like to call itself the "Free and Independent Peoples Democratic Place of the Principality of New Jersey, formerly known as the State of New Jersey." That's up to itself.
However, from the point of view of the USG each state is just like any other state. That's why we just call them the fifty states. From the national point of view: All states are equal in that they have two senators, elect the president via the electoral college through whatever selection process the state would like to select, and can't be destroyed by Congress.
But then Norway's Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court decision according to the AP story...So, actually, the District Court decision was correct and the sensible choice.
Not to mention that any prosecutor worth his or her salt will go after me as an accessory / accomplice since I materially participated in identity theft by aiding and abetting the direct participants. So connecting it with criminal copyright violations requiring the attention of the US Attorneys' Office wouldn't be that far-fetched. Just because its not your social security number doesn't mean it's okay to steal...or help steal. another form of intellectual property. But this case in particlar was a civil suit so I left my analysis to that.
You have no free speech right against me a private person. Your first amendment right protects you only against the government. My property, including my intellectual property, is not the government's. So when I try to sue you to protect my property you can't use rights you don't have as a defense!
Let's analyze this in a way that would make the naysayers think twice.
Let's say I compile, using only legal search engines, a list of all your social security numbers, dates of birth, and other information. You know the stuff that any identity thief would love to get his or her hands on : to ruin your financial life.
Now let's go one step further and say that I place convenient links to where people can go and see this. All I did was provide links.
But now look at how I am aiding in the transaction as an information conduit. The information is the valuable piece of the puzzle and that's the problem.
Do I have a free speech right to do this? Perhaps, I can argue that the government can't lock me up because of the way I collected the information. And that I did not break any privacy law since I did not owe any of the people any privacy duty. (Since they are not my customers, employees, or have any status with me their rights are severely limited). Now I have a pretty good argument against a criminal offense case.
BUTMy actions were deliberate and reckless. Also, they did assist in the violation of the law which I should have had reasonable belief would occurr. The damages that my indirect victims become my liability. They can pursue me directly because of the damages they suffered from me doing what I wasn't supposed to do.
So in this case: when this kid published links and helped people break the law he became an agent and conduit just like I could have become with your identities. He was sued and lost because of his actions. Now if the government tries to toss in him in jail, that would be another story. However, there is the possibility that they could....