Which lawyer you talking about? I think there are 2/3 of us. I'm a UK lawyer so I can only give a good view of the position this side of the pond.
What do I think of this injunction? its a crock of shit - interlocutory injunctions arent hard to get in practise as long as you have;
at least an arguable case.
a good trial lawyer
no opponent - an emergency ex-parte application is, therefore, best for the spammer.
My quick view is that just because YEsmail have contracted with X to deliver spam to Luser via ISP there is no legal relationship between YEsmail and ISP. It can however be argued that there may be an implied term in the contract between Luser and ISP to deliver communications by Yesmail or X. And this maybe the case if Luser has requested spam from X or YEsmail. This would not apply if the email address Luser@isp.com had been harvested but it might be so if it had been given voluntarily by Luser in response to an offer or suchlike. And in any event privity of contract would only permit Luser to sue not Yesmail (disregarding arguments about equity)
This is basic contract law and provides no good basis for an action. however things get a little foggier when one considers tortious acts such as nuisance, defamation, interference with contractual relations, etc etc. Defamation could be argued but it depends on the detailed facts so I cant say. Interference with contractual relations is a possibility but the question here is interference between whom? if between Luser and X its quite a good cause of action. If however its interference between X and Yesmail? dont make me laugh! ISP doesnt exist to help Yesmails business or X's, only to link Luser to the Internet. If ISP makes Yesmails life harder, or refuses to make it easier, tough titties: "I am not my brothers keeper".
Additionally MAPS can argue two other things. 1) that Luser can still receive email from non-RBL users. Though that wont be possible if Lusers ISP uses RBL. But if upstream ISPs dont all use I guess routing is still possible allbeit slower and less certain. Id want a technical view on this argument. 2) Public policy. Spam has all but rendered Usenet useless.Makes the uses of email a hassle or the giving out of email addresses undesireable. this all reduces the utility of the Internet which most people politicians and judges think would be a "Bad Thing(TM)"
There are a lot of other legal considerations/angles and I could say a lot more but you aint paying me maybe my brother US/. lawyers could chip in...
Im a SuSE user and love it, but I dont think this is your main issue. You need a distro with the abilty to mass-install from a preconfigured setup. Debian does this as does SuSE.
Second, more important for a roll out like this is to appreciate it will be a strange environment for users used to winduhs, so at the risk offending the religious devotee's of Linux (of which I'm one) - you might reduce the learning curve of new users, and your own support load, by choosing a windows like GUI. Can I suggest you use a test harness - setup a couple of different GUIs: fvw95, IceWM, WidowMaker, Sawmill and then grab half a dozen different representative sheep, sorry users, let 'em play and get their reactions. That may also give you a handle on their concerns.
Obviously with 32M Enlightenment is off the list IMHO as is KDE unless you can get to 64M.
As for office suites I suggest you add StarOffice to the list. The licence sucks but I guess thats of no interest to you. Finally, if you have got 2500 installs to do speak to the DISTRIBUTORS! Im sure Red-Hat, SuSE, Corel would be more than keen to assist with thatt kinda scale.
yup, and MSX2. With an OS and basic written by Mr Bill. Died 'cos of infighting and product delays. Good machine for its time. Still got one in my loft - Linux for MSX?
IAAUKIPLNAEL=Im a UK IP lawyer not an employment lawyer: So I cant say what the strict position is in relation to employment law. As far as false data records go, under the Data Protection Act you can get details of the records held on you (in most circumstances) and get errors rectified as of right. Im not sure if there is an equivalent US statute.
If the company doing the security check is distinct from that providing the erroneous record they are likely to be bullet proof, unless they've been negligent and I doubt if any court would hold that they should double or triple check their sources (who knows tho').
As far as the Data provider goes, they may have a problem. One could argue defamation (libel or slander). Under UK law providing the information to a security company would amount to publication, contrary to another thread, since one need publish only to a third party (the security company) not the World. Failing that there once could sue for slander. Failing either of those one could sue for malicious falsehood -the kissing cousin of defamation. Oddly, malicious falsehood needs only negligence not malice and here the basis of damages would be financial loss rather than loss reputation. Specifically loss of opportunity to get a paid job (or salary if one was sacked).
Whether this would actually work against the record provider I dont know. I think there have been UK cases but I cant recall the outcome - I think they failed but Im not sure on what grounds i.e. I dont know if it was said there was no grounds for alleging libel. I certainly think it could apply on pure juristic theory. If any UK readers are interested email me and I'll try to find out. (Linux users get free advice Windoze users pay;)....)
Russia like most countries in the World, not just the West, have copyright laws to protect music etc. I cant recall off the top of my head if Russia is, or the Soviets were, signatories of any of the WIPO treaties but I'd bet they were. The issue here is one of enforcement of Russian law. True there are lots of warez, pr0n servers in Russia that are not hassled because of corrupt/lethargic cops, but if it becomes an issue for RIAA, and all the other US Megacorp whores, then they can get action. They have lots of money, and America and Russia have the best politicians money can buy, how else did DMCA, UCITA etc get passed?
Russian politicians dont even have to pretend to be honest. All it takes is a bitch like Valentini to pass a briefcase of money to Putin and/or the head of the Moscow milita and associated Gangsters (the Russian ones I mean) and those servers vanish before you can type "shutdown -h now".
And there is all the foreign aid that goes to Russia from the US/IMF/Europe. Hell the US paid the Russians/Soviets to ditch their comrades in East-Germany. Whats a few servers by comparison?
this post is correct. There is a lot of crap talked about how to defeat defamation law with magic phrases. UK Viewers of the semi-comedy/news quiz panel show "Have I Got News for You " will be well aware of the the supposed magical power of the the word 'allegedly', prefixed to a libellous statement to render it otherwise. It doesnt: saying 'allegedly\...\', 'in my opinion...', 'someone else said...' may amount on the facts to an assertion of fact and/or republication of a libel.
this is not a Law but rather a ground for striking out a claim made by a litigant. Usually it is done at an early pre-trial stage and is just done to stop the courts and defendants time being wasted with frivolous cases of no merit. The threshold for striking out on this basis is relatively high and certainly wouldnt apply in Godfreys case. It is possible to get a parallel declaration that such a person cannot bring a further case without the leave of the court, I cant recall off the top of my head whether it would apply to all litigation or just litigation on a series of related claims.
(prosecution is not the right word since this is a civil not criminal issue)
yes, i know I say it everytime: IAAL. In fact a defendant does NOT have to show the literal truth of every allegation made. What must be shown is that the sting of the accusation is true. That is, if I say you have 15 convictions for theft but in fact you have only 14 you will not succeed in a claim for defamation merely because I accused you of one more conviction than you actually had. (legal authority for this assertion: Edwards v Bell in a case in 1824, and still good law).
Does anyone know what the thread was in alt.soc.thai (or whatever it was) that kicked off the whole defamation thing? I saw someone saying (and it may have been Godfrey himself on BBC Newsnight) that the accusations were vile and of a nature that would have threatened his future as a teacher.
Given that it was Thailand was it an accusation that he was a paedophile? or a used whores? what?
I am not posting this AC and if Godfrey wants to try it on with me he will get a legal kicking....
Despite all of Tony Blairs soundbites about aiming to make the UK the centre of World e-commerce (bwaa ha ha) this is where the law hits the fan.
IAAL and whilst I think the Godfrey -v-Demon decision is soundly based in law and on the particular facts, the bottom line is that failure to give common carrier status to ISPs, as in much of the rest of the World is beginning to have a profoundly terminal effect. The Defamation Act needs to be amended to give some greater measure of protection than at present.
In my view an ISP should not be liable until a Court grants an injunction or other relief. This would not necessarily take long, hours conceivably, and the balance struck between the rights of the individual and the public interest would be preserved.
How unfortunate that one of the MPs considering the issue has been the victim of defamation. He'll take a balanced view then....
On the content management side I'd recommend Zope (wwww.zope.org) which is a truly brilliant piece of software that brings object orientation to Web applications programming and is a total must for easy manipulation of sites and easily and consistently adding andmaintaing site content and design. Its PHP on steroids integrates with MySQL has chat boards, can integrate Python custom functions.
Brilliant and well worth a look. However, the documentation totally sucks, but its worth persevering with to solve half your problem.
yes really. Like most lawyers I've been accused of thinking Im God (except that I exist), but even Im not omnipotent I cant overturn the prejudices of juries. OJ Simpson of course was a good example he was acquitted because he was black and was accused by racist officers. The DNA evidence provided no more than the hook the jury needed to justify their decision to themselves, IMNSHO. There is rarely absolute evidence, and you are right to say that persuasive arguments can sway many a jury but it needs a solid evidential basis mere rhetoric, however impassioned, will rarely sway a jury, *unless* they want to be so persuaded. Nontheless, Originally DNA was said to be right on a 1 in *BILLIONS* basis, and now, even though it has had to be downgraded, I wouldnt fancy my chances arguing it couldnt possibly be my client - unless he was a twin or OJ. Mind you, I dont do criminal trials, no money but I think thats the view many my colleagues would take.
This demonstrated fallibility wont make any difference to a jury. if you wave "science" at them and say "1 in 37,000,000" they will convict. Still at least OUR forensic people are honest and dont alter the evidence to get a conviction, unless the FBI.
I seem to recall hearing of two techniques: "swarms" and "onions" to defeat this tpe of measure. with swarms I think the idea was you were able to download encrypted files to which you did not have the key and could not therefore provide a plaintext. This download was certified by the swarm host and you could therefore plausibly explain the presence of encrypted files or PGP pseudo disks on your system. I cant find any other detyails though. Did a quick Altavista search etc. Can anyone help with more details?
an "anti-trust" investigation by the Cometition Commissioner. It is occurring under the provisions of Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome - roughly the equivalent of the Sherman Act. Sorry to be anal about this.
My credential: A UK based/. linux using, IP lawyer.
the best answer as another correspondent has said, is that a patent is enforceable only if the subject matter is covered by an enforceable UK patent. If another country, US, grants a patent they enforce it we dont. neither do we enforce their patents, it must be patented in the UK to be enforceable. ergo, naf US software/business method patents arew unenforceable. hence the Microsoft campaign to get the European Union to permit easier software patents. the DVD consortium may have patents elswhwere than the US and their enforceablility depends on the validity of the subject matter in those jurisidictions. Im sorry but "it depends on various factors"
The issue of reverse engineering/trade secrets is also rather fraught with uncertainty as well. Prima facie their case is a poor one but it will hinge on the facts. vague but thats the best any lawyer can say.
guys, for the most part I lurk on/. but if any of the guys concerned want to send me a copy of the injunction (restraining order) I'd be interested to see how shaky their legal grounds are. It is not as clear cut as some people here think, the issues are broad and revolve around the extent to which an innocent third party can be restrained from publishing research. The position in the UK is different to an extent in the US from the UK but I may be able to provide some input/advice. Any takers?
(sorry if the info is already published - I dont have time to rest of/. or net!)
maybe but if you invest in IIS and all the expensive win'doh's server stuff theres prob more chance you are going to use it, whereas freeby stuff theres much less loss for non-use, other than time. I speak as the owner of several 'under construction' sites run on Apache!
1. they'd be expensive. 2. they'd be unreliable. 3. they'd take over your environment. 4. they wouldnt let you do anything with your computer. 5. They'd be unreliable. 6. You could at least kill them with three fingers. 7. You'd upgrade every year, but the replacement would be just as bad.
Slashdot Mirror
two possible uses that have been speculated are:
1) faster than light communication
2) time travel
What do I think of this injunction? its a crock of shit - interlocutory injunctions arent hard to get in practise as long as you have;
at least an arguable case.
a good trial lawyer
no opponent - an emergency ex-parte application is, therefore, best for the spammer.
My quick view is that just because YEsmail have contracted with X to deliver spam to Luser via ISP there is no legal relationship between YEsmail and ISP. It can however be argued that there may be an implied term in the contract between Luser and ISP to deliver communications by Yesmail or X. And this maybe the case if Luser has requested spam from X or YEsmail. This would not apply if the email address Luser@isp.com had been harvested but it might be so if it had been given voluntarily by Luser in response to an offer or suchlike. And in any event privity of contract would only permit Luser to sue not Yesmail (disregarding arguments about equity)
This is basic contract law and provides no good basis for an action. however things get a little foggier when one considers tortious acts such as nuisance, defamation, interference with contractual relations, etc etc. Defamation could be argued but it depends on the detailed facts so I cant say. Interference with contractual relations is a possibility but the question here is interference between whom? if between Luser and X its quite a good cause of action. If however its interference between X and Yesmail? dont make me laugh! ISP doesnt exist to help Yesmails business or X's, only to link Luser to the Internet. If ISP makes Yesmails life harder, or refuses to make it easier, tough titties: "I am not my brothers keeper".
Additionally MAPS can argue two other things.
/. lawyers could chip in...
1) that Luser can still receive email from non-RBL users. Though that wont be possible if Lusers ISP uses RBL. But if upstream ISPs dont all use I guess routing is still possible allbeit slower and less certain. Id want a technical view on this argument.
2) Public policy. Spam has all but rendered Usenet useless.Makes the uses of email a hassle or the giving out of email addresses undesireable. this all reduces the utility of the Internet which most people politicians and judges think would be a "Bad Thing(TM)"
There are a lot of other legal considerations/angles and I could say a lot more but you aint paying me
maybe my brother US
(any chance of decent karma for a change....)
Second, more important for a roll out like this is to appreciate it will be a strange environment for users used to winduhs, so at the risk offending the religious devotee's of Linux (of which I'm one) - you might reduce the learning curve of new users, and your own support load, by choosing a windows like GUI. Can I suggest you use a test harness - setup a couple of different GUIs: fvw95, IceWM, WidowMaker, Sawmill and then grab half a dozen different representative sheep, sorry users, let 'em play and get their reactions. That may also give you a handle on their concerns.
Obviously with 32M Enlightenment is off the list IMHO as is KDE unless you can get to 64M.
As for office suites I suggest you add StarOffice to the list. The licence sucks but I guess thats of no interest to you.
Finally, if you have got 2500 installs to do speak to the DISTRIBUTORS! Im sure Red-Hat, SuSE, Corel would be more than keen to assist with thatt kinda scale.
yup, and MSX2. With an OS and basic written by Mr Bill.
Died 'cos of infighting and product delays. Good machine for its time. Still got one in my loft - Linux for MSX?
Ive read his book and respect him too, but snake oil warnings apply to authors as well as algorithms.
IAAUKIPLNAEL=Im a UK IP lawyer not an employment lawyer: So I cant say what the strict
;) ....)
position is in relation to employment law. As far as false data records go, under the
Data Protection Act you can get details of the records held on you (in most circumstances)
and get errors rectified as of right.
Im not sure if there is an equivalent US statute.
If the company doing the security check is distinct from that providing the erroneous
record they are likely to be bullet proof, unless they've been negligent and I doubt
if any court would hold that they should double or triple check their sources (who knows tho').
As far as the Data provider goes, they may have a problem. One could argue
defamation (libel or slander). Under UK law providing the information to a security company would
amount to publication, contrary to another thread, since one need publish only to a
third party (the security company) not the World. Failing that there once could sue for slander.
Failing either of those one could sue for malicious falsehood -the kissing cousin of defamation.
Oddly, malicious falsehood needs only negligence not malice and here the basis of damages would be financial
loss rather than loss reputation. Specifically loss of opportunity to get a paid job
(or salary if one was sacked).
Whether this would actually work against the record provider I dont know. I think there have been
UK cases but I cant recall the outcome - I think they failed but Im not sure on what grounds i.e. I
dont know if it was said there was no grounds for alleging libel. I certainly think it could
apply on pure juristic theory. If any UK readers are interested email me and I'll try to find out.
(Linux users get free advice Windoze users pay
Russian politicians dont even have to pretend to be honest. All it takes is a bitch like Valentini to pass a briefcase of money to Putin and/or the head of the Moscow milita and associated Gangsters (the Russian ones I mean) and those servers vanish before you can type "shutdown -h now".
And there is all the foreign aid that goes to Russia from the US/IMF/Europe. Hell the US paid the Russians/Soviets to ditch their comrades in East-Germany. Whats a few servers by comparison?
Mcpeep, Any chance you can give us a detailed summary?
so there...
(prosecution is not the right word since this is a civil not criminal issue)
Given that it was Thailand was it an accusation that he was a paedophile? or a used whores? what?
I am not posting this AC and if Godfrey wants to try it on with me he will get a legal kicking....
IAAL and whilst I think the Godfrey -v-Demon decision is soundly based in law and on the particular facts, the bottom line is that failure to give common carrier status to ISPs, as in much of the rest of the World is beginning to have a profoundly terminal effect. The Defamation Act needs to be amended to give some greater measure of protection than at present.
In my view an ISP should not be liable until a Court grants an injunction or other relief. This would not necessarily take long, hours conceivably, and the balance struck between the rights of the individual and the public interest would be preserved.
How unfortunate that one of the MPs considering the issue has been the victim of defamation. He'll take a balanced view then....
On the content management side I'd recommend Zope (wwww.zope.org) which is a truly brilliant piece of software that brings object orientation to Web applications programming and is a total must for easy manipulation of sites and easily and consistently adding andmaintaing site content and design. Its PHP on steroids integrates with MySQL has chat boards, can integrate Python custom functions.
Brilliant and well worth a look. However, the documentation totally sucks, but its worth persevering with to solve half your problem.
yes really. Like most lawyers I've been accused of thinking Im God (except that I exist), but even Im not omnipotent I cant overturn the prejudices of juries. OJ Simpson of course was a good example he was acquitted because he was black and was accused by racist officers. The DNA evidence provided no more than the hook the jury needed to justify their decision to themselves, IMNSHO. There is rarely absolute evidence, and you are right to say that persuasive arguments can sway many a jury but it needs a solid evidential basis mere rhetoric, however impassioned, will rarely sway a jury, *unless* they want to be so persuaded. Nontheless, Originally DNA was said to be right on a 1 in *BILLIONS* basis, and now, even though it has had to be downgraded, I wouldnt fancy my chances arguing it couldnt possibly be my client - unless he was a twin or OJ. Mind you, I dont do criminal trials, no money but I think thats the view many my colleagues would take.
This demonstrated fallibility wont make any difference to a jury. if you wave "science" at them and say "1 in 37,000,000" they will convict. Still at least OUR forensic people are honest and dont alter the evidence to get a conviction, unless the FBI.
I seem to recall hearing of two techniques: "swarms" and "onions" to defeat this tpe of measure. with swarms I think the idea was you were able to download encrypted files to which you did not have the key and could not therefore provide a plaintext. This download was certified by the swarm host and you could therefore plausibly explain the presence of encrypted files or PGP pseudo disks on your system. I cant find any other detyails though. Did a quick Altavista search etc. Can anyone help with more details?
- is
an "anti-trust" investigation by the Cometition Commissioner. It is occurring under the provisions of Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome - roughly the equivalent of the Sherman Act. Sorry to be anal about this.was it the whores or the Weed though? me I always kinda like a spliff in the afternoon when Im there, beats coding :)
Blues Brothers coffeeshop rules!
My credential: A UK based /. linux using, IP lawyer.
the best answer as another correspondent has said, is that a patent is enforceable only if the subject matter is covered by an enforceable UK patent. If another country, US, grants a patent they enforce it we dont. neither do we enforce their patents, it must be patented in the UK to be enforceable. ergo, naf US software/business method patents arew unenforceable. hence the Microsoft campaign to get the European Union to permit easier software patents.
the DVD consortium may have patents elswhwere than the US and their enforceablility depends on the validity of the subject matter in those jurisidictions. Im sorry but "it depends on various factors"
The issue of reverse engineering/trade secrets is also rather fraught with uncertainty as well. Prima facie their case is a poor one but it will hinge on the facts. vague but thats the best any lawyer can say.
guys, /. but if any of the guys concerned want to send me a copy of the injunction (restraining order) I'd be interested to see how shaky their legal grounds are. It is not as clear cut as some people here think, the issues are broad and revolve around the extent to which an innocent third party can be restrained from publishing research.
/. or net!)
for the most part I lurk on
The position in the UK is different to an extent in the US from the UK but I may be able to provide some input/advice.
Any takers?
(sorry if the info is already published - I dont have time to rest of
Dave
maybe but if you invest in IIS and all the expensive win'doh's server stuff theres prob more chance you are going to use it, whereas freeby stuff theres much less loss for non-use, other than time. I speak as the owner of several 'under construction' sites run on Apache!
wont work on any soft toilet roll printer. But Im doing a port to an HP shiny toilet paper printer half works I'll post the source soon. honest
yea and Im trying to port a full SuSE distro to my Casio sports watch. Anyone want to help? it'll be real kewl when its done.
1. they'd be expensive. 2. they'd be unreliable. 3. they'd take over your environment. 4. they wouldnt let you do anything with your computer. 5. They'd be unreliable. 6. You could at least kill them with three fingers. 7. You'd upgrade every year, but the replacement would be just as bad.