In theory. In practice, the judge, prosecutor, and investigator on the case are unlikely to keep their jobs long once the defendant's lawyer plays up the case in the media.
Yeah. The H. Beatty Chadwick case was really detrimental to the career of then appeals court judge Samuel Alito.
That logic may sound invalid, but that's exactly the way contempt of court works -- in civil cases. Interestingly, you actually have more rights in a criminal trial. At least, that's the way my lawyer friend explained the Chadwick case to me.
Come to think of it, so do I. When I was younger, I thought that encryption was important for even slightly sensitive data. My old Win98 machine in the front office probably has a number of files (maybe even a partition) to which I seriously doubt I remember the password. Guess I better not ever get accused of mortgage fraud, or I'm fucked.
I think due process in cases of contempt of court would be fairly straightforward. I wonder why this hasn't been made law. Any lawyers, legislators, or judges out there who know?
That's not how contempt of court works. A judge can lock you up without any sort of "due process" for as long as he wants. From wikipedia:
In civil contempt cases there is no principle of proportionality. In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), a U.S. court of appeals held that H. Beatty Chadwick could be held indefinitely under federal law, for his failure to produce US$ 2.5 mill. as state court ordered in a civil trial. Chadwick had been imprisoned for nine years at that time and continued to be held in prison until 2009, when a state court set him free after 14 years, making his imprisonment the longest on a contempt charge to date.
Pretty sure you're trolling (sterile pariah, really?), but just in case: an obvious flaw in your logic is that homosexuals have children all the time, either by blood or by adoption. Some gay friends of mine just adopted siblings that were from a troubled home. The sad irony is that the children's (straight) parents had such disregard for them. So I guess that's another hole in your theory: being "part of the ongoing circle of life" doesn't mean you have any concern for your children or grandchildren.
Unless of course you set your settings to not allow tagging or just simply remove the unwanted tags. Or you could even request that the owner take down the photo if it's so embarrassing, and assuming they're not an adolescent they'd probably do it.
If you don't have a Facebook account, how are you supposed to disallow tagging of yourself in Facebook photos?
In that case, First Sale does not apply, as what is transferred is not the material itself. You can sell the drive which has the recording, but to move it to another material is copying, regardless of whether the copy from which it is copied from is destroyed or not.
What if you move the file via quantum teleportation? Is that a move, or a copy/delete?
An easy way around your argument is just to have ReDigi download your song for you the first time around. Then, when you want to hear it, you just stream it. At that point, the network, computers, speakers, etc. are all part of the "aid of a machine" specifically permitted by law. This is exactly the business model several cloud music services are considering. Of course, the RIAA is probably going to try to argue that it's a derivative work or a public performance, so these debates will probably continue for quite some time.
First of all, the idea of prior art does not come into play with copyright. The important thing here is that the defendant knew the image and specifically set out to replicate certain aspects of it. Whether those aspects can be seen in a photo from 1979 or not is completely beside the point. The judge wasn't saying Mr. Fielder was the first to come up with the idea. He was saying that Houghton's photo was a derivative of Fielder's.
The image is clearly not a copy: the field of view, vantage point, lens, foreground, and most importantly composition are all different. This is so different from the original that I would not have ever guessed one was derived from the other. Furthermore, if I were to buy a print of one of those two photos, I would choose the one on the tea. The "original" one is crap. Even if Houghton's is a derivative, Fielder shouldn't be able to sue for any damages because the value of his image in just about nil.
What I don't understand is how people like Roy Lichtenstein were somehow "artists" while this guy is somehow an "infringer." Lichtenstein replicated complete panels of comics, and was lauded as some kind of visionary.
Well, the Houston Chronicle reports that they found a pipe dumping the blood, and blood in the river, so I guess there's something going on there. But still, I don't find a dark discharge into a river particularly damning. This is a 99 year old plant. That pipe has probably been there for ages. Hell, the people running the place might not even know about it.
I'm not really sure what you're calling apparent. The creek is pretty much the same color before and after the meat plant. Pretty clearly just silt. The clay in this area is a very dark iron-rich red color, so it's not surprising at all. There's quite a few drainage ditches that feed into the Trinity River, and several of them have the same maroon color. Look at Lemmon Lake. It's all that color. Surely you don't think there's a lake full of blood. I guess this is Bible-thumper territory; maybe there's a Revelations re-enactment center somewhere nearby.
GE is no longer a media giant. They sold it to Comcast. And then one of the FCC people who approved the merger got a sweet position at Comcast before the end of the year.
You obviously underestimate the level of douchebaggery that police are capable of in this country. I was on a choir tour back 1996 to DC and the surrounding area. We were sight-seeing, visiting the monuments, etc. At the Jefferson Memorial we were so moved that a few of us began singing something somber and beautiful. Not 30 seconds later, a local cop was in our faces telling us we would have to shut up or leave because there we didn't have a permit to demonstrate there.
That was over fifteen years ago. It's only gotten worse. The problem with free speech zones is that they enable police to think that any political speech (or non-political, for that matter) outside of the zone is somehow forbidden. That's why the very notion of needing free speech zones is not tolerable. Would you have a problem if you were only allowed to pray in "free religion zones" or if you were only allowed to read the newsp-- um, Slashdot -- in "free press zones"?
What of your other rights? Say the right to due process only applied in "due process zones." Oh wait... that's right, the president can order the execution of US citizens abroad without due process now. I forgot.
One thing I do agree with is that free speech doesn't mean you can force others to listen. You may not stand in my front yard with a bullhorn. You may not peaceably assemble in my driveway. But that's not what free speech zones are about. They're about curtailing protests and keeping people from getting their message out.
We had a noose-related EEOC complaint filed against us a decade ago. Now, if anybody gets caught even making a knot with rope, they get a verbal reprimand. All chains and straps around here. Yes-siree!
Slashdot Mirror
In theory. In practice, the judge, prosecutor, and investigator on the case are unlikely to keep their jobs long once the defendant's lawyer plays up the case in the media.
Yeah. The H. Beatty Chadwick case was really detrimental to the career of then appeals court judge Samuel Alito.
That logic may sound invalid, but that's exactly the way contempt of court works -- in civil cases. Interestingly, you actually have more rights in a criminal trial. At least, that's the way my lawyer friend explained the Chadwick case to me.
Come to think of it, so do I. When I was younger, I thought that encryption was important for even slightly sensitive data. My old Win98 machine in the front office probably has a number of files (maybe even a partition) to which I seriously doubt I remember the password. Guess I better not ever get accused of mortgage fraud, or I'm fucked.
And this, boys and girls, is why you should never use "Sorry." as your password.
I think due process in cases of contempt of court would be fairly straightforward. I wonder why this hasn't been made law. Any lawyers, legislators, or judges out there who know?
In civil contempt cases there is no principle of proportionality. In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), a U.S. court of appeals held that H. Beatty Chadwick could be held indefinitely under federal law, for his failure to produce US$ 2.5 mill. as state court ordered in a civil trial. Chadwick had been imprisoned for nine years at that time and continued to be held in prison until 2009, when a state court set him free after 14 years, making his imprisonment the longest on a contempt charge to date.
Where's the "-1, WTF?" mod when you need it?
Pretty sure you're trolling (sterile pariah, really?), but just in case: an obvious flaw in your logic is that homosexuals have children all the time, either by blood or by adoption. Some gay friends of mine just adopted siblings that were from a troubled home. The sad irony is that the children's (straight) parents had such disregard for them. So I guess that's another hole in your theory: being "part of the ongoing circle of life" doesn't mean you have any concern for your children or grandchildren.
Unless of course you set your settings to not allow tagging or just simply remove the unwanted tags. Or you could even request that the owner take down the photo if it's so embarrassing, and assuming they're not an adolescent they'd probably do it.
If you don't have a Facebook account, how are you supposed to disallow tagging of yourself in Facebook photos?
In that case, First Sale does not apply, as what is transferred is not the material itself. You can sell the drive which has the recording, but to move it to another material is copying, regardless of whether the copy from which it is copied from is destroyed or not.
What if you move the file via quantum teleportation? Is that a move, or a copy/delete?
An easy way around your argument is just to have ReDigi download your song for you the first time around. Then, when you want to hear it, you just stream it. At that point, the network, computers, speakers, etc. are all part of the "aid of a machine" specifically permitted by law. This is exactly the business model several cloud music services are considering. Of course, the RIAA is probably going to try to argue that it's a derivative work or a public performance, so these debates will probably continue for quite some time.
SHHHH!!! Don't give the RIAA any ideas!!!
Ever hear of the guy that successfully defended a small claims case by arguing all three of the following simultaneously?
1) I never borrowed my neighbor's lawnmower.
2) My neighbor's lawnmower isn't broken.
3) My neighbor's lawnmower was already broken when I borrowed it.
Only one of the three arguments needed to be true for the neighbor to lose the case. How the guy didn't get charged with perjury is beyond me.
Nah. We only impeach presidents for canoodling the secretary.
And if you find you must follow the teachings of some old dead guy instead of analyzing situations for yourself, then ... why not ... Jesus?
Because Jesus was an anti-capitalist, pro-tax, pro-immigration, commie bastard, who only hung out with job-quitters, hookers, and tax-collectors.
Seriously? Three incorrect homophones in a row? Please tell me that was a joke.
First of all, the idea of prior art does not come into play with copyright. The important thing here is that the defendant knew the image and specifically set out to replicate certain aspects of it. Whether those aspects can be seen in a photo from 1979 or not is completely beside the point. The judge wasn't saying Mr. Fielder was the first to come up with the idea. He was saying that Houghton's photo was a derivative of Fielder's.
The image is clearly not a copy: the field of view, vantage point, lens, foreground, and most importantly composition are all different. This is so different from the original that I would not have ever guessed one was derived from the other. Furthermore, if I were to buy a print of one of those two photos, I would choose the one on the tea. The "original" one is crap. Even if Houghton's is a derivative, Fielder shouldn't be able to sue for any damages because the value of his image in just about nil.
What I don't understand is how people like Roy Lichtenstein were somehow "artists" while this guy is somehow an "infringer." Lichtenstein replicated complete panels of comics, and was lauded as some kind of visionary.
Well, the Houston Chronicle reports that they found a pipe dumping the blood, and blood in the river, so I guess there's something going on there. But still, I don't find a dark discharge into a river particularly damning. This is a 99 year old plant. That pipe has probably been there for ages. Hell, the people running the place might not even know about it.
I'm not really sure what you're calling apparent. The creek is pretty much the same color before and after the meat plant. Pretty clearly just silt. The clay in this area is a very dark iron-rich red color, so it's not surprising at all. There's quite a few drainage ditches that feed into the Trinity River, and several of them have the same maroon color. Look at Lemmon Lake. It's all that color. Surely you don't think there's a lake full of blood. I guess this is Bible-thumper territory; maybe there's a Revelations re-enactment center somewhere nearby.
like some redneck with 5000 watt linear amp wiping out half the broadcast band for a 20 mile radius.
I prefer to call it freedom broadcasting.
No. You do as little as possible to not get fired. In most places that amounts to doing about 75% of what you're asked to do.
GE is no longer a media giant. They sold it to Comcast. And then one of the FCC people who approved the merger got a sweet position at Comcast before the end of the year.
You obviously underestimate the level of douchebaggery that police are capable of in this country. I was on a choir tour back 1996 to DC and the surrounding area. We were sight-seeing, visiting the monuments, etc. At the Jefferson Memorial we were so moved that a few of us began singing something somber and beautiful. Not 30 seconds later, a local cop was in our faces telling us we would have to shut up or leave because there we didn't have a permit to demonstrate there.
That was over fifteen years ago. It's only gotten worse. The problem with free speech zones is that they enable police to think that any political speech (or non-political, for that matter) outside of the zone is somehow forbidden. That's why the very notion of needing free speech zones is not tolerable. Would you have a problem if you were only allowed to pray in "free religion zones" or if you were only allowed to read the newsp-- um, Slashdot -- in "free press zones"?
What of your other rights? Say the right to due process only applied in "due process zones." Oh wait... that's right, the president can order the execution of US citizens abroad without due process now. I forgot.
One thing I do agree with is that free speech doesn't mean you can force others to listen. You may not stand in my front yard with a bullhorn. You may not peaceably assemble in my driveway. But that's not what free speech zones are about. They're about curtailing protests and keeping people from getting their message out.
Then you should say that you propose to let these old men yell at their clouds in some corner where they will do no harm.
Did anybody else read this and think of that really pissed off grandpa yelling at his TV about the Casey Anthony case?
That's the post number, not the account.
We had a noose-related EEOC complaint filed against us a decade ago. Now, if anybody gets caught even making a knot with rope, they get a verbal reprimand. All chains and straps around here. Yes-siree!