And I'd add, that 10 million pays the lawyers, and their expenses, and for their risk, and for the time value of money.
Regarding expenses - do you have any idea how much time, effort, man-hours (in lawyer, paralegal, and secretary time, and expert witness fees) and paper it costs to run a class action lawsuit with thousands of potential plaintiffs? These costs need to be paid as they come up, and hopefully will be covered at the end of the suit (see risk and time, below).
Regarding risk, the lawyers only get paid if they win or settle the suit - there is always a chance that they will lose, or "win" a paltry sum - fees in cases like this are usually subject to approval by the judge.
Regarding the time value of money - a dollar tomorrow is, for all practical purposes, worth less than a dollar today. These cases take years, and the lawyers don't get paid until after the whole process is over. How much are you paid to do your job? How much more would you require if your employer wasn't going to pay you a dime until three or five years after you completed the project? How about if you were also responsible for the costs of your materials?
we arguably have freedom of religion and a right to vote, and a limited right to freedom of 'political' speech, but all can be infringed on by federal laws with a legitimate other purpose
Umm, this sounds about the same as the U.S., except U.S. citizens explicitly do not have a right to vote in presidential elections - see Bush v. Gore.
Can the Australian P.M. name a group of cronies and give them the power to eternally imprison and torture anyone they choose? The President can.
Let's try to translate:
RIAA: Hey yr honor, this dude stole my stuf, i know 'cause a guy i pay to hang on the net told me so!
DUDE: Nope, i didn't.
RIAA: Sure, they all claim the same, and actually by now i've got no evidence, but if you let me go his home and
put everything upside-down i bet my "experts" will find something!
Well, i hope this is not the way the USA justice works.
It isn't. To bring a suit, you must have a "good faith" basis for believing your suit has merit. You don't need to have all of the evidence you need to prove your case, but you need to have some objective reason for bringing the accusation.
And if i were Defendant i'd ask RIAA in return (and before giving anything to them) to let me do forensics on computer their investigators used to identify my IP and computers they used to exchange mails and every other piece of equipement i could think off (like routers of their ISP).
I'm sure the defendant will ask for the methods the RIAA used to identify them - it's called "discovery," and it's the period of time where both sides have to give each other the evidence they each need to prove their case. It happens simultaneously.
And it'd take me 10 years or so, and of course at the expense or RIAA (i mean, forensics is a hard work, i intend to get payd for it) if i figure that they made a mistake.
You wouldn't get paid for it, and if you drag your feet you'll either be fined by the court or, if you're deliberately being a complete pain in the ass you just might lose your case - even if you're right. Judges don't like litigants that deliberately screw with the process.
How can they claim that there is any meeting of the minds or that all terms in the contract were fully understood by the 'employee' if it comes up in court later.
Because you signed it. If you sign a contract, it is presumed you understood what you were doing and becomes your burden to proove otherwise. This is a difficult, expensive, and time-consuming level of proof to meet. You can't just say, "I didn't understand it" and expect a court to rule in your favor.
Can the employers insist that you sign it without giving you time to properly review it (even without a lawyer)?
They can. They shouldn't, but they do. And if you give in to that pressure you might have an argument in court, but you'd still have a hell of a time proving it. And the deck would begin stacked against you because you had signed.
Because I would consider an employer insisting I sign a contract and denying me the opportunity to review it an abusive employer. But moreso, such conduct would seem to render the contract unenforceable. Can such employment contracts signed under such conditions be upheld by US courts?
Yes. Don't work for sleazebags. You are correct that some kinds of high-pressure tactics can render a contract unenforceable, but the person breaking the contract has to prove their case. How do you think you'll be able to prove it if it's just your word against theirs, and they have a contract you signed?
I am a lawyer. This is not legal advice. If you have a legal problem, discuss your situation with your own lawyer.
Are you a lawyer? No? I didn't think so. A lawyer wouldn't say "always".
Sometimes contractual clauses are ambiguous or subject to more than one interpretation. In that case, the clause means what the parties think it means - even if the clause would never mean that to a third party. If the parties disagree, the clause is generally construed against the drafter. So, if you, as the drafter, wrote a clause that is subject to more than one interpretation, it does mean what the other party thinks it says.
I am a lawyer. This post is not intended to be legal advice. If you have a legal problem, consult an attorney and explain the details of your situation.
I tend to trust Wikipedia in relation to the controversey of the topic (and to their credit they mark controversial items as being such). So if it's an article about gravity, as opposed to say the Republican party, I can reasonably assume that the gravity article is accurate where as the one on the GOP may be distorted by either side.
YANAL, IA (You are not a lawyer, I am.)
You cannot read part of the Constitution, interpret it literally, and think you understand what it means. The meaning of the Constitution has changed somewhat, based on over two centuries of judicial interpretation and subsequent Amendments.
Despite the text, the first amendment has not been limited to acts of Congress for a LONG time. The fourteenth amendment states, in part:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Many, many years ago, the Supreme court ruled that the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment incorporated most (but not all) of the Bill of Rights (i.e. Amendments 1-10); and therefore, the "liberty" protected by the fourteenth amendment (which, by its express language, applies to States) includes the rights articulated in the first.
It is also a long set point of American jurisprudence that the liberty of "the press" is a liberty that applies to all U.S. citizens, not just those who are somehow "professional" press members. Posting on Slashdot qualifies YOU as a member of the press, legally speaking.
So, is this a First Amendment issue? Maybe. It is definitely a 14th Amendment liberty issue.
I am a lawyer; this post is not legal advice and is based on my personal recollection, not research.
No. The Constitution, with very few exceptions, limits what the government can do, but not private citizens. You can refuse to sell a gun to someone for whatever reason you like.
Freedom of speech does not mean the local newspaper has to print my story.
Slashdot Mirror
to be brutally honest with the Mac fandom crowd, a hell of a lot more inexpensive than the Macbook
Mac fans are not disturbed by the fact that your cheap-@$$ laptop is only semi-functional.
And I'd add, that 10 million pays the lawyers, and their expenses, and for their risk, and for the time value of money. Regarding expenses - do you have any idea how much time, effort, man-hours (in lawyer, paralegal, and secretary time, and expert witness fees) and paper it costs to run a class action lawsuit with thousands of potential plaintiffs? These costs need to be paid as they come up, and hopefully will be covered at the end of the suit (see risk and time, below). Regarding risk, the lawyers only get paid if they win or settle the suit - there is always a chance that they will lose, or "win" a paltry sum - fees in cases like this are usually subject to approval by the judge. Regarding the time value of money - a dollar tomorrow is, for all practical purposes, worth less than a dollar today. These cases take years, and the lawyers don't get paid until after the whole process is over. How much are you paid to do your job? How much more would you require if your employer wasn't going to pay you a dime until three or five years after you completed the project? How about if you were also responsible for the costs of your materials?
Can the Australian P.M. name a group of cronies and give them the power to eternally imprison and torture anyone they choose? The President can.
Because you signed it. If you sign a contract, it is presumed you understood what you were doing and becomes your burden to proove otherwise. This is a difficult, expensive, and time-consuming level of proof to meet. You can't just say, "I didn't understand it" and expect a court to rule in your favor.
Can the employers insist that you sign it without giving you time to properly review it (even without a lawyer)?
They can. They shouldn't, but they do. And if you give in to that pressure you might have an argument in court, but you'd still have a hell of a time proving it. And the deck would begin stacked against you because you had signed.
Because I would consider an employer insisting I sign a contract and denying me the opportunity to review it an abusive employer. But moreso, such conduct would seem to render the contract unenforceable. Can such employment contracts signed under such conditions be upheld by US courts?
Yes. Don't work for sleazebags. You are correct that some kinds of high-pressure tactics can render a contract unenforceable, but the person breaking the contract has to prove their case. How do you think you'll be able to prove it if it's just your word against theirs, and they have a contract you signed?
I am a lawyer. This is not legal advice. If you have a legal problem, discuss your situation with your own lawyer.
Sometimes contractual clauses are ambiguous or subject to more than one interpretation. In that case, the clause means what the parties think it means - even if the clause would never mean that to a third party. If the parties disagree, the clause is generally construed against the drafter. So, if you, as the drafter, wrote a clause that is subject to more than one interpretation, it does mean what the other party thinks it says.
I am a lawyer. This post is not intended to be legal advice. If you have a legal problem, consult an attorney and explain the details of your situation.
You poor, misguided, soul! You are sadly misguided if you think the "theory" of gravity is uncontroversial.
LotR will probably be "the" movie to get in HD, once it comes out.
YANAL, IA (You are not a lawyer, I am.) You cannot read part of the Constitution, interpret it literally, and think you understand what it means. The meaning of the Constitution has changed somewhat, based on over two centuries of judicial interpretation and subsequent Amendments. Despite the text, the first amendment has not been limited to acts of Congress for a LONG time. The fourteenth amendment states, in part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Many, many years ago, the Supreme court ruled that the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment incorporated most (but not all) of the Bill of Rights (i.e. Amendments 1-10); and therefore, the "liberty" protected by the fourteenth amendment (which, by its express language, applies to States) includes the rights articulated in the first. It is also a long set point of American jurisprudence that the liberty of "the press" is a liberty that applies to all U.S. citizens, not just those who are somehow "professional" press members. Posting on Slashdot qualifies YOU as a member of the press, legally speaking. So, is this a First Amendment issue? Maybe. It is definitely a 14th Amendment liberty issue. I am a lawyer; this post is not legal advice and is based on my personal recollection, not research.
No. The Constitution, with very few exceptions, limits what the government can do, but not private citizens. You can refuse to sell a gun to someone for whatever reason you like. Freedom of speech does not mean the local newspaper has to print my story.