Don't take a poly from the agency you'd like to work for? Terrible advice.
At risk of sounding like one of those asshole girls, "if they would discriminate against me, then I don't want to work for them" (because fundamentally, I have a right to)
NO!
Refusing to take a poly from anyone is the best choice you can make. Once you consent to the examination, there are two possibilities: you either pass and they believe you (neutral result compared to your position before) or you fail and they dismiss you (a result worse than you started at).
Refuse ALL polygraph tests, there is no empirical evidence to support them, and you should absolutely object to any of them that are offered. If the entity requesting the poly then declines to hire you, then you are better off, than if you consent and they fail you on the poly.
That's fucking fraud. If you ever have to deal with them again (I wouldn't), I would notify them that you are asking a material question as to the condition of the product, and that your purchase is absolutely dependent upon their representation being true, and that if they are making a misrepresentation as to the condition of the product that it will constitute fraud, which would be promptly reported to the relevant authorities, as well as open them to the liability of statutory damages in addition to a simple refund.
You're good to question his opinion in the matter.
There is a notion of "invitation to treat", which generally applies to advertised goods. By advertising a price, you are not obligating yourself into a binding agreement to make that sale.
A shop owner can still, in general, refuse business to any particular individual.
The proper way to go about this, would be to demand to see the manager. Note to the manager, that the object has been offered at a given price, and that you wish to agree to the originally offered deal. They may then either agree or disagree. If they disagree note to them that by making an offer and then rejecting it (due to an unadvertised necessity of a bundle, or "you have to buy accessories") that they potentially run afoul of consumer protection laws. Then, again assert your intent to agree to the original deal. If they decline again, then take your money, leave, and report them to the appropriate consumer agency.
I know there is som e sort of compensation for damage injury or death, is it the level that an soldier gets? I doubt it, but I believe they do receive something.
No, soldiers have a mandatory life insurance policy, which as of around 2001 was about $200,000-250,000. This was payable to the beneficiary under all conditions except suicide.
I do not really know any information about what compensations one is able to receive for injury or death at the hands of sanctioned military action.
I whole heartedly agree that they don't have time to second guess.
However, the military should owe a strict liability for civil deaths that are caused. They already owe essentially a strict liability for the death of a soldier (owing to the mandatory life insurance, etc), but having a "life insurance policy" or such for civilian casualties is a good idea.
I am of the belief that soldiers can do their duty, and still face the reality in public of their accidents/misdeeds.
This particular apache attack as not a matter of national security, and the tapes should have been willingly handed over by the military to allow for some sort of oversight.
Yeah, I wanted to point out that there are BSL speakers, and I'm sure that they really enjoy being able to have a video call.
The majority of video calls in the US are made by the deaf as well. I had a good friend, and all he had was a blackberry. No need for voice capabilities, that was just completely unnecessary... but if it had front-facing video? He might be down with that.
Of course, BSL uses the two-handed manual alphabet, so I don't know how useful it would be.. but some is better than nothing. (As a note: ASL uses one-handed manual alphabet, and even two handed signs can be used with only one-hand... it takes a bit of context to grab the meaning, but it's definitely possible.)
Somehow I'm sure our country and citizens will manage to survive the release of this information that the government feels it must protect us from.
I rather like the quote (that I cannot attribute, if someone knows, it'd be awesome): "The fastest way to inform your enemy, is to inform your public." Or something to that effect.
When you have an Apache helicopter, everything looks like a rocket launcher.
Watching the full video myself, I'm left with the impression that the pilot and/or gunner failed to adequately assess the situation and jumped to conclusions as to the nature of the object being held. Getting into a "firing-style position" i.e. crouching behind a corner with a large rounded object pointed out at a helicopter is a good way to get that person antsy and trigger-happy.
I'm not condoning the event, I think that military should have a strict liability in civilian casualties. Namely, if a civilian dies as a result of your fire, then you're screwed, it doesn't matter what conditions surround the matter.
but case law definitely is on the side of any parent who wants to protest this.
It took me all the way until here to actually respond to someone, and a lot of this article's responses are outright bogus uninformed ranting... but this particular gem is just so blatantly wrong.
Since you allude to the support of case law in this matter, would you care to cite precedent?
To which: the specific case you cite only covers the right of a school district to obtain sufficient funding, even when property taxes are not sufficient. Again, there is no way that a parent could use this as case law precedent.... Even if they tried, the court would point out that since parents do not receive property tax to support their child's education, their argument is specious, and likely frivolous.
Your claim that this stuff "can be interpreted" is a specious argument as well, numerous parts of the US constitution could -- by function of reality -- be interpreted, in ways that would violate US legal tradition to do so.
And as such, I believe you're reading too much into these texts... likely to support a presupposed condition of the state.
Nothing you cite supports a sound legal argument that a school must provide a trapper keeper to students.
First off, slavery was never endorsed by the Constitution. It was simply not prohibited. As slaves were never considered citizens, the constitution and its protections did not apply to them.
Correct, however, modern society would still find it objectionable to not prohibit slavery.
This is a historical record, and should be viewed with an eye to history.
Second, are all your copies of the Constitution over 150+ years old? Or did you miss the part where that got changed?
A) I imagine the historical text presented in the summary, is based on the exact wording of the original document.
B) The Constitution even when changed and altered due to amendments does not have text deleted from it. The Constitution still says all this stuff. When the Constitution has been noted as altered or changed, then the regular legal amendment formatting is used; with strike-through used for text that is no longer in effect, and underlines for text that has been added.
Not long after the Civil War, we got the 13th amendment, which - oh my god - changed the Constitution! That's right! If it's truly out of date, we can change it! It has happened almost 30 times before, I'm sure we could manage again when an issue is truly important enough.
Again, quite true, and accurate. However, the original document still states a neutral tolerant attitude towards slavery.
Teaching that the US Constitution never had such an apathetic tone towards slavery is kind of disingenuous towards the representation of history.
Seriously, where the fuck did you learn history, a public school?
Yes, I did learn it from a public school, and from a state land-grant college. And the copy of the constitution that I always learned from at most had strikeouts on the text that was no longer in force, but yet still remained, because it would be disingenuous to represent the Constitution otherwise.
How is an income tax indirect? Because if it isn't, before the 16th amendment it was illegal unless in proportion to the census or as enumerated in the constitution.
Please read Constitutional Law. You are equivocating "direct tax".
In Constitutional Law a direct tax is on a thing, and an indirect tax is on an event. Income tax is a payment, and thus an event, and thus an indirect tax according to US constitutional law.
There, fixed that for you. Income tax is direct no matter where it comes from, why the fuck do you think a constitutional amendment was necessary to apply a non-proportionate income tax?
No! Income Tax is emphatically not a "direct tax" in US Constitutional Law.
Read the actual history behind the 16th amendment. The constitutional amendment was necessary because the Supreme Court ruled that taxing income from property is indistinguishable from taxing property, and thus was a "direct tax" as used in US Constitutional law.
In US Constitutional Law there are only three known direct taxes: a capitation (tax per person), a property tax, and a tax on income from property.
The Supreme Court has never held or even considered that tax on wages and salary might be, according to US Constitutional Law terms, a "direct tax".
In US Constitutional Law income tax is definitively not a "direct tax". Yes, it is a "direct tax" in the usage that everyone else uses, but when talking about the constitutionality of a law, you have to consider the actual language, meaning, and intent of words as they were written. You cannot re-read a newer definition onto a term.
Why I would need to explain this to someone advancing the Tea Party agenda is beyond me.
I do understand that this is confusing, frustrating, and painful terminology. And every person who properly understands the tax law, including every Judge on Earth in the USA, will tell you that it is annoying. However, this is the truth of law in the United States.
No less than this being a truth of law in the US, this is such a patent truth, that to claim so in court threatens dismissal and sanctions for bringing a frivolous case before the court.
Ok, let's get things straight here... Hate Crimes do not make politically incorrect speech illegal. You can still say "Death to Whitey" or "Death to Blacky". Both of those are not hate crimes. A hate crime is an already criminal act that is done with a motive of denigrating a whole race.
"Why bring motives into these crimes, they're already illegal!" Well, we already do take motives into account. It's the defining difference between First Degree and Second Degree Murder. It also makes the difference between reckless and intentional manslaughter. Some crimes simply go away completely when there is no intent to commit the crime. So, this argument must fail.
Now, as for society exerting a chilling effect upon behavior and speech, that is not a governmental operation. That is a society exerting its mores and values upon people by sanctioning behavior. If you don't like that you can't say "Fuck that homo, he's gross!" anymore without stares and disapproving reactions, then WELCOME to the world that the gays were in for expressing the notion "I'm not gross because I'm homosexual".
But of course, you are completely unopposed to a chilling effect on people expressing their sexual orientation... just not on your expression about it being gross.
Article 9... No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
This does not apply to income tax (beyond income from property).
The 16th amendment is not necessary for a progressive income tax.
Congress already had limitless ability to lay and collect taxes that were not direct, and only three taxes are known to be direct (in so far as the US constitutional law definition is concerned): Capitation, Property Tax, and Income Tax from Property.
meaning they would prefer to repeal the amendment that enabled it. given the big brother thing you might want to start considering that reducing federal cognizance of individuals might be for the best.
Repealing that amendment would only make income due to property (rent, etc) necessary to be apportioned among the states based on population.
Income Tax from employment is based on an event... a transfer of property/cash from an employer to an employee.
All of the things in the constitution are great guiding points, with the exception of the amendment allowing the income tax, and the (thankfully repealed) amendment allowing the prohibition of alcohol.
What about the slavery stuff? That slaves were worth only 3/5ths of a person? That's apparently according to you a "great guiding point"?
And the 16th Amendment did not "allow the income tax", it just authorized Congress to collect "direct taxes" without it being apportioned among the several states. So, to clear it up: before the 16th amendment, there were income taxes. Before the 16th amendment, there could be property taxes, but those taxes would have had to have been collected apportioned among the states based on population. (So, people in California would have to pay a larger hypothetical Federal Property Tax than those in Wyoming... regardless of a Californian owning only a quarter acre, but a Wyoming resident owning 100 acres. The Californian would still pay more tax in this case.)
I think it's very good to point out that the First Amendment Right to Free Speech in the USA is perhaps the strongest right that we have. The government cannot stop you from saying ANYTHING, and NO ONE can get the government to make you stop saying something...
Well, except for two things. If it fundamentally threatens national security, then the government can prevent you beforehand. Second, if you commit a crime by your speech, then you're still in trouble.
So, again, the government cannot force you to stop calling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, but they can charge you with a crime afterwards.
Though this is for a State Commission, and subject to Ca. rule of law, wouldn't campaigning across Federal Districts be, a no-no? Much less an ethics violation.
Can we get a lawyer in here?
I think you're stretching...
Easier to just call her an idiot, not vote for her, and move on.
Better analogy: you rent an apartment which provides you with cable TV. You record said on a DVR, which is prohibited by contract, and they hold you liable for copyright infringement to the tune of seven million dollars.
Your painter's example requires demonstrable harm. My DVR example includes the notion of fair use.
Eh... close, but still not quite.
This is more like countersuing the person who provided the DVRs, because the person who provided the DVRs knew (and openly and publicly stated) that he was inducing renters to violate the contract, got told to stop inducing renters to violate the contract, and brought suit in a court to have a finding that they are not doing anything wrong.
Did the person legally obtain the software? If the answer is yes then they don't need a license or a EULA to have the right to use the copy.
"Did the person legally come into possession of the apartment? If the answer is yes, then they don't need a license or a rental agreement to have the right use the property."
I know you're trying to make a point here, and I don't mean to interrupt, but you might want to research "squatters rights".
Yeah, I'm aware of the crux in the argument being that housing is considered so special that just having possession gives a lot of rights.
Namely, possession of property has to be taken through actual legal due process (as it should be) unlike say, a leased car, or whatever, which can be seized almost at will.
There's actually an interesting question behind this... how much legal process should be required to remove legal "possession" of a computer program?
next up, suing knife maker when someone misuses a knife.
No analogy here. Although, if someone is working at a kitchen, and has a contract with their employer to only use knives from a specific company, but then a knife maker comes by to them and sells them some other knives knowing full well that it violates the employment contract...
Well then, the kitchen has every right to sue the knife maker for inducement to violate contract.
Blizzard already lost that claim, by itself, by failing to prove they were harmed more than helped.
Actually, this was Count I, and they were granted it by a stipulated judgement.
Blizzard lost the Unjust Enrichment claim because they could not quantify the damage done by people leaving the game due to cheating.
Everything hinges on the only important part - whether Blizzard can use copyright law, and subsequently the power of the government, to stipulate things that happen outside the use of their servers or whether their power only extends so far as banning offenders.
No, it hinges upon contract law first, before copyright law. Their argument is that upon violation of the contract, the user no longer has a right to use their program, and that any attempted use of that program is thus a copyright violation.
Analogy: you rent an apartment. Your possession of that apartment is contingent upon a contract. Upon violation of that contract, your possession can be taken away. Once said possession has been taken away, you are not allowed to return, or it is trespass.
Next up, you own an apartment building. Your rental agreements state that the tenants are not allowed to paint their walls. A painting company comes along and says to your renters that although they know that painting their walls is against the terms of their contract, they will come in and paint them anyways. This painting company is inducing other to violate their contracts, and may be sued by the apartment building owner.
Why do you have to be so black and white? People can either own or rent property, and no one insists on making everyone either own or rent.
There is no reason why the court should ever make a decision that there is one and only one type of possession of a computer program, and there is no good reason why anyone should ever make this assertion to the courts.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't take a poly from the agency you'd like to work for? Terrible advice.
At risk of sounding like one of those asshole girls, "if they would discriminate against me, then I don't want to work for them" (because fundamentally, I have a right to)
NO!
Refusing to take a poly from anyone is the best choice you can make. Once you consent to the examination, there are two possibilities: you either pass and they believe you (neutral result compared to your position before) or you fail and they dismiss you (a result worse than you started at).
Refuse ALL polygraph tests, there is no empirical evidence to support them, and you should absolutely object to any of them that are offered. If the entity requesting the poly then declines to hire you, then you are better off, than if you consent and they fail you on the poly.
Shit dude... that sucks.
That's fucking fraud. If you ever have to deal with them again (I wouldn't), I would notify them that you are asking a material question as to the condition of the product, and that your purchase is absolutely dependent upon their representation being true, and that if they are making a misrepresentation as to the condition of the product that it will constitute fraud, which would be promptly reported to the relevant authorities, as well as open them to the liability of statutory damages in addition to a simple refund.
You're good to question his opinion in the matter.
There is a notion of "invitation to treat", which generally applies to advertised goods. By advertising a price, you are not obligating yourself into a binding agreement to make that sale.
A shop owner can still, in general, refuse business to any particular individual.
The proper way to go about this, would be to demand to see the manager. Note to the manager, that the object has been offered at a given price, and that you wish to agree to the originally offered deal. They may then either agree or disagree. If they disagree note to them that by making an offer and then rejecting it (due to an unadvertised necessity of a bundle, or "you have to buy accessories") that they potentially run afoul of consumer protection laws. Then, again assert your intent to agree to the original deal. If they decline again, then take your money, leave, and report them to the appropriate consumer agency.
I know there is som e sort of compensation for damage injury or death, is it the level that an soldier gets? I doubt it, but I believe they do receive something.
No, soldiers have a mandatory life insurance policy, which as of around 2001 was about $200,000-250,000. This was payable to the beneficiary under all conditions except suicide.
I do not really know any information about what compensations one is able to receive for injury or death at the hands of sanctioned military action.
I whole heartedly agree that they don't have time to second guess.
However, the military should owe a strict liability for civil deaths that are caused. They already owe essentially a strict liability for the death of a soldier (owing to the mandatory life insurance, etc), but having a "life insurance policy" or such for civilian casualties is a good idea.
I am of the belief that soldiers can do their duty, and still face the reality in public of their accidents/misdeeds.
This particular apache attack as not a matter of national security, and the tapes should have been willingly handed over by the military to allow for some sort of oversight.
Yeah, I wanted to point out that there are BSL speakers, and I'm sure that they really enjoy being able to have a video call.
The majority of video calls in the US are made by the deaf as well. I had a good friend, and all he had was a blackberry. No need for voice capabilities, that was just completely unnecessary... but if it had front-facing video? He might be down with that.
Of course, BSL uses the two-handed manual alphabet, so I don't know how useful it would be.. but some is better than nothing. (As a note: ASL uses one-handed manual alphabet, and even two handed signs can be used with only one-hand... it takes a bit of context to grab the meaning, but it's definitely possible.)
Somehow I'm sure our country and citizens will manage to survive the release of this information that the government feels it must protect us from.
I rather like the quote (that I cannot attribute, if someone knows, it'd be awesome): "The fastest way to inform your enemy, is to inform your public." Or something to that effect.
When you have an Apache helicopter, everything looks like a rocket launcher.
Watching the full video myself, I'm left with the impression that the pilot and/or gunner failed to adequately assess the situation and jumped to conclusions as to the nature of the object being held. Getting into a "firing-style position" i.e. crouching behind a corner with a large rounded object pointed out at a helicopter is a good way to get that person antsy and trigger-happy.
I'm not condoning the event, I think that military should have a strict liability in civilian casualties. Namely, if a civilian dies as a result of your fire, then you're screwed, it doesn't matter what conditions surround the matter.
but case law definitely is on the side of any parent who wants to protest this.
It took me all the way until here to actually respond to someone, and a lot of this article's responses are outright bogus uninformed ranting... but this particular gem is just so blatantly wrong.
Since you allude to the support of case law in this matter, would you care to cite precedent?
To which: the specific case you cite only covers the right of a school district to obtain sufficient funding, even when property taxes are not sufficient. Again, there is no way that a parent could use this as case law precedent. ... Even if they tried, the court would point out that since parents do not receive property tax to support their child's education, their argument is specious, and likely frivolous.
Your claim that this stuff "can be interpreted" is a specious argument as well, numerous parts of the US constitution could -- by function of reality -- be interpreted, in ways that would violate US legal tradition to do so.
And as such, I believe you're reading too much into these texts... likely to support a presupposed condition of the state.
Nothing you cite supports a sound legal argument that a school must provide a trapper keeper to students.
First off, slavery was never endorsed by the Constitution. It was simply not prohibited. As slaves were never considered citizens, the constitution and its protections did not apply to them.
Correct, however, modern society would still find it objectionable to not prohibit slavery.
This is a historical record, and should be viewed with an eye to history.
Second, are all your copies of the Constitution over 150+ years old? Or did you miss the part where that got changed?
A) I imagine the historical text presented in the summary, is based on the exact wording of the original document.
B) The Constitution even when changed and altered due to amendments does not have text deleted from it. The Constitution still says all this stuff. When the Constitution has been noted as altered or changed, then the regular legal amendment formatting is used; with strike-through used for text that is no longer in effect, and underlines for text that has been added.
Not long after the Civil War, we got the 13th amendment, which - oh my god - changed the Constitution! That's right! If it's truly out of date, we can change it! It has happened almost 30 times before, I'm sure we could manage again when an issue is truly important enough.
Again, quite true, and accurate. However, the original document still states a neutral tolerant attitude towards slavery.
Teaching that the US Constitution never had such an apathetic tone towards slavery is kind of disingenuous towards the representation of history.
Seriously, where the fuck did you learn history, a public school?
Yes, I did learn it from a public school, and from a state land-grant college. And the copy of the constitution that I always learned from at most had strikeouts on the text that was no longer in force, but yet still remained, because it would be disingenuous to represent the Constitution otherwise.
How is an income tax indirect? Because if it isn't, before the 16th amendment it was illegal unless in proportion to the census or as enumerated in the constitution.
Please read Constitutional Law. You are equivocating "direct tax".
In Constitutional Law a direct tax is on a thing, and an indirect tax is on an event. Income tax is a payment, and thus an event, and thus an indirect tax according to US constitutional law.
There, fixed that for you. Income tax is direct no matter where it comes from, why the fuck do you think a constitutional amendment was necessary to apply a non-proportionate income tax?
No! Income Tax is emphatically not a "direct tax" in US Constitutional Law.
Read the actual history behind the 16th amendment. The constitutional amendment was necessary because the Supreme Court ruled that taxing income from property is indistinguishable from taxing property, and thus was a "direct tax" as used in US Constitutional law.
In US Constitutional Law there are only three known direct taxes: a capitation (tax per person), a property tax, and a tax on income from property.
The Supreme Court has never held or even considered that tax on wages and salary might be, according to US Constitutional Law terms, a "direct tax".
In US Constitutional Law income tax is definitively not a "direct tax". Yes, it is a "direct tax" in the usage that everyone else uses, but when talking about the constitutionality of a law, you have to consider the actual language, meaning, and intent of words as they were written. You cannot re-read a newer definition onto a term.
Why I would need to explain this to someone advancing the Tea Party agenda is beyond me.
I do understand that this is confusing, frustrating, and painful terminology. And every person who properly understands the tax law, including every Judge on Earth in the USA, will tell you that it is annoying. However, this is the truth of law in the United States.
No less than this being a truth of law in the US, this is such a patent truth, that to claim so in court threatens dismissal and sanctions for bringing a frivolous case before the court.
Ok, let's get things straight here... Hate Crimes do not make politically incorrect speech illegal. You can still say "Death to Whitey" or "Death to Blacky". Both of those are not hate crimes. A hate crime is an already criminal act that is done with a motive of denigrating a whole race.
"Why bring motives into these crimes, they're already illegal!" Well, we already do take motives into account. It's the defining difference between First Degree and Second Degree Murder. It also makes the difference between reckless and intentional manslaughter. Some crimes simply go away completely when there is no intent to commit the crime. So, this argument must fail.
Now, as for society exerting a chilling effect upon behavior and speech, that is not a governmental operation. That is a society exerting its mores and values upon people by sanctioning behavior. If you don't like that you can't say "Fuck that homo, he's gross!" anymore without stares and disapproving reactions, then WELCOME to the world that the gays were in for expressing the notion "I'm not gross because I'm homosexual".
But of course, you are completely unopposed to a chilling effect on people expressing their sexual orientation... just not on your expression about it being gross.
I'm aware of the reasons for why slaves were counted as less than a full "other person".
However, my point is: SLAVERY?! VALID?!
That's why you need historical context on historical documents.
Key Point: If the Constitution were written anew today, it would contain no such wording that would allow for slavery at all.
Article 9 ...
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
This does not apply to income tax (beyond income from property).
The 16th amendment is not necessary for a progressive income tax.
Congress already had limitless ability to lay and collect taxes that were not direct, and only three taxes are known to be direct (in so far as the US constitutional law definition is concerned): Capitation, Property Tax, and Income Tax from Property.
meaning they would prefer to repeal the amendment that enabled it. given the big brother thing you might want to start considering that reducing federal cognizance of individuals might be for the best.
Repealing that amendment would only make income due to property (rent, etc) necessary to be apportioned among the states based on population.
Income Tax from employment is based on an event... a transfer of property/cash from an employer to an employee.
All of the things in the constitution are great guiding points, with the exception of the amendment allowing the income tax, and the (thankfully repealed) amendment allowing the prohibition of alcohol.
What about the slavery stuff? That slaves were worth only 3/5ths of a person? That's apparently according to you a "great guiding point"?
And the 16th Amendment did not "allow the income tax", it just authorized Congress to collect "direct taxes" without it being apportioned among the several states. So, to clear it up: before the 16th amendment, there were income taxes. Before the 16th amendment, there could be property taxes, but those taxes would have had to have been collected apportioned among the states based on population. (So, people in California would have to pay a larger hypothetical Federal Property Tax than those in Wyoming... regardless of a Californian owning only a quarter acre, but a Wyoming resident owning 100 acres. The Californian would still pay more tax in this case.)
I think it's very good to point out that the First Amendment Right to Free Speech in the USA is perhaps the strongest right that we have. The government cannot stop you from saying ANYTHING, and NO ONE can get the government to make you stop saying something...
Well, except for two things. If it fundamentally threatens national security, then the government can prevent you beforehand. Second, if you commit a crime by your speech, then you're still in trouble.
So, again, the government cannot force you to stop calling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, but they can charge you with a crime afterwards.
Even your right-wing Supreme Court Justices held that regulation is not an infringement of our rights to bear arms.
However, regulations that are so strict that they default to deny is however wrong.
Though this is for a State Commission, and subject to Ca. rule of law, wouldn't campaigning across Federal Districts be, a no-no? Much less an ethics violation.
Can we get a lawyer in here?
I think you're stretching...
Easier to just call her an idiot, not vote for her, and move on.
Better analogy: you rent an apartment which provides you with cable TV. You record said on a DVR, which is prohibited by contract, and they hold you liable for copyright infringement to the tune of seven million dollars.
Your painter's example requires demonstrable harm. My DVR example includes the notion of fair use.
Eh... close, but still not quite.
This is more like countersuing the person who provided the DVRs, because the person who provided the DVRs knew (and openly and publicly stated) that he was inducing renters to violate the contract, got told to stop inducing renters to violate the contract, and brought suit in a court to have a finding that they are not doing anything wrong.
Did the person legally obtain the software? If the answer is yes then they don't need a license or a EULA to have the right to use the copy.
"Did the person legally come into possession of the apartment? If the answer is yes, then they don't need a license or a rental agreement to have the right use the property."
I know you're trying to make a point here, and I don't mean to interrupt, but you might want to research "squatters rights".
Yeah, I'm aware of the crux in the argument being that housing is considered so special that just having possession gives a lot of rights.
Namely, possession of property has to be taken through actual legal due process (as it should be) unlike say, a leased car, or whatever, which can be seized almost at will.
There's actually an interesting question behind this... how much legal process should be required to remove legal "possession" of a computer program?
No, equivalent car analogy is that you're leasing the car.
If that is true that you do not have the ability to modify the car in anything other than a transitory manner.
next up, suing knife maker when someone misuses a knife.
No analogy here. Although, if someone is working at a kitchen, and has a contract with their employer to only use knives from a specific company, but then a knife maker comes by to them and sells them some other knives knowing full well that it violates the employment contract...
Well then, the kitchen has every right to sue the knife maker for inducement to violate contract.
Blizzard already lost that claim, by itself, by failing to prove they were harmed more than helped.
Actually, this was Count I, and they were granted it by a stipulated judgement.
Blizzard lost the Unjust Enrichment claim because they could not quantify the damage done by people leaving the game due to cheating.
Everything hinges on the only important part - whether Blizzard can use copyright law, and subsequently the power of the government, to stipulate things that happen outside the use of their servers or whether their power only extends so far as banning offenders.
No, it hinges upon contract law first, before copyright law. Their argument is that upon violation of the contract, the user no longer has a right to use their program, and that any attempted use of that program is thus a copyright violation.
Analogy: you rent an apartment. Your possession of that apartment is contingent upon a contract. Upon violation of that contract, your possession can be taken away. Once said possession has been taken away, you are not allowed to return, or it is trespass.
Next up, you own an apartment building. Your rental agreements state that the tenants are not allowed to paint their walls. A painting company comes along and says to your renters that although they know that painting their walls is against the terms of their contract, they will come in and paint them anyways. This painting company is inducing other to violate their contracts, and may be sued by the apartment building owner.
Why do you have to be so black and white? People can either own or rent property, and no one insists on making everyone either own or rent.
There is no reason why the court should ever make a decision that there is one and only one type of possession of a computer program, and there is no good reason why anyone should ever make this assertion to the courts.