Americans today don't care as much -- we don't share the Founders' paranoia. Probably, because we have not seen the problem firsthand in too many generations -- thanks, no doubt, to the Constitution.
Maybe you haven't noticed that, in the past seven years, the Administration has pretty much gutted the Bill of Rights, except for the Second and Third Amendments. (And, no, I don't want to get into a discussion of the true original intent of the Second Amendment.) IMHO, it's time for some real paranoia again.
This isn't censorship, as the government isn't doing it. Nor ir it prior restraint on publication.
When you have a federal court ordering the takedown, it's the government doing it. It isn't a prior restraint on this particular document, but the takedown of the whole site is a prior restraint on additional documents that Wikileaks might have planned to publish.
Do the haters think people have the right to publish anything on the 'net, no matter how false or scurrilous, without any repercussions whatsoever??
If false or scurrilous documents are published on the 'net, then the remedy is a suit for the damages caused to the subject of the publication, not muzzling the site before it makes the publication.
Actually, there's an intermediate step that could be taken before heading off to SCOTUS. The losing side can ask for a rehearing en banc, which would mean that all of the members of the Tenth Circuit would review the case, rather than the three-judge panel who just heard the appeal. However, en banc hearings are fairly rare, so this decision is likely to stand.
Unfortunately, the Section 28-608 that you quoted clearly states at the top of the page that it's a Nebraska law; therefore it doesn't have anything to do with actions that took place in Missouri.
Right, JS. There is nothing in the summary printed by Slashdot that suggests boycotting Trend Micro. Any talk of boycotting is in the comments that/.'ers are making about the subject. Of course, I doubt that the SEC will pay much attention to anyone too cowardly to reveal his/her name.
Oh, and they usually block their caller ID too... scumsucking turds. We wouldn't answer blocked calls at all except her family and some business contacts are in Europe and those numbers sometimes show up as 'unknown' too. It should be an absolute law that no company, organization, charity, or political party should be allowed to call with a blocked caller ID.
There's definitely a federal regulation that applies here:
47 CFR 64.1601 (e) and (e) (1)
Any telemarketer must transmit caller identification, which must include the calling party's telephone number and the name of the telemarketing company or of the company on whose behalf they are calling. The telephone number that is provided must be one that will permit the recipient of the call to make a do-not-call request.
I'd give you mod points for your answers but there seems to be no category for comments that are simultaneously informative, interesting and insightful. Therefore, I'll just extend thanks on behalf of all of us who will benefit from this extension of knowledge and wish you great success and excellent karma.
Having said all of that in my opinion the majority of US government is grossly incompetent and they have no business having access to my personal data.
[I}mproved quality will come about, in part, because motor vehicle administrators will be required to link into databases to verify the legitimacy of the underlying identification documents, such as birth certificates, that Americans submit when they apply for Real ID-compliant cards.
Great, that means you now have to pick someone living to impersonate by use of a birth certificate. But if I can present the birth certificate of someone roughly my age who is still alive according the database (presumably still a state function), how does that verify anything? Or am I going to have to take of my shoes so that they can compare my footprint with the one they took in the hospital many years ago?
So at what point is the FDA accountable for letting something bad be distributed?
This all depends on your definition of "something bad." If you really want to have your stomach turned, read the FDA regulations (Title 21, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, available from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html) on how many insect parts are allowed in your daily bread (or crackers or cookies). After reading those regs for a while, a few paint chips will seem innocuous.
This story about Dr. Drew's death is an urban legend. A biography of him, Charles Richard Drew : the man and the myth by Charles E. Wynes, sets forth what really happened:
Dr. Drew suffered fatal injuries in the wreck. Despite the immediate attentions of the three other physicians who were with him (two of whom were substantially uninjured), and prompt attention at a nearby mixed-race (segregated) hospital, where he was attended by three other physicians, one of whom was the co-owner of the hospital, Dr. Drew died from the massive injuries. Included in the treatment was the administration of "at least one blood transfusion" - the hospital stocked both whole blood and plasma.
...
But the story lives on. A McGill University publication, the _McGill Reporter_, repeated it in its December 1981 issue. Fortunately, it brought a vigorous denial from Dr. Edward Bensley, professor emeritus of medicine at McGill, [...]. Part of the evidence that Dr. Bensley had was a copy of a letter written by Dr. Ford [another black physician who was with Dr. Drew in the accident], in which Ford tried to lay the 'bled to death' canard to rest.
...
[Dr. Ford stated that] Doctor Drew's cause of death was that of a broken neck and complete blockage of the blood flow back to the heart. Immediately following the accident in which he was half thrown out of the car, and actually crushed to death by the car as it turned over the second time, the doctors who were were able to, got out of the car quickly and came to Doctor Drew's rescue, but it was of no avail because even at that time, it was quite obvious that his chances of surviving were nil.
Okay,I finally figured out that we've been talking about two different cases. The Techdirt original article referred to in the Slashdot summary was talking about a letter from the Dozier law firm to Public Citizen. Seehttp://techdirt.com/articles/20071005/174623.shtml. However, when Mr. Goldman sent the information about the ruling in the Melaleuca case to Techdirt, their writeup ( http://techdirt.com/articles/20080125/18070575.shtml ), referred to the earlier article and referenced Mr. Dozier's comments, which apparently led most people, including me, to believe that they were talking about their original article, i.e., the controversy involving Public Citizen.
Now that I finally understand your issue, I regret that the letter from Melaleuca was actually correctly registered with the copyright office. However, I think that people need to keep fighting these notices. I'm guessing that you may be the d2 who the court said should be "outed" when he refused to make 43rd State Blues disclose the true identity of "Tom Paine." You may want to talk to someone at the Electric Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org) and/or the allied group, Chilling Effects (chillingeffects.org) about pursuing an appeal on the First Amendment and fair use issues that the trial judge apparently rejected. Somehow we have to get the Bill of Rights back.
Interesting, de2our, especially since a search of 2007 amd 2008 filings at www.copyright.gov shows no letters filed for registration under the name, "Dozier," nor any document entitled "cease and desist letter." There are a few 2007 registrations containing the words "Take Down" and "Takedown," but none listed as being copyrighted by Mr. Dozier or his law firm. Finally a search on "Letter" brings up such diverse titles as, "Letter from a Fallen Roughneck," "The Letter that Johnny Walker Read," "Letter to a Christian Nation," and "Letter to the Lady in Red," but again no letters that would meet the description of the letter in contention.
Good luck with your defense.
Thanks to all of you who pointed out my error in failing to take the Berne Convention changes in my previous post. Having read the amended sections, it's now clear to me that the failure to give notice in the correct form does not deprive the author of "copyright protection." However, I didn't find anything that negates the rule set forth in Ch. 17, sec. 412, denying statutory damages and attorneys fees to a copyright holder who has not complied with the registration requirements.
First off, let me state that I am an inactive (retired) lawyer so that nothing I say here is legal advice. However, I really enjoy researching a topic like this, so I'll share a few little bits of information I discovered from reading the U.S. Code and a few other publications from the Copyright Office (www.copyright.gov).
The ruling that a letter can be copyrightable is nothing new.
In order to claim copyright in a work, the author must give the proper notice as required under Chapter 17, Section 401 of the US Code. This section requires that the work must contain either the word "copyright" or the (c) symbol, followed by the year of publication and the name of the entity claiming the copyright. If the letter published on the Public Citizen website is complete, this information is missing.
Even though Mr. Dozier's press release mentions all of the possible penalties for the infringement of his firm's copyright, they seem to have forgotten Chapter 17, Section 412 of the US Code. That section includes a rule that neither statutory damages nor attorneys fees are available remedies unless the entity claiming copyright has followed Section 407 which requires mandatory deposit of two copies of the work with the Copyright Office within three months after it was initially published. Since the letter was apparently sent on October 5, 2007, the time for this mandatory deposit ran out three weeks ago.
Having said all that, I'll agree that the rich and powerful seem to be using the law to stomp on the rights of the average citizen. However, I don't think that the answer is bloodshed; try contributing to groups like Public Citizen and the Electronic Frontier Foundation who are trying to protect our rights.
determine how various urban typologies, such as plazas, parks, major arterial streets and banlieues, can be reconfigured in situ into a neutralizing force when crowds do become riotous
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banlieue), "les banlieues" can be translated as suburbs, brothels or housing projects. It might be a good idea to find out which of these is being tested -- it's likely to make a big difference in how they can be reconfigured.
Yes, I have a dear friend who talked about Linux all of the time and I kept thinking "too boring, too geeky, too much work for me." Then came the day when my Windows XP update wanted to "give" me "Windows Genuine Advantage." Although my computer was squeaky clean -- no pirated or unlicensed software, it was MY computer, not Microsoft's. That day, I called my friend and said, "okay, tell me how to get Linux."
As one of the early boomers, I respectfully disagree with your analysis. If Sonny Bono--or Elvis or all of the Bobby's--didn't provide for their heirs while they were making the money, too bad, so sad. And, IMHO, calling it the "Sonny Bono Law" was just a way to keep everyone from realizing that the point was really to extend the Disney Corporation's copyrights. In other words, the Congress-critters didn't really care about Chastity, they wanted to protect Mickey Mouse (f/k/a Steamboat Willie).
The real problem is that probably none of these "US companies" are doing business in or with China. AFIK, Yahoo and Google are working under separate Chinese corporations and the US cannot reach the Chinese subsidiaries of US corporations without "piercing the corporate veil." This would be equivalent to holding every Yahoo shareholder liable for anything that the US company does in the US. The entire body of the law of corporations depends on the rule that a shareholder is not responsible for the actions of the corporation and this includes US corporations who are shareholders of foreign corporations.
If OLPC really were about the kids, they would be happy that "teh kidz" were getting computers, no matter who provided them or what it was running.
And if MS really cared about the kids, the Bill and Melinda Foundation would be distributing the laptops (complete with XP if they so chose) to "the kids" for free. They could even help with cross-cultural training by teaching the kids how to play with Clippy and the Search Puppy.
Actually, you're right, ZWitha. Public figures (which would certainly include these officials) who allege that they have been defamed have to
establish that false statements about them were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard to the truth of the statements. If
IAAL, but I try not to let it keep me from being a decent human being.
IMHO, both the BSA and the majority of the commenters on both of today's BSA articles are blaming the corporation and/or its officers when much of the unlicensed software originates with the lower-level employees. These are the folks who bring in their great new screen-saver program (e.g., the "cute" Ann Geddes baby pictures) and then share it with others. And most of these folks are equally happy to share their copy of MS Excel or Adobe Photoshop with someone who "needs it but doesn't have time to wait for IT."
Another issue arises with shareware programs: almost everyone I worked with in two fairly large corporations had a copy of WinZip but I only ever had one person admit to having paid for it. In both of these corporations, neither the officers nor the IT folks had the time or people to track down these types of license violations.
As one of the frequent contributors states in his/her sig: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
And they wrote a declaraton that explained why they were engaging in anti-government actions:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
This is why every US slashdotter over the age of 18 needs to register and vote in 2008. Just griping about the current situations won't change anything.
The Sixth Circuit panel that decided the case did not agree with your view that one does not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with regard to email being stored by the ISP.
It is true... that by sharing communications with someone else, the speaker or writer assumes the risk that it could be revealed to the government by that person, or obtained through a subpoena directed to that person.... The same does not necessarily apply, however, to an intermediary that merely has the ability to access the information sought by the government. Otherwise phone conversations would never be protected, merely because the telehone company can access them; letters would never be protected, by virtue of the Postal Service's ability to access them; the contents of shared safe deposit boxes or storage lockers would never be protected, by virtue of the bank or storage company's ability to access them.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you haven't noticed that, in the past seven years, the Administration has pretty much gutted the Bill of Rights, except for the Second and Third Amendments. (And, no, I don't want to get into a discussion of the true original intent of the Second Amendment.) IMHO, it's time for some real paranoia again.
When you have a federal court ordering the takedown, it's the government doing it. It isn't a prior restraint on this particular document, but the takedown of the whole site is a prior restraint on additional documents that Wikileaks might have planned to publish.
Do the haters think people have the right to publish anything on the 'net, no matter how false or scurrilous, without any repercussions whatsoever??
If false or scurrilous documents are published on the 'net, then the remedy is a suit for the damages caused to the subject of the publication, not muzzling the site before it makes the publication.
Actually, there's an intermediate step that could be taken before heading off to SCOTUS. The losing side can ask for a rehearing en banc, which would mean that all of the members of the Tenth Circuit would review the case, rather than the three-judge panel who just heard the appeal. However, en banc hearings are fairly rare, so this decision is likely to stand.
Unfortunately, the Section 28-608 that you quoted clearly states at the top of the page that it's a Nebraska law; therefore it doesn't have anything to do with actions that took place in Missouri.
Right, JS. There is nothing in the summary printed by Slashdot that suggests boycotting Trend Micro. Any talk of boycotting is in the comments that /.'ers are making about the subject. Of course, I doubt that the SEC will pay much attention to anyone too cowardly to reveal his/her name.
There's definitely a federal regulation that applies here:
I'd give you mod points for your answers but there seems to be no category for comments that are simultaneously informative, interesting and insightful. Therefore, I'll just extend thanks on behalf of all of us who will benefit from this extension of knowledge and wish you great success and excellent karma.
I think they have already screwed it up. According to the current head of DHS, as quoted on CNN, http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9771953-7.html
Great, that means you now have to pick someone living to impersonate by use of a birth certificate. But if I can present the birth certificate of someone roughly my age who is still alive according the database (presumably still a state function), how does that verify anything? Or am I going to have to take of my shoes so that they can compare my footprint with the one they took in the hospital many years ago?
This all depends on your definition of "something bad." If you really want to have your stomach turned, read the FDA regulations (Title 21, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, available from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html) on how many insect parts are allowed in your daily bread (or crackers or cookies). After reading those regs for a while, a few paint chips will seem innocuous.
Now that I finally understand your issue, I regret that the letter from Melaleuca was actually correctly registered with the copyright office. However, I think that people need to keep fighting these notices. I'm guessing that you may be the d2 who the court said should be "outed" when he refused to make 43rd State Blues disclose the true identity of "Tom Paine." You may want to talk to someone at the Electric Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org) and/or the allied group, Chilling Effects (chillingeffects.org) about pursuing an appeal on the First Amendment and fair use issues that the trial judge apparently rejected. Somehow we have to get the Bill of Rights back.
Interesting, de2our, especially since a search of 2007 amd 2008 filings at www.copyright.gov shows no letters filed for registration under the name, "Dozier," nor any document entitled "cease and desist letter." There are a few 2007 registrations containing the words "Take Down" and "Takedown," but none listed as being copyrighted by Mr. Dozier or his law firm. Finally a search on "Letter" brings up such diverse titles as, "Letter from a Fallen Roughneck," "The Letter that Johnny Walker Read," "Letter to a Christian Nation," and "Letter to the Lady in Red," but again no letters that would meet the description of the letter in contention. Good luck with your defense.
Thanks to all of you who pointed out my error in failing to take the Berne Convention changes in my previous post. Having read the amended sections, it's now clear to me that the failure to give notice in the correct form does not deprive the author of "copyright protection." However, I didn't find anything that negates the rule set forth in Ch. 17, sec. 412, denying statutory damages and attorneys fees to a copyright holder who has not complied with the registration requirements.
The ruling that a letter can be copyrightable is nothing new.
In order to claim copyright in a work, the author must give the proper notice as required under Chapter 17, Section 401 of the US Code. This section requires that the work must contain either the word "copyright" or the (c) symbol, followed by the year of publication and the name of the entity claiming the copyright. If the letter published on the Public Citizen website is complete, this information is missing.
Even though Mr. Dozier's press release mentions all of the possible penalties for the infringement of his firm's copyright, they seem to have forgotten Chapter 17, Section 412 of the US Code. That section includes a rule that neither statutory damages nor attorneys fees are available remedies unless the entity claiming copyright has followed Section 407 which requires mandatory deposit of two copies of the work with the Copyright Office within three months after it was initially published. Since the letter was apparently sent on October 5, 2007, the time for this mandatory deposit ran out three weeks ago.
Having said all that, I'll agree that the rich and powerful seem to be using the law to stomp on the rights of the average citizen. However, I don't think that the answer is bloodshed; try contributing to groups like Public Citizen and the Electronic Frontier Foundation who are trying to protect our rights.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banlieue), "les banlieues" can be translated as suburbs, brothels or housing projects. It might be a good idea to find out which of these is being tested -- it's likely to make a big difference in how they can be reconfigured.
Yes, I have a dear friend who talked about Linux all of the time and I kept thinking "too boring, too geeky, too much work for me." Then came the day when my Windows XP update wanted to "give" me "Windows Genuine Advantage." Although my computer was squeaky clean -- no pirated or unlicensed software, it was MY computer, not Microsoft's. That day, I called my friend and said, "okay, tell me how to get Linux."
If you go back to the original article, http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2008/01/4-interesting-new-cases-from-last-2.html, you'll see that this guy also claims to have patented on-line game rankings, and pop-up advertising!
As one of the early boomers, I respectfully disagree with your analysis. If Sonny Bono--or Elvis or all of the Bobby's--didn't provide for their heirs while they were making the money, too bad, so sad. And, IMHO, calling it the "Sonny Bono Law" was just a way to keep everyone from realizing that the point was really to extend the Disney Corporation's copyrights. In other words, the Congress-critters didn't really care about Chastity, they wanted to protect Mickey Mouse (f/k/a Steamboat Willie).
However, students should still be required to memorize their multiplication tables. One shouldn't need a calculator to figure out that 7 x 8 =72^^56
The real problem is that probably none of these "US companies" are doing business in or with China. AFIK, Yahoo and Google are working under separate Chinese corporations and the US cannot reach the Chinese subsidiaries of US corporations without "piercing the corporate veil." This would be equivalent to holding every Yahoo shareholder liable for anything that the US company does in the US. The entire body of the law of corporations depends on the rule that a shareholder is not responsible for the actions of the corporation and this includes US corporations who are shareholders of foreign corporations.
And if MS really cared about the kids, the Bill and Melinda Foundation would be distributing the laptops (complete with XP if they so chose) to "the kids" for free. They could even help with cross-cultural training by teaching the kids how to play with Clippy and the Search Puppy.
IAAL, but I try not to let it keep me from being a decent human being.
Another issue arises with shareware programs: almost everyone I worked with in two fairly large corporations had a copy of WinZip but I only ever had one person admit to having paid for it. In both of these corporations, neither the officers nor the IT folks had the time or people to track down these types of license violations.
As one of the frequent contributors states in his/her sig: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
This is why every US slashdotter over the age of 18 needs to register and vote in 2008. Just griping about the current situations won't change anything.
The entire opinion can be found at http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/warshak_v_usa/6th_circuit_decision_upholding_injunction.pdf