" ...fences or 'No Trespassing' signs do not effectively bar the public from viewing open fields"
The focus of this quote from the previous opinion is that the public can readily view an open field. There is a very clear difference between simply viewing an empty field and trespassing a property to install surveillance equipment. Certainly no court would consider it lawful for a member of the general public to trespass for the purpose of installing surveillance equipment.
This current decision therefore has serious logical weakness and a successful appeal would seem quite possible.
Let's also not forget that the chief issue here is not whether the surveillance itself was a problem, but whether this surveillance can be done without a warrant. The mere presence of an illegal plant should have been adequate to establish probable cause, and therefore a warrant should have been easily obtainable. Why was it not sought?
Perhaps someone in law enforcement can explain to all of us why the use of a warrant is so undesirable, and what is the motivation is to skirt the clear and simple words of the 4th Amendment.
It would be easy for an outside observer to guess that the reasons are either 1) sheer laziness and paperwork dodging or 2) avoidance of a documentation trail which could allow other wrongful activity to be revealed.
Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but if so, I'd like to hear why.
... consumers say to themselves "Oh, how could Company X let Company Y use their name so immorally?"
They do?
I can't think of an instance where I would think that way.
Can you provide one plausible example where it would appear that consumers have punished one company because of another company's misuse of their brand.
Much more plausible is IP lawyers and marketing firms selling fear and doubt so that they can sell services to corporate customers.
We know that for some time now online retailers, as well as the travel industry will offer different prices depending on the data they find stored on your computer.
Unless you take active measures to block them, third party marketing companies analyze almost everything you do on your computer. Knowledge about you is sold to vendors, and the price some vendors offer may be influenced by whether your browser indicates you have seen higher prices when you visited their competitors' websites, your income category, education level, how long you have been shopping, etc. It has even been reported that your choice of device to access their website, for example from an iPhone vs a desktop computer can influence prices.
So, perhaps it was a bug, or perhaps it was a clumsy implementation of flexible pricing based on what the marketers call "consumer web data and analytics".
"...was not a true download, as you never instructed the mail server to delete the pending message"
Exactly where has the term "true download" been defined? Can I claim I never downloaded a file if I didn't send a request to a website to delete it after they send it to me?
Sorry, but if you request and receive a file, whether it happens to contain an email message for you or not, then you downloaded it.
Hmm. How long will it take to dust off the old method of transferring media files as text the way MIME was sent in the early days of the Internet.
I seems governments never tire of Whack-a-Mole.
"Printing things on a piece of paper, wrapping it in some more paper, sticking it in a metal box, and having low paid workers move it around the place... Yep, sounds real secure to me!"
The law as written, and subsequently interpreted by courts gives legal protections to paper letters that haven't been afforded to email.
It has been completely unhelpful that in the past some IT security people have compared email to a postcard and have stated that you shouldn't expect privacy with email. If such a comparison was really valid, then why do we bother with passwords on our email accounts.
Yes, it is true that unencrypted email isn't secure, but as you observe above, old fashioned letters aren't secure either. Someone can easily steam open a sealed letter, read it and reseal it.
A sealed letter has an expectation of privacy that is acknowledged in law. People do have an expectation of privacy with their password-protected email accounts as well, but the law hasn't yet caught up with reality (most probably because law enforcement likes the status quo).
Over the years too many in both the IT and legal professions have confused privacy with security. Secure encryption can bring privacy, but it should not be required for an expectation of privacy to exist under the law.
"What does this story have to do with your **AA masters? Are you just so used to trolling every Techdirt story that comes along that you no longer realize which stories are relevant to your masters and which ones aren't?"
Actually the media industry has a focused interest in extending the surveillance state. The more powerful and capable government surveillance becomes, and the further legal precedence is extended, then the greater likelihood lawmakers will be persuaded in the future to allow the widespread application of that surveillance to enforcement of copyright law.
Freedom and the constitution be damned.
" With over 40,000 statutes on the books it is impossible to NOT break the law on a daily basis. We are no longer a country of MEN, we are a country of laws"
I don't that being a country of laws is the essential problem. I think the problem is that our government doesn't make a prudent effort to evaluate the consequences of law after it has been passed. Perhaps the Congressional Research Service does this, but its data is not generally released to the public, and it is difficult to find any evidence that Congress actually pays attention to the reports they produce.
In this country, the only way a law gets changed, whether it is unjust, unwise, or just unwanted is by someone claiming harm, and then creating a sympathetic anecdote which can be used in a political forum. Our government only moves in the flow of a constant stream of complaints. It does not proactively evaluate existing law, but is only reactive to complaint (and the campaign contributions which accompany those complaints).
" through prosecutorial discretion, those laws aren't enforced. But so what?"
If justice depends on the discretion of prosecutors, then we are right back to a government of men, not a government of laws -- the reverse of John Adams' definition of good government.
" the kneejerk authoritarian acceptance of below-average joe is the most disconcerting aspect... i don't think he realizes that with *that* attitude, he would have been a loyalist/royalist back in 1776, NOT a revolutionary"
Absolutely correct!!
I don't believe art guerrilla has around been here long enough to fully realize just how much of a Tory Average Joe is. Over the period of several years on Techdirt, there has been sparring over the nature of justice, freedom, constitutional rights and the founding fathers' original intent, etc, etc. Average Joe has disputed many things here even he can't question the fact that much of what drove the American Revolution was the belief that the British had enacted unjust laws.
Average Joe considers the 'natural law' theory which powered the Am. Revolution, and was essential in dissolving the force of monarchy in Europe to be at best meaningless, and at worst propaganda. The only thing Average Joe respects is the law as it is explicitly written. The idea that a law can be unjust, immoral, or plain wrong doesn't live in his mind. If it is legal, then it is right is the short version of most arguments Average Joe has made here.
AJ -- if I'm wrong about this, do make a correction. I'd love to hear it
"How many digital copies will survive life + 70, which could be 150 or more years from original publ;ication.
What about getting a copy between the time the publisher stops making it available and copyright expiring. Piracy is the only avenue in this case"
Project Gutenberg has more than 40,000 volumes for which the copyright has expired. No-one who submitted these works was paid (AFAIK). All it takes for the entire world to gain access is for a single person who has a digital copy to submit it to a repository such as Gutenberg, or perhaps one of the file sharing sites.
As for the period between prior to copyright expiration -- yes, you are correct about piracy.
"piracy is no the only way to avoid doing business with the licensor"
You forget that copyright is a monopoly, so you can't just turn to a competitor when you don't like the unilaterally imposed terms with a license. Your only option is choosing not to purchase. That isn't really negotiation. If it was, then Adam Smith would never had any any problem whatsoever with monopoly. After all the victims of monopolistic excess have always had the "option" to not purchase. It may be a very, very, very bad option, but nonetheless it is always an option.
The ability to unilaterally impose terms of "negotiation" are exactly what is wrong with a monopoly.
"Life plus 70 give the publisher the ability to do a reprint on an Authors death, if it looks like the work will sell...
Publishers are under no obligation to make a work available, and therefore remove older works from sale unless creates a large market for the work again"
Yes, but this incentive for publishers to bring out-of-print works back to market under extended copyright only applies to the physical world where the publisher has to weigh the expense of printing a book against the likelihood of making a profit. In a digital world, there is virtually no expense involved in making file available for download. If a person seeks to find a digital work which has an expired copyright, then it is easy to find that copy from someone who has legally made it available at no expense to themselves.
The day I can actually negotiate a EULA is the day I will respect the legitimacy of a EULA.
Yes I know SCOTUS has ruled that one-sided "take it-or leave it" click-through "agreements" are valid, but the general public isn't convinced. People don't respect EULA's because neither the lawyers who wrote them, nor the companies they represent respect the public.
And why is the public not respected? It is because lobbyist-written laws have emasculated the rights of the public as pertaining to the purchase of copyrighted material.
Thank you for doing this.
We need more people in law enforcement who truly believe in the freedoms which our country is supposed to have guaranteed for us.
On the post: Court Says Police Can Install Cameras On Your Property Without Warrant If Your Property Is A 'Field'
Re: Re: Re: Doesn't matter if it's a trespass.
This current decision therefore has serious logical weakness and a successful appeal would seem quite possible.
Let's also not forget that the chief issue here is not whether the surveillance itself was a problem, but whether this surveillance can be done without a warrant. The mere presence of an illegal plant should have been adequate to establish probable cause, and therefore a warrant should have been easily obtainable. Why was it not sought?
Perhaps someone in law enforcement can explain to all of us why the use of a warrant is so undesirable, and what is the motivation is to skirt the clear and simple words of the 4th Amendment.
It would be easy for an outside observer to guess that the reasons are either 1) sheer laziness and paperwork dodging or 2) avoidance of a documentation trail which could allow other wrongful activity to be revealed.
Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but if so, I'd like to hear why.
On the post: Why The Theory Of 'Tarnishment' Doesn't Make Sense For Trademark Law
Re: Tarnish
I can't think of an instance where I would think that way.
Can you provide one plausible example where it would appear that consumers have punished one company because of another company's misuse of their brand.
Much more plausible is IP lawyers and marketing firms selling fear and doubt so that they can sell services to corporate customers.
On the post: Bug In Kobo's Online Store Offers Up Random eBook Prices [Update]
Bug vs "Feature"
Unless you take active measures to block them, third party marketing companies analyze almost everything you do on your computer. Knowledge about you is sold to vendors, and the price some vendors offer may be influenced by whether your browser indicates you have seen higher prices when you visited their competitors' websites, your income category, education level, how long you have been shopping, etc. It has even been reported that your choice of device to access their website, for example from an iPhone vs a desktop computer can influence prices.
So, perhaps it was a bug, or perhaps it was a clumsy implementation of flexible pricing based on what the marketers call "consumer web data and analytics".
On the post: Why Regulations Aimed At Technology Almost Always Suck: Or Why Reading Someone's Gmail Isn't Reading 'Stored Communications'
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but if you request and receive a file, whether it happens to contain an email message for you or not, then you downloaded it.
On the post: Iran's Latest Aggressive Censorship Plan: Block All Audio & Video Files
Re: Work arounds will be found
On the post: Iran's Latest Aggressive Censorship Plan: Block All Audio & Video Files
Work arounds will be found
I seems governments never tire of Whack-a-Mole.
On the post: Gangnam Style Shows What Can Happen When You Don't Lean On Copyright
Re: Re: Uh... say what?
The most viewed version on YouTube has had over 350 million views.
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Uh... yeah...
It has been completely unhelpful that in the past some IT security people have compared email to a postcard and have stated that you shouldn't expect privacy with email. If such a comparison was really valid, then why do we bother with passwords on our email accounts.
Yes, it is true that unencrypted email isn't secure, but as you observe above, old fashioned letters aren't secure either. Someone can easily steam open a sealed letter, read it and reseal it.
A sealed letter has an expectation of privacy that is acknowledged in law. People do have an expectation of privacy with their password-protected email accounts as well, but the law hasn't yet caught up with reality (most probably because law enforcement likes the status quo).
Over the years too many in both the IT and legal professions have confused privacy with security. Secure encryption can bring privacy, but it should not be required for an expectation of privacy to exist under the law.
On the post: What Public Domain? Why A Letter Written In 1755 Is Still Covered By US Copyright Law
Re: The avreage joe (not our not so average joe)
On the post: Credit Where It's Due: DOJ Changes Its Tune On FISA Transparency
Re:
On the post: Credit Where It's Due: DOJ Changes Its Tune On FISA Transparency
Re: Re:
Freedom and the constitution be damned.
On the post: Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this country, the only way a law gets changed, whether it is unjust, unwise, or just unwanted is by someone claiming harm, and then creating a sympathetic anecdote which can be used in a political forum. Our government only moves in the flow of a constant stream of complaints. It does not proactively evaluate existing law, but is only reactive to complaint (and the campaign contributions which accompany those complaints).
On the post: Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't believe art guerrilla has around been here long enough to fully realize just how much of a Tory Average Joe is. Over the period of several years on Techdirt, there has been sparring over the nature of justice, freedom, constitutional rights and the founding fathers' original intent, etc, etc. Average Joe has disputed many things here even he can't question the fact that much of what drove the American Revolution was the belief that the British had enacted unjust laws.
Average Joe considers the 'natural law' theory which powered the Am. Revolution, and was essential in dissolving the force of monarchy in Europe to be at best meaningless, and at worst propaganda. The only thing Average Joe respects is the law as it is explicitly written. The idea that a law can be unjust, immoral, or plain wrong doesn't live in his mind.
If it is legal, then it is right is the short version of most arguments Average Joe has made here.
AJ -- if I'm wrong about this, do make a correction. I'd love to hear it
On the post: Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?
Re: Re: Re:
As for the period between prior to copyright expiration -- yes, you are correct about piracy.
On the post: Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The ability to unilaterally impose terms of "negotiation" are exactly what is wrong with a monopoly.
On the post: Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?
Re:
On the post: Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?
Re:
Yes I know SCOTUS has ruled that one-sided "take it-or leave it" click-through "agreements" are valid, but the general public isn't convinced. People don't respect EULA's because neither the lawyers who wrote them, nor the companies they represent respect the public.
And why is the public not respected? It is because lobbyist-written laws have emasculated the rights of the public as pertaining to the purchase of copyrighted material.
On the post: The TSA's Infamous 'Behavior Detection' In Action: Mandatory 'Chats' About Every Detail Of Your Trip
Re: Re:
We need more people in law enforcement who truly believe in the freedoms which our country is supposed to have guaranteed for us.
On the post: Under Logic Of German 'Pay To Link' Proposal, If A German Publication Wastes My Time, I Can Send Them A Bill
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>