IANAL, but... Would it be possible for the EULA to actually grant the customer *ownership* of a particular piece of hardware, even if it is just a sliver of a hard drive platter or a few billion SSD transistors. Then—in theory—law enforcement would need to get a warrant to search/seize the property of that person. Heck, even if it required a new business model (like a massive battery of drives, and each customer literally gets ownership of one) I might be willing to pay a bit for that service if it means my data must now be treated as any other property I own.
Re: Why would a defense lawyer (or ANYONE) get to keep stolen assets?
OK, so basically the supreme court just said, "have you heard of due process? Yeah, well that still a thing we do around here. Innocent until proven guilty and all."
My point is the govt has no argument in saying that if they can't seize before, then the money might be spent if he is eventually found guilty. Even if it's spent, it would now be known stolen money that could be recovered via possession of stolen property laws.
Why would a defense lawyer (or ANYONE) get to keep stolen assets?
IANAL, but I thought there were already laws out there to prevent stolen assets from being kept by a third party. For example:
Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has.. acquired stolen goods in some way other than they themselves having stolen them.
...if an individual... knew they were stolen, then the individual is typically charged with... [a crime.] If the individual did not know the goods were stolen, then they are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted...
So what's everyone getting all worked up over? If the guy is found guilty, then the lawyer has to give the money back.
At some point, mobile devices will not only have an "unlock" code, but also a code that opens an instance of the phone with all of the actual data hidden and secondary data showing. The second code could have the feature of permanently wiping the data from the first.
So at what point will courts believe the person who gives them the access code?
Let the W3C say whatever they want about DRM in HTML5. Heck, they can take a page out of the Microsoft Windows book and require a ham sandwich. But they can't force all browsers to implement all the "requirements".
I—for one—will look for my browsers to be HTML5 + DRM free. And if that means my browser isn't technically HTML5 compliant, I'm comfortable with that.
So taking this "intent implies copyright" logic to the extreme, we will be living in a world where any photo that is released will be accompanied by some boilerplate language along the lines of "I completely and totally intended to take this photo, and therefore I and I alone own the copyright on it". Even for a frame or clip of a surveillance video. "Yes, I knew that this particular location was very likely to have police brutality happen, and I angled it in just such a way to get this particular shot, so you may not use it to report on the story unless you pay me royalties".
Another solution: keep original private; only release your transformative edit
If you are the sole possessor of the original, then you can make edits (crop, color, contrast, brightness, levels, retouching, etc) so as to render that version copyrightable. I don't believe there is anything that would compel you to release the original.
What about trailcams / camera traps? Or surveillance video.
At some point the courts are going to have to decide also on cases where a camera is set up in a location and either captures images automatically (e.g. surveillance) or via a trigger that is tripped by a subject entering the scene (trailcams / camera traps).
Wildlife researchers and photographers have been using the latter technique for a while. Granted Steve Winter did a lot in selecting the equipment, settings, angle, etc. But ultimately it was the mountain lion that triggered the shutter at that particular instant: http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/14/a-cougar-ready-for-his-closeup/
Every encrypted message my company is forced to decrypt is always the same: "This is the decrypted message that the French government wanted so badly. Here you go. Happy now? Fin."
I'm curious to see what would happen if Apple's good faith attempt to comply backfires. If I were an Apple engineer with a gun to my head, I might be so distracted by the sheer pressure of the situation as to invert a logical statement.
"Sorry, you cannot see the source code. We securely erased it the instant after we complied it to prevent it from getting out into the wild."
IANAL, but if I had a copy of that video, I would do some VH1 "pop up video" edits on top of it along the lines of "did you know this guy killed himself because of the Chronic traumatic encephalopathy he suffered from playing in the NFL?" and "can you believe the NFL thinks the worldwide lifetime rights for this video are only $30k? I guess that limits the damages they could be awarded by a court". Every frame of that video would have some commentary on it obscuring the action in some way and making statements that the NFL may or may not want to be associated with.
Completely transformative, no money being made, and since the NFL has no market for this particular video, there is no market to impact by its release. Although just to be safe, I'd release it to bittorrent and to servers outside the US, and would not be the actual person who did the work or release it.
With that being the only copy of Superbowl 1 on the net, how valuable would the NFL suddenly find a clean copy?
The video footage Mssr. Gordon used in his iconic work was taken by Keith and Colleen Begg and used without their permission. Since they are based in South Africa, they don't have US standing. If anyone wants to become the US copyright holder of said video and sue the hell out of Chris, get in touch with them.
What about live-streaming an event? Is that considered "posting"? While I haven't had the need to do so yet, if I ever witness a questionable interaction going down in public, I'm using my Bambuser account, just in case someone violates my 4th Amendment rights and tries to delete the video.
Even if the material in question were infringing, no one—not even Hahvahd—has the right to prevent its publication. They only have right to bring suit *after* it is published.
But I get it, they are trying their best to intimidate and coerce as they know their chances of winning in court are at best a coin flip.
Isn't hacking into a computer system using a vulnerability like this a crime? I see all sorts of press releases of the FBI charging people for doing exactly this same thing. Heck, even lesser "hacking" crimes (like Aaron Schwartz) have triggered the wrath of the establishment.
I'm not sure this government is really by the people for the people anymore.
Are reporters now on the hook for copyright infringement when a document is leaked to them that they subsequently report on? Libraries for letting people take screenshot scans of copyrighted materials in their collection?
Sounds like a really horrible precedent. We can only hope it will get corrected on appeal.
On the post: Microsoft Sues Government Over Its ECPA-Enabled Gag Orders
Probably too clever to work
On the post: Shoe Company New Balance Says US Gov't Basically Offered It A Bribe To Support TPP
So who in the government is getting indicted for bribery?
On the post: Supreme Court Says Government Can't Take Your Money And Lock You Out Of Your Choice In Representation
Re: Why would a defense lawyer (or ANYONE) get to keep stolen assets?
My point is the govt has no argument in saying that if they can't seize before, then the money might be spent if he is eventually found guilty. Even if it's spent, it would now be known stolen money that could be recovered via possession of stolen property laws.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Government Can't Take Your Money And Lock You Out Of Your Choice In Representation
Why would a defense lawyer (or ANYONE) get to keep stolen assets?
So what's everyone getting all worked up over? If the guy is found guilty, then the lawyer has to give the money back.
On the post: Using The All Writs Act To Route Around The Fifth Amendment
Plausible deniability access code
So at what point will courts believe the person who gives them the access code?
On the post: Why Won't W3C Carve Security Research Out Of Its DRM-In-HTML 5 Proposal?
A standard isn't a mandate
I—for one—will look for my browsers to be HTML5 + DRM free. And if that means my browser isn't technically HTML5 compliant, I'm comfortable with that.
On the post: Will PETA Now Sue To Control The Copyright In These Cat Selfies?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok next question...
On the post: Will PETA Now Sue To Control The Copyright In These Cat Selfies?
Another solution: keep original private; only release your transformative edit
On the post: Will PETA Now Sue To Control The Copyright In These Cat Selfies?
Re: Re: What about trailcams / camera traps? Or surveillance video.
On the post: Will PETA Now Sue To Control The Copyright In These Cat Selfies?
What about trailcams / camera traps? Or surveillance video.
Wildlife researchers and photographers have been using the latter technique for a while. Granted Steve Winter did a lot in selecting the equipment, settings, angle, etc. But ultimately it was the mountain lion that triggered the shutter at that particular instant:
http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/14/a-cougar-ready-for-his-closeup/
On the post: Senator Feinstein Revives Stupid Idea That Internet Companies Are 'Materially Supporting Terrorism' If ISIS Members Use Their Sites
The government materially supports terrorists too
Living in Silicon Valley, I am embarrassed that she is my "representative".
On the post: French Parliament Votes For Law That Would Put Tech Execs In Jail If They Don't Decrypt Data
How curious...
On the post: Lawmakers Speak Out On Apple Being Forced To Create Backdoors; Some Wisely, Some Ignorantly
What happens if Apple's "fix" bricks the phone?
"Sorry, you cannot see the source code. We securely erased it the instant after we complied it to prevent it from getting out into the wild."
On the post: Ridiculous Copyright Fight Still Keeping The Only Video Of The First Super Bowl Locked Up
Don't sell it, transform then give it away
Completely transformative, no money being made, and since the NFL has no market for this particular video, there is no market to impact by its release. Although just to be safe, I'd release it to bittorrent and to servers outside the US, and would not be the actual person who did the work or release it.
With that being the only copy of Superbowl 1 on the net, how valuable would the NFL suddenly find a clean copy?
On the post: 'Honey Badger' Narrator Sues Greeting Card Company For Selling Products Featuring An Apathetic Honey Badger
EXTREME IRONY ALERT
On the post: Legislator Wants To Ban People From Posting Pictures Of Accidents To Social Media... For At Least One Hour
Yet another problem...
On the post: Another NSL Challenge Is Made Public; Court Decides Government Can Keep Gag Order In Place Indefinitely
You know what's a bigger risk to national security?
On the post: Harvard Law Review Freaks Out, Sends Christmas Eve Threat Over Public Domain Citation Guide
Prior restraint much?
But I get it, they are trying their best to intimidate and coerce as they know their chances of winning in court are at best a coin flip.
On the post: FBI Admits To Using Zero Day Exploits To Hack Into Computers
Don't forget the hypocrisy of it all...
I'm not sure this government is really by the people for the people anymore.
On the post: Canadian Judge Says Asking For A Copy Of A Legally-Obtained But Paywalled Article Is Circumvention
So what about reporters with leaked documents?
Sounds like a really horrible precedent. We can only hope it will get corrected on appeal.
Next >>