My father and I split a Westlaw bill of over $500 per month for access to various codes, cases, and practice materials. Our money of course is not for the cases and statutes, which are freely available -- it's for the annotations.
The annotations are short blurbs under headings for various legal points that show how the statute was applied in various cases. The annotations require attorneys qualified in the field to dig through each reported case that cites the statute and summarize its application to fact. That requires tons of man-hours and particular knowledge and skill sets. Annotations are incredibly helpful and save enormous amounts of research time.
So I can see why Georgia would have an issue with those kind of annotations being published for free. But ... then ... I always assumed that the annotations were drafted by the company providing them (Westlaw, LexisNexis).
I downloaded one of the uploaded documents to see what's up, and 1) the annotations are largely just quick "editor's notes" regarding the statutes and legislative histories, not much, but probably enough for copyright protection; and 2) the hard copy book which was scanned was provided by LexisNexis, but Georgia still holds the copyright. Interesting.
Sum, Georgia looks legally justified, but is probably overreacting. The books are scanned in an unwieldy list, took forever to download, and these annotations are largely useless.
I just called my congresswoman to ask her to support Amash's amendment (paraphrasing fightforthefuture.org's language). I added that, as a tech attorney, I understand what is being collected, and cannot see how NSA's data collection efforts are remotely constitutional. Dude said "we've gotten a lot of calls about that" and he'd absolutely pass it along.
She's my representative. I got a response from her last Friday to one of the "knock it off" emails I sent. It came with a multi-page pdf talking points memo too! It was so chock-full-o-bullshit (as here) that I had to take the rest of the afternoon off and go shoot billiards to avoid destroying any of my belongings or scaring my pets. Only slight exaggeration, and not about Feinstein's response.
You keep using the term "hoover" as a verb, which is 1) distinctly British terminology (I know, because I'm from California and I own the Monty Python box set); and 2) a flagrant use of Hoover's trademark generically in a public forum, risking Hoover's exclusive rights. Don't you care about Hoover's trademarks?
A Theory on the Seeming Ubuiquity of Bad Lawyering
Thing is, in law school they teach you the law, and if you're lucky, some practical skills for the real world. But it's all rather abstract until you are actually in the litigation trenches.
Used to be that most law students would get a clerking job or internship while in school, where they would be mentored by a practicing attorney on how things actually work; what kind of arguments or motions you can actually bring without looking like an idiot or failing the laugh test; and how to go about doing it. Or, would get a job at a law firm after graduation, obtaining the same guidance.
Last five years or so, I have increasingly been astounded by incomprehensible arguments, bizarre motions, and all sorts of litigation weirdness that only frustrates and wastes the time and resources of the Court and all others involved.
When looking at the attorneys' backgrounds, these are often fairly new attorneys, with no boots-on-the-ground practical law firm experience. This trend's timing ties into that whole economic crash business and law firms downsizing, and the like. So these kids just go into business for themselves right out of school, and are wreaking bizarre havoc in the Courts.
This theory was recently buttressed by the California Bar, who is working up proposed CLE practical experience requirements for new lawyers. (OK, so it isn't just me who is seeing this trend.)
An old adage was that a person who graduates from law school then hangs out a shingle should put the word "Malpractice" on it as well.
You damn sure don't want a doctor just out of school cutting into you based on his test scores. Similarly, you probably don't want a fresh new lawyer on his own representing you on anything, you know, important.
I frankly don't know what practical experience the Prenda-related lawyers had prior to opening up their own shops, but I can sure see the correlation to the above theory (with an added extra dose of ethical bankruptcy).
John Steele has done nothing more than what most copyright enforcers do and have to go on.
Satire "horse" or not, are you saying that most copyright enforcement lawyers actually own the copyrights in the porn works sued upon -- works which were likely never "published" per copyright law or ever made for sale, but instead likely posted by the same lawyer on torrent sites to bait potential defendants -- and machinate elaborate subterfuges to obscure the lawyers' ownership of the works from the Courts and public using forged documents, and simultaneously brag about all the money they make, and then respond to legitimate concerns of defendants regarding this activity by carpet bombing most anyone who would formally claim they are doing what they are doing with accusations and retaliatory lawsuits, and then lie like the dickens to the Courts and everyone to brazenly attempt to foist their own cognitive dissonance on everyone else in the face of, you know, reality? Is that what you are saying?
(I know, I know: Don't feed the trolls. But I couldn't help but post this epic sentence after it popped into my head.)
I have dealt with the CA State Bar several times regarding disciplinary proceedings (not about myself). They are way overloaded with (usually unfounded) complaints, and don't tend to countenance bull*** -- not having the time.
My take: They'll look first for the bull, and they should find it rather rapidly.
"the law required prosecutors to authenticate it with someone who had personal knowledge of the events"
This is most odd. I don't know from criminal law or MO law, but usually authentication requires "sufficient evidence that it is what you say it is." I.e., not a whole lot. And that it was filmed by the police would in my mind cover that. It should be self-authenticating due to the source.
This article alerted me to the fact that I spend undue amounts of time watching gaming vids. Seeing that Google's study was for the 18-54 US demographic, it seems we've reached a point where it's not embarrassing for, say, a 48-year-old lawyer to learn how to build cool Minecraft stuff from 10-year-old Europeans. Whew.
I read this article last night and was blown away -- but didn't bother to submit it to TD, as I figured there was no way it would be missed.
I too wondered if it might be satire, but decided it was simply too inept to qualify, even if satire was the intent, which it can't have been, hapless and insipid as the piece was.
Also, the comments on the article itself illustrated that I was not alone ...
Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications
Well that's comforting. A main point of attorney/client privilege is so the client is comfortable telling the attorney everything; as all the facts allow the attorney to best represent his client. I have non-US clients, and talk to plenty of potential clients outside the US. Does my talking to them open the door to the NSA? For drafting website a Terms of Use? Shitboyhowdy! Talk about chilling effects.
Because the NSA can't know to preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications unless it has read the privileged communications already.
I'm not sure whether to become a hermit, or to go all activist guns-a-blazing over this. (That's a metaphor you knee-jerk reactionary govt. fucks.)
Regarding stopping terrorism - my wife says, "We'll take our chances, thanks."
And the concern for us is what happens 25 years down the line if this data collection isn't abated. Then every living citizen will have most or all of his/her life, movements, contacts on file with the US Govt. And what if another Nixon or J. Edgar gets in office and starts cleaning house of ... you know, anyone they don't like? They'll have the goods on everyone.
We've been looking at our pets these last few weeks and been actually, vocally relieved we did not have children. That's scary.
On the post: Georgia Claims Its Annotated Laws Are Covered By Copyright, Threatens Carl Malamud For Publishing The Law
On the other hand ...
The annotations are short blurbs under headings for various legal points that show how the statute was applied in various cases. The annotations require attorneys qualified in the field to dig through each reported case that cites the statute and summarize its application to fact. That requires tons of man-hours and particular knowledge and skill sets. Annotations are incredibly helpful and save enormous amounts of research time.
So I can see why Georgia would have an issue with those kind of annotations being published for free. But ... then ... I always assumed that the annotations were drafted by the company providing them (Westlaw, LexisNexis).
I downloaded one of the uploaded documents to see what's up, and 1) the annotations are largely just quick "editor's notes" regarding the statutes and legislative histories, not much, but probably enough for copyright protection; and 2) the hard copy book which was scanned was provided by LexisNexis, but Georgia still holds the copyright. Interesting.
Sum, Georgia looks legally justified, but is probably overreacting. The books are scanned in an unwieldy list, took forever to download, and these annotations are largely useless.
Betting LexisNexis was actually driving this bus.
On the post: State Attorneys General Want To Sue Innovators 'For The Children!'
Re: Actually, this could be good...
On the post: NSA Defenders In The Senate Flip Out Over Amash Amendment To Stop Dragnet
Re: Re: Urrrgh Feinstein
On the post: NSA Defenders In The Senate Flip Out Over Amash Amendment To Stop Dragnet
Urrrgh Feinstein
On the post: If The Feds Say Collecting Data Is Not A Search Until It Looks At Them, Is It Not Piracy Until You View The File?
I'll spew something stupid anyway...
Bloody hell...
On the post: Perfect 10 Loses Yet Another Ridiculous Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Wright Denies John Steele's Motion, Says Any Problem Is Steele's Own Fault, Directs Him To Legal Clinic
A Theory on the Seeming Ubuiquity of Bad Lawyering
Used to be that most law students would get a clerking job or internship while in school, where they would be mentored by a practicing attorney on how things actually work; what kind of arguments or motions you can actually bring without looking like an idiot or failing the laugh test; and how to go about doing it. Or, would get a job at a law firm after graduation, obtaining the same guidance.
Last five years or so, I have increasingly been astounded by incomprehensible arguments, bizarre motions, and all sorts of litigation weirdness that only frustrates and wastes the time and resources of the Court and all others involved.
When looking at the attorneys' backgrounds, these are often fairly new attorneys, with no boots-on-the-ground practical law firm experience. This trend's timing ties into that whole economic crash business and law firms downsizing, and the like. So these kids just go into business for themselves right out of school, and are wreaking bizarre havoc in the Courts.
This theory was recently buttressed by the California Bar, who is working up proposed CLE practical experience requirements for new lawyers. (OK, so it isn't just me who is seeing this trend.)
An old adage was that a person who graduates from law school then hangs out a shingle should put the word "Malpractice" on it as well.
You damn sure don't want a doctor just out of school cutting into you based on his test scores. Similarly, you probably don't want a fresh new lawyer on his own representing you on anything, you know, important.
I frankly don't know what practical experience the Prenda-related lawyers had prior to opening up their own shops, but I can sure see the correlation to the above theory (with an added extra dose of ethical bankruptcy).
On the post: Prediction: Eventual Appeal In Key Prenda Case Will Be One Worth Reading
Re:
Satire "horse" or not, are you saying that most copyright enforcement lawyers actually own the copyrights in the porn works sued upon -- works which were likely never "published" per copyright law or ever made for sale, but instead likely posted by the same lawyer on torrent sites to bait potential defendants -- and machinate elaborate subterfuges to obscure the lawyers' ownership of the works from the Courts and public using forged documents, and simultaneously brag about all the money they make, and then respond to legitimate concerns of defendants regarding this activity by carpet bombing most anyone who would formally claim they are doing what they are doing with accusations and retaliatory lawsuits, and then lie like the dickens to the Courts and everyone to brazenly attempt to foist their own cognitive dissonance on everyone else in the face of, you know, reality? Is that what you are saying?
(I know, I know: Don't feed the trolls. But I couldn't help but post this epic sentence after it popped into my head.)
On the post: Chris O'Donnell's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: To Chris O'Donnell
On the post: Team Prenda Gets Even More Ridiculous: Mark Lutz Files Bar Complaint Against Brett Gibbs
My take: They'll look first for the bull, and they should find it rather rapidly.
On the post: Anonymous 'Good Samaritan' Pays Justin Carter's $500k Bail After 4 Months In Jail For Online Trashtalk
On the post: Putt-Putt Fails To Comprehend User-Generated Content, Sends C&D To Mojang Over Mini Golf Games Recreated With Minecraft
Thanks, Putt-Putt, for alerting me.
On the post: Bad Lawyer Tricks, By John Steele
The thing about telling the truth ...
But when you just make shit up ... behold.
On the post: Cops And Union Rep Lie About What Video Shows Because Judge Never Allowed Recording As Evidence
Re: Re: Re:
This is most odd. I don't know from criminal law or MO law, but usually authentication requires "sufficient evidence that it is what you say it is." I.e., not a whole lot. And that it was filmed by the police would in my mind cover that. It should be self-authenticating due to the source.
On the post: How Important Are YouTube Game Videos To Game Companies?
On the post: Blind Fear Of Cyberwar Drives Columnist To Call For Elimination Of The Internet
HaHaHa... Satire?
I too wondered if it might be satire, but decided it was simply too inept to qualify, even if satire was the intent, which it can't have been, hapless and insipid as the piece was.
Also, the comments on the article itself illustrated that I was not alone ...
On the post: Trading Lives For Freedom Is The American Way
On the post: Latest NSA Leak: Rules On How They Use Data Without A Warrant
Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications
Because the NSA can't know to preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications unless it has read the privileged communications already.
I'm not sure whether to become a hermit, or to go all activist guns-a-blazing over this. (That's a metaphor you knee-jerk reactionary govt. fucks.)
On the post: It's Not Whether NSA Surveillance Helped Stop Any Plots, But Whether Or Not It Needed To Spy On Everyone To Do So
Just waiting for that madman...
And the concern for us is what happens 25 years down the line if this data collection isn't abated. Then every living citizen will have most or all of his/her life, movements, contacts on file with the US Govt. And what if another Nixon or J. Edgar gets in office and starts cleaning house of ... you know, anyone they don't like? They'll have the goods on everyone.
We've been looking at our pets these last few weeks and been actually, vocally relieved we did not have children. That's scary.
On the post: NSA's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Talk about secretive ...
Next >>