Under the old common law, yes, that's how larceny worked. One of the elements was the intent to permanently deprive the personal property of another. If you always had the intent to return it, and did in fact return it, it wouldn't be larceny.
Many states have changed those rules by statute, so that may or may not have been the state of the law in Texas in 1963--but there was a time when it was.
Duffy's dead, so he doesn't have to worry about much of anything any more. Or, put differently, whatever he does have to worry about now won't be affected by any earthly court proceedings.
Hansmeier was dropped from the appeal, so the judgment stands as to him. It can't be enforced while his bankruptcy is pending, but that bankruptcy isn't going well for him either. He's also stipulated to losing his law license.
Steele won a little and lost a lot on the appeal, and back to district court it goes. Given his ability to hide money, the court may well decide that he needs to be incarcerated rather than fined.
And, of course, there's still the FBI waiting in the wings.
So he was so busy prepping for trial that he didn't have time to submit a bogus DMCA takedown, but he did have time to write a rambling incoherent missive about--well--something. Makes sense.
I'm a lawyer (though it should be obvious that I'm not representing anyone here, or giving legal advice). If what Malibu is claiming is true (and they have about as much credibility as Hillary, as far as I'm concerned), Lipscomb's law license is in serious jeopardy, for two different, though related, reasons.
1. Lawyers are required to place any funds belonging to a client in a separate trust account. If a payment comes in that belongs partially to the attorney, and partially to the client, it needs to go into the trust account, and then payments made from there to the lawyer and the client. A client is entitled to an accounting of their funds in the account at any time. An allegation of trust account mismanagement gets the State Bar's attention in a hurry.
2. Stealing a client's money is nearly guaranteed to result in disbarment. This isn't the most common complaint against lawyers (that would be "he won't return my calls"), but it's the most common reason for them to be disbarred.
So let's all stop being the judge and jury and follow the law!
Translation: We deserve to do whatever the courts and the PTO will let us get away with, without any criticism from anyone else! Only once we've been definitively held to have been violating the law, and all appeals exhausted, can anyone say we were doing the wrong thing!
Lots of cases are unpublished (which isn't a good thing, but that's a separate discussion). This opinion disposes of their appeal on its merits, such as they were, upholding the sanctions (i.e., the money they were ordered to pay Doe and Pietz), upholding the requirement that they post a bond to secure those sanctions before appealing, and upholding the requirement that they post a further bond to secure the attorney's fees on appeal. Venue was not an issue. Those were the only sanctions imposed by Judge Wright, and all that was before the court.
The referrals to the DOJ, IRS, state bar disciplinary committee, etc. weren't sanctions and aren't appealable (those are all in the form of "hey, you guys should take a look at..." rather than actually imposing a fine or other restriction on them).
Re: NYT has always proudly proclaimed its censorship
That's a profound misunderstanding of censorship. Choosing what I'm going to print isn't censorship. Preventing you from printing what you wish is. The Times has every right to print what they wish (subject to very narrow exceptions), and refuse to print whatever they don't wish, and it isn't censorship when they do either.
Re: Taking lessons from the Erdogan School of Thin-Skin I see
documents that were so insanely secret and valuable that they they handed them to the city
It's entirely plausible that the documents were provided under a non-disclosure agreement, and that L+G has legitimate reasons to want them to not be public. It's similarly plausible that the city was wrong to release them. The course L+G is pursuing is wrong (not to mention simply impossible), but that doesn't mean they're without a legitimate reason to be upset.
All good questions, but well outside the scope of my comment. My point was, simply, that a collection of rights that lasts for life + 50 years is (generally) worth more than the same collection of rights that only lasts for life + 20 years, which itself is worth more than the same rights that are only good for life.
To say, then, that copyright shouldn't last past the author's lifetime, because no incentive can then result in him creating anything new, is overly simplistic and shortsighted. That additional copyright lifetime has a present value. That value matters, whether the author wants to leave it to his kids or sell it to a publisher (and if a particular author really doesn't want, or need, that additional time, he can always dedicate his works to the public domain in his will, or even before his death).
Obviously the value to the author needs to be balanced against the public's interest in the work, and the present laws do an abominable job in that regard (in many ways, not only with respect to duration).
I think that the "he's dead, so he won't create anything else anyway" argument is too simplistic, because it ignores any ability or motivation to give something to the author's heirs.
Let's suppose for the sake of discussion (as the constitution supposes) that the ability to protect and sell your works does act as an incentive to create works of science and useful arts. Many people make life decisions with at least some consideration of what they will be able to leave to their heirs, be they children, other family members, or other designated people or organizations.
If I'm a businessman, I can build a business that I can leave to my kids. If I'm a farmer, I can leave them the farm. But if I'm an author, or a singer, or a painter, or a composer, and my copyright terminates when I do, the best I can do is leave them whatever I've saved of the royalties. The copyright, being valid for a shorter time, is worth less, and thus the monetary incentive to create is less.
The downside of a weak anti-SLAPP law is that the case (probably) can't be summarily disposed of at the early stages, and thus Gawker will need to pay quite a bit to defend themselves. The upside is that this entitled idiot's claims can be tested, and shown to be false, in a published court opinion for the world to see. I doubt it will shut him up, but it should be better authority than "techdirt says so".
If that were the law's definition of a content provider, it would eviscerate sec. 230. Fortunately, neither the courts nor the statutes define that term as you do.
The most terrifying piece of this IP bullshit: HOAs now have the "legal" authority to take away your house simply because A) you don't own the land it's on and B) you failed to pay the fees.
This has bugger-all to do with either IP law or ownership of the land, but instead results from the private contractual arrangement that you agree to when you buy a home that's governed by an HOA. If you don't pay fees/assessments/dues/etc. as required by the HOA rules, they can place a lien on the property. If you continue to not pay, they can foreclose on the lien--force the sale of the property, take what they're owed, and give you the rest.
No, the Fifth Circuit didn't say that Baker et al must pay. They said that the trial court used the wrong standard in deciding whether Baker must pay, and sent the case back to the trial court for it to use the correct standard. That standard will make it much easier to be awarded fees, but no fees have been awarded yet.
Re: Re: No 1st Constitutional Ammendment in the UK
You've at least got to give @streetlight credit for getting the "fire in a crowded theater" remark correct. Most people, when they cite it, leave out the idea of doing so falsely, and thereby inciting a riot. And he's correct--the First Amendment's protection of free speech is not absolute. However, the exceptions are few and narrow (and "hate speech" isn't one of them), and the Supreme Court has shown no inclination in recent years to expand them.
As a side note, you've confused "true threats" with "incitement". Both are other exceptions to the First Amendment's free speech protection, but the tests are very different.
If the dairy has no history of making outdoor or sporting goods (which is the case), the odds are pretty slim that a prospective customer would believe that the lure was made by the dairy. Granted, those odds are higher than the odds that the prospective customer would think the lure was a stick of butter, but...
This was the decision on appeal, which seems like an odd fact for Timothy to have failed to mention. The dairy can certainly ask the Supreme Court to hear the case, but the odds aren't very high that they will.
On the post: The Coming Copyright Fight Over Viral News Videos, Such As Police Shootings
Re:
Many states have changed those rules by statute, so that may or may not have been the state of the law in Texas in 1963--but there was a time when it was.
On the post: Prenda (Mostly) Loses Again; Court Says 'We Warned You To Stop Digging, But You Still Did'
Re:
Hansmeier was dropped from the appeal, so the judgment stands as to him. It can't be enforced while his bankruptcy is pending, but that bankruptcy isn't going well for him either. He's also stipulated to losing his law license.
Steele won a little and lost a lot on the appeal, and back to district court it goes. Given his ability to hide money, the court may well decide that he needs to be incarcerated rather than fined.
And, of course, there's still the FBI waiting in the wings.
On the post: Questionable DMCA Takedown Notice Filed Over Post Calling Lawyer Out For Copyright Infringement
Re: Updated
On the post: Malibu Media Sues Its Former Lawyer Over Missing Funds, Breach Of Bar Rules
Interesting...
1. Lawyers are required to place any funds belonging to a client in a separate trust account. If a payment comes in that belongs partially to the attorney, and partially to the client, it needs to go into the trust account, and then payments made from there to the lawyer and the client. A client is entitled to an accounting of their funds in the account at any time. An allegation of trust account mismanagement gets the State Bar's attention in a hurry.
2. Stealing a client's money is nearly guaranteed to result in disbarment. This isn't the most common complaint against lawyers (that would be "he won't return my calls"), but it's the most common reason for them to be disbarred.
On the post: Super Slimey: Comodo Tries To Trademark 'Let's Encrypt' [Updated]
Re:
Translation: We deserve to do whatever the courts and the PTO will let us get away with, without any criticism from anyone else! Only once we've been definitively held to have been violating the law, and all appeals exhausted, can anyone say we were doing the wrong thing!
On the post: Super Slimey: Comodo Tries To Trademark 'Let's Encrypt' [Updated]
Re: Comodo used to be the only "free" antivirus
On the post: Appeals Court Trashes Prenda's Appeal, Affirms Sanctions
Re: "Not for publication"
The referrals to the DOJ, IRS, state bar disciplinary committee, etc. weren't sanctions and aren't appealable (those are all in the form of "hey, you guys should take a look at..." rather than actually imposing a fine or other restriction on them).
On the post: New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800
Re: NYT has always proudly proclaimed its censorship
On the post: RIAA Demands Takedown Of ThePirateBay.org, But EasyDNS Refuses Over Lack Of Due Process
On the post: Court Dumps Hastily-Granted Restraining Order, Says MuckRock Can Publish Smart Meter Documents
Re: Taking lessons from the Erdogan School of Thin-Skin I see
It's entirely plausible that the documents were provided under a non-disclosure agreement, and that L+G has legitimate reasons to want them to not be public. It's similarly plausible that the city was wrong to release them. The course L+G is pursuing is wrong (not to mention simply impossible), but that doesn't mean they're without a legitimate reason to be upset.
On the post: Gene Kelly's Widow Claims Copyright In Interviews Done By Gene Kelly, Sues Over Academic Book
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To say, then, that copyright shouldn't last past the author's lifetime, because no incentive can then result in him creating anything new, is overly simplistic and shortsighted. That additional copyright lifetime has a present value. That value matters, whether the author wants to leave it to his kids or sell it to a publisher (and if a particular author really doesn't want, or need, that additional time, he can always dedicate his works to the public domain in his will, or even before his death).
Obviously the value to the author needs to be balanced against the public's interest in the work, and the present laws do an abominable job in that regard (in many ways, not only with respect to duration).
On the post: Gene Kelly's Widow Claims Copyright In Interviews Done By Gene Kelly, Sues Over Academic Book
Re: Re:
Let's suppose for the sake of discussion (as the constitution supposes) that the ability to protect and sell your works does act as an incentive to create works of science and useful arts. Many people make life decisions with at least some consideration of what they will be able to leave to their heirs, be they children, other family members, or other designated people or organizations.
If I'm a businessman, I can build a business that I can leave to my kids. If I'm a farmer, I can leave them the farm. But if I'm an author, or a singer, or a painter, or a composer, and my copyright terminates when I do, the best I can do is leave them whatever I've saved of the royalties. The copyright, being valid for a shorter time, is worth less, and thus the monetary incentive to create is less.
On the post: Guy Who Didn't Invent Email Sues Gawker For Pointing Out He Didn't Invent Email
Trial on the merits?
On the post: Revenge Porn Creep Kevin Bollaert's Appeal Underway... And Actually Raises Some Important Issues
Re:
On the post: Do You Own What You Own? Not So Much Anymore, Thanks To Copyright
Re:
This has bugger-all to do with either IP law or ownership of the land, but instead results from the private contractual arrangement that you agree to when you buy a home that's governed by an HOA. If you don't pay fees/assessments/dues/etc. as required by the HOA rules, they can place a lien on the property. If you continue to not pay, they can foreclose on the lien--force the sale of the property, take what they're owed, and give you the rest.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Trademark Bully/HIV Denialist Must Pay Defendant's Legal Fees
Headline is incorrect
On the post: Sevens Marry Sevens: Is Online Dating Making Mixed-Attractiveness Couples More Rare?
On the post: Ignorant Bigot Arrested In UK For Tweeting About Being An Obnoxious Ignorant Bigot
Re: Re: No 1st Constitutional Ammendment in the UK
As a side note, you've confused "true threats" with "incitement". Both are other exceptions to the First Amendment's free speech protection, but the tests are very different.
On the post: Court Dismisses Dumb Trademark Suit Between Dairy And Fishing Tackle Companies
Re:
On the post: Court Dismisses Dumb Trademark Suit Between Dairy And Fishing Tackle Companies
Re:
Next >>