John William Nelson (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 2:56pm
City may have to pay Defendant's Attorney Fees
Copyright law has a fee shifting statute which basically says you may have to pay the other side's reasonable attorney's fees if you lose.
Well, I don't know how the 11th Circuit handles this aspect of copyright law, but the City may not just be paying its own attorney's fees, it may be paying its critics as well.
John William Nelson (profile), 21 Apr 2015 @ 3:48pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Conflicts can create issues
what makes me crazy is how you have made something that should be considered very unreasonable to "sound reasonable".
Damnit, that's the lawyer in my coming out. Always trying to make unreasonable things sound reasonable.
Oh, and I'm not offended. Seriously. I've been on these internets since, oh, like 1992 or so? I mean, not as long as some, but long enough to be able to weather these quite moderate flame attacks. I mean, most Usenet groups makes what you said look G-Rated.
No worries dude.
Look, bottom line is that there are very real reasons why judges may not be able to go to a speech done by someone who they may need to make a decision on in the future.
Does that mean those reasons are present here? From what I read, perhaps, but perhaps not. And others have pointed out that (1) the judges reacted rather childishly in how they presented the issue and (2) they may not have had to boycott the whole thing and (3) at the very least, judicial decorum (at least in the US, the UK is a bit different) would typically dictate not making a big ruckus out of it anyhow.
In short, you keep saying my "logic is fucked up" and calling stupid, but I think you and I are on the same wavelength here.
It's probably my lawyerly manner of over-writing and over-speaking things, making short things long and all, that is getting in the way.
John William Nelson (profile), 21 Apr 2015 @ 12:42pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conflicts can create issues
Did you actually read my original comment?
I certainly don't believe judges should walk away from various aspects of life because they are judges. In fact, I state that judges can and should routinely engage in discourse with folks.
However, the Assange situation is a bit different because some of these judges may have to hear and decide on legal issues facing Mr. Assange. So it is not unreasonable if that was the worry.
However, it is not clear whether that was the worry—especially based on some of the childish comments by some of the judges.
But hey, keep misconstruing my posts, failing to actually read them through, and making ad hominem attacks on me laced with profanity. This is the Internet, and that kind of thing is what we do on the Internet.
John William Nelson (profile), 21 Apr 2015 @ 9:18am
Re: Re: Conflicts can create issues
I did not say attending a conference will disqualify a judge anywhere.
To the extent that my "logic is fucked up," it is because you seem to not understand judicial conflicts of interest.
So, let me explain judicial conflicts of interest.
Let us take the conference example: A judge from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom attends a conference. One of the speakers at the conference is Julian Assange, who may have an issue pending before the lower courts (or, in this case, a great likelihood that he will have an issue before the lower court).
The judge is then in a quandary. Depending on the nature of the conference, the nature of the appearance by Assange, and the nature of the speech given by Assange, the judge faces multiple ethical issues regarding the future matter. (And these issues would be in place for any lower court judges as well.)
For example:
1. Was Assange paid for the appearance, or did he otherwise obtain some other form of compensation?
2. Would the contents and nature of the speech lead to arguments by prosecution that an effective ex parte communication occurred, resulting in the need for recusal?
3. What are the other practical issues facing the judge as far as impartiality are concerned? (While recusal may not be required as a matter of law and regulation, could the judge's participation raise questions in the eyes of the public?)
But, by all means throw ad hominem attacks at me. In the end they only reflect your own nature.
John William Nelson (profile), 21 Apr 2015 @ 9:10am
Re: Re: Conflicts can create issues
You're stating "fugitives, or criminals". If they're in the courtroom, they're no longer fugitives (unless they burst in and hold the judge hostage all on their own). Your conflation of the two is no different than mixing up "suspect" and "defendant".
I see you've never held or witnessed a hearing where an alleged fugitive is appearing via video conference or phone conference to contest the warrant. I am not conflating the two.
Further, there are other situations where a judge may have a need to converse with a fugitive.
But I can also see you appear to think I am personally attacking you, so I do not doubt you will find issue with this comment either.
John William Nelson (profile), 21 Apr 2015 @ 6:16am
Conflicts can create issues
In reading the articles, some of the judge's reasons I think are not well articulated.
However, I think it is fair and reasonable for a judge to not attend if they feel there may be a conflict in the future, especially if they may hear a matter involving that individual.
As for judges never talking to fugitives, I think some people view the legal system in too much of a romantic, absolutist manner.
Judges can absolutely speak with fugitives, or criminals, and often do. There are limits on where and when, and some acts may preclude you from hearing cases on the matters, but judges are people as well. And the court system is not as magical or absolutist as many people think (either here in the USA or in the UK).
There is a border search exception to the Fourth Amendment. It is rather broad. The balancing courts must do is weigh the level of intrusiveness against the interests of the Government in controlling the border.
This article argues that laptop border searches are intrusive and should require, at a minimum, reasonable suspicion. If you want to learn about the background of the Fourth Amendment during border searches, the article reviews the case law and reasoning fairly in-depth.
I had wanted to write "searches of laptops at the border are like strip searches of the mind," but my advisor thought it would be too polemical. Lol. While I think at the time she was correct, I wish I had gotten that phrase into it.
John William Nelson (profile), 12 Dec 2014 @ 2:27pm
Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
This is accurate. The questions are (1) what does authorship mean and (2) what does expression mean.
I would argue that authorship includes the process of designing and setting up a camera trap for the purpose of collecting capture photos. The photographer setting up such a trap is designing a system which dictates when the photo will be taken.
In contrast, the "monkey photo" was framed and taken by the monkey, not by the design of a camera trap.
However, in counter I could argue that there is no real authorship in the camera trap. After all, you are not deciding exactly when the photo is to be taken, or the exact framing of the picture. Instead, you are letting the whims and chances of fate decide.
Even so, I think this argument will fail and the other argument will win. There is authorship in the setup and design of a camera trap. There is not authorship in the monkey photo. (Well, not human authorship.)
John William Nelson (profile), 3 Dec 2014 @ 12:59pm
Free Zenefits publicity!
I wish I had heard of this before! Now that I know about Zenefits, when I am looking to expand more I will definitely be looking them up. The lack of this kind of option has led me to slowly adopt the more complicated HR process such as hiring employees (just went this route this year), providing benefits (very limited right now to 401k, no health), and more.
With something like this, perhaps I will be able to more easily offer the more complicated benefit packages with more paperwork because this will reduce my time overhead in managing them.
As a truly small business, this kind of thing is a godsend.
John William Nelson (profile), 17 Nov 2014 @ 6:10am
This is just incorrect:
Modern federal law supports the notion that an express carve-out is required in order to circumscribe the bundle of rights appurtenant to copyright
Modern federal copyright law carves out explicit exceptions to free speech in the Copyright Act of 1976. This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of copyright law by the judge, as well as the nature of intellectual property generally.
Then again, I've litigated enough to not be surprised.
John William Nelson (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 5:29pm
Contract law still allows negotiating amounts
I do a lot of consumer debt defense. Some of this includes medical debt lawsuits.
Interesting thing about medical debt: When did you agree to pay the specific amounts charged by the doctor?
Think of it this way—can you tell me another industry where you do not know, up front, what the rates or fees will be before you accept services or goods? Lawyers give you their hourly rates, for example. You get menus at restaurants. Plumbers and carpenters tell you hourly rates or flat fees up front.
And if you do not get these details up front, but they perform the services? Then you have a chance to negotiate the amount.
Typically, for medical services, you sign something where you agree to "pay what is not covered by my insurance company."
But this does not mean you agree to pay whatever the doctor wants you to pay. You still have room to negotiate what are the reasonable fees for this.
When you give thorough discovery requests targeting the question of whether the fees are reasonable, what the fees are for other patients and insurance providers, then you begin to get these medical debt collectors thinking twice about playing hardball.
Then again, it should never get to this point. It seems like doctors and their collection lawyers miss this fundamental aspect of contract law.
It's fun when you get a judge who understands this, as the collection lawyers do not. It stinks when you get judges who are lazy and just award judgments without listening to law or facts.
John William Nelson (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:06am
All of our children will be felons . . .
If this type of attitude at schools continues—the blindly obey or I will ruin you attitude of administrators—then all of our children will eventually be felons.
On the post: City Of Inglewood Allotted $50,000 To Hire A Lawyer Flagrantly Abuse Copyright Law To Try To Silence A Citizen
City may have to pay Defendant's Attorney Fees
Well, I don't know how the 11th Circuit handles this aspect of copyright law, but the City may not just be paying its own attorney's fees, it may be paying its critics as well.
Copyright fee shifting is a double-edged sword.
On the post: Cybersecurity Official Believes Encryption Can Be Backdoored Safely; Can't Think Of Single Expert Who Agrees With Him
"I'm confident Silicon Valley magic can do it!"
"Silicon Valley does magic. I think they can do magic on this. Therefore, let's require it, and magic will happen."
Sigh.
On the post: HBO Shuts Down Bar's Game Of Thrones Viewing Party
What is the Bar's TV license?
I mean, you pay extra as a bar or commercial establishment to get the public viewing license rights for the channels.
Sounds like overreach to me.
On the post: UK Judges Take Their Robes And Go Home After Julian Assange Added As Speaker At Legal Conference
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Conflicts can create issues
Damnit, that's the lawyer in my coming out. Always trying to make unreasonable things sound reasonable.
Oh, and I'm not offended. Seriously. I've been on these internets since, oh, like 1992 or so? I mean, not as long as some, but long enough to be able to weather these quite moderate flame attacks. I mean, most Usenet groups makes what you said look G-Rated.
No worries dude.
Look, bottom line is that there are very real reasons why judges may not be able to go to a speech done by someone who they may need to make a decision on in the future.
Does that mean those reasons are present here? From what I read, perhaps, but perhaps not. And others have pointed out that (1) the judges reacted rather childishly in how they presented the issue and (2) they may not have had to boycott the whole thing and (3) at the very least, judicial decorum (at least in the US, the UK is a bit different) would typically dictate not making a big ruckus out of it anyhow.
In short, you keep saying my "logic is fucked up" and calling stupid, but I think you and I are on the same wavelength here.
It's probably my lawyerly manner of over-writing and over-speaking things, making short things long and all, that is getting in the way.
Carry on mate!
On the post: UK Judges Take Their Robes And Go Home After Julian Assange Added As Speaker At Legal Conference
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conflicts can create issues
I certainly don't believe judges should walk away from various aspects of life because they are judges. In fact, I state that judges can and should routinely engage in discourse with folks.
However, the Assange situation is a bit different because some of these judges may have to hear and decide on legal issues facing Mr. Assange. So it is not unreasonable if that was the worry.
However, it is not clear whether that was the worry—especially based on some of the childish comments by some of the judges.
But hey, keep misconstruing my posts, failing to actually read them through, and making ad hominem attacks on me laced with profanity. This is the Internet, and that kind of thing is what we do on the Internet.
On the post: UK Judges Take Their Robes And Go Home After Julian Assange Added As Speaker At Legal Conference
Re: Re: Conflicts can create issues
To the extent that my "logic is fucked up," it is because you seem to not understand judicial conflicts of interest.
So, let me explain judicial conflicts of interest.
Let us take the conference example: A judge from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom attends a conference. One of the speakers at the conference is Julian Assange, who may have an issue pending before the lower courts (or, in this case, a great likelihood that he will have an issue before the lower court).
The judge is then in a quandary. Depending on the nature of the conference, the nature of the appearance by Assange, and the nature of the speech given by Assange, the judge faces multiple ethical issues regarding the future matter. (And these issues would be in place for any lower court judges as well.)
For example:
1. Was Assange paid for the appearance, or did he otherwise obtain some other form of compensation?
2. Would the contents and nature of the speech lead to arguments by prosecution that an effective ex parte communication occurred, resulting in the need for recusal?
3. What are the other practical issues facing the judge as far as impartiality are concerned? (While recusal may not be required as a matter of law and regulation, could the judge's participation raise questions in the eyes of the public?)
But, by all means throw ad hominem attacks at me. In the end they only reflect your own nature.
On the post: UK Judges Take Their Robes And Go Home After Julian Assange Added As Speaker At Legal Conference
Re: Re: Conflicts can create issues
I see you've never held or witnessed a hearing where an alleged fugitive is appearing via video conference or phone conference to contest the warrant. I am not conflating the two.
Further, there are other situations where a judge may have a need to converse with a fugitive.
But I can also see you appear to think I am personally attacking you, so I do not doubt you will find issue with this comment either.
On the post: UK Judges Take Their Robes And Go Home After Julian Assange Added As Speaker At Legal Conference
Conflicts can create issues
However, I think it is fair and reasonable for a judge to not attend if they feel there may be a conflict in the future, especially if they may hear a matter involving that individual.
As for judges never talking to fugitives, I think some people view the legal system in too much of a romantic, absolutist manner.
Judges can absolutely speak with fugitives, or criminals, and often do. There are limits on where and when, and some acts may preclude you from hearing cases on the matters, but judges are people as well. And the court system is not as magical or absolutist as many people think (either here in the USA or in the UK).
On the post: Most Cyberattacks Are Phishing Related, Not Sophisticated Technical Attacks
Wetware is usually the weaker link . . .
Heck, they even made three movies involving an Ocean about it with that Clooney guy involved. (Or was it 4?)
Why hack serious encryption when you can get it more easily by socially engineering the intrusion?
On the post: 2009 DHS Document Says Border Patrol Can Search/Copy The Contents Of Your Device Just Because It Wants To
I wrote a paper about this called "Border Confidential: Why Searches of Laptop Computers at the Border Should Require Reasonable Suspicion," which you can find here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1469292
This article argues that laptop border searches are intrusive and should require, at a minimum, reasonable suspicion. If you want to learn about the background of the Fourth Amendment during border searches, the article reviews the case law and reasoning fairly in-depth.
I had wanted to write "searches of laptops at the border are like strip searches of the mind," but my advisor thought it would be too polemical. Lol. While I think at the time she was correct, I wish I had gotten that phrase into it.
On the post: Google Gets Prude: Says No More Adult Content On Blogger
The internet is for porn . . . and cats
On the post: Russia Reaches The Censorship Endgame: Banning VPNs, Tor And Web Proxies
What about all those Russian hackers?
On the post: DailyDirt: Spoiler Alert... Santa Claus Ain't Real
I think Fox appreciates all wars
On the post: DailyDirt: Spoiler Alert... Santa Claus Ain't Real
Disagree.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
I would argue that authorship includes the process of designing and setting up a camera trap for the purpose of collecting capture photos. The photographer setting up such a trap is designing a system which dictates when the photo will be taken.
In contrast, the "monkey photo" was framed and taken by the monkey, not by the design of a camera trap.
However, in counter I could argue that there is no real authorship in the camera trap. After all, you are not deciding exactly when the photo is to be taken, or the exact framing of the picture. Instead, you are letting the whims and chances of fate decide.
Even so, I think this argument will fail and the other argument will win. There is authorship in the setup and design of a camera trap. There is not authorship in the monkey photo. (Well, not human authorship.)
On the post: Utah Wants To Kill Zenefits For Giving Away HR Software For Free
Re: Free Zenefits publicity!
On the post: Utah Wants To Kill Zenefits For Giving Away HR Software For Free
Free Zenefits publicity!
With something like this, perhaps I will be able to more easily offer the more complicated benefit packages with more paperwork because this will reduce my time overhead in managing them.
As a truly small business, this kind of thing is a godsend.
On the post: SiriusXM Loses For A Third Time On Public Performance Of Pre-1972 Works, This Time In New York
Modern federal copyright law carves out explicit exceptions to free speech in the Copyright Act of 1976. This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of copyright law by the judge, as well as the nature of intellectual property generally.
Then again, I've litigated enough to not be surprised.
On the post: DailyDirt: Healthcare Nightmares
Contract law still allows negotiating amounts
Interesting thing about medical debt: When did you agree to pay the specific amounts charged by the doctor?
Think of it this way—can you tell me another industry where you do not know, up front, what the rates or fees will be before you accept services or goods? Lawyers give you their hourly rates, for example. You get menus at restaurants. Plumbers and carpenters tell you hourly rates or flat fees up front.
And if you do not get these details up front, but they perform the services? Then you have a chance to negotiate the amount.
Typically, for medical services, you sign something where you agree to "pay what is not covered by my insurance company."
But this does not mean you agree to pay whatever the doctor wants you to pay. You still have room to negotiate what are the reasonable fees for this.
When you give thorough discovery requests targeting the question of whether the fees are reasonable, what the fees are for other patients and insurance providers, then you begin to get these medical debt collectors thinking twice about playing hardball.
Then again, it should never get to this point. It seems like doctors and their collection lawyers miss this fundamental aspect of contract law.
It's fun when you get a judge who understands this, as the collection lawyers do not. It stinks when you get judges who are lazy and just award judgments without listening to law or facts.
C'est la vie.
On the post: Student Facing Terroristic Threat Charges After Decorating High School Bathroom With Laughable 'Satanic' Graffiti
All of our children will be felons . . .
Next >>