That kind of immunity only goes so far, and possession/distribution of something that can be defined as child porn while on the clock falls rather far past the distance the immunity can reach. It's pretty obvious he was already forced to resign (article points out he retired after being confronted about this instance plus accusations he was drunk at a school function), so obviously the district washed their hands of him. Plus it's not like the district attorney's likely to press charges against the school district + the principle since they've already taken some action against the principal. The only person likely to get charged here would be the principal. He will have no immunity if the DA decides to make political hay from the incident.
As creepy as he sounds I hope that doesn't happen. What he did was wrong, but not at the "destroy the guy's life" level which is what a child porn charge would do.
Hate to feed the trolls, but let me fix that for you:
"Ahh yes, anything the copyright owners do is total right, righteous, and above any legal restriction. The copyright owners rule! They can make up their own laws as they go."
Seeing as that's what's happening here. Fair use be damned.
They won't try to sue after that, they'll sell the debt off to another collection agency and you get to start over. Repeat until the statute of limitations on debt in your state runs out (and sometimes even past that). Especially when the debt is as small as a traffic ticket would be. At that point it's 1. small debt (valid or not) and 2. you've shown you won't just roll over and pay, so they move on to easier marks. They sell it off to let another sucker have a go at it. (And to try and recoup some of the money they spent buying it themselves, but that's generally pennies on the dollar so it wasn't much.)
Yes, that law allows you to contest the validity of the debt, and the collection agency has to provide proof, in writing, within a certain time period. Many collection agencies don't have this information (even for valid debts) and it's not at all uncommon for a collection agency to just send what they have to comply with the letter of the law, then sell your debt off to another agency because they can no longer really pursue it legally.
Of course you get to start over with the new agency then. You can be harassed for years over invalid debts because it keeps getting sold from agency to agency and you have to dispute it over and over again. They can't actually put anything on your credit rating (legally), but they sure can waste your time and annoy you.
That sounds reasonable, and it would be except... how do you prove that it was really the child's parents? If a child lies, or gets a friend to cover for them, and the parents find out later and decide to sue, what can the company do? Since there's no good way to prove your identity online companies have to go with E-mail "plus" verification which entails getting a physical address and/or phone number and sending a physical letter and/or making a phone call to talk to the parents to verify they really gave consent and that they really, truly are the parents and everything is A-OK. Obviously this costs a fair amount of money when you're a company the size of Google, and is something smaller companies may not be equipped to deal with at all.
Starting to see why almost no websites bother with this? It's ridiculous, and very onerous, no one offering free services wants to spend the time and money to get the required information to cover themselves legally. It's far, far cheaper just to go the "if you're under 13 you can't have an account" route. And yes, that includes deleting the account and all data associated with it the moment the company becomes aware the user is actually under 13. That's part of the law, it's not a punitive thing! This whole mess is Google obeying COPPA exactly as written. The problem truly is that COPPA is a really bad law.
I personally think the law is completely and utterly useless. All it's done is teach children that they should lie about their age online. And since they're lying about their ages, companies are still (inadvertently, because every legit company religiously complies with deleting accounts & data on discovery of a user under 13) collecting information on children online, and legally to boot. Seems to me the law's completely failed in its purpose and should be fixed. But you can't suggest that because the "think of the children" crowd goes ballistic and accuse you of all kinds of things.
Until we stop with knee-jerk reactions to the "think of the children" mantra we'll never have saner laws.
Being surprised about it before it happened and while it happened is one thing. Being surprised about it 10 years later when there's been numerous studies into the disaster that have shown conclusively that it was the weakening of the structure caused by both the impacts (mainly from knocking fire-proofing off the girders) and the resulting fires fueled by the jets' large fuel reserves is another thing entirely. The only people you really see making such claims nowadays are conspiracy theorists and 9-11 denialists. Neither camp is one you really want to be part of, especially not if you're a company like Hanes that's worried about their public image. Also, he said we'd never really know what happened, that is 100% incorrect, we do know exactly what happened and the results of that knowledge is being used in new construction to make it less likely it can happen again. And do note I said "borderline" denialism. I did qualify my remark. I also don't really think he's a 9-11 denier. I think he's someone who really, really needs to think about what he's about to say before he pushes send on his tweets.
I think it's also important to note (again) that apparently Mendenhall agrees he went too far with that one particular tweet. It was deleted, the others weren't.
I'm not bothered by it in this case because of the way sponsored athletes work. As a quote from this article points out:
“An athlete contracts away his free speech rights in signing his endorsement deal,” said Jeffrey Standen, a sports law professor and associate dean at Willamette University College of Law in Salem, Ore. “What the sponsor is buying is the athlete’s name and image, and their name and image are related to public behavior and opinions.”
This is well known (this is also not the first time someone's lost their sponsorship contract for doing/saying something really stupid) so there's no excuse for behaving in a way you know is going to cause your sponsors problems if you actually agreed to let them sponsor you. It's a trade off, you get money for being sponsored, but in exchange you become one of the company's public faces, so you lose some freedom in what you can say and do. If you don't like that, then maybe you should pass and do without the money. The choice is yours, no one is forcing you to take that sponsorship contract.
Also, do note, this is the second time this year he's caused problems with controversial tweets. So this isn't like he just said something stupid/unpopular once and was canned. It's also notable that both times the most controversial tweets look less problematic in the context of several other tweets done at the same time. I think Mendenhall really needs to get a blog so he can have his whole argument up in one chunk, instead of posting it in 140 character chunks that can more easily be taken out of context.
Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
He's not lost any civil rights, as I already pointed out, he was free to say whatever he wanted and did so. Now he's dealing with the repercussions of that freedom. Hanes doesn't have to stay associated with him if he's tarring them with the same brush he's tarring himself with. This is really no different than a regular employee (up to and including the C** level positions) saying something that the company disagrees with while on the clock then getting fired for doing so. (And there have been plenty of cases of employees saying stuff while off the clock, but doing so in a way that implied it was the company speaking, getting fired for doing so. Most of those cases have been upheld in the courts as well.) He's also free to say whatever he wants now as well, he just won't be quite as well paid an athlete because of something he said previously.
So he's lost no rights, he exercised his right to free speech and now he has to deal with what happens next. There is NO civil right that says you get a free pass when you say something unpopular with your freedom of speech.
I really fail to see how you think Hanes is taking any rights away from him by severing his employment for saying whatever he felt like. The fact that most of the tweets in question are still up tells you that Hanes not only didn't interfere with his freedom of speech, they didn't force him to retract his statements!
They're not trying to dictate what he says, they're using the morals clause to disassociate themselves with him so that people won't associate Hanes with the questionable (and to many objectionable) stuff Mendenhall's said (and probably will say in the future given this was his second time causing controversy with his tweets). He's perfectly free to say whatever he wants, but there are sometimes repercussions to what you say, such as losing your lucrative sponsorship contract, and he just has to deal with those consequences. That's part of freedom of speech, you can say it, but you better be willing to deal with what happens because you said it. If you aren't, well, maybe you shouldn't say it in the first place.
Morals clauses are in sponsorship contracts to cover situations just like this one. The sponsoring company has the right to protect themselves from the repercussions of speech they don't agree with. Trying to force them to do otherwise would impinge on their rights actually, since businesses do have a freedom of speech right as well. Looking at it that way, Mendenhall's not only not got the moral high ground, he's trying to both escape the repercussions of his own freedom of speech (losing his sponsor) AND trying to impinge on Hanes' freedom of speech.
There may not be a good guy here, but I do see Hanes as a bit of a victim. Mendenhall said some really stupid stuff and is unwilling to accept the consequences, so I have no sympathy whatsoever for him. You said it dude, now own up to the consequences and move on.
A bit of Googling would have found it for you, some are even still up. One was "What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We've only heard one side..." (Source) Another was "We'll never know what really happened, I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style." (Source) The first is more of an opinion and more defensible (especially in combination with some of the other tweets commenting on his believing God to be the only judge) although it's still questionable as, well, we've all heard Bin Laden speak numerous times in his taped messages. So, most people probably took it as support for Bin Laden due to the way Mendenhall phrased that particular tweet. The second one is, at least, borderline 9-11 denialism, which is probably the one that got him in the most trouble. Can't really blame Hanes for not wanting to be associated with him, and even Mendenhall apparently realized he went too far, as that tweet has been deleted.
Apparently he's been in trouble for his Tweets before now as well, for comparing the NFL to "modern-day slavery", so this wasn't an isolated incident. Hanes probably felt (justifiably) that he would continue to say stupid stuff and didn't wish to be associated with that stuff.
He's missed his calling, he's digging a hell of a hole for himself. You screwed up, and it's cost you, the correct response is to clean up your act and work to get more sponsorship deals in the future. The incorrect one is to dig the hole deeper by suing (which will make future potential sponsors even less willing to work with you) and calling even more attention to the stupid thing you did.
A determined hacker will hack, we agree. But that does not preclude anyone from taking the steps that the first poster in this sub-thread described, which would pretty much stop all by a very small percentage of people.
I would imagine now that people in France are facing possible Internet disconnection for downloading stuff that those wanting to do so are much, much more dedicated to hacking others' wireless access to avoid just such a penalty being applied to them. Kind of a nasty unintended side-effect of the law.
Oh yeah, btw, cloning a mac address is nice, but most routers won't allow the same mac address to appear twice at a time, so if the original computer is still on, there is no hope of a connection that would be functional.
That's easy to overcome, most people don't leave their computers on 24x7, they turn them off when they leave the house (or take them with them). Seeing as the original article even says he was accused of downloading Iron Man 2 for the third strike while he was actually at work teaching it's likely his MAC address wasn't in use at that time.
What I find interesting is no one seems to even be speculating that his computer is infected with malware. That's another way someone could have proxied through his connection for the download, although it'd have been fairly slow unless he has fast upload speeds too. It's definitely possible though. There's just too many ways it could have been someone other than him, disconnection is too harsh a penalty. Not to mention it's silly in cases like this because it's punishing a clueless middle party while the true guilty party gets off without any punishment whatsoever. Is that really going to deter people pirating movies/music/etc? No, it's just going to lead to them framing more and more innocents for it instead.
Well, a bit of Googling around, the first step is extremely easy, you can find routers with disabled SSIDs without any trouble using a variety of tools:
Secondly, you can spoof MAC addresses easily, and since MAC addresses are sent unencrypted, anyone nearby can sniff your network (quite easy to do) when you're home and figure out what MAC addresses you use, then spoof them later:
And finally, you can hack WPA/WPA2 to gain access to the network. This is harder than the previous two steps, and if the key is sufficiently long and random enough may be impossible, but still not all that difficult. Since most people don't use a key of sufficient length & complexity to defeat this kind of attack, this is just a time consuming step:
Once you're on the network you don't need admin access if you're just wanting to use someone else's connection to hide your downloading movies/music/porn/etc. You just locate their router (easy), sniff their network to find a MAC address to use so you can spoof it (also easy), hack WPA/WPA2 if needed (not quite as easy but not too hard) and voila, you're on their network and any copyright notices will be sent to them.
And that was the result of maybe 5 minutes Googling for info on how to get past the security restrictions you mentioned. I'm far from an expert on this (I don't even use wireless on my home network, I prefer wired connections for both speed and security), someone who's really determined should have an easy time of connecting to your router if they really want to.
This isn't to say doing what you've done is a bad idea, it's just not a guaranteed way of preventing hackers from getting in if they're determined enough. It's a lot like physical security, you're basically making yourself a more difficult target so that the hacker (or burglar for physical security) will pick another, easier target instead. It also deters casual wireless hackers, much as locking your door deters random people from walking in while you're not home.
To be fair, he did respond to the first notice according to the original article. He wrote Hadopi and told them it had to be a mistake, that he didn't even like the kind of music they accused him of downloading.
He tried, the original article says he called Hadopi's call center after the second notice for help in securing it. Either they failed in assisting him properly, or they were too quick on sending out a third notice, basically sending it out almost immediately after the second one.
According to Wikipedia's Presumption of Innocence article, France's civil law system also uses it (emphasis added):
In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Everyone is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until their guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion.
But shoplifters typically aren't banned from all stores everywhere, which would be the equivalent of what the Internet disconnection penalty is like. They get banned from individual stores in the area they live in (and got caught in).
And even the drunk driver analogy doesn't work fully, often those with suspended licenses can get a work permit, which allows them to drive from home to work only, so they can still make a living. I don't recall there being any kind of exception to the French three strikes disconnection penalty to allow people to have a limited connection strictly for work purposes.
Did you bother to look at the linked article? (Of course you didn't.) It actually claims that the guy was definitely hacked after securing his WiFi after the 2nd notice. Masnick's "100% piracy apologist spin" changed that to saying it's unclear exactly what happened, that perhaps he got hacked, or perhaps he didn't get it secured in time to avoid a 3rd notice.
If you consider that pro-piracy spin then you're obviously going to consider anything pro-piracy spin. I take it pro-IP enforcement is a religion for you and you don't bother with things like facts or reality contradicting what you believe.
As for blowing it off, well now, for that you need to actually look at the original article (conveniently linked from the article TechDirt linked). He didn't blow it off, he wrote Hadopi and told them they must be mistaken. After the second one he called them, apparently to get help in making sure his connection was secured. And for the third, the time it claims he downloaded the movie he was in class teaching.
Personally I'm inclined to believe the guy. Guilty people often do loudly proclaim their innocence. But guilty people don't undertake a very expensive lawsuit, that'll even require him to move, just to "clear his name".
If Sony can demonstrate they took appropriate steps to minimise the risk of something like this happening, then no matter what they did wrong it should still pay out. Of course, if I left my vehicle unlocked and it got stolen...
And there's the key, there were reports that Sony wasn't keeping their servers patched and up-to-date. I also seem to remember Sony admitting they hadn't applied an update in some of their ecommerce software and that was part of how they attackers got in. If that's true, then the insurance company may have an out, because Sony wasn't following standard security practices and essentially, from a legal standpoint, were asking for it.
I think it's Lodsys that's going to be in dire need of buying a judge, the article says Lodsys also added Electronic Arts, Take-Two Interactive and Atari to the lawsuit along with Rovio. It's like they're trying to sue as many companies who can afford to hire lawyers by the busload, that can't be a smart lawsuit strategy.
Whatever the initial reasons for the separation were, now it's all about trying to protect Stephens Media from financial liability from counter-suits. If they come out and admit it's just a contingency fee arrangement then everyone Righthaven has sued (pretty much all improperly) can turn around and counter-sue not just Righthaven, but Stephens Media. And Stephens Media actually does have money to lose, although multiple large lawsuit awards against them could potentially bankrupt them.
Of course all signs in the real world are that Stephens Media is going to get sued anyway, and the courts will probably allow it. (Righthaven ticking off every judge they've met isn't helping any.) But no one said that Righthaven/Stephens Media was living in the real world.
On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex
Re: Re: Child porn?
As creepy as he sounds I hope that doesn't happen. What he did was wrong, but not at the "destroy the guy's life" level which is what a child porn charge would do.
On the post: Summit Entertainment Commences Criminal Legal Action Against Twilight Fan Who Shared Images From Movie
Re:
Seeing as that's what's happening here. Fair use be damned.
On the post: LA Police Admit That Red Light Camera Payments Are Now 'Voluntary'
Re: Re: Fair Debt Collection Act
On the post: LA Police Admit That Red Light Camera Payments Are Now 'Voluntary'
Re: Re: Fair Debt Collection Act
Of course you get to start over with the new agency then. You can be harassed for years over invalid debts because it keeps getting sold from agency to agency and you have to dispute it over and over again. They can't actually put anything on your credit rating (legally), but they sure can waste your time and annoy you.
On the post: On the Internet, Google+ Knows You're A TOS-Violating 10-Year-Old Dog
Re:
Starting to see why almost no websites bother with this? It's ridiculous, and very onerous, no one offering free services wants to spend the time and money to get the required information to cover themselves legally. It's far, far cheaper just to go the "if you're under 13 you can't have an account" route. And yes, that includes deleting the account and all data associated with it the moment the company becomes aware the user is actually under 13. That's part of the law, it's not a punitive thing! This whole mess is Google obeying COPPA exactly as written. The problem truly is that COPPA is a really bad law.
I personally think the law is completely and utterly useless. All it's done is teach children that they should lie about their age online. And since they're lying about their ages, companies are still (inadvertently, because every legit company religiously complies with deleting accounts & data on discovery of a user under 13) collecting information on children online, and legally to boot. Seems to me the law's completely failed in its purpose and should be fixed. But you can't suggest that because the "think of the children" crowd goes ballistic and accuse you of all kinds of things.
Until we stop with knee-jerk reactions to the "think of the children" mantra we'll never have saner laws.
On the post: Football Player Sues Hanes; Says It Can't Fire Him Over Controversial Things He Said On Twitter
Re: Re: Re: there's more to it, right?
I think it's also important to note (again) that apparently Mendenhall agrees he went too far with that one particular tweet. It was deleted, the others weren't.
I'm not bothered by it in this case because of the way sponsored athletes work. As a quote from this article points out:
This is well known (this is also not the first time someone's lost their sponsorship contract for doing/saying something really stupid) so there's no excuse for behaving in a way you know is going to cause your sponsors problems if you actually agreed to let them sponsor you. It's a trade off, you get money for being sponsored, but in exchange you become one of the company's public faces, so you lose some freedom in what you can say and do. If you don't like that, then maybe you should pass and do without the money. The choice is yours, no one is forcing you to take that sponsorship contract.
Also, do note, this is the second time this year he's caused problems with controversial tweets. So this isn't like he just said something stupid/unpopular once and was canned. It's also notable that both times the most controversial tweets look less problematic in the context of several other tweets done at the same time. I think Mendenhall really needs to get a blog so he can have his whole argument up in one chunk, instead of posting it in 140 character chunks that can more easily be taken out of context.
On the post: Football Player Sues Hanes; Says It Can't Fire Him Over Controversial Things He Said On Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
So he's lost no rights, he exercised his right to free speech and now he has to deal with what happens next. There is NO civil right that says you get a free pass when you say something unpopular with your freedom of speech.
I really fail to see how you think Hanes is taking any rights away from him by severing his employment for saying whatever he felt like. The fact that most of the tweets in question are still up tells you that Hanes not only didn't interfere with his freedom of speech, they didn't force him to retract his statements!
On the post: Football Player Sues Hanes; Says It Can't Fire Him Over Controversial Things He Said On Twitter
Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
Morals clauses are in sponsorship contracts to cover situations just like this one. The sponsoring company has the right to protect themselves from the repercussions of speech they don't agree with. Trying to force them to do otherwise would impinge on their rights actually, since businesses do have a freedom of speech right as well. Looking at it that way, Mendenhall's not only not got the moral high ground, he's trying to both escape the repercussions of his own freedom of speech (losing his sponsor) AND trying to impinge on Hanes' freedom of speech.
There may not be a good guy here, but I do see Hanes as a bit of a victim. Mendenhall said some really stupid stuff and is unwilling to accept the consequences, so I have no sympathy whatsoever for him. You said it dude, now own up to the consequences and move on.
On the post: Football Player Sues Hanes; Says It Can't Fire Him Over Controversial Things He Said On Twitter
Re: there's more to it, right?
Apparently he's been in trouble for his Tweets before now as well, for comparing the NFL to "modern-day slavery", so this wasn't an isolated incident. Hanes probably felt (justifiably) that he would continue to say stupid stuff and didn't wish to be associated with that stuff.
On the post: Football Player Sues Hanes; Says It Can't Fire Him Over Controversial Things He Said On Twitter
Mendenhall should have been a miner...
On the post: 54-Year Old School Teacher Who Doesn't Know How To Download Movies First To Be Kicked Off The Internet In France
Re: Re: Re: Re: secure computers
I would imagine now that people in France are facing possible Internet disconnection for downloading stuff that those wanting to do so are much, much more dedicated to hacking others' wireless access to avoid just such a penalty being applied to them. Kind of a nasty unintended side-effect of the law.
That's easy to overcome, most people don't leave their computers on 24x7, they turn them off when they leave the house (or take them with them). Seeing as the original article even says he was accused of downloading Iron Man 2 for the third strike while he was actually at work teaching it's likely his MAC address wasn't in use at that time.
What I find interesting is no one seems to even be speculating that his computer is infected with malware. That's another way someone could have proxied through his connection for the download, although it'd have been fairly slow unless he has fast upload speeds too. It's definitely possible though. There's just too many ways it could have been someone other than him, disconnection is too harsh a penalty. Not to mention it's silly in cases like this because it's punishing a clueless middle party while the true guilty party gets off without any punishment whatsoever. Is that really going to deter people pirating movies/music/etc? No, it's just going to lead to them framing more and more innocents for it instead.
On the post: 54-Year Old School Teacher Who Doesn't Know How To Download Movies First To Be Kicked Off The Internet In France
Re: Re: secure computers
http://www.tomschaefer.org/web/wordpress/?p=1610
Secondly, you can spoof MAC addresses easily, and since MAC addresses are sent unencrypted, anyone nearby can sniff your network (quite easy to do) when you're home and figure out what MAC addresses you use, then spoof them later:
http://tech.ifelix.net/1024.html
And finally, you can hack WPA/WPA2 to gain access to the network. This is harder than the previous two steps, and if the key is sufficiently long and random enough may be impossible, but still not all that difficult. Since most people don't use a key of sufficient length & complexity to defeat this kind of attack, this is just a time consuming step:
http://www.howtoarchives.com/2009/05/how-to-hack-wpawpa2
Once you're on the network you don't need admin access if you're just wanting to use someone else's connection to hide your downloading movies/music/porn/etc. You just locate their router (easy), sniff their network to find a MAC address to use so you can spoof it (also easy), hack WPA/WPA2 if needed (not quite as easy but not too hard) and voila, you're on their network and any copyright notices will be sent to them.
And that was the result of maybe 5 minutes Googling for info on how to get past the security restrictions you mentioned. I'm far from an expert on this (I don't even use wireless on my home network, I prefer wired connections for both speed and security), someone who's really determined should have an easy time of connecting to your router if they really want to.
This isn't to say doing what you've done is a bad idea, it's just not a guaranteed way of preventing hackers from getting in if they're determined enough. It's a lot like physical security, you're basically making yourself a more difficult target so that the hacker (or burglar for physical security) will pick another, easier target instead. It also deters casual wireless hackers, much as locking your door deters random people from walking in while you're not home.
On the post: 54-Year Old School Teacher Who Doesn't Know How To Download Movies First To Be Kicked Off The Internet In France
Re:
On the post: 54-Year Old School Teacher Who Doesn't Know How To Download Movies First To Be Kicked Off The Internet In France
Re: Secure your WiFi
On the post: 54-Year Old School Teacher Who Doesn't Know How To Download Movies First To Be Kicked Off The Internet In France
Re:
On the post: 54-Year Old School Teacher Who Doesn't Know How To Download Movies First To Be Kicked Off The Internet In France
Re: Re:
And even the drunk driver analogy doesn't work fully, often those with suspended licenses can get a work permit, which allows them to drive from home to work only, so they can still make a living. I don't recall there being any kind of exception to the French three strikes disconnection penalty to allow people to have a limited connection strictly for work purposes.
On the post: 54-Year Old School Teacher Who Doesn't Know How To Download Movies First To Be Kicked Off The Internet In France
Re:
If you consider that pro-piracy spin then you're obviously going to consider anything pro-piracy spin. I take it pro-IP enforcement is a religion for you and you don't bother with things like facts or reality contradicting what you believe.
As for blowing it off, well now, for that you need to actually look at the original article (conveniently linked from the article TechDirt linked). He didn't blow it off, he wrote Hadopi and told them they must be mistaken. After the second one he called them, apparently to get help in making sure his connection was secured. And for the third, the time it claims he downloaded the movie he was in class teaching.
Personally I'm inclined to believe the guy. Guilty people often do loudly proclaim their innocence. But guilty people don't undertake a very expensive lawsuit, that'll even require him to move, just to "clear his name".
On the post: Sony's Insurer Says It Shouldn't Have To Pay For Cost Of PlayStation Network Hack
Re: Re: I'll accept that
And there's the key, there were reports that Sony wasn't keeping their servers patched and up-to-date. I also seem to remember Sony admitting they hadn't applied an update in some of their ecommerce software and that was part of how they attackers got in. If that's true, then the insurance company may have an out, because Sony wasn't following standard security practices and essentially, from a legal standpoint, were asking for it.
On the post: Lodsys Strikes Again: Sues Rovio For Patent Infringement Over Angry Birds
Re: Mighty Eagle Lawyer
On the post: New Filing In Colorado Says That Righthaven Is An Illegal Law Firm In Disguise
Re: Re:
Of course all signs in the real world are that Stephens Media is going to get sued anyway, and the courts will probably allow it. (Righthaven ticking off every judge they've met isn't helping any.) But no one said that Righthaven/Stephens Media was living in the real world.
Next >>