I don't know about english law, but the reason you can sue someone in civil court after they have been found innocent in Criminal court is that the standard of proof is lower (preponderance of evidence as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt). Courts view civil trials as an entirely new liability and so do not view them as being tried twice for the same crime.
I am tired of the tee shirt example. Could we switch to something else? I like the example of dirt. It is readily available, there is a lot of it and people still pay for it. Go to any garden store. You will see bags of dirt. They are priced and people buy them so it would seem not only can you sell things that are readily available its has been going on for a long time. Don't like dirt? How about water? When bottled water came out everyone said "Why would anyone pay for bottled water?" Yet not only is it huge industry now you have competion to sell water. We could even combine the two for "mud" which is what a lot of these arguments are as clear as. So apparently you can sell that too.
I understand people making business decisions in their own interest. I may not agree with whatever the decision is but it is their business and so they can do so. What really makes me angry is when they explain how my understanding of how this impacts me is really wrong because if only I would look at the situation however They decide to spin it I would understand and be happy. So not only do they damage my interests they think I am too stupid to notice. They should really just get into politics where this is the norm.
Slate has a nice writeup of the controversy http://www.slate.com/id/2241498/
The broadcast was to be to 5 additional courthouses. Given this I would say there is even less justification for the Supreme Courts action. If, for example, there was a decision to hold a trail in an concert hall to provide a larger number of seats should that be blocked also?
Except it is not just Mary Smith, the record will also state other identifying information. No one ever seems to have trouble finding out who the witnesses are if they want to. If the number of cameras is a problem they can be limited to one feed. This all sounds like the arguments made against cameras in the US Senate. In fact the fears were unfounded and the Senate works just as well as it did before the cameras were installed. The Supreme Court is just afraid that if the Federal Courts start having cameras the Supreme Court will have to also.
The focus of the corporations will likely change however. It isn't that coporations hate change they just hate change that doesn't allow them to make more money. Eventually they will figure out how to make money off of the unlimited supply model and will no longer push for these laws.
He is doing better. Essentially by using a a badly worded comment he is hijacking the thread so the comments are about what he said rather than the post. Usually it is better to ignore him.
I think Mr Thompson should have respected the museum's wishes. Every time he wanted to take a photo of his son the guards should have had to hide all the artwork in the background. That way he could have recorded his visit and the museum could have protected their interests.
Very nice, except the circuit court found one way and the appeals court found differently, so if both are constrained by law then the law has two opposite results. Judges are not constrained by anything, they can find against law precedent or statute if they want. Federal judges are tenured for life and I have never heard of one being removed for their rulings.
So cnn, fox news WSJ etc are not trying to reach the world? Are you missing the fact that newspapers can pull together a community from a world wide base and not just a geographical area?
On the post: Recording Industry May Go After OiNK Admin Again
Double Jeopardy
On the post: Nina Paley vs. Jaron Lanier
Mud
On the post: Prisons And Hair Dressers Latest To Push Back On Ridiculous Collection Society Demands
Re: techdirt t-shirts should be free
On the post: Netflix Exec Claims That Delaying Movie Rentals For A Month Benefits Customers
You may feel a slight period of discomfort
On the post: Libraries Cost Publishers $100 Billion Per Year! Ban Them!
Libraries
On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom
Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom
Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom
Limited Broadcast.
http://www.slate.com/id/2241498/
The broadcast was to be to 5 additional courthouses. Given this I would say there is even less justification for the Supreme Courts action. If, for example, there was a decision to hold a trail in an concert hall to provide a larger number of seats should that be blocked also?
On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom
Re: Thoughts
On the post: Fair Use And Films: Does Running Everything By The Lawyers Really Improve Your Film?
Re: the next generation
On the post: Fair Use And Films: Does Running Everything By The Lawyers Really Improve Your Film?
Re: Re:
On the post: Chicago Prosecutor's Office Leaks Old, Unsubstantiated, Discredited Internal Memo To Smear Innocence Project Founder
States Attorney's Offices
On the post: Bakery Claims Trademark On Smiley Face Cookies; Sues Competing Cookie Firm
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Monopolies In The Middle Of Health Care Reform Debate As Well
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Sillyness: Can't Take Photos Of Artwork That Was Built On The Works Of Others
Owners Rights.
On the post: You Can't Be A Fan Of University Of Cincinnati's Sports Teams Unless You've Paid The Proper License
Re: fUCk 'em.
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Case Over Using Copyright Law To Block Import Of Gray Market Goods
Re: Courts are constrained by law
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Elementary My Dear Watson....It's Called The Public Domain... Or Is It?
Re:
On the post: Why Are Publications Trying To Bite The Google Hand That Feeds Them?
Re:
Next >>