John William Nelson (profile), 8 Oct 2014 @ 9:43am
The should not have asked for permission
Even if a citation is copyrightable, which it probably is not (as it is predominantly fact, a method rather than an expression, and de minimis), use of the citation method for Zotero citation would be clear fair use and not a violation of copyright.
A good case on this was when Thomson West tried to claim copyright over the page numbers in cases. The court struck that down as copyrightable, and I think the logic would extend here as well.
I always astounds me the lack of common sense which comes into play in copyright matters.
John William Nelson (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 5:49am
Re: Re: Fair Use...
Fair use is a limitation on the exclusive rights of copyright holders. It is not an exception to copyright. If you fairly use a copyrighted work, you are not committing infringement but being allowed to do so because of a fair use exception—fair use is non-infringement. See Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
Typically (but not always) "defenses" in the litigation process are excuses, justifications, or exceptions. In this sense, many argue fair use is not a classic "defense." Rather, it would be wrapped up inside other classic "defenses" such as "failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." (If the facts alleged by the plaintiff show fair use, then they have failed to state a claim for infringement as fair use is not infringement.)
This is all highly technical legal and legal process jargon. It does not take away Anonymous Coward's correct statement that, in practice, Fair Use is used in a defensive posture and typically must be proven by the Defendant.
This implies that fair use is a classic defense, as the burden of proof that a defense exists is typically on the person raising that defense. Fair use would seem to fit that bill.
However, the burden in fair use cases is muddled. For example, the decision in this Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Princeton University Press, et al v. Michigan Document Services, Inc., et al, discusses when the burden of showing the commercial prong of the fair use analysis is on which party—Plaintiff or Defendant.
It would be nicer if the burden was on the Plaintiff to disprove fair use as part of the claim, rather than having the Defendant having to show it (or various elements of it).
John William Nelson (profile), 24 Sep 2014 @ 2:27pm
Re: Re: Re: No more A/B testing without IRB approval!
Or, based on Grimmelmann's reasoning, if you do A/B Testing to folks in Maryland. Federal funds is not a requirement under the Maryland law Grimmelmann relies upon.
Then again, you really have to look into the Code of Federal Regulations and its definitions—which are explicitly referenced in the Maryland law—to see what is covered and what is not. It's too late in a long day on an already long week for me to go trouncing through the CFR unless I'm getting paid for it, though.
John William Nelson (profile), 24 Sep 2014 @ 11:12am
Re: First we kill...
You joke about this, but I won a school science fair but could not go to the district fair because my experiment did not have IRB approval, even though I had consent forms. No lie, lol.
John William Nelson (profile), 22 Sep 2014 @ 6:34am
This is what happens when judges like jailing folks
This is not surprising. A lower-court judge who sides with prosecutors on a warrant challenge is common. It would be news if he overturned it.
This doesn't mean the judge was wrong, and that the law was violated and the search must be suppressed. It was, and it the fruits of the illegal search should be suppressed.
However, this happens all the time. Trial judges looking at warrants often let the Fourth Amendment be trampled. So much so, one wonders whether these judges have even read the Fourth Amendment or any illegal search cases. Or if they just don't care and don't want to do their job.
John William Nelson (profile), 20 Aug 2014 @ 7:43pm
Too bad they bought NBC instead of ABC . . .
Too bad Comcast bought NBC if they wanted ABC. Now they're reps Never Be Closing. Oh snap. Lame puns. (Did someone do this yet? Probably. Dunno. TLDR. I mean, it was just right there.)
John William Nelson (profile), 14 Aug 2014 @ 7:36am
Technically arrested, not detained
Technically, you're arrested if you're cuffed and processed, and not allowed to leave an area. Whoever said that was "technically being detained" must be reading from the cop's handbooks because often get confused about when and how they can stop folks. A real easy bright line for most judges is when the cuffs go on.
It is also technically false arrest and false imprisonment.
Although, to make it even more confusing, the technical terms "arrest" and "detention" are different for some specific regulatory and procedural situations.
Nevertheless, as far as Constitutional rights are concerned, this was "technically" an arrest, plain and simple.
John William Nelson (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 10:08am
This could have been a lot worse
This decision makes me profoundly sad.
However, this could have been much worse. It appears the Supreme Court is hanging its hat on the "looks like a duck" rationale. As bad as that rationale is, this should not impact cloud services much.
Then again, trial courts can be stupid and read Supreme Court decisions in unexpected ways. So the problem for cloud providers is that the word "should" is in there, which means there is no bright line rule and any such business will expose a provider to certain litigation risks.
Terrible decision. But it could have been much worse.
John William Nelson (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 1:09pm
Re: Public records exemption coming up
BIHR:
"For all Freedom of Information Act requests, there is an exemption from said FOIA requests any and all public records, and said records are further exempted from the First Amendment. But not the Second Amendment. Because we like it if a gun is involved."
John William Nelson (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 10:42am
Some quick corrections--This is not about UGA
The University System of Georgia is being sued, not the University of Georgia.
The University System of Georgia oversees a number of universities in Georgia, including UGA, Georgia Tech, Georgia State University, Valdosta State University, Kennesaw State University, and the university/college whose records are at issue in this matter: Georgia Perimeter College. (I grew up within walking distance of the GPC main campus, which was then called DeKalb College.)
UGA does not have a budget shortfall. However, mismanagement, possible corruption, possible theft, and possible fraud has left GPC with a significant budget shortfall. An investigation into this is still ongoing to the best of my knowledge.
In short: 1. The University System of Georgia is being sued; 2. The records pertained to Georgia Perimeter College (GPC); 3. The records did not pertain to the University of Georgia; 4. Sam Olens can be ridiculous in his court pleadings (which is me editorializing).
On the post: Broadcasters And Cable Companies Trying Harder Than Ever To Annoy Paying Customers With Ugly Public Contract Disputes
This is the future of the Internet with no net neutrality
This is what we get when we allow monopolies and then get rid of our regulations over them.
On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
Damn lazy judges . . .
On the post: NSA Finally Releases Keith Alexander's Financial Disclosure Documents; National Security Remains Uncompromised
Shadey Brown: Best name for a government lawyer!
Only makes the story that more amusing.
On the post: Harvard Law Review Claims Copyright Over Legal Citations; Now Challenged By Public Domain Effort
The should not have asked for permission
A good case on this was when Thomson West tried to claim copyright over the page numbers in cases. The court struck that down as copyrightable, and I think the logic would extend here as well.
I always astounds me the lack of common sense which comes into play in copyright matters.
On the post: Another Reason For Moving To Open Access: Encouraging Scientific Debates
Re: Re: Fair Use...
Typically (but not always) "defenses" in the litigation process are excuses, justifications, or exceptions. In this sense, many argue fair use is not a classic "defense." Rather, it would be wrapped up inside other classic "defenses" such as "failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." (If the facts alleged by the plaintiff show fair use, then they have failed to state a claim for infringement as fair use is not infringement.)
This is all highly technical legal and legal process jargon. It does not take away Anonymous Coward's correct statement that, in practice, Fair Use is used in a defensive posture and typically must be proven by the Defendant.
This implies that fair use is a classic defense, as the burden of proof that a defense exists is typically on the person raising that defense. Fair use would seem to fit that bill.
However, the burden in fair use cases is muddled. For example, the decision in this Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Princeton University Press, et al v. Michigan Document Services, Inc., et al, discusses when the burden of showing the commercial prong of the fair use analysis is on which party—Plaintiff or Defendant.
It would be nicer if the burden was on the Plaintiff to disprove fair use as part of the claim, rather than having the Defendant having to show it (or various elements of it).
On the post: Another Reason For Moving To Open Access: Encouraging Scientific Debates
Fair Use cites, image or otherwise, still work under Creative Commons licenses
Kevin Smith is right. I don't know if he is a lawyer, but he understands the interplay of Fair Use and Creative Commons licensing correctly.
This is easy-mode copyright law. This is not that hard.
Then again, I come across attorneys and others all the time who do not understand easy-mode copyright law. So I'm not surprised, either.
It's like folks think Copyright is this magical set of laws where logic, reason, and common sense do not apply. It does, folks. It does.
Man up PLOS. Or find better copyright lawyers. Hire me—my hourly rate is probably less than the idiot you have on retainer now.
On the post: Former Mayor Giuliani To Defend Activision In Odd Noriega Publicity Rights Lawsuit
You should invoice Giuliani for your research
On the post: Law Professor Claims Any Internet Company 'Research' On Users Without Review Board Approval Is Illegal
Re: Re: Re: No more A/B testing without IRB approval!
Then again, you really have to look into the Code of Federal Regulations and its definitions—which are explicitly referenced in the Maryland law—to see what is covered and what is not. It's too late in a long day on an already long week for me to go trouncing through the CFR unless I'm getting paid for it, though.
On the post: Law Professor Claims Any Internet Company 'Research' On Users Without Review Board Approval Is Illegal
Re: First we kill...
On the post: Law Professor Claims Any Internet Company 'Research' On Users Without Review Board Approval Is Illegal
No more A/B testing without IRB approval!
Taking his view, simple A/B version testing of a website or landing page would violate the law unless you had an IRB approve it.
On the post: Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause'
This is what happens when judges like jailing folks
This doesn't mean the judge was wrong, and that the law was violated and the search must be suppressed. It was, and it the fruits of the illegal search should be suppressed.
However, this happens all the time. Trial judges looking at warrants often let the Fourth Amendment be trampled. So much so, one wonders whether these judges have even read the Fourth Amendment or any illegal search cases. Or if they just don't care and don't want to do their job.
Probably the latter.
On the post: Behind The Veil Part 5: Comcast Metrics For All Employees As Simple As ABC, Always Be Closing
Too bad they bought NBC instead of ABC . . .
On the post: SWAT Team Shows Up In Ferguson, Detains Reporters Live Tweeting Their Actions
Technically arrested, not detained
It is also technically false arrest and false imprisonment.
Although, to make it even more confusing, the technical terms "arrest" and "detention" are different for some specific regulatory and procedural situations.
Nevertheless, as far as Constitutional rights are concerned, this was "technically" an arrest, plain and simple.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
This could have been a lot worse
However, this could have been much worse. It appears the Supreme Court is hanging its hat on the "looks like a duck" rationale. As bad as that rationale is, this should not impact cloud services much.
Then again, trial courts can be stupid and read Supreme Court decisions in unexpected ways. So the problem for cloud providers is that the word "should" is in there, which means there is no bright line rule and any such business will expose a provider to certain litigation risks.
Terrible decision. But it could have been much worse.
On the post: Marc Andreessen Thinks Snowden, Administration Are To Blame For Backlash Against US Tech Industry
Hasn't had an original thought since 1993
DTM.
On the post: White House Accidentally Reveals CIA's Top Spy In Afghanistan
At least transparency is improving!
On the post: 'Journalist' Argues In NY Times That Publishing Decisions Should Ultimately Be Made By Government
Speechless
On the post: State AG Tries To Order Removal Of Public Records From Journalist's Blog, Resulting In Records Being Posted Everywhere
Re: Public records exemption coming up
"For all Freedom of Information Act requests, there is an exemption from said FOIA requests any and all public records, and said records are further exempted from the First Amendment. But not the Second Amendment. Because we like it if a gun is involved."
On the post: State AG Tries To Order Removal Of Public Records From Journalist's Blog, Resulting In Records Being Posted Everywhere
Some quick corrections--This is not about UGA
The University System of Georgia oversees a number of universities in Georgia, including UGA, Georgia Tech, Georgia State University, Valdosta State University, Kennesaw State University, and the university/college whose records are at issue in this matter: Georgia Perimeter College. (I grew up within walking distance of the GPC main campus, which was then called DeKalb College.)
UGA does not have a budget shortfall. However, mismanagement, possible corruption, possible theft, and possible fraud has left GPC with a significant budget shortfall. An investigation into this is still ongoing to the best of my knowledge.
In short:
1. The University System of Georgia is being sued;
2. The records pertained to Georgia Perimeter College (GPC);
3. The records did not pertain to the University of Georgia;
4. Sam Olens can be ridiculous in his court pleadings (which is me editorializing).
On the post: French KlearGear Rep Fires Off Email Defending Company's Actions, Claims Suit Against It Wasn't Served Properly
So, come to court then . . .
Lamest response letter ever.
Next >>