First, where in that statute does it say that a store owner cannot sell his own security tapes? Thanks.
Second, you have no right to privacy when you're in public. If you want to privately steal stuff (allegedly), do it in the privacy of your own home. Once you go out in public, everything you do is fair game.
Wow (it appears allegedly) that she actually (allegedly) did (allegedly) steal the necklace. I assumed that the store loaned it to her to wear to some party/event/etc, but that she simply was "too busy" to give it back. So the store was forced to have charges filed against her.
But wow, she actually (allegedly) stole it (allegedly.)
"what exactly is wrong with a more informed jury?"
We have centuries of law on the books regarding what constitutes valid, fair, and admissible evidence. We have laws against hearsay evidence and even more laws regarding various exceptions. The infamous Daubert case limits what scientific evidence can be used. (At one time, if you hired a scientific "expert" he or she could testify to anything he wanted. It was up to the jury to believe it or not. Now the judge has to conduct a hearing to ensure that the scientific expert's testimony truly proceeds from accepted scientific knowledge.
Your suggestion to let juries research issues themselves opens up the floodgates. It eliminates all the protections we've developed over the past several centuries. (Yes, centuries.) Jury could use non-scientific evidence to figure out scientific issues. They could use hearsay, hearsay upon hearsay, or just something someone made up online.
If you have the judge sitting there while they research, well telling them what they can and cannot look at, then you're not really allowing the jury to do research. Because the judge would only let the jury see what the attorneys want them to see.
And lastly, in our adversarial system, while not perfect, there is a huge incentive for both sides to push for as much evidence as legally possible. To think that there's some key research sitting there online for every juror to find, that none of the attorneys found, is simply bizarre. Certainly it's possible in very rare circumstances. But that mere and slight possibility is not sufficient basis for me to throw out all of our rules of evidence.
"taking words written by other people, packaging them on your own Web site and harvesting revenue that might otherwise be directed to the originators of the material"
If someone is making more money off of your written words than you are, you're an incredibly terrible business person. You should go out of business. Because if you lack the ability to capitalize your own work, you don't stand a chance in hell of ever succeeding.
"What kind of execs actually look at what consumers like and are willing to pay for... and decide "that has to be shoved aside"?"
The copyright industry historically does not compete in a free market. It merely collects government granted monopoly rents. Its sole purpose is to enlarge and expand those rents, not to satisfy their customers.
hat's because they don't really have customers. They have people who are obligated under the law to pay mandatory rents. You tend to treat such people with utter contempt. As can be seen here.
"Debunks Entire Foundation Of US Foreign IP Policy"
The entire foundation of US foreign UP policy rests on the idea that the wealthy and powerful status quo should be allowed to collect on an ever increasing growth of government granted monopoly rents. The idea exists because this status quo gives tons of money to those running the government, e.g., political donations and cushy industry jobs upon leaving office.
I highly doubt this foundation could ever be debunked.
I find it interesting that they use the phrase "urban homestead" on their front page without any sort of trademark (neither (r) or (tm)) plus they use the term as a noun, which is a no-no for trademarks.
I just wanted to let people know that jury nullification does exist. Yes, I know jurors swear to uphold the law, but jury nullification allows them to ignore unjust laws. However, courts do not inform jurors of this right because it's a very powerful device and courts do not want it abused. It's the same reason game companies hide cheat codes. They ruin all the fun.
We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
Because flash sucks. Especially the ads. I usually run Firefox with javascript disabled. I've enabled it for this page but still cannot get the dumb flash app to load. I'll have to find a PDF copy somewhere else.
Agreed. I know you hate PDFs for some reason, but simply downloading it would have been much easier than waiting and waiting for this stupid flash app to load.
"I'm curious how folks who claim to support smaller government are defending such sponsorship of a private, for-profit operation with taxpayer funding?"
Easy. They like NASCAR and hate PBS and NPR. One of the biggest mistakes we make is to assume everyone has a logical basis for their subjective opinions.
"Instead, it suggests "it would be proper to use generic terms to replace the registered trademark you are using.""
I'm confused. They're saying no one can use the phrase "urban homesteading" but they're also saying we can use a generic phrase. Isn't "urban homesteading" a generic and merely descriptive term in and of itself?
On the post: Who Actually Felt 'Guilty' That They Read The NYTimes Online For Free?
I'm already too racked with guilt about reading books for free from the library and listening to music for free on the radio. I'm so flipping guilty.
On the post: Lindsay Lohan Claims Surveillance Tape Of Her Stealing Necklace Violates Her Publicity Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
Second, you have no right to privacy when you're in public. If you want to privately steal stuff (allegedly), do it in the privacy of your own home. Once you go out in public, everything you do is fair game.
On the post: Lindsay Lohan Claims Surveillance Tape Of Her Stealing Necklace Violates Her Publicity Rights
Re: Re: Seriously?!
On the post: Lindsay Lohan Claims Surveillance Tape Of Her Stealing Necklace Violates Her Publicity Rights
But wow, she actually (allegedly) stole it (allegedly.)
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
We have centuries of law on the books regarding what constitutes valid, fair, and admissible evidence. We have laws against hearsay evidence and even more laws regarding various exceptions. The infamous Daubert case limits what scientific evidence can be used. (At one time, if you hired a scientific "expert" he or she could testify to anything he wanted. It was up to the jury to believe it or not. Now the judge has to conduct a hearing to ensure that the scientific expert's testimony truly proceeds from accepted scientific knowledge.
Your suggestion to let juries research issues themselves opens up the floodgates. It eliminates all the protections we've developed over the past several centuries. (Yes, centuries.) Jury could use non-scientific evidence to figure out scientific issues. They could use hearsay, hearsay upon hearsay, or just something someone made up online.
If you have the judge sitting there while they research, well telling them what they can and cannot look at, then you're not really allowing the jury to do research. Because the judge would only let the jury see what the attorneys want them to see.
And lastly, in our adversarial system, while not perfect, there is a huge incentive for both sides to push for as much evidence as legally possible. To think that there's some key research sitting there online for every juror to find, that none of the attorneys found, is simply bizarre. Certainly it's possible in very rare circumstances. But that mere and slight possibility is not sufficient basis for me to throw out all of our rules of evidence.
On the post: NYTimes: When We Do It, It's Journalism, When HuffPo Does It, It's 'Piracy'
If someone is making more money off of your written words than you are, you're an incredibly terrible business person. You should go out of business. Because if you lack the ability to capitalize your own work, you don't stand a chance in hell of ever succeeding.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: It's Time To Realize Artificial Scarcity Is Gone... And That's A Good Thing
The copyright industry historically does not compete in a free market. It merely collects government granted monopoly rents. Its sole purpose is to enlarge and expand those rents, not to satisfy their customers.
hat's because they don't really have customers. They have people who are obligated under the law to pay mandatory rents. You tend to treat such people with utter contempt. As can be seen here.
On the post: Massive Research Report On 'Piracy' In Emerging Economies Released; Debunks Entire Foundation Of US Foreign IP Policy
The entire foundation of US foreign UP policy rests on the idea that the wealthy and powerful status quo should be allowed to collect on an ever increasing growth of government granted monopoly rents. The idea exists because this status quo gives tons of money to those running the government, e.g., political donations and cushy industry jobs upon leaving office.
I highly doubt this foundation could ever be debunked.
On the post: French Court Tosses Ridiculous Criminal Complaint By Israeli Against An American Over Book Review By A German
Ain't gonna happen. I personally think this nut and the nutty pants-lawsuit-judge should combine forces and create the world's most awesome law firm.
No lawsuit too petty. No case too frivolous.
On the post: Family Trying To Claim Ownership Of 'Urban Homesteading' Caught Plagiarizing After Moralizing On Plagiarism
Re: Re: Can't plagarize book titles
On the post: Family Trying To Claim Ownership Of 'Urban Homesteading' Caught Plagiarizing After Moralizing On Plagiarism
On the post: UK Publishers: Fair Use Would Put A 'Chokehold On Innovation'
Just off the top of my head, DVRs, VHS decks, MP3 players, radio, copy machines... I'm sure others will add more.
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 C.A.Md. 1969.
On the post: Amicus Brief Calls Into Question The Legality Of Righthaven's Entire Business Model
Re: Re: Just a pdf would be nice ...
On the post: Amicus Brief Calls Into Question The Legality Of Righthaven's Entire Business Model
Re: Just a pdf would be nice ...
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Easy. They like NASCAR and hate PBS and NPR. One of the biggest mistakes we make is to assume everyone has a logical basis for their subjective opinions.
On the post: Photographer Who Took Family Portrait Of Girl Shot In Tucson Suing Media For Using The Photo
I can imagine the ad copy now... "If I don't exploit your daughter's death, I'll give you tens pounds of free coffee!"
On the post: Dell Employees Arrested Over Incredibly Stupid Marketing Stunt
Re:
Talking about what? If we have no idea what they were marketing, their attempt at marketing failed.
On the post: 'Urban Homesteading' Trademarked, Lots Of Urban Homesteaders Told To Cease Using The Common Term
I'm confused. They're saying no one can use the phrase "urban homesteading" but they're also saying we can use a generic phrase. Isn't "urban homesteading" a generic and merely descriptive term in and of itself?
On the post: Next Tech Area To Be Hindered By Patents: Nanotech... And Much Of It Is Funded With Your Tax Dollars
Next >>