John William Nelson (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 8:56pm
Interesting . . . But does Georgia even own the copyright?
Here's the thing: I can sympathize with a copyright in the annotated portions. I've done work editing annotated portions of code before. There is quite a bit of work, creativity, and expression that goes into it.
However, the State of Georgia didn't do that work. If the State had, then to hell with not giving it free to its taxpaying citizens.
In this situation, LexisNexis did that work. There is a competing annotated code by Michie's which many lawyers will know of as well.
In fact, if you do a Library of Congress copyright search, then it is Matthew Bender & Co (owned by LexisNexis) who owns the OCGA copyrights, if any.
So then you have a government entity making false copyright ownership claims. This is like when Righthaven claimed it had a copyright when it didn't actually own said copyright.
LexisNexis would be the proper party. And that's assuming the level of work done on creating the annotated code is sufficient to warrant copyright protection, or if it is just a reorganization of existing facts. And then there is fair use.
John William Nelson (profile), 26 Jun 2013 @ 6:58am
I remember when the Harvard kids got involved
And a lot of folks wrote things like "the RIAA is in trouble now!"
Clearly those people don't understand how poorly Harvard Law prepares folks for civil litigation and how little the Professor overseeing it knew about civil litigation.
What an epic fail.
This was going on during my time in law school and my friends would find me cursing loudly at the screen of my computer over the stupidity of Tenenbaum's counsel.
John William Nelson (profile), 26 Jun 2013 @ 6:53am
Why this happens—from a lawyer
Covington Burling lawyers need to bill hours. Nigel Howard is no exception. His client, the American Bankers Association, believed (wrongly) that they have an "ownership" right in some numbers.
Instead of explaining to the client that there stance is incorrect, Covington Burling decides to back an incorrect cease and desist letter.
Let's be charitable. Let's say Mr. Howard spent 1 hour reading the response from Mr. Thatcher, reviewing the file in the matter, and drafting his letter. Or, alternatively, as a partner he may have had an associate spend this 1 hour.
Depending on who spent the time—Mr. Howard or Joe Doe Associate—you have the potential of this 1-hour bill being $300 or $500. This is another billable hour for the firm. Another billable hour for the partner's credit (and possibly the associate's).
Further, this billable hour will get lost on an invoice to the ABA which includes many billable hours for many matters. So the ABA general counsel will not notice and question the hour.
Plus, there may be a followup response from Mr. Thatcher. That will be more time that gets to be billed. Not a lot, but nevertheless a nice bit of time for the firm. Let's say another 2-3 hours potentially in the tune of potentially another $1,500.
In fact, this matter could be managed in such a way that this becomes a bigger issue for the ABA. Heck, maybe there are a series of correspondence, and more research has to be done on the question of whether these numbers are copyrightable. Then the insignificant matter becomes a real "project." This project might end up with another 10-20 hours of partner and associate time—anywhere from $6k to $20k.
Plus, Mr. Howard does not have to initially challenge the premises of his client. Instead of serving his client by actually advising his client on the law, and on the practical side effects of these kinds of actions (such as this story on Techdirt), he can choose not to counsel his client and instead send out clearly erroneous threat letters.
The upside is two-fold: (1) not challenging an important client on questionable decisions and (2) potentially milking more from this matter down the line.
The only down side really is that Covington Burling and Mr. Howard have chosen not to counsel their client on the legal and practical issues facing it in this matter. They have declined to discuss the risks associated with this kind of practice. They have waived their duty to counsel their client in lieu of serving merely as a drafter of legal documents.
This happens all the time with many lawyers. For example, look at the case involving that New Jersey township ( Epic Cease and Desist Letter ). The lawyer is looking to get paid. A side effect of the initial silly letter is that it fires up the other side (sometimes) and results in more billable hours. If it doesn't fire up the other side, then that usually means the bullying and intimidation based on questionable or false legal grounds worked and silenced a client's critics. One way results in more money for the lawyer, the other results in a satisfied client. Neither results in counseling a client on the risks associated with a particular legal action.
I deal with lawyers like this more often than I wish. Some will even admit they don't care about the law and are just satisfying their client's wishes. I wish I could say this will result in those lawyers making less money, or having less respect in the legal industry, or having a harder time finding clients, but I cannot.
You just have to deal with the jackasses as they come.
John William Nelson (profile), 24 Jun 2013 @ 9:37am
If the US had nothing to hide . . .
If the US had nothing to hide, then they wouldn't be fighting so hard against these disclosures.
It is sad to hear the sputtering arguments made by all of these politicians. Sad mainly because these fools are, in part, running this country. And they shouldn't be.
John William Nelson (profile), 21 Jun 2013 @ 10:24am
Craigslist should have used Trespass to Chattels
This isn't a hacking case. They keep it open, there are consequences for having the data open. Sending a cease and desist shouldn't result in CFAA or Copyright liability (criminal or otherwise).
It might be a trespass case, however, if 3tap's and Padmapper's use causes unreasonable loads on Craigslists servers.
Courts should do more to require plaintiffs to file the correct type of lawsuit with the correct type of remedy.
Fraud should be a concern . . . look at ZeekRewards
I do work for some work with startup companies and I know enough about SEC regulations to know when a company needs to register their offerings and when they do not. (The bread and butter of most securities lawyers—avoiding registration.)
The fact is that SEC regulations, when enforced, do a lot to protect potential investors. The goal is to provide enough information to investors to allow them to make good choices.
This is why public offerings—such as the recent Facebook one—require so much paperwork. Even private offerings can require lots of information. If a company makes a private offering to a small group of investors which includes some unaccredited investors then you have to do a private placement memo. While not as expensive as the IPO route, you're still talking thousands of dollars worth of legal and accounting fees.
This makes it hard for startups, but is also ensures investors are protected. The information provided during IPOs and through private placement memos can protect potential investors from fraud.
And fraud does happen. The internet, with its vast democratizing power through the information it provides, is not a perfect tool for sorting truth from falsity, much less sound investment from fraud. The downfall and SEC actions against ZeekRewards is a great example of this. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/18/zeekrewards-if-an-investments-too-good-to-be-tru e-it-is/) The reality is that people still get duped. (And no, Zeekwards did not provide PPM or IPO level disclosures. Rather, it claimed it was exempt from these as their scheme did not involve securities.)
So while I am anxious to see how the SEC addresses crowdfunding of startups with equity in play, I am also worried about the potential for fraud if the rules are not crafted in a balanced way.
The hope is that the rules require disclosures necessary and sufficient to provide investors the information they need, but at the same time not causing too cost-prohibitive of an amount in legal and accounting fees.
We shall see, but calling worries about FUD is not really fair. While people worrying about fraud might make fearful statements which raise uncertainty or cause people to doubt the wisdom of less rigorous reporting requirements, in this case at least there are well-documented instanced where harm has occurred to investors and participants in various investment schemes.
FUD, on the other hand, has always seemed to me to be more about empty fears, uncertainties, and doubts backed by little to no evidence. This is not what we have here.
(Please pardon any rambling—recovering from some kidney stones and requisite painkillers.)
It will lose some of its dynamism, but the company has been designed quite well and been prepared quite a while for this to happen. Tim Cook has had a number of years as acting CEO.
Apple will miss Steve the showman, for sure, but Steve's process of developing new tech is deeply ingrained in the company.
Steve Jobs was a hero of mine. It's funny, I didn't really think of him that way until I found out he died. Yet, he is one of the people I hope to emulate. His passion for his work, his ability to bounce back from tough times, and his willingness to take risks are all admirable. Perhaps it is the still raw emotions of losing my father (and another of my heroes) last December, but I am terribly sad over this.
Peace be with his family and friends. A terrible blow, but a man who did so much.
I do a good amount of flat fee work because I deal with clients who face these kinds of antics. The problem is, I don't think I could even touch one of these cases for much less than what the rates appear to be.
Some attorneys (including myself) will represent folks in cases like this pro bono, and maybe that is what needs to happen. The problem is the attorney needs to be able to take the time to do it right. That can be hard to do.
The thing is, if an attorney can get in and play some defense and stall it until the big players, Cisco et cetera, get the patents invalidated (or at least narrowed) then it could save a lot of folks the settlement fees.
John William Nelson (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:28am
Re: Re: Re:
The answer is that the Manhattan US Attorney's office (I think it's them) is doing something they've never really done before (at least on this scale).
So this is a first-time kind of thing. They're very likely screwing at least something up procedurally, but they're pushing those bounds because it benefits their cause (trying to shut down pirates) and they have an argument for doing so (even if some of us view it as a poor argument).
As for eminent domain, there have been some eminent domain cases brought by third parties to arrests where the arrestee was carrying cash, the cops classified the cash as property seized in a drug arrest, but the third parties owned the cash.
In short, these kinds of seizures are controversial and problematic, and the Roja case throws in the added confusion of domain names versus tangible property.
Feeding trolls who are unwilling to engage in meaningful debate tends to serve nothing but the bank accounts of the doctors you visit for high blood pressure.
But let me help you address the anonymous coward's straw man arguments. The coward states:
"It would be a horrible precedent for something like Rojo to be able to hide behind the first amendment, while the site is clearly dedicated to supporting illegal activities."
Yes, it would. However, no trial has found that Rojadirecta is clearly dedicated to supporting illegal activities.
It would be even worse precedent for the government to take away your stuff without the citizen benefitting from a hearing to determine whether it should be taken away. After all, we fought this little think called the American Revolution over this idea.
Again, you also use the analogy of a message board used by burglars and those who case for burglars. Again, it would be wrong to let folks using the board in the manner to get away with it because of a First Amendment argument. I don't dispute that, nor do I ever argue for such an absurd result.
Yet, anonymous coward believes I do feel this way. Probably because anonymous coward is unwilling to debate reasonable issues in a nuanced manner but would, rather, paint the opposition as unreasonable. (Through what is called a straw man argument.)
But in his example there is still the implied assumption that there would be a trial to find these people had indeed acted in concert to case out potential targets and, thereby, aided and abetted burglars. You know, the whole guilty until proven innocent thing.
This has not occurred in the Rojadirecta case as of yet. The government took the domain names without a chance for hearing, without notice, and without a conviction of criminal acts by Roja. Perhaps the government can get a conviction, but the simple argument is that this should be required before we deprive folks of their property.
Yet the anonymous coward refuses to address this. Likely because the anonymous coward is indeed a coward.
So let's not feed the cowardly troll. The points are there, and the anonymous coward cannot bring out anything more.
Just because someone owns multiple printing presses doesn't mean it's proper to seize one and say "But it's okay, they have a lot more."
Seizing one that, to carry the analogy further, serves a specific geographic region is a prior restraint on speech even if the press's owner owns another press in another region.
Your own analogy acknowledges this. And you example is still an example of a prior restraint on speech.
Yes and no. Free speech has its limits, however free speech is recognized as incredibly important in U.S. law. We have this thing called a Constitution, and this document trumps everything else.
So when a law, or its application, comes into conflict with free speech then free speech should tend to win. As I stated in the portion about the UK police attempts to uncover journalist sources, there is a tension.
Policy-wise, I think protecting journalist sources is important and should trump free speech here. This isn't a violent crime we're talking about. Even so, this will ultimately come down to the decisions of the journalists as to what constitutes the line to cross in divulging sources. (Here it is more likely to be worth fighting than, say, in a murder case.) In short, it is a journalistic ethics consideration.
The legal protections journalists can use, however, vary greatly between the U.S. and the U.K. While the US protections are informed by the First Amendment, it would be a mistake to say UK protections of journalists in these cases is weaker. It is just different.
More importantly, there are no bright-line rules for these cases in either U.S. or U.K. law. Ultimately, sincere journalists have to be prepared and willing to sit in jail for a time. (And many are; journalistic history in both nations have numerous stories of this occurring.)
Ultimately, though, since you're less interested in discussing issues and their nuances, but wish to sum up everything into one sentence, I'll do so here:
"Serious discussion of issues here; sheep should return to Twitter to re-tweet Perez Hilton."
The U.S. Government took possession of Rojadirecta domain names. This was done without a hearing where the government had to show cause and Puerto 80 had an opportunity to challenge it. It was done under federal law allowing the taking of property being used in an alleged crime. Here, there was sincere question about the procedures used by the government, and signed off by the court, in allowing this.
But there is more to it than the procedure. Rojadirecta argues that not only were procedure and rules violated, but the procedure and rules as applied to these types of cases violate the First Amendment (the law). It is one thing to take the property of an alleged drug dealer pending the outcome of his case, and quite another to take possession of the virtual printing press allowing the defendant to exercise their free speech rights.
So to answer your question, there is both a facial and an as applied challenge being claimed here. And both the law and the actions of a federal actor are being challenged.
Re: Re: Emotional reactions leading to personal attacks are not constructive arguments
Your weak attempts at implying your personal attacks are not acually personal attacks, I suppose, is admirable so far as it shows you have some degree of social awareness. Your inability to read beyond your preconceptions, however, is disappointingly expected.
Let me start at the end. Copyright law does not try to evaluate what is worthy of protection and what is not. The threshhold questions of whether a work is copyrightable are not answered by 'worthiness' but, rather, basic bright line rules.
Further, you still seem to ignore my clear support of copyright protection for photographs and my clear and repeated acknowledgement of them as works of art. Then again, you strike me as someone unwilling to read past 140 characters.
So instea of personally insulting people based on your misperceptions, qwjust type TL;DR and move on tonthe next Twitter post. Perhaps then the folks interested in discussions on a topic can discuss without your ill-informed, ad hominem rehtoric.
Re: Re: Clearly you have little understanding of copyright law
Yes, thick vs. thin copyright is a term used in copyright theory analysis. It refers to the strength of copyright protection. Thick protection is provided works where the copyrightable elements are more easily identified and separated from non-copyrightable elements. Think novels.
Thin copyright protection refers to works that cannot be used broadly to against other similar works. Think of the classic example of the Feist v. Rural case--phonebooks are granted copyright protection, but only thin protection. I cannot photocopy it and redistribute the book, but I can take the phone numbers and names (the facts) and reuse them in my own phonebook.
Pardon any mispells in this post, on my iPad in an airport before takeoff.
Emotional reactions leading to personal attacks are not constructive arguments
I am the lawyer who wrote those legal arguments. Thank you for relying on personal attacks regarding whether I have a soul before you actually read the work, much less bother to understand what is being read.
No where did I say photographs are not art, nor do I write that photographs are undeserving of copyright protection.
You complain that my argument looks to the medium rather than the content. Yet, have you even read my argument? If you did, then you certainly do not understand it.
This is nothing to be ashamed by. My argument rests on issues of copyright that even many lawyers don't grasp, much less Anonymous Cowards like yourself.
But let me try and simplify it for you. Copyright protects expression. Facts and ideas, however, are not protected by copyright law. The problem with photographs is that it is near impossible to separate the unprotectable factual elements of a photograph from its protectable expression elements.
Therefore, while photographs clearly deserve copyright protection (as original expressions), they do not deserve thick copyright protection as you might see in cases involving novels. The reason being that if we provide thick copyright protections to photographs then you very well might have comical situations where the first person to take a photo of the Statue of Liberty can bar all subsequent photos.
Perhaps it is just my lawyerly lack of a soul, but I find it more sinister to give people methods to shut others out of expressing themselves. My argument is an attempt at increasing the likelihood of individual expression and, thereby, increasing the likelihood of art being created.
Then again, I am not an Anonymous Coward, I'm just a soulless lawyer. What would I know?
On the post: Georgia Claims Its Annotated Laws Are Covered By Copyright, Threatens Carl Malamud For Publishing The Law
Interesting . . . But does Georgia even own the copyright?
However, the State of Georgia didn't do that work. If the State had, then to hell with not giving it free to its taxpaying citizens.
In this situation, LexisNexis did that work. There is a competing annotated code by Michie's which many lawyers will know of as well.
In fact, if you do a Library of Congress copyright search, then it is Matthew Bender & Co (owned by LexisNexis) who owns the OCGA copyrights, if any.
So then you have a government entity making false copyright ownership claims. This is like when Righthaven claimed it had a copyright when it didn't actually own said copyright.
LexisNexis would be the proper party. And that's assuming the level of work done on creating the annotated code is sufficient to warrant copyright protection, or if it is just a reorganization of existing facts. And then there is fair use.
So myopic by Georgia.
On the post: Joel Tenenbaum Loses Again; Bad Cases With Lying Defendants Make For Bad Law
I remember when the Harvard kids got involved
Clearly those people don't understand how poorly Harvard Law prepares folks for civil litigation and how little the Professor overseeing it knew about civil litigation.
What an epic fail.
This was going on during my time in law school and my friends would find me cursing loudly at the screen of my computer over the stupidity of Tenenbaum's counsel.
On the post: American Bankers' Association Claims Routing Numbers Are Copyrighted
Why this happens—from a lawyer
Instead of explaining to the client that there stance is incorrect, Covington Burling decides to back an incorrect cease and desist letter.
Let's be charitable. Let's say Mr. Howard spent 1 hour reading the response from Mr. Thatcher, reviewing the file in the matter, and drafting his letter. Or, alternatively, as a partner he may have had an associate spend this 1 hour.
Depending on who spent the time—Mr. Howard or Joe Doe Associate—you have the potential of this 1-hour bill being $300 or $500. This is another billable hour for the firm. Another billable hour for the partner's credit (and possibly the associate's).
Further, this billable hour will get lost on an invoice to the ABA which includes many billable hours for many matters. So the ABA general counsel will not notice and question the hour.
Plus, there may be a followup response from Mr. Thatcher. That will be more time that gets to be billed. Not a lot, but nevertheless a nice bit of time for the firm. Let's say another 2-3 hours potentially in the tune of potentially another $1,500.
In fact, this matter could be managed in such a way that this becomes a bigger issue for the ABA. Heck, maybe there are a series of correspondence, and more research has to be done on the question of whether these numbers are copyrightable. Then the insignificant matter becomes a real "project." This project might end up with another 10-20 hours of partner and associate time—anywhere from $6k to $20k.
Plus, Mr. Howard does not have to initially challenge the premises of his client. Instead of serving his client by actually advising his client on the law, and on the practical side effects of these kinds of actions (such as this story on Techdirt), he can choose not to counsel his client and instead send out clearly erroneous threat letters.
The upside is two-fold: (1) not challenging an important client on questionable decisions and (2) potentially milking more from this matter down the line.
The only down side really is that Covington Burling and Mr. Howard have chosen not to counsel their client on the legal and practical issues facing it in this matter. They have declined to discuss the risks associated with this kind of practice. They have waived their duty to counsel their client in lieu of serving merely as a drafter of legal documents.
This happens all the time with many lawyers. For example, look at the case involving that New Jersey township ( Epic Cease and Desist Letter ). The lawyer is looking to get paid. A side effect of the initial silly letter is that it fires up the other side (sometimes) and results in more billable hours. If it doesn't fire up the other side, then that usually means the bullying and intimidation based on questionable or false legal grounds worked and silenced a client's critics. One way results in more money for the lawyer, the other results in a satisfied client. Neither results in counseling a client on the risks associated with a particular legal action.
I deal with lawyers like this more often than I wish. Some will even admit they don't care about the law and are just satisfying their client's wishes. I wish I could say this will result in those lawyers making less money, or having less respect in the legal industry, or having a harder time finding clients, but I cannot.
You just have to deal with the jackasses as they come.
On the post: Snowden's Secrets 'Belong To The People Of The US' & He's A Traitor For Giving Them What They Own?
If the US had nothing to hide . . .
It is sad to hear the sputtering arguments made by all of these politicians. Sad mainly because these fools are, in part, running this country. And they shouldn't be.
On the post: Accessing A Public Website Is Not A Crime, And Craigslist Should Back Away From Its Lawsuit Claiming Such
Craigslist should have used Trespass to Chattels
It might be a trespass case, however, if 3tap's and Padmapper's use causes unreasonable loads on Craigslists servers.
Courts should do more to require plaintiffs to file the correct type of lawsuit with the correct type of remedy.
On the post: LeaseWeb Deletes Megaupload's Servers Without Warning, Destroying Key Evidence
This is not really odd by the DOJ
If you consider the reality that the DOJ took this case to disrupt MegaUpload at the behest of the copyright lobby, then it makes sense.
On the post: And... The Bureaucrats Begin Spreading FUD About Crowdfunding
Fraud should be a concern . . . look at ZeekRewards
The fact is that SEC regulations, when enforced, do a lot to protect potential investors. The goal is to provide enough information to investors to allow them to make good choices.
This is why public offerings—such as the recent Facebook one—require so much paperwork. Even private offerings can require lots of information. If a company makes a private offering to a small group of investors which includes some unaccredited investors then you have to do a private placement memo. While not as expensive as the IPO route, you're still talking thousands of dollars worth of legal and accounting fees.
This makes it hard for startups, but is also ensures investors are protected. The information provided during IPOs and through private placement memos can protect potential investors from fraud.
And fraud does happen. The internet, with its vast democratizing power through the information it provides, is not a perfect tool for sorting truth from falsity, much less sound investment from fraud. The downfall and SEC actions against ZeekRewards is a great example of this. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/18/zeekrewards-if-an-investments-too-good-to-be-tru e-it-is/) The reality is that people still get duped. (And no, Zeekwards did not provide PPM or IPO level disclosures. Rather, it claimed it was exempt from these as their scheme did not involve securities.)
So while I am anxious to see how the SEC addresses crowdfunding of startups with equity in play, I am also worried about the potential for fraud if the rules are not crafted in a balanced way.
The hope is that the rules require disclosures necessary and sufficient to provide investors the information they need, but at the same time not causing too cost-prohibitive of an amount in legal and accounting fees.
We shall see, but calling worries about FUD is not really fair. While people worrying about fraud might make fearful statements which raise uncertainty or cause people to doubt the wisdom of less rigorous reporting requirements, in this case at least there are well-documented instanced where harm has occurred to investors and participants in various investment schemes.
FUD, on the other hand, has always seemed to me to be more about empty fears, uncertainties, and doubts backed by little to no evidence. This is not what we have here.
(Please pardon any rambling—recovering from some kidney stones and requisite painkillers.)
On the post: A Time To Reflect On Innovation
Apple will be fine . . .
Apple will miss Steve the showman, for sure, but Steve's process of developing new tech is deeply ingrained in the company.
On the post: A Time To Reflect On Innovation
Terribly sad
Peace be with his family and friends. A terrible blow, but a man who did so much.
On the post: Patent Troll Says Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'
More attorneys need to flat fee this
Some attorneys (including myself) will represent folks in cases like this pro bono, and maybe that is what needs to happen. The problem is the attorney needs to be able to take the time to do it right. That can be hard to do.
The thing is, if an attorney can get in and play some defense and stall it until the big players, Cisco et cetera, get the patents invalidated (or at least narrowed) then it could save a lot of folks the settlement fees.
On the post: John William Nelson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
So this is a first-time kind of thing. They're very likely screwing at least something up procedurally, but they're pushing those bounds because it benefits their cause (trying to shut down pirates) and they have an argument for doing so (even if some of us view it as a poor argument).
As for eminent domain, there have been some eminent domain cases brought by third parties to arrests where the arrestee was carrying cash, the cops classified the cash as property seized in a drug arrest, but the third parties owned the cash.
In short, these kinds of seizures are controversial and problematic, and the Roja case throws in the added confusion of domain names versus tangible property.
On the post: John William Nelson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But let me help you address the anonymous coward's straw man arguments. The coward states:
"It would be a horrible precedent for something like Rojo to be able to hide behind the first amendment, while the site is clearly dedicated to supporting illegal activities."
Yes, it would. However, no trial has found that Rojadirecta is clearly dedicated to supporting illegal activities.
It would be even worse precedent for the government to take away your stuff without the citizen benefitting from a hearing to determine whether it should be taken away. After all, we fought this little think called the American Revolution over this idea.
Again, you also use the analogy of a message board used by burglars and those who case for burglars. Again, it would be wrong to let folks using the board in the manner to get away with it because of a First Amendment argument. I don't dispute that, nor do I ever argue for such an absurd result.
Yet, anonymous coward believes I do feel this way. Probably because anonymous coward is unwilling to debate reasonable issues in a nuanced manner but would, rather, paint the opposition as unreasonable. (Through what is called a straw man argument.)
But in his example there is still the implied assumption that there would be a trial to find these people had indeed acted in concert to case out potential targets and, thereby, aided and abetted burglars. You know, the whole guilty until proven innocent thing.
This has not occurred in the Rojadirecta case as of yet. The government took the domain names without a chance for hearing, without notice, and without a conviction of criminal acts by Roja. Perhaps the government can get a conviction, but the simple argument is that this should be required before we deprive folks of their property.
Yet the anonymous coward refuses to address this. Likely because the anonymous coward is indeed a coward.
So let's not feed the cowardly troll. The points are there, and the anonymous coward cannot bring out anything more.
On the post: John William Nelson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Corrupt so-called Human Rights workers.
On the post: John William Nelson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
Seizing one that, to carry the analogy further, serves a specific geographic region is a prior restraint on speech even if the press's owner owns another press in another region.
Your own analogy acknowledges this. And you example is still an example of a prior restraint on speech.
On the post: John William Nelson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
So when a law, or its application, comes into conflict with free speech then free speech should tend to win. As I stated in the portion about the UK police attempts to uncover journalist sources, there is a tension.
Policy-wise, I think protecting journalist sources is important and should trump free speech here. This isn't a violent crime we're talking about. Even so, this will ultimately come down to the decisions of the journalists as to what constitutes the line to cross in divulging sources. (Here it is more likely to be worth fighting than, say, in a murder case.) In short, it is a journalistic ethics consideration.
The legal protections journalists can use, however, vary greatly between the U.S. and the U.K. While the US protections are informed by the First Amendment, it would be a mistake to say UK protections of journalists in these cases is weaker. It is just different.
More importantly, there are no bright-line rules for these cases in either U.S. or U.K. law. Ultimately, sincere journalists have to be prepared and willing to sit in jail for a time. (And many are; journalistic history in both nations have numerous stories of this occurring.)
Ultimately, though, since you're less interested in discussing issues and their nuances, but wish to sum up everything into one sentence, I'll do so here:
"Serious discussion of issues here; sheep should return to Twitter to re-tweet Perez Hilton."
I hope that semi-colon didn't confuse you.
On the post: John William Nelson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
But there is more to it than the procedure. Rojadirecta argues that not only were procedure and rules violated, but the procedure and rules as applied to these types of cases violate the First Amendment (the law). It is one thing to take the property of an alleged drug dealer pending the outcome of his case, and quite another to take possession of the virtual printing press allowing the defendant to exercise their free speech rights.
So to answer your question, there is both a facial and an as applied challenge being claimed here. And both the law and the actions of a federal actor are being challenged.
On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection
Re: Re: Emotional reactions leading to personal attacks are not constructive arguments
Let me start at the end. Copyright law does not try to evaluate what is worthy of protection and what is not. The threshhold questions of whether a work is copyrightable are not answered by 'worthiness' but, rather, basic bright line rules.
Further, you still seem to ignore my clear support of copyright protection for photographs and my clear and repeated acknowledgement of them as works of art. Then again, you strike me as someone unwilling to read past 140 characters.
So instea of personally insulting people based on your misperceptions, qwjust type TL;DR and move on tonthe next Twitter post. Perhaps then the folks interested in discussions on a topic can discuss without your ill-informed, ad hominem rehtoric.
On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection
Re: Re: Clearly you have little understanding of copyright law
Thin copyright protection refers to works that cannot be used broadly to against other similar works. Think of the classic example of the Feist v. Rural case--phonebooks are granted copyright protection, but only thin protection. I cannot photocopy it and redistribute the book, but I can take the phone numbers and names (the facts) and reuse them in my own phonebook.
Pardon any mispells in this post, on my iPad in an airport before takeoff.
On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection
Re: Its not a mechanical representation of the facts.
So cameras, by your explanation, create photographs that are mechanical reproductions of fact (i.e., the light hitting the film or image sensor).
On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection
Emotional reactions leading to personal attacks are not constructive arguments
No where did I say photographs are not art, nor do I write that photographs are undeserving of copyright protection.
You complain that my argument looks to the medium rather than the content. Yet, have you even read my argument? If you did, then you certainly do not understand it.
This is nothing to be ashamed by. My argument rests on issues of copyright that even many lawyers don't grasp, much less Anonymous Cowards like yourself.
But let me try and simplify it for you. Copyright protects expression. Facts and ideas, however, are not protected by copyright law. The problem with photographs is that it is near impossible to separate the unprotectable factual elements of a photograph from its protectable expression elements.
Therefore, while photographs clearly deserve copyright protection (as original expressions), they do not deserve thick copyright protection as you might see in cases involving novels. The reason being that if we provide thick copyright protections to photographs then you very well might have comical situations where the first person to take a photo of the Statue of Liberty can bar all subsequent photos.
Perhaps it is just my lawyerly lack of a soul, but I find it more sinister to give people methods to shut others out of expressing themselves. My argument is an attempt at increasing the likelihood of individual expression and, thereby, increasing the likelihood of art being created.
Then again, I am not an Anonymous Coward, I'm just a soulless lawyer. What would I know?
Next >>