"Do your local laws include something about needing to be teetotal before a license can be returned?"
If the license was taken because of drunk driving, the answer to your question is a big fricken yes.
The person attempting to get his license back will claim before the ALJ that he's no longer drinking and no longer associating with his old drinking buddies. Which is why the ALJ's research is so damn funny!
And in our adversarial system people with crappy lawyers lose.
And I'm sure some people think it's unfair. That only if the jury could do its own research trials would be much more fair.
But can you imagine a medical malpractice trial if the jury could ignore the expert medical evidence as presented by both sides and rely on the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard? Would that be fair? Mike seems to think so.
There's an Administrative Law Judge in my area who does driver license appeals. I.e., people are attempting to get their driver licenses back after a drunk driving conviction.
Anyway, at the hearing on the record this Judge looks up the appellant's facebook and myspace accounts. He'll find pictures of them drinking, hanging out with people drinking, or comments about how they were "so shit faced drunk last saturday, dude."
I think it's hilarious. The attorneys are not happy with it.
"I'm curious to see if the same people, who were horrified at my suggestion that Google searches for juries might not be such a horrible thing"
Mike, I've said this before I'll say it again. In our legal system both sides present evidence. The jury looks at the evidence as presented and makes a finding of fact based upon that evidence.
If the jury is lacking some information and needs to do research, that only means that one of the parties failed in his burden and loses the case.
Just give me one legally valid instance where a jury would have a need to do research?
Apparently they are not patentable. If they were patentable, they would not need their own separate protection.
Both Industrial Designs and Layout-Design seem very broad. I thought business patents were bad, but these seem utterly arbitrary and designed to protect the status quo.
How will upstarts be able to innovate when corporations have monopolies not only on their patents, their busines model, their copyrights, and arbitrarily on their designs?!
Certainly calling actual rape (violent and forced sexual intercourse) CSC is politically correct. The problem is that acts that were not criminal in the good old days were still being referred to as rape. So the legislature changed the name.
For example, is it really "rape" when two 15 year old kids have consensual sex? Is it really "rape" when a guy grabs a woman's ass?
I was in law school when the DMCA was enacted. As a side note, no one actually thought the law was going to be passed. We were shocked.
Anyway, it's pretty clear that the purpose of the DMCA was balance. On one hand if internet websites and providers were to exist, they could not be responsible for infringement by their users. If websites and providers could be held responsible, everyone recognized that the web would be killed off.
However, to get that immunity (why someone should be granted immunity for something they did not do is beyond me) the internet providers and websites had to take down infringing content when it is found by the copyright holders and when they were so notified by the copyright holders.
To make internet providers and websites responsible for their users' infringement because they didn't look for such infringement is simply asinine. How in the frick is some website administrator supposed to know what is copyrighted, what is fair use, what is infringement, etc?!
This is not a mere stretch of the DMCA, it is a complete perversion of the Act. The entire balance is now placed on websites and providers while the copyright holders can just sit back and do nothing to protect their interests.
People at Google have stated that Viacom filed the suit to gain bargaining power over Google. I doubt if Viacom had any intention to carry the case as long as it did, it probably assumed that Google would back down and come to the table and capitulate to whatever Viacom wanted.
It's now three years later and the only winners are the attorneys who are racking up huge fees doing nothing of value to anyone.
The purpose of a sex offender list is to give warning to people that a particular person might be a sex offender. It's warning device.
However, warning devices only work when they're used judiciously. If your work does a fire drill five times a day, you start to ignore them.
Thus, sex offender lists should be very narrow. Only those who pose a legitimate risk of committing predatory sex crimes should be on it. Otherwise it's a useless watered down list that helps no one.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? God, the story of the boy who cried wolf has been a part of our culture for thousands of years.
"And then I thought of pop music, and auto-tune and DSP and digital editing and companding . . . "
Thanks for explaining my comment better than I did. I was thinking about those boy bands from the 90s, any blonde female singer who had hits prior to reaching the age of 18, and any "musician" signed to Disney's label.
"If a band does a show, blows a whole bunch of minds and a bunch of people become fans and go out and buy millions of records, the producer gets paid. I think that's ethically unsustainable."
What if millions of people are blown away because of the awesome production of a band's CD and go out and buy millions of tickets to the band's live shows. The producer doesn't get paid a bit from those ticket sales. Is that ethically sustainable?
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: He had to look?
If the license was taken because of drunk driving, the answer to your question is a big fricken yes.
The person attempting to get his license back will claim before the ALJ that he's no longer drinking and no longer associating with his old drinking buddies. Which is why the ALJ's research is so damn funny!
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re:
And I'm sure some people think it's unfair. That only if the jury could do its own research trials would be much more fair.
But can you imagine a medical malpractice trial if the jury could ignore the expert medical evidence as presented by both sides and rely on the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard? Would that be fair? Mike seems to think so.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: He had to look?
Anyway, at the hearing on the record this Judge looks up the appellant's facebook and myspace accounts. He'll find pictures of them drinking, hanging out with people drinking, or comments about how they were "so shit faced drunk last saturday, dude."
I think it's hilarious. The attorneys are not happy with it.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Mike, I've said this before I'll say it again. In our legal system both sides present evidence. The jury looks at the evidence as presented and makes a finding of fact based upon that evidence.
If the jury is lacking some information and needs to do research, that only means that one of the parties failed in his burden and loses the case.
Just give me one legally valid instance where a jury would have a need to do research?
On the post: ACTA Set To Cover Not Just Copyrights & Trademarks, But Seven Areas Of IP
Re:
Both Industrial Designs and Layout-Design seem very broad. I thought business patents were bad, but these seem utterly arbitrary and designed to protect the status quo.
How will upstarts be able to innovate when corporations have monopolies not only on their patents, their busines model, their copyrights, and arbitrarily on their designs?!
On the post: FIFA Demands Airline Drop Ad That Didn't Mention FIFA At All
On the post: Conservationists Blaming The Internet For Clubbing Baby Seals
On the post: Can The Government Use The Term 'Music Piracy' In A Criminal Copyright Trial?
Re: Re: Ah...
For example, is it really "rape" when two 15 year old kids have consensual sex? Is it really "rape" when a guy grabs a woman's ass?
On the post: Can The Government Use The Term 'Music Piracy' In A Criminal Copyright Trial?
"criminal sexual conduct."
And you cannot use the term "rape" during the trial.
On the post: Viacom's Real Intent? To Pretend The DMCA Requires Filtering
Anyway, it's pretty clear that the purpose of the DMCA was balance. On one hand if internet websites and providers were to exist, they could not be responsible for infringement by their users. If websites and providers could be held responsible, everyone recognized that the web would be killed off.
However, to get that immunity (why someone should be granted immunity for something they did not do is beyond me) the internet providers and websites had to take down infringing content when it is found by the copyright holders and when they were so notified by the copyright holders.
To make internet providers and websites responsible for their users' infringement because they didn't look for such infringement is simply asinine. How in the frick is some website administrator supposed to know what is copyrighted, what is fair use, what is infringement, etc?!
This is not a mere stretch of the DMCA, it is a complete perversion of the Act. The entire balance is now placed on websites and providers while the copyright holders can just sit back and do nothing to protect their interests.
On the post: Switzerland So Neutral It Won't Even Let In Violent Video Games
On the post: California Court Says Online Bullying Is Not Protected Free Speech
What a fricken minute... there's a judge out there without a sense of humor?!
On the post: Will YouTube Case Lead To FTC Investigation Of Viacom's Questionable Marketing Practices?
Re: Re:
On the post: Will YouTube Case Lead To FTC Investigation Of Viacom's Questionable Marketing Practices?
Re: Nice shot
It's now three years later and the only winners are the attorneys who are racking up huge fees doing nothing of value to anyone.
On the post: Will YouTube Case Lead To FTC Investigation Of Viacom's Questionable Marketing Practices?
Second, there is no fricken way the FTC would ever go after the Viacom juggernaut. They'll find some little fish to fry.
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
Re: Re:
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
No, what's amazing is that the judge didn't kick the case out prior to trial. This will be overturned, I have no doubt about that.
On the post: Georgia Supreme Court Says It's Okay To Put Non-Sex Offenders On The Registered Sex Offender List
However, warning devices only work when they're used judiciously. If your work does a fire drill five times a day, you start to ignore them.
Thus, sex offender lists should be very narrow. Only those who pose a legitimate risk of committing predatory sex crimes should be on it. Otherwise it's a useless watered down list that helps no one.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? God, the story of the boy who cried wolf has been a part of our culture for thousands of years.
On the post: Steve Albini Explains Why Royalties Don't Make Sense
Re: Re: "Awesome Production"
Thanks for explaining my comment better than I did. I was thinking about those boy bands from the 90s, any blonde female singer who had hits prior to reaching the age of 18, and any "musician" signed to Disney's label.
On the post: Steve Albini Explains Why Royalties Don't Make Sense
What if millions of people are blown away because of the awesome production of a band's CD and go out and buy millions of tickets to the band's live shows. The producer doesn't get paid a bit from those ticket sales. Is that ethically sustainable?
Next >>