Comment G+ invites (Score 1) 198
Everybody else: invites sent - have fun!
Everybody else: invites sent - have fun!
- Drew
Q: What will be the take-away of the report?
A: It won’t be liked by industry lobbyists because it departs from the theft narrative that has defined the debate. It’s written from the perspective of the developing economies, where the reasons and conditions for piracy are just not part of the piracy of debate. You never hear about problems of pricing, for example. Our goal is to encourage developing cvountries to ssert more control over their IP policies and enforcement in order to enrich their own culture.
Here is a liveblogged capture of that discussion: http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/02/02/berkman-piracy-in-developing-countries
Sec. 145c.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include, or conveys the impression that it includes, a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:
(i) It was created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18.
(ii) It was not created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18, but all of the following apply to that depiction:
(A) The average individual, applying contemporary community standards, would find the depiction, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
(B) The reasonable person would find the depiction, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
(C) The depiction depicts or describes a listed sexual act in a patently offensive way.
[. .
(k) "Prurient interest" means a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.
-----
It's likely that under the "appears to include a child" standard, the issue will be:
Based on "community standards" would an "average individual" find the video to appeal to "a shameful or morbid interest in sex"?
That seems like a stretch - but the bigger issue (IMO) is the use of the prosecutorial resources for a situation that would be more appropriately handled through civil litigation than criminal prosecution.
Short-term planning + unhealthy greed is why Adam Smith is crying.
Of course he could just contact the non-profit organization of choice directly but there are several advantages to the "clearinghouse" approach. A major advantage is that the work is task-based. This affords the attorney the opportunity to help out without having to worry about over committing. Also, if your friend is interested in IP and has no interest in redrafting bylaws the organization manages the process of having these other tasks covered by attorneys with the appropriate skill-set, desire, and available bandwidth.
As somebody who is soon to graduate law school after 12+ years in business / technology the experience at PBPATL was very encouraging. I met many wonderful attorneys who genuinely appreciate the opportunity to utilize their skills to assist non-profits with their missions. Some of these people work for HUGE companies and never get a chance to deal with the public one-on-one; it was genuinely touching to participate in their meetings and see the attorneys get just as much out of the relationship as the non-profits did.
Anyway... just a thought but if your friend is in the NY area or Atlanta area I'd suggest checking them out. The model is fairly new and so I'm not sure if it has been replicated elsewhere.
When we're asking if something is a crime I believe that we're actually asking two things: (1) is it a crime, and (2) should it be a crime? Here, the answer to (1) is pretty straightforward because it's been addressed by the state legislature. The trickier issue is if it *should* be a crime, for example, if the statute is held to be unconstitutional then it would be invalidated; trickier still are public policy issues. In any case I'll focus on the straightforward aspect.
Here's, the Michigan statute in question: Section 752.795 FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)
A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:
(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
(b) Insert or attach or knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion or attachment of a set of instructions or a computer program into a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network, that is intended to acquire, alter, damage, delete, disrupt, or destroy property or otherwise use the services of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States. [note: the section of the Michigan constitution alluded to here relates to freedom of speech & the press]
History: 1979, Act 53, Eff. Mar. 27, 1980
As his actions were presumably intentional it appears that the issue is: Were his actions without authorization or did they exceed his valid authorization? According to the following article this is a fact-based issue that will be up to the jury to decide. Essentially "she" claims that the computer was hers alone and the password was a secret and "he" claims that he regularly used the computer and had easy access to the passwords. Ease of access to the password will likely be the determinative factor as to if he had "authorization" to access those emails.
Although his rationale for accessing those emails do not appear to be relevant per the statute, I imagine that it would be an issue when it comes time for sentencing. If instead of finding out that she was (presumably) engaged in adultery with an ex-spouse who (presumably) beat her, how would the prosecutor's office have reacted if he had accessed emails showing that:
- she was a drug dealer?
- she was a child pornographer?
- she was a terrorist?
Is reading wife's e-mail a crime? Rochester Hills man faces trial
In the preliminary exam, Clara Walker testified that although Leon Walker had purchased the laptop for her, it was hers alone and she kept the password a secret.
Leon Walker told the Free Press he routinely used the computer and that she kept all of her passwords in a small book next to the computer.
"It was a family computer," he said. "I did work on it all the time."
My initial question was why the prosecutor's office pursued this case in the first place; the following article discusses Cooper's decision to stop supporting treatment courts due to its need to "deal with the surge in violent crime and the surge in technically complex cases." The pursuit of the case at hand doesn't fit with the purported need to focus on a "surge in violent crime...".
Cooper's office threatens to pull out of drug courts
"Now, more than ever, we must utilize our limited resources to handle a huge volume of cases effectively, and we do not have the luxury of micromanaging a small, select group of cases," Cooper wrote. "Instead, the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office must marshal its severely diminished financial and personnel resources to deal with the surge in violent crime and the surge in technically complex cases."
Cooper wrote that her office won't participate in the Circuit Court's juvenile and adult treatment courts, a new mental health component, or treatment courts run by the district courts. She said she will withdraw at an agreed upon date no later than Sept. 30."
Earlier this year Cooper's office charged a widow of her husband's murder before the autopsy indicated a cause of death. Lloyd Johnson Autopsy Reveals Attorney Not Murdered, Laura Johnson Vindicated? Cooper's reaction to the announcement that no murder occurred is a bit strange: Ms. Cooper sends her regrets, sort of
I've known Jessica Cooper for at least a dozen years, and in my experience she has been an honest, hardworking and essentially decent public servant.
So I was surprised, I told the Oakland County prosecutor when she returned my call Tuesday, that Cooper had not been there to apologize in person when her deputy Paul Walton appeared in court to dismiss criminal charges against Laura Johnson, whom Cooper had publicly accused of murder a few days earlier.
"I'm busy," Cooper answered cheerfully, adding that she had complete confidence in Walton's ability to explain her office's about-face.
When I said Walton's statement to the court had struck me as long on explanation and short on contrition, the prosecutor's voice turned sterner.
"I released her, didn't I?" Cooper said. "Twenty minutes after the medical examiner ruled the death an accident, we were making arrangements with the court to get her out of jail.
Knowledge Base > Completing the Application > General questions >
My text is cut off when I preview my application.
Not all answers that ‘fit’ on the online application will ‘fit’ on the PDF of the Common Application. While the answers you provide on the online application are below the character limit for a given field, it is possible that those answers may be truncated when the PDF of your Common App is generated. There is often very limited space on the PDF of the Common App. In these cases every attempt has been made to fit the maximum amount of text but still preserve the readability of the information.
It is critical that you preview your Common App and check for truncated information using the Preview link in the top menu bar and the Print Preview link on the Signature page. Because your colleges will see exactly what you see, if you preview the Common Application and find some of your text is missing, you should attempt to shorten your response to fit within the available space. If necessary, you can add more information in the Additional Information section of the Common Application. Colleges that use the Common Application are aware that there is limited space on the PDF.
Tell that to Facebook in regard to Lamebook.
This is an example of why the operator of a gripe site should avoid commercial activity; although parodies are protected under The First Amendment, the target of parody could argue that the gripe site is no longer parody and instead is a profit making venture. That doesn't mean that their argument will be successful, but it does provide some legal ammo and is not as cut-and-dried as the treatment of a non-commercial gripe site.
Here's a good write-up on parody as it relates to free speech and copyright: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=parody_satire .
When you arrive at (A) it looks moderately busy and by comparison at (B) you see a l-o-o-ong line. Obviously the collective queue (B) is processing around 5x the speed of each individual queue (A) but I guess this isn't as obvious (especially initially) as the number of people in each individual queue.
I actually thought that most people knew that single queues were better; I guess not!
Check out this Wired article for some highlights of the legal issues related to a "sucks" / "gripe" site: Legal Tips For Your 'Sucks' Site. Although it was written in 2000 and so might be a little outdated, it's worth reading for some interesting info.
Two important points: (1) The site operator should avoid any commercial activity (at all) on the gripe site and; (2) The site operator should ensure that visitors would never think that the site is in any way associated with the entity that is the focus of the gripe site. While a properly designed gripe site is generally safe from losing a lawsuit it's definitely best to check with an attorney to make sure that you're doing everything properly before heading down a potentially expensive road.
Sorry you live in a shit hole, and you didn't check your internet connectivity options before you moved there. Sucks to be you. Move somewhere else.
Hmm, very interesting. While it appears you read my post, apparently I wasn't clear when I said "I live in Atlanta and have a few options for broadband but realize that many people are not as fortunate." Perhaps if I clarify:
Me live in big city. Big city has options. Options = good. Me understand that other people exist. Me also understand that others no have options. No options = bad.
In any case I might take you up on your suggestion to move somewhere else; if nothing else I'd be interested to see if you're as charming a neighbor as you are a commenter.
"I did point you in the right direction. You are just are too lazy to use google."
I see you could not find one either. Considerung that currently I have at least 4 broadband choices, I find it hard to believe most don't have two.
Actually, from the first site returned by the search: "The FCC says that broadband is available via DSL to 79 percent of local telephone company subscribers, and via cable modem to 93 percent of cable television subscribers." It appears that around 20% would not have DSL as a (presumably secondary) broadband option.
I live in Atlanta and have a few options for broadband but realize that many people are not as fortunate. Here's a study which finds that at the state level about 1/2 have a duopoly and some states arguably have a monopoly: http://www.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_11783501/151286677State_of_Broadband_Competition_in_America_2010.pdf
It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".