The real value here is it enables much more granular logging.

I object to this article, however, on grounds that this is not news. It's a press release, and crap like this is why I only visit slashdot every few months any more.

Reality: it's specifically your job to understand these things on behalf of your clients(especially since the Lacey act is number two most important law related to your career).

Did you not even the third sentence? "To make matters worse, the Honduran law governing such shipments was not valid at the time of Huang's arrest---a fact that the Honduran government pointed out to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, the federal court found Huang guilty in March 2003 and imposed a two-year prison sentence." Huang's conviction of violating the "laws" (regulations, really) of Honduras was upheld, despite the fact that the Honduran court found that those laws were not valid at the time they were committed.

Beyond that, the very thesis of the site is that there are too many laws for anyone to understand. And your rebuttal is that they should have known anyways? The Lacey Act makes it illegal "to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce--- any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law" (emphasis added). And "law" has been interpreted to include all regulations, not just "laws" passed by legislatures.

Do you know every single law and regulation related to fishing in every country? There's no master list that you can look up, and there is physically no way to know that no laws were broken unless you were physically present at every step of the process. Oh, and in this example, it doesn't really matter if the laws were repealed or overturned, either.

I once got asked a question which I found hurtful and offensive, and felt tempted to 'blow up' the interview at that point. Fortunately, I resisted the temptation. As it turns out, the question was his way of introducing the next thing, which was telling me that he was offering me the job.

"A subsidy is a form of financial or in kind support extended to an economic sector..."

Direct payments are only one form of subsidy. I'm not arguing that we should or shouldn't offer tax breaks to one industry or another, I'm just suggesting that it is you who does not know what that word means. Offering a tax break for one activity over another favors the activity that has a lower effective tax rate.

Here's my report on the actual ruling which is being reviewed: 2nd Circuit affirms denial of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion in WNET v Aereo

I guess it would take a litigator to notice this, but it's quite unusual that a preliminary injunction denial would be getting this kind of appellate attention.

In the first place, it was unusual for an interlocutory appeal to be granted from the denial of the preliminary injunction motion. In federal court usually you can only appeal from a final judgment.

Similarly, apart from the fact that it's always rare for a certiorari petition to be granted, it's especially tough where the appeal is not from a final judgment, but just from a preliminary injunction denial which does not dispose of the whole case.

Funny, I had the same reaction when I read it. He seemed like a salesman for Google or something.

Dear Prince Bernard, If you're talking about my bank account, you're barking up the wrong tree :)

Fair use cases are very fact specific. If you start monkeying with the facts, Judge Chin might not feel the same way about it.

I don't know but please hire me as your lawyer when you do.

Thatswhatappealscourtsarefor

> Oh, let me add, that this is not the minority. This is now the majority party of the house of commons.

Republicans are the majority PARTY, but it is just a slim margin on that party that is preventing the vote. The majority of the MEMBERS of the House would support a CR at current levels.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/02/the-fixs-clean-cr-whip-count/

They are holding the country hostage because they are destroying EVERYTHING if they don't get their way on ONE piece of legislation. They have already failed to stop it 41 times.

It is NOT the majority of the House holding up the vote, it is the majority of the majority party holding up the vote. If the CR were up to a vote with no changes, the majority of the House would pass it. It is just a faction of one political party that is preventing the vote from occuring.