Sadly, the law in most areas says no expectation of privacy in public places which includes at a bar.
Why "sadly"? You're out where anyone can see you. This includes artificial eyes like camera lenses and sensors. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine is a strength, not a fault.
"Yes and no. I am pretty sure the only reason BD/DVD/CDs can be transferred us because local law grants consumers that right."
It's the other way around: I can transfer BD/DVD/CDs because local law does not prevent me from doing so.
"The fact that physical media and manuals accompany the product is not sufficient to grant you the right to transfer the license UNLESS laws specifically grant you that right."
Again, it's the other way around: Attaching a license to a product does not in any way restrict my actions unless the law recognizes that license as valid and binding.
"It is buying a non-transferable digital copy, subject to the terms of the license."
That's your interpretation. Whether or not the courts agree is a different matter.
In this sense Valve does not engage in "fraudulent advertising" because it is well understood that they sell licenses, not complete copyrights for software products. Or in other words: You buy a right to use the software in a limited way, you do not buy the complete copyright and full intellectual property. And giving your license to someone is really noting more than handing them proof that you are the rightful user of said license. The license itself is not transferred.
You are operating under the false assumption that buying software means either buying a license to the software or buying the right to make copies and derivatives of that software. There is actually a third choice: buying copies of the software. When you buy a disc for a game console you are free to play, lend, and resell it without permission (see the "first sale doctrine"). You are buying a copy, and the right to use that copy is implied; it requires no explicit license.
So... is buying a game on Steam like paying for a license, or is it more like buying a copy? Valve wants us to think it's a license, but it sure does feel a lot like purchasing a copy at the point of sale.
... fire in a crowded theater and all that. That's not just an expression, it was actually used by a justice in a Supreme Court ruling.
And a very bad ruling, at that. Find out why.
This has baffled me. I know you can be held accountable for yelling fire in a crowded theater. But even then, the act of yelling fire in a crowded theater is not illegal itself. Just the deaths as a result of yelling fire can be attributed to the yeller.
Anytime someone mentions fire in a crowded theater, I think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
"Fire, fire, fire, fire. Now you’ve heard it. Not shouted in a crowded theatre, admittedly, as I seem now to have shouted it in the Hogwarts dining hall. But the point is made. Everyone knows the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, when asked for an actual example of when it would be proper to limit speech or define it as an action, gave that of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.
It’s very often forgotten what he was doing in that case was sending to prison a group of Yiddish speaking socialists, whose literature was printed in a language most Americans couldn’t read, opposing Mr. Wilson’s participation in the First World War, and the dragging of the United States into that sanguinary conflict, which the Yiddish speaking socialists had fled from Russia to escape. In fact it could be just as plausible argued that the Yiddish speaking socialists who were jailed by the excellent and greatly over-praised Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes were the real fire fighters, were the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre indeed."
People offer it as an example of the limits of free speech, all the while completely unaware of the saying's origin.
They also accounted for warranted searches. It's not self-incrimination to surrender your shed keys when you've got a naked co-ed chained inside.
A key is a thing I have, not a thing I know. That may be enough to make the difference. Actual knowledge of the co-ed's presence can also make the difference.
"He knew the password, the police had probable cause, and he intentionally impeded an investigation. I can't speak to British legal procedure, but in America that'd almost certainly be enough to be charged with obstruction of justice."
You're wrong about America. The law is far from settled, but in some jurisdictions probable cause is hardly enough to compel a suspect to reveal an encryption password. Actual knowledge of the drive's contents may be necessary to compel a person to decrypt it, as otherwise it would violate the suspect's right against self incrimination.
Yelp's terms of service are irrelevant. Public statements against public figures aren't libelous unless they are false. Factual statements made by non customers are factual by definition. False statements made by customers are likewise necessarily false. The libel is in claiming something happened that never did. It doesn't matter whether the person who wrote it was a customer.
Humans get a dopamine boostfrom being outraged and feeling morally superior.
I bet it's good to know you are better than all those people.
Well there is this thing in legal theory called "standing".
It's a good thing we don't need standing to express ourselves in public.
[International agreements], exactly, is what gives.
OK, but aren't such agreements usually limited to those specific terms which signatories agree to incorporate into local law?
Do these agreements instead create a situation where US copyright holders can sue in the United States without regard to what the law says in the defendant's place of residence?
How does a US federal court gain jurisdiction over a company located in Panama?
A ruling prior to this settlement held that Hotfile could be subject to vicarious liability for failing to comply with the DMCA (they allegedly ignored a bunch of DMCA takedown requests and failed to shut down a bunch of accounts despite repeat infringements), but the DMCA is US law, not Panama law. Unless copyright is somehow a special case (due to, say, international agreements), I fail to see why Hotfile should be subject to US copyright law anymore than US companies should be subject to Chinese or Iranian censorship laws.
What gives?
"The passwords
How does that work?
Something's rotten in the state of Texas.
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
