Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 1) 302

by wrecked (#41744419) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Seamonkey vs. Firefox — Any Takers?

I rather liked the original Windows installs of Phoenix too. You just unzipped it to whereever you wanted it. Want to uninstall it? Delete the directory. That was it. Nicely minimal. Wish more applications were like that.

You can get a "portable" version of Firefox that is packaged in a single folder from PortableApps.com

Comment: Re:What if the defamation is in the link? (Score 1) 88

by wrecked (#37764264) Attached to: Canadian Supreme Court Rules Linking Is Not Defamation

This is implied by the separate but concurring judgment. The Chief Justice writes: "In sum, in our view, a hyperlink should constitute publication if, read contextually, the text that includes the hyperlink constitutes adoption or endorsement of the specific content it links to." Crookes v Newton (2011 SCC 47) at paragraph 50.

Canada

+ - Canadian Supreme Court rules that hyperlinking is ->

Submitted by
wrecked
wrecked writes "One of the elements of libel (written defamation) is that the defamatory content must be published. Today, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that hyperlinking to another website that contains potentially defamatory material, does not constitute "publication" for the purposes of libel. The judgment is Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47"
Link to Original Source
Australia

+ - Australia reviews tier-two software patents->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Australia may consider excluding software from its second-tier patent system to better align the system with those of trading partners like Japan and Korea. A Government review has raised concerns that it may be difficult to justify Australia's low requirements for software innovation patents. The public consultation period for the review closes on 14 October."
Link to Original Source
Facebook

+ - Timelines.com Files Suit Against Facebook->

Submitted by
tekgoblin
tekgoblin writes "Timelines.com has filed a suit against Facebook on the grounds that Facebook’s new Timeline feature, because of course, no one has ever had the idea of putting a series of events or pictures in a line marked by dates. Timelines.com is a site which “enables people like you to collaboratively record, discover and share history. It’s history recorded by the people, for the people.”"
Link to Original Source
Canada

+ - Canadian court finds that website scraping infring-> 1

Submitted by wrecked
wrecked (681366) writes "A trial judgment from British Columbia, Canada, found that Zoocasa, a real estate search site operated by Rogers Communications, breached copyright by scraping real estate listings and photos from Century 21 Canada. The decision thoroughly reviews the issues of website scraping, Terms of Use, "Shrink Wrap" and "Click Wrap" Agreements, robots.txt files, and copyright implications of hyperlinking. For American readers used to multi-million dollar damages, the court here awarded $1,000 (one thousand dollars) for breach of the Century 21 website's Terms of Use, and statutory copyright damages totalling $32,000 ($250 per infringing real estate photo). More analysis at Michael Geist's blog, and the Globe & Mail."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:No kidding (Score 3, Informative) 383

by wrecked (#33620464) Attached to: In Canada, Criminal Libel Charges Laid For Criticizing Police
Sorry, IAAL in Canada, and I can't let your comment go without a reply. The libel laws between the US and Canada are very different. In Canada, there are several defences against libel: justification (ie "truth", the most difficult defence to prove), absolute or qualified privilege (ie communications in a confidential setting), fair comment (ie honestly held opinion in good faith), and the new defence of "responsible communication on matters of public interest" (ie. "responsible journalism").

The last defence of "responsible communication on matters of public interest" was created in 2009 by the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant v Torstar 2009 SCC 61. That case was actually covered in Slashdot: Landmark Canadian Hyperlink Case Goes to Supreme Court.

Read of that case if you are interested in defamation law (but seek legal advice if you have a problem). It explains the legal tests for all of the defences. Since the defence of "responsible communications in matters of public interest" does not exist in US law, it means that American journalists and bloggers have a higher risk of liability for defamation than their Canadian counterparts. So which country has stronger freedom of expression?

Comment: Re:The end of the 'net in Canada? (Score 2, Insightful) 118

by wrecked (#31729400) Attached to: Landmark Canadian Hyperlink Case Goes To Supreme Court
Neither should you underestimate the technological sophistication of the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"). This is the same court that recently, in R. v. Morelli, overturned a warrant for child pornography on the basis that the contents of an internet browser cache does not constitute possession.

This court also, 4 months ago, decided in Grant v. Torstar Corp. to create a new defence against defamation of "responsible communication on matters of public interest". This new defence allows citizens (including bloggers as well as traditional journalists) to publish critical statements that may not necessarily be true, but are made in good faith towards the public interest. If this defence existed in the UK, then the British Chiropractic Association would not have been able to sue Dr. Simon Singh for scientifically doubting chiropractic claims of success.

A few years ago, the SCC issued a decision in CCH v. Upper Law Society of Canada, that clarified the "fair dealing" defence in Canadian copyright law. That case dismissed an allegation that merely placing a photocopier in a library was an inducement to copyright infringement.

Finally, the SCC itself has incorporated technology into its proceedings. The work flow is paperless; documents must be filed digitally. The court is outfitted with terminals at every station, and the documents are viewed on screens. Selected hearings are broadcast over the internet.

Yes, IAAL, and a GNU/Linux user to boot. It bugs me when people automatically assume that lawyers are technologically inept.

Comment: Re:Wow, Savvy Judge (Score 1) 363

by wrecked (#31551800) Attached to: Canada's Top Court Quashes Child Porn Warrant
If you ever get a chance to visit the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario, you will see just how tech-savvy it really is. All documents must be filed electronically. Every station in the court (judges, clerks, lawyers and reporting media) has an embedded computer to manage the digital case materials. There are large-screen monitors for the public gallery to follow along.

The SCC broadcasts select hearings over the web. The court's decisions are all published and searchable on the internet.

Slashdot readers would also be interested in the 2004 case CCH v Law Society of Upper Canada, which considered the concept of "fair dealing" under Canada's Copyright Act.

Physician: One upon whom we set our hopes when ill and our dogs when well. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...