One of the root causes of killer cops? Strong policeman unions that back pieces of shit like this cop. Seeing as how cops do nothing but work within exceptions to the Constitution (i.e., the Constitution allows people to be arrested, etc) it seems kinda silly that they would even be allowed to unionize. I guess we should let the army and national guard union up too?
Sorry, I meant carrier, not ISP. The metadata your phone sends to the carrier should not fall under the third party exception, because there is no second party. Or rather, the metadata is a first-second party transmission. Stuff like phone number is obviously available to the recipient. Knowledge of your exact location may be disclosed by you, but doesn't show up on the screen when you call someone.
This barely merits coverage. No way is this going to change short of SCOTUS. The third party doctrine is a garbage exception that should be paired with the "spirit" of pen register laws to work in a way that makes sense. Furthermore, metadata is not third party. Only the ISP gets it. We need to recognize a blanket exception to alleged third party doctrine when the communication is predicated on a private contractual relationship. This reasonable expectation garbage leads to absurd results, and introducing a warrant requirement won't stop competent police work, and big data has been a big fat dud in detecting actual crime.
Mike Rogers: "If we don't have a spycam in there, how are we supposed to know when we know when those women are available to be sexually assaulted? What? So long as we're in there, they can't get screwed by anyone else. Wouldn't you rather they be fucked over by us than some hypothetical ethnic strawman rapist? This is the, the, the only way to protect our women!"
So is it that our sense of outrage over police corruption has faded, or that after 50 years of pretending parents aren't responsible for the murderous freaks their action and inaction has spawned, we've decided that at least threatening them with liability for the actions of their, frankly, evil children is acceptable?
People like these need to be shamed and remembered for the evil their child did, because they're the reason the kid is like that. They are the proximate cause of the bile that kid was spewing.
I like this guy, if only because he's echoing what everyone thought when the parents played the "hacked" card. I don't have much problem holding them vicariously liable either... but only because they've gone to such lengths to establish that they were monitoring the account on a regular basis. Hell, maybe someone, somewhere will read about this and actually start paying attention to what their own kid is doing as a result.
Registration is a good affirmative step to give notice of your copyright, but it is only necessary insasmuch as you can only claim attorney fees in the course of an infringement claim if the copyright is registered.
You can still assert copyright that isn't registered, but yeah, you have to prove more and pay for the lawyer out of the damages awarded.
This says something about moral rights in the US. Namely, they are not recognized. There's also the Feist v. Rural decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural), where obvious compilations of fact were found to not be subject to copyright.
And then there's how the plain language of the Constitution has been interpreted (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause):The Copyright Clause is the only clause granting power to Congress for which the means to accomplish its stated purpose are specifically provided. The exact limitations of this clause have been defined through a number of United States Supreme Court cases interpreting the text. For example, the Court has determined that because the purpose of the clause is to stimulate development of the works it protects, its application cannot result in inhibiting such progress.
Of those, those are just easy citations. I -got- all this from attending IP Survey and Copyright classes in law school.
Incorrect. In the US, copyright is granted only in furtherance of that underlying philosophy. Facts, obvious arrangements of facts, legal briefs, etc. are not subject to copyright despite being created because protecting them would not lead to more and better facts, arrangements of facts, or legal briefs.
The arrangement of facts can be copyrightable if it is novel, but I don't think there's actually much room for the requisite creativity in a CD tracklist.
The UK recognizes moral copyright, the US does not. The US grants copyright only when it furthers a medium or type of expression. The UK grants copyright just because the creator created it. This is the fundamental difference between the laws.