Lance’s Techdirt Profile

brtdad

About Lance




Lance’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 18th, 2013 @ 2:11pm

    (untitled comment)

    I reject his premise. Greenwald didn't violate 18USC798. The information release was not "prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States" because WE are the United States, and WE need to know our gov't. is doing this crap. Neither was it "for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States".
    So no law has been violated. I do agree that it is a first amm. violation to prosecute the publisher if he did not personally break a law in obtaining the information.

  • Apr 22nd, 2013 @ 10:29am

    tsarnaev-and-miranda

    This is pertinent:

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/

    The anon in comment 17 is, while being an ass about it, quite correct.
    It is not a violation of anyone's rights to skip Miranda, it simply means those statements cannot be admitted into a court proceeding unless they are later repeated after the warning.
    While it has no reason to be publicized, the police do this on a smaller scale every single day. It is common to talk to a suspect before the Miranda caution trying to elicit important information about criminal activity.

  • Aug 3rd, 2011 @ 11:08am

    (untitled comment)

    The law doesn't do what's being discussed here. It says written policies must be implemented regarding social networking sites. There are no restrictions in the law regarding them. Perhaps those policies will attempt to restrict friending somehow, but there's no indication of that in this law.
    It says a teacher can't have his/her own "work-related" site that is not accessible by admins and parents. Further, it says a teacher's personal website (non-work related) must be available to all, or zero current/former students. No exclusive access for any particular student.
    That's all it says.

  • Jul 12th, 2011 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re:

    I'm not prepared to declare it failed, but it needs to be pared back to the original creation. "Useful arts" was a term used to reference artisans, not artists. It was for craftmanship and manufacture. Science included things like philosophy and Literature (which I find highly questionable, but there you have it). There was never any basis for covering paintings, advertising, or photography among most other things. I don't really believe a good argument can be made that society needed to provide copyright protection to pictures.

  • Jul 12th, 2011 @ 12:44pm

    Re:

    I don't see the trip-wire argument working for Caters. In that case, the photographer has set up all the elements (field, depth, light, etc.) and has a near 100% expectation of getting the shot when an animal appears. He is taking the picture using remote control. In this case, he did not take the picture, either remotely or physically. Had the animal not pushed the button, there is no picture. The only way to claim any ownership here is by saying "It's my camera, my picture.", which probably everyone in this forum already knows does not actually confer copyright ownership.