Had some really bad storms at the house I lived at in 06, fried the dsl modem and some of the exchange circuits. Guy comes out to fix it. While we're talking, he's telling me how they're installing fiber all in the area (note, I live in town, right by the hospital - in fact the helipad is at the end of my garden). Telling me they've just finished the main nearby town (Covington, Ga, better known now as the Hollywood of the South) and they're going to upgrade down towards us over the next year. They even have the fiber in the stores ready to be installed. That town still doesn't have any fiber installed. A year later I move a bit up the road, towards Covington, and the route they've said they'd be installing along. Until 09, every time the AT&T guy came out, I'd ask and be told 'its planned, but it's been delayed'. Then they're just not bothering at all now. So this area, our only option is AT&T DSL. or we could go for verizon 4G (there is a tower for it here, but it's the only cell service here, and expensive as hell) Or hughesNet. We can't even go Comcast because they couldn't even be bothered to run POCS here let alone any sort of internet. Which is why 8 years on, I'm still paying the same amount for the same connection - $55 for a 6/0.5
Wow, thats' quite an achievement. So he was studying US law in Bucharest, before he moved to the US aged 12 in 1962? In reality he didn't even START studying law until he was 22, and since he's now 63, that's a large chunk of life he wasn't studying law there. At best 'studied law 2/3 of his life'
Nimmer – who also teaches at UCLA and is of counsel at Irell & Manella – told THR that he agrees with the decision, although he added that the facts of the case were “as squirrely as you could imagine.”
Is what it says. Sounds like a personal agreement with the ruling, but the last line indicates he's not sure if it agrees legally.
Did you RTFA? Specifically, there was a link about 4 words earlier about how some thought it good. If you'd clicked it, you'd have gone to a piece called "Hollywood Experts Divided on Implications of 'Muslims' Ruling"
In it, it cites a number of experts who thought it bad, therefore they're no longer 'anonymous' are they?
To help you out, I'll even list them. “It is a terrible ruling,” said UCLA School of Law professor Neil Netanel. “This is clearly an ends-driven opinion,” countered Davis Wright’s Alonzo Wickers, who represents content creators and distributors. University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelmann was blunt. “It’s amateur hour at the Ninth Circuit,” he said. James Janowitz, chair of the entertainment group at New York’s Pryor Cashman, said “sometimes people will twist themselves into a pretzel” to reach a desired decision. Janowitz represents production companies and networks.
That help any? A little less 'anonymous' now? And all you had to do was click the provided reference. Amazing.
You DO know that copyright/patent reform is only a SMALL part of the main pirate platform, right?
The platform is: * Government accountability/transparency * Increased Personal Privacy * Copyright/Patent/Trademark reform.
You'll also notice that's the order of the 3 sections in the book No Safe Harbor, put out by the USPP (and co-edited by me)
You'll notice a lot of the first two being talking about recently. The first vote against ACTA at the EU was led by a committee on a report written by Pirate MEP Amelia Andersdotter. Pirates: Fact-based politics.
Lutz isn't a lawyer, he's the officer of AF Holdings. They lost one case this week in Illinois. The Patel (that's the 'ignore California because Gay Marriage' and 'seal the case because the internet is mean') case has a hearing on Tuesday. Judge has said 'no affidavit's, unless they're here to be cross'd as well' and will be talking sanctions.
Nope, I know they'd LIKE that theory, but they have at least bowed to the realities.
Namely, while a land border is continuous and exterior, an air-border (ie, airport) is closed and interior. They already have and and all exits out of said area under control (because it's so small) and because to arrive in it, you'd need to do so in an easily recognizable aircraft.
A land border, however, is large, and has free and open access, and so anyone can arrive there at any time and at any point (in theory) without observation and direct control. Hence the Zone.
Now, I certainly don't agree with it, but it at least makes a 'kinda' sense - or at least as much as those Committee for State Security ever make.
Are you a lawyer, licensed in Ga? I'm just asking because you clearly know how to do legal research, and AF Holdings is now looking for a lawyer in the Patel case, since Nazaire has been forced to withdraw under 10USC. Might wanna give them a call.
That's NOTHING. You should check out 17 U.S. CODE § 501 I'll quote the very first bit to you.
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.
You'll notice that it SPECIFICALLY refers to violating copyright, and defines details. It does not reference 18USC at all, for a very good reason, 18USC is inapplicable.
Of course, I'm all for striking 17USC501 and replacing it with 18usc.
BTW, that 2319 came from a lovely little lobby law produced under Bush, the ProIP act. So you can hardly say it's 'been deemed that for a century'.
Also, the SCOTUS doesn't consider it theft (see Dowling, Golan)