Under the rule of law, the photographer, since he or she are being paid for their services, is considered 'under contract' for producing those photographs. They do not own the copyright.
Wrong. A freelance photographer (ie: self-employed) only gives up the copyright when he or she signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire.
Here is what a lawyer for photographers has to say about it:
In general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. An exception is when the image falls into the “work-made-for-hire”(also known as “work for hire”) category. A work-made-for-hire relationship is created in two situations: (1) the photographer is an employee hired to take photographs for the employer—an example would be a photojournalist who is an employee of a newspaper but not a wedding or portrait photographer who is hired for one event; or (2) the photographer is hired to provide photographs for collective works or compilations and signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire. Therefore, freelance photographers are subjected to work-for-hire status only when they agree to it contractually. Source
Still using someone else's moniker? You filthy pirate, you.
What is even funnier is that in the past Blue himself has stated that he believes that someone commenting with his *unregistered* screenname is committing fraud and that Mike should *do* something about it.
Checkout this thread from when we had a couple of different people using the out_of_the_blue moniker just to annoy him:
If I was Lowery, I'd be careful about pushing too hard on the secondary liability front. Who knows where that slippery slope could end. I'd venture a guess that Lowery wouldn't want to be liable for crimes committed by people who listen to his music.
The only question is whether leaking a *copyrighted* legal contract in the publc interest would ever be considered "fair use"? Probably not.
That's not even a valid question since the leaking itself wouldn't need to be considered at all to determine if The Verge's use is Fair Use. It's whether the *publishing* of a leaked document would be considered Fair Use and in this particular case the answer is pretty strong "yes".
From what I've read, plea bargaining started happening in the decades following the Civil War. SCOTUS ruled on plea bargaining in three cases from 1968 to 1971 and found plea bargaining to be constitutional.
I know that some states and localities have passed laws making plea bargaining illegal, but on a whole, in the US, plea bargaining has always been legal, so I am interested as to where you got the idea that "Pleabargaining in the '80s was illegal".
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Just in legal liability, John Deere cannot possibly to any degree authorize others to use modified software.
As noted in the article:
It's easy enough to note that tinkering with the tractor you bought voids any warranties and takes John Deere out of the liability zone if something goes wrong.
So to answer your question about wether anyone here considers the legal liabilities: Yes, we do.
The same thing has been set into case law for years concerning automobiles. Ford Motor Co. isn't liable if you replace the stock carburetor with hi-performance one that causes an engine fire. Why should John Deere be liable if you hack the software and it causes an accident with your tractor?
Too bad that "study" is unscientific and a total joke.
I disagree. The methodology of that study is laid out for all to see and critique. I put more weight on the figures from that study over twenty MPAA/RIAA sponsored studies where they hide the methodology, come to some predetermined result and say "Trust us!"