Let's face it. SCOTUS set this kind of behavior up when they decided the abortion law in Texas should just go into effect without a statement or legal reasoning. If SCOTUS can do it with a problematic Texas law. The the 5th Circuit can feel free do to so too... Even if this is not how things are supposed to work.
To a great extent, you are probably right about that, and also somewhat probably wrong. Copyright had been expanded and bastardized well beyond the original intent, and allowed this current ownership culture to become what it is. For everyone that says it is about paying the creators, they are mostly wrong. Copyright was primarily established to make sure the publisher was able to recoup costs, plus some profit, to get the materials printed and distributed to the widest possible audience. When it comes to books and printed materials like newspapers and magazines, that publishing(copying) cost has diminished greatly. The creating content cost has gone up, and there should be a good mechanism to recoup those costs. That may take a new legal framework to achieve in a manner that benefits those that actually create the content, rather than the gatekeepers. Copyright, as instituted, fails society as a whole. It needlessly locks up works that other current creators could generate new works from, or in this case could benefit they guy who puts in so much time to make the great content he creates. In a truly competitive environment, MLB should be paying him for the interest he creates in their product, rather than them taking away a possible revenue stream of his. It is sad that copyright has become a mechanism for large corporations to limit content that citizens get......
There are a lot of states with unconstitutional laws on the books. When a law is declared unconstitutional, it doesn't automatically get taken off the books, but it does become unenforceable. The officer that decided to try to find something to arrest him for went into that area of laws that he should have reasonably known that it was unenforceable, therefore he did violate the rights of Mr Mellott.
AT&T said in its filing that it wants the courts to set a clear standard for the type of approval the government needs in order to obtain cellphone location data, and that it isn't taking a position on whether the standard should be a warrant.
Translation We just want to know if we can keep accepting post it notes from the FBI and DEA for this kind of records request.
Of course, they are not Russian citizens, so they are not subject to the laws that demand a court order to surveil citizens. Just like everyone not a US citizen is not protected by the 4th Amendment. Sound familiar?
I have a friend that lived in that area for several years, and after hearing stories about the police in that area this is not much of a surprise. They also said that particular rural medical facility has had several ethical lapses, and that they were not at all surprised by this news. A very sad thing.
The statement said 35 NSA analysts had access to the queries. The question is how many outside contractors had access, since they aren't direct NSA employees. If they only have to audit their actual workers...I wouldn't be surprised if they use the concept of 3rd party business records access to get around some limitations to using these queries. Remember if it comes from a 3rd party they can get whatever records they want.
Wouldn't this appeal be more about challenging the finding of facts by the judge? If that is the case wouldn't Steele have to present the information that he plead the 5th on to have a chance at winning the appeal? It doesn't seem like appealing the fees is very likely to go anywhere. Talk about really trying to put himself in a worse place.
First of all kudos to Judge Wright I actually enjoyed reading the order.
This may be a little off this thread. I'm wondering if there are ways of preventing this kind of trolling. First, it seems that copyright was originally intended to protect the creator of their work. So the problem seems to stem from how copyright can (or if it should) be assigned. It seems that AF holdings has the copyright, but not the distribution mechanism. This observation may be closer to patent law, but if they are not getting paid by the distributor of the porn, then what right do they have to sue, since financial loss would be to the distributor, not the copyright holder. Could this hold as a bit of a litmus test for being able to sue based on unauthorized download of content? So, maybe the first step in copyright reform should be how copyright can be assigned? I don't think the intent was to protect lawyers and large corporations, but to protect the creators. This would bear to the point of difference between a monopoly right based on a creators creation, and an actual piece of property. I am not a legal expert, nor do i have an interest in this other than the entertainment I have received from following this site. So hopefully any flames will at least be educational to me.
Does the TSA really think that a few questions will get the bad guys to monologue their evil plans with a few simple questions? I think they must have been watching a comic book based movie marathon when they came up with this plan.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by ivanwolf.
Just following the lead SCOTUS set themselves
Let's face it. SCOTUS set this kind of behavior up when they decided the abortion law in Texas should just go into effect without a statement or legal reasoning. If SCOTUS can do it with a problematic Texas law. The the 5th Circuit can feel free do to so too... Even if this is not how things are supposed to work.
Re: Re: Missing The Point
To a great extent, you are probably right about that, and also somewhat probably wrong. Copyright had been expanded and bastardized well beyond the original intent, and allowed this current ownership culture to become what it is. For everyone that says it is about paying the creators, they are mostly wrong. Copyright was primarily established to make sure the publisher was able to recoup costs, plus some profit, to get the materials printed and distributed to the widest possible audience. When it comes to books and printed materials like newspapers and magazines, that publishing(copying) cost has diminished greatly. The creating content cost has gone up, and there should be a good mechanism to recoup those costs. That may take a new legal framework to achieve in a manner that benefits those that actually create the content, rather than the gatekeepers. Copyright, as instituted, fails society as a whole. It needlessly locks up works that other current creators could generate new works from, or in this case could benefit they guy who puts in so much time to make the great content he creates. In a truly competitive environment, MLB should be paying him for the interest he creates in their product, rather than them taking away a possible revenue stream of his. It is sad that copyright has become a mechanism for large corporations to limit content that citizens get......
Unconstitutional laws
There are a lot of states with unconstitutional laws on the books. When a law is declared unconstitutional, it doesn't automatically get taken off the books, but it does become unenforceable. The officer that decided to try to find something to arrest him for went into that area of laws that he should have reasonably known that it was unenforceable, therefore he did violate the rights of Mr Mellott.
AT&T said in its filing that it wants the courts to set a clear standard for the type of approval the government needs in order to obtain cellphone location data, and that it isn't taking a position on whether the standard should be a warrant.
Translation
We just want to know if we can keep accepting post it notes from the FBI and DEA for this kind of records request.
Just like you wrote about the NSA
Of course, they are not Russian citizens, so they are not subject to the laws that demand a court order to surveil citizens. Just like everyone not a US citizen is not protected by the 4th Amendment. Sound familiar?
Not surprisig
I have a friend that lived in that area for several years, and after hearing stories about the police in that area this is not much of a surprise. They also said that particular rural medical facility has had several ethical lapses, and that they were not at all surprised by this news. A very sad thing.
still not asking the right questions
The statement said 35 NSA analysts had access to the queries. The question is how many outside contractors had access, since they aren't direct NSA employees. If they only have to audit their actual workers...I wouldn't be surprised if they use the concept of 3rd party business records access to get around some limitations to using these queries. Remember if it comes from a 3rd party they can get whatever records they want.
What can he appeal?
Wouldn't this appeal be more about challenging the finding of facts by the judge? If that is the case wouldn't Steele have to present the information that he plead the 5th on to have a chance at winning the appeal? It doesn't seem like appealing the fees is very likely to go anywhere. Talk about really trying to put himself in a worse place.
How to prevent these kinds of trolls
First of all kudos to Judge Wright I actually enjoyed reading the order.
This may be a little off this thread. I'm wondering if there are ways of preventing this kind of trolling. First, it seems that copyright was originally intended to protect the creator of their work. So the problem seems to stem from how copyright can (or if it should) be assigned. It seems that AF holdings has the copyright, but not the distribution mechanism. This observation may be closer to patent law, but if they are not getting paid by the distributor of the porn, then what right do they have to sue, since financial loss would be to the distributor, not the copyright holder. Could this hold as a bit of a litmus test for being able to sue based on unauthorized download of content? So, maybe the first step in copyright reform should be how copyright can be assigned? I don't think the intent was to protect lawyers and large corporations, but to protect the creators. This would bear to the point of difference between a monopoly right based on a creators creation, and an actual piece of property. I am not a legal expert, nor do i have an interest in this other than the entertainment I have received from following this site. So hopefully any flames will at least be educational to me.
Really?
Does the TSA really think that a few questions will get the bad guys to monologue their evil plans with a few simple questions? I think they must have been watching a comic book based movie marathon when they came up with this plan.