That is basically correct. What I don't get from this is whether this was a spoken word inteview that was transcribed by Gerrard (in which case copyright exists only for Gerrard), or whether this was a written interview, in which case both of them would be co-authors. Either way, as an author or as a co-author, Gerrard would still have the ability to use, sell, and license the work as he wishes.
Sorry, but this procedure isn't exactly 'everyday means.' Sure, if you have access to someone you can somehow figure out how to get a high resolution copy of their fingerprint, then invest the time and effort to make your latex copy of their fingerprint. But come on, for the average user, worrying about an attack along this vector is ridiculous.
Newsflash: nothing is 100% secure. That said, it's reasonably secure. Like most any other form of security, it's susceptible to social engineering.
17 U.S.C. ?201(e) still applies, and the transfer is invalid. You have to transfer either complete ownership or the one of the exclusive rights to abrogate ?201(e). The transfer under the site's ToS is a non-exclusive license, which isn't enough to meet that standard.
but it is obvious he didn't think a lot of this through. It doesn't appear he even remotely considered that the U.S. would deny him the ability to travel internationally (to the point of downing foreign dignitaries planes searching for him).
That said, I doubt Snowden has any of the remaining information in his possession on him. Not, at least, physically. Where the information is at the moment is probably the #1 priority of NSA analysts seeking to track him.
How were you involved? On the Judiciary Committee staff drafting the bill under Orrin Hatch? Because your interpretation of the reasoning for those provisions of the DMCA doesn't match their recollections.
why counsel in this case didn't file a constitutional complaint in this matter under the First and Fifth Amendments. I'm sure it would have cost some money, but it seems clear that this would have been a fee-shifting case, based on what happened later.
Whether the government follows proper in rem proceedures doesn't have anything to do with whether the party whose items were seized has the right to file 42 U.S.C. 1983 actions for purported constitutional violations.
At worst, filing an action would cause the government to have to come to court and assert that they are properly trying to seize the domains, at which time the court hearing the matter could decline to allow the 1983 action to go forward while the forfeiture action was pending.
Re: Fixed form
That is basically correct. What I don't get from this is whether this was a spoken word inteview that was transcribed by Gerrard (in which case copyright exists only for Gerrard), or whether this was a written interview, in which case both of them would be co-authors. Either way, as an author or as a co-author, Gerrard would still have the ability to use, sell, and license the work as he wishes.
Everyday means?
Sorry, but this procedure isn't exactly 'everyday means.' Sure, if you have access to someone you can somehow figure out how to get a high resolution copy of their fingerprint, then invest the time and effort to make your latex copy of their fingerprint. But come on, for the average user, worrying about an attack along this vector is ridiculous.
Newsflash: nothing is 100% secure. That said, it's reasonably secure. Like most any other form of security, it's susceptible to social engineering.
Re:
17 U.S.C. ?201(e) still applies, and the transfer is invalid. You have to transfer either complete ownership or the one of the exclusive rights to abrogate ?201(e). The transfer under the site's ToS is a non-exclusive license, which isn't enough to meet that standard.
Snowden is smart
but it is obvious he didn't think a lot of this through. It doesn't appear he even remotely considered that the U.S. would deny him the ability to travel internationally (to the point of downing foreign dignitaries planes searching for him).
That said, I doubt Snowden has any of the remaining information in his possession on him. Not, at least, physically. Where the information is at the moment is probably the #1 priority of NSA analysts seeking to track him.
Re:
How were you involved? On the Judiciary Committee staff drafting the bill under Orrin Hatch? Because your interpretation of the reasoning for those provisions of the DMCA doesn't match their recollections.
Re:
Please name me an item that has "fallen into the public domain" over the past 20 years. Oh, that's right, nothing has, has it?
I'm puzzled
why counsel in this case didn't file a constitutional complaint in this matter under the First and Fifth Amendments. I'm sure it would have cost some money, but it seems clear that this would have been a fee-shifting case, based on what happened later.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether the government follows proper in rem proceedures doesn't have anything to do with whether the party whose items were seized has the right to file 42 U.S.C. 1983 actions for purported constitutional violations.
At worst, filing an action would cause the government to have to come to court and assert that they are properly trying to seize the domains, at which time the court hearing the matter could decline to allow the 1983 action to go forward while the forfeiture action was pending.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. Anybody who claims they "don't know who to sue" is just blowing smoke. The real issue is, who is going to pay their attorneys?