HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 09143@ravel.udel.edu (NEMO)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: copyright information
Keywords: Copyright ownership
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:56:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Delaware

Hi all

I needed some pointers as to where to look for information on
copyright ownership of personal communication (letters to another person),
if at all there is any (ie, can letters be copyrighted?). I am particularly
interested in the electronic media copyrights. I tried to look it up
in the library but I was inundated by the wealth of information and
the obfuscatory language. Please e-mail and I'll summarize if there is
sufficient interest.

Cheers!
Vikram
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Literal Constitutionalism (was: NY State...)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:09:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.032600.5865@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>The whole debate about the second amendment concerns the
>interpretation of the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms."

Bzzt; the phrase is "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms".

You know those people.  They have the right "peaceably to assemble"
and "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".
Those are INDIVIDUAL rights.

>And how do you know they were not refering to "the people" in a
>corporate sense, that is, in the sense of "the people banding together
>for common self defense."?

Actually, a "well regulated militia" is "banding together for common
defense", but such a group is necessarily independent of govt; that's
what a "well regulated militia" is.  (Remember, an proposal to insert
"for the common defense" was REJECTED.)  The well regulated militia is
"necessary the defense of a free state", not for the defense of the
govt.  It can't exist with an infringed RKBA, but that phrase places
other limits on govt.  (Scarry's article on that is quite good; see
"War and the Social Contract: Nuclear Policy, Distribution, and the
Right to Bear Arms" in University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Volume
139, Number 5, May 1991.)

>Law is nothing but the currently fashionable interpretation of the
>words which are written in law books.

Lawyers may believe that, but when the law behaves that way, lawyers
go up against the wall....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: Neil Hull <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Virtual Ethics
X-To: JASON KIM
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:19:00 GMT

JK>In article <1992Apr8.204032.24041@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> wooledge@ces.cwru.edu
JK>egory Wooledge) writes:
JK>>   Consider VR to be an evolutionary obstacle.  Those who are trapped by
JK>>   it to the exclusion of real-life activities will die off.  Those who
JK>>   aren't will survive.  It's simply natural selection in a new realm.
JK>>   (YES, I am a "social Darwinist".)

JK>Social Darwinism is a sham and a blight to Darwin's good name. In this contex
JK>it is obvious why. Firstly, why would one "die off" just because he or she
JK>spends a lot of time in VR? I mean really. Are we to believe that "VR
JK>junkies" would just let themselves *starve to death* because they lose track
JK>of the time they spend on the Net? Or that their bodies would just atrophy
JK>to a point of no return? I mean, what is the argument here? The word "selecti
JK>in Darwin's thesis means *death*.

Well... IMHO, I believe that what Greg is saying that people who become
obsessed or even trapped by VR will not literally starve to death or die
in any PHYSICAL sense.

(Even so, read "Red Dwarf" by Grant Naylor, the book that accompanies the BBC
series by the same name, for a sub-plot involving a character so obsessed by
his VR game that he FORGETS that he is in VR and does not realise that even
though he is eating and drinking and even enjoying sexual delights in his
VR world, that he is not actually moving, or even eating...)

At any rate, what I BELIEVE he meant, was that people who are so obsessed
with VR, lose any sort of social connections with the real world and are
therefore unable to meet a mate and thus, to produce offspring.

IMHO, *this* is the "death" which Greg is alluding to.

W.

P.S.: I know whereof I speak.  All through high school and university, I
made a point of jumping right onto the computer AS SOON AS I finished my
homework.  During university, I was actually lucky enough to meet women,
and during the two times that I had semi-steady relationships, my computing
dropped off entirely.  I'll bet that I'm not the only person to have had
this problem...

(Granted, this is not a "legal" point, but something of interest to people
theorising how VR will affect our legal system.  I can see it now... Sometime
around the early 21st century, we are going to see the first headline that
says...

"DIVORCE FILED BECAUSE OF VR-OBSESSED SPOUSE" or
"DIVORCE FILED OVER SEXUAL ENCOUNTER IN VIRTUAL REALITY")

 * SLMR 2.1a * Back Up My Hard Drive? I Can't Find The Reverse Switch!
From: demento@jjjub.s.s.pa.us (Ben Barrett)
Newsgroups: alt.sexsexs.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Intent (was Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics)
Date: 7 Apr 92 10:00:44 GMT
Organization: The Clubhouse, Bellefonte, PA

wooledge@ces.cwru.edu (Gregory Wooledge) writes:

> minotaur@labyrnth.via.mind.org (The MThe MTtaur) we
mu 
> >Remember, most
> >courts require that there be *intent* to commit an act in order for ifor ifto be illegal.
> 
> >The bruiser:  Is intent alone enough to convict?
> 
> Certainly.  "Attempted murder", for example, is a crime.  Someone s <Xnot
> be let go just because (s)he failed in an attempt to performperformpime.  (SSSe
> will probably try again.
> -- 
> Greg g gedge		/..\			Wizard in training.
> ing.
> i
yes, this is true, but will the world ever comr comrn age where unjust 
conviction will be just not happening...?
Will we ever be able to determine whetherethereme was not anot anted, or 
if it was failed?
If so, what will determine this, man or machine?
post replies, but email me also, as I'm not a regular reader of 
alt.calt.caunk.....                                             nto@hogbbsbbsbol.ol.os
                                        jamminmminmsclsclsscol.l.l  <----

-+-+-+---Computers... the silicon opium...   (   \
  \
  \to (Ben Barrett)               +  |\
  co-sysop@stry
;3-7245,               )   /\ \
  Little Mac BBS... call today!!         
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  Marin County, Ca.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:45:07 GMT

In article <ARG.92Apr1133243@huxley.bitstream.com> arg@bitstream.com writes:
>Sorry for the confusion.  Let me clarify: suppose two juries find the facts
>in their respective  cases the same, e.g., both  defendants were  found  to
>have   committed the same   act X in  violation  of  statute.   If one jury
>convicts in accordance with  the statute,  but  the other jury  acquits  by
>disregarding and  ignoring the law, this would  make our legal  system very
>capricious and arbitrary, which I think violates a basic tenet of fairness.
>
>We should strive to mete out equal punishment for similar crimes.

But our legal system fails on this count whether or not there is jury
nullification.  Your ability to hire the counsel of your choice will
certainly affect your chances of being convicted.  If in your scenario
above, we say that one defendant had a public defender, and one had a
highly paid top criminal-defense attorney, the results might very well
be the same.  Why is one fair, and the other un-fair ?

The length of sentence you get can certainly depend upon which judge
you get (just ask Jim Baker).  As long as the legal system is run by
people, there are going to be inequities.  I think that jury nullification
is more likely to make the legal system a bit more fair, not less.

Guido

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Custody Cases
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:29:05 GMT

I first posted this to talk.religion.misc, where there has been an ongoing
conversation on this topic.  Due to the legal content of the subject,
I thought it may be of interest to people in this group.  If not,
let me know...

[original post from t.r.m. follows:]

For those who have been following the related thread, I've managed to find my
copy of the booklet in question.   In my original post (that started the thread)
I wrote that a judge in Kansas had ruled the JWs booklet recommends "untrue"
testimony under oath.  I do not know for sure which parts of the booklet the
judge was citing; I do have the booklet, and see parts *I* believe recommend
"untrue" testimony.  I imagine they include some of the parts the judge cited.

The booklet is 64 pages long, with sections on sample cross-examination questions
that JW parents might face, and sample answers to them; sample cross-examination
questions to ask the NON-JW parent, sample questions that might be asked of
an elder, with responses, and (the most interesting section) sample questions
and answers for JW children.    There is also another section in the end
on how to handle psycholigical examination that would likely go along with
the custody hearing.  

I plan on going over the sections that could be construed as recommending
"untrue" testimony.  This will involve reproducing portions of the booklet,
and referencing other JW literature that relate to the subject.

I hope this will:
1) Show why the judge in a custody case might rule that the Jehovahs' Witnesses
   are recommending that their followers give "untrue" testimony, through
   their "Preparing for Child Custody Cases" booklet.
2) Give some insight into how the public "face" put forth by the group
   doesn't always mesh with the reality inside.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: QUINN%GONZAGA.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Very basic question
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:30:09 GMT

Sorry to send this to your list, but would someone kindly email me
signon instructions?  Thank you,

James Quinn
Reference Librarian
Gonzaga University School of Law Library
Quinn@Gonzaga.Bitnet
Quinn%Gonzaga.Bitnet@uga.cc.uga.edu
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Marijuana addiction
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:18:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsu.1992Apr6.201837.13987
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <crb2.702434685@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>Ryan Craig asks if marijuana is addicitive in any way.  The scientific 
>community says 'no'.  THC isn't addictive, it can be habit forming, like
>taking a pee before bedtime...although your body doesn't have to, you may
>become quite uncomfortable about going to bed without trying (so much so that yoyou may not be able to sleep if you think about it.
>
>There is however no reputable scientist out there saying this stuff is at all
>GOOD  for you!!!  Just letting you know.   Chad

Unless you are suffering from the side-effects of chemo or have astmha,
open-angle glaucoma, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, anorexia, or a host of other
disorders.

But I guess this is the wrong newsgroup to discuss this in.

-marc
andersom@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:52:24 GMT

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>
>>What basis does the United States have for "arresting" foreign
>>nationals who break our laws in other countries?   [Jonathan Woodman]
>
>It's the "long arm."

So in other words, if the European Community becomes too successful
in the trade realm, America will start Marine landings at Amsterdam
and other cities to enforce the war against child pornography? (-;

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				U.S. Elections 1992, Vote Now:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		a) Elvis 50's stamp, or
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			b) Elvis 70's stamp?
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Software Renting
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:41:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: CERIS.1992Apr9.214139.18617
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <bcnj02TC0fjB01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, by tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll):
> In article <1992Apr8.212028.419@holos0.uucp> lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>>Why should there be a law against renting software?
> Because it's a disguised way of permitting infringement.
> 
>> Is there such a law?
> Yes: 17 USC 109.
> 
>>So what if it's copyrighted?  So are video tapes with movies and music on
>>compact discs.
> 
> Renting compact disks is illegal by the same law.
> 
>>If the renter copies the software/movie/music, the renter is committing
>>copyright infringement.
> 
> So is the person renting it out.  There's a belief many people have that
> "copying" is the only right conveyed by copyright.  'tain't so.  Among
> other rights is the right of distribution, se 17 USC 106(3).
>

Do the movie rental places pay someone for the right to rent the
movie?  How does that work?

I don't know of anyone renting software, but I have seen some
places who rent out Nintendo games.  I remember seeing mail order
places in the computer magazines that claimed to rent software,
but I don't know if they're still around. 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas More)
From: grotter@pilot.njin.net (Ephraim Rotter)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: INFO REQUESTED ON THE DEATH PENELTY
Keywords: email!
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:11:58 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



Any information reguarding the death penelty would be greatyly
appreciated!

--Eph
From: chris.sabine@cccbbs.UUCP (Chris Sabine) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: MO V WILSON
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS - Cincinnati, OH - 513-752-8248
Reply-To: chris.sabine@cccbbs.UUCP (Chris Sabine) 

I am looking for information pertaining the case of Missouri v Wilson,
in which a mentally retarded man was found guilty of murder and arson.
The man  was accused by another mentally retarded man who was a known
troublemaker, coerced into a confession by the police, and prodded into
pleading guilty to the charges against him by the judge.  The appellate
court and the Missouri Suprreme Court both have affirmed the trial
court's  decision, and, I assume, the case has been appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court.  Segments of "Unsolved Mysteries", and "Saturday
Evening with Connie Chung" have been devoted to this case.  I've
called the Missouri court where the case was tried, the Missouri
Supreme Court, and Unsolved Mysterys' telecenter, but I've not heard
anything about this case.  Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance,
Chris Sabine
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: request: e-mail priva
From: hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller)
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:11:29 GMT
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Ted Frank, in a message to All on 04-09-92 at 10:35am, said:

TF/3I'm interested in asking the collective knowledge of the net whether
   3they have any information on corporate liability for:
   3(1) E-mail/corporate mail messages posted by employees (libel, etc.)
   3(2) Unauthorized reading of private electronic mail
   3(3) E-mail privacy issues in general.
   TMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>

          Ted, I looked into this for a client a while ago and found,
          to my chagrin, virtually nothing on Lexis.  This reflects the
          newness of the medium, I suspect.  My suggestion is to assume
          by extension that everything you can think about that would
          apply to the written or filmed media should apply to email. 
          You know about the Electronic Privacy Act?


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
   s r
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.21 #11645 ~ Reasoning, circular.  See "Circular reasoning."
--
Executive Network Information System   (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9094 alt.society.civil-liberty:3347
From: billy@anasaz (Bill Moore)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:25:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <204488@unix.cis.pitt.edu> jgh1+@pitt.edu (John G Hardie) writes:
->In article <1992Apr2.023431.13453@panix.com> simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) writes:
->[...]
->
->This is insane!  From the sound of this thread we have a guaranteed right
->(as defined in US/State constitutions) of jurors, i.e. jury nullification,

You're the one whose being silly.  You have NO "guaranteed right" under the
constitution the Federal government can't take away from you if they so
choose.  Where have you been?  You CAN be tried more than once for the same
crime (it took 4 trials to get John Gotti but we got him), the government
CAN take your property without compensation, the government CAN infringe
your right to bear arms, they CAN take your children away without judical
review and on and on and on. If we keep re-electing those who are doing this,
the constitution will be a meaningless piece of paper in a few years.

->and (benevolent !?) government is ALLOWED to charge anyone talking about 
->(not to mention exercising) this right with CONTEMPT??  Well, this sounds
->highly irregular, if not illegal.  How the he** do these pinheads
->justify this?  I've never been called for jury duty, but if the occasion
->should arise, and should I feel the law unjust, you can be d*mn certain
->that I'm not gonna sit there and shut up!
>
>Outraged and sputtering with indignation,
>John
>
>-- 
>jgh1@vm1.cis.pitt.edu
>
>	Give me chastity and continency, but do not give them yet.


-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Bill Moore     billy%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu    (602) 395-1732
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dutcher@seas.gwu.edu (Sylvia Dutcher)
Subject: Re: photo of minor, etc./
Organization: George Washington University
Distribution: misc
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 14:19:48 GMT

>Allen Smith, in a message to All on 04-07-92 at 6:10pm, said:
>
>AS/3 That's an interesting point. Should people have copyrights over
>   3their appearance, etc? I'd say yes. Just as someone shouldn't be able to
>   3find out/use my grades, etc. without my permission, they shouldn't be abl
>   3to use my appearance without my permission.
Hillary Miller replies:
>               They can't.  It is a tort which the Restatement
>               lists under the heading of "privacy" to use the
>               name, portrait, picture or likeness of a person
>               for commercial purposes without their consent.
------------
[Comment by Phil Gagner]:
	Well, it depends.  In some states, New York, for example, there's
a particular statute covering the point.  In others it's a common law
tort, as Ms. Miller suggests.  However, some states (e.g. the District
of Columbia) haven't adopted the tort.  In D.C. a case involving a photography
studio two years ago, the studio used a portrait picture of a person
in a yellow page ad.  The person sued.  The court held that there was
no right of privacy to a person's likeness in the District of Columbia,
relying on an old D.C.App. case, but suggested the court of appeals
or the legislature should change this.
	Finally, there's nothing in copyright law which would protect
your appearance, as copyright protects the author's right in an
original work.  Now if God were applying for the copyright in your
appearance, that would be one thing.  Or if you had somehow (artistically?)
modified your appearance (made yourself a visual work, perhaps), then
you could probably copyright yourself.

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Organization: The Ohio State University College of Law
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:06:26 GMT

In article  matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article jokiniem@cs.Helsinki.FI (Jari Jokiniemi) writes:
>>In article  matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>>>			If Noriega was, as the jury found, engaged in
>>>poisoning American kids with drugs, the fact that he was a head of state
>>>ought not to have protected him from being brought to Justice.

>>Then it should be quite OK for any fundamentalist muslim country to
>>kidnap any american in the territory of the USA and bring him to that
>>muslim state to be convicted by the islamic law.
>>[Jari Jokiniemi]                    ^^^^^^^^^^^

>I wrote about Justice, and Jari Jokiniemi responds with a statement
>about Islamic law.  Are we supposed to believe that the two are
>equivalent?

When you write about "Justice" you equate it with US law, since you claim
that Noriage was brought to "justice", i.e. a federal courtroom.

Are we supposed to believe that US law and justice are any more equivalent
than islamic law and justice?

-- 
Jonathan Woodman                   \ "I mean, sex is one thing, but reading
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu /  to someone is *really* intimate." C. Duda
The Ohio State University          \ "Oh, you can slice that salami of 
   College of Law                  /  copyright any number of ways." S. Halpern
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13745 misc.legal:9004 rec.arts.tv:9308
From: conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:22:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sex
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Apr7.221905.22314@hsv3.uucp> mvp@hsv3.uucp (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

>As long as we're making a list, add "Ghost Story", rated R, for the
>scene where Richard Crenna fell naked out of a window on the umpteenth
>floor.

Craig Wasson, not Richard Crenna.

I also forgot Christopher Atkins in "Blue Lagoon" and his other movie
whose title escapes me (A Night in Heaven?), and Willie Aames in
"Paradise."

Jon Alan Conrad