HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: request: e-mail priva
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: misc
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:26:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.1297.8606@execnet> "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com> writes:

>          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?

A recent case in federal district court in New York addresses the issue of
whether CompuServe could be liable for defamatory comments that appeared
in a CompuServe forum run by a subcontractor. Judge Leisure held that,
as a matter of law, CompuServe in this case is most like a bookstore or
book distributor and is therefore protected by the First Amendment from
liability for defamation in the material it makes available. (Plaintiff
was arguing that CompuServe is more like a publisher or editor, and
that normal principles of publisher liability for defamation ought to
apply.) 

This case, Cubby Inc. v. CompuServe, marks the recognition by at least one
court that online forums, while partaking of First Amendment protections,
typically are not precisely analogous to newspapers and magazines, since
the defamer typically has the ability to post something defamatory without
the sysop/moderator's prior review or knowledge.

This case relies extensively on the Supreme Court's decision in Smith v.
California: holding bookstores liable for specific material in their
publications would exert a chilling effect on the operation of bookstores.
(Adult bookstores, often prosecuted for obscenity, are a special case--in
such cases, the Court has held, it is safe to impute to the bookstore
operator or owner the knowledge that the material he or she carries is
obscene.)


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Anyone who has obeyed nature by transmitting a piece
mnemonic@eff.org | of gossip experiences the explosive relief that
(617) 864-0665   | accompanies the satisfying of a primary need."
EFF, Cambridge   |          --Primo Levi
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Marijuana addiction
Date: 5 Apr 92 02:31:17 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

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

Perhaps not in general, but it is certainly good for some cancer and
glaucoma patients (reduces chemotherapy nausea, slows glaucoma). I am
not a doctor, but this is what I have read.

'Course, dear ol' Uncle Sam has decided that doctors are not to be
permitted to prescribe it for their patients any more, the WoD clearly
being far more important than the welfare of human beings.

Paul
From: f71839389@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (D R Friedman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: HELP for a Hungarian Emigree seeking Legal Employment
Keywords: job
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I have become acquainted with a Hungarian emigree who is desperately seeking
employment as a full time attorney anywhere in the U.S.  He has the
necessary degrees(advanced), worked in some ministry as the director
or lead planner in Hungary.

He is currently studying to try to pass the California bar exam and has
been reduced to doing menial labor here in Arizona.

I am sending this message as a test flag to see what ideas I can get
or what kind of assistance to direct him to.  

He is doing some legal research for some company here in Tucson that has
paid for him to take the California bar.

I have asked him to prepare for me a summary of his qualifications and degrees
and I will post them next week.  He deserves a break and I realize that
the legal profession is also downsizing.  But to work as a food server
because he did not graduate from an Arizona university to me is
sinful and somewhat distasteful reflection on at least one state's bar.


Denny Friedman                            F71839389@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
                                               DFRIEDMAN@Hopi.azcc.arizona.edu
Any kind of machinery used for shortening labour-except used in a cooperative 
society like ours- must tend to less wages, and to deprive working men of 
employment and finally either starve them or compel them to emigrate

	--Manifesto Cooperative Community County Clare Ireland, 1883
	on the introduction of the reaping machine.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9093 alt.society.civil-liberty:3346
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:32:39 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <ARG.92Mar31115252@huxley.bitstream.com> arg@bitstream.com writes:
>speaker@halcyon.com (Speaker) writes:
>   Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
>   Date: 28 Mar 92 07:14:41 GMT
>
>   jury nullifcation (sic) is the fairest form of justice I can think of.
>
>While I'm glad that juries can acquit for any  reason they see fit, I would
>not call this "fairest justice."
>
>Jury  nullification has problems that are  often overlooked.   It makes the
>legal system more capricious because the law may not be  applied equally to
>all parties.   When one  criminal is  convicted,  but  another  is acquited
>because the jury ignored and disregarded the law I think this is unfair.
>

In the first place, jury nullification exists to set aside bad laws.
In the second place, no two court cases are identical, so the issue
of equal protection is bogus.  As long as each criminal defendant
has equal access to the legal process, then equal protection has been
met.  There is no way to legislate verdicts in advance.  Thankfully.


>It would be a better solution to repeal bad laws but enforce  existing laws
>equally.

We will never get rid of all bad laws.  Without jury nullification,
we will get rid of damn few, if any.  Try again.

--Al Date
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9081 alt.bbs:3400
From: tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Copyright infringement, etc. was:Re: Ways of chilling or banning Usenet
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:24:25 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Apr9.150242.288@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.UUCP () writes:
>Even today, the inclusion of a copy protection scheme (SCMS) within
>consumer digital audio tape (DAT) recorders is being done by
>the manufacturers on a strictly voluntary basis.  There is NO law
>that requires SCMS circuitry to be so included.

Yet.  But Senate Bil 1620, which is practically a done deal ("everyone"
agrees it's great), will mandate inclusion of the Serial Copy Management
System (SCMS).
-- 
The above is my thoughts, not Amdahl's;   |  Terry Carroll  408/992-2152
The above is not legal advice;            |  Senior Computer Architect
All models over 18 years of age;          |  Amdahl Corporation
Contents sold by weight, not by volume;   |  tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
Your mileage may vary.                    |  tjc50@amail.amdahl.com
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Software Renting
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:34:29 GMT
	<bcnj02TC0fjB01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <john_newman.34@qmcc.curtin.edu.au>
	<1992Apr10.145601.4307@eng.umd.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.

In article <1992Apr10.145601.4307@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
   In article <john_newman.34@qmcc.curtin.edu.au> john_newman@qmcc.curtin.edu.au (John Newman) writes:
   >
   >Logically, how can I argue that software and CDROMs are any different
   >to music and video disks/tapes/cassettes.?

   You can make exact copies of the former.

Come now, Matthew---all these are digital formats except tapes and cassettes,
tapes are rapidly coming to mean DAT, and cassettes are a fading format.

A further question for Terry Carroll, if he's read this far into the thread,
or for anyone: does 17 USC 109 allow the copyright owners to limit
renting of ordinary books?  (Okay, maybe I'll stop at the library on the
way home and look it up myself.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Summary: More Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:53:05 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <khsjs9g.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) 
writes:

>1. The Iraqis can now kidnap President Bush and put him on trial in
>Baghdad  for mass murder.  [David Feustel]

The main implication of the Noriega trial is that the following argument
no longer holds:

   "You can arrest my employees, my lackeys and my stooges.  
    You can bomb my soldiers, sink my sailors, and shoot down
    my airmen.
    But you can't touch me, because I'm a head of state and I
    have sovereign immunity no matter what I do.  I'm a king,
    and a king can do no wrong."

>2. It's OK for IRAN to carry out its death sentence on Rushidie.
>[David Feustel]

On the contrary!  Whatever Ayatollah who imposed that sentence (if he
were still alive) would be criminally responsible in a British court 
as a principal in the crime of attempted murder of a British subject
in Britain.  Before the Noriega precedent, such an Ayatollah could
have argued, "I'm the head of state of Iran, and therefore I can never
be held criminally responsible for anything that I, in the course of
my business as head of state, order my servants to do."  With the
Noriega precedent, if the Special Air Service can get its hands on
the Ayatollah, he will find himself in the dock at Old Bailey.

The Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and put him on trial
in Israel for ordering the murder of Jews in Europe.  As far as I can 
see, the main difference between what the Israelis did to Eichmann and 
what the Americans did to Noriega is that Noriega was a head of state
and Eichmann was not.  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.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 23:09:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.040514.17383@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman) writes:

>Hmmm. I wonder if the jurors at Noreiga's trial were told about jury
>nullification.

A newspaper report about the judge's instructions to the jury said
that he had instructed the jurors that he had decided the questions of
law and they should only decide the facts.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Software Renting
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:20:28 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <crb2.702432503@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
=Hey, I found a computer store that will rent software (c).  Very recent
=very copyrighted stuff.  I read an article in a magazine about a place 
=that was 'getting around the software renting laws' by selling software
=that it will buy back.  The place I found is blatantly RENTING the software.

Why should there be a law against renting software?  Is there such a law?
So what if it's copyrighted?  So are video tapes with movies and music on
compact discs.

If the renter copies the software/movie/music, the renter is committing
copyright infringement.
Xref: sparky alt.sex:14018 misc.legal:9111 rec.arts.tv:9411
From: boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The fox so cunning and free)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:57:17 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <P.wyvern.7@troll.cs.uow.edu.au>, sik@cs.uow.edu.au (The 24hr man) writes...

} In article <1992Apr9.215907.18456@bilver.uucp> alex@bilver.uucp (Alex Matulich) wrote:

}} "Life of Brian" showed a full-frontal nude shot of Brian at one point. [...]
}} It was NOT rated X nor NC-17.

} Yes, but was it left dangling - or standing up ?-/

It doesn't matter. The statement that essentially started this thread was
that any film that showed genitalia automatically got an "X" rating. No
qualifier as to the state of arousal of said genitalia was included.

-- 

	"Buster, this trip downriver has been truly special.
	 Downright Twainian in a Hitchcockian sort of way."


--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

    boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: japanese maritime (sa
From: hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller)
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:11:28 GMT
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Arl00sjb, in a message to All on 04-09-92 at 9:14pm, said:

AB/3I'm writing a short story in which someone finds gold ingots in the shall
   3off the coast of Japan.  I need to know 1) how long would the Japanese
   3government (or whoever) keep the property found before allowing the finde
   3take possession of the gold and 2) how much in taxes would said governmen
   3(or whoever) take from the finder?  I've asked several legal professional
   3these questions, and no one knew.  They suggested others to ask, but stil
   3luck.  Anybody have a suggestion who to ask, or even better, anybody *kno
   TMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>

          Can't help with Japan, but here's the law in the U.S.: find-
          ers keepers.  Finding and taking possession of salvage is
          gross income to the extent of the fair market value of the
          itmes found, and is subject to deductible business expenses
          of the salvors.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
   s r
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.21 #11645 ~ Politically incorrect and proud of it.
--
Executive Network Information System   (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13992 misc.legal:9106 rec.arts.tv:9407
From: terry-g@by-tor.Gwinnett.COM (Terry Gardner)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:18:00 GMT
Organization: Klone@Home

Didn't David Keith show some dick while hanging in the shower in the
original "An Officer and a Gentleman"?


-- 
		Aborting, Retrying, Ignoring, and Failing.....
		$ make love
		Don't know how to make love. Stop.
		Terry J. Gardner, terry-g@Gwinnett.COM, terry@thdhub
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Justices refuse to a (1)
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:17:19 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <1992Apr4.151802.28248@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Neil Hull) writes:

>I'm absolutely flabbergasted to hear that of all people, Sandra Day
>O'Connor would have wanted to hear an appeal allowing any form of
>censorship.

>From what I have heard (as a Canadian), Justice O'Connor is apparently
>the Supreme Court's most passionate "liberal".

This is a joke, right?  O'Conner a liberal!  For God's sake she was
appointed by R.W.R.  The last two real liberals on the court were
Brennan and Marshall.  The court now goes from moderately conservative
(Stevens) to moderately conservative (O'Conner) to flat-out-crazy-off-the-
map-right-wing.

There is no one on the court who is an true free speech advocate.  Even
Brennan voted for (wrote?) the "community standards" ruling.  Douglas and
Black were a long time ago....
From: tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Justices
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:19:12 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Apr9.054427.19146@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:
>
>o'connor is a moderate conservative, yes.  my vote for ultra right-wing
>goes to scalia, though rehnquist is a close second.

Well, Rehnquist is just dumb.  Scalia, I'd like to point out, is, if I
recall correctly, the justice who wrote an impassioned dissent saying
that the Treasury Department's mandatory urine-testing of certain of
its Customs employees was an infringement of their Fourth Amendment
rights.  The case was soemthing like U.S. Treasury Employees v. Von
Raab.  I can't remember the cite (I can't remember most cites!), but it
was decided 3/21/89.

Anyway, he ain't all bad.  And the good news is that he's so abrasive
that he prevents the court from jelling into a solid conservative front.
-- 
The above is my thoughts, not Amdahl's;   |  Terry Carroll  408/992-2152
The above is not legal advice;            |  Senior Computer Architect
All models over 18 years of age;          |  Amdahl Corporation
Contents sold by weight, not by volume;   |  tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
Your mileage may vary.                    |  tjc50@amail.amdahl.com
Xref: sparky misc.legal:8863 talk.politics.drugs:2701 alt.drugs:7194
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:25:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: esd.1992Apr7.232540.18978
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support

From article <VZRPiB3w164w@gorilla.nbn.com>, by deej@gorilla.nbn.com (Donna Corner Holmes):
> arg@huxley.bitstream.com (Adam R. Grossman) writes:
>
>> I still think the most fair thing is for people to be
>> convicted when they have violated statutes and acquitted when they have not
>> (or if there is reasonable doubt.)
>>
>> If you think its such  a good thing  for juries to  ignore the law whenever
>> they feel like it, I have to wonder: why have laws?
>> --
>
> I'm afraid I have to agree here. There are other ways to get laws changed,
> and a better way to make your point would be to get yourself nixed from
> the jury in the first place by saying that you disagree with the law and
> and therefore cannot uphold it. If everyone started doing what is suggested
> in terms of jury nullification, it could result in total anarchy and a
> failed legal system. Granted, the system is in poor shape in many ways and
> could use some revamping, but I do not believe this is the appropriate
> method.
>
>
> ***********************************************************************
> Donna Corner Holmes (deej@gorilla.nbn.com)
> Summary Insight (Deposition Summaries) - San Rafael, CA  (415) 488-1659
> ***********************************************************************

This is an interesting view of "Justice" - that if one person is found
guilty and punished for breaking a bad statute, everyone else must be also
convicted and punished for breaking the same bad statute.

If "everyone" resumed (originally, all juries did this) judging the
validity of statutes, then many innocent people would not go to jail and
legislatures would likely repeal the bad legislation.

This is exactly what happened in the 1840-1860 time period:

Many northern states had statutes requiring escaped slaves to be returned
to their former masters.  Northern juries decided these were bad statutes
and refused to convict the former slave and send him/her back to the former
owner.  Then, the northern states repealed the "fugitive slave statutes".

You seem to be suggesting that justice would be served if more of those
escaped slaves had been returned to slavery.


---------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
From: tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Software Renting
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:12:59 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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).
-- 
The above is my thoughts, not Amdahl's;   |  Terry Carroll  408/992-2152
The above is not legal advice;            |  Senior Computer Architect
All models over 18 years of age;          |  Amdahl Corporation
Contents sold by weight, not by volume;   |  tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
Your mileage may vary.                    |  tjc50@amail.amdahl.com
From: tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Software Renting
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:49:30 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <crb2.702432503@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>Hey, I found a computer store that will rent software (c).  Very recent
>very copyrighted stuff.  I read an article in a magazine about a place 
>that was 'getting around the software renting laws' by selling software
>that it will buy back.  The place I found is blatantly RENTING the software.
>Is the law that I read about a national law, or just a, say, California
>law?  I can't believe that this could possible be legal, but hey, I am
>not a lawyer, could someone tell me what is and isn't legal in this
>subject, and tell me what is Federal and/or State controlled?

It's illegal under federal copyright law (the only US copyright law),
specifically, 17 USC 109(b).
-- 
The above is my thoughts, not Amdahl's;   |  Terry Carroll  408/992-2152
The above is not legal advice;            |  Senior Computer Architect
All models over 18 years of age;          |  Amdahl Corporation
Contents sold by weight, not by volume;   |  tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
Your mileage may vary.                    |  tjc50@amail.amdahl.com
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13563 misc.legal:8886 rec.arts.tv:9234