HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:36:17 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov21.065142.2718@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <13311@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov19.161549.10095@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> >> In article <13239@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
> >> writes:
# ## #Why do I suspect that the Supreme Court just wanted to teach this
# ## #guy a lesson about "wasting" their time?
# ## 
# ## Becuase you are a phony libertarian?  If that is what they thought,
# ## why did they accept the case in the first place?
# ## 
# #To make an example of what happens when you waste the time of 
# #the courts?
# 
# So why not deny certiorari, like the Court does for some 3000 other cases
# a year?

When the Court denies certiorari, it ends up on the back pages of
the newspaper (if the case is interesting).  When the Court makes
a ruling, it's usually front page news.
 
# I'm curious why you feel that this case was a waste of time for the
# courts.  Certainly, Hardwick didn't ask to be prosecuted in the first
# place.
# -- 
# ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 

Did I say that I thought the case was a waste of time?  No.  That's
why I put "wasting" in quotes above.  I said that I wonder if the
Court thought that their time was being wasted, because Hardwick
wasn't prosecuted.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.african.american
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Federal Prosecutor's plans in Rodeny King trail leaked to Defense!
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:34:00 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Nov20085539@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
> According to the TODAY show this morning, the "gameplan" of the
> federal prosecutors assigned the Rodney King case has been leaked to
> the defense.

What I don't get is how anyone knew that it had been leaked. Did the
defense attorney get the data, and then call a press conference to
announce it? That seems particularly stupid.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20205 misc.legal.computing:2295 rec.arts.books:20401
From: alanlb@bethesda.cs.vt.edu (Alan L. Batongbacal)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.legal.computing,rec.arts.books
Subject: Law books in electronic form?
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:53:03 GMT
Reply-To: alanlb@csgrad.cs.vt.edu
Followup-To: misc.legal

Hi there!  I have a brother who's a lawyer and he wants to know if
any publisher of law books distributes any of its products in
electronic form, whether floppy or CD-ROM.  Of particular interest
would be the large publishers such as West.

Thanks for any replies!

alan l. batongbacal
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: law books in electron
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:25:43 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Alan L. Batongbacal, in a message to All on 11-21-92 at 8:15pm, said:

AL>|Hi there!  I have a brother who's a lawyer and he wants to know if
   |any publisher of law books distributes any of its products in
   |electronic form, whether floppy or CD-ROM.  Of particular interest
   |would be the large publishers such as West.
   |__________________________________________________________________

               West has been slow to get on this bandwagon, but
               they do have several packages on CD-ROM now, in-
               cluding the New York Supp.  CD-ROM distribution
               has tended to be somewhat fragmented because the
               barriers to entry are very low.  There are, for
               example, several small companies that distribute
               Connecticut (of all places!) cases on CD-ROM. 
               Also, CCH and P-H have extensive tax libraries on
               CD-ROM now.  Unless you are in a large firm with
               lots of lawyers, I'm not sure CD-ROM is cost-ef-
               fective compared to Lexis and Westlaw.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  Hell hath no fury like the lawyer of woman scorned
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.invest
From: rwu@fig.citib.com (Raymond Wu)
Subject: promissory notes in NY
Originator: rwu@osprey
Organization: Citibank Distributed Processing
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:22:27 GMT


I'm not a consistent reader of this newsgroup, so accept my humble apologies
if this is an inappropriate usage of the bandwidth...

I would like to know if anyone has any experience with writing / creating a
promissory note that would hold up in the NY judicial system... things like
wording, terms, etc....

Thanks

Ray
-- 
============================================================================

	Raymond Wu
	Citibank                           Phone:   (212) 657-5426
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser)
Subject: Re: Shooting Gettingaway Carjackers Legal?
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:29:54 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
> Now that carjacking is a federal crime, I'm wondering about the
> legality of shooting a carjacker as he drives away with his stolen car.

$OPINION_WARNING

I understand that it is illegal to shoot to protect property,
only to protect live and/or limb.

How about shooting as a lesser evil assuming that the felon will
fel again?
-- 
* Insert Flame Bait Here *
--
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Keywords: _Skinner v. Oklahoma_, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:42:01 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <19394@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.223446.4225@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>Here's a hypothetical.
>>
>>Can Georgia constitutionally ban heterosexual sex?  [Ted Frank]
>
>We have it from Justice William Douglas's opinion for the U. S. 
>Supreme Court in _Skinner v. Oklahoma_, 316 U.S. 535 (1942),
>that legislation taking away the right to procreate affects
>"one of the basic civil rights of man," because marriage and
>procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival
>of the race.

Show me "marriage" and "procreation" in the Constitution.

Can a state require a fertility test before marriage?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: david@mks.com (David Rowley)
Subject: Certification Marks - Results?
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:54:15 GMT

A few days ago, I posted a question regarding the nature of Certification
Marks.  Unfortunately, many of the new 'misc.legal' followups expired
on the weekend at our site.   As a result, I didn't see any replys.

If there were replys, could someone forward them to me?  If there
weren't, then my question remains:

	What exactly is a Certification Mark, what rights does it
	give the holder, how is it typically used, and what Certification
	Marks have been granted in the past that people might be
	familiar with?

Thanks,
David Rowley
david@mks.com


-- 
     ll  // // ,~/~~\'   David Rowley
    /ll/// //l' `\\\     Mortice Kern Systems Inc.
   / l //_// ll\___/     35 King Street North, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2J 2W9
O_/                      519/884-2251, FAX 519/884-8861, david@mks.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:13:06 GMT

>officer, investigating officer and prosecutor.  He now spends quite a
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^

He's not a lawyer (though he probably knows mroe about criminal law 
that most JD's).  He acts as a prosecutor under a NH law which allows
"police prosecuters" under certain circumstances.

>bit of time as an expert witness in self defense cases.  As far as I
>know he has never lost a case that he assisted in.  Based largely on

He lost the case of NY vs. Frank Magdalani (sp?) - the "Ferrari Killer" 
convicted of using his licensed Colt Detective Special to shoot a
club weilding assailant.  (Magdalani screwed up handling of the 
aftermath - feeling the scene; admitting in a preliminary hearing
that he did not realize (at the time he pulled the trigger) that the 
club placed him in imminent fear of death (the judge therefore ruled info 
about the lethality of the club inadmissable since it was not part of the 
defendant's mindset at the time of the shooting).  Manny Kappleson,
another defense expert wittness, blames the conviction in part on 
Magdalani's "seeking out" of his assailant (whom he had earlier been
involved in some sort of minor traffic accident with).).

As far as I know, no student from his LFI-I course on the proper
use of lethal force has been convictred of any wrongdoing for a 
self defense shooting.


                                        rob b.
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Admitted to the bar in Massachusetts
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 08:12:48 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Nov17.064941.29309@u.washington.edu>

>
>So, what's next?  California?  New York?  Clearly, the EFF attorney should
>take and pass the bar in every jurisdiction reached by the net, right? :-)
>Do any of the bar review courses give a discount if you sign up for 20
>or 30 states at once? :-)
>
Well, I got my bar tab yesterday.  Including the three sections that I sign
up for: IP, business & litigation, it came up to be over $500.  This is 
mandatory bar, folks.  Membership has its disadvantages.  I'm glad I don't
have use for admission to a plurality of states.  My practice is mostly
federal.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: The Socratic Method
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:05:17 GMT

In article <bhayden.721665517@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:

>Admittedly, some of this is necessary. But I 
>believe that it is overdone, with many of the profs using the socratic
>method to inflate their own egos by destroying those of the students.

Ralph Nader, I believe, has called the Socratic Method "the game only one
can play."

But in my own law school experience I saw very little of the notorious
abuse of this method. Most of the professors I took had egos sufficiently
inflated for other reasons--they had no personal need to advance their
self-regard at the expense of students'.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:10:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.105247.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:

>Now wait a minute.  I think they did have a warrent, though their
>purpose was to search for drugs.

My recollection is that it was concerning an unpaid traffic ticket.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Actual lawyers on this group?
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:54:22 GMT

In article <246DuB4w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob  
Kirkpatrick) writes:
> AZ7408A@auvm.american.edu (Aimee J. Zeltzer) writes:
> 
> > 
> >   Can I tell you?  My goal in life as I near the end of my law
> >   school career is to dissuade any and all creative or intersting types
> > who are not anal retentive from going into law.  If you want to be
> > a corporate drone, and if you can pay attention to tiny, (indignificant)  
deta
> > s (like periods or commas, or whatever) go into law!  Right now I am  
working 
> >  a patent office and I could just die!!  However, if you like math or  
drawing
> > go for it.  But heed my warning:  It's a lie!! (p.s.  I don't care about  
typi
> >  or spelling--law school has failed with socializing this one!)
> 
> Whoa! Take it easy there, Aimee. When you're done with school, you can
> become a lawyer, marry a politician, get him elected and then change the
> world based on misinformation.

Or meet with a recent widow of a former client and do your best to assist her
through difficult times.

> 
> You can go into the wonderful world of family law, impart your own views
> and interpretations on the concept of 'fair and equal,' and affect many,
> many people.

Or handle an adoptions for a childless couple.
> 
> You could specialize in product liability and leave your mark by making it
> law to tell people not to use their false teeth as hemmorrhoid removers,
> not to operate large aircraft in school classrooms, or not to use plutonium
> as an aphrodesiac.

Or assist a couple of folks who have a great idea, but who don't know how to  
raise money and start a business.
> 
> Sure, it all looks bleak now, but hang on. It's going to get better. It's
> the Law.

It is the law.  And it can be personally rewarding.  By the way Mr.  
Kirkpatrick, exactly how much professional work did you give away this year?

> 
> --- 
> Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
> Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Premium Incentive Offer, anyone?
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:57:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

What's worse is that most of these scams are now using a 900 number that
charges about $4 a min so they get to sock you for about $12-15 even before
you find out what you won.  Of course there is a very complex mail-in 
method for finding out what you've won so they can claim that no charge is
necessary and the the 900 number is just of the winners conveinence.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: What's in a big law library?
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:30:15 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Nov15.154209.19854@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark 
Eckenwiler) writes:
> I can only tell you what NYU has, which seems like more than enough.
> (You tell me what size category it's in; I dunno.)
> 
> I should probably also mention the $1.4 million main stairway.  :(

Oh, yeah?  Well, Santa Clara University School of Law has the B.T. Connell 
Memorial Latrine.  To top it off, a large brass plaque above the urinal reads:

  If it ain't in Gilbert's,
  It ain't the law.

     - B.T. Connell



Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Keywords: copyright infringement felony
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:48:18 GMT


Glenn Tenney says there's a diference between borrowing audiotapes
(of, say, a seminar or self-help program) from a public
library, and a fee-charging lending library, as far as copying the
tapes for later use after the originals have been returned.

What is that difference, as far as the legal position of the copier
is concerned?

To expand the discussion, what about the common practice of copying
tapes one already owns, in order to have a copy in the car and one
at home, both for personal use?

-- 
David Sternlight
(pgp 2.0 and ripem public keys available on request)

Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: rfranken@mcs213d.cs.umr.edu (Richard Brett Frankenberger)
Subject: Re: DOS Format: Does it infringe Copywrite Laws?
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:47:30 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <bhayden.722268596@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>
>Technically, formatting a diskette doesn't put anything on it, but...
>The FORMAT command with the /s option does. That option causes the
>program to make the diskette bootable, by copying the 3 system files
>on to it. Try making a judge understand the difference..
>

Yes it does.  it:
 
(1) Creates a root-directory and some type-descriptions, etc.  These are almost
certainly NOT copyrightable.
 
(2) It writes a boot sector out.  (Do a FROMAT A: and then boot-up.  You will 
see a NOT A SYSTEM DISK or something like that message.  That comes from the
code in the boot sector).  Is this code copyrightable? Probably, although
I don't know if Microsoft cares if you use it.  I DO believe that microsoft
objects to fully bootable disks being distributed (with MSDOS.COM, 
IO.COm and COMMAND.COM on them).
 
Perhaps someone can comment on the boot sector code as to its protectedness.
 
       - Brett   (rfranken@cs.umr.edu)

NOTE: I am an electrical engineering / computer engineering major.  The
technical stuff probably have a chance of being correct ... but not the
legal stuff.


Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Keywords: copyright infringement felony
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 09:46:49 GMT


I don't think Glenn Tenney's example of auto theft answers the question.
Auto theft is a specific crime. I don't think the specific element
of "personal financial gain" is part of the definition.

Thus the question remains: Is the phrase "personal financial gain" in the
new copyright law intended to mean money changing hands, or does it
include avoidance of paying for something you wouldn't have bought
otherwise.

Finally, the parallel is not apt because when an auto is stolen, the
owner doesn't have it. When a tape is copied, the original is still
unaffected, as are other originals. Thus unless one sells the copy
(presumably depriving the copyright owner of the funds that actually
changed hands), the damage to the copyright owner from a copy for
one's own private use of a copy obtained legitimately (say from a
lending library), isn't demonstrable.

Note that I'm not defending any of this, simply inquiring as to where
the boundaries lie.

-- 
David Sternlight
PGP public key on request; RIPEM public key on server


Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Keywords: copyright infringement felony
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:41:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.184835.4749@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Glenn Tenney suggests that copying course tapes from a lending library
>for personal time-shifting use is financial gain to the extent
>of the commercial value of such tapes (I suppose, not to pick a nit,
>less the cost of one's blank tape).
>
>How is this different from time-shifting of HBO movies one has paid
>the HBO fee for?

The Sony Betamax case established time-shifting of TV shows as being
fair use.  I don't recall any similar cases relating to audiotapes.

I don't have your hypo handy, but it might be easily fair use if
you copied those 100 tapes to play WHILE you had the library copies
checked out.  I thought that your hypo was that you checked out,
copied, then returned the tapes before playing them.  If that's
the case, then I definitely see it as potentially infringing --
not that many of us don't do it!

In a very simplistic sense, imagine if every patron of your local
library had copies of 100 tapes.  Wouldn't you see that as at
the least a problem for the property owner? 

>
>Is there a distinction between public libraries one has paid for in taxes
>and a private library one pays a fee to?

Yes, as I recall.



-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Keywords: copyright infringement felony
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:32:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.222205.26094@wdl.loral.com> mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
> ...
>The "Fair Use" provisions in the copyright law allow copies materially
>necessary to the use of the item in question.  (i.e this is why the
>copy of a program from disk to memory so you can run it is not a
>copyright violation).  This probably means that coping a CD to cassette
>so that you can play it in the car is okay, while coping a cassette to
>another cassette to play in your car is probably not okay because you could
>have just played the original tape and the copy is not materially necessary.

The section that let's you make a copy so that you can use it
is the section specifically (and solely) covering computer programs. 
That section does NOT cover records, movies, or tapes.
Everyone (well, almost) does this with records and CDs, so even if
it were technically a violation, I can't imagine anyone objecting.
But then again...



-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property