HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cahduns@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Henry Dunsmore)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Canadian Copyright Law
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:19:56 GMT
Followup-To: dunsmore@upei.ca
Organization: University of Prince Edward Island


The University of PEI is currently reviewing the copyright laws of Canada to
determine the exact letter of the law as it applies.  I have a raft of
material on copyright to read and decipher, but I am interested in the
process of investigation of copyright infringement.

	Is there a *copyright police force*?
	What is the process of applying the law to abusers?
	What kind of penalties are involved?
	Have there been any cases come to trial (I know about the Toronto
	Police Force lawsuit)?

I realize that the copyright laws of other countries are different to those
in Canada, but it would be interesting to hear from anyone that has had some
first hand experience with the copyright issue in their country.
 
Sorry if this is the wrong place to place this message, but I'm starting to
scratch surface on this issue and I'm not sure who might know this stuff. 
Any assistance, direction, leads, names, reports, etc would be greatly
appreciated!
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,rec.arts.tv
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges)
Subject: Sinead O'Connor's Freedom of Speech ( was Re: SNL - Oct 3, Latest on Sinead reaction
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:28:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.133100.10766@linus.mitre.org> jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz) writes:
>
>
>I find it mildly amusing that S(k)in(h)ead wouldn't appear on SNL with
>Andrew Dice Clay because of how "offensive" she found him, and now she
>may be banned from SNL for being offensive herself.
>
The Cute Bald Chick didn't refuse to appear with ADC because she found
him offensive, but because she found him wrong.  Andrew Dice Clay
attacks people who can't hit back (women, gays, and so forth) to make a
buck.  Sinead attacks powerful people including Margaret Thatcher and
John Paul who have countless ways of hitting back, such as mobilizing
the Daily News and New York Post to boycott future appearances.  Sinead
criticises what she believes to be the real oppression of people by
powerful political and religious forces, oppression that I understand
she experienced prior to becoming successful (and it may well continue
now.)  Andrew Dice Clay is a mere successful bully.

Hope this helps you understand the difference.
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:48:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."

In <1992Oct12.220525.26752@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>In article <a0p402vw25py01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>>
>>"2119.  Carjacking
>>  "(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes or
>>attempts to take a motor vehicle, that has been transported, shipped, or
>>received in interstate or foreign commerce, from the person or presence
>>of another,  shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than
>>15 years, or both."

>So, I suppose intimidation can no longer be used to repossess cars?

>And, would a sheriff, with a state court order to repossess the car,
>be permitted to use force to enforce that order?

And are people in Michigan thus not protected by this?  (Maybe there aren't
any carjackings in Michigan....)


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: How Can I Really Annoy Someone?
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:05:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Oct14.190134.1817@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>A desire for revenge is harmful to your spiritual health, even though
>you may be able to get your revenge without risking criminal or civil
>liability.
>
>The fact that you won't get sued or prosecuted doesn't save you from
>damage to your spirit. I'd advise you to devote your energy to other
>pursuits.
>

Get stepped on and not doing anything about it is harmful to your
spiritual health too. 

It just seems meaningless to tell him "Let it go, mellow out, don't
worry, be happy" when we don't know the background.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:09:30 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <93054@netnews.upenn.edu>, brewer@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (marmoset) 
writes:
> I was told by someone (and I want to say that it was Mr. Pennypacker
> (no lie)  my 7th and 8th grade social studies teacher) that the 
> line of succession went clear down to the Postmaster General.  Was
> he just plain full o' it?

When you were in 7th and 8th grade, it probably did.  :-)  The Postmaster 
General used to be just after the Attorney General (but before the 
secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, HEW, HUD, and 
Transportation!).  The office was removed from the list as part of the Postal 
Reorganization Act of 1970, PL 91-375, 8/12/1970.

(I posted a full history of the pesidential line of succession a few weeks 
back, let me know if you'd like me to mail you a copy.)

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,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:02:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.000120.2196@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>Mike has difficulty accepting criticism and admitting error.

Who enjoys it? You certainly don't seem to. 

I've given an example of admitting an error in misc.legal (when I cited
the wrong forfeiture statute and accepted Mark Eckenweiler's correction).
I notice that you edited my admission out of your posting--did you do this
in order to prevent an admission of your own?

Is it your position that all Eric Titmas criticisms are irrefutable and
should be accepted? As for errors, please cite your sources: what errors
have I made that I have not admitted? 


--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,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:45:53 GMT

In article <04kd02pp26ho01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
(Terry Carroll) writes:

> In article <1992Oct13.232047.23120@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles 
> Scripter) writes:
> > > The Articles of Confederation aren't particularly useful in determining
> > > any of this -- as Terry posted, the role of representatives was more
> > 
> > Ummm... He posted a section from the Constitution, not the Articles of
> > Confederation.
> 
> Nope, the section I posted was from the Articles of Confederation.

Oops, sorry.  There seems to be some confusion here.  Ted did a
followup to a posting of Article one of the Constitution:

> >How about going to the horse's mouth and seeing what the Constitution
> >actually says?  

[Article 1 deleted]

to which Ted replied:

> The Articles of Confederation aren't particularly useful in determining
> any of this -- as Terry posted, the role of representatives was more
> to be a caucus member than anything else.  Each state only had one vote.

It looked as if Ted was referring to the posting of Article 1, as if
*it* were the "Articles of Confederation".  I should have been more
careful with the use of "he" (I was referring to "Guido Marx").

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Help, I need advice!
From: fearon@ab.wvnet.edu
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:56:56 -0500
Organization: Alderson-Broaddus College

	Help, I need some good legal advice.  I was hit by a drunk driver with
no insurance.  He is from Virginia, the accident happened in West Virginia, and
I am from Ohio.  He is not willing to pay for my car, which was totalled, and
I filed a civil suit against him.  Now, since he didn't show up at the 
magistrate's office, I have a default judgement against him.  I have no idea
if he has a job, or any money in the bank.  How do I find this out?
I think he is living in a shelter in Manassas, Virginia and they won't give
me any information.  I need to get the money to fix my car ASAP, but everyone
is giving me the run-around on what to do.  Is it true that if he doesn't have
a job, then I'll never see the money?  Can his license be revoked?
Help, I don't know what to do and I don't want to put any more money into this
for a lawyer, because it doesn't look promising.

                                   -Marie  
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Breaching a contract
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:42:24 GMT


<<< Please note the redirect(s) in the "Followup-To:" line. >>>

In article <12664@optilink.UUCP>, 
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) said:

> Gays can't hit back?  Today's Santa Rosa Press-Democrat (10/8/92, p.
> A1) tells about what happened when Christian Action Network's
> anti-Clinton ad ran on TV channel 50 here -- the station withdrew
> from its contract (I didn't even know they could do that) to run the
> ad, after having run it for three days.  They insist that the
> threats of boycott from the homosexual community didn't have any
> effect -- they just changed their mind about whether the ad met
> their broadcast standards -- three days after they started running
> it, and the phone calls started.

Not sure exactly what you mean by "I didn't even know they could do
that"... after all, anyone _can_ legally breach any contract; they
just have to be willing to live with the consequences (being sued for
damages arising from the breach, loss of good reputation in the
relevant community, etc).  

(Note: when I say that any contract may be legally breached, I meant
that the breach itself is not a criminal act.  I'm *not* saying that
it's impossible for the act which constitutes the breach to be
criminal in and of itself.)

If you mean that you didn't know that a tv station could arbitrarily
stop running contracted-for ads without breaching the contract, well,
that would depend upon the language of the contract and the intent of
the parties at the time that they formed the contract.  If CHannel 50
put a clause in that said "And we can stop running the ads at any
time, in which case you only have to pay us for the ads actually
aired," and the Christian Action Network accepted that clause, then
the station's in the clear.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Carjacking as a federal offense
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:42:31 GMT


I see that the Congress has passed a law making carjacking a federal
crime.  The bill's been sent to the President, and he may already have
signed it by the time you read this.

I don't want to debate/discuss the political or social wisdom of this
act... I'm just wondering if anyone knows what excuse the Congress
used for having the federal government move into this area.  Did they
rule that since some of the atoms that comprise a hijacked automobile
have probably crossed state lines sometime in the past, the Interstate
Commerce Clause granted federal authority in this area, or what?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:30:28 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct12.154231.8705@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
(William December Starr) writes:
> I'm just wondering if anyone knows what excuse the Congress
> used for having the federal government move into this area.  Did they
> rule that since some of the atoms that comprise a hijacked automobile
> have probably crossed state lines sometime in the past, the Interstate
> Commerce Clause granted federal authority in this area, or what?

I was wondering the same thing.  Here's the proposed addition to Title 18:

"2119.  Carjacking
  "(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes or
attempts to take a motor vehicle, that has been transported, shipped, or
received in interstate or foreign commerce, from the person or presence
of another,  shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than
15 years, or both."

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,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Marbury v Madison (US 1803)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 10:28:30 GMT

In article <66YB02pC25Rx01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>
>See United States v. Yale Todd, 13 How. 52 (Feb. 17, 1794).  "[T]he 
>power to be proposed to be conferred on the Circuit Courts of the United 
>States by the [U.S. Congressional] act of 1972 [1 Stat. 243] was not judicial 
>power within the meaning of the Constitution, and was, therefore, 
>unconstitutional, and could not lawfully be exercised by the courts."

Rather than joke about the prescience of the Court in this opinion, I'll
just note quietly that the "1972" above is probably supposed to be "1792."

--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:09:28 GMT

In article <94PJ02JX25F401@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.165555.25478@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) 
>writes:
>> In article <8bBb02A3258o01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
>> (Terry Carroll) writes:
>> >In article <1992Oct9.172944.5291@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) 
>> >writes:
>No, they don't.  Beside my point.  We were discussing views on what the law 
>_should_ be, not what it is.  I don't think anyone is seriously asserting 
>otherwise.

Count me out, I don't have time for shoulds.

>(I'm going to drop ba.general from this, since it's not general, it's 
>specific to some newsgroups)

I've done the same for misc.kids. If you want to take shoulds there, put
a disclaimer in the new subject line so no one will misunderstand you're
not discussing present law and get alarmed.

-- 
Eric Brunner Tule Network Services
uucp: uunet!practic!brunner
trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head.

From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:04:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fightin' Words
Date: 10 Oct 92 10:42:57 GMT

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

> Richard, we're crossing two concepts here, which, while at first they appear 
> similar, are actually completely seperate.
> 
> Your comments, I think, are with reference to whether words may rise to a 
> level of provocation to permit another to attack him (e.g., whether nasty 
> words may serve as a defense when another attacks or kills upon hearing the 
> words).
> 
> Mine are with reference to whether words may rise to a level where their very
> utterance is a legal injury, and so may be regulated based on their content 
> (e.g., whether nasty words may serve as a component of the offense itself).

Yes.  It took a while but I finally got that distinction.

> I know very little about the issue you're interested in.  As far as mine is 
> concerned, that was the basis for the 1942 SCOTUS Chaplinsky decision, which 
> decision is in wide disrepute since it was issued.  Chaplinsky has never been
> used by the SCOTUS to uphold a convistion based upon speech, but has been and
> continues to be used by state and lower federal courts to do so (which was my
> point in citing to the Ohio _Semple_ case).

However the two issues intersect at least in LaFave and Scott's
paradox, namely that the standard for "fighting words" is that
they provoke a violent response in "the reasonable person," while
at the same time "mere words" are _not_ recognized as sufficient
provocation to induce "the reasonable person" to a violent
reaction.

I think a lot of people are confused on this issue: the whole RIME
legal echo for one when I brought it up a year ago.  And I think
you could add Geraldo Rivera to that list as well.  When he
punched the racist who insulted him he apparently thought -- and
still thinks -- the racist's insulting remarks were sufficient
provocation, although he appears to have gotten off on the grounds
of self-defense (even though the video tape does not show the
racist attempting to injure him at the time Geraldo punched him).

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:37:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.133048.4347@cs.brown.edu> ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis) writes:

>My point is that in this case and many others that is not possible.  What
>you wrote had several possible interpretations.  It is now clear to me that
>the interpretation you meant is not the one which the context led me and
>others to understand you to be saying.

When you say "the interpretation you meant" you are being a bit
misleading. I didn't mean an "interpretation." I don't need to interpret
my own words, since I know what I meant.

In any case, the meaning I assigned to the words I used in my original
text was certainly a "possible" meaning. So your first sentence is false.

>The supposed game is in your response to the misunderstanding.  When
>Mr. Date posted what I thought was an obvious indication that he didn't
>understand what you meant, you didn't respond with clarification nor even
>answer the question he asked.  Effectively you replied `That's not what
>I said`.  It seemed to be a deliberately noncommunicative response.

It's a deliberate pointer to the original text. Too many people misread
postings hurriedly, then blame their misreadings on the poster rather than
on their own hurry. After a while, it quits being worthwhile to expend
extra energy on those people.

>My characterization of the two replies:
>Mike Godwin:  'That's not what I said.  Are you stupid?'
>Tim Smith:    'That's not what he said.  *THIS* is what he said'

Which is to say, Tim Smith is far more patient with that poster's amazing
misinterpretation of my words than I am. This makes sense, given whose
words they were.



--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,rec.arts.tv
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's Freedom of Speech ( was Re: SNL - Oct 3, Latest on Sinead reaction
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:58:07 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <rlcarr.062s@animato.network23.com> by rlcarr@animato.network23.com (Rich Carreiro):

> Well, if you have had to misfortune to read Nilges (Bilges?) posts
> in misc.legal, you'd not be surprised.
> 
> In NilgesWorld(tm), only people whom Nilges agrees with are allowed
> to have free speech.  Everyone else are "opressors" and must be
> censored.

Let's get the name right.  It's NIHILges.  It's very important to undertand
what it is that Dread worships, pure, arbitrary power specifically....

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Homicide charges filed wrt sale of a home, guilty verdict
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:00:44 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: student loans
Keywords: loans, student loans
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:39:56 GMT

In article <4154@novavax.UUCP> vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:
:Hi,
:
:A friend of mine ows about 10,000 dollars plus interest on a 
:guaranteed student loan. He graduated and has a job, a condo, and
:a year old baby, and can't afford the $140/month payment. He tried
 
Oh? He had enough money to buy a condo, but not enough to pay his
debts and obligations to others?

His debts and obligations to others comes FIRST, before he buys
things for himself. If he couldn't afford to pay his bills, then he
should have had enough responsibility to WAIT to have a child until
such time as he could AFFORD it.
 
If his finances are so tight that he can't afford an extra $140/month,
then he probably over-reached his means when he bought the condo.

My heart bleeds peanut butter. This person deserves whatever they do
to him. 
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
From: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: sinead o'connor's freedom
Date: 11 Oct 92 03:20:27 EST
Reply-To: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information

Quoth Matthew Rosenblatt regarding SINEAD O'CONNOR'S FREEDOM on 10-10-92:

MR>My own interpretation is that entertainers like Andrew Dice Clay
MR>attack people and groups who ENVY and RESENT Mr. Clay for what
MR>he is -- a prosperous and successful achiever.

Mr. Clay is a one-note no-talent whose career has already come to a 
precipitous end.  What little success he achieved was at the expense of 
decency and humanity;  fortunately, the free market, doing its job, 
eventually rejected him out of sheer boredom.

I am pleased that he was able to say whatever he wanted;  once the shock 
wore off, ennui set in.

He'll be working in a car wash in a year or two, when he runs out of 
money.


---
  WinQwk 2.0 a#299  Art does not create problems, it reflects them.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host