Datasets:

ymoslem

/

Law-StackExchange

like 12

[ { "answer_id": 4502, "body": "<p>Yes. definitely appeal. I used to be the person these very type of appeals were brought before, and if someone took the time to appeal and actually showed up for the hearing, waited half the day for their 20 minutes, i typically cut it in half and if there wasn't a clear standard or if it was the first offense, I often waived the whole fine and turned it into a warning. It's also worth it because if it does get waived and it happens again it will be a first offense.</p>\n\n<p>No, they cannot increase the charge/fine for appealing. Appeals are standard and are your right. </p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "california", "business", "regulations" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4496, "body": "<p>Suing relatives or friends to trigger an insurance policy is sometimes necessary, particularly if the insurer is being recalcitrant. Apart from that it is pointless to sue someone who has no money!</p>\n\n<p>In common law jurisdictions you can of course sue anyone for negligence. One of the things that you have to prove to be successful is that the defendant owed a duty of care. It may be difficult to prove that a child had such a duty. </p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "liability", "health", "insurance", "minor", "health-insurance" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4493, "body": "<p>You have the right to get the computer fixed by the original seller if it doesn't last for a reasonable amount of time. For that you would have to go to the original seller or return the computer to the original seller. </p>\n\n<p>You may claim your rights for example in the UK for up to five or six years. Say this computer breaks after 18 months in Australia, you could gather proof in Australia that (a) it is broken and (b) it had a problem when you received it. Then you would have over three years time to take it back to the UK together with that evidence. </p>\n\n<p>Altogether, this isn't very practical. For example, the seller can just refuse a repair (whether they have the right to do so or not), and then you would have to sue them from another country, which would be very difficult in practice. </p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "european-union", "jurisdiction", "consumer-protection" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4473, "body": "<p>Religious protection from federal warrants is not a First Amendment issue. If protected at all, the best argument would be in RFRA, the federal statute implemented in <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1\" rel=\"noreferrer\">42 U.S.C. §2000bb-1 et seq</a>.</p>\n\n<p>It provides that the \"Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion...\" except if the burden \"is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.\"</p>\n\n<p>It is my guess that every court in the U.S. would agree that a search warrant issued upon probable cause is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and having an agent or two walk through the house (or whatever is necessary in order to exercise that warrant) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.</p>\n", "score": 10 }, { "answer_id": 4471, "body": "<p>A subject's religion, house rules, etc. are simply not a consideration in the issuance and execution of a search warrant. A warrant authorizes officers to take whatever measures they consider necessary to safely search for and secure whatever is being sought. The only variations in a search warrant are whether:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>It has to be served during normal waking hours.</li>\n<li>The officers have to knock first, or whether they can conduct a \"no-knock\" raid.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>A subject and his property have virtually no rights in the face of a warrant &ndash; certainly no rights to impose rules. See <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/q/203/10\">these</a> <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/q/134/10\">previous questions</a>.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "search-and-seizure", "religion" ]

[ { "answer_id": 103, "body": "<p>I can answer for the U.S., if that's helpful.</p>\n\n<p>The general rule, in the United States, is that covenants not to compete are enforceable as long as they are reasonable. What constitutes \"reasonable\" varies from state to state.</p>\n\n<p>Factors considered generally include:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p>What kind of actual harm will come to the business if you go to a competitor? In other words, is this rote language they include in every contract, or did they put it in yours because you know all the secret formulas and have the customer list memorized?</p></li>\n<li><p>Is it reasonable in time, location, and scope? Something preventing you from taking any job anywhere in the United States for ten years won't be enforceable; something preventing you from taking a job with the exact same title in the same industry in the same town for the next six months might be.</p></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>The general rule at common law was that covenants not to compete were unenforceable restraints of trade; the fact that they're enforceable at all is later law created by each jurisdiction, and that means it's going to vary based on your specific jurisdiction. If you want to know whether it's okay to take a specific job based on a specific non-compete you signed, you will need to talk to a legal professional licensed in your jurisdiction--and even she may not be able to tell you for sure.</p>\n", "score": 7 }, { "answer_id": 4484, "body": "<p>Another US-based answer:</p>\n\n<p>We talked about non-competes in my one-semester of business law class (I'm an MBA, not a lawyer). I remember the professor (who <em>was</em> a practicing lawyer) saying that a well-written non-compete is absolutely enforceable and not to let anyone convince you otherwise. </p>\n\n<p>He didn't get into the gritty details for a bunch of dumb managers like me, but I remember him saying that it had to be reasonably time bound (one-year was the most common example used in class), narrowly scoped to protect the valid interests of the employer (e.g., you can't prevent someone from working in marketing for one year, or prevent someone from working in NYC for a year, but you <em>can</em> prevent someone from working in marketing in NYC for a year if that's a market your firm operates in), and one other criterion I can't remember any more.</p>\n\n<p>The bottom line that I took away (which I think was all he was trying to get us to remember) is that if you are asked to sign a non-compete, take it seriously.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "employment", "competition" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4176, "body": "<p>Your issue is trademark, not copyright. </p>\n\n<p>If these other guys use their mark (product name) in commerce but did not register it, they have an unregistered trademark which you could be infringing. Between two users of the same trademark, the first to use in commerce wins. (There is a territorial component but with the Internet, meh.)</p>\n\n<p>If the trademark is registered that gives them a presumption of validity.</p>\n\n<p>Trademark infringement is concerned with consumer confusion. If someone uses someone else's trademark in a way that confuses consumers as to the origin of the goods, that's a problem. What this means is that if I make tires with the name Sportie and someone else makes soap also with that name Sportie there is not a high likelihood of confusion. Likewise a hotel in Washington called Runner's Cove probably doesn't infringe a shoe store in Florida with the same name. </p>\n\n<p>Fantasy games and fantasy books sold over the Internet? Sounds like a potential problem that you might want to clear up before the second book. </p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "copyright", "trademark" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4469, "body": "<p>You are correct that \"narrow tailoring\" and \"least restrictive means\" are often treated as synonyms.¹</p>\n\n<p>For example, Professor Volokh describes narrow tailoring as having four components: advancement of the compelling governmental interest, no over-inclusiveness, the least restrictive alternative, and no under-inclusiveness.² However, he says that the first \"<em>three components are closely related, and all of them could be subsumed within the 'least restrictive alternative' inquiry.</em>\"³</p>\n\n<p>The Supreme Court has sometimes equated strict scrutiny with the \"least restrictive alternative\" formulation, saying, \"<em>Unquestionably we have held that a government practice or statute which restricts 'fundamental rights' or which contains 'suspect classifications' is to be subjected to 'strict scrutiny' and can be justified only if it furthers a compelling government purpose and, even then, only if no less restrictive alternative is available.</em>\"⁴</p>\n\n<p>The court has also distinguished between narrow tailoring and a \"least restrictive alternative\" test, at least with respect to laws that infringe on speech: \"<em>Lest any confusion on the point remain, we reaffirm today that a regulation of the time, place, or manner of protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate, content-neutral interests, but that it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing so</em>.\"^5. The dissent in that same case described the majority's view as a \"<em>serious distortion of the narrow tailoring requirement</em>\", and said, \"<em>Our cases have not, as the majority asserts, 'clearly' rejected a less-restrictive-alternative test. [...] The Court's past concern for the extent to which a regulation burdens speech more than would a satisfactory alternative is noticeably absent from today's decision. The majority requires only that government show that its interest cannot be served as effectively without the challenged restriction.</em>\"^6.</p>\n\n<p>Some statutes remove any ambiguity, <em>prescribing</em> the \"least restrictive alternative\" test.^7.</p>\n\n<p>In summary, certain areas of law (free speech, religious freedoms, affirmative action) have their own idiosyncratic treatment of strict scrutiny, narrow tailoring, and the \"least restrictive alternative\" test. It is always best to read the particular line of case law in the field you are interested in to see exactly what formula the court has established in that area.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>^{1. Winkler, Adam, Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts. Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 59, p. 793, 2006; UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 06-14. At 800: \"<em>Narrow tailoring requires that the law\ncapture within its reach no more activity (or less) than is necessary to\nadvance those compelling ends. An alternative phrasing is that the\nlaw must be the “least restrictive alternative” available to pursue those ends.</em>\"}</p>\n\n<p>^{2. Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech, Permissible Tailoring and Transcending Strict Scrutiny, 144 U. Pennsylvania L. Rev. 2417 (1997).}</p>\n\n<p>^{3. <em>Ibid.</em>}</p>\n\n<p>^{4. Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (Opinion of Justice Brennan, Justice White, Justice Marshall, and Justice Blackmun, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.)}</p>\n\n<p>^{5. Ward v. Rock Against Racism 491 U.S. 781 (1989)}</p>\n\n<p>^{6. <em>Ibid.</em>}</p>\n\n<p>^{7. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, implemented in part in 42 U.S.C. §2000bb-1(b): \"<em>Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.</em>\"}</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 4461, "body": "<p>This sounds like a semantic question, and the answer is that when the two terms can be brought to bear on the same question they would mean the same thing.</p>\n\n<p>E.g., \"affirmative action\" could be described as a racist program \"tailored\" to extend preference to certain races. However, one could instead parse a description of affirmative action as a \"restriction\" on the rights of those who are <em>not</em> given preference. Obviously it could simultaneously be declared \"<em>narrowly-tailored</em> to benefit injured classes\" and \"the <em>least restrictive</em> way of infringing the rights of the other classes.\"</p>\n\n<p>(I await any counterexample ;)</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "discrimination", "constitutional-law", "us-supreme-court" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4466, "body": "<p>If the business is displaying <a href=\"https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/prices-receipts/price-displays#multiple-pricing\" rel=\"nofollow\">multiple pricing</a> and if they or you are in Australia then the Australian consumer law says:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>the business must withdraw the product or service from sale until the multiple pricing problem is fixed,</li>\n<li>if you choose an item or service that has multiple different prices displayed or advertised and the business can’t withdraw the product or service from sale and fix the error, you are entitled to buy it for the lowest price.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>In addition, the law prohibits them from making misleading claims - their terms of service march dangerously close to that line.</p>\n\n<p>Depending exactly how they handle this may put them on the wrong side of the law:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>If you draw their attention to this and they <em>refuse</em> to sell you the product at any price until they fix the Google price, then this is legal.</li>\n<li>If you draw their attention to this and they do or would sell it to you for the higher price before they fixed the Google price, then this is illegal.</li>\n<li>If you draw their attention to this and they do or would sell it to you for the lowest price before they fixed the Google price, then this is legal.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>Of course, if they are a foreign retailer you may have difficulty in making them comply with Australian law even though they are obliged to.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "international", "commerce" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4448, "body": "<p>It is true that any work of the US government is not subject to copyright <em>in the United States</em>; it may be subject to copyright abroad (the relevant law excludes US government works from US copyright protection; other countries have their own copyright laws that generally don't explicitly exclude US government works, and so the works may be copyrighted there).</p>\n\n<p>A government work is defined as something produced by a government employee in the course of his official duties. It doesn't include everything released by a government agency; for instance, if a contractor makes something and the contract specifies that the government gets the copyright, the work is copyrighted (since it wasn't made by a government employee). If a foreign cosmonaut or astronaut composes and sings an original song in a livestream, then NASA may not have copyright in the livestream but the foreign astronaut would have copyright in the song.</p>\n\n<p>That said, <a href=\"http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">NASA has a page of guidelines for reuse of their media</a>, where they say that their stuff normally isn't copyrighted unless otherwise noted. They don't make any sort of guarantee, but they suggest you'd probably be fine embedding it, at least as far as they're concerned. </p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4457, "body": "<p>There are generally two ways for a foreign company to become subject to U.S. federal income tax. First, the United States taxes foreign companies on specified categories of U.S.-source income, such as interest and dividends. Second, if a foreign company is engaged in a trade or business in the United States, then the foreign company must pay federal income tax on income that is effectively connected with that trade or business.</p>\n\n<p>Unfortunately, whether a foreign company is engaged in a U.S. trade or business depends on a somewhat murky test under the tax law. In order to make this determination, courts look to a foreign person's economic activities in the United States, and have held that such activity must be \"considerable, continuous and regular\" in order to be a U.S. trade or business. <em>Amodio v. Comm'r,</em> 34 T.C. 894 (1960). All of the facts and circumstances surrounding a particular activity are relevant to the determination.</p>\n\n<p>Whether operating a business through a website on a server in the U.S. constitutes a U.S. trade or business is an open question under the tax law, which often lags behind the real world by a factor of decades. That said, it seems unlikely to me that simply hosting a site on a server in the U.S. would cause a foreign company to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business--but if that website actively conducts commerce within the United States, then I think it certainly would be a U.S. trade or business. </p>\n\n<p>If the foreign company is engaged in a U.S. trade or business, then there may be some relief under a tax treaty between the U.S. and the foreign company's country of residence. Usually, under the applicable provisions of a tax treaty, the United States declines to tax a foreign company engaged in a U.S. trade or business unless that company has a permanent establishment in the United States, which usually means the company has an office or other fixed place of business. Whether a server located in the United States could be considered a permanent establishment is another open question.</p>\n\n<p>Finally, the foreign company may be subject to state and local income and sales taxes, regardless of whether it is subject to federal taxes. The individual states are not obliged to follow the federal government in these matters. It's worth noting that many states have been aggressively trying to expand their taxing authority since the beginning of the digital age. </p>\n\n<p>Unfortunately, as noted above, the IRS and other tax authorities in the United States have been slow to respond to the economic developments precipitated by the Internet. It is likely that definitive answers to these questions will not be available anytime soon.</p>\n\n<p>This post is for informational purposes only--As always, it is imperative to consult with a qualified tax advisor who has detailed knowledge of you company's operations when conducting business in the United States.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 3702, "body": "<p>The location of the hosting service has nothing to do with where taxes must be paid. There are two locations where taxes may be due, and those are the originating country, and the destination country. For example, if the company is in Germany, and shipping to the U.K., there will most likely be custom duties paid to the U.K. and sales taxes paid to Germany, even if the hosting website is in the United States of America. Note that taxes, if any, must be paid to the United States for services rendered in the United States, such that the hosting company that's located in the United States would have to charge taxes to the German company for services rendered.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "internet", "international", "tax-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4454, "body": "<p><strong>There is no IP in ideas!</strong></p>\n\n<p>There is copyright in writing it down - they can't use your exact words without permission. However, sending it to them in the form of a suggestion would give them a pretty much unassailable argument that you have given them an implicit licence.</p>\n\n<p>You can patent an invention (not an idea), claim IP in a trade mark (also, not an idea), register a design (again, not an idea) and hold copyright in an artistic work (once more, not an idea).</p>\n\n<p>They are required to keep confidences but offering them a suggestion probably doesn't count as supplying confidential information.</p>\n\n<p>I can see no risk in acting on customer suggestions.</p>\n\n<p>Hence, the idea to raise prices can be acted on or not at the discretion of the company.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "intellectual-property", "public-relations", "suggestions", "customer-service" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4436, "body": "<h1>All Free/Open licenses are irrevocable</h1>\n<p>The question isn't clear whether you were talking about changing the license of people who have already received your software, but if you were thinking about that, you should know that it is not possible.</p>\n<p>For a license to be approved by the Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative, the license must be irrevocable. Anyone who receives a copy of some GPL licensed software will be able to use it under that license forever, as well as doing anything the license allows, such as distributing it to anyone else they choose.</p>\n<h1>The GNU GPL cannot be modified</h1>\n<p>Well to be precise you cannot modify it and call it the GPL or claim any association with the GNU project, but you can borrow some of its clauses to use in a license called something else. From the GPL FAQ:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><strong>Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?</strong></a></p>\n<p>It is possible to make modified versions of the GPL, but it tends to have practical consequences.</p>\n<p>You can legally use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).</p>\n<p>If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to &lt; licensing@gnu.org &gt; for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.</p>\n<p>Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly <a href=\"http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">incompatible with the GNU GPL</a>, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.</p>\n<p>Rather than modifying the GPL, please use the exception mechanism offered by GPL version 3.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The GPL3 exception mechanism allows you to add certain additional exceptions to the license, but you could not add one which would allow you to make the license revocable.</p>\n<h1>Copyright holders can always change how they publish their works</h1>\n<p>Now while a Free/Open license is irrevocable for those who have already received a copy of the work, copyright holders can always change how they publish their own works. You don't need to add anything to the GPL to do this! You can begin by publishing it under the GPL, and then later start publishing it under an additional license, including a non-Free/Open license. You can stop publishing it under old licenses if you want. But none of those changes affect the people who already have your software under a Free/Open license.</p>\n<p>Note that if you are not the sole copyright owner for your software (if you have accepted contributions from others), you will need to get everyone's approval before changing the license, unless they have signed a <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">contributor license agreement</a> with you.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 4396, "body": "<p>My first question would be, \"<em>Can</em> you change a license at any time?\" I doubt you can make arbitrary and unilateral changes to a license after it has been accepted. If you know ahead of time what terms you might want to impose in the future I suspect you would have to outline them in the initial license.</p>\n\n<p>One way around that problem is to only grant a license for a certain period of time. After that the license expires and users would have to review and accept a new license with whatever new terms you may wish to add.</p>\n\n<p>I suppose, in the limit, you could require the software to download the \"current\" license every time it is started and require the users to review and accept any changes from the last license version they accepted. Maybe you could even try to have running software callback with some frequency to a licensing server to check for new licenses, and then terminate if the user refuses a new license.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "licensing" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4449, "body": "<p><strong>As soon as possible.</strong></p>\n\n<h2>Liability</h2>\n\n<p>There is no contract here so you would be relying on the tort of negligence and/or trespass. If you have suffered damage from somebody else's negligence then they are liable for your loss.</p>\n\n<p>Part of the problem that you face is you need to determine exactly <em>who</em> was potentially negligent. </p>\n\n<p><em>It probably isn't your neighbour!</em> It is quite likely that your neighbour was using a contractor; a contractor is not an agent and so your neighbour has not been negligent, the contractor has. If you were to sue your neighbour in those circumstances you would lose.</p>\n\n<p>You need to take steps <em>now</em> to find out exactly who the person was who caused the damage - that's the person you would need to sue.</p>\n\n<p>To win a negligence claim, <strong>you</strong> need to prove that the defendant:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>had a duty to the plaintiff,</li>\n<li>breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person),</li>\n<li>the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and</li>\n<li>the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>If the facts are as you say:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>They probably have a duty,</li>\n<li>They probably failed in that duty,</li>\n<li>See below,</li>\n<li>You have clearly suffered harm or damage.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<h2>Types of loss or damage</h2>\n\n<p>The treatment of loss or damage under the law depends on what type of loss it is:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Direct loss</strong> includes the repair and rehabilitation of the property - this would generally be recoverable, i.e. legally it is a cause of harm.</li>\n<li><strong><a href=\"http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/consequential-loss.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">Consequential loss</a></strong> includes the loss of rental income during the period that the property is unavailable. Alternatively, a court may consider that the loss is the cost of you providing alternative accommodation to the tenant if this was an obligation on you; this could be more or less than the rent. It would also include relocation costs etc. This is also generally recoverable.</li>\n<li><strong><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_economic_loss\" rel=\"nofollow\">Pure economic loss</a></strong> would include loss of earnings if the tenant terminated the lease and you were unable to find a replacement or were forced to lower the rent as well as any advertising or agent's costs. While it is <em>possible</em> to recover this, it is quite likely that this would be considered <em>unforeseeable</em> and therefore not a legal cause of harm. The legal reasoning is that the loss (tenant terminating the lease) is too far removed from the proximate cause (damage to the unit) to hold the defendant responsible for it. You have already indicated that the tenant is trying to use the circumstances to their advantage; this is not something that could have been foreseen.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<h2>Duty to mitigate loss</h2>\n\n<p>You have a duty to mitigate the loss caused by the negligence. This would normally include ensuring that repairs were carried out in the most time and cost-efficient way possible. The defendant is only liable for reasonable costs; not actual costs.</p>\n\n<h2>Insurance</h2>\n\n<p>If a third party is liable for the loss, then they are liable for the loss <em>irrespective</em> of if it is covered by your insurance. Your insurance company can sue in your name to recover whatever they have lost; while they <em>can</em>, they <em>will</em> only if they believe it is commercially worthwhile.</p>\n\n<p>You need to talk to your insurer to determine what they will cover and what they won't and if they are going to seek to recover and what they will do if you seek to recover - they may choose to take the lead and tack your stuff on the back.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "rental-property", "landlord", "property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4418, "body": "<p>The source of the power of the United States government to do the things that it does are the people themselves. (<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution\">United States Constitution</a>)</p>\n\n<p>The people have decided on three branches of government (judicial, executive, and legislative). The expression of the will of the people through these three branches of government results in the government having authority to enforce laws within the borders of the United States.</p>\n\n<p>It is not through any contract, agreement, certificate, registration, or other that you come under the jurisdiction of the United States, but simply by your presence. (There are some limited exceptions for foreign diplomats and tribal sovereignty.)</p>\n", "score": 8 }, { "answer_id": 4450, "body": "<h2>Why you are not sovereign</h2>\n\n<p>In the first place, <strong>you</strong> are <strong>not</strong> sovereign. <a href=\"http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sovereign\" rel=\"nofollow\">Sovereign</a> means:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A chief ruler with supreme power; one possessing sovereignty. (q.v.) It is also applied to a king or other magistrate with limited powers. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>In the UK, the sovereign is the monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II. In Australia and Canada it is Queen Elizabeth II's representative, currently Peter Cosgrove and David Johnston respectively. In the USA it is the President, currently Barak Obama. And so on ...</p>\n\n<p>Perhaps, you are thinking of a <a href=\"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+state\" rel=\"nofollow\">sovereign state</a>? Well, <strong>you're</strong> not one of those either:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>a state which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>In fact, you are not even a <a href=\"http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/State+(non-sovereign)\" rel=\"nofollow\">non-sovereign state</a>, like New South Wales, Ottawa, Scotland or South Carolina:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A federated state is a territorial and constitutional community forming part of a federal union.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<h2>Why sovereign's have authority over you</h2>\n\n<p>Because they have \"supreme power\" or \"limited powers\"; and you don't.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "common-law", "sovereignty" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3889, "body": "<h1>Short Answer</h1>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>Based on the facts you supplied, it seems the author's request for removal might be unenforceable.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<h2>Explanation</h2>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode#s2\" rel=\"nofollow\">Section 2.a.1. of the license</a> declares the license is <a href=\"http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/irrevocable\" rel=\"nofollow\"><strong>irrevocable</strong></a>.</p>\n\n<p>[Emphasis added]:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, <strong>irrevocable</strong> license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:</p>\n \n <p>A. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and</p>\n \n <p>B. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/irrevocable\" rel=\"nofollow\"><strong>Irrevocable</strong></a> means:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>\"Unable to cancel or recall; that which is unalterable or irreversible.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><hr>\n<strong>Disclaimer:</strong> I am not an attorney. I am not your attorney. So don't rely on my answer for anything. Hire a real attorney if you need help with a legal matter. Never take legal advice from strangers on the internet. Treat all answers on this site the same way you would as if they came from a bunch of strangers at a party who got all their legal information by watching episodes of Boston Legal, The Practice and Ally McBeal. But have lots of opinions they are willing to share on legal questions nevertheless.</p>\n", "score": 17 } ]

[ "united-states", "copyright", "licensing", "creative-commons" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4416, "body": "<p>Hooters's BFOQ-related legal history (from <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooters#Legal_history\" rel=\"nofollow\">Wikipedia/Hooters</a>):</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>1997: Three men from the Chicago area received $19,100. Four men from Maryland received $10,350. This was related to the <a href=\"http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&amp;context=djglp\" rel=\"nofollow\">often cited</a> <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by-men-denied-jobs.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">$3.75 million settlement</a> that required the \"creation of gender neutral positions for bartenders and hosts\".</li>\n<li>2009: Confidential settlement between a Texas man and an individual Hooters franchise</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Given relatively small amount (ten to twenty thousand dollars) that the individuals walked away with in the 1997 settlement, and the upfront costs associated with a law suit that Hooters can drag out until they decide to reveal their intention to settle, it isn't obvious that this route is profitable from a money or time perspective for individual plaintiffs.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "employment", "discrimination", "settlement", "bfoq" ]

[ { "answer_id": 835, "body": "<p>Under United States copyright law, according to the Copyright Office,</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>206.01 Edicts of government.<br>\n Edicts of government,\n such as judicial opinions, administrative\n rulings, legislative enactments, public\n ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of\n public policy. This applies to such works\n whether they are Federal, State, or local as\n well as to those of foreign governments.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><em>Referencing</em> laws is even clearer: copyright doesn't protect referring to something like \"Section 830 of the Penal Code of the State of California.\" Note that this is assuming that they remain within the US, where copyright law is a federal issue. Other countries don't all have the edict of government rule.</p>\n\n<p>If a place were to legally secede and become their own country, they would cease to be bound by US copyright law. They would get to decide if it was legal for them to do it or not; this is just like how it works between the UK and US (the UK claims copyright on its laws, but US courts will not enforce that copyright because it's incompatible with US law). Treaties complicate things, but the Berne Convention allows the edict of government exception.</p>\n\n<p>That said, seceding from the US unilaterally is both legally and practically impossible; seceding from a state is likewise generally going to be legally and practically impossible without permission from the state. So, it all depends on the agreements made.</p>\n\n<p>EDIT:</p>\n\n<p>To specifically address the model codes issue, <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Veeck v. S. Bldg. Code Congress Int’l</a>, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) was a case specifically about what happens when model codes are adopted wholesale into law. The Fifth Circuit (after initially finding that the model codes were protected) reversed <em>en banc</em>, finding that a model code produced for the purpose of being incorporated into law, and which <em>has</em> been incorporated into law, and which is then reproduced as the law of the place that incorporated it into law, is not subject to copyright.</p>\n\n<p><em>Veeck</em> may not apply to cases where the law merely references the model code, or where the thing in question was not made to be incorporated into law (e.g. state laws referencing the Red Book valuation of a car didn't make the Red Book public domain). If both of those are true, it probably doesn't apply; if one holds but not the other, it's unclear. However, if the actual municipal code directly contains the text of the model code, and you reprint it as the law of that municipality (rather than as the model code), there is no copyright in the law.</p>\n", "score": 8 }, { "answer_id": 1164, "body": "<p>Since you mentioned secession it's worth noting that copyright (supposing it existed here) would not be a barrier to <em>receiving</em> the law of another jurisdiction. </p>\n\n<p>Many states have statutes that explicitly \"receive\" the English common law, some in their constitutions. <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute#Reception_statutes_in_the_United_States\" rel=\"nofollow\">Wiki's article</a> on such statutes provides this example from NY's constitution:</p>\n\n<blockquote>[S]uch parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.</blockquote>\n\n<p>California law also has vestiges of Mexican law, including its use of the community property system. And reflecting its own history, Louisiana's state law is built on European civil law (the French and Spanish colonial flavors) rather than English common law. </p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 833, "body": "<p>Well, states cannot secede. . . . \nNo, the state laws are not copyrightable.</p>\n\n<p>For Federal Laws:\nCopyright protection under <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105\" rel=\"nofollow\">this title</a> is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. </p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/04/16/can-states-copyright-their-statutes/\" rel=\"nofollow\">According to the Harvard Law blog:</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>In Nash v. Lathrop, 6 N.E. 559, 560 (Mass. 1886), the court rested this conclusion on the unfairness of limiting public’s access to the rules that governed its conduct:</p>\n \n <blockquote>\n <p>Every citizen is presumed to know the law thus declared, and it needs no argument to show that justice requires that all should have free access to the opinions, and that it is against sound public policy to prevent this, or to suppress and keep from the earliest knowledge of the public the statutes, or the decisions and opinions of the justices. … It can hardly be contended that it would be within the constitutional power of the legislature to enact that the statutes and opinions should not be made known to the public. It is its duty to provide for promulgating them; while it has the power to pass reasonable and wholesome laws regulating the mode of promulgating them, so as to give accuracy and authority to them.</p>\n </blockquote>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "copyright", "secession" ]

[ { "answer_id": 904, "body": "<p>An individual does not have authority to \"issue\" a restraining order. In the U.S. only judges can issue such orders. The guidelines and policies for obtaining a restraining order vary by jurisdiction, although in the end a judge can issue any order he wants. So <em>in theory</em> you might be able to find a judge who will issue an order for any or no reason. In practice I'd be surprised if many judges would abuse their office to gratuitously harass people in this fashion, though there are probably a few amusing/disturbing examples out there to the contrary.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 4433, "body": "<p>There are different \"flavors\" of restraining orders. The most obvious one involves the threat...or reasonable fear thereof...of physical harm. i.e. a domestic abuse case. This type of restraining order is often granted \"ex parte\" by a judge, solely on the basis of the would-be-victim's uncorroborated testimony. The court wishes to err, if it must err, in the direction of least harm.</p>\n\n<p>Another \"flavor\" of restraining order is economic: You think another person or party is infringing on your trademark, on your trade secret, on your intellectual property, etc. The temporary remedy is to obtain a restraining order to prevent imminent or ongoing damage, while the machinations of the court process play out. This one has far more grey area and is very unlikely to be granted without some kind of evidentiary hearing that allows both sides to present their case, and the judge will want to receive some analysis of the costs to BOTH parties of granting or denying the injunction.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "restraining-orders" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4423, "body": "<p>Presumably you are referring to works commonly called \"fan fiction.\" Under copyright law these <em>might</em> be considered \"derivative works\" and therefore subject to the rights of the copyright owner. However, they <em>might</em> also qualify for exemption from copyright enforcement under \"fair use.\"</p>\n\n<p>It appears that the legality of fan fiction is not settled law, and the outcome of legal challenges have turned on facts specific to each case. Decent background on the question is <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_with_fan_fiction\" rel=\"nofollow\">summarized on wikipedia</a>.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 4432, "body": "<p>A recent case explored a new book written by Fredrik Colting a Swedish writer, which used the name and characterization of Holden Caulfield, the main character of <em>Catcher In The Rye</em>. The book was ruled to be derivative and the court issued an injunction preventing it from being marketed or sold in the USA. <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/books/02salinger.html?_r=0\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/books/02salinger.html?_r=0</a></p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "copyright", "fair-use" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4342, "body": "<p>In common law contract law, the price tag or posted price is only an invitation to treat. The offer and acceptance of the offer happen at the cash register. You are free to back out of the deal when you become aware of the higher price at the register.</p>\n\n<p>Barring a consumer protection law that forces vendors to honour listed prices, common law contract law applies.</p>\n\n<p>It is hard to prove a negative and I have limited exposure to UK law, but these two articles lead me to believe that the UK doesn't have a law requiring vendors to honour posted prices:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/money-saving-tips/10602641/Price-glitches-Do-retailers-have-to-honour-pricing-mistakes.html\">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/money-saving-tips/10602641/Price-glitches-Do-retailers-have-to-honour-pricing-mistakes.html</a></li>\n</ul>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>If an item is priced incorrectly on the shelf, or scans at the wrong price at the till, retailers are under no obligation to honour it, under the Sale of Goods Act.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/sep/10/does-shop-honour-price-shelf\">http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/sep/10/does-shop-honour-price-shelf</a></li>\n</ul>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>price tag is not a contract. It is an \"invitation to treat\" ie it is inviting the customer to make an offer to purchase and the retailer doesn't have to accept that offer. A contract is only formed when the shop accepts a payment</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 4431, "body": "<p>I don't think there is any law that forbids anyone to sell the same good under two different names or even under the same name under different prices. </p>\n\n<p>In your case, you ordered a Caramel Cappuccino for £3.89, but you were served a Cappuccino for £3.59 plus Caramel for £0.50. It is perfectly legal for the shop to try to sell you the more expensive product. </p>\n\n<p>However, you made an \"invitation to trade\" by ordering the Caramel Cappuccino. The store rejected your \"invitation to trade\" by offering you a Cappuccino plus Caramel. You are perfectly in your rights to reject their \"invitation to trade\". </p>\n\n<p>You can either walk away, or order something entirely different, or repeat your initial order for a Caramel Cappuccino. In the first two cases, they end up out of pocket which might teach them to stop this practice if more people do that. </p>\n\n<p>If you notice this practice repeatedly after you tell them about it then they are likely trying to mislead customers and you need to call Trading Standards. </p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "commerce" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4392, "body": "<p>(d) Your citizenship doesn't matter much. If you live in a country without extradition agreements with the USA, then you likely won't get extradited by that country to the USA. If you do something extraordinarily bad then laws might not apply :-( </p>\n\n<p>If you live in a country with an extradition agreement, then the rules are usually: You will be extradited if what you did was illegal in both countries, if there is enough evidence that you could be reasonably taken to court, and that the matter is serious enough that extradition alone wouldn't be a worse punishment already than the crime deserves. </p>\n\n<p>(b) Most likely copyright infringement. Impersonating a government agency might be a very bad idea. </p>\n\n<p>(c) Barack Obama is not a celebrity, he is the president of the USA. I could imagine that copying his signature could be a significant crime. </p>\n\n<p>(a) In general, you may fall foul of any number of anti-hacking laws that make it illegal to manipulate a computer system without authorisation. So the whole action would be with criminal intent. </p>\n\n<p>\"Criminal intent\" is an intent to do an action which (with or without your knowledge) is criminal, not the intent to do something you know or (possibly falsely) believe to be illegal. </p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "international", "trademark", "signature" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4427, "body": "<p>There's nothing about copyright that keeps you from referencing something else. </p>\n\n<p>Your statement DOES however begin to tread in the realm of deceptive advertising...depending on how you word it, giving the imoression that your recording was in the movie. (when it was not).</p>\n\n<p>For example, \"Please download my version of the song \"Doin' Allright,\" one of the songs played at Woodstock.\" A reader can easily imagine that they're getting the sound recording from Woodstock, much to their shock and dismay when they actually listen to it!</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "copyright", "intellectual-property", "music" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4425, "body": "<blockquote>\n <p>I'm curious to know, because Google allowed their ownership of the domain to expire, why do they still have the rights to it even when it was bought by another individual.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>You're making an incorrect assumption here.</p>\n\n<p>The domain was never allowed to expire. An error in Google's domain registration interface allowed him to make an order for the domain. The domain was never actually purchased, but <em>the act of ordering the domain</em> gave Mr. Ved access to the domain in Google's Webmaster Tools.</p>\n\n<p>As the domain was never actually available for purchase, Mr. Ved had no rights to it. (The domain is not even registered through Google's domain registration interface; it's under a completely separate company, MarkMonitor, that specializes in high-value domains.)</p>\n", "score": 14 }, { "answer_id": 4415, "body": "<p>He bought it through Google Domains.</p>\n\n<p>From the <a href=\"http://domains.google.com/tos\">Name Registration Agreement</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Registration Acceptance. Google may accept or <strong>reject</strong> Registrant’s\n application for registration or renewal for any reason <strong>at its sole\n discretion</strong>, including, rejection due to a prohibited, improper,\n unavailable, infringing or otherwise questionable domain name. Google\n is not liable or responsible for any third party’s errors, omissions\n or other actions arising out of or related to Registrant’s domain name\n application, registration, or renewal, including any Registry Operator\n administrator’s failure to register or renew a domain name.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Google has not commented publicly but presumably they had some alert set up which sprung them to action and they cancelled. Arguably, if the registration had been with a different registration agent, Google would not have had the power to reverse the transaction and would have needed to use the dispute process. Keep in mind though, this thing is being called a bug, it's not like Google let the registration expire and it got snapped up.</p>\n\n<p>EDIT TO ADD:</p>\n\n<p>The <a href=\"https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en\">Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy</a> provides the rules for resolving these disputes. Somewhat obvious these days is that trademark owners have certain rights over domains which are their trademark or which are similar to their mark. However, <strong>the analysis does not stop at the existence of a bona fide trademark</strong>. The use to which the domain is put matters.Specific to the present facts:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A finding of the following <strong>shall demonstrate</strong> <strong>(SHALL DEMONSTRATE)</strong> your rights or <strong>legitimate\n interests</strong> to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):</p>\n \n <p>(4)(c)(iii) you <strong>are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the\n domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert\n consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The reference to (4)(c) is referring to the section where we read that \"<strong>complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present</strong>\" -- <strong>EACH OF THESE THREE:</strong></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a\n trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and</p>\n \n <p>(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the\n domain name; and</p>\n \n <p>(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad\n faith.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><strong>The complainant FAILS THIS TEST if the registrar shows \"legitimate noncommercial or fair use.\"</strong> <strong>(Remember, this is from the SHALL DEMONSTRATE part, <em>supra</em>)</strong></p>\n\n<p>In other words, there is a dispute process which must be followed. Just because someone registers Google does not mean that Google automatically gets it back.</p>\n", "score": 11 }, { "answer_id": 4420, "body": "<p>It is likely this would have been handled under the <a href=\"https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy</a>, which provides that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>We may [...] cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to a domain name registration in accordance with the terms of your Registration Agreement or other legal requirements.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(See jqning's answer)</p>\n<p>But even if Google were not the registrar:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>By applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration, you hereby represent and warrant to us that (a) the statements that you made in your Registration Agreement are complete and accurate; (b) to your knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not <strong>infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party;</strong> (c) you are not registering the domain name for an unlawful purpose; and (d) you will not knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations. It is your responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else's rights.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If someone (Google) submits a complaint, they have to prove these elements:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a <strong>trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights</strong>; and</p>\n<p>(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and</p>\n<p>(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The definition of &quot;bad faith&quot; is rather lengthy, but includes things like trying to sell the domain for more than you paid for it, preventing the owner of a trademark from having the corresponding domain, and diverting traffic to your own website for commercial gain.</p>\n<p>Given this situation, I find it unlikely this individual would have been able to keep the domain without hosting a non-commercial website out of pocket at considerable expense due to the large amount of traffic it would get, which strikes me as both improbable and unsustainable.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "internet", "trademark", "domain-name" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4412, "body": "<p><a href=\"https://twitter.com/tos?lang=en\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Twitter's terms</a> says the following:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Except as permitted through the Twitter Services, these Terms, or the\nterms provided on dev.twitter.com, you have to use the Twitter API if\nyou want to reproduce, modify, create derivative works, distribute,\nsell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, or\notherwise use the Twitter Services or Content on the Twitter Services.</p>\n<p>[...]</p>\n<p>You may not do any of the following while accessing or using the\nServices: (i) access, tamper with, or use non-public areas of the\nServices, Twitter’s computer systems, or the technical delivery\nsystems of Twitter’s providers; (ii) probe, scan, or test the\nvulnerability of any system or network or breach or circumvent any\nsecurity or authentication measures; (iii) access or search or attempt\nto access or search the Services by any means (automated or otherwise)\nother than through our currently available, published interfaces that\nare provided by Twitter (and only pursuant to the applicable terms and\nconditions), unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a\nseparate agreement with Twitter (NOTE: crawling the Services is\npermissible if done in accordance with the provisions of the\nrobots.txt file, however, <strong>scraping the Services without the prior\nconsent of Twitter is expressly prohibited)</strong>; (iv) forge any TCP/IP\npacket header or any part of the header information in any email or\nposting, or in any way use the Services to send altered, deceptive or\nfalse source-identifying information; or (v) interfere with, or\ndisrupt, (or attempt to do so), the access of any user, host or\nnetwork, including, without limitation, sending a virus, overloading,\nflooding, spamming, mail-bombing the Services, or by scripting the\ncreation of Content in such a manner as to interfere with or create an\nundue burden on the Services.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.facebook.com/apps/site_scraping_tos_terms.php\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">facebook is a bit harsher:</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li>You will not engage in Automated Data Collection without Facebook's express written permission.</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So just go and use the APIs meant for the explicit purpose of automatic data collection.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "copyright", "intellectual-property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4399, "body": "<p>It is not legal for an <em>employer</em> to discriminate on the basis of sex anywhere in the US (see <a href=\"http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm</a>). Exemptions exist where the discrimination is for <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifications\" rel=\"nofollow\">bona fide occupational qualifications</a> and, irrelevantly, religious reasons.</p>\n\n<p>It is completely legal for a <em>consumer</em> to discriminate on the basis of anything they want to. It is also legal for a business to assist the consumer in that discrimination.</p>\n\n<p>Bona fide occupational qualifications generally only apply to instances in which the BFOQ is considered reasonably necessary to the normal operation of a particular business. Mere customer satisfaction, or lack thereof, is not enough to justify a BFOQ defence, as noted in the cases Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. and <a href=\"https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wilson_v._Southwest_Airlines_Co.\" rel=\"nofollow\">Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co.</a>. Therefore, customer preference for females does not make femininity a BFOQ for the occupation of flight attendant. However, there may be cases in which customer preference is a BFOQ—for example, femininity is reasonably necessary for Playboy Bunnies. Customer preference can \"'be taken into account only when it is based on the company's inability to perform the primary function or service it offers,' that is, where sex or sex appeal is itself the dominant service provided.\"</p>\n\n<p>None of the occupations you mention would, on the face of it, meet the requirements to be BFOQ.</p>\n\n<p>Allowing their customers to express a <em>preference</em> for a specific gender may impact on the capacity for the business to deliver on that preference but it would not generally allow a BFOQ defence if this impacted their hiring policies. A possible exception is if the business catered to that preference <em>exclusively</em>, for example, an all female gym with all female staff <em>but</em> I am not aware that this has ever been tested and if a male personal trainer wanted to take them on he may very well win.</p>\n\n<p>As an aside, there is no BFOQ defence for <em>racial</em> discrimination except for artistic works where the first amendment rights overrule the anti-discrimination laws. </p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "california", "texas", "discrimination" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4388, "body": "<p>Don't get hung up on unauthorized resale. That only prohibits unauthorized resale. Authorized resale is ok. </p>\n\n<p>From <a href=\"http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1854-copyright-infringement-first-sale-doctrine\">http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1854-copyright-infringement-first-sale-doctrine</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an\n <strong>individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from\n the copyright holder receives the right to sell</strong>, display or otherwise\n dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the\n copyright owner. The right to distribute ends, however, once the owner\n has sold that particular copy. See 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) &amp; (c). Since the\n first sale doctrine never protects a defendant who makes unauthorized\n reproductions of a copyrighted work, the first sale doctrine cannot be\n a successful defense in cases that allege infringing reproduction.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 7 } ]

[ "copyright", "licensing" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4361, "body": "<p><a href=\"http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2012/06/warman-v-fournier-copyright/\">In Canada, no</a>: linking does not reproduce any part of the original.</p>\n\n<p>In <a href=\"https://torrentfreak.com/hyperlinking-is-not-copyright-infringement-eu-court-rules-140213/\">Sweden</a>, <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/spanish-court-rules-linking-potential-copyright\">Spain</a> and according to <a href=\"https://torrentfreak.com/hyperlinking-is-not-copyright-infringement-eu-court-rules-140213/\">the EU</a>, no: communicating a link does not communicate anew the work to the public.</p>\n\n<p>In the <a href=\"https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Infringement_Issues#Linking\">US</a>, it isn't as clear, but generally, linking is not <em>per se</em> infringement, usually because no copying happens.</p>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 4363, "body": "<p>Posting <em>one</em> link is, by itself, unlikely to constitute copyright infringement in most jurisdictions (see nomen agentis's answer). But posting a lot of links, systematically and with emphasis on making it easy for people to find content known to be pirated, is an entirely different situation, and you should consult a lawyer before trying it.</p>\n\n<p>It is <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc.\" rel=\"noreferrer\">well</a> <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.\" rel=\"noreferrer\">established</a> that creating a repository of P2P content which is substantially piratical is contributory copyright infringement, even if you never host anything copyrighted. Take out the \"P2P\" and you've got a scaled-up version of what OP describes. I find it hard to believe that P2P technology is the key point of these rulings. This is about <em>what</em> you are doing, not how you go about doing it. If the primary purpose of your website is helping people commit copyright infringement, it is unlikely you will be able to effectively defend yourself in court, regardless of the specific technology in use.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 4374, "body": "<h2>In the US, knowingly and intentionally linking to infringing copyrighted material <em>may</em> be held liable as contributory infringement.</h2>\n\n<p>You should not expect that claiming you were merely linking to the material but not hosting it directly yourself will automatically remove you from all or even any liability if a case is pursued.</p>\n\n<p>I won't get into the likelihood of your being pursued or not for said inducement if it is only a single link (and depending on the nature of the linking/surrounding context): retain an attorney if you want specific advice related to that. While I would <em>personally</em> find it surprising, there are many civil suits or threats of civil suits in particular that occur under more \"surprising\" circumstances: it's certainly <em>possible</em>.</p>\n\n<p>While the copyright statutes do not contain language specifying contributory infringement or express a given remedy, there is case law related to it that establishes it in a way very similar to contributory infringement under patent law.</p>\n\n<p>In particular the supreme court decision in <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005)</a>, of note:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>and it's also worth paying attention to how they look at the relationship between patent law (which does have an inducement rule) and copyright for the purposes of the decision:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>For the same reasons that Sony took the staple-article doctrine of patent law as a model for its copyright safe-harbor rule, the inducement rule, too, is a sensible one for copyright. We adopt it here, holding that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Particularly, consider how the court chose to look at evidence of intent and the relation to inducement:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>[t]he rule on inducement of infringement as developed in the early cases is no different today. Evidence of \"active steps ... taken to encourage direct infringement,\" Oak Industries, Inc. v. Zenith Electronics Corp., 697 F.Supp. 988, 992 (N.D.Ill.1988), such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use, show an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe, and a showing that infringement was encouraged overcomes the law's reluctance to find liability when a defendant merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>and consider that in <a href=\"http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/464/417.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)</a> the key to ruling in favor of Sony Corp was the conclusion that the Betamax was capable of <strong>significant</strong> noninfringing use.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>The Digital Media Law Project gives <a href=\"http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials\" rel=\"nofollow\">its definition</a> as</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Contributory copyright infringement occurs by \"intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement\" of a copyrighted work.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>and may have some relevant further reading.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>If users of a site you administer (versus you yourself individually) are posting links to infringing material, you may have some protection under the <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512\" rel=\"nofollow\">DMCA</a> assuming you correctly follow related requirements (particularly re: takedown procedures) correctly <em>and assuming the primary purpose of the site being administered is not seen to be infringing or contributing to infringement.</em></p>\n\n<p>While I believe it to be untested so far (?), the DMCA safe harbor specifically addresses user action, but does not address a case like that of Grokster if the court were to find that the primary purpose of the site overall were contributory infringement. If anyone is aware of any related rulings that specifically address this in relation to the DMCA, I'd love to see them.</p>\n\n<p>(some might point to MegaUpload/Kim Dotcom as possibly being related to this last, but that is far too controversial and with too many other prevailing issues to be worth citing, nor has it been decided at an appropriate level.)</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "copyright", "internet" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4366, "body": "<p>Copying is illegal, creating an identical work by coincidence isn't. If it is not a criminal case, then a court decides whether it is more likely that the identical work was created by copying or by coincidence. Creating an identical work through a random process isn't going to happen, claiming this would be an awful defense. On the other hand, it is quite possible that two software developers using very stylized code adhering to struct coding conventions can produce quite large bits of identical code.</p>\n\n<p>Your links titled \"metadata\" and \"hash\" don't actually link to a description of metadata, or the description of a hash, but to a description of torrent files, which is something totally different. Systematically distributing files whose only purpose is the illegal duplication of copyrighted works should not be done without consulting a lawyer, as has been said on other threads (whether posting links to copyrighted files is legal). </p>\n\n<p>The chances that a random process will generate a file identical to an existing copyrighted file of say over 100 bytes are virtually zero. If there is an illegal copy of a copyrighted file, and you claim that you created it through a random process and coincidence, you will lose, and deservedly so. </p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "copyright", "software" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4329, "body": "<p><a href=\"http://www.dmv.pa.gov/Driver-Services/New-Resident-Relocation-Information/New%20Residents/Pages/Info-For-New-Residents.aspx#.Vhalkis4JvA\" rel=\"nofollow\">All new residents with out-of-state non-commercial driver's licenses must obtain a PA Driver's License within 60 days of establishing Pennsylvania residency.</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.dmv.pa.gov/Driver-Services/New-Resident-Relocation-Information/New%20Residents/Pages/Motor-Vehicle-Information-for-New-Residents.aspx#.VhallCs4JvA\" rel=\"nofollow\">All new residents are required to make application for Pennsylvania title and registration of their vehicle(s) within 20 days of establishing residency in Pennsylvania.</a></p>\n\n<p>When you get pulled over, the cop is going to look at your license and ask, \"Is this your current address?\"</p>\n\n<p>If you are working in PA during the day, and sleep in PA at night, you do not <em>live in NJ with your parent</em>s.</p>\n\n<p>EDIT TO ADD:</p>\n\n<p>To be clear on this \"new resident\" status </p>\n\n<p>61 PA Code § 101.1 \"defines <strong>resident</strong> individual as <strong>An individual who is domiciled in this Commonwealth</strong>...\" plus some exceptions that do not matter in this instance because OP is going to rent an apartment in PA.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Domicile</strong> is defined in the same section as \"The place which an individual <strong>intends to be his permanent home</strong> and to which he intends to return whenever he may be absent.\"</p>\n\n<p><strong>Title 61 is the Revenue Title. So for tax purposes, you must have an abode and you must have intentions.</strong></p>\n\n<p>The Education Title (22) defines Domicile :\nDomicile is the place where one <strong>intends to and does, in fact, permanently reside</strong>.</p>\n\n<p>So for education purposes you must have intentions and your abode must be permanent. <strong>Having a drivers license is one form of proof of residency so presumably the driver's license residency requirement follows the Revenue definition</strong>!</p>\n\n<p>Title 22 requires you to prove permanence, and 12 months residence prior to registration as a student is one factor. Oh, and Title 61 explicit tells us that you can be a resident for tax purposes but not for residency purposes.</p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "united-states", "rental-property", "vehicle" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4354, "body": "<p>I am not a lawyer, so this is a layman's observation.</p>\n\n<p>You don't seem to have a good case against the plaintiff. You were advised by a lawyer, and all the legal forms were observed. The subsequent \"frivolous pattern\" was not there at the time that you settled, and the law (normally) doesn't allow you to act retroactively.</p>\n\n<p>You might want to consult a malpractice or ethics lawyer to see if you have a case against the lawyer. The lawyer \"caved in\" and got less for you (including the absence of a nondisparagement clause) than a reasonable settlement. The potential \"litigation value\" of such a case is everything you lost by settling, including attorney's fees. If your case is strong enough, some lawyers might be willing to take it on contingency.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 4311, "body": "<p>As for which lawyer to hire, when these schemes fall apart, it is usually because a couple of defendants hung in there. Find out who was representing those people and call the lawyers.</p>\n\n<p>As for the status of your settlement, the bad behavior after-the-fact might be enough to bolster your cause, but you are going to need to identify bad behavior before the fact and prove that some of it landed on you.</p>\n\n<p><strong>If they knowingly defrauded you, and you justifiably relied on fraudulent statements, you could get a judgment as well as punitive damages.</strong> However, it doesn't look like that happened here. (What I mean is that it sounds like your claim is based on what these guys did to other people.)</p>\n\n<p>Unjust enrichment is also a potential tool that you could use but that is usually going to require an absence of consideration. This generally means that you would not have gotten anything in return for your payment. But you did get something, you got the case against you dropped. That was your consideration.</p>\n\n<p>It seems to me that while \"the complaint included a number of false claims,\" it also included enough true claims that scared you enough to pay. So, if you do invalidate the settlement, are you prepared to defend yourself against the original charges?</p>\n\n<p>EDIT: by the time these things blow up, the money is usually gone. As in, your money is gone.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4352, "body": "<p>Don't leave anything blank. At least put N/A in the space.</p>\n\n<p>So your name goes at the top and</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Company: N/A By:<em>your signature</em> Its: N/A</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>goes at the bottom</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 4347, "body": "<p>The purpose of an NDA is to bind the two parties. The correct answer is to sign it in any way that satisfies both you and the counterparty.</p>\n\n<p>In general, if you are a party to a contract as an individual, and someone hands you a stock contract designed for entities, either of the following should be acceptable:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p>Sign it as an individual. You can leave fields applicable to entities blank, cross them out; it doesn't matter.</p></li>\n<li><p>You can present yourself as an entity. As a 1099 (in the U.S.) freelance contractor, at the very least you are a \"Sole Proprietor.\" You can declare yourself to be President or whatever title you want of your sole proprietorship. You can name your proprietorship (so long as you don't claim any entity type you have not established, like a Corporation, and so long as your name doesn't infringe somebody's trademark). Whatever floats your boat!</p></li>\n</ol>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4349, "body": "<p>Yes, there is no general restraint on signing a contract that incorporates conditions on future events. Most contracts are of that form &ndash; \"For consideration <em>X</em> from Party <em>A</em>, Party <em>B</em> will (or will not) do <em>Y</em>.\"</p>\n\n<p>You could certainly say, \"If I establish entity <em>A</em> in timeframe <em>B</em> then the counterparty agrees to <em>C</em>.\"</p>\n\n<p>Of course: You should consult a qualified lawyer to draft or review the terms if you want to ensure that the contract will have the desired effect <em>and</em> be enforceable.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 4350, "body": "<p>You can use a <strong>letter of intent</strong>.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>LOIs resemble short, written contracts, but are usually in tabular\n form and not binding on the parties in their entirety. Many LOIs,\n however, contain provisions that are binding, such as those governing\n non-disclosure, governing law, exclusivity or covenants to negotiate\n in good faith.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><em>Lifted from <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_intent#cite_ref-:0_1-0\" rel=\"nofollow\">Wikipedia</a></em></p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4337, "body": "<p>I don't understand what LegalZoom might be providing that limits the applicant to US citizens. </p>\n\n<p>There is one two-page form to fill out.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.azcc.gov/Divisions/Corporations/forms/starpas/formsSTPS/L010-Articles-of-Organization.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">Articles of Organization</a></p>\n\n<p>The instructions are clear. </p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.azcc.gov/Divisions/Corporations/forms/starpas/instructionsSTPS/L010i-002-Instructions-Articles-of-Organization-STPS.pdf?d=44\" rel=\"nofollow\">Instructions L010i Articles of Organization</a></p>\n\n<p>The corporation is required to have a statutory agent in the state. It doesn't matter where the owners live. </p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "business", "arizona" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4338, "body": "<p>Strictly speaking, yes, Microsoft owns the copyright for all that stuff. But they grant users a license. So it's a matter of knowing what they let us do with it. </p>\n\n<p>I grabbed the <a href=\"http://download.microsoft.com/Documents/UseTerms/Excel_2013_English_14da92a7-4115-4060-b4fa-ea12599cd421.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">EULA for Excel 2013</a>. You'll want to check your version. My reading of this is that you can do the thing that you want to do. </p>\n\n<p>M. ADDITIONAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS AND/OR USE RIGHTS </p>\n\n<p>...</p>\n\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li>Media Elements. Microsoft <strong>grants you a license to copy, distribute, perform and display</strong> media elements (images, clip art, animations, sounds, music, video clips, <strong>templates and other</strong> <strong>forms</strong> of content) included with the software in projects and documents, except that you may <strong>not</strong>: (i) sell, license or distribute copies of any media elements <strong>by themselves</strong> or as a product if the primary value of the product is the media elements; (ii) grant your customers rights to further license or distribute the media elements; (iii) license or distribute for commercial purposes media elements that include the representation of identifiable individuals, governments, logos, trademarks, or emblems or use these types of images in ways that could imply an endorsement or association with your product, entity or activity; or (iv) create obscene or scandalous works using the media elements. Other media elements, which are accessible on Office.com or on other websites through features of the software, are governed by the terms on those websites. </li>\n</ol>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "copyright", "intellectual-property", "software" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4345, "body": "<p>No, using the clip without explicit permission from the copyright holder would be a copyright violation. Other people also violating the copyright is no reason that you can do the same and does not mean that the copyright holder will not go after you. Not making any money is not an excuse to violate copyright, but in some jurisdictions there are \"fair use\" exceptions which might apply to you under some conditions.</p>\n\n<p>The Simpsons copyright is by 20th Century Fox, but they sub-licensed the exclusive rights to local companies in many jurisdictions.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright", "internet" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4155, "body": "<p>Even though student status is not on the list of protected classes, this still might be discrimination. By proxy.</p>\n\n<p>Status as student can be a proxy for age, race, and/or color. Maybe even religion if there is a religious school nearby!</p>\n\n<p>In fairness to the store manager, when a pack of ten kids comes rolling in on the way home from school things can get pretty hectic. Rather than try to kick out the problem kids many managers will attempt to avoid the problem in the first place.</p>\n\n<p>Also, a sign like this might help the manager be less discriminatory. For example, let's say he lets all kids in and only kicks out the ones who are causing problems. If those problem kids are all in one protected class and it's different from the kids who don't get kicked out, the manager looks like he's discriminating based on that protected class.</p>\n\n<p>Discrimination by proxy can be hard to prove and I am not sure of the burden of proof in Canada. I have read that \"Canadian experience\" is used as a proxy in employment discrimination and has been getting some attention lately. That might be a good issue to keep an eye on as it may define proxy discrimination jurisprudence.</p>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 4148, "body": "<p>In Canada, <a href=\"http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/FullText.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">the Human Rights Act</a> proscribes discrimination.</p>\n\n<p>However, student status is not a grounds for discrimination as per the Act:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "canada", "discrimination" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4294, "body": "<h2>The misunderstanding</h2>\n\n<p>The only person who can chose to prosecute or not to prosecute a criminal case is the state: in the US this is through the office of the relevant District Attorney advised by the police.</p>\n\n<p>When a person makes a complaint to police (or other authorities), the police/DA commence an investigation. In an ideal world all complaints would be investigated rigorously and thoroughly, however, we live in this world. The police/DA will assess the complaint and decide if it warrants the dedication of scarce resources to investigate. One of the factors they will consider is how vigorously the complainant prods them in the ass.</p>\n\n<p>Ultimately, the <strong>police/DA</strong> will decide if there is enough evidence to place the matter before the courts. The complainant has <strong>no</strong> say in when or if this will happen.</p>\n\n<p><strong>A complainant cannot \"drop the charges\"!</strong></p>\n\n<h2>The misconduct</h2>\n\n<p>For a police officer to disclose to another police officer that they were the subject of a felony (or any) complaint is <em>gross</em> misconduct and a <em>huge</em> betrayal of trust. At best it shows poor judgement, at worst it is corrupt.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Your friend needs professional legal advice right now!</strong></p>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 4301, "body": "<p>In general it is the <em>policy</em> of law enforcement organizations to maintain the details of open investigations in confidence. Certainly, disclosing details of an allegation to an accused would be unusual, although some investigatory techniques do depend on strategic revelations.</p>\n\n<p>The disclosure of a detailed complaint to the alleged perpetrator when the perp is a fellow law enforcement officer as described in this question, almost certainly constitutes gross misconduct. As with the initial complaint, when criminal behavior is alleged to have been perpetrated by a law enforcement officer, one need not take one's complaint to the department that employs the officer. It would be reasonable (and I would encourage) in such a situation to make a direct complaint to the District Attorney. One could also complain to an independent law enforcement agency: e.g., the Sheriff or State Police. (Similarly, if one's complaint involves a member of the DA's office one can instead complain to the State Attorney General's office.)</p>\n\n<p>The unfortunate reality is that there often is a \"blue line\" of police who collaborate to protect each other, including illegally. When the police force is large enough, or when it has demonstrated itself corrupt enough, there will often be an independent \"watchdog\" agency created just to \"police the police.\" A citizen concerned that her complaints won't be given a fair hearing should take her complaint to these independent agencies until she feels that it has been appropriately dealt with.</p>\n\n<p>The last safety valve that exists is a direct appeal to the courts. This would require the assistance and advice of an attorney. Fortunately, when the violations of one's civil rights reach such a level there are lawyers and entities (e.g., the ACLU) who may advocate on behalf of victims <em>pro bono</em>.</p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "united-states", "criminal-law", "police" ]

[ { "answer_id": 1934, "body": "<p>To form a contract, you must have:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Intention to create legal relations</li>\n<li>Agreement</li>\n<li>Consideration</li>\n<li>Legal Capacity</li>\n<li>Genuine Consent</li>\n<li>Legality of Objects</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>On the face of it, Alice and Bob's agreement meets these criteria so it is a legally binding contract and Alice would have every prospect of success in a legal action for breach of contract.</p>\n\n<p>Specifically:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>by writing out and signing the agreement they are showing an intention to be legally bound</li>\n<li>what they have each agreed to do is vey clear; more than many I have seen</li>\n<li>both parties have provided consideration: dog walking and money</li>\n<li>there is no suggestion that either was legally incapable of forming a contract</li>\n<li>genuine consent refers to them actually agreeing what they though they agreed, for example if Alice asked Bob to walk her dog (meaning the Great Dane) and Bob agreed (meaning the Jack Russell) there has not been genuine consent</li>\n<li>dog walking and paying money are both legal</li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 7 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 1978, "body": "<p>There are many countries / states / provinces in North America, each with their own laws on this subject, so this question is potentially quite broad. I will focus on the United States.</p>\n\n<p>To this day, it is legal in all 50 US states for a parent to strike a child as a means of discipline (\"corporal punishment\"), but laws generally include a requirement that the force used is \"reasonable\" in some sense. However, it is not legal for a parent to cause serious injury to a child. The line between \"reasonable punishment\" and \"serious injury\" seems to not be well defined, and may have shifted over time due to changes in law, court decisions, or prosecutorial discretion. So the answer may hinge on what you mean by the word \"beating\". However, spanking seems to be generally considered \"reasonable\" under the law.</p>\n\n<p>I found the following article which explores this issue in depth:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Coleman, Doriane Lambelet; Dodge, Kenneth A;, and Campbell, Sarah Keeton. Where and how to draw the line between reasonable corporal punishment and abuse. 73 <em>Law and Contemporary Problems</em> 107-166 (Spring 2010). <a href=\"http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol73/iss2/6\">http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol73/iss2/6</a> </p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 9 }, { "answer_id": 1982, "body": "<h2>Australia</h2>\n<p>For an alternative jurisdiction (Australia) see <a href=\"https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/corporal-punishment-key-issues\" rel=\"noreferrer\">https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/corporal-punishment-key-issues</a>. I quote:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In most states and territories, corporal punishment by a parent or carer is lawful provided that it is carried out for the purpose of correction, control or discipline, and that it is &quot;reasonable&quot; having regard to:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>the age of the child;</li>\n<li>the method of punishment;</li>\n<li>the child's capacity for reasoning (i.e., whether the child is able to comprehend correction/discipline); and</li>\n<li>the harm caused to the child (Bourke, 1981).</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Corporal punishment by teacher's in schools was progressively banned in each state and territory starting in 1985 (Victoria) and being completed in 2009 (Northern Territory). In some jurisdictions there was a difference in the time of banning between state (public) and private schools; an interesting anomaly is that corporal punishment is still legal in Northern Territory state schools but is prohibited by departmental policies - a teacher who used it could be sacked but not prosecuted.</p>\n<h2>Your Questions</h2>\n<blockquote>\n<p>When did beating your child become illegal?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It isn't if &quot;beating&quot; means &quot;reasonable&quot; corporal punishment.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Or was it always and now it is just more strictly enforced?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Striking a child (or anyone) when doing so is not &quot;reasonable&quot; has always been illegal. Interpretation of &quot;reasonable&quot; has changed over time. Also, domestic violence of any kind has tended to be an area of poor enforcement historically.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Is spanking a child technically legal?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yes</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Is this illegal?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If the punishment was reasonable, no.</p>\n", "score": 7 } ]

[ "legal-history", "child-abuse" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4335, "body": "<p>Case 2 is clearcut: assuming that site <em>A</em> is the author of the artwork, or is the site where the author first published, you've got a clear right to use the work under the given Creative Commons license.</p>\n\n<p>Case 1 is more difficult: transfer of a copy of a work does not, in general, transfer the copyright as well. Unless site <em>A</em> purchased or otherwise obtained the rights to re-license the work, their Creative Commons license statement is invalid.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright", "creative-commons" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3912, "body": "<blockquote>\n <p>\"Does the lender have a time limit to repossess the house before s/he loses the house as security\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>It depends on the circumstances.</p>\n\n<p>If a person acquires a right under a contract, for example, the right to foreclose on a mortgage, then they do not have to avail themselves of that right immediately or at all.</p>\n\n<p>In general, waiving a right does not create a general waiver - if you give me a foreclosure trigger now that I waive, I can act on a foreclosure trigger that you give me latter - most contracts spell this out specifically.</p>\n\n<p>However, if we establish a pattern of behaviour where you arrive at the reasonable assumption that I will never foreclose then I may find myself estopped from doing so. This is a creature of the circumstances; for example, if I wrote to you each time you were in arrears saying that if you did X and Y then I would not foreclose but <em>reserving my rights on future arrears</em> then this may be enough to prevent estoppel. If I do it half a dozen times in 2 years though, it might be reasonable for you to think I will always do it.</p>\n\n<p>Of course, we can also vary the terms of the contract explicitly by agreeing to whatever we like.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>... especially if there are \"Junior\" mortgages behind it?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This probably doesn't change things between the first mortgagee and the mortgager, however, if the (in)actions of the first mortgagee reduce or eliminate the rights of secondary mortgagees then the first mortgagee may be open to a damages claim from them.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Is the loan \"impaired\" in any way for the new buyer?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>If it is \"impaired\" then it would be \"impaired\" no matter who owned it. If this was not disclosed when it was sold the seller may be open to a claim for damages.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>does the new buyer who bought a \"non-performing\" loan retain the security in the house?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Maybe, see above.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "finance" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4323, "body": "<p><strong>Does a minor saying, \"I want my mommy\" have the same legal effect as an adult saying, \"I want my lawyer\"?</strong></p>\n\n<p><strong>NO</strong></p>\n\n<p><strong>If a suspect in police custody asks for a lawyer, the interview must stop.</strong></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>If the suspect invokes [assistance of counsel during custodial interrogation] at any time, the police must\n <strong>immediately cease questioning him until an attorney is present</strong>.<br>\n <a href=\"https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Public/ExViewer.aspx?LTID=MIeKzjCPKpU28My8Zj6CExUCGS60J3byluZ3toVhwYn2h%20CmsW4sHGoJ3knVld2FvxJhj6IaRfEu24bf3hCrzZ1sclDu77rAryMV9Ge9k/q3E%20IHpB5r3V0LP88k1QEnVl4BjAwbReCk8EaG57RpmvkF/T%20Exgl5tJBH7PeuL9c=\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Davis v. United States</a>, 512 U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This is known as the <strong>Edwards Rule</strong> because it was born in <a href=\"https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Public/ExViewer.aspx?LTID=mwDdNB08bxWjJJPfeCjZaagLdkARULOwgQfbMq0cRKFM368ujHBZyn5fkf10fD7NXIQNC8rQ%20IqC8L0z8EcEXVGa0GYqU4nSisbqq4vylJEiIxTREWVD4Tjcai%20J6mjPyTWr7oHbPQzmDh4PnvPC%20eoeO8%20aMpYcH2r%20AwtTn8o=\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Edwards v. Arizona</a>, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981)</p>\n\n<p><strong>It doesn't work this way in school</strong> because interrogations by school officials are not subject to <em>Miranda</em>. This is important because the reason for the Edwards Rule is preventing officers from badgering a suspect into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights. See <em>Davis</em>.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>There is no authority requiring a school administrator not acting on\n behalf of law enforcement officials to furnish Miranda warnings.<br>\n <a href=\"https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Public/ExViewer.aspx?LTID=TzjkXIK85j4QdCzvbF67I8d9mzsext8yStgwqNWsQqk9R8fWh9VRiTUEkPFa8PGWO2Q3n4HQ1f8pvf8tz1o2MH6tFQPDy/GrG9uVqwaflabca8DAOnR5XxJwo9rCJIMl2H6D4SxMH/plzudVlxEna6i6jWFxgbuEyjeYpUxGXv0=\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Com. v. Snyder</a>, 597 N.E.2d 1363, 413 Mass. 521 (Mass., 1992)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Public/ExViewer.aspx?LTID=h7spU%20nmmzYfrC62o%20b5keeDlZE0x3kOhrbjK7FUzQ0MnjcVb8rrIIet9itJnHBcDZCkSW8iTqihq%204Kjp8xNU3OOJjDOtIm2df1%20VV2oatT%2061twuX/7dKhdIjhpb1aXd5wYv8C4Jg1uTIevMffYzjftGneA/DB6XKYfeB38QM=\" rel=\"noreferrer\">New Jersey v. T.L.O.</a>, 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1984) held that teachers and school administrators do not act in loco parentis in their dealings with students. \"In carrying out searches and other disciplinary functions pursuant to such policies, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents.\"</p>\n\n<p>The point to all that is to say that <strong>school officials do not need to change course at all when a student asks for a parent</strong>.</p>\n\n<p>Schools do need to question students.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>A school official must have leeway to question students</strong> regarding\n activities that constitute either a violation of the law or a\n violation of school rules. This latitude is necessary to maintain\n discipline, to determine whether a student should be excluded from the\n school, and to decide whether further protection is needed for the\n student being questioned or for others.<br>\n <a href=\"https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Public/ExViewer.aspx?LTID=mWl5A4O6asGVpnHyiuT1c/yzXcVCelXSV1wOLwqmM4ouF0eSGJaGy8zjfs28hNuudU6/Advdzg1XP9%20oOHlN6KkNAn4O/klOL%20slAfdycYRpImXGZiGNEX/dxhyTnW%20zuJ3/lMOfCD49Q2cajCx3w0y4%20zRU1YwN2Qg5dQa31FA=\" rel=\"noreferrer\">State v. Biancamano</a>, 666 A.2d 199, 284 N.J.Super. 654 (N.J. Super. A.D., 1995)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Perhaps the better way to ask the question is - if the school interrogates the child and refuses to contact a parent upon request by the child, is there any recourse by the child or his family?</p>\n\n<p>20 U.S.C. § 6736(a)(2) provides immunity for teachers: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>(a) Liability protection for teachers Except as provided in subsection\n (b) of this section, no teacher in a school shall be liable for harm\n caused by an act or omission of the teacher on behalf of the school\n if...the actions of the teacher were carried out in conformity with\n Federal, State, and local laws (including rules and regulations) in\n furtherance of efforts to control, discipline, expel, or suspend a\n student or maintain order or control in the classroom or school.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>States have passed their own similar laws. For example, Colorado: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>22-12-104. Liability.</strong><br>\n (1) An educational entity and its employees are\n immune from suit for taking an action regarding the supervision,\n grading, suspension, expulsion, or discipline of a student while the\n student is on the property of the educational entity or under the\n supervision of the educational entity or its employees</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>So, if a student is being questioned by a teacher or administrator, and asks for a parent, there is no federal or state law which requires the interview to stop.</p>\n\n<p>Once arrested, the parent question varies by state and you get some information about this in the link you provide. <a href=\"https://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/2000-R-0282.htm\" rel=\"noreferrer\">This memo</a> does a good job of summarizing a few states' laws. Basically, most states require the police to initiate various levels of parent involvement for kids under 18. Some states make exceptions to this rule for 16 and/or 17 years olds.</p>\n\n<p>Also, many state laws require certain action by the school (in regards to contacting parents) when police come to the school to interview students. There is an amazing volume called <a href=\"https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/discipline-compendium/School%20Discipline%20Laws%20and%20Regulations%20Compendium.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Compendium Of School Discipline Laws And Regulations For The 50 States, District Of Columbia And The U.S. Territories</a> which provides a lot of these rules.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "united-states", "human-rights", "minor" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4322, "body": "<p>Article VI of the Constitution says:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This is known as the \"Supremacy Clause.\"</p>\n\n<p>What this means, in a nutshell, is that if the federal government passes a Constitutionally proper criminal statute, the feds can arrest you no matter what state law says.</p>\n\n<p>That means if your job requires you to possess pot, you can be busted under federal possession laws. If your job requires you to distribute pot, you can be busted under federal distribution laws. And even if you work as an accountant, you may be subject to federal prison time under federal RICO laws.</p>\n\n<p>Now, as a practical matter, the feds in general (but not always) have been taking a more hands-off approach to busting dispensaries in legal states. But they're choosing not to bust them; they're not powerless to bust them. And that could change. At least two of the Republican candidates for president (<a href=\"http://mic.com/articles/112066/the-pot-primary-which-republican-candidates-would-be-best-on-marijuana\" rel=\"nofollow\">Christie and Rubio</a>) have said that they think the feds should enforce anti-drug laws even in states that have legalized drugs. If one of them were to get elected, and if he had enough support in Congress, that could change very quickly.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "employment", "medical" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4315, "body": "<p>Parties means parties to the conflict.</p>\n\n<p>The circumstances of providing weapons to one of the belligerents would not make you a party, providing intelligence, targeting or advice might.</p>\n\n<p>Worth noting that in nearly 25 years of existence the commission has <em>never</em> conducted an investigation. Possibly because of an inability to get the required consent.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "international" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4313, "body": "<p>I know this is not what you've asked (I will get to that too), but I figured I would take the opportunity to state that the owner of the well cannot send you an invoice for the water unless you <strong>agreed to a price and entered into a binding agreement</strong>. They cannot just decide their water is worth X and then tell you that the amount is due. Just as you cannot send them a bill, in the same amount, for the use and maintenance of the pump.</p>\n\n<p>While the well may be located on one parcel of land, with the pump on the other, chances are, the properties were linked at one point and that is why there is a separation of the two (unless you bought it as one and divided it yourselves). This should have been dealt with on the deed, with easements appurtenant to the neighboring land regarding water rights. A contractual agreement could have been attached by reference that dictated the land with the well would maintain the well, while the landowner with the pump would maintain the equipment (or whatever you both agreed to regarding upkeep and the like). </p>\n\n<p>Depending on the state you live in, the property itself may not even \"own\" the well. For instance, in Colorado, water rights typically come by way of 100 or 200 year leases, as the native american tribes of the area \"own\" the water rights. Other states have laws that declare that nobody owns the water table, hence land is only owned as far down as the water table and then it is owned by the county, or state, with easements running with the deed. Other states, (I'm wondering if this is your issue) the water runs in veins and does belong only to the property that it is below &ndash; as there is no water table, so to speak. Regardless, I would talk to your title insurance policy company and ask why this easement was not addressed in the deed.</p>\n\n<p>I'm assuming that you did not divide the land yourselves, post purchase, and the land with the pump cannot access the water table without going onto the land of the other. Otherwise, it would be very easily solved by drilling your own well (and much cheaper), whereby you already own all of the equipment to run the water to the dwelling. You just divert your equipment to the running of your own well. It's only a few dollars a foot to drill a well, unless you live in the Granite State!</p>\n\n<p>Likewise, you should check with your land assessor's office, or registry of deeds, and see how the title ran back regarding water. Again, depending on jurisdiction, you may be able to drill down and over. You cannot divert, but you can access, in most jurisdictions. I say to contact your title insurance company, because the water issue should have been dealt with at title examination, and further, if your land is inaccessible to any water, it would not be sub-dividable for dwelling purposes under almost any zoning law I have ever heard of. A property that is land locked, or utility inaccessible, cannot be zoned for dwellings, without irrevocable easements or rights of ways, respectively. Just because you purchased near family doesn't have anything to do with any of this analysis. They could be anyone, or you could end up at odds, the <strong>water cannot be relationship dependent and you cannot be held hostage over natural resources</strong>. If so, I would sue the title insurance policy for a refund of the purchase price or the negotiation of the purchase price of an easement to the well/water table, assuming you have none under your land and have no existing right to it.</p>\n\n<p>If you just happen to have the pump, and they have the well, you own the pump and they own the well. Simple as that. You do not have to allow the pump to be used for their well. Assuming you can drill your own well, but may not want to, you can just rent them the use of the pump at the same rate they are charging you for the water. You can agree to split the cost of maintenance of each, since you've invested in the upgrade of the pump.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 4299, "body": "<blockquote>\n <p><strong>B owns the pump.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>There was no <strong><em>transfer of ownership</em></strong> of the pump from B to A, so B owns it.</p>\n\n<p>If A thinks B is liable for some obligation to A, then A's recourse is to sue B for <strong><em>damages</em></strong> and/or <strong><em>specific performance</em></strong> of the terms of the contract.</p>\n\n<p>In this case, if B can not access the pump B owns, B's recourse is to sue A for damages and/or return of the pump. At that time, A can countersue B as described in the above paragraph.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "property", "unjust-enrichment", "water" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4269, "body": "<p><strong>This is <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence\" rel=\"nofollow\">Domestic Violence</a></strong>: if often but not always includes \"all acts of physical, sexual, <em>psychological or economic violence</em>.\"</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>What legal recourse does she have?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>She can report it to the police, in many states in the US the police are obliged to make an arrest and start an investigation. If she does this the process is <em>entirely</em> out of her hands. The police will decide if sufficient evidence exists to bring charges and your relative will be obliged to testify on penalty of perjury.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Is what they are doing to her a criminal offense?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>It is probably a crime in the state your relative lives in.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>As far as I know the husband hasn't hit her, so it's can't be a domestic violence case. But can mental torture count as something?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Violence does not mean physical violence: psychological or economic violence <strong>is</strong> domestic violence.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>And even though she is respecting their wishes of not talking to anyone, can that count as being held against her wishes?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This is a matter of degree: doing something you don't want to do is not necessarily coercion. To be coerced you must accede to the request due to force or threats: the threats can be implicit.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>But how far can that go?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Jail, AVOs, probation etc. see above.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Think very carefully before involving the law.</strong></p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 4296, "body": "<p>Options:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>Divorce</li>\n<li>Informal separation (cooling off period)</li>\n<li>Legal separation</li>\n<li><p>Family counseling (joint)</p>\n\n<p>a. secular based</p>\n\n<p>b. religious based</p></li>\n<li><p>Individual counseling (independent)</p>\n\n<p>a. secular based</p>\n\n<p>b. religious based</p></li>\n<li><p>Domestic violence hotline</p></li>\n</ol>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4290, "body": "<p>First, copyright does not apply to \"brands\". </p>\n\n<p>Copyright exists in literary works which includes art - a picture (any picture) usually has a copyright belonging to the creator of the picture. Brands are protected by Trade Marks. To be clear:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>A picture of you is protected by copyright belonging to the creator</li>\n<li>The phrase \"Mickey Mouse\" is protected by trade mark belonging to the Disney corporation</li>\n<li>A picture of Micky Mouse is protected by copyright <em>and</em> trade mark.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>(when) would it be legally OK for me to do so without the copyright owner's permission?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>You can use copyright material without permission if you meet the <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use\" rel=\"nofollow\">fair use</a> criteria in your jurisdiction. You can use trade marks if there is no risk of people confusing your goods and services with the trade mark holder's and you do not cause damage (including loss of potential income) to the trade mark holder or it is fair use (e.g. you are writing a review of a Micky Mouse cartoon).</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Is it legal if I do not distribute them to others at all?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>No, this would be OK as copyright fair use, but not as trade mark fair use.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Is it legal if I give them to my family/relatives for free, e.g. as a gift?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>No, not fair use for either copyright or trade mark.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Is it legal if I give them away to others for free (meaning I'm losing my own money on them)?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>No, see above.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Is it legal if I sell them to others at-cost (i.e. for the same price I obtained them, meaning I'm not making any money from them)?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>No, see above.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>If the answer is \"yes\" to any of the above, can the copyright holder explicitly prohibit me from doing so, or would such a prohibition be unenforceable (e.g. if this would be fair use)?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>It isn't allowed. Yes they can stop you. No, it isn't fair use; there is no \"fair use\" defence for trade mark infringement here - you are depriving them of income because <em>you</em> are not buying their T-shirt!</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Any other factors that are relevant but which I'm forgetting?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Will they sue you for doing these things? Probably not.</p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "united-states", "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4264, "body": "<p>Most class action litigation involves a whole mass of people who suffered minute injury, whereby it wouldn't be cost effective to bring individual suit. There are exceptions, as with every rule. So, for instance, (I'll use one I was involved in): BARBRI, who established the curriculum, study aids, and taught nearly all of the prep courses for the bar exams in every state, illegally colluded with Kaplan, who ran nearly all of the prep courses for the LSAT (the law school entrance aptitude test) to create unfair trade advantage by price fixing and agreeing not to offer each others' service, thereby creating a monopoly. Because of this, there was no way to cheaply prep for either of these major events &ndash; it was use BARBRI or Kaplan, respectively, or study without these invaluable classes/aids. They were expensive but necessary to excelling on these very important tests. It wasn't that they weren't great test prep courses, it was that they created an environment free of any competition where you were forced to pay whatever they were asking.</p>\n\n<p>I got notice of class action, didn't opt out, and about 3 years later got a check for nearly $300. Perfect from my perspective. They taught me a ton, I did good on the LSAT and the Bar Exam and the money came at a perfect time. For those exceptions to the rule, opting out may be the best course of action, but as @nomen agentis noted, it does bar you from recovery as part of the class (although that is usually nominal) if you fail to bring private action, miss the statute of limitations, or fail to recover via settlement or trial award.</p>\n\n<p>As a further example based on my experience with BARBRI/Kaplan: say you were a person who couldn't afford to take the bar prep course, and because of the price fixing and limit on competition (monopoly) couldn't find any other alternative review course. If you studied on your own, looked for alternative study aides/courses to no avail (there were literally <em>no</em> others) and then failed the bar exam, <strong>and</strong> you could show that because of this, it was more likely than not that <em>it was the reason</em> you failed, you might have a case individually, arguing that your quarter-million-dollar education was functionally meaningless without a license to practice, and you couldn't get a job that paid enough to repay the loans because you couldn't get a job, etc. This would be the type person to consider opting out. </p>\n\n<p>Typically, these (the more injured person) are the people the attorneys search for who end up named as the representing party to the class, but not everyone can be a named plaintiff that suffered more than the nominal injury. Because of this, not everyone who had a more serious injury will be adequately compensated by the class action. These suits are meant to get a <em>lot of people a little justice</em> and to teach a lesson, not to get a few people largely compensated for substantial injury. They are also quite nice for the lawyers who make millions, because they get a percentage of the entire pie. But, if you suffer a serious injury for which a class action suit exists, then it would probably behoove you to opt out, after consulting with a lawyer.</p>\n\n<p>It's important to understand that for most people it's more beneficial to be <em>in</em> the class. These are typically the type injuries that on the aggregate equal substantial injury, but individually, no lawyer would take on a contingency and it wouldn't be worth while to pay to litigate, as the recovery would be nowhere near the cost of the litigation/attorneys' fees.</p>\n\n<p>If you are (like the example above) the odd individual who suffered a much greater injury than the remainder of the class, then opting out would not be wise. However, you don't automatically get more just because you sue individually, and there is no collateral estoppel or issue preclusion because you are suing on a different theory of damage. If you opt out, you start over. If you waited, you may benefit from any admissions in court, which can be used against them, but not any findings. However, a class suit will typically run much longer than an individual, so you would probably finish your suit before the class action concluded. </p>\n\n<p>If you are the person who suffered substantial injury, when you get the class notice you should consult an attorney right away, to see if you have a provable case and if opting out is the right choice for you. Statute of limitations need to be examined, as well as other procedural things. Generally speaking, those other reasons for potentially opting out that are in the question are not typical considerations.</p>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 4273, "body": "<p>There are three reasons your plan to opt out, then piggyback on the original claim, won't work.</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p>As one of the other answers explains in more detail, usually in a class action each individual's recovery is too small to be worth pursuing.</p></li>\n<li><p>If the court does accept the previous liability decision, if will probably also accept the previous decision on damages, meaning you won't recover anything extra by suing individually.</p></li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>Most importantly:</p>\n\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li>Most successful class action awards are settlements, not verdicts. If the case settles after you opt out, you won't get the benefit of the settlement, and you'll need to relitigate liability, since a settlement doesn't resolve any of the issues in dispute.</li>\n</ol>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "civil-law", "class-action" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4279, "body": "<p>No, it is generally not legal. In most (maybe all) states, this would be vandalism. For example, see California Penal Code Section 594(1)(a):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Every person who maliciously commits any of the following\n acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her\n own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of\n vandalism:</p>\n \n <p>(1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material.</p>\n \n <p>(2) Damages.</p>\n \n <p>(3) Destroys.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>For another example, see <a href=\"http://law.justia.com/codes/kansas/2014/chapter-21/article-58/section-21-5813/\">Kansas Statutes 21-5813</a>.</p>\n\n<p>In your hypothetical, the pedestrian absolutely hit the vehicle, not the other way around, so the \"fine line\" you mention doesn't effect this conclusion. The practicality of proving the case against the pedestrian is a separate matter but the law favours neither the pedestrian nor the driver. The standard is the same no matter who the charges are filed against: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>\n", "score": 7 } ]

[ "united-states", "traffic" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4277, "body": "<p>As long as you comply with Oregon laws regarding the display of the temporary registration/tag (as well as the state's other laws regarding insurance and documentation you must have when operating the vehicle on public roads) then you cannot be found guilty of operating an unregistered vehicle or improper documentation in Washington.</p>\n\n<p><em>In theory</em> police in any state can pull you over for anything they think looks questionable. They can even, in theory, write you citations for violations of which you are not guilty. But when you present compelling evidence to whatever court they charge you in that you are <em>not</em> guilty then you should expect to be absolved of guilt.</p>\n\n<p><em>In practice</em> police are familiar with temporary tags and new cars, especially for neighboring states. If they had any question they would run the temporary plate to confirm it is valid, that you are compliant with your state's laws, and send you on your way.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "licensing", "traffic", "license-plates" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4258, "body": "<p>In general: If the contract specifies some term (or \"duration\"), then it can only be modified in accordance with its own terms. When the employment contract expires any future employment term is subject to negotiation, and benefits could certainly be modified at that time. There are exceptions to this in labor law, but those vary by jurisdiction and won't be addressed here.</p>\n\n<p>Generally \"vested\" benefits like accrued vacation time or pension balances are treated like the property of the employee: They cannot be unilaterally reduced by the employer. One notable exception would be bankruptcy of the employer. I don't know where employee claims rank in Canadian bankruptcy law, but they are one of the debts that might not be paid in full.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "canada", "employment", "labor-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4249, "body": "<p>I did not perform a complete survey but <a href=\"http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2353&amp;context=mlr\" rel=\"noreferrer\">The Jurisdictional Limits of Campus Police</a> reports that, \"subject to jurisdictional constraints, campus police officers had virtually the same powers as their municipal counterparts.\" (Internal quotes omitted.) <strong>Generally speaking, police are police not administration</strong>.</p>\n\n<p>Here are some statutes:</p>\n\n<p><strong>ILLINOIS</strong></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>HIGHER EDUCATION (110 ILCS 1020/) Private College Campus Police Act.</strong><br>\n The Board of Trustees of a private college or private university, may\n appoint persons to be members of a campus police department....\n Members of the <strong>campus police department shall have the powers</strong> of\n municipal peace officers and county sheriffs.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><strong>MASSACHUSETTS</strong></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>General Laws PART I TITLE II CHAPTER 22C</strong> Section 63.<br>\n The colonel may... at the request of an officer of a college, university, other\n educational institution... appoint employees of such college,\n university, other educational institution or hospital as special state\n police officers. Such special state police officers shall... have the\n <strong>same power to make arrests as regular police officers for any criminal\n offense committed</strong> in or upon lands or structures owned, used or\n occupied by such college, university, or other institution or\n hospital.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><strong>Oklahoma</strong></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>74-360.17<br>\n ...certified campus police officer shall have the\n <strong>authority to enforce... State criminal statutes</strong>.\n Campus police\n departments formed by private institutions of higher education\n pursuant to this act shall be <strong>deemed to be public agencies</strong> in the\n State of Oklahoma</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Here is a case:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Public/ExViewer.aspx?LTID=ibyL404gUCdBylF5jRxE2vEI8L4lbnGHE3eFol1zJkM9V%208X/uYjNevrQ1RZFlohwPT68aabG5JDEsCi8GkYDS8FE/7W8QSapW2LViw800Zz20PzoEicb5V004fK1NzAQPJ493sApMUbRt5ZMKNxitdkC3VnzoYxamcZcItCf%20M=\" rel=\"noreferrer\">People v. Boettner</a>, 362 N.Y.S.2d 365 (N.Y.Sup., 1974) is a case where school officials at a private school tried to get the cops to come execute a search. While the cops were dragging their feet obtaining a warrant, the school officials did their own search, found marijuana which they turned over to the police. Suspect was arrested and convicted. <strong>When the cops can't go into the room, send in the administration. Sort of.</strong></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>present search and seizure was conducted by college officials in a\n private capacity without government knowledge or participation and\n concludes that as such it is not subject to fourth amendment\n constraints. While it is true that a student does not lose his \n constitutional rights at the school house door or at the entrance to\n the college campus neither does he become cloaked with greater\n protection than any non-student who is the subject of a seizure of\n evidence by a private citizen.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><strong>BUT</strong> the judge makes sure we understand that \"State Police had no knowledge of and did not participate, directly or indirectly, in the search conducted by RIT officials on the 15th.\" So \"it cannot be said that the RIT officials who decided on their own to search defendants' rooms were acting as agents, either actual or implied, of law enforcement.... Nor can it be said that the present search was only one incident in a close and continuing relationship between RIT and local law enforcement officers.... In the final analysis, RIT acted on its own, for its own reasons, and to further its own purposes.\"</p>\n\n<p>Regarding a written policy: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The fact that the rules of the college regarding room searches were\n not complied with is of no consequence in determining the\n admissibility of the evidence for purposes of a criminal proceeding.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p><strong>Public schools are an entirely different animal</strong>. In those cases the university staff are public employees and their searches can be fourth amendment violations but they ARE allowed to conduct searches subject to the \"reasonable exercise of University supervisory duties.\"</p>\n\n<p>\"Even though the special relationship that existed between these petitioners and Troy University officials conferred upon the University officials the right to enter and search petitioners' dormitory rooms, that right cannot be expanded and used for purposes other than those pertaining to the special relationship.\"<br>\nPiazzola v. Watkins, 316 F.Supp. 624 (M.D. Ala., 1970)<br>\nMoore v. Student Affairs Committee of Troy State Univ., 284 F.Supp. 725 (M.D. Ala., 1968) </p>\n", "score": 7 } ]

[ "united-states", "search-and-seizure", "fourth-amendment" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4252, "body": "<p><strong>Of course not</strong>. If the owner/tenant needed to be home I could rent a house in my name, and then never occupy it (my associates live there) the cops could never enter.</p>\n\n<p>Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995) - Cops executing a warrant need to knock. If no one answers they must wait a reasonable time for an occupant to let them in. It's the knock and announce rule. By implication it might lend authority to what is an obvious answer.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "search-and-seizure" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4251, "body": "<p><strong>No</strong>.</p>\n\n<p>From the IRS web page <a href=\"http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&amp;-Non-Profits/Private-Foundations/Company-Scholarship-Programs\" rel=\"nofollow\">Company Scholarship Programs</a>: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Company scholarship programs will not qualify if grants are\n essentially providing extra pay, an employment incentive, or an\n employee fringe benefit. Similarly, if scholarship programs are\n compensatory in nature, an organization administering such a program\n will not qualify for tax exemption because it is operated for private\n benefit.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>You are not the first person to think of this!</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 4254, "body": "<p><strong>Probably</strong>, up to $5,250 per year per employee, <em>if</em> the employer sets up a \"Qualified Educational Assistance Plan\" (a.k.a. a <a href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/127\" rel=\"nofollow\">section 127</a> plan) that doesn't disproportionately benefit \"highly-compensated employees.\"</p>\n\n<p>This, like most of the tax code, is grossly complicated. If you or your employer want to look into all the rules and means of using this section to pay small amounts of education expenses with untaxed dollars then \"QEAP\" and \"section 127\" are the search terms to start with.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "employment", "tax-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4246, "body": "<p>What the landlord is doing is forcing you to abide by the terms of your lease agreement. You most likely agreed to a 1 year lease on a signed document, which means you're pretty much screwed because if he wanted to, he could force you to fulfill the lease and pay him anyway. However, his remarks about when you can notify to terminate are wrong. See end of answer.</p>\n\n<p><strong>About Terminating Your Lease Early</strong><br><br>\nHowever, there are a few loopholes you can exploit. The easiest one is to get him to increase your rent. Ask about it, tell him that you're considering staying but tell him you want to know if he's going to increase the rent by much. If he declares that he is going to increase the rent, perfect. Get him to send it to you in writing (which he is legally required to do). Just in case though, have him on speaker phone and record every conversation you have from now on without telling him. This is legal (<a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/4012/900\">see this answer</a>) and is a powerful form of evidence, so exploit the hell out of it.</p>\n\n<p>If you can get him to tell you that he's going to increase your rent, then you can legally submit a notice to terminate tenancy on the grounds that you do not wish to pay the increase. In this case, the amount of notice that you have to give is capped to the day that the rent increase is to take place. </p>\n\n<p>If you try this, do everything you can to get it in writing. Don't feel proud of snaring him and immediately announce that you're leaving because of this as soon as he says it on the phone, because you're screwing yourself out of going through the proper channels to make sure you not only win, but you've made your case air tight.</p>\n\n<p>Also, feel free to let you landlord know that he owes you money. Landlords in Ontario have to repay you a capped interest rate on your last months' deposit every 12 months. This rate is decided annually and <a href=\"http://news.ontario.ca/mah/en/2014/06/ontarios-2015-rent-increase-guideline-set-at-15-per-cent.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">for 2015</a> is capped at 1.6%. If your landlord wants to be anal about the rules and stick the letter of the law to you, do it back. Becoming a pain your landlords ass is a great way to get them to either become more flexible, or make a mistake that will give you an out.</p>\n\n<p>Notice that if he does increase the rent, he can demand that you increase your last months deposit and force you to pay it. You could \"accidently\" make him aware of this right in a conversation where you are concerned about a rent increase immediately after letting him know that he owes you money for the interest. \"I'm concerned about the rent increase because I have to increase my deposit by law too.\"</p>\n\n<p>This way, he'll hopefully have the thought \"I can avoid having to give him any money by increasing his rent by the same interest rate, so he'll owe me what I owe him, therefore I owe nothing. I'm so smart!\" Then he cheerfully gives you a notice to increase rent, at which time you invoke your right to terminate tenancy on short notice due to an increase in rent.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Your Landlord Is Wrong</strong><br></p>\n\n<p>All that aside, your landlord committed an illegal act when they refused your notice to terminate, because he's denying you your rights under the RTA. From the Residential Tenancies Act:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A tenant may terminate a tenancy at the end of a period of the tenancy\n or at the end of the term of a tenancy for a fixed term by giving\n notice of termination to the landlord in accordance with section 44. \n 2006, c. 17, s. 47</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The details adjust a little bit depending on your circumstances, but the conditions in section 44 are basically to ensure the following:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>You are giving 60 days notice. </li>\n<li>You are not giving 60 days notice where the termination date you\nprovide is less than the previously agreed term, except in special cases like the one I mention about increased rent.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>There is nothing in section 44 that can be confused to mean that you must wait until you have passed the end of your term before you can decide to leave. I suspect your landlord is deliberately interpreting the use of wording like \"may terminate at the end of\" to imply you have to wait to give your notice. A notice of termination is not a termination. It is a notice that in the future, you are going to terminate. Let's remove the confusion by replacing the word \"terminate\" with \"vacating the premises and not paying another cent\". That should remove any ambiguity that could be abused. </p>\n\n<p>So frankly you can simply go straight to the board, file the appropriate form with them and just pack up and leave when you've reached the date specified in the notice to terminate. Your final month is covered by your deposit. <a href=\"http://www.ltb.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/csc/_ltb/_forms/documents/form/stel02_111572.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">File the form immediately</a>, let them know about the conversation you had with your landlord, then go to your bank and cancel the cheques you've already written (except for your deposit cheque) and simply ignore the landlord, carrying on with your moving plans.</p>\n\n<p>You should ask the Board if this illegal act has any ramifications. Perhaps because he has done this, this gives you an immediate out or something else. Call the Board and tell them what happened and ask them. They have an obligation to inform you correctly.</p>\n\n<p>Sources:\n<a href=\"http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/ltb/faqs/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Landlord Tenant Board of Ontario FAQ</a></p>\n\n<p><strong>Final Note</strong><br><br>\nThe Board is there to serve you, free of charge. They have a duty, as it is their explicit directive, to assist you in all matters regarding being a tenant. Phone them, talk to them at length, demand assistance. They are to inform you of your rights and guide you on the appropriate action, forms and procedure to assist you in resolving any issues you have.</p>\n\n<p>Note that I wrote the whole bit about getting out of your lease early legally before I refreshed my memory on the fact that you can/should give your 60 days notice before the end of your lease period. That makes the case much simpler as a I note in my answer. I left the information I already wrote however because it could be applicable or at least be of some help to others.</p>\n\n<p>Also note that if you're saying that the landlord came to get more cheques on the basis of his lie that he used to refuse your attempt to legally leave, then you'll need to cancel those cheques. That costs money. That alone is enough of a case to take him before the Tribunal and force him to repay the cost of those cancelled cheques. You may even successfully claim further damages or the Tribunal may voluntarily award you money for the actions your landlord is deliberately taking to deprive you of your rights. Talk to the Board.</p>\n", "score": 7 } ]

[ "canada", "residential-lease", "rental-property", "rent" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4244, "body": "<p>The financial institution is only likely to run afoul of anti-money laundering laws.</p>\n\n<p>The Bank Secrecy Act (1970) and the USA PATRIOT Act deal with anti-money laundering in the United States.</p>\n\n<p>Now, this may not necessarily be the financial institution that <em>funds</em> the loan. However, a financial institution will verify the income as part of the lending process. For example, these are some of the ways a bank may verify your income (this isn't exhaustive):</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>1040 Tax return (Federal or state).</li>\n<li>Wages and tax statement (W-2 and/ or 1099, including 1099 MISC, 1099G, 1099R, 1099SSA, 1099DIV, 1099SS, 1099INT).</li>\n<li>Pay stub. </li>\n<li>Self-employment ledger documentation (can be a Schedule C, the most recent quarterly or year-to-date profit and loss statement, or a self-employment ledger). </li>\n<li>Social Security Administration Statements (Social Security Benefits Letter).</li>\n<li>Unemployment Benefits Letter.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Now, <em>really</em>, only the last two forms of verification would not be accepted by a financial institution. In the event that a financial institution completes its due diligence and verifies the income, the financial institution that funds the loan is unlikely to be found negligent.</p>\n\n<p>However, if this income passes through any single financial institution, they may have obligations under the BSA to report the transactions, either through a Suspect Activity Report or a Currency Transaction Report. Failure to comply with these obligations can result in sanctions placed on the bank.</p>\n\n<p>The borrower, on the other hand, is only likely to be subject to the laws that outlaw whatever criminal activity the funds were a proceed of, and/or perhaps money laundering laws.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "borrowing" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4243, "body": "<p>Although it's difficult to find exact numbers on class action settlements, there are some studies that suggest that the settlements are often of little value to plaintiffs.</p>\n\n<p>A <a href=\"https://www.mayerbrown.com/files/uploads/Documents/PDFs/2013/December/DoClassActionsBenefitClassMembers.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">Mayer-Brown paper</a> was only able to obtain data on <strong>six</strong> settlements - in these cases, claims rates were 0.000006%, 0.33%, 1.5%, 9.66% and 12%.</p>\n\n<p>The same paper found that in one case of an $8 million settlement fund made available to 13,500 members, counsel received $5.5 million.</p>\n\n<p>Appendices A and B of this paper provide further examples where class action settlements are either a negligible amount, or benefited a negligible number of class members.</p>\n\n<p>Although the scope of this paper is somewhat narrow, its findings suggest that it is representative of many class actions.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "class-action" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4221, "body": "<p>There's a lot of variables here, as many leases are built in different ways within the leeway allowed by law. You will want to contact a local lawyer to see how you can mitigate the damage to yourself, and contact your landlord and see if you can re-negotiate the lease. If the landlord doesn't want to re-negotiate, you're probably facing eviction if you can't come up with the full rent by yourself; many leases don't allow non-related adults to live on the premises if they're not on the lease (this can also result in eviction).</p>\n\n<p>However, your roommate will <em>also</em> get an eviction record and be responsible for any damages if the lease survives long enough to cause an eviction. Actually having a random person move in from Craigslist might also cause your roommate to suffer additional liability if they're not allowed to sublet their lease agreement, which many leases do not allow (landlords like knowing who's living on their properties). Having them move in might cause both you and your roommate to be evicted.</p>\n\n<p>You probably don't have any rights to sue your roommate until actual damages occur (in other words, <em>after</em> you've already been evicted). You should speak with your landlord as soon as possible to get a new lease. An eviction record will cause problems for your roommate as well, so you might urge them to consider staying long enough to get things sorted out legally. When you ask your landlord, simply ask something like, \"My roommate wants to move out. What are my options?\" They will tell you what they are willing to accept.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 4228, "body": "<blockquote>\n <p>When the end of month comes, if no suitable roommate has been found\n and my ex-roommate (and still current co-signer) refuses to pay his\n share of the rent, can I sue him in small claims court? Might it be\n worth my while to hire a lawyer to sue him? Rent is ~$1,600 so $800 is\n definitely within the limits of small claims, but I don't want to pay\n my rent late either.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>That's the thing. You can only sue in Small Claims court if you paid his side of the rent as well. You can not sue for a debt you haven't paid. Otherwise, only the landlord can sue, and the landlord will sue both of you (even if you paid your half of the rent on time).</p>\n\n<p>Whatever happens. Be reasonable. No judge in the United States is going to allow you to stay in an apartment alone while your former roommate is liable for his side of the rent. </p>\n\n<p>Speak to your landlord. Confirm that the landlord is on-board with the change. Confirm that the landlord did his due diligence in screening the applicant. Confirm that the money already exchanged hands and everything is signed already. It may not be. If the new person hasn't even seen the place yet, I doubt he has signed anything yet (except for a credit check and a background/eviction check application).</p>\n\n<p>If you suspect that your roommate maliciously picked someone to be his replacement, or that your roommate is so desperate that he picked the first person who emailed him on Craigslist. Then talk to your landlord about it. Try to resolve this amicably first. Tell your landlord your fear. Chances are, you can probably interrupt the process, assuming you're willing to show your place to other new potential roommates. Your landlord probably has no idea that you were not even consulted about this. </p>\n\n<p>If your roommate picked an old friend of his to be his replacement, then do your own checking through Facebook (or through whatever the kids are using these days). Look at the pictures of that new roommate. Ask any other friends you may have in common. If that person smokes pot (which is still illegal in Texas), or smokes cigarettes, and you do neither, then you may have an issue. </p>\n\n<p>And if an amicable discussion with the landlord doesn't work, then go see the Austin Tenants Council.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.austintenantscouncil.org/contact.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">http://www.austintenantscouncil.org/contact.html</a></p>\n\n<p>That being said, speak to your landlord first. Do not trust what your ex-roommate said. The Austin Tenants Council will ask the same questions I did about the landlord's exact stance on this, and the details regarding the kind of screening the new roommate went through. </p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 4226, "body": "<p>Here's the problem. You are responsible for 100% of the rent. I think you know that. </p>\n\n<p><em>Oh yeah, the cops aren't going to do anything. There nothing for them. This is a civil matter.</em> </p>\n\n<p>So you are 100% responsible for the rent. Your roommate is responsible for 100% also. But since you are not going to be paying 200% you probably have an agreement to split this up. This agreement is the thing you will show the judge. I'm assuming you don't have it in writing. Without it there is not much that a court can do.</p>\n\n<p>The reason your roommate can sublet is because he has the same rights to the property that you have. One of those rights is to sublet. If the two of you didn't make any agreement (again, in writing) about how each person was going to occupy the the apartment, then you have no basis (in the law) to stop your roommate. Without an agreement you each have the right to access 100% of the property. Without some written agreement between cotenants, the lease governs your relationship to the property. You can have friends over every night, cook stinky food and watch tv with their feet on the couch. Friends can take showers, set up model trains, wear their shoes in the house. They can refuse to vacuum, do a bad job cleaning, never lock the door, and never answer the phone. They can even sublet. The lease allows all this stuff. You don't get to change it because you don't like it. </p>\n\n<p>There is a difference between what the law allows you to do and what reality allows. Let's say you could keep this subletter out of the apartment and pay the rent yourself and just sue your roommate. Is that really what you would do? Would you choose to keep out an alternate roommate and seek justice in court? And let's say you win. Now you need to enforce the judgment. Does this person have the money to pay whatever amount they will owe? Do you have the energy to chase down the collection or the money to pay someone to collect for you?</p>\n\n<p>The fact is that you are in a shitty situation. I don't even blame the roommate. I mean, this person could be your best friend and you could still end up here. Circumstances change, people need to move. Perhaps you can get a subletter too. Better yet, maybe you stay, fall in love, and the ex-roommate is best-whatever at your wedding. </p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "residential-lease", "rent", "sublease", "breaking-the-lease" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4219, "body": "<p>I'm not going to comment on what your manager is doing specifically, since I don't know all the facts. But in general:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p>As a general rule, businesses have freedom of contract. This means they can choose to do business with, or not do business with, anyone they want.</p></li>\n<li><p>There are specific laws that create exceptions to this freedom of contract. The most important are federal and state civil rights laws, which prohibit many businesses from discriminating on the basis of certain protected classes, such as race, sex, religion, etc.</p></li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>In general, \"locals vs. out-of-towners\" is not a protected class, and therefore no law explicitly prohibits this type of discrimination. However, it's possible a court could find that \"locals\" is a proxy for some actual protected class--for example, if the hotel is in a city and the \"locals\" are predominantly Black.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "united-states", "discrimination" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4172, "body": "<blockquote>\n <p>Prove my work is not a trade secret violation</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Please don't.</p>\n\n<p>It's not your job to prove your innocence. <strong>The burden is on them</strong> to be specific, explain fully, and prove specific claims about your actions. In other words, don't justify, don't explain, and don't defend yourself to them. </p>\n\n<p>It's actually best you do not say anything to them, and just forward the letter to your legal counsel (Since you're selling software to be used in the medical field, I assume you already have some kind of legal counsel). </p>\n\n<p>For instance, even saying something as innocuous as \"Managing patients, Exams, Bills etc are all public knowledge.\" could be used against you. Because it establishes the fact that you've been working on those features with them and that you've been working on those features with your new company (which doesn't necessarily follow, for all they know, you could have purchased a library module from someone else with those exact features). </p>\n\n<p>In other words, even if you were to reply with such an innocuous-sounding statement, you could be saving them months of cross-border discovery and litigation about some of their claims (even if you believed you were being entirely reasonable by defending yourself). But at the same time, don't take what I'm saying to mean that you should lie to them about which features you recently worked on. </p>\n\n<p>When I say that you shouldn't be talking to them. I mean that you should not be talking to them. You shouldn't be engaging with them and you shouldn't be giving them any shred of information whatsoever (implied or otherwise). It's not your job to make their job any easier. Do not reply to them. Don't even acknowledge the receipt of the letter (unless you already did by signing for it, which can't be helped). </p>\n\n<p>Use a legal intermediary. Give the letter to your own legal counsel (whether you signed for the letter, or not) and leave any reply to him or her (assuming he/she thinks this warning letter even warrants a response). And if this former employer gives you a phone call, kindly refer them to your legal counsel without saying another word. </p>\n", "score": 33 }, { "answer_id": 4168, "body": "<p>The code is one thing, but what about <strong>concepts, ideas, layouts, and designs</strong>?</p>\n\n<p>Setting aside the question of the appropriate court for this action (Federal Court in Oregon or a court in Canada) you need to really think about your product and any components of the product which find their most minuscule source at Company X. Not that you will be liable for these tiny things, but they are the threshold level for where your analysis needs to start.</p>\n\n<p>The problem here is not just trade secrets but any intellectual property including design and layout which could raise trade dress issues. Of course, that stuff is not secret. Ideas on the other hand - they will need to prove that you used ideas which a) are independently valuable because of their secrecy and b) actively protected.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong><a href=\"http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/646.461\">Oregon Uniform Trade Secret Act</a></strong> Trade secret means information, including a drawing, cost data, customer list, formula, pattern,\n compilation, program, device, method, technique or process that:<br>\n (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not\n being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain\n economic value from its disclosure or use; and<br>\n (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the\n circumstances to maintain its secrecy.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>and </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>Canada's <a href=\"http://www.ulcc.ca/en/uniform-acts-new-order/older-uniform-acts/537-josetta-1-en-gb/uniform-actsa/trade-secrets-act/730-uniform-trade-secrets-act-1989\">Uniform Trade Secrets Act (1989)</a></strong> \"trade secret\" means any information that</p>\n \n <p>(a) is, or may be, used in a trade or business,<br>\n (b) is not generally\n known in that trade or business<br>\n (c) has economic value because it is\n not generally known, and<br>\n (d) is the subject of efforts that are\n reasonable under the circumstances to prevent it from becoming\n generally know.</p>\n \n <p>(2) For the purposes of the definition trade secret \"information\"\n includes information set out, contained or embodied in, but not\n limited to, a formula, pattern, plan, compilation, computer program,\n method, technique, process, product, device or mechanism.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>In Oregon, a person might reply to such a letter with the question: <em>So that I may properly respond to your letter, please tell me which <strong>concepts, ideas, layouts, and designs</strong> are trade secrets and how I have misappropriated them.</em></p>\n", "score": 10 }, { "answer_id": 4162, "body": "<blockquote>\n <p>The employer is now alleging that I might have stolen the code and created my own version but that is truly not the case. Every line of code has been written from scratch.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This should be easy to demonstrate if it comes to that. There are automated tools which can measure similarity of source code pretty reliably (up to renaming and reordering). You could get an expert witness to endorse the results of such a comparison if it's not possible to do it convincingly yourself.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The employer is also alleging trade secret violation (without even looking at the software) but everything this software does is based on public domain knowledge. Managing patients, Exams, Bills etc are all public knowledge. Specific tests that go in each exam have been made based on material read from books that I can prove.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Your employer will bear the burden of proof to show you are using their trade secrets. That means they will need to demonstrate you are doing something that they figured out how to do and that it's not something that's generally known in the industry. Consider what, if anything, makes your software unique - how is it different from your former employer's offering and from the offering of other companies? If it doesn't do anything not done by others besides your former employer, you have nothing to worry about. If it does things your employer's software doesn't, you're probably still OK, unless the employer can show that you knew they were planning on this new feature and just got to it first. If your software does some things that were unique to your former employer's software, then you need to concentrate on those things and figuring out whether you might have unwittingly used their trade secrets in your program. If the stuff is trivial or obvious, you may not be in trouble; but you might be if nobody else is doing it (since if it were useful and obvious, it stands to reason others would be doing it too).</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Anyone has experience going through a similar scenario who can help me prepare a good reply?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>There are a few strategies here. Have their lawyers contacted you in writing? If not, you might simply ignore these complaints if you feel you are genuinely in the right. IF you have been contacted by their lawyers, you could either ignore it unless they sue, or you could discuss it with a lawyer and have a formal response written based on the merits of the former employer's claim. If you have already been sued, absolutely go get a lawyer and start figuring out whether you are in the clear (that's what it sounds like based on your perhaps biased description) or in the wrong (even if unintentionally).</p>\n\n<p>By the way - what is your former employer asking you to do? Pay them money? Take your site down? I wouldn't do any of it without having a lawyer tell me to but if they just want an acknowledgment or something it might be easier to get it in writing and do what they want. But I wouldn't take the site down or pay them anything without the lawyer.</p>\n\n<p>Note that you might be in violation of a non-compete clause separately from claims of copyright or trade secret violations. Even if it's your own code and your own ideas, even demonstrably so, you might be prevented legally from benefiting from them for some period of time and in some market. If you have a non-compete with them and you're in a jurisdiction which recognizes it as valid, you are almost certainly in violation and I'd go see that lawyer yesterday.</p>\n\n<p>I am not a lawyer. I am not a lawyer.</p>\n", "score": 8 }, { "answer_id": 4173, "body": "<p>They can reverse engineer your code to prove their secret has been stolen. As Stephan Branczyk points out, your help is not needed in this process. Your lawyers only response should be:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>No trade secrets were stolen, all demands are refused. (or whatever the technical term is, i am neither a lawyer nor a native speaker)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I wouldn't even ask or discuss what trade secrets exactly, they have to come forward with a valid claim. Don't give them anything except the one line, maybe after concrete claims add:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Your letter from Nth October does not contain a valid claim about stolen property, ...</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>They could be trying to get hands on your code because it does something cool they want or because they want o falsify evidence that you stole from them. If ever, only give the code to a court appointed expert.</p>\n\n<p>And really, don't talk to them, not in letters, mails, chats, not on the phone, not in person, never. Whatever they do, always just point them to your lawyer and make clear they are paying his fees because of their unsubstantial claims.</p>\n\n<p>Btw, I wrote a medical patient database a while back, I think you both stole my trade secrets! I was for example using a database, with tables, and it had an UI .. it just doesn't sound like the kind of software where you can have trade secrets like some cool algorithms or lots of research to get it running.</p>\n\n<p>Also be aware the might find your post here, so don't disclose too much, what could be stolen or not.</p>\n\n<p>Prepare for many rounds of \"you have stolen\" .. \"have not\" .. document everything, you will need it, don't give them new information, never get emotional and escalate. Really, this could run for years like this, make sure you get to the i-don't-care-about-their-claims state pretty fast or they will win by annoying you out of business.</p>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 4216, "body": "<p>Your non-compete timeframe doesn't start when you signed the non-compete, it starts when you actually separate from them. For instance, you signed in 2001, worked until 2011, and now it's 2015. If, for example, your non-compete period was 5 years, you are still within it.</p>\n\n<p>However, more and more courts are striking down onerous, career-killing non-compete clauses as being overreaching and not tenable. Especially for those who are not equity-owners.</p>\n\n<p>I agree with the earlier answers that suggest you limit your discussions with Company X. The letter they sent was a fishing expedition, you have no responsibility to respond, and depending on how you <em>do</em> respond, it could open you up to a further discovery/subpoena process. For example, if you even said that it was you that wrote the new code, they can establish plausibility that a trade secret <em>may</em> have leaked, even if perhaps inadvertently, and use that as a valid reason to demand discovery.</p>\n\n<p>If you reply at all, say something to the effect: \"Dear Company X, we are in receipt of your letter dated mm-dd-yyyy. You've made some incendiary and concerning claims, which are however too generalized for us to determine their merit or lack thereof. Thank you, Company Y.\"</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 4184, "body": "<p>In legal terms, they have no valid claims. What's more important is to know what they want to achieve.</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>Do they fear your competing product and want to ban it from the market?</li>\n<li>Are they looking for some compensation payment i.e. free money?</li>\n<li>Does someone there dislike you and just wants to hurt you?</li>\n<li>Does someone feel injustice has been done and wants to see justice?</li>\n<li>Do they just want to put on a show so other employees don't get encouraged to actually steal trade secrets?</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>If it is number 1, their lawyer will already have told them that they can try to scare you into voluntarily retracting the product and if that doesn't work they are out of options. A letter from a lawyer should end this.</p>\n\n<p>If it is 2, the mere mention of a lawyer will make the problem going away, because their costs will be higher than their profit.</p>\n\n<p>If it is number 3, you need to be careful about contacting them. If you call them over the phone (unrecorded) they can later claim you admitted stealing trade secrets during that call, or you threatened them, which can make court costs more expensive.</p>\n\n<p>If it's number 4 you have an actual problem. If you still have friends at the company you might be able to make them talk sense to the person responsible.</p>\n\n<p>If it's number 5 they just want there to be a short and very cheap fight, which will probably mean just a few letters from a lawyer from each side. </p>\n\n<p>The best option is, if you still have some old friends at the company who you can trust, ask them what's going on. Knowing what exactly is going on may allow you to resolve this quickly and free your mind from any worries.</p>\n\n<p>Also respond to their letter in writing, rejecting their claim while giving as little information as possible. If they want to look at the code tell them \"no\". Giving them information willingly lowers their cost which is not something you want to do.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "copyright", "intellectual-property", "non-compete" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4198, "body": "<p>You are talking about \"joint tenancy.\" I am familiar with bank accounts having multiple owners characterized as \"Joint tenants with rights of survivorship\" (JTWROS). This keeps the account out of probate: a death certificate simply removes the name of any owner who dies. <em>But</em> a probate court afraid that a deceased may not have enough assets to satisfy debts can still freeze the account for the duration of probate.</p>\n\n<p><strong>These really are not tools for estate planning.</strong> For example, you can't use them to avoid gift or estate taxes. Also a JTWROS account is fully exposed to the liability/creditors of <em>every</em> owner. So <strong>no, a JTWROS does not shield assets from creditors</strong>. Finally, encumbrance of or distribution from a JTWROS account requires the consent of <em>every</em> owner. Any unresolved disputes are probably headed to court.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "estate-planning", "banking" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7, "body": "<p>It's no fantastic legal source, and rules may vary in different countries, but from <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege#Disclosure_ostensibly_to_support_lawyer.27s_own_interests\" rel=\"nofollow\">the Wikipedia article on Attorney client privilege</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Lawyers may also breach the duty where they are defending themselves\n against disciplinary or legal proceedings. A client who initiates\n proceedings against a lawyer effectively waives rights to\n confidentiality. This is justified on grounds of procedural fairness—a\n lawyer unable to reveal information relating to the retainer would be\n unable to defend themselves against such action.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>In other words, if the client's lie is related to one of the lawyer's interests (for example, if the client sues the attorney for malpractice based on the advice he was given), the lawyer can break privilege on his own behalf, thus testifying that his client lied. </p>\n\n<p>As to the specific case you brought up, I would say that privilege wouldn't protect the client from the lawyer discussing things never brought up. In other words, we could force the attorney to testify, since one of two things is true:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>The attorney really did give him that advice, in which case the client has already voluntarily given up his right to confidentiality by describing what was said between them, or</li>\n<li>The lawyer never gave him that advice, and privilege wouldn't protect a conversation between the two that never transpired.</li>\n</ol>\n", "score": 10 }, { "answer_id": 4195, "body": "<p><a href=\"http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Model Rule 1.6(b)(5)</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a\n client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary... to\n respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's\n representation of the client.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>and Comment 10, in part:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Where a legal claim or disciplinary charge alleges <strong>complicity of the\n lawyer in a client's conduct</strong> or other misconduct of the lawyer\n involving representation of the client, the <strong>lawyer may respond to\n the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish a\n defense</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "attorney-client-privilege" ]

[ { "answer_id": 1510, "body": "<p>The answer to your question, strictly in terms of whether they have the capacity to authorize states to violate international humanitarian law is <strong>yes</strong>.</p>\n\n<p><strong>However</strong>, it is highly unlikely. It takes only one permanent member to veto such a resolution.</p>\n\n<p>Moreover, UN Charter Article 24(2) states that:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>... the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>... and International Humanitarian Law would certainly be considered a principle of the United Nations.</p>\n\n<p>So, are they capable of passing a resolution in violation of International Humanitarian Law? <em>Sure.</em> Is it likely to happen? <em>Almost certainly not.</em> Having said that, if this happened, it would be a novel area of law, and while currently, international law suggests it would be binding and legal, it is possible that sanctions could be imposed if such a resolution were passed by the Security Council.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "international", "united-nations-charter", "un-security-council" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4185, "body": "<p>In the UK, if your official leaving date was the 16th, and you worked until the 16th, and you had lets say 4 days of holidays owed to you, you should get payment until the 16th, plus payment for the four days. Depending on how long you worked there, if they let you go instead of you quitting you might be owed more than that (statutory redundancy payment). </p>\n\n<p>You should have been told on which day you receive that payment. I believe it should be on your official leaving date. And you should receive your P45 form, which should detail among other things exactly what salary you were paid, and what taxes were paid on your behalf. That should also happen as soon as possible, since you need the P45 for your next job. </p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "employment" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4181, "body": "<p><strong>Tortious liability in France</strong> </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ol start=\"1382\">\n <li>Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another, obliges him by whose fault it occurred to repair it. </li>\n <li>We are responsible not only for the damage occasioned by our own act, but also by our own negligence or imprudence. </li>\n </ol>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><em>Note that my French isn't good enough to read the code and translate it myself; I'm relying on <a href=\"http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/content/download/7754/105592/version/4/file/Code_civil_20130701_EN.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">this translation</a>.</em> </p>\n\n<p>French Civil Code Articles 1382 and 1383 provide for damages to be awarded for tortious acts, and specifically, liability for <em>negligence</em>.</p>\n\n<p>French Civil Code Article 1384 provides for vicarious liability:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ol start=\"1384\">\n <li>We are responsible not only for the damage caused by our own act, but also for that which is caused by the acts of persons for whom we are responsible, of by things that are in our custody.<br>\n ...<br>\n Masters and employers, for the damage occasioned by their servants and employees in the exercise of the functions in which they are employed.</li>\n </ol>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Based on my reading of this, it would seem that the owner of the business would be liable for damages caused by their neglecting to keep their premises safe.</p>\n\n<p>It's possible, however, that there is provision for a claim to be dismissed if it can be show that the plaintiff was unusually susceptible or fragile unless the defendant is aware of this fact - for instance, if a normally-capable person would not have slipped on the floor, it might affect the outcome of the claim. <em>However</em>, this is a principle of common law, not civil law, so I'm unsure of this will apply here.</p>\n\n<p>However, in short: it appears that a business would have a general duty not to cause harm to its patrons.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "liability", "france" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4147, "body": "<p>I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Before acting upon legal information found online consult a certified practitioner of law.</p>\n\n<p>Yes, they can collect this information due to the following loose clause (in the <a href=\"https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/privacystatement/default.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow\">privacy policy</a>) on what data they can collect:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Microsoft collects data to operate effectively and provide you the best experiences with our services. You provide some of this data directly, such as when you create a Microsoft account, submit a search query to Bing, speak a voice command to Cortana, upload a document to OneDrive, or contact us for support. We get some of it by recording how you interact with our services by, for example, using technologies like cookies, and receiving error reports or usage data from software running on your device. We also obtain data from third parties (including other companies).</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This clause basically allows them to collect any data that helps them operate effectively and improve your experience of their service. It would be extremely hard for you to prove that the data they are collecting is not improving your experience as you do not know how it is used and the burden of proof would be on you in a lawsuit.</p>\n\n<p>Their accessing of this link is allowed by the following other loose clause in the <a href=\"https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/privacystatement/default.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow\">privacy policy</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Microsoft uses the data we collect to provide you the services we offer, which includes using data to improve and personalize your experiences. We also may use the data to communicate with you, for example, informing you about your account, security updates and product information. And we use data to help make the ads we show you more relevant to you. However, we do not use what you say in email, chat, video calls or voice mail, or your documents, photos or other personal files to target ads to you.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This allows them to use this in almost any way they want for the same reasons I explained above about the unfortunate looseness of this clause.</p>\n\n<p>You are not violating the law by giving them permission to access these link. Furthermore, it is not the same as illegal digital access to a site because they can legally access this website because they are only using a URL which you have given them permission to use.</p>\n\n<p>As said by <a href=\"http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/website-permissions/linking/\" rel=\"nofollow\">this guide</a> published out of Stanford:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Many copyright experts believe that deep linking (links that bypass a website’s home page) is not copyright infringement — after all, the author of a novel can’t prevent readers from reading the end first if they so desire, so why should a website owner have the right to determine in what order a user can access a website? Some well-known websites such as Amazon.com welcome deep links. However, if a commercial website has no linking policy or says that deep links are not allowed, it’s wise to ask for permission before deep linking. Why? Because many websites — even the listener-friendly National Public Radio — have asserted rights against deep linkers under both copyright and trademark law principles. - See more at: <a href=\"http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/website-permissions/linking/#sthash.wnR38eRj.dpuf\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/website-permissions/linking/#sthash.wnR38eRj.dpuf</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>As stated in the qoute above it is murky water as to what you can link to. It gets even murkier in international law as shown is the below qoute from the same page:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>International law is equally murky. For example, in 2002, a Danish court prevented a website from deep linking to a newspaper site. But in 2003, Germany weighed in on the issue when its federal court ruled that deep linking was not a violation of German copyright law. Subsequently, an Indian and a Danish court both separately ruled against the practice of deep linking in 2006. - See more at: <a href=\"http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/website-permissions/linking/#sthash.wnR38eRj.zEJo8Fnf.dpuf\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/website-permissions/linking/#sthash.wnR38eRj.zEJo8Fnf.dpuf</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>However, from what I have found nothing involving deep linking as been tested in courts in the United States. But, I believe that from a practical standpoint it would be hard to enforce anti-deeplinking case law because it has become so deeply engrained in internet culture.</p>\n\n<p>I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Before acting upon legal information found online consult a certified practitioner of law. </p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 4126, "body": "<p>It is legal, and you gave them permission to use your information in this way.\nYou can check their privacy policy <a href=\"https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/privacystatement/default.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow\">here</a>.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "privacy", "terms-of-service" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4153, "body": "<p>I foresee three potential problems. </p>\n\n<p><strong>Trademark</strong> - the products that you discuss will bear trademarked names and labels. However, your use sounds like it will fall under nominative use. You need to make sure: only use the trademark when the use is necessary to identify the product, only use an much of the trademark as is necessary to identify the product, and do not imply endorsement by the product. </p>\n\n<p><strong>Copyright</strong> - the videos you analyze will be protected to copyright protection. Analyzing them in place does not implicate copyright but copying them locally for analysis or reposting them on your site might cause problems. I imagine you will need frame-grabs at least so it's something to keep in mind. </p>\n\n<p><strong>Right of publicity</strong> - the celebrities or other famous people in the videos have the right to control how their likeness is used. So again, take care with how you use the images. This is especially true if you are profiting in any way from the celebrities. Some of this is commons sense, our society is rife with images of celebrities and the celebrities don't sue everyone. However, the lawsuits do happen. </p>\n\n<p>Generally speaking, the less you commercialize your use of the trademarks, the videos, and the celebrities, the less danger you are in. And of course the opposite is true. Irrespective on commercialization, you want to make sure that you do not create the implication that any of those elements endorse your product. </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4129, "body": "<p>Since you are only recording one party, no laws restrict you from doing so.</p>\n\n<p>Most states follow a \"one-party law\" that requires consent of at least one party in order to record a conversation between more than one party. However, California (and ten other states) has a \"two-party law\" that requires both parties involved to consent to being recorded.</p>\n\n<p>In this case though, you aren't seeking to record a conversation but instead just your own words. There is nothing against this at all. It doesn't matter that your words are being used in conversation &mdash; they're still your own words.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "california", "privacy" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4133, "body": "<p><strong>Here are the opinions I found which do not <em>explicitly</em> state that Regina is fictitious.</strong></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Public/ExViewer.aspx?LTID=WoaukHcsFZejqk47RrGsQzCPnugz3KdkXyGk3j14qmIUTBYJekygNEcB5i8lJufpqpaktzm%20uu44tmQgNRGtm5RGcnxXrKLllrtpR4FSrHQIgVFvkDFHkXvL4Kv/Dw7vgf/wQ5BJF32lN5cTYe%20QLEXuPo3SKGIpQp%20WXX2QrsU=\" rel=\"noreferrer\">University of Utah Hospital and Medical Center v. Bethke</a>, 611 P.2d 1030, 101 Idaho 245 (Idaho, 1980)</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>...in my judgment, the majority seriously errs in using an esoteric,\n artificial and strained construction of the phrase \"in Idaho\" to hold\n that the legislature intended that phrase to mean \"outside Idaho.\"</p>\n \n <p>When confronted with such linguistic legerdemain, I cannot but recall\n the unreported case of Regina v. Ojibway, 8 Crim.L.Q. 137 (Toronto\n 1965), wherein the court converted a pony, fortuitously saddled with a\n feather stuffed blanket, into a small bird, thus falling within the\n provisions of the Ontario Small Birds Act.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Public/ExViewer.aspx?LTID=WoaukHcsFZejqk47RrGsQzCPnugz3KdkXyGk3j14qmIUTBYJekygNEcB5i8lJufpqpaktzm%20uu44tmQgNRGtmw/ov1GNwG%20C1Dcm7Gb5fim8hnkgTGaMRA7CIFayggoHRCnWr/d77RnFM5Uu5x4QxiHR9WzqNVvYIeKFTZnqEsc=\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Midland Management Co. v. Helgason</a>, 630 N.E.2d 836, 158 Ill.2d 98, 196 Ill.Dec. 671 (Ill., 1994)</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Justice HEIPLE, dissenting:</p>\n \n <p>This case illustrates the resourcefulness of the judicial mind when\n confronted with the application of a rule of law which produces a\n result deemed to be undesirable. The straightforward approach to such\n a dilemma offers but two possibilities. The first option is to apply\n the law to the case and let the painful result occur. The second\n option, available to a court of last resort at least, is to change the\n rule of law. Make a new one. However, if neither of these two options\n is attractive, the resourceful judicial mind has yet a third option.\n It can redefine the terms so that the rule does not apply to the case\n at hand. This approach was chosen by the majority in the instant case.</p>\n \n <p>The application of this technique is well illustrated and perhaps\n reached its zenith in the Canadian case of Regina v. Ojibway, 8\n Criminal Law Quarterly 137 (Toronto, 1965) in an opinion rendered by\n Blue, J.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Public/ExViewer.aspx?LTID=WoaukHcsFZejqk47RrGsQzCPnugz3KdkXyGk3j14qmIUTBYJekygNEcB5i8lJufpqpaktzm%20uu44tmQgNRGtm8wlYgO3IKTFMys8EyZNkdx4l1VnVzaJe9IOh/hegq0Mn%20dVwzwWIt31ernJVgZ07D0MIxANI/yEpiN/sXL5uaI=\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Doe v. See</a>, 557 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir., 2009)</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>We hierophants of the law are adept at redefining ordinary concepts,\n but it is no more appropriate to declare that religious services are\n commercial activities than it would be to declare that ponies are\n small birds. See Regina v. Ojibway, 8 Crim. L.Q. 137 (Oct. 1965).</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Public/ExViewer.aspx?LTID=WoaukHcsFZejqk47RrGsQzCPnugz3KdkXyGk3j14qmIUTBYJekygNEcB5i8lJufpqpaktzm%20uu44tmQgNRGtm19BwcOVjymb9S4R0UtnojXb2EDPGPUqbuoImtnPba6H%20bXwvS4t30v68XeUMLooX7xrrOUmpDlGJ3VPmd9PFuE=\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Retail Flooring Dealers v. Beaulieu of America</a>, 339 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir., 2003) </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Again, this creation of an intracircuit split is obscured with a\n fuliginous cloud made up of the conceit that the attorney here\n (allegedly unlike the attorneys in Estate of Bishop and Cabrera) is\n truly a party. It comes as no surprise to me that the legal mind is\n perfectly capable of reaching a result by declaring a non-party to be\n a party, just as it can declare a pony to be a small bird. See Regina\n v. Ojibway, 8 Crim. L.Q. 137 (Oct. 1965). While I am often taken by,\n sometimes even filled with admiration for, manifestations of\n scholastic mental agility, I think that agility is frequently\n misdirected. It is here. Thus, I respectfully dissent.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Public/ExViewer.aspx?LTID=WoaukHcsFZejqk47RrGsQzCPnugz3KdkXyGk3j14qmIUTBYJekygNEcB5i8lJufpqpaktzm%20uu44tmQgNRGtmyLNJ1ASeBAyDGSmdQ1MVrkD3k8L7z/O3eQ/Z9GRt%20i/VMh8OyavGmMjg992CyTTZfLmdV81ApkpMFwsMcM2VRU=\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Pendleton v. Pendleton</a>, 531 S.W.2d 507 (Ky., 1975)</p>\n\n<p><em>This one is different because the asterisk points to another case which identifies</em> Regina <em>as \"entirely fictional.\"</em></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>It is readily apparent that the meaning of the equal protection clause\n cannot be ascertained from what it says, nor even from what the\n Supreme Court has said about it. As in Regina v. Ojibway* a pony was\n found to be a small bird, so under the 14th Amendment an illegitimate\n child may be either a speckled bird or a jackass, depending on its\n current aspect as (and when) viewed by the keeper of the royal secrets\n of the Constitution. Indeed it appears that here is a corner of the\n world Alice in Wonderland would not find unfamiliar.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><strong>Here is a case which refers to Regina and acknowledges that the case's fictitious nature is not always understood.</strong></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Public/ExViewer.aspx?LTID=WoaukHcsFZejqk47RrGsQzCPnugz3KdkXyGk3j14qmIUTBYJekygNEcB5i8lJufpqpaktzm%20uu44tmQgNRGtm8ywl2Ks92oLYNYQ/sn2LV%20GAIh7Nexz3zIWF2Jr1cmny%20/N6QUkxOKF6hAG4aiDXwwcNK27zgc4Y4eL1TUf8Fo=\" rel=\"noreferrer\">U.S. v. Van Fossan</a>, 899 F.2d 636 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 1990)</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>See also Regina v. Ojibway, 8 Crim.L.Q. 137 (1965), convicting a\n person under the Small Birds Act, despite the fact that the animal\n involved was a horse and the defendant was unaware that Ontario\n defines horses as birds. (The horse in question was an animal \"covered\n with feathers\" because its rider used a pillow as a saddle. Although\n it is a tour de force of statutory \"construction\", Ojibway is\n mercifully fictitious, something not always understood. United States\n v. Byrnes, 644 F.2d 107, 112 n. 9 (2d Cir.1981).</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 4118, "body": "<p>Read the whole opinion. It's pretty clear the judge was having some fun with it. Judges do this from time to time. When someone involved in the case didn't consider seagulls, ducks, or geese to be birds, and the judge is writing a humorous opinion, he'll pick up on that, and a joke about horses with down pillows on their back counting as birds is a natural response to someone who's heard of the parody.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "canada", "legal-education", "law-review" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4111, "body": "<p>In the English legal system, a \"tipstaff\" was a wooden stick with a metal tip; it was carried by certain officials as a badge of office. The OED has citations with this meaning dating back to the sixteenth century.</p>\n\n<p>Because these staffs were most often used by bailiffs, the word came to be used to describe them as well. Bailiffs would carry their staffs as they collected rent, arrested debtors, and did other visible jobs in the community.</p>\n\n<p>In the American system, the role of the bailiff is much more limited. For the record, I practiced for years in Pennsylvania and never heard the bailiff or any court officer referred to as a \"tipstaff,\" but given that the Pennsylvania courts are somewhat weird in other ways (does anyone else call the court clerk a \"prothonotary\"?) I wouldn't be surprised if this archaic usage had survived in some courts.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "pennsylvania" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4112, "body": "<p>Is there some reason you think they can't?</p>\n\n<p>In general, anyone is free to do business, or refuse to do business, with anyone else.</p>\n\n<p>There are a few restrictions on this. For example, certain businesses can't refuse to serve clients based on their membership in a protected class such as race or sex. I don't know how either federal or Massachusetts law treats medical practices with respect to anti-discrimination statutes, but it's fair to assume a \"whites only\" medical practice could find itself in hot water under certain circumstances.</p>\n\n<p>Apart from the protected reasons, people are generally free to refuse to do business with anyone, for any reason. Someone couldn't come to your web design business and demand that you design their web page, and if you had a policy that you only accepted business on a referral basis, they couldn't sue you. And if you had a restaurant with a \"customers must wear pants\" policy, you could refuse to serve a pantsless patron. For the most part, a medical practice is no different.</p>\n\n<p>It's possible a doctor might have signed a contract with a third-party payor (for example, your insurance company) saying that he or she has to accept that payor's policyholders without referrals. But absent any such consideration, a doctor is as free as anyone else to do business, or refuse to do business, with anyone he or she sees fit.</p>\n\n<p>This only applies to nonemergency care, of course, which your question specified you were asking about. The question gets more complex in urgent/emergency situations, where there are specific laws about who is entitled to what treatment.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "health", "massachusetts" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4110, "body": "<p>In the United States, the main statute governing the use of health care information is HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.</p>\n\n<p>HIPAA and its related statutes and regulations detail what you can and can't do with medical information. You can't always collect it; if you do, you can't always share it, and you can't always delete it.</p>\n\n<p>This is a complex field of law and it's easy to screw up in a way that would cause big, serious, company-destroying, job-ending problems for everyone involved.</p>\n\n<p>To put this another way: this is absolutely, positively, not something you want to get advice on from strangers on the internet. You don't just need a lawyer; you need a HIPAA specialist--or the equivalent in whatever other countries you plan to operate in--before you push anything out to real-life patients, especially children.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "united-kingdom", "australia", "health" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4109, "body": "<p>You are confusing two separate concepts: trademark and copyright. I'll give you a broad overview of both of these, although the details will differ depending on what country's law we're talking about.</p>\n\n<p>A copyright is held by the creator of a work of artistic expression. It gives the creator certain exclusive rights, including the right to create copies of the work and to prepare derivative works.</p>\n\n<p>For example: The movie \"Star Wars\" is a work of artistic expression. You cannot copy \"Star Wars,\" or any significant part of it--including the script, the music, etc.--without the permission of the copyright owner, unless your use fits into one of the exceptions to copyright in your jurisdiction.</p>\n\n<p>Likewise, you cannot write your own book featuring the Star Wars characters: that would be a derivative work, a work based on the original work, and would violate the rights of the copyright holder.</p>\n\n<p>Without having read the book in question, I'm not going to comment on whether it does or doesn't infringe the film's copyright. But ideas can't be copyrighted. A film review, for instance, isn't a copyright violation--and a longer work discussing the ideas involved in a film isn't necessarily a copyright violation, either. Copyright only protects the expression itself--the language, the images. You are very limited in how much of that you can copy, but as long as you're using your own words, copyright protection is less of a concern.</p>\n\n<p>Trademarks, on the other hand, are intended to protect a business from customer confusion. Trademarks are not protected in the same way as copyrights; the key analysis of a trademark infringement lawsuit is: does it create confusion about the origin of the goods? For example: if you slap a swoosh on a shoe, Nike will sue you. If you use a swoosh in a political cartoon criticizing Nike, they won't, because nobody is going to think Nike wrote the political cartoon.</p>\n\n<p>So: If you write a book and call it: \"Ewoks Gone Wild: A Star Wars Story,\" Disney will sue you, because it would be reasonable for someone who saw that book in a store to think that Disney authorized that book. If you wrote a book called \"Forcing the Issue: The Hermeneutics of Science Fiction Movies from Star Wars to Inception\", the case would be less clear-cut.</p>\n\n<p>But the important thing to understand is that these issues are complicated. There are exceptions to these rules; there are applications that may not be obvious to the non-lawyer (\"initial interest confusion\" is one minefield in U.S. trademark law), there are national and EU-specific considerations, there are safe harbors, and there are practical considerations, like whether you can afford to fight a lawsuit even if you're in the right.</p>\n\n<p>Therefore, I'm not going to tell you whether your hypothetical work would infringe anyone's copyright or trademark, and I'm not going to give you a set of rules on how to avoid it. The only person you should be listening to that sort of advice from is a real, non-anonymous-internet lawyer, licensed to practice in your jurisdiction, who is familiar with the specific details of your specific situation.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 4015, "body": "<p><strong>The Paris Treaty</strong></p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=288514\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">The Paris Treaty for the Protection of Industrial Property</a> (&quot;<strong>the Treaty</strong>&quot;) provides uniform protection for trademarks for all states party to the treaty. This includes France and the United States of America.</p>\n<p><strong>Trademarks</strong></p>\n<p>Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC (&quot;<strong>the Rightsholder</strong>&quot;) holds trademarks on many trademarks related to &quot;Star Wars&quot; (&quot;<strong>the Marks/Mark</strong>&quot;), including that for printed material (this means books, comics, etc.). I can't link to a search on <a href=\"http://tess2.uspto.gov/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Trademark Electronic Search System</a>, but if you search for <em>Star Wars</em> and select <em>live</em>, you'll get a list of them.</p>\n<p><strong>Tortious damage in France</strong></p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"1383\">\n<li><p>Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another, obliges him by whose fault it occurred to repair it.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>We are responsible not only for the damage occasioned by our own act, but also by our own negligence or imprudence.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p><em>Note that my French isn't good enough to read the code and translate it myself; I'm relying on <a href=\"http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/content/download/7754/105592/version/4/file/Code_civil_20130701_EN.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">this translation</a>.</em></p>\n<p>French Civil Code 1382 and 1383 provide for damages to be awarded for tortious acts - this would include the common law principle of &quot;passing off&quot;.</p>\n<p>You need to prove that:</p>\n<ol>\n<li>A person faulted and caused damage</li>\n<li>The author was harmed - this can be violation of their moral rights</li>\n<li>There is some causal relation between the fault and the harm</li>\n</ol>\n<p>Also, please note that I haven't exhaustively searched for French law that may permit this use. However, it seems unlikely, given France's ratification of the Treaty.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>The Rightsholder has the sole right to use the Marks to identify his or her products, services, or brand. The Treaty provides for protection in all of its States party.</p>\n<p>As the Rightsholder has registered the Marks in the United States, France is obliged to afford it protections under the Treaty.</p>\n<p>French Civil Code permits a person to bring a suit for damages. If it can be shown that this use of the Star Wars Mark has caused them harm, which may include loss of income, then the infringer may be ordered to pay damages to the Rightsholder.</p>\n<p>Of course, this only applies if the author of this book did not receive permission from the Rightsholder to publish it. If they did, then there is no wrong.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "copyright", "international", "trademark", "france", "treaty" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4105, "body": "<p>You are allowed to do anything you want with all C# .NET features without having to pay anything to Microsoft.</p>\n\n<p>C# and the .NET framework were created with the goal of being able to compete (and overtake) with existing openly available technologies such as Java. Although it seems impossible to find any official documentation that states this information outright, it is clear that Microsoft intends for these technologies to be used for anything and everything by independent developers to multinational corporations.</p>\n\n<p>In addition to this, Microsoft does not have a program set up to account for each C# and .NET use, thus not being able to take royalties.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "licensing" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4103, "body": "<p>If I understand your question, you're asking the difference between something like this:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>\"You shouldn't do business with Bob; he's a child molester. Raped a whole bunch of kids. Everyone knows about it.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>and this:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>\"You're thinking of doing business with Bob? Huh. That's your call, of course. I won't say anything against Bob. But Bill is in the same business, and I happen to know that Bill has never molested any kids.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>or this:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>\"There are three people you could do business with. There's me. I've never molested any kids. There's Bill; he's a little expensive, but he's never molested any kids either. Then there's Bob. I don't have anything to say about Bob.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I don't know the answer under German law, but under U.S. law, it's surprisingly complicated, and varies by jurisdiction. <a href=\"http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2870&amp;context=flr\" rel=\"nofollow\">Here</a> is a thorough but somewhat dated article on the subject.</p>\n\n<p>New York has recently established an explicit test for defamation by implication:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>To survive a motion to dismiss a claim for defamation by implication where the factual statements at issue are substantially true, the plaintiff must make a rigorous showing that the language of the communication as a whole can be reasonably read both to impart a defamatory inference and to affirmatively suggest that the author intended or endorsed that inference.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><em>Stepanov v Dow Jones &amp; Co.</em>, 2014 NY Slip Op 03940 (App. Div. May 29, 2014). That opinion also discusses the other approaches used in other U.S. states.</p>\n\n<p>Under that standard, it seems clear that my example statements would be defamatory; any juror would immediately understand both the factual implication and that it was 100% intentional. In practical terms, I doubt any court in the United States would not consider them defamatory.</p>\n\n<p>In general, defamation is harder to prove in the United States than in other jurisdictions, because of the strong protections afforded to speech under the First Amendment--but I don't know enough about German law to speak to that issue.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "common-law", "germany", "defamation", "civil-law", "slander" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4093, "body": "<p>The short answer, is \"it's complicated\". I can think of situations where <em>any</em> of the above options you listed might be true. (Another possible option is \"The baby has no nationality at birth\", and would therefore be considered stateless, and would fall under the birth country's rules regarding <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness\">statelessness</a>).</p>\n\n<p>To find a definitive answer for your specific situation, I would start with Wikipedia:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law\">British nationality law</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_nationality_law\">Spanish nationality law</a></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Although Wikipedia is not authoritative, it does give you a good overview of the situation for both countries. There are then links to authoritative sources in each article. </p>\n\n<p>In the case of a British and Spanish couple, their baby would probably be both British and Spanish at birth. Additionally, if the baby is born in a country (such as the US) which follows the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli\"><em>jus soli</em></a> rules, then the baby would also acquire the citizenship of their birth country.</p>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 4101, "body": "<p>It depends on the law of each country involved. Each country X can decide its own laws, and if the baby is a citizen of country X (or something else than a citizen; for example a country could give you certain rights that are less than citizenship) according to the laws of country X, then the baby has those rights. Other countries can do the same. No country X can make a law that says the baby is not citizen of country Y - well, they can make that kind of law, but country Y wouldn't care. </p>\n\n<p>If all goes well the baby has one nationality. I knew one person who got her father's nationality, her mother's nationality, and the nationality of the country she was born (all three different). With bad luck, there is no nationality at all. Again, some country's laws may take this into account. </p>\n\n<p>Some countries don't like dual or multiple nationalities. They can ask you to give up other nationalities if you want to keep theirs. Again, what the other country thinks about it is up to them. So things can be complicated. </p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "citizenship", "nationality" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4098, "body": "<p>No, copyright absolutely does not protect anything \"novel\" or anything related to algorithms or generally anything functional at all.</p>\n\n<p>Copyright only protects your \"expressed representation of a creative work\". Other people can duplicate your work with a different \"expression\" and not be infringing on copyright. And if there is nothing creative in your work then it's not even eligible for copyright in the first place.</p>\n\n<p>For example, if you figure out how to sort an array with fewer computational steps than what anybody else is doing then that is functional code, not creative code, and anybody can reverse engineer/duplicate your sorting algorithm.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>However, patents do provide the protection you're looking for. If you want to protect your fancy algorithm then apply for a patent. Patents expire an order of magnitude sooner than copyright, but they are the only means of legally protecting this type of intellectual property.</p>\n\n<p>Unlike copyright, patent protection is only available if you apply for it, and it has to be approved by the relevant government department in your country (although you can start using the patented technology before approval has gone through).</p>\n", "score": 11 } ]

[ "copyright", "patents", "intellectual-property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4096, "body": "<p>Unless the creator of the forms disclaims copyright then you legally need permission to post/host copies.</p>\n\n<p>Some governments (e.g., the U.S. government) disclaim copyright protection for their documents.</p>\n\n<p>Hosting forms that are posted for free with no access restrictions (e.g., clickwrap) <em>might</em> be covered under \"fair use,\" but I do not know the Indian law on that.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "copyright", "india", "fair-use" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4090, "body": "<p>If you want to take legal action you would need to refer to the actual legislation and case law that deals with driving licences and tests in particular. The administrative government must comply with the law and you can seek to make them do so through the courts or any administrative appeals tribunal that Ontario may or may not have. </p>\n\n<p>However, before you do this remember: the courts don't give a rat's ass what you \"believe\". Belief is for churches; courts are only interested in what you can prove and as <em>your</em> relative is making the allegation it falls on <em>him</em> to provide evidence that proves it on the balance of probabilities.</p>\n\n<p>You do not tell us what the submissions were but if they amounted to \"I was treated unfairly and wrongly\" and \"No you weren't\" then the appeals boards were quite right to say that he had failed to meet the burden of proof. If independent evidence was needed to change this then it was <em>his</em> obligation to get it and put it before the appeals boards. Remember, <em>he</em> made the allegation of unfair treatment, <em>he</em> has to prove it; DriveTest does not have to prove anything.</p>\n\n<p>You say \"... in one email, a DriveTest employee writes that he should not have been driving below the speed limit. Clearly, this is wrong.\" Clearly it is. However, even if this was raised in the appeals a more simple explanation is that the employee wrote \"below\" when he meant to write \"above\". A court will generally prefer an interpretation of innocent error over incompetence; simply because it makes more sense than an examiner genuinely believing that travelling below the speed limit is an issue. Of course, travelling well below the speed limit <em>may</em> amount to dangerous driving depending on the circumstances.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Suing DriveTest as an individual seems financially foolish ...</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Yes, principles are expensive; they make lawyers rich!</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Thus what can he do?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Suck it up, princess!</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>... class-action lawsuits, but is this the solution? How do we start or join one?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>No. First you need a class of people who have suffered the same harm; while I am sure there are many people who fail their driving tests, most were probably not treated \"unfairly and wrongly\". Second, you need a case with a wealthy defendant (Ontario's government probably is) and a case which will result in a large settlement so that the law firm who runs the class-action and the financiers who pay for it make their money before what's left is divided among the class.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "canada", "civil-procedure" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4091, "body": "<p><a href=\"http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/nonimmigrant-visas.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">The US Embassy</a> has a page on Ukrainian visitors to the US:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>Who needs a visa?</strong></p>\n<p>Ukrainian citizens require a visa to enter the United States. Citizens of countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program do not need a visa if their passport meets certain requirements.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So no, you don't need an invitation. You need a visa.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "travel" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4065, "body": "<p>You can sue anyone you want. But if you are talking about suing VW because they are one of the thousands of entities that contribute to the overall degeneration of our atmospheric quality, then you would lose.</p>\n\n<p>You'd have to be able to show that VW itself caused your respiratory problem to either exist or that their diesel cars exacerbated a pre-existing condition. The type of testimony this would require would be expert testimony, and you would have the burden of showing that VW was the root cause. This would be impossible. You could show negligence (maybe even gross negligence or intentional misrepresentation), but you could never show causation and likely not even damage (attributable to them). These are the three elements you would need to prove. I would wager you could not even hire an expert that would testify to this, because they would lose all credibility in their field if they said that one car manufacturer had a measurable/quantifiable negative effect on your health. Even if you could, the judge would probably not certify the testimony as expert as it's likely junk science, or, the expert would just be disbelieved. There is no way to accurately measure their complicity in having their cars automatically pass emissions tests. It may be that their cars were still low E, just not to the extent they claimed.</p>\n", "score": 24 }, { "answer_id": 4077, "body": "<p>To answer your question in a slightly different direction:</p>\n\n<p>The primary movers who would have a case of action here would be either the federal or states' attorneys general (or both). They are tasked with, among other things, taking actions against companies who do harm to the community as a whole but not necessarily to any one specific individual. Rather than a class action lawsuit, which would still require proving a specific harm, they can take more general action, including prosecuting them criminally for fraud and/or taking them to civil court. They're able to pursue things a bit more removed from direct harm than an individual.</p>\n\n<p>While you would not be directly reimbursed for this, assuming the state AG won the case (or more likely achieved a settlement), that money would pay your state's coffers which would hopefully either slightly reduce your tax burden or slightly increase the services rendered by the state - either way, helping you out, at least indirectly.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "civil-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4019, "body": "<p>Copyright vests in the photographer that takes the photograph, or their employer. If the subject of a photograph does not own copyright over the photograph, then they can't bring a claim of copyright infringement against you.</p>\n\n<p>The DMCA safe harbors only protect you against copyright infringement claims. Further, personality rights are recognised at state level through statute or common law.</p>\n\n<p>On the matter of whether copyright and right of publicity are treated as the same, the seventh circuit has said in <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=9554731769902791164&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CB4QgAMoADAAahUKEwjq28_D65TIAhWDKpQKHctuBSA\" rel=\"nofollow\">Toney v. L'OREAL USA, INC., 406 F. 3d 905</a> at [911]:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>... the bottom line is that Toney's claim under the Illinois right of publicity statute is not preempted by federal copyright law.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "copyright", "internet", "intellectual-property", "right-of-publicity", "dmca" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4067, "body": "<p><a href=\"http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Copyright_of_characters\" rel=\"nofollow\">A character can not be copyrighted</a>. Only a work (picture, text, movie etc.) featuring that character can.</p>\n\n<p>However, a character can be registred as a trademark (more specifically, its name and its appearance).</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4080, "body": "<p>This is a trick question. Brazil has no such High Court of Justice. The highest appellate court is the Superior Court of Justice. That should be worth at least a few points.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Is it possible to say that the decision of the High Court of Justice was influenced by the French school of 16th century with the theory of D'Argentré?</strong></p>\n\n<p>Sure, that dude (Bertrand d'Argentré) was among the handful of jurists who argued that the law of the location (the <em>situs</em> in the parlance of those brainiacs) of the property forms the foundation of the laws which govern a marriage.</p>\n\n<p>As d'Argentré himself said:</p>\n\n<p><em>Primum, quod Molineus a simplici consueletudinis dispositione elicet partium conventionem et pactum, citra ullam conventionem partium adjectam consuetudini, rationem non habet. Alia enim vis et ratio, aluid ejus, que ab pacto et conventione partium proficicitur.</em></p>\n\n<p>I think I got that right. I am on my mobile and the spell checker is freaking out.</p>\n\n<p>So, yeah, it's possible to say.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "conflict-of-laws" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4079, "body": "<p>It depends on the nature of your severance package, and ultimately on how the unemployment agency decides to count that.</p>\n\n<p>The easiest way to handle this is to wait for your determination of eligibility. If you earned 1099 income before the date it is determined you are/were eligible to claim unemployment then it does not have to be reported to the unemployment agency. However, if earned after your unemployment eligibility date then you do have to report it.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "employment" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4050, "body": "<p>Whether or not the estate has an obligation to pay the mortgage is really dependent on the terms of the estate plan and the solvency of the estate. The fact that someone is on the deed to a property (whether a deed of gift or a transfer on death instrument) that automatically passes upon death of the original owner to a relative has little or nothing, really, to do with the estate plan. While it may have been part of the person's ultimate plan for the disposal of their assets in life and at death, that is different than being part of the actual estate plan, which deals with the disposition of assets upon death, setting out the wishes of the deceased as it pertains to all property. </p>\n\n<p>There are lots of people who end up in this position, even though the original person on the deed did not intend to purchase or leave the other <em>any</em> property. It happens a lot when say a child does not have adequate credit to secure a mortgage to buy a home, but has the money to pay a mortgage. So, in that scenario usually a parent or grandparent will put the mortgage in their name (the other will live there and pay the mortgage) and then in the event the \"helper\" dies, they have it pass to the other at death, either thru a \"TOD\" or a \"joint tenancy\", so that in the event they die intestate, or if the will is challenged, there will be no question who owns the house...the equity in it, anyway. It (the instrument) is its own separate entity, not subject to the will except to the extent the deceased makes it subject (I'm getting to that part). Like a life insurance policy, that pays on death but is not subject to any terms of the will, it <em>can</em> stand alone since deed is its own instrument, separate from any wills or trusts. </p>\n\n<p>Under federal law, the mortgage must be allowed to remain in effect without changes when it passes from one person to another because of a death. This negates any due-on-sale clause in the mortgage.</p>\n\n<p>Who pays for the remainder of what is owed, however, generally depends on the deceased's will.</p>\n\n<p>The will might stipulate, for example, that the heir receive the home, free and clear, with the estate to pay all monies due. In this case, the executor will either use liquid assets, or sell other non-liquid assets in the estate to pay off the mortgage.</p>\n\n<p>Other times, it will say that the heir get the equity, plus X amount of dollars, which the heir can put toward the home's mortgage or not.</p>\n\n<p>If the will is silent on the issue, it is the responsibility of the heir/person to whom the property transfers (they needn't even be an heir) to pay the mortgage upon its normal term due, or sell the property to satisfy the debt. In the event the property is worth less than the remaining mortgage, the bank will usually take the house in \"deed in lieu of foreclosure\" rather than seek overage from the estate.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 4057, "body": "<p>It is worthwhile I think to see how this works in a different jurisdiction.</p>\n\n<p>In <strong>Australia</strong> <a href=\"http://www.australia.gov.au/content/land-titles\" rel=\"nofollow\">all land titles</a> are based on the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title\" rel=\"nofollow\">Torrens</a> principle of registration, that is, the information held by the registrar in each state or territory is definitive and the state is responsible for any errors that it makes in failing to keep the title correct.</p>\n\n<p>This principle extends to encumbrances like <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement\" rel=\"nofollow\">easements</a> and, relevantly, <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mortgage_loan&amp;redirect=no\" rel=\"nofollow\">mortgages</a>. A mortgagee <strong>must</strong> register its mortgage with the registrar which then appears on the title; if it doesn't then it has <em>no</em> claim on the property.</p>\n\n<p>Applying your circumstances:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>John appears as the owner on the title.</li>\n<li>The mortgagee also appears on the title.</li>\n<li>On John's death:\n\n<ul>\n<li>John's estate owes the mortgagee money and is still bound by the terms of the loan</li>\n<li>the mortgagee has a mortgage on the property</li>\n<li>Mike can register as the new owner; the property is still encumbered by the mortgage.</li>\n</ul></li>\n<li>in Australia there are no gift or inheritance taxes to cloud the issue but there are capital gains taxes if the property was not John's primary place of residence, these would be assessed on market value if the property was a gift; these would be debts owed by the estate - they do not attach to the property. </li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Worth noting that, unlike the US, loans attach to the borrower and are mortgage backed, the loan is not directly linked to the property. If after liquidation, the mortgagee is still in the hole, the borrower is still liable to pay the balance of the debt. In the US, negative equity is a problem for the bank, in Australia it is a problem for the owner. So, the loan is owed by the estate; Mike is not obliged to pay the loan. However, if <em>someone</em> doesn't pay it the mortgage will sell Mike's property.</p>\n\n<p>What happens next is down to circumstances and negotiation:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>If the estate is solvent then the executor will seek probate and when granted will pay out the mortgagee. They will be removed from the title and Mike can then have the title transferred. This is the happy circumstance.</li>\n<li>If the estate is insolvent then the executor will seek probate and when granted will pay out what it can to the mortgagee. At this point, Mike can either pay the difference (either with his own money or from another (or the same) mortgagee) and take ownership of the property or he can allow the mortgagee to foreclose and take whatever is left (if anything) after the mortgagee liquidates it. This is the not so happy circumstance.</li>\n</ol>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "real-estate", "new-york-state", "estate-planning", "probate" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4068, "body": "<p>The people on the show would be considered public figures, so if there was information that the fictitious writing was actually based on/about them, defamation must be proven to a different standard for public figures. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, actors or musicians successful enough to be held in \"the public eye,\" have to show that the defamation was made <em>with malicious intent</em>, which is a greater burden than defamation for the average person. Also, damages may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is actual malice. Special damages being lost income or some other quantifiable measure of loss.</p>\n\n<p>If one cannot tell who it (the fictional story) is about because the name is changed, then Fox, or whomever, couldn't sue anyway because they need standing, which they wouldn't have if you called the person X, unless the story was so exact that it is obvious who you are talking about. For instance, the show Law and Order is often based on famous stories in the news, or criminal cases they dig up. Those fictional story lines often add or delete details. The case may be more or less damaging to the actual person it was based on. However, they make a statement before the show airs that says something like \"Any similarity to real people or events is strictly coincidental. This show is not based on any real person or event, but is a work of fiction.\" If I were going to make a fictional account of a big network show, I would use some sort of disclosure like that to be safe.</p>\n\n<p>That said, if the statements or storyline is less damaging than the facts themselves, as revealed on the show, it isn't defamatory at all: Defamation necessarily must include the act of making untrue statements about another that <strong>damage</strong> their reputation. If it doesn't damage their \"good character or reputation,\" than it's not defamatory. Keep in mind, however, that what you may consider less or more damaging may not be the same view held by the person it's loosely based on. That is why I'd use the disclosure.</p>\n\n<p>As to the question \"would it protect you against a lawsuit?\", if you mean would it protect you from being sued, the answer is always, <em>anyone can sue file a lawsuit</em>. That doesn't mean they'll win but it still means you have to defend. It may likely protect you in your defense.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "defamation" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4039, "body": "<p>There actually <strong>is</strong> a practical effect to a \"not proven\" v. \"not guilty\" verdict in Scotland, but it is mostly sociological or social in nature rather than legal. If your question is, are there future legal concerns, than no. Not proven <em>is</em>, to be sure, an acquittal. However, it is an acquittal that the tells the public something important: that the trier(s) of fact <em>thought the person likely guilty</em>. That's a fairly substantial distinction.</p>\n\n<p>In Scotland, a criminal case may be decided either \"<em>in solemn procedure</em>\", which is simply the Scot term for a jury trial v. \"<em>in summary</em>\" or in \"summary procedure\" which is the U.S. equivalent of a bench trial. The difference between the two (and the divergence from the U.S. procedural vehicle) is that for lesser crimes the accused doesn't have an automatic right of a jury trial for any criminal matter. </p>\n\n<p>In some ways this lesser included makes up for the fact that the Scottish accused is without absolute right to choose jury or bench trial, which in the U.S. can be very meaningful from a tactical perspective. Think of how important the make-up and emotional proclivities of juries are to both convictions and acquittals. A bench trial can be beneficial to the truly unlikable defendant, or in especially brutal crimes, where juries may convict out of fear or sympathy for the victim, even if the case is weak. At the same time, they may nullify the conviction for the sympathetic defendant. Juries are notoriously emotional and bias driven. Being able to choose a bench trial where the judge will follow the evidence and avoid the emotional response of a jury can be invaluable. Just as a sympathetic defendant can appeal to the emotions of the jury for acquittal or jury nullification, on the opposite spectrum. </p>\n\n<p>In Scotland, lesser crimes are always (with limited exclusions) tried by a judge, while more serious allegations always (again w/ limited exclusions) get a jury trial, automatically. The d<em>efendant does not choose</em> the type of trial he is afforded. Hence, a defense or a prosecution cannot fiddle with the balance of proof based on emotion or lack there of. They get what they get. There are various rules procedurally that differ in comparison, but since this isn't the question that is the general rule and should suffice for background.</p>\n\n<p>Also hugely important is the fact that in Scotland, jurors decide a case by <em>majority vote</em> (like a civil trial in the U.S.); hence, there are no hung juries and they don't need a consensus. So, one way or another the verdict <em>will be given</em> in a Scottish criminal action. Scots also get comparatively huge juries to any other country (15 jurors) and they <em>only need 8 in agreement</em> to reach a verdict.</p>\n\n<p>Tactically, the \"not proven\" is a lesser included verdict (like U.S. uses lesser included charges in cases that are weaker for the prosecution). This lesser included finding can be used by choice when the Prosecution has a sympathetic defendant or when the defendant is probably guilty or unlikable. If the jury thinks the defendant (called \"accused\") probably did the crime, but the prosecution has failed to prove the elements, they can/will issue a \"not proven\" verdict. This sends a big message. This, again, is typically only reserved for those cases when there is strong but not conclusive proof that someone committed a crime. They don't want to profess their innocence with a not guilty verdict, so they are still acquitted, but with he stigma of the \"not proven\" verdict attached.</p>\n\n<p>Some estimates have from 1/5 to a full 1/3 of all acquittal verdicts by Scottish juries as \"not proven\" as opposed to \"not guilty\". Not proven can also be used by judges in the bench trial (summary procedure), however it's much less common. The proportion of 'not proven\" acquittals in general is higher in the more severe cases; but so then are the proportion of acquittals versus convictions. These would likely be hung juries in the U.S..</p>\n\n<p>Both in the \"solemn\" and the \"summary\" acquittals, not proven is interpreted as indicating that the jury or judge, respectively, is not convinced of the innocence of the accused; in fact, they may be morally or even factually convinced that the accused is guilty, but do not find the proofs sufficient for a conviction under the elements of the crime on the jury instruction/verdict form. </p>\n\n<p>I look at this as similar to the adage oft used in the U.S., which is an acquittal, despite the fact that the verdict is termed \"not guilty\" does by no means indicate the person is in fact \"not guilty\", it just means the prosecution couldn't prove its case. Sociologists in the U.S., as well as legal scholars, have studied the phenomenon, and it appears that most not guilty verdicts in fact let go a guilty person. This can be intuited by the evidence the jury never saw, either by suppression from bad searches, by the exclusion of witness testimony due to procedural rules like hearsay, privilege, etc., and other forms of keeping relevant evidence from the jury to protect the rights of the accused. But in the U.S. the person can go forth and say, \"Hey, I was proven not guilty!\"</p>\n\n<p>Scotland also has another interesting rule of criminal procedure, whereby a criminal can't be convicted without corroborated evidence. What this means is that if all the prosecution has is the victim witness, by way of proof, testifying, and no physical or corroboration testimony, Scottish law requires acquittal, but often will be so by the verdict \"not proven\". This is huge, if you think about it. Use, for example, a rape trial. A woman testifies, saying that Joe Schmoe climbed through her window and raped her. She knows Joe - he's her neighbor. Nobody saw him climb in. But she knows it's him. He leaves no physical evidence, having shaved his entire body and used appropriate protection (gloves, condemn, etc.). She has a rape kit done. Rape is obvious, but the only proof is her testimony. Joe goes free. But in Scotland, he goes free with a stigma attached. He's found \"not proven\" rather than \"not guilty\". I think this corroboration rule has a lot to do with why this verdict system still exists. In the U.S. the trier of fact would weigh the testimony and decide if one person was substantially more believable than the other, and a verdict would issue. That is a substantial difference, procedurally.</p>\n\n<p>Since Scotland doesn't have the hung jury because there is no consensus required they use the \"not proven\" in the same way a U.S. jury uses the hung jury when one or more jurors thinks the prosecution didn't prove their case but it's fairly clear the defendant is, in fact guilty. Then, you will often get a \"hold out\" juror, and since the U.S. requires a unanimous verdict, the hold out hangs the jury. It's sort of the opposite of jury nullification. The person knows that the evidence fell short, but their conscience can't reconcile letting the person go free, so they will vote guilty to hang the jury, almost ensuring the prosecution gets another shot.</p>\n\n<p>There has been a lot of debate about this three verdict system in comparative law circles, with many legal scholars saying it's antiquated. But I think it serves an important purpose. It carries the stigma of likely guilt for those people who probably committed the crime but got off. Further, the hung jury cost tax payers millions of dollars in the U.S., and this is often the side effect of people not wanting there to be absolutely no recognition of the fact that the accused probably committed (especially serious) crime(s). The Scots, on the other hand, have found away to accomplish this without the cost and emotional toll multiple trials takes on all the players involved, from witnesses and victims, their families, the accused, and even the lawyers and the prosecutions, who have to put in all the work of a trial just to start anew. </p>\n\n<p>Here is a really good scholarly article that deals with this interesting phenomenon not seen in (I don't believe) any other country:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/iiclr/article/viewFile/17848/18019\" rel=\"noreferrer\">https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/iiclr/article/viewFile/17848/18019</a></p>\n", "score": 11 } ]

[ "criminal-law", "trial", "scotland" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4004, "body": "<p><em>Is there any consumer protection against the manufacturer repeatedly replacing items under warranty until the customer simply gives up?</em></p>\n\n<p>There are two implied warranties that people should knno about - fitness for a particular purpose and merchantabilty. You are concerned with merchantability. The implied warranty of merchantability basically says that goods are reasonably fit for the general purpose for which they are sold. If something keeps breaking it is not merchantable (generally).</p>\n\n<p>The warranty of merchantability is found in the Uniform Commerical Code and in <a href=\"http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BC/htm/BC.2.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">Texas' Business and Commerce Code. Both at Section 2.314</a>. You can read it, it is not very long, but one important part is, \"<strong>fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used</strong>.\"</p>\n\n<p>This is an implied warranty, which means it is automatic unless disclaimed. Some states prohibit sellers from disclaiming implied warranties; Texas is not one of them (no surprise there). 2.316 is where we find out how to disclaim the warranty. This is how</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any\n part of it the <strong>language must mention merchantability</strong> and in case of a\n writing must be conspicuous</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>2.316 also says</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient</strong> if\n it states, for example, that \"There are no warranties which extend\n beyond the description on the face hereof.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><strong>So a buyer needs to see if the seller and the manufacturer both disclaimed the implied warranties. If so the buyer is going to be limited to the expressed warranties. If they did not disclaim then the remedy is to return the item and get the money back.</strong></p>\n\n<p>So yeah, this is like a lemon law for stuff.</p>\n\n<p><em>There is a requirement that the seller be a \"merchant with respect to goods of that kind.\" That just means that the buyer didn't buy shoes at a car dealer. That it was the seller's business to sell the thing.</em></p>\n\n<p>A last note on this. Implied warranties differ from state to state as to who they can be applied against. 2-318 offers three options. Texas chose option 3 - which means that the courts decide if the buck stops at the retailer or if it extends to the manufacturer.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>This chapter does not provide whether anyone other than a buyer may\n take advantage of an express or implied warranty of quality made to\n the buyer or whether the buyer or anyone entitled to take advantage of\n a warranty made to the buyer may <strong>sue a third party other than the\n immediate seller</strong> for deficiencies in the quality of the goods. These\n matters are <strong>left to the courts</strong> for their determination.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><strong>In other words, unless the implied warranties were disclaimed by both the retailer and the manufacturer, the buyer can go after either for the refund.</strong></p>\n\n<p>And what is cool¹ is that a 2013 Texas Supreme Court case found that a <strong>buyer of a used engine</strong> has a claim against <strong>the manufacturer</strong>. <a href=\"http://assets.law360news.com/0545000/545505/120490.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">MAN Engines &amp; Components, Inc. v. Shows</a>. This is different because some states require privity of contract - meaning that only the original buyer can exercise the warranty and they can only exercise against the seller.</p>\n\n<p><strong>EDIT</strong></p>\n\n<p>2.316(c)(2) says </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>when the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the\n goods or the sample or model as fully as he desired or has refused to\n examine the goods there is no implied warranty with regard to defects\n which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to\n him</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This basically says that if you know about the defect you waive the implied warranty.<br>\nThere are two ways to look at this. The first way is that the first defective item is the \"the goods or the sample or model\" that you have now inspected, so you now know about the defect, and if you buy another you are buying it with defects revealed which waives the warranty.<br>\nThe other way to look at it is that you do not know that the first one is representative of all the products so it is not until you get the second, or third, that the defect with the goods or the sample or model is representative of all the products, and that it is not until you have this knowledge that the defect is \"revealed.\"<br>\nIn other words, it depends.</p>\n\n<p>¹Cool for consumers, not manufacturers.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "consumer-protection", "warranties" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4054, "body": "<p>This is called <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting\" rel=\"nofollow\">cybersquatting</a> - when you own a trademark and the other registrant has registered the domain in bad faith. There are means for resolving these matters. I have not been able to find any laws specific to the United Kingdom, however there are other laws and agreements this falls under.</p>\n\n<p>However, the respondent (the person owning the domain in dispute) must generally intend to profit from, and have registered the domain in bad faith. They must also have no legitimate interest in the domain name. The applicant must also show that it is similar to their trademark.</p>\n\n<p>You may be able to submit a dispute to ICANN in accordance with their <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Resolution_Policy\" rel=\"nofollow\">Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy</a>. The decisions of such arbitration is binding on the parties, and may include cancellation or transfer of the domain, or refusal of the claim.</p>\n\n<p>If you are able to bring a claim in the United States, the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act\" rel=\"nofollow\">Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act</a> provides similar protections, and may additionally award damages.</p>\n\n<p>Additionally, the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization\" rel=\"nofollow\">World Intellectual Property Organization</a> provides for arbitration, which allows trademark holders to attempt to claim a squatted site. However, these decisions are <em>not</em> binding on the parties.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "cybersquatting" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4018, "body": "<p>Jurisdiction is generally a matter for courts to decide. For example, in <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=16241564118389300260&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0CBwQgAMoADAAahUKEwimrdG33JTIAhWCkZQKHcDLCQw\"><em>Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 694 F. 3d 1294</em> (2012)</a>, the plaintiff, having had their work published in Sweden, had filed a claim there, and lost. They then took the claim to the United States.</p>\n\n<p>Copyright infringement is generally actionable <em>per se</em> - no damage needs to actually be proven or sustained. Typically, the rule is that <em>the proper law</em> will apply. This is the state that seems to have the closest and most real connection to the facts of the case.</p>\n\n<p>Now, where there is more than one jurisdiction in which a claim may be brought - as in your example - a plaintiff may research the relevant statutes to determine which jurisdiction is most likely to afford them the most favourable outcome. It's called <em>forum shopping</em>.</p>\n\n<p>It is <em>likely</em> that the proper law will be that of A or C. This depends on a number of factors:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Whether the infringing party profited from the infringement.</strong><br>\nIf the infringing party profited from the act, then you are likely to want to bring the matter in A, so that you can recover damages.</li>\n<li><strong>Whether the infringing party has any presence in B.</strong><br>\nIf the party has a presence in B, then a claim in B is likely to be more cost-effective.<br>\nAgain, depending on the laws of the country, it may not be possible for the artist to bring a claim against the infringing party if they have no local presence. Some countries have laws that explicitly allow extraterritorial service. </li>\n<li><strong>Whether the hosting service was aware of the copyright infringement.</strong><br>\nIf the hosting service was aware of the infringement and failed to prevent it, then you may be able to claim for contributory infringement - they could then, depending on their contract/agreement with the infringing party, be able to claim for damages. The Napster case may be somewhat relevant to this, but it's hard to say anything concrete when working with hypothetical countries.<br>\nAt the very least, a claim against the hosting service - which may just be an injunction ordering the removal of the content - could be fruitful.</li>\n<li><strong>The actual laws of the countries involved.</strong><br>\nIf the artist has sufficient money, they can just choose the forum that is most favourable to them.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>In short, private international law is a tricky subject and there are so many factors that need to be accounted for.</p>\n", "score": 11 }, { "answer_id": 4049, "body": "<p>In Canada, the applicability of the <em>Copyright Act</em> to communications that have international participants was elucidated in <em><a href=\"http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc45/2004scc45.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers</a></em>, [2004] 2 SCR 427, 2004 SCC 45.</p>\n<p>The court held that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>An Internet communication that crosses one or more national boundaries “occurs” in more than one country, at a minimum, the country of transmission and the country of reception. To occur in Canada, a communication need not originate from a server located in Canada.</p>\n<p>[...]</p>\n<p>A real and substantial connection to Canada is sufficient to support the application of our Copyright Act to international Internet transmissions...</p>\n<p>In terms of the Internet, relevant connecting factors would include the situs of the content provider, the host server, the intermediaries and the end user. The weight to be given to any particular factor will vary with the circumstances and the nature of the dispute. The conclusion that Canada could exercise copyright jurisdiction in respect both of transmissions originating here, and transmissions originating abroad but received here, is not only consistent with our general law but with both national and international copyright practice.</p>\n<p>[...]</p>\n<p>So also, in my view, a telecommunication from a foreign state to Canada, or a telecommunication from Canada to a foreign state, “is both here and there”.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>That judgement reviews the situation in several other countries for comparison.</p>\n<p>They observe that in the United States:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>... there is authority [...] for taking copyright jurisdiction over both the sender of the transmission out of the United States and the receiver in the United States of material from outside that country.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>In Australia:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The definition of “communication to the public” appears to apply Australian copyright law to communications entirely within Australia, those originating within Australia and received by an end user outside Australia, and those originating outside Australia but received by an end user in Australia</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>In France:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>An analysis of liability in France suggests that “[c]ourts will likely assert jurisdiction not only over transmissions from France, but also transmissions into France that are alleged to cause damage”</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 4047, "body": "<p>In this situation, if the laws of country A allow to sue in country A, then you can sue in country A. If the laws of country B allow to sue in country B, then you can sue in country B. And so on. </p>\n\n<p>For example, if country B has very strong laws to protect the rights of its residents anywhere in the world then you may be able to sue in country B. (That would be an unusual situation. For example, you wouldn't expect a British court to get involved because a British citizen is robbed in the USA, but a US court would). </p>\n\n<p>Whether you can enforce the ruling is another question entirely. A ruling in country B is unlikely to help you closing down servers in country C or collecting money from someone residing in country A. Especially if country A doesn't accept that a ruling in country B would interfere with its own laws. </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright", "jurisdiction" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4051, "body": "<h1>Short Answer</h1>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>Over $10k? Hire a lawyer.</strong> (They're well worth the money in this case.)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<h2>Explanation</h2>\n\n<p>If I were you and the total value of the shares you're going to purchase is, say, <strong>over $10,000</strong>, I would definitely have a lawyer draft all of the paperwork for you. And handle the closing of the sale.</p>\n\n<p>There are legal issues involved in the sale of closely held equity that you would never think of. And it can get downright nasty, messy and expensive if you and your partner ever got in a major disagreement down the road. Say with some (contingent) liability or other loose end that you never thought to address at the time of sale. Say, a personal guaranty, for example.</p>\n\n<p>You could probably get a lawyer to do this for you for right around $1,000 or less (depending upon how good your current LLC documentation is). If that's the case, and the LLC has any significant value, the cost of the $1,000 in legal fees is well worth what it will save you in the long run if you screw up anything and you and your seller later fall into a dispute.</p>\n\n<p>Hiring the lawyer will have the additional benefit of putting you in a better position for your CPA to deal with the tax consequences of the sale. Because the paperwork will be complete and accurate. That will save you even more money in CPA fees for tax compliance.</p>\n\n<p>I say all this from the perspective of someone who has done lots of this before. And I also am no fan of paying legal fees when it's not necessary. But this is a case I would definitely say hiring a lawyer is well worth the money.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law", "corporate-law", "connecticut" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4029, "body": "<p>Your landlord has an obligation to allow \"quiet enjoyment\" of the premises. Essentially this means that, unless they are damaging his or her property, the tenants are entited to act as though it were their own property.</p>\n\n<p>Many people take drugs at home.</p>\n\n<p>Between the tenants and the landlord this is not something the landlord is allowed to get involved in.</p>\n\n<p>If you believe there is criminal activity going on, you can but are not obliged to report it to the police.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 4002, "body": "<p>Your landlord is not a law enforcement official. When you think that a crime is taking place, inform the police.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 4033, "body": "<p>Landlords themselves don't like to decide who has to be booted out from their premises, because then the offender can sue the landlord for unfair discrimination.</p>\n\n<p>If you're having noise issues at 4am, most cities across North America generally have noise ordinances. Again, it's not the landlord that has to enforce such ordinances, but the police. I've lived in a low-rise 1b/1ba apartment building where an adjacent neighbour thought he was living in a \"house\", and had a home theatre system going up all night; the solution was to notify the police on multiple occasions, only after which the landlord would have the option to terminate the lease of the offenders, or face paying a fine to the city. (The landlord office themselves suggested that I either have to call the police, or, if I want, they could terminate my own lease without a penalty, since they couldn't act on their own in the situation.)</p>\n\n<p>Your options at this point would be to call the police in regards to the noise issues at 4am, and discuss with the landlord the option of moving out without a penalty since the provisions of your lease are not honoured. Unfortunately, it's a bit unrealistic to expect and require that the every landlord will initiate any other action in the situation.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "canada", "rental-property", "british-columbia" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4035, "body": "<p>Non-compete clauses are very common in professional contracts. They serve to protect the legitimate business interests. Non-complete clauses can be overturned if they are excessive - too great of a geographical range, or too long of a time period.</p>\n\n<p>It's difficult to say what may be in the contract, though. You should read your employment contract in its entirety, and if you are unsure of anything, contact an employment lawyer to have them explain to you the legal effect of entering into the contract.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 4041, "body": "<p>Not all non-compete clauses are the same. They can range from completely reasonable precautions to bordering on legally enforced slavery.</p>\n\n<p>Things you need to look at:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>How long does the non-compete restriction apply? Does it still apply after you fired the client or the client fired you?</li>\n<li>To which kinds of activity does the restriction apply? Just web development or any kind of work?</li>\n<li>To which business partners does it apply? Just direct competition of the client or anyone?</li>\n<li>Is there a way to get out of the non-compete? What does the contract says happens when you break the non-compete clause?</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>By the way: when you are supposed to be a contractor and the non-compete agreement is written in a way which makes it practically impossible for you to take any work at all from anyone except the client, then the contract might fulfill the condition for misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor in some jurisdictions which is illegal (usually only for the employer, not the employee).</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 4038, "body": "<p>A non-compete clause may make it impossible for you to work for someone who competes with the company that is trying to hire you. As a junior web developer, there is very, very little legitimate reason to ask you to sign a non-compete clause. Frankly, junior web developers are a dime a dozen, and if Joe's furniture shop hires you to develop their website, there is very little business reason why they would want to prevent you from developing Jim's furniture shop's website when Jim has the choice of another dozen developers. The only reason for a non-compete clause would be to blackmail you or to retaliate against you. </p>\n\n<p>But there don't really need to \"make a great deal of effort to flesh out\" every detail. They give you the contract, you tell them that you see no reason to sign a non-compete clause, you strike it out and initial it, and hand the contract back. Importantly, you do that with visible confidence. That's it. Their choice to hire someone else or to agree. If they ask why, you tell them that you don't see why they would need that non-compete clause, and to you it would be unacceptable. </p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "canada", "employment", "competition", "british-columbia", "non-compete" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3969, "body": "<p>This is currently untested but the U.S. Supreme Court did leave the door open to allow someone to plead the 5th amendment in order to hide their identity.</p>\n\n<p>In <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Hiibel v. Nevada</a> the U.S. Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not have a 5th amendment right to withhold his name from a questioning police officer.</p>\n\n<p>The Supreme Court held that Mr. Hiibel could be arrested for failing to identify himself because Nevada's statute requiring identification was narrowly tailored and was not vague. The police officer who stopped Mr. Hiibel had reasonable suspicion that a crime had occurred and Mr. Hiibel could have satisfied Nevada's statute by simply stating his name; there was no requirement to turn over any papers or other documentation.</p>\n\n<p>The final paragraph of the opinion speaks of the importance of the narrow scope of the disclosure requirement and then goes on and states:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>...Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances...Even witnesses who plan to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege answer when their names are called to take the stand. <strong>Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We do not resolve those questions here.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>While the court is leaving unanswered the question of whether there are circumstances where one may refuse to identify themselves, they are making it quite clear that such a situation would be very different than the case decided in Hiibel. There is a strong hint that they would uphold Fifth Amendment privilege in the situation you posit.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 4040, "body": "<p>I learned in a constitutional law class I took in college that the 5th amendment does not allow you to refuse to give your name to the police. I asked a police officer I used to work with this same question and he told me that if someone refused to give their name to the police that they could be arrested for obstructing justice. <a href=\"http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&amp;article_id=1150&amp;issue_id=42007\" rel=\"nofollow\">According to the Supreme Court, the police may arrest for failure to identify if state law criminalizes such behavior.</a></p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "fifth-amendment" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4007, "body": "<p>Essentially, if there is no written agreement or receipt of payment, the only records that exist will be in the payment itself. If it was paid by cash, there's probably no recourse without additional facts.</p>\n\n<p>However, if it was paid electronically, then even if there's no narration (description) that claims that the payment was for rent, it is still possible that you would be able to file a summons requiring the recipient bank to produce the information relating to the entity that holds the account the money was sent to.</p>\n\n<p>The information they have may be limited, but generally this would include:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Name</li>\n<li>Address</li>\n<li>Date of birth (for natural persons)</li>\n<li>Phone number</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>The above information is typically required under anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist funding legislation.</p>\n\n<p>Additionally, if it was paid electronically, the regularity of the payments and the regular amounts may be persuasive.</p>\n\n<p>Finally, it's not proof, but you can swear an affidavit or a statutory declaration attesting to the truth of your assertions, but without additional evidence (the aforementioned transaction information), it doesn't really hold weight on its own.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 4012, "body": "<p>As it stands you don't have much proof, but it would most likely be very easy to acquire absolute proof. Under the Criminal Code Of Canada, it is legal to secretly record private conversations, so long as you are a participating party in the private conversation.</p>\n\n<p>From <a href=\"http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-98.html#h-63\" rel=\"nofollow\">C-46 Sub-Section 183.1</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or\n is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one\n person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those\n persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of\n this Part.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Reading the code at length and other resources on the topic, pay special attention that you cannot be secretly recording conversations you're not a part of. Sticking a tape recorder somewhere and walking away is definitely going to be classified as criminal.</p>\n\n<p>Simply phoning up the landlord and starting a conversation or argument about the issue will most likely lead to the landlord confirming the facts, one way or another. Put speaker phone on, download an app for recording and start doing so. Or if in person, turn it on drop it in your pocket. Discuss the issue until you get remarks confirming your facts. I've been in this situation, and as tempting as it is to rub it in their face that you've got them on the record, <strong>keep your mouth shut</strong>.</p>\n\n<p>Proceed with whatever legal recourse you will. Pull out this evidence as an absolute last resort. You can savor that feeling of busting someone in a lie one-hundred fold when you have them tell the lie to the court, then play it back for everyone to hear.</p>\n\n<p>Most Canadians I've spoken with can't believe this is legal. Talk to a lawyer, call up the non-emergency line of your local police, they will confirm it. I've done this without issue personally and have helped people do it successfully against even the police. Be a clear participant, you're in the clear.</p>\n\n<p>More resources on the topic <a href=\"http://www.legaltree.ca/node/908\" rel=\"nofollow\">here</a> and <a href=\"http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/secret-tape-recording-deemed-admissible-bc-civil-lawsuit\" rel=\"nofollow\">here</a>.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 4023, "body": "<p>In addition to the other answers, you might consider documents that most jurisdictions accept as valid elements in establishing physical residency. For example:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>Electricity bills</li>\n<li>Gas bills</li>\n<li>Phone bills</li>\n<li>Landscaping bills</li>\n<li>Water bills</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>While they're not as helpful as a lease to your end, they are an interesting consideration.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "canada", "contract-law", "rental-property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4016, "body": "<p>Do you have an explicit permission by the artist? Does the artist give a blanket permission to anyone which covers this kind of use of their work (a license)? </p>\n\n<p>If no, then you commit a copyright violation when you use their work for your blog.</p>\n\n<p>This applies to practically any country which signed the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention\" rel=\"nofollow\">Berne convention</a> which is almost everywhere in the world. Having no commercial interest is usually not an excuse to violate copyright. Regarding which jurisdiction applies when you, your website and the copyright holder are in different countries: <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4017/which-jurisdiction-applies-to-copyright-violations-on-the-internet\">I opened a new question about this</a>.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3901, "body": "<p>Yes, it arguably includes technical training according to the <a href=\"http://www.wassenaar.org/controllists/index.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies and Munitions List</a> (Wa-List (14) 2). Exploitation, as used in your question, can take many forms of course.</p>\n\n<p>First, take a look at the definition of <strong>technology</strong> for GTN and both lists¹:</p>\n\n<p>Technology is defined as information.<br>\nThe information can take the form of technical assistance.<br>\nTechnical assistance may take the form of training.</p>\n\n<p>Now we need to look to see if \"exploitation\" is on any of the lists and then if technology for exploitation is included.</p>\n\n<p>The best I can find is at on the <em>Dual Use List - Category 4 - Computers</em>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>4.E.1.c \"Technology\" for the \"development\" of \"intrusion software\".</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Note that technology appears in quotes. This means that the term takes on the meaning defined in the List of Definitions (found on p. 201 of Wa-List (14) 2). I also think that \"Intrusion software\" as defined (page 212) comports with what you call exploitation.</p>\n\n<p>There are probably others, but we need to know more about what you mean by exploitation. For now I think this is enough. If you need more, I think that more answers will come from really understanding the definitions and how the defined words and phrases are used in the Wa-List.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>¹<strong>Technology</strong><br>\n<em>Specific <strong>information</strong> necessary for the \"development\", \"production\" or \n \"use\" of a product. The information <strong>takes the form of</strong> 'technical data'\n or <strong>'technical assistance'</strong>. Controlled \"technology\" for the Dual-Use\n List is defined in the General Technology Note and in the Dual-Use\n List. Controlled “technology” for the Munitions List is specified in\n ML22. Technical Notes.<br>\n1. 'Technical data' may take forms such as blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, tables, engineering designs and\nspecifications, manuals and instructions written or recorded on other\nmedia or devices such as disk, tape, read-only memories.<br>\n2. '<strong>Technical assistance' may take forms such as instruction, skills, training</strong>, working knowledge, consulting services.\n 'Technical assistance' may involve transfer of 'technical data'.</em> </p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "european-union", "munition" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3998, "body": "<p>Yes, they can. There was a time when no warrant was required at all.</p>\n\n<p>There was a time when it was thought that the Fourth Amendment requirement for a search warrant only applied to criminal cases. It was expected that administrative and civil cases did not require a warrant. For example, in 1959 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/359/360/case.html\">Frank v. Maryland</a> that the conviction of a Baltimore City person who refused a warrantless search by a Baltimore City health inspector was valid.</p>\n\n<p>However, in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/case.html\">Camara V. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco</a> which held:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>...that administrative searches of the kind at issue here are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment, that such search, when authorized and conducted without a warrant procedure, lack the traditional safeguards which the Fourth Amendment guarantees to the individual, and that the reasons put forth in Frank v. Maryland and in other cases for upholding these warrantless searches are insufficient to justify so substantial a weakening of the Fourth Amendment's protections.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The standard for issuing such a warrant, the court ruled, is probable cause. Further:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Such standards, which will vary with the municipal program being enforced, may be based upon the passage of time, the nature of the building (e.g, a multi-family apartment house), or the condition of the entire area, but they will not necessarily depend upon specific knowledge of the condition of the particular dwelling.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The court also held that nothing in their ruling requiring warrants would preclude a warrantless inspection in an emergency situation.</p>\n\n<p>Portland, Oregon <a href=\"http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=18234&amp;c=28735\">describes on their web site</a> their process for obtaining such a warrant.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 3997, "body": "<p>Yes, they can get an administrative search warrant.</p>\n\n<p>Here are two samples:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/S9WoF.jpg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/S9WoF.jpg\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/GIm7M.jpg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/GIm7M.jpg\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></a></p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "real-estate" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3965, "body": "<p>(Based on previous comments. IANAL and IANYL)</p>\n\n<p>Whether or not it is competition depends on who is more convincing in court. Whether or not you violated the NDA depends on the exact terms of the NDA and how they are interpreted in your jurisdiction. Based only on the information you're giving here - that their site is a marketplace for cars, and yours is for car accessories (I assume they aren't also selling wheels, right?); that you wrote the code on your own time and/or after you left the company; and that the best argument they have is that they own the website because you used what you learned while working for them (that would get laughed out of a court room) - I would say yes, you should fight it. Get a lawyer to go over the details, confirm (or reject as dangerous nonsense) what I state above, and then (if the lawyer agrees with us) write a letter rebuffing the company. If they follow through and sue... like I said, I think they don't have a leg to stand on, but IANAL and IANYL and you'll need a real lawyer anyway unless you feel like rolling over and giving them what they want.</p>\n\n<p>Regarding your follow-up comments: I doubt a court would find that an NDA (or non-compete, or some sort of combined agreement) that seeks to prevent you from doing business the company isn't even yet doing would cause problems, unless you had knowledge of their intentions to get into that business and are exploiting your knowledge of their plans for profit. Anything made after the contract is complete is clearly not their IP. This sounds cut and dried to me - but see if a lawyer agrees.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 3986, "body": "<p><strong><em>Non-compete clauses and provisions</em></strong> are often unenforceable, depending on the jurisdiction.</p>\n\n<p>For example, in California, as per <a href=\"http://www.google.com/search?q=non-compete+california\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.google.com/search?q=non-compete+california</a>:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.venable.com/enforcing-non-compete-provisions-in-california-01-13-2012/\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://www.venable.com/enforcing-non-compete-provisions-in-california-01-13-2012/</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>It is considered a fundamental policy of the State of California that agreements in restraint of competition are to that extent void. The California Supreme Court, in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937, unanimously held that Business &amp; Professions Code Section 16600 invalidated a provision in Edwards' employment agreement that restricted him from servicing customers and competing with Arthur Andersen following the termination of his employment. Notwithstanding the general premise that non-competition agreements are invalid, specific Sections of the B&amp;P Code provide certain exceptions to California's policy against enforcing non-competition covenants which apply in limited circumstances.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>In the UK, as per <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Europe\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Europe</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>In the United Kingdom, CNCs are called Restraint of Trade clauses and may be used only if the employer can prove a legitimate business interest to protect in entering the clause into the contract. Mere competition will not amount to a legitimate business interest.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Moreover, if they've terminated your employment at will, and the field at stake is your only area of expertise, it would also not be reasonable of them to expect that you have to earn no salary (or equivalent) for 6 months (or until you learn a new trade in order to produce comparable income). If they do pay you a special severance package, then that's a different story.</p>\n\n<p>Likewise, if you did a clean room design of your web-site, it would certainly be rather preposterous of them to claim that they own your new web-site as well. (However, if they had some patented know-how, then that's how they could get you.)</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>Nonetheless, to the contrary of the above, based on the information given in the question, I'm not sure I understand what would be the fundamental difference between an affiliate site that compares cars versus one that compares alloy wheels, they potentially sound to be quite related to be differentiated as separate fields of business.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "contract-law", "employment", "non-compete" ]