Datasets:

ymoslem

/

Law-StackExchange

like 12

[ { "answer_id": 3594, "body": "<h3>Primary Theory</h3>\n\n<p>I suspect there might not be a legal answer to this question.</p>\n\n<p>I have always suspected a sort of <strong><em>pseudo-intellectual elitism</em></strong> (or simple <strong><em>preference</em></strong> or <strong><em>carelessness</em></strong>) with passive voice sentence construction in general. I sense license writers have not (yet) escaped this general trend.</p>\n\n<p>I would love someone to prove this theory incorrect. But, alas, I doubt it will happen.</p>\n\n<h3>Alternative Theory</h3>\n\n<p>But because this is a Law Q&amp;A site, I will advance the following alternative theory. I don't believe it's correct. But I will advance it because it's the only possible explanation I can think of that might be even remotely based on legal reasoning...</p>\n\n<p>Maybe they are just basing their construction on the way the law itself is written? For example, if the law says, \"Permission must be granted...\" Then it would follow that a writer who wants to comply with the law might choose, \"Permission is hereby granted...\" instead of something like \"The authors hereby grant permission...\" or, as the OP suggested, \"You may...\"</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "licensing" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3607, "body": "<p>Indiana has no state law against carrying an expandable baton, a.k.a. asp. (Hard to prove a negative, but <a href=\"http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/09/19/guess-weapons-illegal-indiana/15844701/\" rel=\"nofollow\">here's one reference in support</a>.) NB: Batons are considered deadly weapons.</p>\n\n<p><em>NBB: Laws on these weapons vary tremendously by state, and sometimes even by city, so this answer should not be construed to apply to any jurisdiction outside of Indiana!</em></p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "property", "weapons" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3577, "body": "<p><a href=\"http://law.onecle.com/new-york/criminal-procedure/CPL0160.60_160.60.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">New York Criminal Procedure - Article 160.6</a> states,</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Upon the termination of a criminal action or proceeding against a person in favor of such person, as defined in subdivision two of section 160.5 of this chapter, the arrest and prosecution shall be deemed a nullity and the accused shall be restored, in contemplation of law, to the status he occupied before the arrest and prosecution. The arrest or prosecution shall not operate as a disqualification of any person so accused to pursue or engage in any lawful activity, occupation, profession, or calling. Except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of a superior court, no such person shall be required to divulge information pertaining to the arrest or prosecution.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>From this short article you will note:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>As far as the law is concerned, the arrest never happened</li>\n<li>Except for specific occupations listed in statute (such as law enforcement) the arrest record can not be considered</li>\n<li>The person arrested can not be required to divulge information pertaining to the arrest</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>This is why the <a href=\"http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/Labor_reentry_pamphlet_employees09.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">employment guide posted</a> in @jqning's answer states:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Generally, an employer cannot ask about arrests during a job interview or on a job application</li>\n<li>If none of your arrests are open or led to any convictions, you are legally permitted to answer \"no\" to these questions. If a job application asks you to list any \"crimes\", \"convictions of crimes,\" or \"criminal offenses,\" you should list only misdemeanor and felony convictions - not arrests.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Remember from this <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3453/if-my-spouse-gets-arrested-for-domestic-violence-but-i-do-not-press-charges-wil/3456#3456\">previous answer</a>, open arrests are on the record. The <a href=\"http://law.onecle.com/new-york/criminal-procedure/CPL0160.50_160.50.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">New York statute linked</a> in that article explains the process and timing for sealing an arrest record after a criminal proceeding goes in favor of the arrested person.</p>\n", "score": 31 }, { "answer_id": 3578, "body": "<p>First, be sure you are talking about actual expungement and not just having your record sealed. The terms “expungement” and “sealing” are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same and there are some very important differences.</p>\n\n<p>“Sealing” is when the general public no longer possesses the right to search for your criminal records in a background check or even under FOIA. If you have had your record \"expunged\", under the law it is as if it never happened and the record is destroyed. It carries more force and applies to more situations. It is also irreversible.</p>\n\n<p>When your record is sealed, it means the conviction cannot be accessed by normal background checks; but the arrest will remain on your record. Those considering you for employment or who you are petitioning for a loan cannot look into these records during a background check. Furthermore, you can generally legally deny that the events on your record ever happened (there are a variety of exceptions). The record itself, however, does still exist and it is possible for certain entities to discover both the arrest and sealed conviction, and under some circumstances it can be unsealed. That said, only a court order to unseal the records can make the records accessible via a standard background check. However,even the expungement has practical limits. So, while you can answer \"no\" if asked if you've ever been convicted of a felony, there are certain agencies and employers are allowed to seek and use information on an applicant’s expunged convictions. Even if you have either of these done, police officers will still be able to see you've been arrested.</p>\n\n<p>When your record is expunged, it is as if the offense never happened at all. Your record is removed or destroyed (legally if not literally), and it is not available for anyone to access, even by court order. As with a sealed record, you can legally deny the existence of the events that occurred. For example, if you have a job application that asks if you were ever convicted of a criminal offense, you can legally answer \"no.\"</p>\n\n<p>An expungement is a <em>more</em> permanent and reliable form of clearing your record. An expungement literally clears the record of any mention of your name as it pertains to a criminal court case, as well as all evidence that you were ever convicted. A sealed record serves much the same purpose, but the record still exists; it's just that almost no one can access it through conventional means unless it's unsealed.</p>\n\n<p>Keep in mind, if you get an expungement, you should seek an order from the court having the record of arrest sealed as well, or you should go to the arresting police department and give them a copy of the order and ask they remove any notation of arrest from their databases (some will do this without a separate court order, some will not). A different administrative body deals with this so it is not automatic in many jurisdictions. If your arrest record is sealed, and your record is expunged, it is very unlikely anyone will ever know (aside from those entities that can know no matter what).</p>\n\n<p>There are also situations when you still are supposed to answer yes to a question of whether you've been arrested (even w/out a conviction!) or convicted. For example, a law school application will often ask if you've ever been <em>arrested</em> or convicted, and they want a full explanation of the event. Even if you've not been convicted and even if sealed or expunged. Along with all circumstances surrounding it, they will want the order of expungement. While you can legally answer \"no\" and they may never find out, you should answer \"yes\" in that limited situation (although it is up to you) because as an institution you are agreeing to be honest on the application and if they find out you've lied, they can retract an otherwise legitimately earned degree. The same is true with the board of bar overseers. They will ask, and it is best to answer yes. It is not a bar to being admitted or licensed to practice law, but if you lie and they find out, it is reason to take action against you, because it shows moral turpitude. This is one example but there are others.</p>\n", "score": 19 }, { "answer_id": 3575, "body": "<p><strong>Yes, you can legally say you were not arrested.</strong> The exception is law enforcement and maybe some federal jobs that I do not know about.</p>\n\n<p>Employers are not allowed to ask about arrests. The exception is that they can ask about open arrests - arrests that have not resulted in a disposition.</p>\n\n<p>Employers can ask if you have been convicted of a crime.</p>\n\n<p>You are only required to answer questions about arrests that led to convictions. If you have no open arrests and have no convictions, you can answer no to the question if you have ever been arrested.</p>\n\n<p>Info is from <a href=\"http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/Labor_reentry_pamphlet_employees09.pdf\">Do You Have A Criminal Conviction History? A Guide To Your Employment Rights In New York</a></p>\n", "score": 13 } ]

[ "new-york-city", "charge-dismissed", "expungement" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3595, "body": "<h1>Short Answer</h1>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>The entire license could be ruled invalid and therefore unenforceable.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<h2>Explanation</h2>\n\n<p>Two legal principles at play in jimsug's answer might be:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine\" rel=\"nofollow\">Vagueness Doctrine</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overbreadth_doctrine\" rel=\"nofollow\">Overbreadth Doctrine</a></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Either or both of which might be sufficient for a judge to waive enforcement of any provisions that relate to the terms \"good\" or \"evil.\"</p>\n\n<p>An interesting side effect of this might be that unless the principle of <strong><em><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability\" rel=\"nofollow\">severability</a></em></strong> were applied to the JSlint license, then the license could be considered completely invalid due solely to the addition of the words \"good\" and \"evil.\" A judge would have to affirmatively impose severability because the license itself does not assert it.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 1703, "body": "<p>It would be very difficult for a court to make a judgment based on this specific provision of the JSLint license, for the simple fact that good and evil, except perhaps at the very extremes of the scale, are inherently subjective and contextual terms.</p>\n\n<p>The wording of this provision is such that it is likely that if a court were required to consider it, it would need to fall back, so to speak, to a consideration of whether a <em>reasonable</em> person would find the code acceptable or not, or otherwise, whether a reasonable person would find the purpose of the software acceptable or not.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "licensing" ]

[ { "answer_id": 568, "body": "<p>The USPTO has incorporated the test for &quot;significantly more&quot; in their subject matter eligibility test as follows (see step 2B):</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/BES6M.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></p>\n<p>(Figure from <a href=\"http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility</a>.)</p>\n<p>The USPTO says (<em>ibid.</em>):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A claim directed to a judicial\nexception must be analyzed to\ndetermine whether the elements of the\nclaim, considered both individually and\nas an ordered combination, are\nsufficient to ensure that the claim as a\nwhole amounts to significantly more\nthan the exception itself.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>They say this several different ways:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>this has been termed a search for an inventive concept</p>\n<p>...</p>\n<p>To be patent-eligible, a\nclaim that is directed to a judicial\nexception must include additional\nfeatures to ensure that the claim\ndescribes a process or product that\napplies the exception in a meaningful\nway, such that it is more than a drafting\neffort designed to monopolize the\nexception</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>In section 2.B.1., they give a summary of Supreme Court jurisprudence on this point, listing examples of considerations that have been found relevant for this analysis of &quot;whether a claim with\nadditional elements amounts to\nsignificantly more than the judicial\nexception itself&quot;.</p>\n<p>Limitations that &quot;may be enough to qualify as significantly more&quot; (<em>ibid.</em>):</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Improvements to another\ntechnology or technical field</li>\n<li>Improvements to the functioning of\nthe computer itself</li>\n<li>Applying the judicial exception\nwith, or by use of, a particular\nmachine</li>\n<li>Effecting a transformation or\nreduction of a particular article to a\ndifferent state or thing</li>\n<li>Adding a specific limitation other\nthan what is well-understood, routine\nand conventional in the field, or adding\nunconventional steps that confine the\nclaim to a particular useful\napplication</li>\n<li>Other meaningful limitations\nbeyond generally linking the use of the\njudicial exception to a particular\ntechnological environment</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Examples of limitations that are <em>insufficient</em> to qualify as significantly more (<em>ibid.</em>):</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Adding the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an\nequivalent) with the judicial exception,\nor mere instructions to implement an\nabstract idea on a computer</li>\n<li>Simply appending well-understood,\nroutine and conventional activities\npreviously known to the industry,\nspecified at a high level of generality, to\nthe judicial exception</li>\n<li>Adding insignificant extrasolution\nactivity to the judicial exception</li>\n<li>Generally linking the use of the\njudicial exception to a particular\ntechnological environment or field of\nuse</li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 576, "body": "<p>Nobody really knows.</p>\n\n<p>(NB: the \"you\" in this answer is a <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you\" rel=\"nofollow\">generic person</a> and not <em>you personally</em>; as always, you should consult a lawyer before relying on random information you found on the internet)</p>\n\n<p>The USPTO's opinion is relevant, if you're just trying to get a patent. But if you want to use it in a court of law, it needs to be acceptable to the judiciary, not the USPTO. And the Supreme Court has been rather vague about this one. Worse, it seems there's a fundamental disconnect between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. Looking at <em>Alice</em> in particular, the Federal Circuit split seven different ways, with no opinion holding a majority. Then the Supreme Court looked at it and unanimously ruled that it was a straightforward application of <em>Mayo</em>. Unfortunately, they thought it was so straightforward that they declined to provide any further guidance. Thus, the Federal Circuit is guessing just as much as we are.</p>\n\n<p>I think <em>Diamond v. Diehr</em> may provide guidance. In that case, the computer was controlling a rubber curing machine, and the patent was on the whole apparatus. That was upheld, and so far as I'm aware, this has not been revisited or seriously questioned. It seems (to me) that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test is a sufficient condition for section 101 patent eligibility. But <em>Bilski</em> made it clear that this is not a necessary condition.</p>\n\n<p>Looking to the other extreme, in <em>Alice</em> and <em>Bilski</em>, we see people taking traditional business methods (such as hedging, escrow, etc.) and applying them on a computer. This is not patentable. But they're not patentable under section 101, not on the basis of prior art or some other reasoning. So this isn't about the age of the business methods. It's about their nature. They are abstract ideas, disconnected from physical matter, and often rather vague so as to cover the entire concept rather than one specific implementation.</p>\n\n<p>Where's the boundary? I would look carefully at patents which relate to physics without directly interacting with physical matter. This would include things such as these:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Audio and video codecs</li>\n<li>CAD software</li>\n<li>Image manipulation software</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>I don't know whether any or all of these things are patentable, but I believe they are probably close to the boundary line, one way or another (at least, closer than the extremes discussed above). I should note that the MPEG-LA already holds several patents on image and video codecs (and possibly audio codecs as well, I'm not sure), but I'm not aware of any case which went to trial in which they asserted any of those patents. They have had some public back-and-forth with Google over whether or not the WebM format infringes these patents, so it's possible we'll get an answer in this space.</p>\n\n<p>To maximize the chances of patentability, these patents would need to be highly specific about their design and implementation, as both <em>Alice</em> and <em>Bilski</em> were very critical of vague patents. As a developer, I would consider source code ideal for this, but it's not clear to me that the courts would agree. Even without source code, though, good patents would be wide open to clean-room reverse engineering once they expire. Since copyright lasts much longer than patents in most jurisdictions, this may not be a net win.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 565, "body": "<p>You seem to know as well as anybody. I'll phrase it in one more way: it can't just be \"insignificant post-solution activity.\" (Bilski).</p>\n\n<p>Also note that the Machine-or-Transformation test is still helpful. Bilski only said that it wasn't the <em>only</em> test, and Mayo and CLS Bank are kind of exceptions to the norm -- because the \"machine\" involved in CLS Bank was pretty much just a pretense for an algorithm.</p>\n\n<p>Generally, I would also say that the more inventive it seems, the nicer courts are going to be to you, and the more it seems like bullshit, the more courts are going to hate you. The PTO tries to follow stricter rules than that, but you get to work with your examiner so he can inform you better than we do.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "united-states", "patents" ]

[ { "answer_id": 1840, "body": "<p>The reality is that it is almost never an acceptable tactic to use in any jurisdiction where I ever have/or currently do practice. The bar is relatively small no matter where you are; even in bigger cities. Your reputation is your most valuable asset and it would be crippled if this became your M.O., or was used in anything but the most rare and egregious situations (e.g. withholding evidence, lying to the judge, tampering with jury). Small violations (which are seemingly big in the heat of trial) happen every day and if you even suggested this it would come back on <em>you</em> more times than not. This is exponentially true in the criminal arena where the Judges and prosecutors interact on a daily basis and have formed collegial relationships. If you practice criminal law you often need to form good working relationships with the ADAs or AAGs since most cases get disposed of through negotiations with these very individuals.</p>\n\n<p>I have been in situations where my colleagues and I discussed it, opined on how it would be appropriate, but in the end have never gone that far. One time things were so bad with opposing counsel on so many levels, I considered it; however, I was a newish lawyer and my mentor at the time told me that he had never seen anyone but a federal court judge issue a sanction and aside from that, had never even seen it requested by a lawyer in the local bar. And these were horribly bad violations of the rules of procedure, conduct unbecoming, etc. So, I would suggest avoiding this practice. My rule of thumb is that unless the offending practice is so egregious that one would be technically duty bound to report the conduct to the bar, it is not appropriate to ask for sanctions.</p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "rules-of-court", "trial", "sanctions" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3593, "body": "<p><strong>Yes, the second home will be part of the New York bankruptcy estate.</strong></p>\n\n<p>Congress <a href=\"http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title11/html/USCODE-2011-title11-chap5-subchapIII-sec541.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">broadly defined</a> property within the bankruptcy estate as all property, \"wherever located and by whomever held,\" subject to limited exemptions.</p>\n\n<p>Florida's homestead exemption is among the broadest in the Unite dStates; the value of the property that can be protected is unlimited. See <a href=\"http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&amp;Submenu=3&amp;Tab=statutes&amp;CFID=31291832&amp;CFTOKEN=5256c746d0b3ef39-97AA40EF-BC9E-596A-2233BA53E8B77232#A10S04\" rel=\"nofollow\">Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 5</a>.</p>\n\n<p>As such, I have broken down your question into two parts:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p>May the debtors use the Florida homestead exemption for their Florida home even if they are domiciled in New York?</p></li>\n<li><p>If not, may the debtors use either the Federal or New York state homestead exemptions to protect their Florida home? </p></li>\n</ol>\n\n<h2>Exemption Eligibility</h2>\n\n<p>The debtors can choose between either the federal exemptions of section 522(d) or the exemptions available under New York state and nonbankruptcy federal law; the debtors may <em>not</em> choose the exemptions available under Florida state law.</p>\n\n<p>Section 552 of the Bankruptcy Code is the operative statute. To take advantage of a state's exemption scheme, the debtor must either:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Be domiciled in the state for the 730 days immediately prior to filing its petition; <em>or</em></li>\n<li>If the debtor has not been domiciled in a single state for such period, the state in which the debtor was domiciled for the 180 days immediately preceding the 730-day period (or for the longer portion of that 180 day period).</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title11/html/USCODE-2011-title11-chap5-subchapII-sec522.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1)(A)</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>. . . any property that is exempt under Federal law . . . or State or local law that is applicable on the date of the filing of the petition to the place in which the <strong><em>debtor’s domicile has been located for the 730 days immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition</em></strong> or if the debtor’s domicile has not been located in a single State for such 730-day period, the place in which the debtor’s domicile was located for 180 days immediately preceding the 730-day period or for a longer portion of such 180-day period than in any other place;</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>As a result, the debtor may only utilize either the Federal or New York homestead exemptions.</p>\n\n<h2>Federal Homestead Exemption</h2>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title11/html/USCODE-2011-title11-chap5-subchapII-sec522.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">Section 522(d)(1)</a> provides a homestead exemption in the amount of $22,975 in value for the debtor's residence.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>(1) The debtor's aggregate interest, not to exceed $ 22,975 in value, in real property or personal property that the debtor or a dependent of the debtor uses as a residence, in a cooperative that owns property that the debtor or a dependent of the debtor uses as a residence, or in a burial plot for the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>(The linked statute says that the federal homestead exemption is capped at $15,000. But pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 104, the amount is adjusted every three years to account for changes in the cost of living. Effective April 1, 2013, the cap is $22,975).</p>\n\n<p>Essential to the right to a homestead exemption is designation and occupancy of the property as a residence. Residence and domicile are not necessarily the same thing. Courts seem to be split as to whether a debtor may hold multiple \"residences\" at the same time. For example, the court in <em>In re Lawrence</em>, 469 B.R. 140 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012) held: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>By choosing not to limit the residence qualified for exemption under § 522(d) to a principal or primary residence, Congress presumably intended to encompass a broader category than principal residences, namely any residence . . . .</p>\n \n <p>To sum up, on the date of their bankruptcy petition the [debtors] owned two residences, one in Massachusetts and one in Maine. They used them both. They were entitled to exempt either one, but only one, under § 522(d)(1). </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><em>See also In re Demeter</em>, 478 B.R. 281 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2012); <em>In re Gandy</em>, 327 B.R. 807 (Bankr. S.D.Tex. 2005).</p>\n\n<p>But the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court in <em>In re Stoner</em>, 487 B.R. 410 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2013) read the term \"residence\" in a manner \"requiring some measure of permanence.\"</p>\n\n<p>I couldn't find any cases from New York discussing this issue, making it difficult to determine whether a New York bankruptcy court would allow the debtors to apply the federal homestead exemption to their Florida home. But given that the exemption is capped at only $22,975, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the bankruptcy. </p>\n\n<h2>New York Homestead Exemption</h2>\n\n<p>The New York homestead exemption is more generous than the federal exemption. It provides exemptions capped between $75,000 to $150,000. However, it is limited to property located within New York and used as a primary residence. As such, the Florida property is not subject to the exemption.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://Civil%20Practice%20Law%20and%20Rules\" rel=\"nofollow\">New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 5206</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Property of one of the\n following types, not exceeding one hundred fifty thousand dollars for\n the counties of Kings, Queens, New York, Bronx, Richmond, Nassau,\n Suffolk, Rockland, Westchester and Putnam; one hundred twenty-five\n thousand dollars for the counties of Dutchess, Albany, Columbia, Orange,\n Saratoga and Ulster; and seventy-five thousand dollars for the remaining\n counties of the state in value above liens and encumbrances, owned and\n occupied as a principal residence, is exempt from application to the\n satisfaction of a money judgment, unless the judgment was recovered\n wholly for the purchase price thereof:</p>\n \n <ol>\n <li><p>a lot of land with a dwelling thereon,</p></li>\n <li><p>shares of stock in a cooperative apartment corporation,</p></li>\n <li><p>units of a condominium apartment, or</p></li>\n <li><p>a mobile home.</p></li>\n </ol>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "new-york-state", "florida", "bankruptcy" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2109, "body": "<p><a href=\"https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/01/08/5-things-that-cant-be-copyrighted/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Titles can't be copyrighted</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Meta-data like #2 aren't copyrighted.</p>\n\n<p>Not sure if the MPAA <em>could</em> protect its ratings, but I can't find anywhere that it has asserted restrictions on the use of those.</p>\n\n<p>If the list of \"Similar works\" is not somebody else's intellectual property then there's no problem. (If it is I'm not certain what protection it could be eligible for.)</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 3358, "body": "<p>Your website is probably fair use. In the 2013 case of Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., the court held that Google Books was permitted to scan books and provide snippets to the readers.<br>\nThe court found the following benefits of Google Books.\n1. It provided new and efficient ways for readers to finds books.\n2. It promotes research and data mining.\n3. It gives access to books to underserved populations.\n4. It helps to preserve books and it gives them new life. \n5. It helps to sell the books because the researcher is directed to a link where they can purchase the book. </p>\n\n<p>Ultimately the court held Google Books is fair use because Google only used snippets of the book. The case. <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=140462947356925233&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=140462947356925233&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr</a></p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 3431, "body": "<p>All courts do a case-by-case examination of the facts, using a “Four Factor test” to analyze whether the doctrine Fair Use applies in a given situation. </p>\n\n<p>The four factors are stated in the opinion of the Joseph Story in <em>Folsom v. Marsh</em>, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841) (widely cited &ndash; even in the most recent of cases). This case had to do with a guy (the defendant) who'd copied hundreds of pages from the plaintiff’s multiple-volume biography of George Washington, so as to produce a separate work of his own. (Most of what he copied are letters Washington wrote &ndash; so there is also the public right need to know analysis &ndash; but much of this was not original.)</p>\n\n<p>If you want a book on the subject that cites a number of sources and discusses all of the law on copyright and fair use, <em>Infringement Nation: Copyright 2.0 and You</em>, by John Tehranian, is a good resource for people in your position as it cites many cases and scholarly articles as well as discussing the landscape of using copyrighted works in today's society.</p>\n\n<p>Under this case, what became abundantly clear is that Fair Use is not a finite legal rule with a one-size-fits-all definition. It is also just an affirmative defense if you're ever sued under the theory of copyright infringement. To know if your site is a fair use, I'd objectively try to apply the test a court would. It sounds to me like you'd be fine, but only you know the intricacies of your site. </p>\n\n<p><em>Folsom</em> is often touted as the landmark case that created safeguards of copyright law against <em>over-protection</em> and for maintaining the balance between private exclusion power and public \"accessibility to information and knowledge.\"</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Notwithstanding the provisions of...copyright laws....the fair use of\n a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction...for purposes\n such as <strong>criticism, comment</strong>, news reporting, teaching ...is <strong>not</strong>\n an infringement of copyright.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered (now codified in 17 U.S. Code § 107) shall include:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p>The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;</p></li>\n<li><p>the nature of the copyrighted work;</p></li>\n<li><p>the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and</p></li>\n<li><p>the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.</p></li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>See also: </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"http://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use</a></li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 3485, "body": "<p>This is not fair use because you <em>haven't even used anyone else's copyrighted materials</em>. Fair use is a defense again <em>prima facie</em> cases of infringement that the law nevertheless permits; however, in your case, you don't even come close to having a <em>prima facie</em> case of infringement. In copyright terms, your uses are already squeaky-clean before a fair use defense even needs to be considered.</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p>Title: The U.S. Copyright office has explicitly stated that <a href=\"http://copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">titles are not eligible for copyright</a>.</p></li>\n<li><p>Release date: Copyright only protects creative works. Historical factual information is not eligible for copyright. (Indeed, imagine the robust censorship possibilities if I could somehow enforce <em>copyright protection</em> on <em>public facts about myself</em>.)</p></li>\n<li><p>MPAA rating: While the decision-making process that goes into assigning a rating probably requires a modicum of creativity, a single letter or two simply isn't eligible for copyright under any circumstances. Again, this appears to be a matter of historical fact, i.e., the MPAA historically did assign such-and-such rating to this movie. (The brief descriptions about why a rating is assigned, like \"some violence\" are likewise ineligible for copyright; the link above about titles also applies to short phrases.) If MPAA ratings were comprehensive documents that explained the rationale behind each rating, such a document would be protected by copyright, but a simple rating score is not.</p></li>\n<li><p>Similar works: If <em>you</em> compiled the mapping of related works, this certainly can't be fair use because <em>you yourself</em> are the copyright holder! You certainly have no need to defend the use of your own work. This mapping is a \"complilation\" and is protected by copyright. From <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101\" rel=\"nofollow\">17 U.S.C. §101</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>As long as the complication was created using creative direction, it qualifies for copyright. This means, of course, that if you did <em>not</em> make this compilation yourself, you'd need permission from the author who did. It's very unlikely that using someone else's compilation in this wholesale, non-transformative way would be defensible under fair use.</p></li>\n</ol>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright", "internet", "fair-use", "intellectual-property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3545, "body": "<p>The debtholder is the person or entity that is owed the money. When you owe someone or something money you are the debtor.</p>\n\n<p>A debtholder holds the note or other instrument that identifies the terms of the debt. That note is an asset that, as you point out, can be traded on the market. The debtor owes the holder of the note according to its terms.</p>\n\n<p>As a debtor you have no say, unless specified in the note, who can own that note.</p>\n\n<p>One method of changing the holder of a debt would be to re-finance from another lender. Find a lender who is willing to lend you the money to pay off the current debt and then become a holder of the \"new\" debt. This assumes the current debt can be settled early; again, something that would be specified in the terms of the current debt.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 3569, "body": "<p>You owe A money.</p>\n\n<p>Borrow money from B to pay A. </p>\n\n<p>Now you owe B money. </p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "contract-law", "commerce" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3566, "body": "<p><em>Disclaimer: This answer is from a general point of view, not specific to the United States.</em></p>\n\n<p>This is essentially a contractual dispute: Your have entered into a contract with the landlord, which states that</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>you pay the landlord a monthly rent, and in exchange</li>\n<li>the landlord lets you live in the appartment you rented, and maintains it in reasonable condition</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>You think that the landlord is not keeping up their side of the deal by neglecting maintenance.</p>\n\n<p>In general, you must establish:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>that the landlord indeed owes you what you are expecting</li>\n<li>that they did not provide it to you in a timely manner after you requested it</li>\n</ol>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>To clear up the first point you must establish what exactly the landlord is required to provide - this can be either explicitly in the contract or implicit due to local law or general consensus. This highly depends on the nature of your contract, and on local law and customs.</p>\n\n<p>To clear up the second point, you must establish that you explicitly told the landlord about the problems and asked for a solution, and that the landlord did not address the problems. Again, exact requirements, timeframes etc. vary a lot, but in general you should demand changes in writing, document them and explicitly specify reasonable time limits for the landlord.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p><strong>TL;DR:</strong></p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>find out whether what you expect is covered by your contract or local law / customs</li>\n<li>ask your landlord in writing to fix it, and set a time limit</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>If that fails, you can probably sue, and/or unilaterally cancel your contract.\nAgain, details will vary with jurisdiction.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 3584, "body": "<p>You might be the victim of a <strong><em><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_eviction\" rel=\"nofollow\">constructive eviction</a></em></strong> which might release you from your obligations under the lease.</p>\n\n<p>Consult an attorney.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "rent", "breaking-the-lease", "michigan" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3576, "body": "<p>If the manager of the shop is an employee of the franchisee, then they would not be likely to be personally liable if the damage occurred in the course of performing their duties, even if it was not related to the specific work being performed on the vehicle. </p>\n\n<p>For instance, consider the situation where engine work is requested, but as a result of some object falling from a height, some panel damage occurs. As long as the manager did not maliciously drop the object, the employer would be vicariously liable for the employee's actions.</p>\n\n<p>Let's turn to the franchisee-franchisor relationship - while it is legally more like an independent contractor relationship, it is both <em>symbiotic and interdependent</em>, and <em>legally independent</em>.¹</p>\n\n<p>What would be considered is the actual franchising contract, as well as the substance of the relationship. In unusual cases, a franchisor may be liable for franchisees who act as the agent for them.²</p>\n\n<p>Where a franchisor is considered an employer of the franchisee, then the franchisor can be held vicariously liable.³</p>\n\n<p>Additionally, US case law shows a number of instances where the franchisors have been held liable for negligence in selecting franchisees, maintaining standards, franchise unit design, food safety, and security.⁴</p>\n\n<p>In the US, the <em>Restatement (Second) of Agency</em> <strong>extent of control</strong> test imposes vicarious liability on a franchisor that controls (or has the right to control) the day-to-day operations of the franchisee.⁵</p>\n\n<p>Therefore, a court would request a lot more information pertaining to the particulars of a situation, in order to arrive at a judgement on such a matter.</p>\n\n<p>This information was synthesised from <em>Franchisor Liability for Franchisee Conduct</em>, (2013) Andrew Terry and Joseph Huan, <em>Monash Law Review</em> pp.388-410, page references below. You probably don't need to read all of it, as most of the important information is introduced in the first dozen pages.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>^{\n1. p. 390<br>\n2. p. 390<br>\n3. p. 390<br>\n4. p. 392<br>\n5. p. 394<br>\n}</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "liability", "nevada" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3587, "body": "<p>No; only 23 states <em>require</em> their congressional districts to be contiguous.</p>\n\n<p>See <a href=\"https://books.google.com/books?id=VYICdjpivIQC&amp;lpg=PA24&amp;ots=lti9Hoc9xm&amp;dq=%2223%20states%22%20contiguous%20district&amp;pg=PA24#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false\"><em>Reapportionment and Redistricting in the West</em> by Gary F. Moncrief</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Only 23 states have [contiguity] requirements for their congressional districts, although as a practical matter most congressional districts will be contiguous; the relative dearth of legal limits is a manifestation of the fact that few states have provided any express legal constraints on congressional districting at all.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>But that's not to say more states don't have contiguous districts. On <a href=\"http://redistricting.lls.edu/where-state.php#contiguity\">Profesor Justin Levitt's website</a>, he observes that:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Many states require contiguity only \"to the extent possible,\" and\n courts generally accept anomalies that otherwise seem reasonable in\n context.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I am having a difficult time finding a list of states with such requirements; I will update if I find it.</p>\n", "score": 11 } ]

[ "united-states" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3586, "body": "<p>Yes, acceleration clauses in residential leases have been enforced by Texas courts. However, whether the acceleration clause quoted in your question will be enforced is an issue of fact for which there can be no definitive answer at this time.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Acceleration Clauses are Valid in Texas</strong></p>\n\n<p>Acceleration clauses have been recognized as valid by Texas courts. </p>\n\n<p>In <em>Rem Servs. v. Zaheer</em>, a Texas Court of Appeals upheld a judgment by the trial court \"award[ing] the landlord $24,000 in damages, representing the four months of accelerated rents on his breach of contract claim.\" </p>\n\n<p><em>See <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11661125762953535649&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr\" rel=\"nofollow\">Rem Servs., Inc. v. Zaheer</em>, No. 14-12-00724-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 4, 2013).</a></p>\n\n<p>Also, in <em>Williams v. Colthurst</em>, the court implied that the damages given by the trial court included an accelerated rent provision: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Additionally, the trial court had previously determined that the\n tenants owed unpaid rent and late fees of $8,850. The lease provided\n that the landlords could deduct unpaid or accelerated rent and late\n fees from the security deposit.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Unfortunately I couldn't find the trial court opinion to ensure that accelerated rent was included in the $8,850.</p>\n\n<p><em>See <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7087997441673370975&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,33\" rel=\"nofollow\">Williams v. Colthurst</em>, 253 S.W.3d 353 (Tex. App. 2008)</a>.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Limitations on Acceleration Clauses</strong></p>\n\n<p>There are several sections of the Texas Property Code that may mitigate the use of an acceleration clause.</p>\n\n<p>First, a landlord cannot charge a tenant a fee for failure to pay rent unless the fee is a <strong><em>reasonable estimate of uncertain damages</em></strong> to the landlord that are incapable of precise calculation and result from late payment of rent.\" See <a href=\"http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PR/htm/PR.92.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">§ 92.019(a)(2) of the Texas Property Code</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>(a) A landlord may not charge a tenant a late fee for failing to pay\n rent unless:</p>\n \n <p>(1) notice of the fee is included in a written lease;</p>\n \n <p>(2) the fee is a reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to the\n landlord that are incapable of precise calculation and result from\n late payment of rent; and</p>\n \n <p>(3) the rent has remained unpaid one full day after the date the rent\n was originally due.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Further, landlords have a duty to mitigate damages. See <a href=\"http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PR/htm/PR.92.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">§ 91.006 of the Texas Property Code</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>(a) A landlord has a duty to mitigate damages if a tenant abandons\n the leased premises in violation of the lease. </p>\n \n <p>(b) A provision of a\n lease that purports to waive a right or to exempt a landlord from a\n liability or duty under this section is void.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This duty requires that the landlord use \"objectively reasonable efforts to re-lease the premises when the tenant vacates in breach of the lease.\" <em>See <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11661125762953535649&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr\" rel=\"nofollow\">Rem Servs., Inc. v. Zaheer</em></a> (citing <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9992418660521179386\" rel=\"nofollow\"><em>Austin Hill County Realty, Inc. v. Palisades Plaza, Inc.</em>, 948 S.W.2d 293 (Tex. 1997)</a>; <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14445119771059181156\" rel=\"nofollow\"><em>White v. Harrison</em>, 390 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. App. 2012)</a>).</p>\n\n<p>But it's important to note that the tenant bears the burden of proving both that the landlord did not mitigate his damages and the amount by which the landlord could have mitigated his damages. This is likely a difficult burden. In <em>Rem Servs. v. Zaheer</em>, the court decided that the landlord did not breach his duty to mitigate even though he did not list the property for rent during the four months remaining on the lease.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer</strong></p>\n\n<p>This was the only case and statutory law on point that I found; I may have missed some. If you are referencing a real lease, I recommend that you discuss this matter with a real estate lawyer licensed to practice law in Texas.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "residential-lease", "texas", "real-estate", "taa" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3456, "body": "<p>The victim of domestic violence is referred to as the complaining witness. Domestic violence arrests will result in a criminal investigation. It is not up to the complaining witness to determine if charges are brought against the one who was arrested - this is up to the prosecutor.</p>\n\n<p>Here is a good <a href=\"http://family.findlaw.com/domestic-violence/can-the-victim-drop-domestic-violence-charges.html\">article at Findlaw</a> that discusses the process.</p>\n\n<p>If the complaining witness recants, the prosecutor may decide to drop the charges. The prosecutor may, though, decide to continue the charges and prosecute the case. The complaining witness in recanting may face charges as well - for example, for making a false police report.</p>\n\n<p>If the prosecutor presses the case and your husband is convicted then, yes, it will be on his record.</p>\n\n<p>Seeking the advice of a New York attorney who specializes in these matters is the best course of action.</p>\n\n<p><strong>EDIT:</strong> Here is additional information regarding New York Criminal History Records:</p>\n\n<p>New York State law does specify that, unless the court orders otherwise, arrest records are sealed when criminal actions are terminated in favor of the accused - dismissed, found not guilty, etc. This is spelled out in <a href=\"http://law.onecle.com/new-york/criminal-procedure/CPL0160.50_160.50.html\">Criminal Procedure Law 160.50</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Arrest records are part of the public record until disposition of the case is completed.</p>\n\n<p>At <a href=\"http://www.nycourts.gov/APPS/chrs/index.shtml\">New York State's Court web site</a>, you can read about how to get criminal records of anyone - they are public record so anyone can make a request about anyone. There is a fee of $65. Records can be ordered online and the results can be emailed to you. Searches are processed by an exact match of name and date of birth.</p>\n\n<p>From their web site you will see that criminal cases transferred or removed to Family Court are not reported. Neither are records for people who had a single misdemeanor conviction over ten years ago or pending criminal cases categorized as Youthful Offender Eligible.</p>\n\n<p>Generally speaking, New York criminal cases are part of the public record and are available to anyone unless they meet certain criteria or have been sealed under New York State law.</p>\n\n<p>Note that sealing records doesn't mean the record goes away. It just means that the record is not available to the general public without a court order unsealing the record.</p>\n\n<p>Here is the link to on-line direct access to records requests: <a href=\"http://www.nycourts.gov/APPS/chrs/onlinedirectaccess.shtml\">http://www.nycourts.gov/APPS/chrs/onlinedirectaccess.shtml</a></p>\n", "score": 31 }, { "answer_id": 3459, "body": "<p>Yes he can still have a record if he is convicted and yes, they can still go forward if the victim asks to withdraw the complaint. The victim to a crime (any crime, DV especially) can be subpoenaed to testify even if they don't want to. And you're under oath in the event of a trial, subject to the penalties of perjury. You also cannot mislead the police or DA's investigators in their investigation. </p>\n\n<p>To this extent, the State takes the place of the victim in all criminal matters. That is why you see \"State v. John Doe\", not \"Jane v. John Doe\", in <em>all</em> criminal matters.</p>\n\n<p>This is a very typical question by women who are the victims of domestic abuse. They often want it to stop at the moment but then feel bad, or feel he will change, or feel guilty, so they try to \"drop the charges\" only to find out that they aren't the ones who've filed the charges in the first place. @Dave D is right in that you are merely the victim (complaining) witness.</p>\n\n<p>In some states, they will do as the victim asks of them if the batterer submits to anti-domestic violence/anger management counseling. In other states they move forward no matter what, and I have even seen them threaten a woman who said she wouldn't testify with false reporting . (This is an awful thing to put an already fragile, emotionally and physically abused women through, but it has happened).</p>\n\n<p>A battered woman does have the ability to drop any restraining order, but if he's arrested there is one in place as part of the terms of release anyway, and only a court can amend it.</p>\n\n<p>The state has a duty to protect the public (his future victims, as well as the current one) from criminal behavior by seeking a conviction if the facts justify it. Also, with the advent of the battered women's defense to homicide of their batterer, they often feel duty bound to pursue these cases.</p>\n\n<p>When a victim asks the case be dropped, it will almost always depend on the severity. If you had a tiny mark on your arm and called the police because you were scared then there is a chance they'd drop it. In cases of severe injury or Felony Domestic Violence, no way.</p>\n", "score": 20 }, { "answer_id": 3491, "body": "<p>YES! <strong><em>Everything</em></strong> against you an be dug up nowadays no matter how long ago and even if charges were dismissed. I was falsely accused of DV by a former live-in girlfriend, the charges were dropped in a hearing, but a dozen years later a detective investigating me after defamation by an ex-step-daughter brought it up as a factor in perceptions of me.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "assault", "new-york-city", "criminal-record" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3568, "body": "<p>It depends, but a caller could certainly hit record when the computer answers and as soon as a person gets on the line say, \"I am recording this call.\"</p>\n\n<p>In other words:</p>\n\n<p>\"Hello this is Comcast, can I have your account number?\"</p>\n\n<p>\"I am recording this call my account number is blah blah.\"</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "criminal-law", "business", "consumer-protection", "civil-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 117, "body": "<p>I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this law; rather, I think this question shows a misconception of the way the legal system works in general.</p>\n\n<p>Here's the question: do you actually have \"legally privileged\" material on your phone? If not, what's keeping you from claiming that is that it's not true, and lying to a police officer is a bad idea.</p>\n\n<p>And just putting a letter from your lawyer on the phone doesn't mean you've established a legal privilege--attorney-client privilege is not a magic spell, it's a reasonable system of protection that only covers certain communications.</p>\n\n<p>The bottom line is: the statute in general, and that clause in particular, were included in the law to protect real, important, and substantial legal right. The courts interpret the law in light of that purpose. If the police officer finds a solution that protects your rights while still carrying out the purpose of the statute, the court will be unlikely to fault him or her. In this case, if you tell the officer that there is a letter from your attorney in a particular folder, the obvious solution is for the officer not to open that folder. Problem solved.</p>\n\n<p>In practice, in the United States at least, these cases are dealt with routinely; computers are seized, and attorneys and judges work together to ensure that privilege is protected while still allowing reasonable access to seized materials. I would imagine the same is true in the U.K.</p>\n\n<p>The bottom line is: the law is not a game, and technical \"gotchas\" are rarely effective. Common law systems allow judges enough leeway to avoid this sort of pointless technicality.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 3562, "body": "<p>I am not very familiar with UK statutory law, however I read the the statute a bit differently. The operative terms are <em>reasonable grounds for believing to be subject to legal privilege</em>. </p>\n\n<p>Reasonable grounds does not mean that the perpetrator says there are privileged materials on the phone. It means independent grounds, like finding a letter with the letterhead of a lawyer; if a constable see's this letterhead and they are seizing all documents from a premises, that would need to be left behind. Even in the event the constable believes there are, for instance, emails that are privileged on the phone, but also has reasonable grounds to believe the phone contains crucial evidence, they can just not seize the privileged materials. </p>\n\n<p>So, sticking with the attorney-client privilege for the purposes of the answer (despite there being others), the constable would not be able to view those communications, but would be able to view, say photographs, if there was information that there were photographs of stolen goods or a drug lab on the phone. Seizure of a thing can occur without seizure of the entire thing.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

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

[ { "answer_id": 3558, "body": "<h3>It's not theft, but the donee (recipient) generally is not entitled to keep the ring.</h3>\n\n<p>A number of states - not all - have so-called \"Heart Balm\" Laws, which abolish the ability to sue for a breach of a promise to marry. New York State is one of them.</p>\n\n<p>However, this does not bar actions for recovery of a chattel, money, or securities transferred in contemplation of marriage - including wedding rings.</p>\n\n<p>Consider <em>Mancuso v Russo</em>, 132 AD2d 533 [2nd Dept 1987]. In this case, the plaintiff entered a claim to recover a gift of real property conditional upon subsequent marriage. The Court, and the appeals court, entered judgement in favor of the plaintiff.</p>\n\n<p>The relevant law is found in N.Y. CVR. LAW § 80-b: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>NY Code - Section 80-B: Nothing in this article contained shall be construed to bar a right of action for the recovery of a chattel, the return of money or securities, or the value thereof at the time of such transfer, or the rescission of a deed to real property when the sole consideration for the transfer of the chattel, money or securities or real property was a contemplated marriage which has not occurred, and the court may, if in its discretion justice so requires, (1) award the defendant a lien upon the chattel, securities or real property for monies expended in connection therewith or improvements made thereto, (2) deny judgment for the recovery of the chattel or securities or for rescission of the deed and award money damages in lieu thereof</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>A search for <strong>Civil Rights Law § 80-b</strong> returns many more cases where claims for (primarily) engagement rings are disputed.</p>\n", "score": 8 } ]

[ "theft", "new-york-city" ]

[ { "answer_id": 224, "body": "<p>Huge difference between a car and a house. For example, <a href=\"http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/supreme-court-pennsylvania-cops-no-longer-need-a-warrant-to/article_6a407fc6-d077-11e3-8025-0017a43b2370.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">at least in Pennsylvania no warrant is required to search a vehicle on public roads</a>. In other states there are <a href=\"http://www.arechigo-stokka.com/warrantless-vehicle-searches/\" rel=\"nofollow\">so many easy pretexts</a> that you practically have little protection from a <em>full</em> vehicle search (although the pretext will have to withstand strict scrutiny if evidence found in a search is used to charge you with a crime).</p>\n\n<p>Your house, on the other hand, still enjoys very strong fourth-amendment protections: One of my favorite U.S. Supreme Court cases on the subject is <em><a href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_5426.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">Florida v. Jardines</a></em>, in which SCOTUS ruled that even approaching the front door with a drug-sniffing dog without a warrant constituted an illegal search. (The majority opinion is worth reading for its illumination of current law on this question.)</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 3557, "body": "<p>Depends on what you mean by \"perimeter search\". Police can, for example, walk around the perimeter of a car or house if they have permission or the right to walk where they're walking (e.g, in your next-door neighbors' yard) If, while walking, they see evidence in your yard that you committed a crime, they can walk over and seize it (see <a href=\"http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/Law%20Enforcement%20Materials/Plain%20View%20Doctrine.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/Law%20Enforcement%20Materials/Plain%20View%20Doctrine.pdf</a> for more info on the plain view doctrine)</p>\n\n<p>If a K9 is lawfully walking with them, and the dog smells evidence of illegal activity on your property, the police can legally act on the dog's alert.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "search-and-seizure", "fourth-amendment", "perimeter-search" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3553, "body": "<p>Different states vary on all of this stuff but many times the roadside breathalyzer is given to establish probable cause to arrest a driver. After that the driver is given another test on a computer-connected breath tester at the station (or wherever). It's these big testers that are usually used as the evidence and are the ones which are at the center of controversy in various states.</p>\n\n<p>As @Dale M stated, for roadside tests the officer can write the results in a notebook, some breathalyzers have printers, and other are connected to a computer. Whatever the case, there is usually a process that officers go through to ensure this stuff is accurate and complete. A lot of it is departmental policy and would only be revealed if challenged in court or perhaps via an open data request. But again, this record is to show probable cause for the arrest and the trip to the bigger badder test which is fully computerized and documented and witnessed. (In at least one state (NC) you have the right to have a witness present when you are tested.)</p>\n\n<p>EDIT: Oh, and if your plan is to challenge probable cause because the record-keeping on the roadside breathalyzer is mediocre, the cop can cite all sorts of other probable cause, like he saw you swerving, you were slurring your speech, he smelled alcohol, you failed the in-car test, and you failed the roadside walking, touching, dancing, singing test.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "california", "police", "evidence" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3415, "body": "<p>Statutes of limitations (hereinafter \"SOL\") vary from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction. If it is only one-year in New York (I've not confirmed this) that would not be surprising. SOLs exist for all civil matters and nearly all criminal matters. </p>\n\n<p>I'd just like to point out that your question is not really limited to defamation or to the time frame for which the specific SOL runs for libel/slander ... at least as I've read it. It seems you are asking the broader question pertaining to what the philosophical or practical purpose(s) for SOLs in general are, as well as what effect these limits can have on the ability of a would-be claimant/plaintiff to get relief through the courts. </p>\n\n<p>So, to answer whether a person who believes they've been defamed can still bring a cause of action after the SOL has passed: the short answer is <em>no</em>. </p>\n\n<p>But, that is only the short answer. SOL is an affirmative defense, meaning that it can only be asserted if it is pled in the answer to a complaint. So, if John Doe feels he's been defamed by a libelous statement in the Times, and he files suit 4 years after the statement was made (and the SOL is 1 year), the court will still accept the filing of the complaint and Times must still be served. You do not lose the right to file your claim, when the SOL has passed, which is a very common misconception of the law. And, Times <em>must</em> still file an Answer to avoid defaulting. However, in that answer Times (no doubt by and through qualified counsel) will most likely assert a variety of affirmative defenses <em>pro forma</em>, which will include the passage of SOL (the claim is stale). If, in fact, the SOL has passed and the affirmative defense is pled, the next thing the Times will do is file a motion to dismiss. The judge will view the complaint in a light most favorable to Doe, the plaintiff, which will lay out all the facts (including <em>when</em> the libelous statement was published). If the cause of action accrued (this just means when the injury was sustained) and the claim was not filed prior to the expiration of the SOL, Doe's case will be dismissed. If the Times does not assert SOL though, it is deemed to have been waived for that and any subsequent related proceedings.</p>\n\n<p>There <em>are</em> ways to toll (extend) the statute of limitations. There is a <strong>discovery rule</strong> (this does not mean Doe didn't read it until after the SOL, even though he was able to). It means that the SOL can be tolled in cases where one <em>could not</em> have discovered the tort occurred. In these instances, the SOL doesn't begin to run until the discovery was either made or should have been made. </p>\n\n<p>This is most typically seen in medical malpractice cases (e.g., a surgeon leaves a sponge or instrument in your abdomen, and after years of failed treatments for IBS your doc sends you for an x-ray and an MRI and it's discovered) or in asbestos cases (you don't know you breathed it until you have asbestosis) &ndash; those types of scenarios. In cases like that, the SOL begins to run when you find out the tort occurred. This has also been successful in recovered memory cases where childhood sexual abuse occurred but was suppressed. </p>\n\n<p><strong>Incapacitation</strong> is another way the SOL can be tolled. So, in Doe's libel case, the SOL can be tolled if he is incapacitated (in a coma and didn't wake for 4 years, in a mental hospital in a break from reality for 5 years) &ndash; in such circumstances you can still file a claim and have it survive a motion to dismiss based on SOL once you are rehabilitated.</p>\n\n<p>Also, Absence due to military service is reason to toll in some jurisdictions. </p>\n\n<p>Lastly, (at least the last one I can recall) is that minors can often toll the SOL however long the statute is (say 1 year) after they turn 18.</p>\n\n<p>As for why there are SOLs: That is more public policy than anything else. It is one of the oldest rules of law known to modern man, dating back all the way to early Greek and Roman law.</p>\n\n<p>Statutes of limitations are a fundamental part of EU and US law, as well as most other modern legal systems. They function to prevent fraudulent and stale claims from arising after all evidence has been lost or after the facts have become dubious and unclear due to the progression of time, which can lead to lost or uncertain memories, death of witnesses (for each side), or disappearance/inability to locate witnesses.</p>\n\n<p>The policies behind SOLs are also for judicial economy and to protect defendants from having a never-ending potential suit looming over them. Often, the seriousness of the crime or the tort, or some element of it, dictates the time frame of the SOL. It is a means to ensure that plaintiffs pursue their claims with reasonable diligence: I.e., if it matters to you, file it. Also, as I touched on above, time disadvantages defendants. Plaintiffs are the \"injured\" party, so they tend to retain evidence much longer than a defendant, who might not even realize he has done wrong &ndash; especially in civil matters. </p>\n\n<p>So, in a libel case, the whole basis of the claim is the irreparable damage to your reputation. If more than a year has passed and you didn't know about it, one could assume the damage never rose to the level of having sufficed to make a valid claim in the first place. That is why they run fast in those cases.</p>\n\n<p>They run fast in medical malpractice claims too, but this is a result of tort reform &ndash; the public policy that litigation against doctors/hospitals causes increased health care costs for everyone. So, policy suggests it's best for society to dispose of these claims quickly (not so much if you're the plaintiff). Whereas most regular negligence claims can have SOLs as long as six years in some jurisdictions where I have practiced. So there are clearly policy determinations going into these legislative acts.</p>\n\n<p>The Golden Rule of Law that I tell all of my clients is this: If you think you have a claim, talk to a lawyer right away, because if you don't you can lose the right to pursue relief, much, much quicker than one may ever imagine!</p>\n\n<p>I know this is a long answer, but I get asked this (type) of question all the time. Plaintiffs feel the SOLs run too fast, while Defendants cannot believe they can still be on the hook!</p>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 3407, "body": "<p>I'm not going to speculate as to what sort of political sausage making leads to any specific statutory duration, but one key requirement of a libel tort is \"injury\". If you can't show an injury (damaged sales, lost job or inability to gain work, social shunning, or extensive effort to deal with press) then you don't have a libel case. See <a href=\"http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">item 4</a></p>\n\n<p>If you don't know you were injured after a set period, how could you show an injury? </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "new-york-state", "libel", "defamation", "statute-of-limitations" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3546, "body": "<p>First off: if someone in DHS is telling you this, your first, best, and really only option is to get advice from an attorney specializing in family law. Regardless of what we tell you here, without representation you will have a hard time with officials who believe otherwise.</p>\n\n<p>That said:</p>\n\n<p>I don't find anything exactly matching what you describe. The Uniform Adoption Code (AR Code § 9-9-200 (2014)) does not specifically address sibling groups at all. Adoptive parents do have rights to streamlined adoption of a sibling of a child they already adopted, under the Streamlined Adoption act (AR Code § 9-9-701 (2014)). </p>\n\n<p>In the section related to Placement of Minors (<a href=\"http://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2014/title-9/subtitle-3/chapter-28/subchapter-1/section-9-28-108\" rel=\"nofollow\">AR Code § 9-28-108 (2014)</a>), however, is likely what the case worker was describing.</p>\n\n<p>Subsection (b) (2) reads, in part:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>(2) When it is in the best interest of each of the juveniles, the\n department shall attempt to place:</p>\n \n <p>(A) A sibling group together while they are in foster care and adoptive placement</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This is discussing foster care and adoptive placement, of course. I think the key wording is <code>When it is in the best interest of each of the juveniles</code>; that would be your argument (that it is not in their best interest).</p>\n\n<p>I see a <a href=\"http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ar-court-of-appeals/1580064.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">2011 case</a>, for example, discussing a sibling group of four children not entirely different from yours; while there are not children with special needs, there is a child with major behavioral issues, and one of the (three) foster parents is considering adopting one of the children and \"would be open\" to considering others, but clearly isn't expecting to be required to do so.</p>\n\n<p>Note:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>I am not a lawyer, and particularly not one specialized in family law</li>\n<li>This is based on my reading of the 2014 Arkansas code. That is almost 2 years old.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>That said, I don't see any news articles or similar discussing limitations in sibling group placement in Arkansas recently, which is the sort of thing that <em>usually</em> would get attention. That said, this has also been something that HHS has been trying to encourage states to push for &ndash; <a href=\"https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/state/?CWIGFunctionsaction=statestatutes:main.getResults\" rel=\"nofollow\">more sibling group placement and awareness of sibling group issues</a> &ndash; so it's entirely possible something could have changed.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "arkansas" ]

[ { "answer_id": 533, "body": "<p>Put simply: the fair housing laws are there to protect the rights of tenants and potential tenants. They limit your negotiating power to the extent you are trying to do something that the law is designed to prevent. There are a lot of laws that could be described as \"fair housing\" laws, so it's hard to be more specific than that in response to this very vague question.</p>\n\n<p>For example: most jurisdictions have laws requiring notice before eviction and prohibiting or limiting self-help evictions--i.e., the landlord changing the locks and throwing your stuff on the street. If you try to make a \"creative\" deal that lets the landlord evict tenants on 24 hours' notice, they will refuse. If you offer to get them all-white tenants, or tell them they don't need to finish the ramp because you won't be renting to any disabled people, they will refuse.</p>\n\n<p>Without more details about the \"creative\" solutions you were suggesting or what laws specifically prohibited them, it's hard to give a more specific answer.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "residential-lease", "fair-housing-acts" ]

[ { "answer_id": 1752, "body": "<p>Legal methods of service in most jurisdictions are:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>hand delivery to the person</li>\n<li>hand delivery to the person's last known address</li>\n<li>post to the person's last known address</li>\n<li>other methods of service where there is evidence of receipt.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>This can all get very technical: for example, a document placed under a company's door is not legally served unless it is <em>entirely</em> under the door or a document served on a Queensland council's offices was not served because it was not served on the <em>CEO</em>. On the other hand, service by Facebook has been held to be legal service because there was evidence the account had been accessed and the document opened.</p>\n\n<p>Email is generally not accepted as legal service without evidence of receipt; this is partly traditional and partly because the way email operates, although generally very reliable, is not foolproof. Technically it is possible for an email to be undeliverable. When that happens the last server sends a response saying this, however, this is also an email and may not itself be delivered.</p>\n\n<p>From what you describe, unless and until the sender gets evidence that the email has reached <em>your</em> account, legally, it hasn't.</p>\n\n<p>Of course, that doesn't help you much when the lights go off because you didn't pay your electricity bill.</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 1753, "body": "<p>I'm going to assume that, in your examples where legal documents and governmental documents are being served via email, you have provided your email to the sender with the understanding that you may receive email from them.</p>\n\n<p>In general, <em>unless the form and method</em> of communication is regulated by a specific law, a court will consider whether or not a reasonable effort has been made.</p>\n\n<p>This may, for instance, consider the importance of the message, and other channels of communication that have been made available to the sender.</p>\n\n<p>If Person B provided no other method of communication, and the email was one at which they have said that they would be contactable, then it is unlikely that a court would find an attempt, even without verifying their email address, to be unsatisfactory.</p>\n\n<p>Compare this with another situation where Person B has provided their email address, postal address, and phone number. While an email might suffice for informational communication, something that requires action would likely require a more exhaustive attempt.</p>\n\n<p>It is likely to be that, if email is offered as a medium for contract offer and acceptance, it occurs when a communication is sent, rather than received. This is consistent with the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_rule\" rel=\"nofollow\">formation of contracts via post</a>. <strong>However</strong>, if email is not offered as a medium for contract acceptance, then acceptance occurs when the email is brought to the recipient's attention, rather than when it is sent. This is a largely untested area of law, with few cases to create precedent. <a href=\"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/eta2000345/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Some jurisdictions have laws that make this explicit.</a></p>\n\n<p>In short:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>If service of a document is expected by email, service is considered to occur and be received when the email is <strong>sent</strong>, regardless of when it is actually received.</li>\n<li>Otherwise, it is considered to be served when it is brought to the recipient's attention.</li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "internet", "business" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3538, "body": "<p>The primary reason for involuntary commitment is that a person poses <strong>a threat to themselves or others</strong>.</p>\n\n<p>This is usually intentionally broad, but can be taken to mean suicidal, delusional or homicidal tendencies, or other personality disorders that make a person a threat.</p>\n\n<p>There are usually provisions for holding a person for a limited period of time in emergency situations - for example, if they have recently attempted to commit suicide.</p>\n\n<p>Each State will have different standards required to have a person involuntarily committed beyond this emergency period. However, in general, if a person is a danger to themselves or others unable to provide for themselves, <em>and</em> will continue to be without assistance, then they will meet the criteria for involuntary commitment.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/State_Standards_Charts_for_Assisted_Treatment_-_Civil_Commitment_Criteria_and_Initiation_Procedures.pdf\">This chart</a> has some elaborated and detailed information, state-by-state.</p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

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

[ { "answer_id": 3537, "body": "<p>From my reading of the bill, and the manner in which it would amend the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the changes do not prevent educational research, but rather, ensures that constraints are in place to prevent the identification of individual students as a result of that research. It also requires a student's parents to consent to such research and/or video monitoring.</p>\n\n<p>The data is required to be aggregated prior to any kind of public release, and this is already common practice in most research programs.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "education", "research", "us-senate" ]

[ { "answer_id": 1662, "body": "<p>There is a legal term for exactly what you describe: \"a real mess\".</p>\n\n<p>Have a look at <a href=\"http://wiki.lawdepot.com/wiki/Quitclaim_Deed_FAQ_-_United_States#Property_Transfers\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://wiki.lawdepot.com/wiki/Quitclaim_Deed_FAQ_-_United_States#Property_Transfers</a></p>\n\n<p><strong>Does Hank have the power to dispute the farm being in the living trust?</strong></p>\n\n<p>Yes, anyone can dispute anything they like, however, it will almost certainly end in court and his prospects of success are OK at best.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Can there be consequences for the attorney who put the farm into the trust despite knowing there was a quit claim deed?</strong></p>\n\n<p>This rather begs the question: was there a quit claim deed? That is, I am not suggesting that there isn't a piece of paper so described but is it actually what it says it is at law? </p>\n\n<p>Given that the answer to these questions is ambiguous; it would be difficult to state that the attorney has done anything that would be actionable.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Is the new quit claim deed inside the trust worthless or is the quit claim deed from circa 2003 worthless?</strong></p>\n\n<p>If they are valid then all they can do is transfer whatever interest Adam had in the land to Hank and Tango respectively. </p>\n\n<p>If the 2003 deed is valid then Hank owns what Adam owned and all the new deed can do is transfer whatever rights remain to him (for example, a right to live there for the rest of his life).</p>\n\n<p>It is important to remember that a quit claim deed does not make any claim that Adam has title to the land - I could give you a quit claim deed over it knowing that I really do not have an interest in it.</p>\n\n<h2>The Land Mines</h2>\n\n<p>Here are some of the legal issues that I can see</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Registration with the country appears to be a prerequisite of a valid quitclaim deed</li>\n<li>A quitclaim deed can only transfer whatever ownership Adam had in the land - it doesn't mean that other people (e.g. Tango) don't also have a claim</li>\n<li>Did Hank/Tango use \"undue influence\" to induce Adam to sign the quitclaim deed?</li>\n<li>Did Hank/Tango give \"valuable consideration\" to Adam?</li>\n<li>Did Adam intend that the documents he signed would be legally binding?</li>\n<li>Did Adam at 87/99 years old respectively have legal capacity to sign the deeds?</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Your friend is going to need professional legal advice and needs to seriously consider the consequences to the family of initiating legal action - no matter who wins; relationships will be changed.</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 1663, "body": "<h1>Short Answer</h1>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>The property belongs to the first to record their deed. In this case, the trust.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You didn't specify this in the question. But I assume the deed was recorded first by the trust because they had an attorney do it.</p>\n<hr>\n<h3>Explanation</h3>\n<p>If you possess a deed, you must record it for it to take effect. The reason for this is to prevent exactly the situation you describe from &quot;clouding&quot; the title. A deed is generally not a deed unless and until it's recorded.</p>\n<hr>\n<h3>Reference</h3>\n<p><a href=\"http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/double-check-that-your-home-deed-was-recorded-or-else.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Read this link</a>. There, it says:</p>\n<p><em>...if your deed is not recorded, there is nothing in the public record to stop the seller from conveying the property to another person.</em></p>\n<hr>\n<h3>Disclaimer</h3>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>I am not an attorney. So don't follow my advice. Or any advice from a stranger on the internet. Hire a real attorney to handle your legal matters and treat this web site and my answer just like it came from one of your drunk friends at a party.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "real-estate" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3517, "body": "<p>A frequent distinction between the two situations is that usually, you buy the actual physical thing (DVD, VHS, CD, book, etc.), but for a purely digital asset, you may be only buying a restricted licence to the asset (on <a href=\"http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/uk/terms.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">iTunes</a>, for example).</p>\n\n<p>In the case where you did buy the digital asset (not simply a restricted licence to it), another difference is that the transfer of a physical item does not implicate the reproduction right¹ that is given exclusively to copyright owners. However, transfer of a digital asset often does implicate that reproduction right. See <a href=\"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2012cv00095/390216/109/0.pdf?ts=1376363388\" rel=\"nofollow\">Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>It is also undisputed that\n Capitol did not approve the reproduction or\n distribution of its copyrighted recordings on\n ReDigi’s website. Thus, if digital music files\n are “reproduce[d]” and “distribute[d]” on\n ReDigi’s website within the meaning of the\n Copyright Act, Capitol’s copyrights have\n been infringed.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>It is a different situation if you transfer the actual medium onto which you downloaded the digital content (<em>ibid.</em>):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Section 109(a) still\n protects a lawful owner’s sale of her\n “particular” phonorecord, be it a computer\n hard disk, iPod, or other memory device\n onto which the file was originally\n downloaded.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<h3>Notes</h3>\n\n<p>^{1. <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106\" rel=\"nofollow\">17 USC §106 (1)</a> \"<em>the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to [...] reproduce the copyrighted work...</em>\"}</p>\n\n<p>^{This answer assumes US jurisdiction, but Canada's Copyright Act is fairly similar to 17 USC and similar holdings have been made in Canada.}</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 3516, "body": "<p>The first sale doctrine only applies to materials you <strong>own</strong>. If you bought and own the digital copy you can give it away or sell it provided you delete your copy - remember copyright prohibits making copies.</p>\n\n<p>However, many works, particularly digital works are licensed, not sold. If you have possession through a license then you do not own the item and the first sale doctrine does not apply.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3493, "body": "<p><strong>It is legal</strong></p>\n\n<p>Because of the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine\">first sale doctrine</a> a person may freely sell a copy that they legitimately own. Copyright preserves the owner's right to make <em>copies</em> - Copy-right; once they have made (or authorised) a copy then the <em>physical</em> embodiment of that copy (record, CD, DVD, book etc.) is personal property and can be bought and sold like any other piece of personal property. The prohibition on copying its contents remains.</p>\n", "score": 27 }, { "answer_id": 3514, "body": "<p>After referring to Dale's fine answer, something about licenses and copying: </p>\n\n<p>You may have purchased an item with a license that allowed certain copies to be made. If you sell the item, the license now applies to the new owner. So unless the license says that you can keep copies even after a sale (which is unlikely with an item that is sold for profit), you will have to either destroy all copies made or hand them over to the new owner. You have no right to those copies anymore. </p>\n\n<p>Also, if you agreed to license terms, then the new owner will have to agree to the exact same license terms. You can't circumvent licensing conditions by doing a resale. Basically, after X used the item for some time and then sells it to Y, the result should be exactly the same as if Y had bought the item in the first place. </p>\n\n<p>To those who think it is horrible that the copyright owner might not get paid: When I buy anything, I look for value for money. The \"value\" includes my ability to recover some money by selling the item used. If I couldn't do that, the item would be worth less to me in the first place, and I wouln't buy it for that price. </p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "copyright", "music" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3512, "body": "<p>In California, you are correct that this is an illegal lottery if you require that customers to purchase something in order to qualify for the drawing. <a href=\"http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/legal_guides/u-2.shtml#\" rel=\"nofollow\">The elements of a lottery are:</a> a prize, distributed by chance, with consideration required to be eligible for the prize (e.g. \"you must make a purchase to be eligible\"). If the store would actually let someone enter without a purchase but represents that paying is necessary or helpful, or treats people who \npaid differently than those who didn't, it isn't a lottery, but is an illegal sweepstakes (<a href=\"http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/legal_guides/u-3.shtml\" rel=\"nofollow\">source</a>). </p>\n\n<p>Running a lottery in California, with the exception of chartable bingo, charitable raffles, and the official state lottery, is a crime. So is running an illegal sweepstakes. It can be reported to the police; the entity with standing to bring a case is the People of the State of California. </p>\n\n<p>As for lawsuits, it is possible that someone who paid to enter could sue under section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, which allows those directly harmed by unlawful business practices to sue. A <a href=\"http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1279149.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">case</a> before a California appellate court found that someone who paid to enter an illegal lottery could sue a payment processor who had actual knowledge that the site was a lottery; I can't find the ultimate result of the lawsuit (and the appeal doesn't cover the website itself), but it at least strongly suggests that someone who paid to enter can have standing to bring a lawsuit. </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "lotteries" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3467, "body": "<p>The protection lies in the fact that these sorts of restrictions are expressed in state laws, and states are Constitutionally forbidden from denying to any citizen the equal protection of the law, or from interfering with religion. </p>\n\n<p>The First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids states from making any law impeding free exercise of religion, or having the effect of establishing a state religion. This means that any law that forbids people of any religious denomination (including atheists) from holding any office (elected or not) under any level of government is unconstitutional. See <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins\">Torcaso v. Watkins</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Moreover, Title VII's protected classes are also (with the exception of sex) suspect classes under the Equal Protection Clause. A state or local government may not pass a law discriminating against a suspect class unless it is a narrowly tailored law which is the least intrusive way to achieve a compelling state interest. In practice, that means a state can't pass a law discriminating on the grounds of national origin, race, or religion. Sex is a quasi-suspect class; government discrimination on the grounds of sex must further an important state interest in a way reasonably related to that interest; again, in practice this will tend to rule out laws saying \"no women can be elected to this post.\"</p>\n\n<p>The Americans with Disabilities Act actually does <em>not</em> exclude elected officials. It defines \"employee\" as \"an individual employed by an employer.\"</p>\n\n<p>The Equal Pay Act doesn't apply to elected officials, but again, sex is a quasi-suspect class.</p>\n\n<p>The Age Discrimination in Employment Act also excludes elected officials, and this is the one case where a state really could discriminate -- the applicable test is whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, which is not an especially high bar. </p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 3466, "body": "<p>Preventing Constitutional violations is not solely the province of the Legislative body; it is the purpose of the Judicial body. No law is necessary to protect a right that is ensconced in the Constitution; the Constitution <em>is</em> that law:</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</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The relevant concept is that of <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States\" rel=\"nofollow\">Judicial Review</a>, and has been a cornerstone of American jurisprudence since nearly the beginning (in 1796, during the Jay court, and again in 1803 in the famous <em>Marbury vs. Madison</em>). Many Supreme Court cases depend on this; any time the Court strikes down a law, this is what they're doing.</p>\n\n<p>Some civil rights are protected by the Constitution itself, or by its Amendments; the 14th amendment, for example, would prohibit a state from passing such a law as above. Congress has the power to enforce this prohibition, per the 5th section of the amendment:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>But that's actually <em>granting</em> Congress that power (since the 10th amendment otherwise limits the power of Congress). Even if Congress does not exercise that power, nonetheless any state that passes a law contrary to this Amendment (or any other) would find that law subject to be struck down by the Courts under judicial review.</p>\n\n<p>Of course, the actions of the Court are the actions of nine men and women, and it is certainly not guaranteed that they will act in a correct manner at any time; referring to the comment about the internment of Japanese citizens. </p>\n\n<p>In the <em>specific</em> case noted - denying Muslims the right to hold office - this would be held up based on First Amendment rights as well as Fourteenth; <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins\" rel=\"nofollow\">Torcaso v Watkins</a> supports that (which struck down a prohibition against atheists holding office, but the reasoning would be the same).</p>\n\n<p>As far as mentally impaired individuals, many states <em>do</em> prohibit them from holding office. I wouldn't be surprised to find, in the (probably not near) future, that this is eventually struck down as well.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "constitutional-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3458, "body": "<p>Elected officials are not \"employees subject to the civil service laws\" unless a state has made <em>extremely</em> odd decisions, and maybe not even then.</p>\n\n<p>The \"civil service,\" as that term is used when talking about government employment, consists of at most those people who work for the government as a career. It generally actually means something even more restricted: civil servants are people protected from arbitrary action or political cronyism. For instance, the Labor Department's Wage and Hour division (interpreting the same type of language) defines it as follows (<a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/553.11\">29 CFR 553.11</a>):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The term “civil service laws” refers to a personnel system established by law which is designed to protect employees from arbitrary action, personal favoritism, and political coercion, and which uses a competitive or merit examination process for selection and placement. Continued tenure of employment of employees under civil service, except for cause, is provided. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Elected officials, in contrast, do not have an expectation of continued employment other than for cause -- they can be voted out for any reason whatsoever.</p>\n", "score": 7 }, { "answer_id": 3460, "body": "<p>Elected county clerks are exempt. Here is a dismissal of a county commissioner complaint by the EEOC stating the reason:</p>\n\n<p><strong>Elected official are specifically excluded from coverage under Title VII</strong></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/iH21D.jpg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/iH21D.jpg\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></a></p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 3471, "body": "<p>County Clerks (this means <em>the Clerk</em> not <em>a clerk</em> working at the Clerk's office, which would be a civil service employee) are always either elected, or they are appointed by elected officials or governmental entities, so they are exempt. See <em>italics</em> portions of definition: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The definition the term \"employee\" to mean: an individual employed by\n an employer, except that the term <em>\"employee\" shall not include any\n person <strong>elected</strong> to public office in any State or political\n subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or <strong>any\n person chosen by such officer to be on such officer’s personal staff,\n or an appointee on the policy making level</strong> or an immediate adviser\n with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of\n the office.</em> </p>\n \n <p>The exemption set forth in the preceding sentence shall not include\n employees subject to the civil service laws of a State government,\n governmental agency or political subdivision. With respect to\n employment in a foreign country, such term includes an individual who\n is a citizen of the United States.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>It doesn't mean they are not protected, it just means they can't file suit under Title VII, which is meant to protect actual employees, not elected or appointed political officials who are acting in political capacities. Such officials can still sue for civil rights violations if they occur during their term, under myriad other laws depending on who violates them and how it occurred and what right was violated. They continue to be protected under the Federal and State Constitutions as a whole.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

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

[ { "answer_id": 3508, "body": "<ol>\n<li>Do the police have to pay to fix your front door?</li>\n<li>If they took a year to analyse a mobile phone, can you claim due to the excessive amount of time it took?</li>\n<li>What if the device is returned broken, or wiped?</li>\n<li>What court costs can you recover?</li>\n<li>Can you recover loss of income?</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>You've asked a few questions; I'll attempt to deal with them all, and I'll refer to each item as I do so.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Damage to property</strong></p>\n\n<p>This could apply to damage to property (items 1 and 3, which are more or less the same thing). The answer? The police may pay damages.</p>\n\n<p>Here's <a href=\"http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/28/police-bungled-house-raids\" rel=\"noreferrer\">a recent example from 2008</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Police in Britain paid out more than half a million pounds last year to repair doors, ceilings and even mantelpiece ornaments smashed in raids that were based on wrong information.<br>\n ...<br>\n The Home Office said that compensation policy was decided at force level but most police authorities draw tight legal lines round repayments. A spokesman for the Gwent force said: \"The critical factor is simply whether forced entry is legal, proportionate and reasonable given the circumstances.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><strong>Items seized as evidence</strong></p>\n\n<p>In general, you are not entitled to compensation for an item that is seized for an extended duration of time (2).</p>\n\n<p>The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) (\"PACE\") <a href=\"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/22\" rel=\"noreferrer\">states</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, anything which has been seized by a constable or taken away by a constable following a requirement made by virtue of section 19 or 20 above may be retained so long as is necessary in all the circumstances.<br>\n (4) Nothing may be retained for either of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above if a photograph or copy would be sufficient for that purpose.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>If it's just the <em>data</em> on your phone they want, then they would be required by PACE to copy it and then return the device.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Legal costs</strong></p>\n\n<p>A successful defendant (4) is entitled to compensation in some cases, including costs incurred for expert witnesses.</p>\n\n<p>Schedule 7, para. 3 of the <a href=\"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/schedule/7/enacted\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012</a> inserts additional provisions to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>(3)Condition A is that the accused is an individual and the order is made under—</p>\n \n <p>(a)section 16(1),</p>\n \n <p>(b)section 16(3), or</p>\n \n <p>(c)section 16(4)(a)(ii) or (iii) or (d).</p>\n \n <p>(4)Condition B is that the accused is an individual and the legal costs were incurred in proceedings in a court below which were—</p>\n \n <p>(a)proceedings in a magistrates’ court, or</p>\n \n <p>(b)proceedings on an appeal to the Crown Court under section 108 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (right of appeal against conviction or sentence).</p>\n \n <p>(5)Condition C is that the legal costs were incurred in proceedings in the Supreme Court.</p>\n \n <p>(10)In this section—</p>\n \n <p>“legal costs” means fees, charges, disbursements and other amounts payable in respect of advocacy services or litigation services including, in particular, expert witness costs;</p>\n \n <p>“advocacy services” means any services which it would be reasonable to expect a person who is exercising, or contemplating exercising, a right of audience in relation to any proceedings, or contemplated proceedings, to provide;</p>\n \n <p>“expert witness costs” means amounts payable in respect of the services of an expert witness, including amounts payable in connection with attendance by the witness at court or elsewhere;</p>\n \n <p>“litigation services” means any services which it would be reasonable to expect a person who is exercising, or contemplating exercising, a right to conduct litigation in relation to proceedings, or contemplated proceedings, to provide.”</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Basically, <a href=\"http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/defence-costs-orders/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">you can include the legal costs noted above</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ul>\n <li>where the accused is an individual and the order is made under section 16(1), 16(3), or section 16(4)(a)(ii) or (iii) or (d) of the POA;</li>\n <li>where the accused is an individual and the legal costs were incurred in proceedings in a court below, which were either proceedings in a Magistrates Court, or proceedings on appeal to the Crown Court under Section 108 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 (right of appeal against conviction or sentence); or</li>\n <li>where the legal costs were incurred in proceedings in the Supreme Court;</li>\n <li>where the accused is an individual and the legal costs were incurred in relevant Crown court proceedings, as defined in POA s6A(11), and the Director of Legal Aid Casework has made a determination of financial ineligibility in relation to the accused and those proceedings (POA s16A(5A)). </li>\n </ul>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><strong>Compensation for loss of employment</strong></p>\n\n<p>Loss of a job in and of itself is not generally grounds for compensation. What if you were arrested for some highly sought-after skill - say, computer vulnerability testing - and were acquitted by means of an affirmative defense? You might end up with a job that pays <em>more</em>. <strong>You are not entitled to any statutory relief.</strong></p>\n\n<p>But, let's say it's something unflattering, and the police continued to broadcast your arrest and charges even though they were aware it was false. There's precedent for aggravated damages, as per <a href=\"http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/645.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 645</a>.</p>\n\n<p>In this case, the Claimant was stopped and searched upon entry to the UK. After being denied entry, the Claimant appealed the decision... the primary judge found that the immigration officers had falsified information pertaining to the Claimant's suitability to enter. Although this was appealed, I haven't been able to find the subsequent ruling; it's possible it was settled outside of court. However, this shows that judgement can - and has - been made against a defendant who causes pecuniary loss through malicious and contumelious conduct.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>I think I've covered everything, but it's hard to be sure. Consider your question into several separate questions in future :)</p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "liability", "police", "search-and-seizure" ]

[ { "answer_id": 1941, "body": "<p>These are some thoughts about the state of affairs in the US, I do not know how it works in the UK.</p>\n\n<p>In the US it seems to be a legal gray area. Gray enough that I do not think any lawyer could say for certain that the use of the data is legal. The data is stolen. If possessing stolen property is illegal then possessing this data is also likely illegal. Of course experts disagree, Stuart Karle, an adjunct media professor at Columbia University and former general counsel for the Wall Street Journal says:</p>\n\n<p>...<em><a href=\"http://fusion.net/story/32988/beware-downloading-the-hacked-sony-pictures-docs-could-bring-the-feds-to-your-door/\" rel=\"nofollow\">the documents have been published by the hackers, they are now public by virtue of being put on the Internet</a>.</em></p>\n\n<p>But Barrett Brown was charged with trafficking in stolen authentication when he forwarded a link to some stolen emails. He signed a plea for acting as an accessory after the fact. <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/prosecution-barrett-brown-still-threatens-journalistic-freedom-us\" rel=\"nofollow\">He spent more than a year in jail</a> while they sorted it out.</p>\n\n<p>In the US there is no law banning the download of hacked documents. In fact <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2171346211086974391&amp;q=Bartnicki%20v.%20Vopper&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2006&amp;as_vis=1\" rel=\"nofollow\">Bartnicki v. Vopper</a> 532 US 514 (2001) stands for the rule that journalists can report on illegally obtained information. But contrast that with the Barret Brown prosecution! And decide where a data scientist fits. Also there is the question of whether an illegally recorded conversation is of the same \"illegal\" nature as hacked personal information.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 3505, "body": "<p>In the UK the documents would be covered by Data Protection laws. If your report is using the data in a commercial context you would have to comply with those rules, and it is hard to see how you could since the subjects of the data have not given permission for you to use it.</p>\n\n<p>If you are an academic or hobbyist the only risk is being sued by the subjects of the data (the site users) if they feel that your analysis has in some way harmed them financially.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "copyright", "united-kingdom", "intellectual-property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3499, "body": "<p>As I suspected, a party to a contract isn't going to interpret it for you, as this could constitute inducement, misrepresentation, or form grounds for a claim of promissory estoppel.</p>\n\n<p>Let's look at the Terms, shall we?</p>\n\n<p>Section 3.2:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>You hereby grant Company an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable license, with rights to sublicense, to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform and create derivative works of the Applications, the Content and the Brand Features and Marks for the sole purpose of allowing the Company to provide the Company Software and the Services to You.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<ul>\n<li>You give the Company a license to your Applications, Content, Brand Features and Marks. (the \"stuff\")</li>\n<li>You can give others a license as well. </li>\n<li>You can't require the Company to pay royalties.</li>\n<li>The Company can transfer the license.</li>\n<li>This license allows sublicensing (this means the company can grant others a license), use, reproduction, modification, performance and the creation of derivative works of the stuff <strong>for the purpose of allowing the company to provide Company Software and Services to You, and for no other reason</strong></li>\n</ul>\n\n<hr>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>For me it is very important that the content I would put into my Firebase database would remain mine and that it would only be used by/accessible to those that I explicitly grant access.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Well, let's look at section 3.1:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>As between the parties and except for the licenses granted by this Agreement, (a) You retain all right, title and interest, including all related intellectual property rights, in and to the Applications, the Content and the Brand Features and Marks and (b) Company retains all right, title, and interest, including all related intellectual property rights, in and to the Company Software. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<ul>\n<li>You keep the rights in and to the Applications, Content, Brand Features and Marks</li>\n<li>The Company keeps all rights in and to the Company Software</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>You're also concerned about use - well, the reason they ask for permission to use it is to avoid a situation where you haven't given them permission to do so, and a Court determines that them \"providing the Services to You\" is a <strong>use</strong>.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>You'll tend to find these, or similar (or more or less favourable) terms on almost any service that allows the sharing or distribution of user uploaded content.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

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

[ { "answer_id": 3496, "body": "<p>This is a general common law answer; specifics in California may differ.</p>\n\n<p>Yes, they are committing the tort of trespass and you could sue them for whatever damage they did to your property; probably nothing.</p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, if you keep the ball, you are committing the tort of detinue (wrongful detention of another person's goods when the owner has requested their return) and they can sue you for whatever damage you have done to them; the cost of a new ball probably.</p>\n\n<p><strong>TL;DR</strong></p>\n\n<p>No, it isn't; give it back.</p>\n", "score": 30 } ]

[ "united-states", "california", "property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 1724, "body": "<p>As Dale M. Suggests, the article did allude to refunding money retroactively. So somebody clearly is thinking about it. QUOTE:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>This would seem to be the end of the line for \"Happy Birthday.\" The filmmaker should prevail; fees collected starting in 2009, within the statute of limitations at the time the suit was filed, should be refunded; and a clear future would be established for public-domain use.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright", "class-action" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3354, "body": "<p>Cities in California and unincorporated areas may require their own licenses and different types of industries require additional licensing, such as a license to sell medical services, food and beverages, insurance, pharmaceuticals, etc. If your social media site does not exist for buying or selling anything that requires a special license then you probably do not need this license to operate your website.</p>\n\n<p>If your business model is to profit through third-party advertisements such as Google Adsense then you may be classified as a commissioned sales agent or a subcontractor and not have to register a company and apply for a business license. If you do decide to register an LLC then you probably do need to obtain a city business license. </p>\n\n<p>An LLC will offer you personal protection from liability, but a lawsuit can still get access to your personal bank account through a process known as \"piercing the corporate veil.\" In order to avoid this, avoid commingling funds from your corporate account with your personal account. In other words, don't withdraw from your corporate account to pay your personal bills. If you do need to withdraw money from the corporate account then document it as either paying yourself a dividend or paying yourself salary.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "california", "licensing", "business" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3481, "body": "<p>This is an Australian perspective; other jurisdictions will differ.</p>\n\n<h2>Patent</h2>\n\n<p>The only IP protection for ideas is if they are patented; embodying the ideas in a tangible form is a pre-requisite for acquiring a patent. You can check if this idea <em>has</em> been patented because if it has then it is a matter of public record.</p>\n\n<h2>Confidential Information</h2>\n\n<p>However, there is another method of protecting ideas; keeping them secret. It is highly likely that the information that you gained as an employee is confidential. You say you signed a non-disclosure agreement; you will be bound by whatever that says. Even if you hadn't, <strong>confidentiality is an implied term of any employment contract</strong>; an explicit term can reduce its coverage or make explicit what is and is not confidential.</p>\n\n<p>For breach of confidence to be established:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>The information must be confidential (it probably is);</li>\n<li>The circumstances of the disclosure to you are such that you know or should know it is confidential (they probably were);</li>\n<li>Your disclosure of the information must be unauthorised (it probably is) and to the detriment of the company (if you make money off it then they could have and that is to their detriment) and you do not have a <em>public interest</em> defence (you don't).</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>Remedies include:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>An injunction to restrain disclosure;</li>\n<li>An accounting of profits (i.e. what you make, they take);</li>\n<li>An order for delivery up or destruction;</li>\n<li>an order for seizing evidence.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>There is no statutory limit on how long you must maintain the confidence; presumably until disclosure will not cause detriment.</p>\n\n<h2>Solutions</h2>\n\n<ol>\n<li>Ask for authorisation: \"Remember that idea we discussed years ago? If you are not doing anything with it do you mind if I have a go?\" You may get a simple \"Sure, go ahead.\" in which case document it (send them an email confirming your conversation) or you may get a \"No\" (that's the risk with this option) or you may get pages and pages of license agreement (deal with that on its merits).</li>\n<li>Do it anyway - they may not sue, if they do they will have a hard time proving that you are using their ideas in the absence of contemporaneous evidence.</li>\n</ol>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "intellectual-property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3468, "body": "<p>At least one court has found that unnecessary surgeries are child abuse.</p>\n\n<p>Quoting from <a href=\"http://rjolpi.richmond.edu/archive/Adler_Formatted.pdf\">Is Circumcision Legal?</a> by Peter W Adler (I recommend this article to you, it goes into common law and Constitutional law around surgeries). I think that we should not be distracted by the definition of abuse adopted by the court (risk of death, impairment of function etc) because even with your caveats about wonderful bionic legs, the replacements are not members of the body. Arguably.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A 2010 Tex as appellate case, <a href=\"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2539488/williamson-v-state/\">Williamson v. State</a> , confirms that any\n unnecessary surgery on children constitutes statutory child abuse. The\n Williamson court held a mother criminally liable for unnecessary\n surgery that caused serious bodily injury to her son, defined in Texas\n as “an injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes\n death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or\n impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” A physician\n testified that unnecessary surgery does not constitute reasonable\n medical care. The court also found a scalpel to meet the\n definition of a “deadly weapon” as it can cause death or serious\n bodily injury. Circumcision, whether male or female, is thus criminal\n child abuse.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "united-states", "child-abuse" ]

[ { "answer_id": 1537, "body": "<h1>Short Answer</h1>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>Chain of custody is a common challenge to the admissibility and weight of evidence.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<h3>Qualification</h3>\n\n<p>This sounds like a real case. Not a hypothetical. The outcome can go either way. It sounds like it's heading for litigation. The result will depend on the facts and legal arguments.</p>\n\n<p>If this is meant to be a hypothetical there are too few facts described to be able to analyze it.</p>\n\n<p>I suggest you hire an attorney and forget about getting the question answered here.</p>\n\n<p>Generally speaking, it's impossible to prove a negative. So on that basis, proving they did not tamper with the data will be a challenge at best. Lawyers can always challenge evidence. And <strong>chain of custody is a common challenge to the admissibility and weight of evidence</strong>.</p>\n", "score": 7 }, { "answer_id": 3463, "body": "<p>Edit - this all assumes civil court, not criminal since the question does not mention cops. </p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>The problem you describe sounds procedural. It does not sound like any spoliation has occurred. Assuming you can get a hash match the fact the computers are \"unsealed\" for a period of time is not going to matter.</p>\n\n<p>But assuming you don't get a hash match, the evidence can still be admitted. The attorney will call the forensic expert who will lay the foundation for the evidence. Stating what it is and where it was found etc. On cross examination the other side can ask about the hash problem but if the expert can establish that the evidence as shown is accurate then the chain of custody might not carry much weight. In other words the evidence will be admitted, it's up to the parties to argue about how to weight it.</p>\n\n<p>It sounds like the concern is that the owner was not present when the hashes were calculated. I don't see what this gets you. It's rare for a party to hang around while forensic engineers do their work. As for whether he wrote down, copied and pasted, or photographed the hashes this doesn't get you much either. The hashes exist to confirm that the working copy is the same as the original forensic image. As I said at the beginning, matching hashes is all that is needed for verification and a photo can be used to support foundation.</p>\n\n<p>If something was promised but not given, the judge might order the thing, but even then what does it get the party here? All that will happen is you'll confirm that nothing was spoliated or that if it was then you can argue about weight. </p>\n\n<p>As for cases, those are going to be hard to find. It's rare that chain of custody impacts the outcome of a case. To the extent that electronic discovery makes it into an order or opinion it's usually the result of a sanctions motion. So start there. But even then the best facts can be found in the motions and pleadings which requires some time on PACER. </p>\n\n<p>If you are going to challenge, make sure the lawyer knows what he or she is doing. You don't want the George Zimmerman Twitter guy. </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "search-and-seizure", "digital-forensics" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3450, "body": "<p>California recognizes the tort of disparagement - a false or misleading statement that (1) specifically refers to the plaintiff's product or business and (2) clearly derogates that product or business. Sue the first guy for this. A summons might shut him up and you can do this in small claims court. <a href=\"http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/small_claims/basic_info.shtml\" rel=\"nofollow\">Here</a> is a sort of intro published by the state of California. </p>\n\n<p>As for the eBay thing, it's eBay... you sort of ask for that kind of fraud and you could try to use the court but you probably weren't really damaged and you'll be wasting the court's time. </p>\n\n<p>Consider this information about as useful as something you might trade for a busted laptop at a swap shop. It's not advice and if it was it would be bad advice. Both wrongheaded and misdirected. </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

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

[ { "answer_id": 3445, "body": "<p>It's illegal in the United Kingdom to supply alcohol to people who are under 18.</p>\n\n<p>Your use of Paypal will <em>assist</em> here, as Paypal have a <a href=\"https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/ua/privacy-full\" rel=\"nofollow\">minimum age limit</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>A Special Note about Children:</strong> Children are not eligible to use PayPal Services and we ask that minors (persons under the age of 18) do not submit any personal information to us or use the PayPal Services.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>However, this does not appear to be sufficient to satisfy <a href=\"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17/section/146\" rel=\"nofollow\">Section 146 of the Licensing Act</a>, because <strong>you</strong> have to take all reasonable steps to establish the purchaser's age, and that means that <strong>you</strong> have to ask for evidence. Note the <strong><em>and</em></strong> at the end of 146(4)(a):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ol start=\"146\">\n <li><p><strong>Sale of alcohol to children</strong></p>\n \n <ol start=\"4\">\n <li><p>Where a person is charged with an offence under this section by reason of his own conduct it is a defence that—<br>\n (a) he believed that the individual was aged 18 or over, and<br>\n (b) either—<br>\n &nbsp; (i) he had taken all reasonable steps to establish the individual’s age, or<br>\n &nbsp; (ii) nobody could reasonably have suspected from the individual’s appearance that he was aged under 18.</p></li>\n <li><p>For the purposes of subsection (4), a person is treated as having taken all reasonable steps to establish an individual’s age if—<br>\n (a) he asked the individual for evidence of his age, and<br>\n (b) the evidence would have convinced a reasonable person.</p></li>\n </ol></li>\n </ol>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>To satisfy this requirement, I believe it will be necessary to ask the purchaser for evidence of age, since that is the reasonable step required by 146(5) and 146(4)(b)(ii) cannot apply to a website.</p>\n\n<p>If you were accepting payments yourself rather than relying on a third party, then evidence of a credit card would probably be sufficient. But a Paypal account can be linked to a debit card, and those are available to under-18s.</p>\n\n<p>Some jurisdictions abroad have a minimum age of 21 for the supply of alcohol, and you will need to decide how to deal with that.</p>\n\n<p>One way to do all of this might be to use the UK Government's <a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/view-driving-licence\" rel=\"nofollow\">driving licence service</a> which allows holders of driving licences to freely generate and give you a code to check their driving licence. [Purchasers generate the code at that link; check it <a href=\"https://www.viewdrivingrecord.service.gov.uk/driving-record/validate\" rel=\"nofollow\">at another point</a>]. Most driving licence categories expire the day before the holder's 70th birthday, so you can work out how old they are. Once you have this proof of age, you could store it so the purchaser only has to go through the hoop once. A scan of photograph of a licence or passport would also suffice.</p>\n\n<p>As WBT has commented, you need the correct licences to supply alcohol in the first place, but you asked specifically about payments.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "business", "liability" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3443, "body": "<p>If the software runs entirely on <em>your</em> server, it is not generally considered to be \"distributed\" (for GPL v2) and is certainly not \"conveyed\" (for GPL v3). That excuses you from all GPL requirements. There is a different license (the Affero GPL) which does apply to use on your own server communicating with others, but that was written precisely because the GPL does <em>not</em> apply. </p>\n\n<p>This is the interpretation adopted by the FSF, who wrote the GPL. See their answer to this question <a href=\"http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#UnreleasedMods\" rel=\"nofollow\">here</a>. </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "gpl" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3361, "body": "<p>A Google search turned up this link:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.municode.com/library/al/millbrook/codes/code_of_ordinances\">https://www.municode.com/library/al/millbrook/codes/code_of_ordinances</a></p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "local-ordinance" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3433, "body": "<p>They are the same thing.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>We turn then to the subject of <strong>apparent or, as it is sometimes called,\n ostensible authority</strong>, essentially the legal wellspring from which,\n absent actual authority... Greene drew the right to hold Hellman for\n the acts of Driscoll.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.leagle.com/decision/198024851NY2d197_1231/GREENE%20v.%20HELLMAN\" rel=\"nofollow\">GREENE v. HELLMAN 51 N.Y.2d 197 (1980)</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>apparent authority is dependent on verbal or other acts by a principal\n which reasonably give an appearance of authority to conduct the\n transaction</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 3438, "body": "<p>As another answer has stated ostensible and apparent authority are the same thing.</p>\n\n<p>A director has ostensible authority to do anything the company is legally able to do by virtue of being a director - this is essentially what a director <em>is</em>. For a company to invalidate an action taken by the director they would need to demonstrate that the other party knew or should reasonably have known that the director did not have the authority.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "new-york-state", "corporate-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3436, "body": "<p>Property tax? No. Every other tax, like sales tax or income tax if you get a job, yes.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

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

[ { "answer_id": 3423, "body": "<p>The NFL can prohibit X from using its trademarks, or markings that would be <a href=\"http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/webaka/html/Likelihood/Likelihood_of_Confusion.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">likely to confuse</a> a reasonable person, in any of X's business marketing. </p>\n\n<p>The NFL's shield wordmark has USPTO registration number 4682232 (deep links aren't allowed, but their search engine is <a href=\"http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&amp;p_lang=english&amp;p_d=trmk\" rel=\"nofollow\">here</a>.) The images you've added don't seem alike enough to be confusing to me (I don't think I'd be mistaking one for the other), but in a lot of settings the app name will have only text, not an image. Then you get at the trademark issue for the term \"NFL\" itself. </p>\n\n<p>NFL can trademark that three-letter sequence, and there are good reasons for them being able to keep control of that trademark to authenticate sourcing. For example, if I said \"this hamburger is from McDonalds\" you have certain expectations about it based on the brand, and McDonalds the company has a legally protected interest in preventing me from saying that if it wasn't true. I have no right to put that 9-letter sequence on my burger joint without a license from the corporate giant. </p>\n\n<p>Similarly, The NFL has a legally protected interest in preventing somebody from advertising or implying that an information source or the information contained therein is licensed and/or an official source of information, if that's not true. A reasonable person might expect that an information source about NFL player injuries, with \"NFL\" in its name, would be an official licensed source of that information; the real NFL can seek an injunction and/or penalties if that's not actually the case. \"Pro Football Player Injury Tracker\" might not carry the same expectation. </p>\n\n<p>At the bottom of <a href=\"http://www.nfl.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\">NFL.com</a>, they claim, emphasis added, that \"<strong>NFL and</strong> the NFL shield design are registered trademarks of the National Football League.\" So they have put folks on notice they intend to defend that three-letter sequence as theirs, at least for all subjects related to professional American football. </p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.ehow.com/list_6647869_nfl-super-bowl-trademark-regulations.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">Sean Mullin says</a> \"The NFL is notorious for guarding its intellectual property rights to the full extent of the law.\" X should probably spend some time with an IP lawyer. </p>\n\n<p>If you're asking if it's <em>possible</em> for X to legally use the NFL's trademark, the short answer is <strong>yes</strong>. It is possible for X to license use of the trademark from the NFL so long as the NFL is willing to grant/sell the license on terms that X also agrees to.</p>\n\n<p>See <a href=\"https://www.nfl.info/NFLConsProd/Welcome/cpAgreement.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">this prequalification page</a> linked to from <a href=\"http://www.legalteamusa.net/tacticalip/2013/10/25/the-nfl-and-trademarks/\" rel=\"nofollow\">this law firm's website</a>, or click \"Become a Licensee\" <a href=\"https://www.nfl.info/NFLConsProd/Welcome/index.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">here</a> to see that in context. </p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 3432, "body": "<p>It seems to me that <strong>NFL</strong> Injury Tracker might fall under the same use as the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playboy_Enterprises,_Inc._v._Welles\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Playboy case</a>.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Court held that nominative use (a type of fair use for discussing\nthe product itself) is permitted where:</p>\n<p>The product or service can not be readily identified without using the\ntrademark (i.e. trademark is descriptive of a person, place, or\nproduct attribute);</p>\n<p>Only so much of the mark may be used as is reasonably necessary for\nidentification (e.g. the words may be reasonably used but not the\nspecific font or logo); and</p>\n<p>The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the\ntrademark holder - which applies even if the nominative use is\ncommercial.</p>\n<p>Here, the Ninth Circuit Court applied the nominative fair use test to\nthe defendant and concluded the Defendant’s use of these trademarked\nitems was permissible because there was <strong>no other practical way for the\nDefendant to describe herself</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If someone is tracking injuries in the NFL, I hope a court would find that there is no other practical way to describe the data source than to refer to the NFL. I would think that they should <strong>not</strong> use the logo at all as this fails the &quot;only so much of the mark may be used&quot; test.</p>\n<p>As for number three, confusion was addressed by another answer.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "trademark" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3416, "body": "<p>I don't believe there's a worldwide scheme here, you're likely going to have to negotiate this on a per-country basis at the very least. Talking about the UK specifically, there is a scheme run by the Performing Rights Society where you buy a license to play music in public places: <a href=\"https://www.prsformusic.com/USERS/BUSINESSESANDLIVEEVENTS/MUSICFORBUSINESSES/Pages/default.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://www.prsformusic.com/USERS/BUSINESSESANDLIVEEVENTS/MUSICFORBUSINESSES/Pages/default.aspx</a>. I assume other countries have similar schemes.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "licensing", "commerce", "music" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3413, "body": "<p>Good news, anybody can be a registered copyright agent, even you! You just have to have an easy way to reach you, including email and phone, and enough time to actually respond to take-down requests expeditiously.</p>\n\n<p>Just make sure to make up your mind once and for all before submitting the request, because editing a registration costs as much as a new registration.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3409, "body": "<p>There is no copyright in a word or short phrase because it lacks the necessary creativity to be considered a \"literary work\".</p>\n\n<p>The concept that could apply is a <a href=\"http://www.wipo.int/trademarks/en/about_trademarks.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">trademark</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Trademarks must be registered and ...</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>the application must also contain a list of goods or services to which the sign would apply.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Anyone can use a trademark to promote goods or services in a field for which it is not registered and can seek registration in that different field (which the original holder would object to, probably successfully). Remedies for infringement can include an injunction and damages <em>or</em> an account of profits.</p>\n\n<p>In addition, unregistered trademarks (and registered ones too) may be protected by the common law remedy of the tort of <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off\" rel=\"nofollow\">passing off</a> which requires the plaintiff to prove:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>they have reputation or goodwill in the trademark </li>\n<li>the defendant has misrepresented such that the public is liable to believe that the goods and services offered are offered by the plaintiff</li>\n<li>the defendant's conduct has or is likely to result in damage to the plaintiff</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>Remedies are the same as for trademark infringement but the plaintiff has more to prove.</p>\n\n<p>In addition, in some jurisdictions (e.g. Australia) there may be statutory prohibitions on \"misleading and deceptive conduct\" which are available to both the offended party and the state. </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright", "trademark", "name", "branding" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3405, "body": "<p>I am assuming, for the purpose of this answer, that you are talking about actual (attempted) suicide - rather than (physician or associate) assisted suicide. </p>\n\n<p>With regard to the U.S., various states at one time or another did have the act of attempted-suicide listed as a crime; some even as a felony, although I cannot find a single case of actual prosecution (of attempted - obviously you cannot enforce a law against actual suicide since the actor would be deceased). With that said, currently there is no law against the act of committing suicide in any state in the United States. I did a full Lexis search. Suicide (attempted suicide) is considered a mental health issue rather than a criminal one; hence, a person who is thought to be suicidal is subject to well being checks by fire, police, social services, and other like entities/people and are also subject to civil commitment and mental health holds if they are thought/found to be a danger to themselves or others. </p>\n\n<p>To that end, the reason police can enter a dwelling without a warrant under these circumstances, is to do a well being check. If they have a reasonable suspicion that someone may be attempting to kill themselves (a family member, friend or a neighbor calls and says they believe you're are in eminent danger of harming yourself), the police may enter the premises and bring them to a hospital, even against there will. They can be held (at a hospital) to determine if they are of \"sound mind\". Every state has some form of civil commitment (statutes) and some limited amount of time a person can be held for observation (again, at a hospital or treatment facility).</p>\n\n<p>I do not believe this is a typical ruse used by the police to enter premises without a warrant. Why? Not because <em>all</em> police are above skirting the laws against warrantless searches; however, there are just much easier means to accomplishing that end, if that is what they are going to do. </p>\n\n<p>Yes, if evidence of a crime is in plain view while the police enter for a well being check (or any other legitimate reason), the individual can be charged with that crime. However, most police officers are not going to charge someone if they see (a usable amount of) drugs, paraphernalia, or evidence of some other low level crime. This is true since (1) they are already in crisis and (2) they are there for the very reason that they have information they may not be of sound mind, hence potentially not criminally responsible. If they walk into a meth lab or a murder scene or some other serious criminal scene, ...well that is different and all bets are off.</p>\n\n<p>The bottom line is while this may have happened somewhere sometime to someone....this is not a practice I would be worried about. </p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "united-states", "police", "suicide" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3368, "body": "<p>Yes. </p>\n\n<p>TITLE 7 OF THE NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. </p>\n\n<p>7:2-2.6 Alcoholic beverages prohibited </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A person shall not possess and/or consume alcoholic beverages on lands\n and waters under the jurisdiction of the State Park Service except\n where the sale, use or possession is specifically approved by the\n Director of the Division of Parks and Forestry or the Assistant\n Director of the Division for the State Park Service.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>There is no statewide law governing non-state parks - like city and county parks for example. These entities are free to regulate as they see fit. For those rules you will need to inquire specifically.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "new-jersey", "alcohol" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3406, "body": "<p>There is no such law; copyright secures exclusive rights for the copyright holder (and related rights sometimes secure certain rights for the author which cannot be sold or given away except through death), but it cannot be used to force them to spend money to distribute it in a form that you can conveniently use. Such a rule would defeat the purpose of copyright law, which is to give the copyright holder control over the use of the work, not take away their ability to do so.</p>\n\n<p>You can certainly <em>request</em> that they release the work, and can offer to pay them for doing so. But someone who does not own the copyright or any related rights cannot use copyright law to force the person who <em>does</em> own the copyright to spend their own money to convert a show into a new format.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3395, "body": "<p>Google and Apple petitioned the Unicode Consortium to include a number of these characters, ie. emoji's and version 6.0 of the Unicode Standard ended up with 722 emoji that are copyrighted. Of the other however many, most are likely licensed. That said, Apple does NOT own the right to use a smiley face or a slice of pizza, but if you are using it as a font, in the exact way Apple (or Google or the others) wrote the code to have it appear, you are infringing on the copyright. </p>\n\n<p>This link is a detailed article on the topic, and also a way to sort of get around it called Phantom Open Emoji. If you specifically want to use Apples....well....Read the article.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://words.steveklabnik.com/emoji-licensing\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://words.steveklabnik.com/emoji-licensing</a></p>\n\n<p>This is a special category a bit different from other types of copyright whereby you can have similar fonts. That is what this Phantom Open Emoji allows. I checked the legal standard on the theories in this article and its right on. I would think it answers your questions.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 3393, "body": "<p>With copyright infringement, there are always two questions: Did you copy or create a derivative work without permission, and can it be proven? </p>\n\n<p>If you create a slightly altered version of Apple's Emojis, then you are creating a derivative work without permission, which is copyright infringement. </p>\n\n<p>If you independently create Emoji glyphs, and they happen to look almost the same as Apple's, that is not copyright infringement. You'll notice that whether it is copyright infringement or not depends on what you have actually done. </p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, you could be taken to court, and then some judge or jury would have to decide whether they believe that you copied or not. That's where a cleanroom implementation is handy (you hire designers who have never seen emojis), or at least a demonstrable history how you created the emojis. If you can only show Apple's emoji -> some slightly different emoji, that's bad for you. If you can show all the steps creating the emoji from scratch, that's a lot better. </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "intellectual-property", "licensing" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3374, "body": "<p>In the US, there is a co-occupant consent rule (United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974)). If a co-occupant of your house consented to a search, anything in plain view from the common areas is useable as justification for probable cause (for arrest) and admissible as evidence at trial.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "criminal-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 1684, "body": "<p>No, under US law, it is an \"<strong>executive agreement</strong>\", not a \"treaty\". The vast majority of US's international agreements are done as executive agreements, and not treaties; and the power of the executive branch to make executive agreements has been repeatedly upheld in the courts.</p>\n\n<p>Specifically, there are two types of executive agreements:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>\"<strong>Congressional-executive agreements</strong>\". These are the ones that require changes to legislation to be implemented. Congress passes the needed legislation just like any other normal legislation, i.e. a majority of both houses of Congress. Most trade agreements are passed as congressional-executive agreements.</li>\n<li>\"<strong>Sole executive agreements</strong>\". These are the ones that do not require changes to legislation to be implemented. Congress is not involved at all.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>This Iran nuclear agreement is a \"sole executive agreement\" because it does not require Congressional action to be implemented. (So it doesn't need to be passed by a simple majority by Congress.)</p>\n\n<p>The President already has the legal authority to implement all of the US's obligations under the agreement, which are the relief of certain Iran sanctions. Some of those sanctions were implemented by the President, and which the President can remove by himself. Some of these sanctions were implemented by Acts of Congress, but those Acts specifically give the President the authority to waive them.</p>\n\n<p>The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (the \"Corker bill\"), passed by Congress in May 2015, also confirms that \"It is the sense of Congress that: [...] this Act does not require a vote by Congress for the agreement to commence;\"</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>As to your question about whether something can \"have the effect of a treaty if it's passed by a simple majority\". The answer is yes (in the other way around). The Supreme Court ruled in the <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Money_Cases\" rel=\"nofollow\">Head Money Cases</a> that \"treaties\" (ratified by 2/3 of the Senate as specified in Article II) have the same legal effect in US law as regular legislation passed by Congress (by a simple majority of both houses), which means that Congress can modify or repeal (insofar as US law is concerned) any \"treaty\" that is ratified by the Senate, by passing a later law that contradicts it, just like it can with regular legislation. So, yes, any regular legislation passed by a simple majority (including for congressional-executive agreements) has the same legal effect as treaties.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-states", "us-constitution", "treaty" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3370, "body": "<p>You can keep your name; this is the default. <a href=\"http://www.cityclerk.nyc.gov/html/marriage/name_change.shtml\">Source:</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ul>\n <li>Your surname does not change automatically upon marriage unless you elect to change it.</li>\n <li>Nothing in the law requires you to change your name when getting married; it is your personal choice.</li>\n <li>You are not required to have the same surname as your spouse.</li>\n </ul>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 13 } ]

[ "new-york-state", "marriage", "civil-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3353, "body": "<p>The exact laws will vary by region and country, but the laws will range anywhere between illegal and almost illegal. If you want to operate as legal as possible then you will have to disclose to the buyer that the software is malware or a crypter and you should require for the buyer to sign an agreement to only use the software for legal and educational purposes. Hiding the disclosure in a long Terms of Service agreement will likely not be sufficient. You will have to explicitly advertise that the software is malware and a crypter and that you are looking for reputable tech firms to buy your software in order to improve their software.</p>\n\n<p>If you sell software without disclosing to the customer that the software contains malware or a crypter then you are exposing yourself to a lawsuit for products liability, invasion of privacy, fraud and misrepresentation, the cost of damages, and possibly criminal liability. </p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "united-kingdom", "european-union", "germany" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2238, "body": "<p>As stated in the answer to <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/1369/what-is-considered-public-in-the-context-of-taking-videos-or-audio-recordings/1380#1380\">What is considered &quot;public&quot; in the context of taking videos or audio recordings?</a>; if either of the participants is in Australia than unless all parties have given consent then the recording is illegal.</p>\n\n<p>Notwithstanding its legality, property in the recording vests in the person who made it. There is no law against him keeping it. There is no law against him publishing it unless the material contained is offensive, hate speech or defamatory (see <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/2199/customer-feedback-gathering-in-australia/2200#2200\">Customer feedback gathering in Australia</a>).</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "internet", "criminal-law", "privacy", "india", "human-rights" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3357, "body": "<p>Under Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, it is likely legal due to fair use if you are only using the logo for identification purposes. In Playboy Enterprises, Inc., the court ruled that the former Playmate of the Year was permitted to place the Playboy image on her website for self-identification even though she was advertising herself for commercial gain. <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playboy_Enterprises,_Inc._v._Welles\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playboy_Enterprises,_Inc._v._Welles</a></p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 1668, "body": "<p>Your use of the trademark should qualify as Nominative Fair Use. Basically you can use the trademark to refer to the company. </p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "copyright", "trademark" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3348, "body": "<p>That would likely be treated as a preamble. These have been held in some jurisdictions to not have any weight.</p>\n<p>For example, see <a href=\"http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2002/2002skqb101/2002skqb101.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Sherbrooke Community Centre v. Service Employees International Union</em></a>, 2002 SKQB 101:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The preamble to a contract is nothing more than an introduction to that about which the parties have actually agreed. It puts the agreement into context. It describes the goals of the agreement. It speaks to what went before and the spirit in which agreement was achieved. On the other hand, it does not contain any promises. It does not contain any restrictions or commitments. It could be removed entirely without in any way altering that which was agreed to and set out in specific terms.</p>\n<p>[...]</p>\n<p>this clause in the preamble does not create or eliminate rights or obligations</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Granted, the introductory phrase in your hypothetical clause is not <em>literally</em> a preamble, but it has the same characteristics cited in the above decision: &quot;it describes the goals&quot;, &quot;it does not contain any promises&quot;, &quot;it could be removed entirely without in any way altering that which was agreed to&quot;.</p>\n<p>If you wanted the clause to only take effect if toilets overflowed, use an alternative wording, like:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Company B may not resell any products purchased from Company A at a discounted price in a manner that causes toilets to overflow.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 3356, "body": "<p>This is an ambiguity that would likely end in a lawsuit. Transactional attorneys must avoid this kind of ambiguity in order save both companies from the expense of litigation. \nThe court would look to evidence within and possibly outside of the contract to help determine the ambiguity, but every jurisdiction is different. Look up the parol evidence rule or the four corners rule in your jurisdiction to determine how ambiguities in a contract are determined.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3336, "body": "<p>It's not a contract because there is no consideration on the part of the third party. It's not enforceable.</p>\n\n<p>Consideration is either:</p>\n\n<p>a) giving up (or doing) something that you have a legal right to not give up (or not do) or</p>\n\n<p>b) not giving up (or not doing) something that you have a right to give up (or do).</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 3335, "body": "<p>There is no contract in this situation.</p>\n\n<p>Amy hasn't received any consideration from the \"third party\".</p>\n", "score": 0 }, { "answer_id": 3355, "body": "<p>There is no contract because Amy did not give the third party consideration for the contract and it is void for public policy reasons. The contract is unconscionable or unreasonably unfair and oppressive to Amy. The contract may be illegal in a jurisdiction that prohibits gambling or gambling on employment contracts. The contract may also be illegal for being an unreasonable restraint on trade because Amy would be required to end her employment with Bill unless she forgoes her entire paycheck. </p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 1661, "body": "<p>The general principle of common law contracts is that parties can contract to do whatever they like <strong>unless</strong> there is a law that says they can't. As employment contracts are one of the most regulated type of contract and as I am not familiar with UK employment law (which may vary depending on which country of the UK governs it) this answer will be general in nature.</p>\n\n<p>Probation will not affect the training question. Probation gives the <strong>employer</strong> the right to terminate employment without cause or reason during the probation period; it gives the <strong>employee</strong> no rights.</p>\n\n<p>In general, the contract is the contract: if you agreed to pay for training if you leave within the first 12 months then that is what you are legally obliged to do. You may be able to avoid paying for training in Work Health and Safety as in most jurisdictions an employer is legally obliged to provide this without charge.</p>\n\n<p>That said, <strong>if</strong> the employer misrepresented the role then the contract may be void or voidable - this would need real legal advice and <strong>evidence</strong> of the misrepresentation.</p>\n\n<p>All of that said, if you explain your problem to the employer it is quite likely that you will be able to part ways amicably and without involving the law - that would be best all around,</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

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

[ { "answer_id": 3349, "body": "<p>One of the key fundamentals for the formation of a contract is that the parties demonstrate their intention to be legally bound.</p>\n\n<p>There are two ways that websites usually use to show that intent by their users: <a href=\"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap\" rel=\"nofollow\">click wrap</a> and <a href=\"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap\" rel=\"nofollow\">browse wrap</a>.</p>\n\n<p>With click wrap terms the user explicitly agrees to the terms and creates a binding contract by ticking a box or pressing a button. As far as I am aware there has never been a case where a user has been successful in claiming there was not a contract.</p>\n\n<p>With browse wrap terms:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>For assent to occur the browse-wrap agreement should be conspicuous, state that there is an agreement, and provide where it can be located.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>it is certainly arguable (IMO with a good chance of success) that the stack exchange browse wrap, with its tiny link embedded among many others at the bottom of the page, is unenforceable.</p>\n\n<p>For the circumstances you describe the site tried for a click wrap but due to technical difficulties got a browse wrap. If it can be demonstrated that the user saw the terms or a prominent link to them and continued this would probably be enforceable.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Licenses:</strong> if the terms contain the grant of a copyright licence then that can be enforced because copyright exists even if a contract doesn't.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 3338, "body": "<p>Usually you implicitly agree with the terms if you use the site, even if you don't click the checkbox. For example, quoting form the <a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service\">Stack Exchange Terms of Service</a>: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>By using or accessing the Services, you agree to become bound by all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Quoth the Terms of Use of <a href=\"http://www.wikia.com/Terms_of_Use\" rel=\"nofollow\">Wikia</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>In order to use the Service, you must accept these Terms of Use. You may do so by (a) registering for membership with the Service and/or Company or (b) by actually using the Service. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Yes, this site has a checkbox for clicking I agree when you register. </p>\n\n<p>Third and last example: The <a href=\"http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Google Terms of Service</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>By using our Services, you are agreeing to these terms.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law", "terms-of-service" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3334, "body": "<p>This is the Viacom v Youtube case. Take a look at the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.#2012_Appellate_Court_ruling\" rel=\"nofollow\">wikipedia page</a> because it contains summaries of various rulings.</p>\n\n<p>You are dealing with actual knowledge in (c)(1)(A)(i) or \"red flag\" knowledge in (c)(1)(A)(ii). Unless your photo reviewer has some way of determining if a profile photo is copyrighted you will not have actual knowledge - note that this knowledge is subjective and most be proven by a plaintiff. As for the red flag test, this is met if infringement is objectively obvious to a reasonable person.</p>\n\n<p>You don't have actual knowledge. Unless you want to change the question to include certain facts which create actual knowledge you do not subjectively have knowledge.</p>\n\n<p>As for objectively obvious knowledge, again, all we know from your facts is that a photo was received, it cannot be determined what an reasonable person would know about the copyright based on those facts.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright", "internet", "intellectual-property", "dmca" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2322, "body": "<h2>Relationships are more important than the law</h2>\n\n<p>Important first question: Is the painting worth fighting about? That is, does it have any significant monetary or sentimental value for the beneficiaries? If not, let the painter have it and avoid the fight.</p>\n\n<h2>Common law regarding transfer of personal property</h2>\n\n<p>Prima facie the painter was the original owner of the painting by virtue of creating it. At common law there are 6 ways that ownership of personal property can be transferred (and several involuntary ways that are not relevant):</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>Purchase and sale (either of the painting itself or of the painting service as a work for hire)</li>\n<li>Transfer or gift by delivery</li>\n<li>Transfer by deed of assignment</li>\n<li>Transfer by declaration of a trust</li>\n<li>Inheritance under a will</li>\n<li>Taking possession of abandoned property</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>The most relevant to the facts is No 2: Transfer or gift by delivery. For this to have occurred the painting must have been given to the deceased with:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>An intention (at the time) to transfer title</li>\n<li>Delivery</li>\n<li>Acceptance of the delivery.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Delivery and acceptance cannot be denied as it has been hanging in the deceased's house for 8 years (unless the painter co-habited with the deceased; delivery has not taken place in that case). The painter has the onus to prove that they did not intend at the time to transfer title. It is difficult to see what evidence they could put forward that would convince a court of this if the facts are as you say.</p>\n\n<p>Case and statute law in your jurisdiction may have changed the common law.</p>\n\n<h2>TL;DR</h2>\n\n<p>The Estate owns the painting.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "estate-planning" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2287, "body": "<p>In most jurisdictions, yes, you must give 30 days notice; this is a statutory requirement incumbent on both parties. This (your rental type) is a tenancy-at-will. If you pay rent monthly (on 1st) then this is the period of time required for notice to vacate. In some jurisdictions 30 days is required no matter what intervals you may rent (say weekly), other jurisdictions if you pay rent weekly then a week's notice is all that's necessary. This is In the absence of a rental agreement setting forth another agreed to term.</p>\n\n<p>See this question:\n<a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/1820/if-no-prior-contracts-have-been-signed-can-a-landlord-make-tenants-sign-after-a\">If no prior contracts have been signed, can a landlord make tenants sign after a week of tenancy?</a></p>\n\n<p>It is not the same but there is some information on this type of tenancy.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 3326, "body": "<p>In Ontario, you're normally required to give at least a 60-day notice to end the tenancy.</p>\n<p>In many other jurisdictions, it's normally 25 to 30 days.</p>\n<p>It appears that in British Columbia, a notice must be received at least one month before the effective date of the notice (and, weirdly enough, if the government site as per below is to be believed, it looks like you must still pay for one full month of rent after giving out a notice, e.g., you might effectively have to give out the notice as many as almost two months prior to moving out).</p>\n<p>A quick search (for something like &gt;&gt;<em>british columbia tenancy 30 days</em>&lt;&lt;) reveals a government web-site on the matter:</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/residential-tenancies/ending-a-tenancy\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/residential-tenancies/ending-a-tenancy</a>.</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/residential-tenancies/ending-a-tenancy/tenant-notice\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/residential-tenancies/ending-a-tenancy/tenant-notice</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>For a month-to-month, or periodic tenancy agreement, a tenant must serve written notice to end the tenancy so that it’s received:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>At least one month before the effective date of the notice, and</li>\n<li>Before the day that rent is due</li>\n</ul>\n<p>In order for the tenancy to end the following month, the landlord has to receive the notice before the date the rent is normally paid. For example, if rent is due on the first day of the month, a notice given on March 15 would not take effect until the last day of April and the tenant would have to pay rent for the month of April.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Ouch! Basically, it looks like you must still pay the landlord for one full month of rent after giving out the notice.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "canada", "rental-property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 3323, "body": "<p>As far as I can tell, no appeals court has had to decide whether \"the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol\" includes UDP for the purposes of 16 CFR §312.</p>\n\n<p>I will argue that UDP is included.</p>\n\n<p>From <em>King v. Burwell</em> (internal citations removed):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>when deciding whether the language is plain, we must read the words in\n their context and with a view to their place in the overall\n statutory scheme.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>16 CFR §312, in conjunction with 15 USC §6501-6505, implements the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act\" rel=\"nofollow\">Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998</a>.</p>\n\n<p>The FTC is directed in 15 USC §6502(b) to promulgate regulations that (emphasis mine):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>require the operator of <strong>any website or online service</strong> directed to children [...] to provide notice of what information is collected [...] and to obtain verifiable parental consent</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The FTC drafted 16 CFR §312 to that end. To treat UDP as exempt would mean that the FTC has not fulfilled their duty under 15 USC §6502(b). So, given the context of the overall statutory scheme, it is reasonable to conclude that the FTC intended 16 CFR §312 to include UDP.</p>\n\n<p>However, even without the above line of reasoning, if the FTC were to attempt enforcement of 16 CFR §312 as if it included UDP, that interpretation would be controlling. The FTC would be afforded <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auer_v._Robbins\" rel=\"nofollow\">Auer deference</a> by the court. They wrote the regulation; they know what it means. From <em>Auer v. Robbins</em> 519 U.S. 452 (1997):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Because the salary basis test is a creature of the Secretary's own regulations, his interpretation of it is, under our jurisprudence, controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>And from <em>Bowles v. Seminole Rock &amp; Sand Co.</em> 325 U.S. 410 (1945):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Since this involves an interpretation of an administrative regulation, a court must necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of the words used is in doubt. The intention of Congress or the principles of the Constitution in some situations may be relevant in the first instance in choosing between various constructions. But the ultimate criterion is the administrative interpretation, which becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Again, given the context of the overall statutory scheme, such an interpretation of the regulation by the FTC wouldn't be <em>plainly</em> erroneous.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "coppa" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2321, "body": "<p>If you wait until 1 October 2015 the Consumer Rights Act 2015 will come into force; I have had a brief look at the regulation and it appears that it will cover contracts that are \"on hand\" when it does.</p>\n\n<p>Under that your rights are very clear: you are entitled to a replacement, if the replacement becomes defective you are entitled to another replacement or a refund at your discretion.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "business", "consumer-protection" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2314, "body": "<p>See <em>Holt v. Hobbs 574 U.S. ____ (2015)</em> and <em>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 573 U.S. ____ (2014)</em>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Under RLUIPA, the challenging party bears the initial burden\n of proving that his religious exercise is grounded in a sincerely held\n religious belief</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The test is ignorant as to whether the person's belief happens to match an \"expected\" profile of a particular religion, although if it did, that would go some way to establishing that the belief is a sincerely held religious belief.</p>\n\n<p>In <em>Holt v. Hobbs</em>, Gregory Holt requested that he be allowed to grow a 1/2 inch beard in prison. In oral argument, Justice Scalia noted that</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>the religious requirement is to grow a full beard [...] I mean, you're still violating your religion</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Counsel for Holt responded:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Well, the religious teaching is a full beard. He testified that religiously half an inch is better than nothing. [...] A partial beard is better than none. And that's not just in secular terms. That's also in religious terms.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The court ruled in favour of Holt. That his belief differed from the strictest interpretation of the religious text was not relevant.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "constitutional-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2240, "body": "<p>Its just free enterprise, right?</p>\n\n<p>Well ... except when there is a law that says its not allowed. I am unfamiliar with Indian law but the relevant law in Australia is the Trade Practices Act which deals with this under the category of <a href=\"http://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/misuse-of-market-power\" rel=\"nofollow\">Misuse of Market Power</a>. In a nutshell:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A business with a substantial degree of power in a market is not allowed to use this power for the purpose of eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor or to prevent a business from entering into a market.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>By preferring their products over a competitor's in their search engine they are \"... eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor ...\".</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 2310, "body": "<p>I cannot add comments yet (darn low reputation), so I'm saying this here:</p>\n\n<p>This same issue is very big in the EU. Google us under scrutiny for not providing equal advertisement/favoring their own products. According to <em>many</em> New York Times articles, this is the EU trying to promote their own businesses and decrease reliance on US companies; it is definitely not just righteousness. I am not sure if this is the same or even similar scenario in India. </p>\n\n<p>At least in the U.S., this issue is known as <em>net-neutrality</em>. </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "india", "antitrust-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2307, "body": "<p>Not if it is \"just\" an advancement.</p>\n\n<p>Improvements to processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, are patentable but only <em>if</em> they are new and useful, and non-obvious (among other requirements like adequate disclosure etc.)</p>\n\n<p>35 USC 101-103, 112</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "india", "patents" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2305, "body": "<p>According to ICANN: only if they have trademark rights in the label \"alpha\". (The label is defined as the word between the dots and is determined after illegal characters are resolved with nothing or a hyphen. This means that the trademark <em>A_L_P_H_A</em> and <em>alpha</em> both become just <em>alpha</em> for the purposes of this process.)</p>\n\n<p>If another <em>alpha</em> trademark holder also tries to register alpha.bet the applicants will <a href=\"https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/faqs\" rel=\"nofollow\">end up in the clearinghouse for resolution during the claims period</a> which follows the sunrise period. </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The Trademark Claims period follows the Sunrise period and runs for at\n least the first 90 days of an initial operating period of general\n registration. During the Trademark Claims period, anyone attempting to\n register a domain name matching a mark that is recorded in the\n Trademark Clearinghouse will receive a notification displaying the\n relevant mark information.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>See section 2.1 in the <a href=\"https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-24sep12-en.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">New gTLD Program: Trademark Clearinghouse</a> memo. The clearinghouse is the system whereby the matches are identified and processed. </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>All Clearinghouse trademark comparisons occur by comparing the textual\n elements of a mark with the second level label of the domain name\n being registered. When all and only the complete and identical textual\n elements exist in both the trademark and the label, it is considered\n an identical match. For example, the trademark and the domain\n label “ICANN” to be used in a domain name such as “icann.org” would be\n an identical match.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>If two entities both hold a trademark in the same gTLD label they ultimately end up in auction where the domain goes to the highest bidder. (<a href=\"https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions\" rel=\"nofollow\">Understanding Auctions</a>).</p>\n\n<p>If the bidder who wins ends up registering a site in an infringing manner it's up to the mark holder to <a href=\"https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/trademark-2013-05-03-en\" rel=\"nofollow\">resolve the dispute using their local courts.</a></p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

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

[ { "answer_id": 2299, "body": "<p><a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10526603012197249255&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr\" rel=\"nofollow\">Costar Group Inc. v. Loopnet</a>, Inc., 164 F.Supp.2d 688 (D. Md., 2001) touched on this.</p>\n\n<p>The court distinguishes Playboy Ent. v. Russ Hardenburgh, Inc., 982 F.Supp. 503 (N.D.Oh.1997) which held that \"contributory liability could attach where <strong>infringing performances enhance the attractiveness</strong> of the venue to potential customers.\" (internal quotes omitted) This sounds like your concern. The Costar court stated explicitly that merely adding value does not constitute direct benefit.</p>\n\n<p>In Costar the court found that</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>Whereas</strong> in Playboy and Fonovisa, the finding of added value to the\n defendant was evidence that the defendant induced the infringement,\n <strong>for the purposes of the DMCA, the financial benefit must be \"directly\n attributable</strong> to the infringing activity.\" 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B)\n (1998). CoStar might make an argument that the <strong>indirect type</strong> of\n benefit cited in Hardenburgh is also present here. However, such a\n benefit <strong>does not fit within the plain language of the statute</strong>.\n Accordingly, § 512(c)(1)(B) does not present a barrier to LoopNet\n remaining in the safe harbor.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>You could also take a look at <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11251045943986238489&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr\" rel=\"nofollow\">Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung</a>, 710 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir., 2013)</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>the relevant inquiry is “ ‘whether the infringing activity constitutes\n a draw for subscribers, not just an added benefit.’</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>That case cites Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir., 2004)</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Ellison ultimately concluded that the financial benefit standard was\n not met, because there was inadequate proof that “customers either\n subscribed because of the available infringing material or cancelled\n subscriptions because it was no longer available.”</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>But back to Fung, check this out (I quote this in its entirety because it's not that long and it should lead you to your own conclusion):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Against this background, we note that we have never specified what\n constitutes a “financial benefit directly attributable to the\n infringing activity,” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added),\n where, as here, the service provider's revenue is derived from\n advertising, and not from users. We do so now.</p>\n \n <p>Here, the record shows that Fung generated revenue by selling advertising space on his websites. The advertising revenue depended on\n the number of users who viewed and then clicked on the advertisements.\n Fung marketed advertising to one advertiser by pointing to the “TV and\n movies ... at the top of the most frequently searched by our viewers,”\n and provided another with a list of typical user search queries,\n including popular movies and television shows. In addition, there was\n a vast amount of infringing material on his websites—whether 90–96% or\n somewhat less—supporting an inference that Fung's revenue stream is\n predicated on the broad availability of infringing materials for his\n users, thereby attracting advertisers. And, as we have seen, Fung\n actively induced infringing activity on his sites.</p>\n \n <p>Under these circumstances, we hold the connection between the infringing activity and Fung's income stream derived from advertising\n is sufficiently direct to meet the direct “financial benefit” prong of\n § 512(c)(1)(B). Fung promoted advertising by pointing to infringing\n activity; obtained advertising revenue that depended on the number of\n visitors to his sites; attracted primarily visitors who were seeking\n to engage in infringing activity, as that is mostly what occurred on\n his sites; and encouraged that infringing activity. Given this\n confluence of circumstances, Fung's revenue stream was tied directly\n to the infringing activity involving his websites, both as to his\n ability to attract advertisers and as to the amount of revenue he\n received.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Edit to add:</p>\n\n<p>There is also some legislative history that some courts point to at <a href=\"http://gozips.uakron.edu/~dratler/2008cyberlaw/materials/sec512leghist.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">H.R.Rep. No. 105-551, Part 2</a>. (I include the link to the closest thing I could find.) This language shows its age! I think the only thing that speaks to your issue is the last sentence (bc it's not you).</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>In determining whether the financial benefit criterion is satisfied,\n courts should take a common-sense, fact-based approach, not a\n formalistic one. In general, a service provider conducting a\n legitimate business would not be considered to receive a ‘financial\n benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity' where the\n infringer makes the same kind of payment as non-infringing users of\n the provider's service. Thus, receiving a one-time set-up fee and\n flat, periodic payments for service from a person engaging in\n infringing activities would not constitute receiving a ‘financial\n benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.' Nor is\n subsection (c)(1)(B) intended to cover fees based on the length of the\n message (e.g., per number of bytes) or by connect time. It would\n however, include any such fees where the <strong>value of the service lies in\n providing access to infringing material</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "internet", "definition", "dmca" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2294, "body": "<p>This is an opinion question, even if it doesn't seem like one. The life work of many professors is trying to explain the current system of review. One theory that is fairly well accepted relates to the concept of deference to other political actors. To understand this theory, we need to begin by recognizes that the Court is not unilaterally adjudicating political rights; it is one of many actors that all have some stake in making Constitutional decisions. The Court recognizes this, even if it also demands that it get last word on whether or not it gets last word.</p>\n\n<p>In <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Carolene_Products_Co.#Footnote_Four\" rel=\"nofollow\">footnote four</a> of Caroline Products the Court laid the foundation for the modern equal protection doctrine. That text embraced a constitutional scheme whereby rights are given <em>judicial</em> protection primarily if they are unlikely to be given <em>political</em> protection by the other branches of government. Under this scheme, we care about groups that are politically weak or political distant from those with power. This equal protection jurisprudence is an example of deferential thinking; we trust the political branches generally <em>unless</em> there is reason to doubt the effectiveness of the political process.</p>\n\n<p>The deferential thinking approach to constitutional law holds that we do the same for many other area of Constitutional law. A given enumerated right is only Scrutinized strictly by the <em>courts</em> if the courts don't trust the other political actors (States, Legislature and Executive), to adequately protect that right.</p>\n\n<p>As I said, that is a theory. Not everyone agrees that this is what is going on or that this is what should be going on. Moreover, many enumerated rights are protected under a very strict level of review. Strict review and \"strict scrutiny\" are similar ideas, with the latter being a term of art and the former being a reasonable description of how much attention courts will pay to protecting a given right.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 2291, "body": "<p>Tiered scrutiny has always garnered some level of....well scrutiny....and in some ways has been controversial. A big reason this occurs is to strike a balance between the federal gov't and states' rights and individual rights. Tiers of scrutiny allow the Court to distinguish between strongly and less strongly (and, frankly, weakly) protected rights. It also allows for differentiation between protected and unprotected classes. These categories are a matter of judicial construction throughout the ever changing make-up of the Supreme Courts. </p>\n\n<p>Some members of the current Supreme Court have pushed against precedent in applying long held \"tiered tests\" to determine the type of scrutiny to apply; and have balked at having to fit a case into formal \"tiers,\" each with its own special \"test\" (rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, etc). </p>\n\n<p>I was just reading somewhere that Thurgood Marshall wanted to replace the Court's use of tiers with a balancing approach that could be adjusted on a case by case basis. On the current Supreme Court, Kennedy has long spoken out against tiers, and instead applies his own version of a reasonableness test (see <em>Romer v. Evans</em>, <em>Lawrence v. Texas</em>, and others). Much of the Court finds Kennedy’s approach contrary to precedent and frankly unorthodox, although it may be a better approach. </p>\n\n<p>Different kinds of scrutiny for different kinds of rights has been the rule because, for example, your right to property is not the same as your right to speech. You can see how the government's interest in serving the best interest of the masses may override your property rights (10th amendment), but speech or civil rights are of a different ilk.</p>\n\n<p>But if you read the same-sex marriage case, <em>Obergefell v. Hodges</em>, the Court was more Kennedy-esque, moving somehow away from formal tiers and towards more of a \"reasonableness\" standard. In most cases, however, the tiers will remain because there is a difference in certain types of rights: wealth and things are never going to be as unalienable as when we are talking about the the civil rights of the people.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>It bears remembering when and why tiers of judicial scrutiny came into\n being in the first place. The Supreme Court constructed these tiers\n not to constrain the protection of individual rights, but to guard\n against the unjustified interference with the political process.\n Removing the tiers removes the guard. (<em>Building the Tiers of Judicial\n Review</em>, Kurt T. Lash.)</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "us-constitution" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2254, "body": "<p>There is a general common law doctrine of contract interpretation which tells us that ambiguities are construed against the drafter. In your case, had the employer intended to require two years of work (or else reimbursement back to them) <em>they could have explicitly stated this</em>. The fact is, the contract is written as it is for a reason, likely to entice you to accept the offer of employment. They softballed the requirements to get you to take the job and now they are trying to play hardball.</p>\n\n<p>I would hope that a court would find this and tell the employer to think about these clauses next time. The fact is, after a deal goes south is a bad time for an employer to start explaining what these terms mean.</p>\n\n<p>You have fulfilled your half of the bargain. If the facts are as you say they are then you satisfied the \"best of my ability\" condition.</p>\n\n<p>Another problem you might have is if the employer does not take you to court but instead continues to make threats, maybe sends a collections agency after you. In that case you will need to get an injunction to stop the employer. In other words, get a court to state that you do not owe them any money and enjoin them from continuing to as if you do.</p>\n\n<p>EDIT: as a commenter mentioned, a contract may explicitly provide that ambiguous terms will not be construed against either party.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 2292, "body": "<p>I cannot say how Conract Law differs from U.S. law under in Canada; however, if this was in the U.S. it would be difficult to win. I'd have to (meaning you should have an attorney) look at the rest of the contract, but these educational/tuition reimbursement incentives in employment contracts are pretty typical and the employer generally gets to recoup if you don't fulfill the minimum commitment. Courts don't like to invalidate these societally beneficial types of contractual obligations on the basis that the job ended up being too much work or much harder than anticipated. Usually, there are definitions that outline the meaning of key terms. However, I can see \"best of your ability\" really meaning \"unless you become disabled\", except if all of your duties are clearly outlined in the contract and you can show that you were clearly forced to operate far in excess of these standards. </p>\n\n<p>But again.... nobody can really assess this to any reasonable degree without analyzing the whole contract.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "canada", "education" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2276, "body": "<p>Probably not.</p>\n\n<p>As I read your question you legitimately owe money on a debt proven in California. The proper way for the creditor to recover it in Nevada was by domesticating the judgement (essentially an administrative rather than judicial action) and this didn't happen.</p>\n\n<p>The only person who has suffered damage through this is the court system in Nevada by not being able to collect their fee for domestication. On what basis of damage to you are you proposing to sue?</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "california", "nevada" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2273, "body": "<p><strong>Depends on the agreement between A and B</strong></p>\n\n<p>If the agreement is to simply produce code that accomplished <strong>X</strong> then generally there is no recourse. (Some jurisdictions may have legal doctrines or laws that do provide recourse).</p>\n\n<p>If instead the contract specifies some specific industry standards <strong>A</strong> must follow while accomplishing <strong>X</strong>, then <strong>B</strong> probably may sue for breach of contract.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 2275, "body": "<p>All other things considered I would deem it wholly inappropriate if a contract calls for source code (and this would be the default for an employment contract but not necessarily other kinds of contract for code), if the source code submitted is not the code as the developer wrote it for his own reading and how he intended to maintain it, I would consider that an actionable breach. In the GPL, they spelled it out in some verbiage that I am not inclined to repeat, but the form intended to be maintained is the form as needs to be provided.</p>\n\n<p>As for deliberately writing it hard to maintain but he himself must endure the code as it is, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. You see, there are some who write bad to make themselves job security, and there are those who just write bad because they know it doesn't matter to the compiler.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2266, "body": "<p>In fact, the first recognition of the First Sale doctrine came about precisely <em>because</em> a publisher attempted to do something of the nature of what you suggest.</p>\n\n<p>In <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/210/339/case.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">Bobbs-Merrill Co. vs Straus</a>, the Bobbs-Merrill Corporation attempted to enforce the following restriction, printed on the inside of a book it published:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>\"The price of this book at retail is one dollar net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a less price, and a sale at a less price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>They made the mistake of attempting to enforce it against, among others, <a href=\"https://www.macysinc.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\">R.H. Macy and Co.</a>, who they then had to take to court - and lost.</p>\n\n<p>This established the First Sale Doctrine, which then later (in 1976) was codified (in <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109\" rel=\"nofollow\">17 U.S. Code § 109</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Textbooks recently tested another element of this; in the 2013 case, <a href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Kirtsaeng v John Wiley and Sons Inc.</a>, the Supreme Court held that the First Sale doctrine trumped a notice forbidding selling a book outside of a particular territory or region (Kirtsaeng imported textbooks from Thailand, where they were much cheaper than in the US, and resold them at a profit in the US).</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 2070, "body": "<p>You are conflating two concepts here.</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>Copyright allows the holder to make copies of the material</li>\n<li>Sale, rental, leasing or licencing are means by which a (or a bundle of) copies may be transferred from one person to another.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>There is nothing that prevents a book publisher from licensing books rather than selling them; except practicality. In fact, lending libraries (as owners of a copy not necessarily as copyright owners) do this all the time.</p>\n", "score": 0 }, { "answer_id": 2264, "body": "<p>@feetwet: To answer what you wrote in your comment... A EULA cannot force the customer to do anything. What the copyright holder can do is to declare that a sale is not final until you accept that your rights are restricted to what the EULA declares, and if they don't agree, they can return the item sold for a refund. And both with books and software, you have obviously no right to make a copy without the sale being final. </p>\n\n<p>Now look how that works out with a book. You say \"the sale is not final unless I agree that I cannot resell or lend the book\". I have the book in my hands at my home. I have to think about whether I want to agree to the license or not. While I think about this, it is absolutely legal for me to read the story in the book, which I do. When I finished and have read the complete book, I go book to the store and say \"I don't like your license, so take the book back and return my money\". </p>\n\n<p>That's <em>exactly</em> how it works with software. But while I can read a book without copying, I cannot use the software without copying. See how it works? Because of the technical differences between software and books, there is no way for the copyright holder of a book to get anything useful out of such a license. If he tries, I can make him decide to either let me read the book for free, or to forget about the license. </p>\n\n<p>\"By opening this book you agree to this license...\" - that doesn't work! I don't agree with it, and that's it! Since I have the right to open a book (there's a copyright law, but there's no openright law), I don't have to agree to anything to open and read the book. \"By copying this software you agree to this license...\" that works <em>slightly</em> better. Since I don't have the right to copy the software, you cannot force me to agree to the license, but you <em>can</em> force me to <em>either</em> agree <em>or</em> to admit copyright infringement. </p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "copyright", "licensing" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2262, "body": "<p>This is what lawyers are for. There is no reasonable alternative to paying a lawyer with expertise in corporate and employment law to review the contract to ensure it protects your interests. Even if you <em>did</em> think the lawyer hired by the company was competent, he is <em>not</em> looking out for <em>your</em> individual interests because <em>you</em> didn't pay him.</p>\n\n<p>There are many reasons that contracts and their clauses can be voided or interpreted in different ways. But if it ever comes to a <em>dispute</em> it's too late to hire a lawyer to reconcile the contract to your understanding. At that point all you can do is spend <em>a lot more money</em> trying to litigate it into being interpreted your way. And by the time you're in litigation, it has been said, \"only the lawyers win.\"</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 2268, "body": "<blockquote>\n <p>What services are available to an individual to have this contract\n reviewed and ensure it protects my interests?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>A lawyer</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>How important is it to get the contract reviewed at this point? Is\n there any recourse in a future dispute for the legalese not matching\n the lay-person's understanding of the contract?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The question of <em>how important is it</em> is up to you. It sounds to me that you are totally right to be concerned. The situation you are imagining is exactly the sort of thing that happens. I say this without assuming any ill-will on the part of the acquiring company.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 1590, "body": "<p><strong>I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.</strong></p>\n\n<p>The purpose of a trademark is to prohibit random manufacturers and sellers from marketing products under an established brand name, without the trademark holder's permission.</p>\n\n<p>Selling licensed merchandise is not trademark infringement, because the trademark is only being used to identify the product. Claiming that one is an authorized reseller of the products when one is not may be a violation, though.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright", "trademark" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2246, "body": "<p>Wikipedia and you likely have no contract. If you don't have to click \"I agree\" to access the data, its likely there is no contract. Therefore this is a pure IP law question. The ONLY IP law issue that I see is copyright. The DATA is not subject to copyright. Only the expression of that data. So copying the html and selling that IS potential copyright infringement. Copying the data in some other format and using that is not.</p>\n\n<p>Finally, even if you do copy the full html (i.e. full expression), this MAY be licensed by their terms of use (as you suggested they have licensed some content). That is a more particularized legal question that I can't answer here.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "copyright", "software" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2259, "body": "<p>No. English is not government-regulated. That's why the Oxford English Dictionary (arguably the most authoritative dictionary out there) uses different spellings than most of the UK does. </p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "united-kingdom" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2251, "body": "<p>In general the primary purpose of creating a single-owner business entity is to shield the owner from liability. For example, if it turns out that (unbeknownst to you) your necklaces were manufactured with toxic metals then \"you\" as a seller could face ruinous liability. If \"you\" is a company, then you <em>as a person</em> might lose whatever value is left in the company, but at least you wouldn't lose your personal assets.</p>\n\n<p>There are many other potential reasons to conduct business through a business entity, and many types of business entities constructed and recognized for those purposes; but they are highly dependent on the jurisdiction, entity type, and particulars of the business.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "internet", "international", "business", "european-union" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2243, "body": "<p>Copyright law is not based on contracts, and does not require agreement. <em>No one</em> may distribute copies of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. For instance, in the US, both Persons A and F can be sued because <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/501\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Title 17, Section 501 of the US Code</a> says:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a) <strong>Anyone</strong> who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.</p>\n<p>(b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled ... to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Copyright infringement isn't an issue of violating terms you agreed to with a private entity. Your duty to not infringe copyright was imposed by your country's legislature, who does not require your personal agreement to do that.</p>\n", "score": 7 } ]

[ "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2239, "body": "<h2>Registration</h2>\n\n<p>Generally, within a given jurisdiction, company names must be unique; the registrar will not register a company with an identical name. There can be multiple companies with the same name across jurisdictions (i.e. worldwide).</p>\n\n<p>So, if there is a company ABC Pty Ltd in Australia then that is the <strong>only</strong> company of that name in Australia. You could register ABC 2 Pty Ltd or ABC (Web Design) Pty Ltd or any variation you like - subject to ...</p>\n\n<h2>Trade Marks</h2>\n\n<p>If the company name is a trademark in your jurisdiction then its use without authorisation in the field in which it is registered is off-limits. For example, anyone who registers a company containing \"Cadbury\" if they are going to operate in the confectionary business had better be prepared for a long and expensive lawsuit.</p>\n\n<h2>Passing Off</h2>\n\n<p>There is a tort of passing off which involves essentially acting in a way which will make people believe you are or are associated with someone else when you are not. The other person can take action to make you stop or for damages.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "business" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2201, "body": "<p>(Since this is looking rather close to looking for legal advice: \"I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, don't sue my pants off\".)</p>\n\n<p>The relevant section of the license is this (bolding mine):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is <strong>primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation</strong>. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in con-nection with the exchange of copyrighted works.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Therefore, if you are using the content licensed under the BY-NC-SA primarily to make money, that is a breach of the license. Any more advice past that is wading seriously into legal advice.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 2231, "body": "<p>Without creating an Atty/Client relationship or addressing your specific issue except in a hypothetical way, it is my opinion that you would need to seek specific permission (a license agreement to protect your interests) to use these articles you refer to, pursuant to the language of the NC agreement(s),as it currently disallows your use in your clearly somewhat commercial model. The language that you are \"unclear\" about, is pertaining to reuse in a non-commercial (non-revenue based) manner...like if you print a informative (free) pamphlet w/the information you accessed through the similarly themed NC database. You <em>may</em> ( I personally doubt it but anything is possible )be able to obtain the permissions, but regardless, it could not be considered non-commercial since you intend to make a profit (or at lease a self-sustaining amount of operating cost), and the entire point of the NC license is to prevent payment for access to information. </p>\n\n<p>The reason I say you may be able to get a license is that if you are not charging a membership fee, but are using the information (articles) in a commercial endeavor, it is possible that the similar site does this as well, and you could come up with a reimbursement model based on percentile averages and clicks per article that originated from the other site. The reason I doubt it is that if they also get revenue from sources other than consumers of the information, it would seem you'd be in direct competition.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

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

[ { "answer_id": 2227, "body": "<p>If you were to be issued a ticket in such circumstances, you would likely be able to bring up an affirmative defense that it was not possible for you to stop safely in the circumstances, an action most likely required by the statutes.</p>\n\n<p>P.S. I've actually sat through a traffic trial where some guy in KW, Ontario, was defending against a red-light ticket he has gotten when passing a red light in the winter. I recall that his defense basically amounted to the fact that he would not have been able to stop safely in the circumstances (a requirement / exception of the statute), that the pavement was too slippery, other cars were nearby (maybe a car that followed, which would not have been able to stop had he stopped?), and that the light was likely still yellow when he crossed into the intersection (he took quite some time to cross-examine the cop). I recall that he was acquitted, but the guy did look quite exhausted from the trial!</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "traffic", "australia" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2210, "body": "<p>The \"<a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule\" rel=\"nofollow\">felony murder</a>\" doctrine, which applies in most of the U.S. (including California), holds criminals engaged in \"dangerous felonies\" responsible for any deaths that occur during the commission of such crimes.</p>\n\n<p>In the given example, the hostage taker and anyone who is an accessory to that aggravated assault would, if convicted, also be guilty of murder for deaths that occurred in connection with the incident, <em>regardless of their intent</em>.</p>\n", "score": 7 }, { "answer_id": 2205, "body": "<p>He would be guilty of murder; self-defense only applies when threatened with <em>unlawful</em> force - the hostage's force is lawful.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "california", "murder" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2200, "body": "<p>On the face of it there is nothing illegal about your proposal, however, \"<a href=\"https://opennet.net/research/australia-and-new-zealand\" rel=\"nofollow\">Australia maintains some of the most restrictive Internet policies of any Western country</a>\". In addition, a suit can be brought under Australian law for any material accessible in Australia irrespective of the original source or where it is hosted.</p>\n\n<h2>Offensive Content</h2>\n\n<p>The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is empowered to look into complaints from Australians about prohibited content on the Internet and issue takedown notices. The ACMA is not mandated to scour the Internet for potentially prohibited content, but it is allowed to begin investigations without an outside complaint.</p>\n\n<p>Prohibited content is content that which would attract an R18, X18 or RC by the <a href=\"http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/Home.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow\">Australian Classification Board</a>. Note that this is more restrictive than what is allowed for offline publication; offline publications can be R18 and X18.</p>\n\n<p>Once the determination has been made that content hosted within Australia is prohibited, the ACMA issues a takedown notice to the Internet content provider (ICP). It is not illegal for the ICP to host prohibited content, but legal action could be taken against it by the government if it does not comply with the takedown notice.</p>\n\n<p>For offensive content hosted outside of Australia, the ACMA itself determines whether content is prohibited and notifies a list of certified Web-filter manufacturers to include the prohibited Web sites in their filters. Australian Internet Service Providers (ISP) are required to make these filters available to their customers but their use is not mandatory.</p>\n\n<p>Your type of site is unlikely to fall foul of this but it could happen, particularly if you allow images or video uploads. You would need to be able to respond quickly to any take down notice.</p>\n\n<h2>Hate Speech</h2>\n\n<p>Australia addresses hate speech through the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which makes it \"unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group.\"</p>\n\n<p>The Federal Court has ruled that publication on the Internet without password protection is a \"public act\" and hate speech on your website could fall foul of this provision. ACMA does not have the statutory authority to deal with hate speech complaints so the only avenue is through the courts, however, ACMA will pass on complaints to the ICP.</p>\n\n<p>This area is much more likely to be an issue for your site - it is easy to see a complaint about a product with a distinctive national origin descending into hate speech as defined.</p>\n\n<h2>Copyright</h2>\n\n<p>As a publisher, you could be held liable for the uploading of copyright infringing materials by others.</p>\n\n<h2>Defamation</h2>\n\n<p>This is probably where your greatest risk lies.</p>\n\n<p>For a defamation action to be successful, it must be established that the communication:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>was published to a third person, i.e. to at least one person other than the plaintiff (person/entity defamed). Putting it on the internet does this.</li>\n<li>identifies the plaintiff, for example, by name or by a reference to a small group of people, etc. Identifying the person as, say BMW, does this.</li>\n<li>contains a defamatory statement or imputation (whether intentionally published or not). Very generally speaking, material that could be found to be defamatory includes that which has the tendency to lower the person in the estimation of others, or that would tend to result in the person being shunned or avoided or that is likely to expose the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; say a criticism about a car the person makes.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>In theory, any individual or entity who considers damage to their reputation has or is likely to occur, as a result of material published, may sue the publisher/s of the material. In practice, the laws are inaccessible to ordinary individuals who are defamed due to the exorbitant legal costs involved in bringing a defamation action. Australia's defamation laws are often used by politicians and corporations who consider the media, individuals or community groups have defamed them in publishing information critical of their activities. </p>\n\n<p>Defamation action may be brought, not only against the original publisher (writer/speaker), but also against anyone who takes part in the publication or re-publication of the material. However, the fact that a person can be sued does not necessarily mean they would be found liable by a court. There are numerous aspects relevant to liability.</p>\n\n<p>Defences that may be successfully pleaded in relation to a defamation action vary throughout Australian jurisdictions. Depending on the jurisdiction, these may include: </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>truth/justification</li>\n<li>fair comment (e.g. an expression of an honestly held opinion or a criticism on a subject matter of public interest) </li>\n<li>absolute privilege (this attaches to the occasion, not the statement or speaker, such as during parliamentary proceedings, judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, executive communications and communications between spouses) </li>\n<li>qualified privilege (e.g. fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings, judicial proceedings, public meetings concerning matters of public interest/concern) </li>\n<li>consent (e.g. where the plaintiff expressly or impliedly consented to the publication of the particular imputation) </li>\n<li>triviality (e.g. where the circumstances/occasion of the publication were trivial to the extent that the person defamed was not likely to suffer harm) </li>\n<li>innocent dissemination (e.g. applicable to re-publishers/re-distributors such as newsagents/book sellers, <strong>including potentially to ISPs/ICHs</strong>. The defence in Clause 91 of the BSA is also relevant to ISPs/ICHs.) </li>\n<li>etc</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>The Broadcasting Services Act (C'wlth) (\"the BSA\") provides a statutory defence to an ISP/ICH who carries/hosts Internet content in Australia and <strong>who was not aware</strong> that they were carrying/hosting a defamatory publication. You need to have good procedures in place to remove defamatory content ASAP after you become aware of it.</p>\n\n<p>Defamation action under Australian law may be commenced in any State or Territory in which the allegedly defamatory material was published. The Australian High Court has ruled that a party within Australia can sue a foreign party in an Australian court for defamation resulting from an online article hosted on a foreign server.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "australia", "acknowledgement" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2204, "body": "<p>At the bottom of every edit screen on Wikipedia, above the \"save page\" button, it says:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>By clicking the \"Save page\" button, you agree to the <a href=\"https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use\" rel=\"nofollow\">Terms of Use</a> and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License\" rel=\"nofollow\">CC BY-SA 3.0 License</a> and the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License\" rel=\"nofollow\">GFDL</a> with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>If you are asking for technical details on how to show that on a MediaWiki installation, that question could probably be better asked at another site. Regardless, on a standard MediaWiki installation, that text may be found and modified at the [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2]] (sometimes [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]]) page of the wiki. </p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "internet", "terms-of-service", "creative-commons" ]

[ { "answer_id": 348, "body": "<p>This effectively comes under duty of care. Firstly, in England and Wales there is no obligation to be a Good Samaritan - in other words, there is no obligation to be a rescuer. Until you intervene to try and rescue someone, you do not owe that person a duty.</p>\n\n<p>As soon as you do intervene, however, you <strong>do</strong> owe them a duty. Specifically, you owe them a duty not to make the situation worse (Horsey and Rackley, <em>Tort Law</em>, 3rd ed., OUP 2013, p. 75). The specific situation Horsey and Rackley give is that of resuscitating a drowning child and breaking a rib as you do so: this <em>may</em> be 'making the situation worse' (Horsey and Rackley, pp. 75-76). </p>\n\n<p>Does this mean that you'll be liable if you give someone first aid and in doing so, you make the situation worse? Not necessarily, because, as Horsey and Rackley point out, duty is different to liability. Using the drowning child example again, they state:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>So, for example, while someone who intervenes may owe a duty not to make the situation worse, their actions would still be judged against those of a 'reasonable person' in the circumstances (and so if a reasonable person would have tried to resuscitate the child in the same way, there will be <em>no breach</em> of their duty and therefore no <em>liability</em> to pay compensation.) (p.76)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The 'reasonable person' standard corresponds to what you mentioned in the question about lack of expertise. If a doctor intervenes in such a situation, the standard of care they'd be expected to give would be higher than, say, for someone who's simply done a basic first aid course. The question is whether or not you've acted as the reasonable person in your situation would have done.</p>\n\n<p>On that basis, then, your tutor is pretty much correct: so long as you take such care as is reasonable based on your expertise, or lack thereof, then under English and Welsh law, you're unlikely to be liable.</p>\n", "score": 23 }, { "answer_id": 155, "body": "<p>This question is covered by the so-called <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law\">Good Samaritan Laws.</a></p>\n\n<p>These vary from country to country, and within the United States, from state to state. Generally, a \"qualified\" (that is formally trained or professionalized) person in a given area is protected by such laws. In some juridisctions, mere \"good intentions\" does not protect a caregiver from being sued, especially if such care was rendered negligently, or by a patently unqualified person.</p>\n", "score": 7 }, { "answer_id": 1294, "body": "<p>In Germany, there is legal obligation to give first aid as well as helping in other emergencies (<a href=\"http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/323c.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">§323c STGB</a>), failure to render assistance is fined by imprisonment for 1 year maximum. However, this obligation becomes invalid if it would endanger the helper (you don't have to try to rescue someone from drowning if you can't swim), or if this would break other commitments (an ambulance that carries a dying patient to hospital does not have to stop for an accident, or if you're looking after infants, and leaving them alone to give first aid would endanger the infants, you're not obliged to give first aid). But you do have to call the emergency number, or make others aware of the situation and ask them to help.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.j-heim.de/Recht.htm\" rel=\"noreferrer\">This site</a> also states:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>You are protected from damage claims by the victim unless you act in gross negligence or wilfully; missing knowledge doesn't count as gross negligence</li>\n<li>If you break other laws in order to protect higher legal objectives, you're excempt from punishment; for example, you may break a window of a car in summer if a child in that car is in danger of dehydration, or you may break a window/door to enter a house if needed to get to a telephone</li>\n<li>If the injured person rejects your help, you have to honor their decision. However, if someone is unconscious, you may assume they agree to you helping, even if they rejected before, because their condition has declined, and the rejection related to their former, better condition.</li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 157, "body": "<p>In the Czech Republic, the crime of causing death by negligence (or causing severe wounds by negligence) applies to giving first aid as well and can cause you to be sentenced to jail (however, the crime has a relatively light penalty and the punishent is pretty much always a <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_sentence\">suspended sentence</a>).</p>\n\n<p>There are no <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law\">Good Samaritan Laws</a> here. However, I don't think anyone was ever even brought to court for badly administering first aid. A leader of an emergency dispatch department wrote up <a href=\"http://www.zachrannasluzba.cz/prvnipomoc/2013_prvni_pomoc_pravo.pdf\">an article</a> about this topic (Czech only).</p>\n\n<p>The relevant parts are:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>One should not be afraid of \"legal problems\" when giving first aid - if\n one acts proportionately. [...] If we evidently try to save a life,\n there is nothing to lose and nobody can reproach this of us - legally\n or morally. Problems could maybe occur in the case of giving \"first\n aid\" by force or against the will of the patient. [...] Thus, the\n rescuer cannot be guaranteed full immunity in case he commits a\n mistake, but such a mistake would have to be clearly damaging and, additionally,\n obvious to a layman. This author does not know of any case, in which a\n person would be sentenced for this and [...] it's very difficult to\n imagine any kind of legal responsibility in connection with giving\n first aid.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>On the other hand, if you are an on-duty medical professional, you may very well be responsible (even criminally) when you make a mistake.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 2197, "body": "<p>No health care professional has ever been successfully sued in the UK when intervening in an unexpected emergency, lacking a prior relationship with the patient, even when it is alleged he has made the situation worse.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>...very few cases have arisen in which a [Health Care Professional] of any discipline has been sued for attending and rendering medical Samaritan assistance to a victim---and even more strikingly, the author's searches have revealed no cases in which liability has been <em>successfully</em> made out against a [Health Care Professional] in these circumstances in England, Canada, or Australia to date.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xYQlWWr9sa0C&amp;lpg=PA395&amp;ots=J0AQX-kV0M&amp;dq=England%20and%20Wales%20good%20samaritan%20law%20liability&amp;pg=PA201#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false\" rel=\"nofollow\" title=\"Good Samaritan Liability\">Good Samaritan Liability</a></p>\n\n<p>It is difficult to imagine that a non-professional could be held to a higher standard, but I confess I have been unable to find much in the way of definitive, modern case law on the topic.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-kingdom" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2196, "body": "<p>You sat in the chair, you agreed to the treatment. By doing so you implicitly agreed to pay the dentist his fee. Now, the price was not agreed beforehand so the exact amount is subject to negotiation. This negotiation is usually best pursued when you have the fillings in your teeth and the money still in your wallet - this is called \"leverage\".</p>\n\n<p>The amount that your insurer reimburses you is a matter entirely independent of how much you pay your dentist. However, the difference in your ability to recover the costs are a valid point to raise in your negotiation. </p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "contract-law", "medical" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2195, "body": "<p>There's a strong argument the LLC won't need to obtain a business license in each state you are making sales into. And these days, you don't need a physical location and may still be required to obtain a business license. </p>\n\n<p>However, there are several variables at play which are state-dependent; such as what your home state is, what state you're incorporated in (which we already know), and <strong>what states you are selling into</strong>. </p>\n\n<p>For example: If you were incorporated in Delaware, your home state is New York, and selling $250k of software into Illinois; the LLC may need to obtain a business license in each of these states. </p>\n\n<p>A general rule of thumb would be to obtain a license in:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>State of Incorporation</li>\n<li>State of Domicile</li>\n<li>State where the LLC has any employees</li>\n<li>State where the LLC makes substantial sales into (e.g., over $250 or $500k per year)</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>The question really is one of \"nexus,\" and most states define it differently. If you reach nexus in a state that requires you to pay income tax in such a state, then you may be required to obtain a license. Some examples of states with a rather low nexus threshold that requires licensure is Nevada and New Mexico. </p>\n\n<p><strong>Note</strong>: You'll likely be responsible for collecting/remitting sales tax as well as paying income tax on income you've earned in several states. </p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 2153, "body": "<p>If you're personally a resident of Dalaware, then you're all good.</p>\n\n<p>Otherwise, if you're personally a resident of another state, and some other resident in such state decides to sue your company after dealing with you as its agent, then you might not enjoy the LLC protections of your company and face personal responsibility in any such lawsuit, unless you register your company with your home state of residence as a foreign corporation. (Which is one of the reasons why incorporating in Delaware should not be advised for everyone.)</p>\n\n<p>If you do a nationwide mail order operation, then, depending on your state, you might be required to collect the sales tax for orders shipped within the states where you have a nexus in (as Delaware has no sales tax, this would mean that you'd only have to collect the sales tax in your home state).</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "united-states" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2193, "body": "<p>You can read about your rights as a California tenant at</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/catenant.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/catenant.pdf</a></p>\n\n<p>This is rather ridiculous:</p>\n\n<p>1) No judge will evict someone for paying rent by mail. (I assume you have the new landlord's address.) </p>\n\n<p>2) If the landlord cashes the check you mail then he's not going to be able to claim you didn't pay the rent. If he actually refuses to cash your mailed check then that's all to the good for you.</p>\n\n<p>3) You can ignore any requirements imposed by the new landlord that aren't in the lease, just as the landlord could ignore any new requirement imposed on him by you. Even some terms in a lease can be ignored, because not all terms in a contract are legal. (This is especially the case in tenant-landlord law.)</p>\n\n<p>If you think there will be trouble then use certified mail.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 850, "body": "<p>First and foremost, what does the lease agreement say. This is a binding contract and generally cannot be changed unilaterally.</p>\n\n<p>There are two issues here that need to be determined:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p>Can, and if so how, the lease be transferred to a new landlord. Almost certainly the lease will address this issue and the new landlord must comply with these provisions</p></li>\n<li><p>There will almost certainly be provisions in the lease that detail when and how the rent is to be paid. The new landlord must comply with these.</p></li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>So, either what they are doing <em>is</em> within the scope of the lease and you would be very wise to comply if you want to keep living there. Or it <em>isn't</em> and you would still be wise to comply because who, frankly, wants to start their relationship with a new landlord with an argument. </p>\n\n<p>Since the other tenants have the ability to make online payments they can just transfer the money to the person who is on site and that person can pay the rent in person. I assume there is a sufficient level of trust between the housemates for this.</p>\n\n<p>If you cannot comply and the landlord has not complied then draft a letter pointing out their non-compliance and explaining your circumstances and when and how you will pay. - they are unlikely to evict you in these circumstances.</p>\n\n<p>If you cannot comply and the landlord has then you need to consider if the terms of the contract are within the laws of your jurisdiction - they probably are and its probably not worth going to court to find out. In theses circumstances again write a similar letter without pointing the finger. Any action the landlord then takes could be defended as being unconscionable - maybe.</p>\n\n<p>I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "california", "residential-lease", "rental-property", "rent", "fair-housing-acts" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2185, "body": "<blockquote>\n <p>Anyone who uses a credit report or another type of consumer report to\n deny your application for credit, insurance, or employment – or to\n take another adverse action against you – must tell you, and must give\n you the name, address, and phone number of the agency that provided\n the information.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0096-fair-credit-reporting-act.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act</a></p>\n\n<p>Read some more of that document. It tells you that you have a right to see your file. It also tells you who to contact.</p>\n\n<p>Promissory estoppel is not something that is violated. It's a legal doctrine which can help enforce a promise made in the absence of a contract. Without more facts it's impossible to predict if promissory estoppel can help your friend. And if there aren't more facts it's unlikely that PE will help as this appears to be a routine job offer contingent on a background check. </p>\n\n<p>Now, the action based on a background check might be interesting especially if your friend is a member of a protected class. You can read more about this in the document I linked to. </p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 2190, "body": "<p>There are potentially two different circumstances here:</p>\n\n<h2>Contract</h2>\n\n<p>If the employer made an unconditional offer which the employee accepted then there is a contract of employment and the employer must then terminate it in accordance with the relevant employment law. This may or may not include things like notice periods, severance pay and having just reasons (which may require divulging those reasons) - all of these are <em>highly</em> jurisdiction specific.</p>\n\n<h2>No contract</h2>\n\n<p>Alternatively, if the offer was conditional on the background check then no contract was created and there is no requirement to show you the report but <em>must</em> give you the contact details of the agency who are required to show it to you and amend it if it is wrong.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "employment" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2166, "body": "<p>I think you are misinterpreting what the article is saying. It's not Germany as a whole that is banning managers contacting employees (and since you are not a manager, this wouldn't affect you anyway), it is the German ministry of Employment banning it for <strong>its employees</strong>. When it comes to your own workplace, you will need to look at your own contract and see whether you are allowed to work on the weekend without, for example, getting extra money for that work. This is probably not the case for you as a PhD student, but if it is, you would usually need to talk to your employer before doing work on the weekends. </p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "employment", "germany" ]

[ { "answer_id": 687, "body": "<p><strong>This answer assumes Europe as jurisdiction, not the United States.</strong></p>\n\n<p>This will vary wildly across jurisdictions, but given that this question is unanswered for two weeks now, I will provide an answer for Europe, specifically the Czech Republic. It will be somewhat different in other states.</p>\n\n<p>First, the list of criminal offenses a corporation can commit is specified in the law. It is exactly that, a list. Of the 300 crimes an individual can commit here, about 100 of them can also be done by a corporation. </p>\n\n<p>It is hard to discover why these hundred crimes were chosen specifically. Logic used to make this list eludes me. For example, a corporation can commit <em>Rape</em>, but not <em>Murder</em>. It can commit a <em>Terrorist attack</em> but not <em>Terror</em>. It can commit <em>Threatening a public official</em> but not <em>Oppression</em>.</p>\n\n<p>I looked through the explanatory notes for the law and I discoved the reason: Strictly only those crimes were created for corporations that were required by higher european law, which only moves the question higher up. I did not look up what the European Parliament had to say about this.</p>\n\n<p>There is one crime that was added specifically, later on, to the list, and that is <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury\">Usury</a>.</p>\n\n<p>In principle, all crimes committed by an individual can be done by a corporation, because a crime is considered to be committed by a corporation if the action is done by an employee in the name of the corporation.</p>\n", "score": 12 }, { "answer_id": 765, "body": "<p>Since we have an answer for the Czech Republic, let me provide an answer for England and Wales.</p>\n\n<p>First, corporations as a rule should not be treated differently to natural persons.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ol start=\"4\">\n <li>A company is a legal person, capable of being prosecuted, and should not be treated differently from an individual because of its artificial personality.</li>\n </ol>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>[This is from the official guidance of the Crown Prosecution Service, the public prosecutor in England and Wales.]</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_prosecutions/#a02\">http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_prosecutions/#a02</a></p>\n\n<p>However, a corporation <em>is</em> different to a natural person in two ways. First, it is only capable of acting through its agents—directors, employees, shareholders and so on. So the corporation can only be guilty in the sense that a crime is committed by a natural person on its behalf. But then you have the question, when is a person acting on behalf of a corporation, and when is a person acting as a private individual?</p>\n\n<p>So, for some crimes, it is a clear defence for the corporation to say, \"the person was not acting on behalf of the corporation\". </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A company cannot be criminally liable for offences which cannot be committed by an official of a company in the scope of their employment, for example rape.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Second, the corporation cannot be sent to prison, it can only be fined. So if an offence requires a custodial sentence, it cannot (in common law) be committed by the body corporate.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The offence must be punishable with a fine (this excludes murder, treason, piracy).</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_prosecutions/#a05\">http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_prosecutions/#a05</a></p>\n\n<p>In some cases it has been felt desirable that a corporation should be punished for manslaughter and other serious crimes perpetuated by its agents. Parliament has acted to create a specific offence of corporate manslaughter. No doubt other jurisdictions have similar provisions. <a href=\"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/19/section/1?view=plain\">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/19/section/1?view=plain</a></p>\n\n<p>I would imagine that many States in the United States apply similar principles.</p>\n", "score": 10 }, { "answer_id": 2186, "body": "<p>In the United States, a defendant can only be convicted of a crime if they meet certain <em><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea\" rel=\"noreferrer\">mens rea</a></em> requirements. There are some crimes that do not have this requirement, but they are required to be less serious crimes.</p>\n\n<p>A corporation has no mind. It therefore cannot have a \"guilty mind\" required for the <em>mens rea</em> requirement. We have therefore developed two ways of holding corporations liable for bad acts. These theories are not uniformly adopted. There are a series of department of justice memos (see, e.g., <a href=\"http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/legacy/2010/04/11/charging-corps.PDF\" rel=\"noreferrer\">the McNulty Memo</a>) establishing the federal government's approach to this issue, but remember the DOJ doesn't make law and so it is up to courts to determine if they \"buy\" the approaches used by the DOJ (or other prosecuting entities).</p>\n\n<p>The first theory is one of <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior\" rel=\"noreferrer\">respondeat superior</a>. It holds basically that the corporation can be held liable as employer for the bad acts of its employees. This theory is highly constrained, since at common law we usually don't hold a real person employer liable for <em>crimes</em> of their employees (only for torts).</p>\n\n<p>The second theory is a \"legal fiction\" of consciousness. We simply determine that if one or many managers are aware of an act, that the corporation is deemed to have the relevant awareness. This gets even more \"fictional\" for crimes where the <em>mens rea</em> is not mere knowledge but purpose.</p>\n\n<p>A third possibility involves holding the corporate entity liable for \"aiding\" or \"conspiring\" or \"soliciting\" the commission of a crime. This approach is troubled because traditionally one can only be found to have \"conspired\" if one had a certain <em>mens rea</em> so this doesn't really resolve the problem.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>To address your exact question: Corporations can be convicted of any crime so long as they have the relevant <em>mens rea</em> and performed the <em>actus reus</em> causing the harm. So there are not \"limits\" on the crimes they can be convicted of in any hard sense; it's just very challenging to satisfy the mens rea requirement in any non-fictional sense and this has lead courts to be very reluctant in applying criminal sanctions. In practice this has meant that corporations are mostly prosecuted for conduct that relates to business in some commonsense way. But this isn't always the case. For example, <a href=\"http://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/fedex-indicted-its-role-distributing-controlled-substances-and-prescription-drugs\" rel=\"noreferrer\">FedEx was indicted</a> for smuggling controlled substances and in some ways treated like an ordinary drug dealer might be.</p>\n", "score": 8 } ]

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

[ { "answer_id": 1220, "body": "<p>It's a contract violation if you're under the EULA. It may be a <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_contract_of_adhesion\" rel=\"nofollow\">contract of adhesion</a>, but such <a href=\"https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Contracts:_Click_Wrap_Licenses\" rel=\"nofollow\">\"clickwrap\" contracts been found to be acceptable and enforceable</a> in software EULAs out of necessity. However, there may be <a href=\"https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/395/vol3_no3_art11.pdf?sequence=1\" rel=\"nofollow\">some limits</a>. </p>\n\n<p>If you're not under the EULA, as you argue, then you lack a license to use the software at all and it's an outright copyright violation and/or a theft or misappropriation of the software. </p>\n\n<p>Whether or not you can be sued depends in part on what you do with it — if you don't release the material or otherwise cause damages then there's not much to sue for... </p>\n\n<p>Added for clarification: to answer the framing question, supposing neither contract or copyright applied, one could be sued in tort or in equity (i.e. for unjust enrichment). </p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 1308, "body": "<p>Under the circumstances you describe, the friend who installed the software is unambiguously subject to the EULA.</p>\n\n<p>The EULA presumably includes a provision prohibiting your friend from letting you use it, much less reverse engineer it.</p>\n\n<p>Therefore, your friend is in violation of the license agreement and will be liable for any resulting damages. If you caused the damage, you may, depending on the circumstances, be liable in turn to indemnify your friend for the damages.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "copyright", "licensing", "eula" ]

[ { "answer_id": 2100, "body": "<p><strong>When a piece of software explicitly requires that their open source license acknowledgments be included in derivative software (software that uses the open source software), is this a legally enforceable requirement?</strong></p>\n\n<p>Yes</p>\n\n<p><strong>What are the legal ramifications of not including the license acknowledgments in a visible part of the app (let's say it's a banking app here)?</strong> </p>\n\n<p>That would depend on if it was a requirement that the acknowledgement be publically accessible; it may be buried in a copyright notice in the source code. Remember, Copyright in software resides in the code, images and displays as \"literary\" works - algorithms are not subject to copyright.</p>\n\n<p>If the person has breached the copyright licence then the copyright holder can take action against them. Normally such action would be a request to comply with the license followed by a cease and desist order.</p>\n\n<p>In this case what action they want to take is up to PayPal or the copyright holder who granted the licence to them.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 2173, "body": "<p>If the copyright holder states \"you have the right to create derivative works of my software if you do X, Y and Z\", and you don't do X, Y and Z, then creating a derivative work is copyright infringement. The copyright holder can sue you for copyright infringement. </p>\n\n<p>The copyright holder cannot <em>force</em> you to do X, Y and Z. They can give you a hint that they wouldn't sue you for copyright infringement if you do X, Y and Z and that may be \"an offer you cannot refuse\". </p>\n\n<p>You can <em>not</em> tell the court \"I want to pay damages for breach of contract for not doing X, Y and Z\" if that is cheaper. Say the license was \"you can create a derivative work if you donate $10 to the Red Cross\" you can't say the damage is just $10. You were offered a license for the cost of $10, you didn't take it, that's your own fault. You pay for copyright infringement. </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "licensing", "intellectual-property" ]