(Image is in the Public Domain)

A fairly clever video maker has created a tutorial on copyright law using, of all things, Disney movie clips. It's humorous and informative which is a good combination 🙂

Just be careful because the speed that he switchs between clips might make you convulse.

(Image is in the Public Domain)

As it should. No better way to encourage voters than to give them e-voting machines that have been proven faulty.

Anyway, let's hope a well placed lawsuit or two can set them back on the right track.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

It's a start. Let's hope it goes somewhere.

More coverage found @: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=29792&sectionid=3510203 and http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/04/articles_of_impeachment_to_be.html

(Image is in the Public Domain)

So much for CSI.

In actuality, this is only a ruling on partial fingerprint evidence. I'm not sure if I agree that a partial print can't be considered as one piece of the evidence though I do agree that you can't make a case solely on a partial print. In this case, the judge ruled that a partial print can't be used as evidence in a murder investigation.

The more disturbing part of this article is this:

... the FBI mistakenly linked Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer, to a fingerprint lifted off a plastic bag of explosive detonators found in Madrid after commuter train bombings there killed 191 people.

So not only can your fingerprints be used to identify you as a criminal in this country, you might get nailed for crimes in completely different countries as well. Always be wary of providing fingerprints.

RIAA

(Image used under: Fair Use doctrine)

We all mourned the trial loss where the RIAA won a judgement of over $200,000 against a woman who claims she didn't even download anything. Whether she did or not, I support her appeal on the basis that $200k is excessive. Assuming she downloaded songs and shared them too, the amount of her penalty should be far closer to real damages, not some made up number.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

Cute names for bad laws aside, here's a solid report on the privacy implications of the "Protect America Act" and some recommendations on how to change it to make it acceptable.

RIAA

(Image used under: Fair Use doctrine)

The woman who was the first to successfully get a jury trial in a RIAA case lost. Even assuming they were able to prove that she had downloaded the files and left them in her share folder, the chances are she didn't know she was sharing what she downloaded and the RIAA has no way to prove actual damages, just theoretical. On that basis, they have no justification for the $200+ thousand award they recieved.

Heck knows they don't need any more encouragement, the crooks.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 3.0 [SRC])

If you've been following the case of Micheal Righi, a man who refused to show his receipt at Circuit City and was soon arrested (because he wouldn't show a police officer his ID), you know that our "security society" is pushing people to take away our rights and pushing others to accept it.

Fortunately, Micheal didn't back down, even when presented with a deal where they would drop all charges in exchange for giving up more of his rights.

I was presented with an offer to have my charges dropped in exchange for signing a document which asked the following of me:

I would not file a Section 1983 civil suit against the Brooklyn police department for infringing on my civil rights.

I would not make any disparaging remarks about the police department, with financial repercussions for doing so.

I would not discuss the details of this agreement.

These conditions were completely unacceptable to me.

Unfortunately, Michael and his family could not afford the time, effort, and money involved with a legal battle with the state. He accepted a deal where he gave up his right to sue them in exchange for immediate dismissal of the charges.

Thankfully, he is not under a gag order and can tell us how this turned out, but it's a shame and a crime that the court system is such that only those with enough money get justice.

Speaking of, people have been complaining to Michael about asking for donations such that he's decided to give away all the money donated even though it's $2000 short of what he's paid in legal fees so far. He says he can afford up to $10,000 to protect his rights and wants to remove all doubts about his intentions.

Let me say it again: it's a shame and a crime that the court system is such that only those with enough money get justice.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

Here's an interesting take on the whole situation. According to Computer and Communications Industry Association, fair use of copyrighted materials adds more value to the US economy than the copyright holders themselves.

RIAA

(Image used under: Fair Use doctrine)

From Ars Technica:

The over 20,000 file-sharing lawsuits that have been filed over the past few years share a single distinction: not one of them has made it to trial. The RIAA is trying to keep Virgin Records, et al v. Jammie Thomas from a jury trial, filing a motion for summary adjudication on some specific aspects of the case.

…

A loss at trial would be even more catastrophic for the RIAA. It would give other defense attorneys a winning template while exposing the weaknesses of the RIAA's arguments. It would also prove costly from a financial standpoint, as the RIAA would have to foot the legal expenses for both itself and the defendant. Most of all, it would set an unwelcomed precedent: over 20,000 lawsuits filed and the RIAA loses the first one to go to a jury.

That pretty much sums it up. It would be so cool to see them lose. I wonder if the people who settled previously could join a class action lawsuit against them. Probably not, but that would be nice.