Lawyer checking in. There's no sense getting anyone's panties in a twist over this. Even if the state legislature somehow enacted this flagrantly unconstitutional law, the courts would immediately strike it down as soon as the state tried to enforce it.
I live in Memphis, and I'm not sure what "landslides" you're talking about. The land here is flat as a pancake, except for the bluffs on the Mississippi.
On the other hand, you forgot to mention derechos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis_Summer_Storm_of_2003
I know it's a big deal to others, and I understand that, but I personally couldn't care less that he's black. Peaceful, even amicable transfer of power between opposing factions is pretty darn neat, though, and astonishingly rare in the world.
I've always liked the buried mysticism of exclaiming "holy sh*t" when surprised or amazed. Combining the sacred and the profane in one tidy little phrase, one thing composed of two irreconcilable ideas.
It's hard for me to conceive of a country that punishes vandals by caning as a "model of progressiveness and modernism." (To be fair, I don't know if this law is still in effect.)
100%. But I took logic in college, AND I'm a lawyer.
@6: You're right, there's nothing (given in the facts, anyway) to indicate that she didn't do it, but the question to ask if you're looking for proof is "Given only the facts presented, is it possible, no matter how remotely or implausibly, that she did not do it?" If there's a 0.00000000001% possibility that she didn't do it, then it's not logically "proven." (The O.J. Simpson murder trial is a good example.)
I taught freshman English at a university in the mid-90s, and we were told in no uncertain terms to use green pens instead of red, so as not to injure the students' self-esteem or something.
@Edward: I'd say "refutes" is too strong a word, as there are still lots of places on Earth where diet and health ARE linked in the way current theories would predict.
As DOJ points out, what this highlights is that lots of factors affect health, including diet, genetics, environment, exercise, hygiene, and invisible death rays from space, for all I know.
Here's what I sent to a friend when I first heard about the spider-guy:
--------
She says, in the e-mail from 11:03 a.m., Oct 10, 2008: "Yes it is the same drawing. I copied and pasted it from the e-mail you sent me..."
To which he should have immediately replied:
Excuse me? You copied it? I am appalled at your unequivocal admission that you have infringed my copyright in this drawing of a spider, and I intend to seek whatever legal or equitable remedies may be available. Title 17 of the United States Code will elaborate:
"Section 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
"(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:[...]
"(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works....."
So U.S.C. Title 17, Section 102 (a) (5) confirms that I do, in fact own the copyright and you did not have the right to copy it. Section 504 tells us what remedies may be available:
"504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
"(a) In General. — Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either —
"(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or
"(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c)."
As my actual damages and your profits would be difficult if not impossible to accurately measure (my own emotional distress over this matter cannot be overstated), I turn to subsection (c) for what statutory damages are available:
"(c) Statutory Damages. —
"(1) [...]the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action ... in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just."
So it seems that by freely admitting that you copied my drawing of a spider, you have admitted your civil liability for the tort of copyright infringement, as a remedy for which I am entitled to a sum of not less than $750.
So it now appears that your company owes me, at a minimum, $750. As I owe your company $233.95, I anticipate receipt of a check from you in the amount of $516.05.
Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
This probably doesn't apply to last year specifically (I don't recall any space-related deaths last year), but over time, I suspect Astronaut is the most dangerous job. I can think of 15 or 20 who've died, and there have only been a couple hundred of them, right?
I like the list of what he can help you with: Major drug charges, serious felonies, post conviction relief (i.e., appeals), etc.
Woogie, I don't know about Louisiana (where this guy apparently practices) specifically, but most state licensing boards require "this is an advertisement" to be prominently displayed in any ad for legal services.
I'm a lawyer, though I don't practice in intellectual property, and in law school I took a course in Cyberlaw. Many, many Web sites say, in those legalese-filled "Terms & Conditions" pages that no one reads, that you're only allowed to link to the site's homepage and not to any other pages. Example from NFL.com:
"You may link to the home page of the Service without obtaining our permission provided that you do so only through a plain-text link. For any other type of link to the Service, you must obtain our permission."
The (rather flimsy, IMO) legal argument they base this on is copyright: They say they own the copyright in each individual URL on the site, and that by putting one of those URLs in the link on your page and posting it, you're copying their URL and thereby infringing their copyright.
It's a weak argument and I doubt they'd win in court, but who wants to go to court over something like this?
On the other hand, you forgot to mention derechos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis_Summer_Storm_of_2003
So I guess it evens out.
Ariel Atom: Jaw, meet floor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay
@6: You're right, there's nothing (given in the facts, anyway) to indicate that she didn't do it, but the question to ask if you're looking for proof is "Given only the facts presented, is it possible, no matter how remotely or implausibly, that she did not do it?" If there's a 0.00000000001% possibility that she didn't do it, then it's not logically "proven." (The O.J. Simpson murder trial is a good example.)
As DOJ points out, what this highlights is that lots of factors affect health, including diet, genetics, environment, exercise, hygiene, and invisible death rays from space, for all I know.
--------
She says, in the e-mail from 11:03 a.m., Oct 10, 2008: "Yes it is the same drawing. I copied and pasted it from the e-mail you sent me..."
To which he should have immediately replied:
Excuse me? You copied it? I am appalled at your unequivocal admission that you have infringed my copyright in this drawing of a spider, and I intend to seek whatever legal or equitable remedies may be available. Title 17 of the United States Code will elaborate:
"Section 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
"(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:[...]
"(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works....."
So U.S.C. Title 17, Section 102 (a) (5) confirms that I do, in fact own the copyright and you did not have the right to copy it. Section 504 tells us what remedies may be available:
"504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
"(a) In General. — Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either —
"(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or
"(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c)."
As my actual damages and your profits would be difficult if not impossible to accurately measure (my own emotional distress over this matter cannot be overstated), I turn to subsection (c) for what statutory damages are available:
"(c) Statutory Damages. —
"(1) [...]the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action ... in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just."
So it seems that by freely admitting that you copied my drawing of a spider, you have admitted your civil liability for the tort of copyright infringement, as a remedy for which I am entitled to a sum of not less than $750.
So it now appears that your company owes me, at a minimum, $750. As I owe your company $233.95, I anticipate receipt of a check from you in the amount of $516.05.
Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
-------
Woogie, I don't know about Louisiana (where this guy apparently practices) specifically, but most state licensing boards require "this is an advertisement" to be prominently displayed in any ad for legal services.
"You may link to the home page of the Service without obtaining our permission provided that you do so only through a plain-text link. For any other type of link to the Service, you must obtain our permission."
The (rather flimsy, IMO) legal argument they base this on is copyright: They say they own the copyright in each individual URL on the site, and that by putting one of those URLs in the link on your page and posting it, you're copying their URL and thereby infringing their copyright.
It's a weak argument and I doubt they'd win in court, but who wants to go to court over something like this?