joe, beta

EFF had applied to the Copyright Office to grant exemptions permitting the cracking of DRM in three cases: first, to "jailbreak" a mobile device, such as an iPhone, where DRM is used to prevent phone owners from running software of their own choosing; second, to allow video remix artists to break the DRM on DVDs in order to take short excerpts for mashups posted to YouTube and other sharing sites; finally EFF got the Copyright Office to renew its ruling that made it illegal to unlock cellphones so that they can be used with any carrier.

I haven't read the EFF press release Doctorow is writing about here, but a cursory read of his article indicates that this development should water down that pirate flavoring attendant upon activities like jailbreaking phones and ripping video from DVDs for limited use in derivative works.

Unfortunately, Doctorow also mentions that the odd US logic seemingly retracted by these moves by the Copyright Office is still being supported in US influence on foreign copyright policy. Read his article at Boing Boing for more on that.

Via: Boing Boing
Source: EFF

"When you are charged with a crime, your lawyer needs to tell you the full picture," said Bibas, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan who teaches criminal procedure at Penn, and who lives with his wife and two children in Fairmount. "You would never hire a business lawyer to advise you on a contract for a company if the lawyer was not also able to say that this might get you in trouble with antitrust authorities or you will be liable for violating someone's patent."

This is a pretty cool story. Keep in mind that the point isn't that the guy wasn't a criminal -- it seems clear that he was -- but that he was misled by incompetent counsel on the likely ooutcome of a guilty plea.

He may have had other options, like, off the top of my head, a bargain in which he could have revealed the source of the 1,000 pounds of marijuana in exchange for a guarantee that he wouldn't face deportation.

Of course, I haven't had criminal procedure yet, so what the hell do I know?

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer; University of Pennsylvania Law School Supreme Court Clinic

The surge was not spread evenly by gender, according to the LSAC. The percentage of male applicants grew by nearly 5%, while the increase in female applicants was 1%. Zearfoss speculated that women, who are generally more risk-averse than men, may be more reluctant to take on the debt needed to pay for law school right now. 

The article itself is pretty comprehensive, and worth a read if you have some time to 1) do the reading; 2) convince yourself to follow through on loans for next semester; and 3) maintain your resolve in the face of bleak odds based on cold, unfeeling data.

Lots of people who took the LSAT ultimately decided against going to law school. LSAT takers increased by 13% this year, but there was only a 3% increase in actual applicants.

I don't even have a point to make here, just looking at this data and thinking back to my "Why I Chose Temple Law" post from August 2009 (the post is poorly formatted because it was imported from my old blog, forgive the laziness that prevents me from fixing the formatting).

I'm still happy I'm in school, and still very much want to be a lawyer. And there are far darker fates for your wallet than being a PA resident enrolled in Temple Law.

So I'm not going anywhere.

Via: Wall Street Journal Law Blog
Source: Law.com

Last month, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., introduced a bill that might -- we're not really sure -- give the president the authority to shut down all or portions of the Internet in the event of an emergency.

This is a great post about the potential widespread problems that flipping such a kill switch might cause, and why implementing authority -- presidential or otherwise -- to unilaterally shut off internet connectivity would actually do more harm to the good guys than the bad guys.

Read the full post to learn of the flawed assumptions upon which Schneier believes such legislative proposals are based.

Source: Schneier On Security

The users are claiming that Linden Labs and Founder Philip Rosedale persuaded them to invest money and pay a sort of “property tax” with the promise of actual ownership of virtual land. Now, the users say, the terms of service have been changed without their prior knowledge or consent. They say the new terms “state that these land and property owners did not own what they had created, bought and paid for, and that these consumers had no choice but to click on a new terms of service agreement or they could not have access to their property.” Moreover, the group alleges that Linden Labs froze user accounts and deleted or converted non-virtual currency and virtual property without giving any explanation or avenues for recourse.

This class-action case, Evans v. Linden, was filed close to home, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Would notice have been enough to avoid liability, if there is any liability to begin with?

Could they just grandfather previous purchases so they are not affected by the new terms?

This will be an interesting case to watch.

View the suit's website:
http://www.virtuallanddispute.com/

The filing cites as a related case Bragg v. Linden Labs, a case brought by a lawyer/user of Second Life, also in the Eastern District, regarding his termination from the virtual world for his method of buy virtual land at less than cost.

The case ultimately settled, but the court called the mandatory arbitration clause in Linden Lab's terms unenforceable, and said in-game interaction was enough to meet the minimum contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction.

While Bragg does seem related, in that it touches virtual world litigation generally, Evans v. Linden is more focused on the property issue.
More on Bragg v. Linden Lab:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab

The law prohibits the sale of an interactive video game to anyone under 18 if the game was so violent it was "patently offensive," according to prevailing community standards and lacked serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

In my personal opinion, parents needs to be informed about the games their kids like and buy. Parents are in a better and more socially-digestable position to risk infringing on minors' First Amendment rights than the government.

Are "prevailing community standards" the standards of the local geographical community, the legal climate of the municipality, or the gaming community?

Certainly that last one would be far more lenient than the others, and probably isn't meant as one of the optional communities referred to by the law's standard-setting clause.

I also think any attempt to show a game is devoid of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value would be an uphill battle and, in many cases, disingenuous on its face.

Many of even the most violent games are developed by hoards of real artists and writers and often employ cutting-edge programming "science."

Previous First Amendment stories on joebeta.com:

• Supreme Court voids law aimed at banning animal cruelty videos" -- via Washington Post [Quote]
• Lawmaker to introduce anti-"crush" video bill in response to recent SCOTUS decision -- Via WSJ Law Blog [Animal Welfare]

The Georgetown grad was miserable working for a large law firm in Silicon Valley. So he quit and posted his degree in the Craigslist “For Sale” section for “the bargain basement price of $59,250″ — the current value of his student loan balance — or best offer.

The final sale price? $592.50--10% of the asking price and decidedly less than the overall cost of the legal education for which the degree holder paid.