Ask me a legal question
 

Go ahead and ask. Be warned however family law and european law are not my forte, and nothing in this thread will constitute legal advice.

Do you have a feel for the outcome of today's Download Case in Minn.?

Linky -> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/...729D3q0k0jtBAF

Oh, as we are in a Civ Forum.

Let's say:
Hannibal and Caesar make a peace treaty in a computer game. Hannibal attacks Caesar nevertheless and kills him.
Caesar wants compensation for immaterial damage. Will he succeed?

BTW, does that mean you are a lawyer? Or a judge? Or whatever?

It is completely jury dependant. Juries can be all over the place; if its stacked with old ladies who have never heard of Kazaa or Napster, Thomas is in for trouble. A younger, computer literate jury would be more sympathetic.

Judge Davis' ruling on proving transfer to other users could help Thomas preserve an issue on appeal, and the jury instructions in general will basically be the whole case. If the judge frames it so that Virgin has to prove 1) the songs were not owned by Thomas; 2) they were downloaded by Thomas, and no one else had access to the computer; 3) Thomas transferred the songs to others; and 4) prove that this caused someone not to purchase their music, ie damages in lost sales (very difficult to prove), then the burden is high on Virgin to prove all these things. On the other hand, the judge might decide that the DMCA only requires proving that the songs were on the computer and available via the internet to be downloaded to constitute infringement.

Also, I think a big point on appeal should be the theatrics of copying a CD in the courtroom in front of the jury without controlling the conditions, ie with the same hardware and software in use on the computer at the time the alleged downloads took place.

I think Virgin will prevail. The absence of putting anyone on the stand for the defense tells me they have decided an appeal is their best bet and Thomas must have a backer (EFF?) paying the legal bills; if they should lose on appeal, Thomas will file bankruptcy and discharge the debt (he should meet the means test to file Chapter 7, making only $18k a year).

These lawsuits are truly a zero sum game; record companies will never pay off their legal bills with the $3000 settlements and will continue to alienate customers while college students are forced into bankruptcy or more debt.

A treaty is essentially a contract between nations. The question of who can sue will turn on the issue of standing and the legal claim pursued.

If Caesar has a family member who can prove standing to bring suit, possibly they can sue for personal damages like wrongful death and the like, even without the treaty being an issue (since Caesar himself is dead and cannot therefore sue). If by Caesar you mean his country, then the next head of state will probably have standing to sue on behalf of his country in some international court of law. Also, neighboring states might have standing to sue for nuisance or possibly breach of a treaty (smoke, fire, or debris from the war wafting into their lands, causing an environmental hazard or other such things).

I assume you just mean can he sue for damages. Yes, in a civil lawsuit the plaintiff must prove damages, regardless of whether the plaintiff is a person or a governmental body.

Yes, I am a US lawyer but a lazy one. I do corporate, personal injury, and workers comp mostly.

My question, can you sue I'D (host of CivIVor) for the destruction of your team? [;p]

What should Mauer do with his the guns?

http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/to...?TOPIC_ID=4377

No I will have my revenge in the BTS game.

Keep them away from Crazy Uncle. I am not familiar with case law, but a quick glance at the Texas Statutes shows that nothing can prevent a person, even a mentally deficient or incapacitated person, from asserting their ownership interest in their guns and taking possession. Crazy huh?

So hiding them and keeping them away is the best option.

Oh and I also saw this gem, HB 284:

Law-abiding adults now enjoy the right to treat their motorhomes and travel trailers as their homes with respect to keeping and bearing handguns, knives and clubs. No CHL is required. This is an excellent idea for other states to pursue in the coming session: it advances the civil-right to arms; recognizes the individual right to keep and bear arms; acknowledges self defense; resolves a dangerous risk to the people, families and their children; it's fair; and most important, it is a reasonable common-sense law, an issue the news media always seems concerned about.

Effected vehicles are treated as your "premises" whether used on a temporary or permanent basis, and includes RVs, and towed vehicles such as a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

So you can live in a HORSE TRAILER in Texas and have a right to bear arms, just as in your own attached-to-the-earth home.

You'll have to find me first. [assw]

You follow Supreme Court stuff, like Parker/Heller v. DC?