tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.comments2022-08-11T19:39:04.705+01:00LawClangerSimon Bradshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14233721281522686341noreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-66519559640928840472011-12-01T21:07:30.444+00:002011-12-01T21:07:30.444+00:00Tom,
With respect, that's pretty much the lin...Tom,<br /><br />With respect, that's pretty much the line that Mr Lennon took - and which the Court of Appeal comprehensively dismissed. Yes, the Sun was inviting emails. But if there is an organised campaign to send a vast number with the express intent of crashing their hotline (and you do say that is what you wanted to do) then your intent, and the intent of everyone who took part, wasn't to communicate with the Sun, it was to degrade or shut down the Sun's mail server. (Well, I suppose that was a form of communication in itself, but it certainly wasn't the form of communication that the Sun was inviting.)<br /><br />You're quite right that the content is irrelevant though. As far as I can see your sample letter isn't abusive, threatening or defamatory. The only issue the Sun could have with you is that you contrived to deluge them with such vast numbers of copies of it that their hotline collapsed under the strain.Simon Bradshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14233721281522686341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-53396088780812416512011-11-30T11:43:35.285+00:002011-11-30T11:43:35.285+00:00Interesting questions here. But I think you're...Interesting questions here. But I think you're wrong. Email bombing is not done by individual people but by zombie botnets for example. This means they are coming from one source, not from individuals. The emails in our case were actually requested by the Sun - they asked people to send examples of benefit scroungers - which is what we did. The fact that their own campaign ends up being so successful they get so deluged with emails is not at all against the law. Of course, the fact they don't like the content of our particular emails is also not a matter for the courts. <br />The courts could not allow individuals to be prosecuted in that situation because they would have to accept that sending an opinion to someone who openly asked for it was illegal. Now, they could try to prosecute the person who started the campaign - in this case me. And that would be an interesting test case. Of course,the fact of the matter is that some people would be more than prepared to go to court for things they feel strongly about. The publicity would be more than welcome. Do not underestimate how prepared some people would be to even do prison time over such issues. I know I would. By the way, our campaign was successful. The Sun's line is now closed and seems to remain so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-6353325010601550162011-11-29T23:56:47.620+00:002011-11-29T23:56:47.620+00:00Alasdair,
You're right that the risk of someo...Alasdair,<br /><br />You're right that the risk of someone who sent an individual email being prosecuted is low - in part because the effect in isolation is small, but also because it might be hard for the CPS to get over the objection that they were unfairly singling out people just because they had been caught. (Of course, that defence didn't get very far with those who were caught committing otherwise minor offences during the riots.)<br /><br />However, I'm not sure I agree with your distinction between public and private mailboxes. The point made in <i>Lennon</i> was that whatever purpose a mailbox is set up for, it's not there to be deluged in mail sent for the purpose of rendering it unusable.<br /><br />As for overloaded sites in general, s.3 CMA 1990 only applies where the excessive access was deliberate or reckless. There is an interesting argument as to whether trying to direct hits to a competitor's site so as to overwhelm it would count as a DDOS attack; I've even seen the question raised as to whether, with elastic-demand cloud computing, it's legitimate to try to drive up a competitor's usage billing this way. (Something along the same lines was apparently done with pay-per-click ads.)Simon Bradshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14233721281522686341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-75307930555213371972011-11-29T23:31:07.160+00:002011-11-29T23:31:07.160+00:00I can see that it would be an offense for someone ...I can see that it would be an offense for someone to say, set up a mail sending bot that, on it's own, sent so many emails that it would overwhelm a mailbox. But surely while the cumulative impact of thousands of people sending a single email would have the same effect, it would be very hard to prove that any single one them them did?<br /><br />Further, there's a difference between my private email, which I don't invite the public to send their opinions to, and a mailbox that has been expressly created for that purpose.<br /><br />Otherwise any website that goes down under high load could argue that they'd been effectively DOSed by their customers, and that they were entitled to have their customers prosecuted for showing up and not buying - they used the website in such way as to prevent others using it for it's intended purpose.<br /><br />Surely the defining feature in the criminality is that it has to be one person, or at least an identifiable group doing the flooding? I can see that the guy calling for the massive action might be on dodgy ground, but sure if enough people chose to participate by sending a single email each, then each of them is only doing what the Sun has invited them to do?Alasdairhttp://www.black-ink.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-10873608542017580302011-10-04T22:42:12.042+01:002011-10-04T22:42:12.042+01:00Out of curiosity, say I wanted to make and sell a ...Out of curiosity, say I wanted to make and sell a journal similar in style to River Song's blue tardis journal in the most recent Dr. Who episodes.<br /><br />Since BBC holds the trademark to the 3 dimensional object, and not a pattern that appears on a journal 2-3 times in the show, would they have a case?Stephenhttp://www.bravadowaffle.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-90510962471524348002011-08-26T15:46:16.076+01:002011-08-26T15:46:16.076+01:00Nice article, thanks for the information.Nice article, thanks for the information.rental mobilhttp://griyamobilkita.webs.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-87507512998698268792011-07-05T20:22:55.716+01:002011-07-05T20:22:55.716+01:00Thank you very much. This is the same conclusion t...Thank you very much. This is the same conclusion that I (a non-expert) came to, and I am very pleased to have it confirmed by clear, careful analysis from someone who knows what they are talking about.<br /><br />Again, thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-90809428284462082932011-07-05T20:22:08.571+01:002011-07-05T20:22:08.571+01:00All the clause about "you must ensure you hav...All the clause about "you must ensure you have the rights you need to grant us that permission" means is "We told you to obey the law and made it part of our TOS; you're the one liable if you use our service in such a way that breaches copyright law or your contractual obligations".Matthew Jude Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16635166205916243972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-6310738030766731382011-07-05T15:25:40.335+01:002011-07-05T15:25:40.335+01:00Thanks for the clarification. I'm perhaps over...Thanks for the clarification. I'm perhaps over-trusting of services like this, and I assume that they have the best intentions at heart when reading their ToS. I was a little concerned over the royalty-free aspect of the terms, so thank you for the clarification (and, indeed, validating my trust in Dropbox over this matter).<br /><br />Furthermore, thanks for distilling the whole thing into language that is easy to understand. Even in "simple" form, these documents can be quite daunting.Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06311981404136848122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-3273437888439198062011-07-04T23:41:00.524+01:002011-07-04T23:41:00.524+01:00Thank you, Mr. Bradshaw, for helping me understand...Thank you, Mr. Bradshaw, for helping me understand this issue. As one of those writers who stores manuscripts in progress and completed, published works on Dropbox, I am relieved to know that it isn't what I had feared.Maddy Baronehttp:?%3Fmaddybarone.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-73851084409874436032011-07-04T21:32:08.350+01:002011-07-04T21:32:08.350+01:00Mike: Ooops, of course that's what it means in...Mike: Ooops, of course that's what it means in this case. Thanks for spotting this.Simon Bradshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14233721281522686341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-55093954412839538312011-07-04T18:49:40.606+01:002011-07-04T18:49:40.606+01:00One small correction, I think. "Royalty-free&...One small correction, I think. "Royalty-free" in this context surely means that you're not charging Dropbox, not that Dropbox aren't charging.Mike Scottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-71532140235613414132011-01-25T01:01:16.371+00:002011-01-25T01:01:16.371+00:00I find Bob's comment above interesting in that...I find Bob's comment above interesting in that it's the copying of the exact piece by way of a mould that they complained about rather than the copying of the appearence. Leaving aside the current law issues on this particular case, one of the problems we have at present with much of so-called IP law is the blurry boundaries which have been pushed out and out and out again over what's covered. No longer is confusion by customers necessary for trademark infringement, just making some money from something which includes the use of a trademark term may be enough (scooby-doo.co.uk and ihateryanair.co.uk, for example). No longer is there a significant idea/expression dichotomy in copyright (Harper Bros v Kaplan). Traditional art can be claimed by producing a non-traditional variant and then applied back to the traditional source (McCartney and Mull of Kintyre). ALl this is doing more harm to creativity and culture than all the unauthorised copying in the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-77639236984422416642011-01-24T23:48:56.125+00:002011-01-24T23:48:56.125+00:00I know that Lucasfilm was attempting to check the ...I know that Lucasfilm was attempting to check the sale and distribution of unauthorised replica props from Star Wars as far back as 1979. I saw one of the production company people from Pinewood stop a couple of hall costumers dressed as Stormtroopers at the 1979 Worldcon in Brighton to ask them where they had got the moulds for the armour pieces from. They explained that they had scratch-built them, not copied them from film company parts and that was that.Robert Sneddonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-26976710824948846102010-12-04T08:11:45.536+00:002010-12-04T08:11:45.536+00:00libhom,
I'm not sure I'm with you. Are yo...libhom,<br /><br />I'm not sure I'm with you. Are you suggesting that in the US a corporation can't sue or be sued? (In other words, that Amazon would not have legal standing to defend itself in court if Wikileaks or Assange sued them?)<br /><br />Because that would be quite a remarkable proposition to put it mildly.<br /><br />As for boycotting Amazon: if you want to do that, fine, but are you going to boycott every service that uses AWS to power it?Simon Bradshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14233721281522686341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-12483600363480471742010-12-04T01:59:17.932+00:002010-12-04T01:59:17.932+00:00I've canceled my account in response to Amazon...I've canceled my account in response to Amazon's reprehensible action.<br /><br />I should point out that there is a basic flaw in your argument. Corporations have no rights in the US. The US Constitution limits rights to people.libhomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05537213558568338561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-45475200234119454882010-11-17T12:19:30.617+00:002010-11-17T12:19:30.617+00:00Well, if Cage's estate wanted to make it a rea...Well, if Cage's estate wanted to make it a real fight while not suing a charity, the John Lennon track Nutopian International Anthem (a 3-second long silent track on the multi-million selling Mind Games album) springs to mind...Andrew Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412263807838661843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-5145885144365390842010-11-17T11:14:11.764+00:002010-11-17T11:14:11.764+00:00There's a rather stronger point - as the comme...There's a rather stronger point - as the comment above notes, the two minutes' silence has been going on for a substantial time (the earliest definite mention I can find is a letter from George V in 1919 suggesting that everyone should observe it). 4'33" was premiered in 1952. If anyone's got copyright it's probably a chap called Sir Percy Fitzpatrick - a fairly full history is here: <br />http://collections.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.3165Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-60909612714981923102010-11-17T10:52:11.902+00:002010-11-17T10:52:11.902+00:00Surely there must be some kind of prior usage argu...Surely there must be some kind of prior usage argument as the two minutes silence has been going on for quite a while.<br />There are probably quite a few people breaking the same copyright at http://www.zerodb.org/ as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-70353465116549851722010-09-06T21:54:51.998+01:002010-09-06T21:54:51.998+01:00As a computer programmer, I find it funny that you...As a computer programmer, I find it funny that you're trying to decide if your Canon digital SLR is a computer or not. I'll let you out of your misery:<br /><br />Virtually any Canon Powershot D-SLR <b>is</b> unequivocally a computer. You can write and upload your own software to it (see: <a href="http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK" rel="nofollow">chdk.wikia.com</a>). It has a screen and a keyboard. You can program it to make it do general purpose computation, not solely related to photography, but any computation you like within the limits of the available CPU and memory on the camera. It runs a general purpose operating system similar to (though not the same as) the OS on your desktop. Programs are written in the same language (C) as you would write programs for your desktop computer.<br /><br />Or let me put it another way. If the Canon Powershot models mentioned on the page above (and the same applies to many other manufacturers and models), if those aren't computers, then the desktop machine I'm typing this on isn't a computer.Richard Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08315526595922432607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-79356406908968960822010-02-04T19:40:13.559+00:002010-02-04T19:40:13.559+00:00For those saying that this unzoomify-tools is comp...For those saying that this unzoomify-tools is comparable to breaking in a house with the front door open, you're wrong.<br /><br />Just like you can download an image from Wikipedia, or Google images, you can downlaod an image from sites such as the Royal Collection.<br /><br />There's only 1 difference.<br />On Wikipedia's servers, they serve the images in a [img]-tag. Which means most browsers will allow drag-and-drop to your desktop.<br /><br />Down side is that you have to download the entire image, you can't zoom in or anything.<br /><br />The royal collection serves them in a Flash-player that allows zooming on several levels and only downloads the piece of the image in view at that moment.<br /><br />Flash does not allow drag-and-drop to desktop. however I'm 99% sure that Flash is not used as a measure to protect the image. Instead, it's a made for user experience.<br /><br />Most people on the Royal Collection site dont need to download, they want to be served in a nice Flashy component.<br /><br />Now, if you use a different browser (not Firefox, or Internet Explorer) but unzoomify, then you download the image that their Flash-player uses directly.<br /><br />For clarification, images on the royal collection are owned by the Crown, and such are subject to Crown copyright.<br /><br />In contrary to normal copyright (which expires 70 years after the authors dead), a Crown copyright expires 50 years after publishing.<br /><br />So, whether you agree with me on or not that this tool is not 'breaking' anything. The images in question are public domain anyway. So it's only to blame for the Royal Collection that they make it so hard to download them.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, they are actually illigal, in stating "(c) 2010 UK", because the Royal Collection does no longer own the copyright !<br /><br />--<br />Thanks for reading,<br />GringerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-18070131685795943342010-01-24T16:10:42.095+00:002010-01-24T16:10:42.095+00:00Anonymous,
If a police officer attempts to force ...Anonymous,<br /><br />If a police officer attempts to force me to delete an image, then I would very politely point out that he may well be committing a criminal offence by doing so. Then, when I bring a private prosecution under the CMA, he will have more difficulty claiming that he did not appreciate that what he was doing might be an offence.<br /><br />More significantly, there has since I wrote this been firm guidance from both government and senior police officers that it is indeed illegal to force people to delete photographs from cameras.Simon Bradshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14233721281522686341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-10097409863341971872010-01-23T19:24:10.851+00:002010-01-23T19:24:10.851+00:00This is all too far fetched.
You may possibly be r...This is all too far fetched.<br />You may possibly be right about a camera being a computer, but how in the world an alpha copper would take this obscure 1990 law into consideration when he can't even be bothered with understanding section 44 of the Terror Act?<br />I understand your argument but you should keep it for the court, there is no way a cop would get your point at the first place.<br />You are 'couper les cheveux en quatre' or 'chercher midi a quatorze heures' as we say in French...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-61020344627071756362009-12-21T12:14:44.116+00:002009-12-21T12:14:44.116+00:00Ooops, so it did. I'll fix it later but for no...Ooops, so it did. I'll fix it later but for now the link is:<br /><br />http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2009/12/star-wars-court-of-appeal-stars-in.htmlSimon Bradshawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-79281084633304764542009-12-21T12:10:47.645+00:002009-12-21T12:10:47.645+00:00Something went a bit awry with your the IPKat'...Something went a bit awry with your <i>the IPKat's disappointment</i> link.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com