Good luck to all my friend in MMU!study hard
Wish you all get good marks in the final exam!
Merry X'mas to all of you! 
2009年12月17日星期四
10 Big Myths about copyright explained-part 2
6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.
There is a major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.
However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more
7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests.
8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn't charge was acquited because he didn't charge, but congress amended the law to cover that.
9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past, ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who enjoyed it. Even if you can't think of how the author or owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.
10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour.
11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?"
Myth #11 (I didn't want to change the now-famous title of this article) is actually one sometimes generated in response to this list of 10 myths. No, copyright isn't an iron-clad lock on what can be published. Indeed, by many arguments, by providing reward to authors, it encourages them to not just allow, but fund the publication and distribution of works so that they reach far more people than they would if they were free or unprotected -- and unpromoted. However, it must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used.
While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive.
The author's right to control what is done with a work, however, has some validity, even if it has no commercial value. If you feel you need to violate a copyright "because you can get away with it because the work has no value" you should ask yourself why you're doing it. In general, respecting the rights of creators to control their creations is a principle many advocate adhering to.
In addition, while quite often people make incorrect claims of "fair use" it is a still valid and important concept necessary to allow the criticism of copyrighted works and their creators through examples. It's also been extended to allow things like home recording of TV shows and moving music from CDs you own to your MP3 player. But please read more about it before you do it.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
copyright is greater important in our life , we must build this common sense to protect ourselves.
False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.
There is a major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.
However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more
7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests.
8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn't charge was acquited because he didn't charge, but congress amended the law to cover that.
9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past, ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who enjoyed it. Even if you can't think of how the author or owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.
10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour.
11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?"
Myth #11 (I didn't want to change the now-famous title of this article) is actually one sometimes generated in response to this list of 10 myths. No, copyright isn't an iron-clad lock on what can be published. Indeed, by many arguments, by providing reward to authors, it encourages them to not just allow, but fund the publication and distribution of works so that they reach far more people than they would if they were free or unprotected -- and unpromoted. However, it must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used.
While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive.
The author's right to control what is done with a work, however, has some validity, even if it has no commercial value. If you feel you need to violate a copyright "because you can get away with it because the work has no value" you should ask yourself why you're doing it. In general, respecting the rights of creators to control their creations is a principle many advocate adhering to.
In addition, while quite often people make incorrect claims of "fair use" it is a still valid and important concept necessary to allow the criticism of copyrighted works and their creators through examples. It's also been extended to allow things like home recording of TV shows and moving music from CDs you own to your MP3 player. But please read more about it before you do it.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
copyright is greater important in our life , we must build this common sense to protect ourselves.
10 Big Myths about copyright explained-part 1
An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.
- by Brad Templeton
Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you know at least what copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn't know that, check out my own brief introduction to copyright for more information. Feel free to link to this document, no need to ask me. Really, NO need to ask.
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.
Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.
(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to material from the modern era, such as net postings.
Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it. You might want to look into Creative Commons style licences if you want to grant wide rights.
4) "My posting was just fair use!"
See EFF notes on fair use and links from it for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind:
The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.
These rules apply to content you pull from the internet as well. If you wanted to criticise the poker strategy advice on pokerlistings.com, you could reproduce sections of that advice in your criticism as fair use. Just copying it to make your own poker site would probably be plain old copyright infringement.
This advice brought to you by Pokerlistings.com Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon.
Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.
The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.
Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own wordsthough
See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law.
China changes registration rules - will spam changes follow?
Big news from China with regards to their domain name registration policies.Readers of the blog know that I have regularly complained about criminals from around the world abusing the services of Chinese domain name registration companies. We have also commented on the practice of "bullet-proof hosting", for instance in our story Spam Crisis in China.I am happy to report that the fine people at the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) have taken action to address this situation! Thanks to Robert McMillan from IDG for giving me the Twitter tip-off on this story!Many Chinese news sources are reporting the story:Individuals banned from .cn application is the report from the Shanghai Daily
China barred individuals from applying for Chinese domain names, ending with .cn, from yesterday as part of a national campaign against pornographic content spread online, the industry regulator said.Applicants for domain name registration are required to hand in written application forms, with a business license and the applicant's identity card, according to the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC).The new application system will help the CNNIC better regulate the Internet environment in the country and crack down on improper content online, experts said.CNNIC decided to screen applicants' qualifications strictly to stop individuals obtaining domain names using fake information, said Liu Zhijiang, vice director of the regulator."The applications in written form can help us do our work more accurately," media reported quoting Liu.Reading the recent announcements from China Internet Network Information Center we can see that changes began to be introduced on November 30.In the article, With Regard to Complaints from the Public Domain Name Registration Services two new requirements are given to all Domain Name Registration Services:1) they must prominently display a link to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technolgoy along with their MIIT approval number to do business in this area.2) they must prominently display information on how to make a domain name registration complaint to the CNNIC, including their email, telephone, and fax number for CNNIC.In their own version of security through journalism (the term we use in the US is called "Krebsing"), CNNIC revealed in their letter of December 10th that further changes would be coming as a result of a television documentary on the CCTV program "Focus" and other media reports that indicated that criminals using false information were registering websites to carry out illegal activities. They announced in their open letter, On the strengthening of domain name registration service management, that changes would be coming to crack down on "pornographic websites", stating that "CNNIC has a duty to the country as the domain name registration authroity to take responsibility to stop this illegal activity."As part of this letter, they announce that "in the face of rampant phishing, they have joined the internet community to establish an "anti-phishing website union" more than a year ago, and in the previous year have shut down more than 8,000 phishing websites to protect the public interest."As part of their plans, the CNNIC has pledged to shutdown companies performing registrations for illegal activities, and to enhance their manpower and resources to address complaints more rapidly. They have also provided a 24 hour Customer Service Telephone number and an email that can be used to report illegal domain activity:7 x 24 hour Customer Service Tel: 010-58813000E-mail: supervise@cnnic.cnFax: 010-5881266An announcement followed also on December 10th, With regard to domain name registration: Information to carry out notification of special treatment. In this announcement the rule was made that any domain name must contain "true, accurate and complete domain name registration information" and that any domain name registration that was untrue, inaccurate, or incomplete would result in the domain name being terminated. This new ruling specifically extends to previously registered domains as well - any previously registered domain reported to have false registration information is to be cancelled within five days. Any agents acting on behalf of the registration company (the phrase is "lower-level agents" - I believe this specifically refers to resellers) are also to be held to these requirements.In a second announcement on December 11th, Domain name registration information on further strengthening the audit notice CNNIC also announced that effective at 9 o'clock on December 14th, all domain name registrations would need to be submitted ONLINE AND IN WRITING and include:- a copy of the registration application stamped with the official seal of the applicant- a copy of the enterprise business license- optionally, an organization certificate (for non-businesses)- a photocopy of the applicant's identity paperworkThe announcement state that the Domain Name Registration Service must then carefully examine the written materials and send a copy to CNNIC.The online registration is allowed to proceed in realtime, but if the written materials are not received within five days, the domain name must be canceled.
We will anxiously await measurement of the results of this new policy. There are several news stories referring to particular registration companies being banned from future .cn registration until they come into compliance.
According to John Leyden's article Chinese domain crackdown targets smut sites
these include:unndc.comnamerich.cnxinnet.com
(John was quoting Global Times of China)
http://garwarner.blogspot.com/2009/12/china-changes-registration-rules-will.htmlMegnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock
An interesting case in Malaysia about the case for copyright.
In the lawsuit Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock, plaintiff manufactures and markets security systems for cars with brand THEF-PRO, it has developed and has drawings of all elements in the system.Soon Lian Hock started selling metal elements of the systems which are identical to those of the plaintiff's drawings. This is the reason why Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd accused Soon Lian Hock in violation of copyright.In its decision The High Court accepted that the controversial drawings of the metal elements are copyright as author showed enough creative effort.The Court accepts that there is a breach of copyright claimant further that the metal elements are an essential part of security systems. All this leads to distortion and the reputation of the plaintiff, a producer of systems.information a Michael Soo and Lin li Lee for International Law Office.
http://ipestonia.ning.com/profiles/blogs/copyright-in-malaysia
In Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock (Performance Audio & Car Accessories Enterprise) the plaintiff, a manufacturer and distributor of anti-theft systems for a certain brand of cars sold under the trademark THEF-PRO since 1991, asserted that it was the owner of copyright subsisting in certain drawings of the metal components of the anti-theft system and three-dimensional reproductions of the drawings.(1)
The plaintiff adduced evidence that the defendant, a sole proprietor selling car accessories, had infringed the copyright in the plaintiff's works by selling and offering for sale metal components of an anti-theft system which were entire or substantial reproductions of the works without the plaintiff's licence or consent. The plaintiff had previously obtained consent judgment against other parties for infringement of its works.
The High Court allowed the plaintiff's claim after finding copyright subsisted in the works on the grounds that the author (ie, the artist) had expended sufficient effort and skill in the creation of the works.
The High Court found that the author of the works, who was the managing director of the plaintiff, was also the plaintiff's employee. Since the works were made in the course of his employment, copyright in the works were deemed to have been transferred to the plaintiff.
The High Court took the view that the fact that the author was the managing director of the plaintiff did not mean that he was not an employee of the plaintiff, reasoning that (i) he was paid a salary to create the works, and (ii) in a typical small-scale family business, it was common for a managing director or an executive director to manage the entire business by him or herself.
The High Court found that there was infringement as the defendant's metal components had copied a substantial part of the plaintiff's works.
The High Court also held that the defendant had committed the tort of unlawful interference with trade. The defendant had interfered with the plaintiff's trade unlawfully by selling and offering for sale an anti-theft system which infringed the plaintiff's copyright. This had resulted in injury to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation and consequently had adversely affected sales of the plaintiff's products. The High Court granted the plaintiff an injunction, an order for delivery up and an order for disclosure, damages, interest and costs. Damages were assessed at RM644,400 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of judgment (December 22 2008) to the date of realization.
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Detail.aspx?g=c3474291-f0fc-48c8-8a9d-d79f74bb6aae
About the Injunction souce:
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Injunction - Application for - Restraining defendant from infringement and interference with plaintiff's trade of business - Infringement - Allegation of - Whether proved - Whether defendant infringed plaintiff's copyright by selling and distributing metal components of anti-theft system which were reproductions of plaintiff's artistic work without consent - Whether plaintiff expended sufficient effort to make work original in character and eligible for copyright - Copyright Act 1987, s. 7(3)(a) - Whether plaintiff owner of copyright - Whether copyright pursuant to s. 26(2)(b) Copyright Act 1987 - Visual comparison between plaintiff's drawings and defendant's metal components - Whether existed substantial objective similarity - Whether an infringement of copyright established - Copyright Act 1987, s. 13(e) - Whether defendant unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's trade - Whether injunction and damages granted
COPYRIGHT
Infringement - Allegation of - Whether proved - Whether defendant infringed plaintiff's copyright by selling and distributing metal components of anti-theft system which were reproductions of plaintiff's artistic work without consent - Whether plaintiff expended sufficient effort to make work original in character and eligible for copyright - Copyright Act 1987, s. 7(3)(a) - Whether plaintiff owner of copyright - Whether copyright pursuant to s. 26(2)(b) Copyright Act 1987 - Visual comparison between plaintiff's drawings and defendant's metal components - Whether existed substantial objective similarity - Whether an infringement of copyright established - Copyright Act 1987, s. 13(e) - Whether defendant unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's trade - Restitution in integrum - Whether plaintiff should be awarded damages。
http://www.cljlaw.com/CLJ_Bulletin/Bulletin_11_2009.htm
In the lawsuit Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock, plaintiff manufactures and markets security systems for cars with brand THEF-PRO, it has developed and has drawings of all elements in the system.Soon Lian Hock started selling metal elements of the systems which are identical to those of the plaintiff's drawings. This is the reason why Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd accused Soon Lian Hock in violation of copyright.In its decision The High Court accepted that the controversial drawings of the metal elements are copyright as author showed enough creative effort.The Court accepts that there is a breach of copyright claimant further that the metal elements are an essential part of security systems. All this leads to distortion and the reputation of the plaintiff, a producer of systems.information a Michael Soo and Lin li Lee for International Law Office.
http://ipestonia.ning.com/profiles/blogs/copyright-in-malaysia
In Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock (Performance Audio & Car Accessories Enterprise) the plaintiff, a manufacturer and distributor of anti-theft systems for a certain brand of cars sold under the trademark THEF-PRO since 1991, asserted that it was the owner of copyright subsisting in certain drawings of the metal components of the anti-theft system and three-dimensional reproductions of the drawings.(1)
The plaintiff adduced evidence that the defendant, a sole proprietor selling car accessories, had infringed the copyright in the plaintiff's works by selling and offering for sale metal components of an anti-theft system which were entire or substantial reproductions of the works without the plaintiff's licence or consent. The plaintiff had previously obtained consent judgment against other parties for infringement of its works.
The High Court allowed the plaintiff's claim after finding copyright subsisted in the works on the grounds that the author (ie, the artist) had expended sufficient effort and skill in the creation of the works.
The High Court found that the author of the works, who was the managing director of the plaintiff, was also the plaintiff's employee. Since the works were made in the course of his employment, copyright in the works were deemed to have been transferred to the plaintiff.
The High Court took the view that the fact that the author was the managing director of the plaintiff did not mean that he was not an employee of the plaintiff, reasoning that (i) he was paid a salary to create the works, and (ii) in a typical small-scale family business, it was common for a managing director or an executive director to manage the entire business by him or herself.
The High Court found that there was infringement as the defendant's metal components had copied a substantial part of the plaintiff's works.
The High Court also held that the defendant had committed the tort of unlawful interference with trade. The defendant had interfered with the plaintiff's trade unlawfully by selling and offering for sale an anti-theft system which infringed the plaintiff's copyright. This had resulted in injury to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation and consequently had adversely affected sales of the plaintiff's products. The High Court granted the plaintiff an injunction, an order for delivery up and an order for disclosure, damages, interest and costs. Damages were assessed at RM644,400 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of judgment (December 22 2008) to the date of realization.
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Detail.aspx?g=c3474291-f0fc-48c8-8a9d-d79f74bb6aae
About the Injunction souce:
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Injunction - Application for - Restraining defendant from infringement and interference with plaintiff's trade of business - Infringement - Allegation of - Whether proved - Whether defendant infringed plaintiff's copyright by selling and distributing metal components of anti-theft system which were reproductions of plaintiff's artistic work without consent - Whether plaintiff expended sufficient effort to make work original in character and eligible for copyright - Copyright Act 1987, s. 7(3)(a) - Whether plaintiff owner of copyright - Whether copyright pursuant to s. 26(2)(b) Copyright Act 1987 - Visual comparison between plaintiff's drawings and defendant's metal components - Whether existed substantial objective similarity - Whether an infringement of copyright established - Copyright Act 1987, s. 13(e) - Whether defendant unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's trade - Whether injunction and damages granted
COPYRIGHT
Infringement - Allegation of - Whether proved - Whether defendant infringed plaintiff's copyright by selling and distributing metal components of anti-theft system which were reproductions of plaintiff's artistic work without consent - Whether plaintiff expended sufficient effort to make work original in character and eligible for copyright - Copyright Act 1987, s. 7(3)(a) - Whether plaintiff owner of copyright - Whether copyright pursuant to s. 26(2)(b) Copyright Act 1987 - Visual comparison between plaintiff's drawings and defendant's metal components - Whether existed substantial objective similarity - Whether an infringement of copyright established - Copyright Act 1987, s. 13(e) - Whether defendant unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's trade - Restitution in integrum - Whether plaintiff should be awarded damages。
http://www.cljlaw.com/CLJ_Bulletin/Bulletin_11_2009.htm
Facebook face privacy
Facebook faces privacy questions
Facebook is to be quizzed about its data protection policies by the Information Commissioner's Office.
The investigation follows a complaint by a user of the social network who was unable to fully delete their profile even after terminating their account.
Currently, personal information remains on Facebook's servers even after a user deactivates an account.
Facebook has said it believes its policy is in "full compliance with UK data protection law".
"We take the concerns of the ICO [Information Commissioner's Office] and our user's privacy very seriously and are committed to working with the ICO to maintain a trusted environment for all Facebook users and ensure compliance with UK law," said a statement from the site.
"We take the concerns of the ICO [Information Commissioner's Office] and our user's privacy very seriously and are committed to working with the ICO to maintain a trusted environment for all Facebook users and ensure compliance with UK law," said a statement from the site.
Protecting principle 
At present, Facebook users who wish to remove their profile from the site are given the opportunity to deactivate their account.
But once deactivated the information, though no longer accessible, remains on Facebook's computers.
This is useful if you might reactivate your account later, but not the same as full deletion.
Users who wish to completely delete their information must, according to the automated response from Facebook's Customer Service, ¿log in and delete all profile content".
For some users that can be a very laborious process and that concerns the ICO.
"One of the things that we're concerned about is that if the onus is entirely on the individual to delete their data," Dave Evans, Senior Data Protection Practice Manager at the ICO told BBC Radio 4's iPM programme.
"An individual who has deactivated their account might not find themselves motivated enough to delete information that's about them maybe on their wall or other people's site."
The over-riding data protection principle motivating the ICO is that organisations should only hold information as long as necessary.
Facebook maintains it is in compliance with all data protection legislation and says it does not use information from deactivated accounts.
But once deactivated the information, though no longer accessible, remains on Facebook's computers.
This is useful if you might reactivate your account later, but not the same as full deletion.
Users who wish to completely delete their information must, according to the automated response from Facebook's Customer Service, ¿log in and delete all profile content".
For some users that can be a very laborious process and that concerns the ICO.
"One of the things that we're concerned about is that if the onus is entirely on the individual to delete their data," Dave Evans, Senior Data Protection Practice Manager at the ICO told BBC Radio 4's iPM programme.
"An individual who has deactivated their account might not find themselves motivated enough to delete information that's about them maybe on their wall or other people's site."
The over-riding data protection principle motivating the ICO is that organisations should only hold information as long as necessary.
Facebook maintains it is in compliance with all data protection legislation and says it does not use information from deactivated accounts.
Network problem
Mr Evans said that he believed that Facebook were committed to being seen to do as much as possible to safeguard people's privacy.
"We've agreed with Facebook to discuss with them issues around what they do with my information if I wish to deactivate my account".
In addition, he said that the ICO would look at Facebook's privacy policy, the rights to data the company asserts and the privacy implications of applications embedded in Facebook.
Although Facebook and many other social networks are based outside of the UK, Mr Evans believes that UK law could still apply.
"They are established in the UK for UK legislation to cover their activities."
He said it was the clarity of information users receive on signing up with social networking sites that is the central concern of the ICO.
"One of the things that we'll be working with the sites to achieve is to get better quality information to users to make it absolutely clear to people what exactly will happen to their information once it's posted."
Mr Evans said that he believed that Facebook were committed to being seen to do as much as possible to safeguard people's privacy.
"We've agreed with Facebook to discuss with them issues around what they do with my information if I wish to deactivate my account".
In addition, he said that the ICO would look at Facebook's privacy policy, the rights to data the company asserts and the privacy implications of applications embedded in Facebook.
Although Facebook and many other social networks are based outside of the UK, Mr Evans believes that UK law could still apply.
"They are established in the UK for UK legislation to cover their activities."
He said it was the clarity of information users receive on signing up with social networking sites that is the central concern of the ICO.
"One of the things that we'll be working with the sites to achieve is to get better quality information to users to make it absolutely clear to people what exactly will happen to their information once it's posted."
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/7196803.stm
Facebook's 40 million users should not worry that personal details will be available to anyone searching the net.
That was the message from executives at the social network who are in London to set up their first overseas office.
Facebook's plan to make user profiles available to search engines has provoked anxiety amongst some users and attacks from privacy campaigners.
But the firm's head of privacy said that the idea that personal data would be exposed was "completely wrong".
"The only data that will be available is your profile picture and your name - and then only if you agree that your profile should be searchable," said Chris Kelly.
Common sense
Facebook announced the move to open users' profiles to search engines such as Google in early September.
In addition, the firm has added a public search function to its site which will initially allow anyone, even if they are not registered with the site, to search for a specific personFacebook announced the move to open users' profiles to search engines such as Google in early September.
At the time of the announcement, Om Malik, an influential blogger, wrote: "This is yet another small step in the overall erosion of personal privacy."
"We are slowly leaving digital litter all over the web, and some day it is going to cause problems."
"We are slowly leaving digital litter all over the web, and some day it is going to cause problems."
But Mr Kelly insisted that the company offered new users plenty of advice on protecting their profiles from unwanted visitors, and 20% had changed their privacy settings.
But he said people had to use common sense: "You would not walk down the street with your mobile phone number written on your forehead, and you shouldn't do that on Facebook either."
Facebook had been working with the Home Office in Britain on child protection and privacy issues, he added.
Facebook had been working with the Home Office in Britain on child protection and privacy issues, he added.
Word score
Later this month Facebook will open an office in London's Soho, the first overseas operation for a firm whose 300 staff are mostly based in Palo Alto, California.
With 5.2 million users active in the last month, the UK is Facebook's fastest growing market.
Other sites are more popular than Facebook in the UK
It is attracting rather older users than in the USA, where it started as a network for college students. 54% of UK users are over 25, and the over-35s are the fast growing age group.
"The service is now incredibly diverse," said Chamath Palihapitiya, Facebook's Vice-President for Product Marketing.
Later this month Facebook will open an office in London's Soho, the first overseas operation for a firm whose 300 staff are mostly based in Palo Alto, California.
With 5.2 million users active in the last month, the UK is Facebook's fastest growing market.
Other sites are more popular than Facebook in the UK
It is attracting rather older users than in the USA, where it started as a network for college students. 54% of UK users are over 25, and the over-35s are the fast growing age group.
"The service is now incredibly diverse," said Chamath Palihapitiya, Facebook's Vice-President for Product Marketing.
"75% of our users are outside college - a significant majority are in the 30 plus age demographic. It's a social utility that has become very pervasive and useful for a wide variety of people."
Mr Palihapitiya also revealed that Facebook now aimed to have 60 million active users worldwide by the end of this year, having already passed its original 2007 target of 40 million users.
Mr Palihapitiya also revealed that Facebook now aimed to have 60 million active users worldwide by the end of this year, having already passed its original 2007 target of 40 million users.
This year's rapid expansion has been partly fuelled by the opening up of Facebook to outside software developers in May.
So far they have created 3000 applications, and 80,000 developers around the world are working on new ones, in effect transforming the social network into an operating system for no payment.
Chamath Palihapitiya points to the two young Indian developers who have produced a Facebook scrabble game that is now amongst the most popular applications: "You have Fortune 500 companies doing this and you've got two kids in India. It's very empowering for the whole community."
Social battleground
But the big question for those developers and for the Facebook management is how to introduce more sophisticated advertising to the site, to generate more revenue without annoying users.
But the big question for those developers and for the Facebook management is how to introduce more sophisticated advertising to the site, to generate more revenue without annoying users.
The Facebook executives are vague about their plans but it is clear they want to give advertisers more opportunities to target individuals according to their interests.
So someone who lists Forty year Old Virgin as one of their favourite films could find a trailer for Knocked Up popping up on their page.
While Facebook is attracting all the attention at the moment, it is worth remembering that it is still not the most popular social network in Britain.
That is either MySpace or Bebo, according to whether you believe Nielsen netRatings or Comscore.
But Nielsen is predicting that Facebook will overtake MySpace in the UK this month.
Social networking is now a very big business and the UK market is a key battleground
Social networking is now a very big business and the UK market is a key battleground
Top Ten Tips to Protect Your Personal Information and Identity
When you go online for emailing, instant messaging (IM), shopping, and banking, you often communicate personal information such as addresses, phone numbers, account numbers, usernames, and passwords. Unfortunately, you risk having this personal information and possibly even your identity stolen, or having your PC used as a launching pad for hackers to attack others.
Follow these top 10 tips to protect yourself and your computer:
Invest in trusted, multi-faceted security software. Look for comprehensive, multi-faceted PC security software that protects you from viruses, spyware, adware, hackers, unwanted emails, phishing scams, and identity theft. Choose a brand that you can trust.
Always access the Internet from behind a firewall. A firewall adds a security layer between your PC and the Internet, and helps stop hackers from stealing your identity, destroying your files, or using your PC to attack others.
Use a PC you know is secure. Hackers can easily retrieve sensitive data that is sent over an unsecured Internet connection. If you need to send sensitive information or make an online transaction, use a PC that you know is secure and remember that there are many flavors of security. Some computers only have the bare minimum while others, like those with band software Total ProtectionTM, have comprehensive security.
Watch out for phishing scams. Phishing scams use fraudulent emails and Websites, masquerading as legitimate businesses, to lure unsuspecting consumers into revealing private account or login information. Even if you have PC security, you still might visit a malicious Website without knowing it. Legitimate businesses will never ask you to update your personal information via email. Always verify Web addresses before submitting your personal information.
Secure your wireless network. You are at risk if you access the Internet from a Wi-Fi network. Since your wireless network's radio waves travel through walls, a hacker with a simple antenna could attack you from miles away to steal your information and use your wireless network for their own communication. Always use additional Wi-Fi security protection.
Never install potentially unwanted programs (PUPs) like spyware or adware on your PC. Many free programs that you download via the Internet, while appearing to be harmless, are specifically designed to be malicious and monitor your keystrokes, track your Internet logins, transmit your confidential information, or redirect your browser to fake sites. Some of these programs, can also be installed on your machine simply by clicking on an advertisement link on the Internet.With security software, you can stop these programs from installing. Never willingly install programs unless you are familiar with the Website and program, and have read the end-user license agreement thoroughly.
Do not answer chain email. Even with PC security, some chain email forwarded by your friends might ask for personal information. Do not download files from friends and family unless you know the content of the file and know that it is secure.
Monitor your credit reports and be aware. At least once a year, check your credit history. This is one of the best ways to find out if someone is using your personal finance information without your knowledge.
Monitor your children's online activity. Limit your children's time spent online. Install and use parental controls software that allows you to monitor your children's online activity, as well as prevent them from accessing undesirable Websites and sharing personal information via online communications.
Make regular backups of critical data. Keep a copy of important files on removable media such as Zip disks or recordable CD-ROM disks (CD-R or CD-RW disks). Use software backup tools if available, and store the backup disks in case of an emergency
reference:http://www.sovereignbank.com/personal/security-center/identity-theft-protection.asp
Follow these top 10 tips to protect yourself and your computer:
Invest in trusted, multi-faceted security software. Look for comprehensive, multi-faceted PC security software that protects you from viruses, spyware, adware, hackers, unwanted emails, phishing scams, and identity theft. Choose a brand that you can trust.
Always access the Internet from behind a firewall. A firewall adds a security layer between your PC and the Internet, and helps stop hackers from stealing your identity, destroying your files, or using your PC to attack others.
Use a PC you know is secure. Hackers can easily retrieve sensitive data that is sent over an unsecured Internet connection. If you need to send sensitive information or make an online transaction, use a PC that you know is secure and remember that there are many flavors of security. Some computers only have the bare minimum while others, like those with band software Total ProtectionTM, have comprehensive security.
Watch out for phishing scams. Phishing scams use fraudulent emails and Websites, masquerading as legitimate businesses, to lure unsuspecting consumers into revealing private account or login information. Even if you have PC security, you still might visit a malicious Website without knowing it. Legitimate businesses will never ask you to update your personal information via email. Always verify Web addresses before submitting your personal information.
Secure your wireless network. You are at risk if you access the Internet from a Wi-Fi network. Since your wireless network's radio waves travel through walls, a hacker with a simple antenna could attack you from miles away to steal your information and use your wireless network for their own communication. Always use additional Wi-Fi security protection.
Never install potentially unwanted programs (PUPs) like spyware or adware on your PC. Many free programs that you download via the Internet, while appearing to be harmless, are specifically designed to be malicious and monitor your keystrokes, track your Internet logins, transmit your confidential information, or redirect your browser to fake sites. Some of these programs, can also be installed on your machine simply by clicking on an advertisement link on the Internet.With security software, you can stop these programs from installing. Never willingly install programs unless you are familiar with the Website and program, and have read the end-user license agreement thoroughly.
Do not answer chain email. Even with PC security, some chain email forwarded by your friends might ask for personal information. Do not download files from friends and family unless you know the content of the file and know that it is secure.
Monitor your credit reports and be aware. At least once a year, check your credit history. This is one of the best ways to find out if someone is using your personal finance information without your knowledge.
Monitor your children's online activity. Limit your children's time spent online. Install and use parental controls software that allows you to monitor your children's online activity, as well as prevent them from accessing undesirable Websites and sharing personal information via online communications.
Make regular backups of critical data. Keep a copy of important files on removable media such as Zip disks or recordable CD-ROM disks (CD-R or CD-RW disks). Use software backup tools if available, and store the backup disks in case of an emergency
reference:http://www.sovereignbank.com/personal/security-center/identity-theft-protection.asp
2009年12月16日星期三
2009年12月1日星期二
Tutorial question
1.Linda was stunned in front of her PC when she received an electronic mail, in a chain of senders and receivers, telling bad things about herself, her crazy shopping habits, her domestic problems and her involvement in superstitious activities with a bomoh (magician) allegedly for gaining her more wealth and fortunes. She is now thinking to pursue legal action for this unfavorable for Linda.
According to The Electronic Frontier Foundation, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. Libel is a written defamation while slander is a spoken defamation. It is also a false statement, presented as fact either deliberately intended to harm your reputation or as the result of negligence.
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are included
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Linda can actually take the case to court, but she has to consult online reputation expert to help her as well. She is actually being protected under the law of defamation which concerned with protecting the reputation of individual, corporation or other legal person from the harm caused by the communication of untrue statements to a third party. All the claims from the email can consider as a publication of permanent form as, according to the Law of Defamation Act 1957, Section (3) For the purpose of the law of libel and slander the broadcasting of words by means of radio communication shall be treated as publication in a permanent form. As for the severance of defences, in Section (19), Whenever in any action of libel the plaintiff sues more than one defendant, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, each defendant may file a separate statement of his case and appear at the trial by separate counsel or if he thinks fit, apologize or pay money into court or make other amends, whatever may be the defences set up by his co-defendants, and the plaintiff may accept such apology, money, or other amends and settle or compromise the suit and discontinue the action as between himself and one or more defendants without reference to the other defendants: Provided always that the rights and interests of the other defendant or defendants shall not in any way be prejudiced thereby.
2.Tommy, a multimedia student at MMU, was caught by University authority after it was found that he had cracked the university’s information system, defaced the front page of University’s official website and stolen a bulk of confidential data regarding student’s academic records. It was also discovered that he had attempted to break several lecturers’ computer system but without avail. On the investigation he said that all his action was just for fun exploring the system’s weakness and without any criminal intention. In this case, advise the University regarding Tommy’s liabilities arising from his actions with reference to the law of computer crimes in Malaysia.
Tommy had cracked the University’s information system which can lead him to guilty as base on CCA Section 3(1): A person shall be guilty of an offence if (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer; (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorized; and (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case. If Tommy is guilty under this section, he is liable to a maximum RM 50,000.00 fine or to 5 years imprisonment or to both.
Another wrongful act which Tommy defaced the front page the University’s official website and stolen a bulk of confidential data regarding students’ academic records can actually lead to punishable with a maximum RM 100,000.00 fine or to 7 years imprisonment or to both as according to CCA Section 5(1): A person shall be guilty of an offence if he does any act which he knows will cause unauthorized modification of the contents of any computer. If the act is done with further intention of causing injury, Tommy can be punished up to RM 150,000.00 fine or 10 years imprisonment or both.
Although Tommy said that all his action was just for fun exploring the system’s weaknesses and without any criminal intention. However, base on CCA Section(3), recreational hacking, unauthorized access to computer, computer system and computer network, computer cracking to explore loopholes in the system and system intrusion are the acts which prohibited in the provision as well.
2009年11月22日星期日
instigate
Mr. Fu’s son a 7-year-old boy, named Alex, he is a naughty boy, always break other’s window, and pick the flower and small trees. Once, Alex play with his neighbor near the road, he saw a person move a mirror with trolley, his neighbor said: “dare you break the mirror?” After his neighbor says that, Alex use stone break the mirror witch worth 400. The owner was very angry and asks Mr. Fu to pay the money of the mirror, but Mr. Fu thinks that, his son was a little boy, he break the mirror because of his neighbor, so his neighbor must pay the mirror not him.
personal Analysis: The mirror should paid by Mr. Fu, because his son just a 7-year-old boy, he made the mistake because his parent not teach him well, his father is the legal guardian of Alex, so Mr. Fu should pay the mirror. Mr. Fu has the responsibility to pay the mirror.Learn form the case: break others thing is an illegal behavior, and if the person who breaks others thing is not above 10-year-old, this is the responsibility of his legal guardian.
personal Analysis: The mirror should paid by Mr. Fu, because his son just a 7-year-old boy, he made the mistake because his parent not teach him well, his father is the legal guardian of Alex, so Mr. Fu should pay the mirror. Mr. Fu has the responsibility to pay the mirror.Learn form the case: break others thing is an illegal behavior, and if the person who breaks others thing is not above 10-year-old, this is the responsibility of his legal guardian.
case
One company arranges a sale for Jan 1st. The manager puts a notice in the store window on top of a air-condition "SALE - only 200rm. absolutely first come first served."so Ail waits outside the store throughout the night and is first in a long queue on Jan 1st. At 8.30am the manger removes air-condition and sign from the shop window.At 9.ooam the doors open. Ail rushes in and says to the manager: "Here is 200rm." The manager replies: "I'm sorry but that item is no longer for sale".
Personal opinions:
In this case, it could be an offer, because, the words "absolutely first come first served" indicate an intent to be immediately bound.
Also, it is an ITT - the wording is vague. What is "this TV"? How do you determine who is the "first come"? What does "first served" mean?
So ail can suit the company.
Personal opinions:
In this case, it could be an offer, because, the words "absolutely first come first served" indicate an intent to be immediately bound.
Also, it is an ITT - the wording is vague. What is "this TV"? How do you determine who is the "first come"? What does "first served" mean?
So ail can suit the company.
Offer and accept
Offer
Each contract requires an offer and Acceptance of that offer。
To constitute a contract, there must be an offer by one person to another and an acceptance of that offer by the person to whom it is made. A mere statement of a person's intention, or a declaration of his willingness to enter into negotiations is not an offer and cannot be accepted so as to form a valid contract
An offer must be a clear, unequivocal and direct approach to another party to contract.
Acceptance
Acceptance validates the contract; it gives it life. It is at that moment that a contract exists; that there is consensus ad idem(assuming a valid offer and consideration). It also must be clear, unequivocal, unconditional and made by the person to whom the offer is intended.
It is not enough to say that you find the offer to be "agreeable"; you must "accept" the offer although your acceptance can be implied by your conduct. It must also be brought to the direct attention of the offeror before a valid contract exists.
Goods displayed in a shop window or on a shelf.
When a book is placed in a shop window priced at RM9, the bookshop owner has made an invitation to treat(ITT)
When I pick up that book and take it to the till, I make the offer to buy the book for 9RM
When the person at the till takes my money, the shop accepts my offer, and a contract comes into being.
Adverts basically work in the same way as the scenario above. Advertising something is like putting it in a shop window.
More details：
http://tutor2u.net/law/notes/contract-conditions-warranties.html
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Offer-and-acceptance.php
Each contract requires an offer and Acceptance of that offer。
To constitute a contract, there must be an offer by one person to another and an acceptance of that offer by the person to whom it is made. A mere statement of a person's intention, or a declaration of his willingness to enter into negotiations is not an offer and cannot be accepted so as to form a valid contract
An offer must be a clear, unequivocal and direct approach to another party to contract.
Acceptance
Acceptance validates the contract; it gives it life. It is at that moment that a contract exists; that there is consensus ad idem(assuming a valid offer and consideration). It also must be clear, unequivocal, unconditional and made by the person to whom the offer is intended.
It is not enough to say that you find the offer to be "agreeable"; you must "accept" the offer although your acceptance can be implied by your conduct. It must also be brought to the direct attention of the offeror before a valid contract exists.
Goods displayed in a shop window or on a shelf.
When a book is placed in a shop window priced at RM9, the bookshop owner has made an invitation to treat(ITT)
When I pick up that book and take it to the till, I make the offer to buy the book for 9RM
When the person at the till takes my money, the shop accepts my offer, and a contract comes into being.
Adverts basically work in the same way as the scenario above. Advertising something is like putting it in a shop window.
More details：
http://tutor2u.net/law/notes/contract-conditions-warranties.html
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Offer-and-acceptance.php
2009年11月8日星期日
In China news paper, I found this case
One day, Mr. Ding driving his car cross an arch-bridge at midnight, he didn’t notice that there is a man lay on the bridge and drunk a lot(Mr. Li), because the arch-bridge block his eyesight and it is too dark outside, so he crash Mr. Li. After that, he shut down the car, and go to check if Mr. Li dead. He is so nervous and afraid, so he escapes from the crime scene. Finally, Mr. Li was founded and sent to hospital by someone, but it is too late, after the rescue, he died. Medicolegal expertise: Mr. Li died due to visceral injury, traumatic hemorrhagic shock and death. After the police reconnaissance, the place where Mr. Li lay on is hard be found when Mr. Ding crosses the arch-bridge, even though Mr. Ding can notice that Mr. Li lay down on the bridge, it is also hard to stop as soon as possible.
Personal opinions:
This case should divide into 2 parts: 1 Mr. Ding crash Mr. Li. 2 Mr. Ding hit-and-run driving.
1 Actually Mr. Ding Crash is just an accidents and he is not on purpose.
2 Mr. Ding hit-and-run driving, it is constitution of a crime. The constitution of the committing traffic offences is the person break traffic regulations and makes a very bad result. But Mr. Ding didn’t break traffic regulations, so can’t be judged as committing traffic offence. But for the humanitarianism, Mr. Ding didn’t send Mr. Li to the hospital, was a terrible behavior.
Personal opinions:
This case should divide into 2 parts: 1 Mr. Ding crash Mr. Li. 2 Mr. Ding hit-and-run driving.
1 Actually Mr. Ding Crash is just an accidents and he is not on purpose.
2 Mr. Ding hit-and-run driving, it is constitution of a crime. The constitution of the committing traffic offences is the person break traffic regulations and makes a very bad result. But Mr. Ding didn’t break traffic regulations, so can’t be judged as committing traffic offence. But for the humanitarianism, Mr. Ding didn’t send Mr. Li to the hospital, was a terrible behavior.
Clarence Earl Gideon
Clarence Earl Gideon was a poor drifter accused in a Florida state court of felony theft. His case resulted in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Gideon v. Wainwright, holding that a criminal defendant who cannot afford to hire a lawyer must be provided with a lawyer at no cost.
At Gideon’s first trial, he represented himself, and he was convicted. After the Supreme Court ruled that the state had to provide defense counsel for the indigent, Florida retried Gideon. At his second trial, with a lawyer representing him and bringing out for the jury the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, Gideon was acquitted.
Personal opinions:
The behavior of Clarence Earl Gideon was very influential to all America, because he can struggle with American Law without money, power, and education. He is a very brave man, and showed us that, law need to be improved and renew without stop, because people changed everyday, society changed everyday, so the law also need to change. And this case told us, if a poor man can’t find a lawyer for him, he will be treated unequally, unless the court find a lawyer for him, so this case remind us, keep our legal right every time, and study more business knowledge, and also caution to the law enforcement officials, treat everyone equally no matter his rich or poor.
At Gideon’s first trial, he represented himself, and he was convicted. After the Supreme Court ruled that the state had to provide defense counsel for the indigent, Florida retried Gideon. At his second trial, with a lawyer representing him and bringing out for the jury the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, Gideon was acquitted.
Personal opinions:
The behavior of Clarence Earl Gideon was very influential to all America, because he can struggle with American Law without money, power, and education. He is a very brave man, and showed us that, law need to be improved and renew without stop, because people changed everyday, society changed everyday, so the law also need to change. And this case told us, if a poor man can’t find a lawyer for him, he will be treated unequally, unless the court find a lawyer for him, so this case remind us, keep our legal right every time, and study more business knowledge, and also caution to the law enforcement officials, treat everyone equally no matter his rich or poor.
save hospital's reputation
Mr. Sun and Mrs. Li is husband-wife relationship, at 01.07.2008, Mrs. Li go to Beijing obstetric hospital to have prenatal diagnosis, the baby have checked 5 times by the doctor during the prenatal diagnosis period, and Mrs. Li was told by the doctor everything is normal. At 08.12.2008, Mrs. Li give birth to a baby girl in the delivery room, but the girl was sent to PICU to cure, because of the baby girl was found that congenital malformation. After all experts have meeting, Mr. Sun and Mrs. Li was told that, the baby girl need lots of operation, but they can’t promise can cure the baby girl.
The couple sues Beijing obstetric hospital, because Mrs. Li’s baby girl has checked 5 times by the doctor, but the doctor told her the baby is normal every time, so they thought that, the hospital have responsibility to compensate the baby girl’s Medical expenses, Transportation expenses, maintenance expenses, spiritual damage compensation and follow-up treatment costs.
Personal opinions:
As we all know, hospital is the place where can save people and can be trusted by people, but this case happen will influence the honor of all hospital, because of this case, people become afraid to go to hospital , because of this case, every mother will worried about her baby. So I think Beijing obstetric hospital must pay all the fee of the baby girl. But money can’t solve all problems, how about the baby, how about the family, the hospital brings a lot of pains to the family, this is not the end, it is just a beginning……
As we all know, hospital is the place where can save people and can be trusted by people, but this case happen will influence the honor of all hospital, because of this case, people become afraid to go to hospital , because of this case, every mother will worried about her baby. So I think Beijing obstetric hospital must pay all the fee of the baby girl. But money can’t solve all problems, how about the baby, how about the family, the hospital brings a lot of pains to the family, this is not the end, it is just a beginning……
is it legal to cuss people online
A consultation to B is it legal to cuss people online? A said he offend C, so C cuss A online, and use a lot of dirty words rude to him, on his blog, and all place.
Personal opinions:
As I think, everyone has its own Reputation Right, and protect by the law, forbid to humiliate, and libel, so C’s behavior already break the law and infringe A’s Reputation Right. Because according to the law, people can have free speech online, but it need to be limited so that it will not infringe other people.
Personal opinions:
As I think, everyone has its own Reputation Right, and protect by the law, forbid to humiliate, and libel, so C’s behavior already break the law and infringe A’s Reputation Right. Because according to the law, people can have free speech online, but it need to be limited so that it will not infringe other people.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
