Why not sue the maker of the internet to for allowing piracy?

No-spank bill on way
By Mike Zapler
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best -- but Lieber begs to differ.

``I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. ``Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?''

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting ``any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

The idea is encountering skepticism even before it's been formally introduced. Beyond the debate among child psychologists -- many of whom believe limited spanking can be effective -- the bill is sure to face questions over how practical it is to enforce and opposition from some legislators who generally oppose what they consider ``nanny government.''

``Where do you stop?'' asked Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said he personally agrees children under 3 shouldn't be spanked but has no desire to make it the law. ``At what point are we going to say we should pass a bill that every parent has to read a minimum of 30 minutes every night to their child? This is right along those same lines.''

One San Jose mother of three said she believes spanking is a poor way to discipline children, but she also wondered whether a legislative ban makes sense. Should a mom who slaps her misbehaving kid in the supermarket, she asked, be liable for a crime?

``If my 6-year-old doesn't put his clothes in the hamper, I'm not going to whack him. He just won't get his clothes washed,'' said Peggy Hertzberg, 38, who teaches parenting classes at the YWCA. ``I think instead of banning spanking, parents need to learn different ways of disciplining and redirecting their children.''

Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children's issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden was the first, in 1979.

Nazario said there's no good rationale for hitting a child under 3, so the state should draw a ``bright line'' in the law making it clear.

``Why do we allow parents to hit a little child and not someone their own size?'' asked Nazario, a professor at the University of San Francisco Law School. ``Everyone in the state is protected from physical violence, so where do you draw the line? To take a child and spank his little butt until he starts crying, some people would define that as physical violence.''

It's unclear how a spanking ban would be enforced. Most slapping, after all, happens in the confines of a home, and most children up to age 3 aren't capable of reporting it.

Doctors, social workers and others who believe a child has been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. Nazario said he and Lieber are still debating whether to treat slapping the same way, or simply to encourage those who witness it to report it. But in either case, said Lieber, the law ``would allow people who view a beating to say, `Excuse me, that's against the law.' ''

Experts in child psychology disagree over whether spanking is a legitimate or effective way for parents to discipline their children. Professor Robert Larzelere, who has studied child discipline for 30 years, said his research shows spanking is fine, as long as it's used sparingly and doesn't escalate to abuse.

``If it's used in a limited way,'' the Oklahoma State University professor said, ``it can be more effective than almost any other type of punishment.'' He added that children 18 months old or younger shouldn't be spanked at all, because they can't understand why it's happening.

As for Lieber's proposal, the professor said: ``I think this proposal is not just a step too far, it's a leap too far. At least from a scientific perspective there really isn't any research to support the idea that this would make things better for children.''

But Lieber is optimistic that lawmakers will find her proposal hard to resist. For the record, she does not have children and says she was not slapped as a child. But she does have a cat named Snoop, which her veterinarian told her never to hit.

``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a kid.''

Judge rules in favor of record companies

By LARRY NEUMEISTER

Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK — A lawsuit in which record companies allege XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. is cheating them by letting consumers store songs can proceed toward trial, a judge ruled Friday after finding merit to the companies' claims.

U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts made the finding in a case brought by Atlantic Recording Corp., BMG Music, Capitol Records Inc. and other music distribution companies against the licensed satellite radio broadcaster.

In a lawsuit last year, the companies said XM directly infringes on their exclusive distribution rights by letting consumers record songs onto special receivers marketed as "XM + MP3" players.

XM has argued it is protected from infringement lawsuits by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which permits individuals to record music off the radio for private use. The judge said she did not believe the company was protected in this instance by the act.

Messages for comment left with lawyers on both sides were not immediately returned.

In refusing to toss out the lawsuit, the judge noted that the record companies consent to XM's use of their copyrighted material solely for the purposes of providing a digital satellite broadcasting service.

She said XM operates like traditional radio broadcast providers, who cannot offer an interactive service, publish programming schedules prior to broadcast or play songs from an artist more often than specified within a three-hour period. But by broadcasting and storing copyrighted music for later listening by the consumer, the judge said XM is both a broadcaster and a distributor, but only paying to be a broadcaster.

"The record companies sufficiently allege that serving as a music distributor to XM + MP3 users gives XM added commercial benefit as a satellite radio broadcaster," Batts said.

Although XM argued in court papers that an XM + MP3 player is much like a traditional radio-cassette player, the judge said "it is not."

"It is manifestly apparent that the use of a radio-cassette player to record songs played over free radio does not threaten the market for copyrighted works as does the use of a recorder which stores songs from private radio broadcasts on a subscription fee basis," she said.

Will it run? Tulsa to dig up car buried for 50 years
POSTED: 8:20 a.m. EST, January 23, 2007

TULSA, Oklahoma (AP) -- Organizers of a coming-out party for a buried 1957 Plymouth Belvedere could use some help.

The car, which was buried in brand-new condition under the lawn of the Tulsa County Courthouse in 1957, is scheduled to be unearthed June 15 as part of the Oklahoma Centennial.

Promoters are looking for people who helped lower the car into its crypt in 1957 to perhaps shed some light on what to expect when the car is unearthed.

There's speculation the car may have turned into a pile of rust. Or that it's in pristine condition and worth thousands of dollars.

Sharon King Davis, who has chaired Tulsa's centennial efforts, looked at photos of the people responsible for burying the car in 1957 and found her grandfather.

"I wish grandpa had left me some instructions," she told the Tulsa World.

The car had been largely forgotten until Davis and her group started work on the centennial. Files on the car have vanished, so it's not clear what to expect when the lid is lifted.

What's known is that the car is on a steel pallet with jacks under the axles. Efforts were made to preserve it, but it's unclear if moisture has gotten to the metal and caused rust.

"There's a kind of Rip Van Winkle reaction," Davis says. "Most people had long ago forgotten the buried car, but as the time to dig it up nears, they are waking up and wondering about life in 1957."

Another unknown is who will be able to claim the car.

When the car was buried, a contest was announced to award the car and a $100 savings account to the person who came closest to guessing Tulsa's population in 2007.

Organizers concede that finding that person or his or her heirs may not be easy.

At the time, the guesses were recorded on microfilm and sealed in a steel container buried with the car.

Texas court bans deep linking
Deeply disturbing, Google lawyer says
By OUT-LAW.com → More by this author
Published Tuesday 23rd January 2007 17:36 GMT
Research Library - All papers free to download

A court in Dallas, Texas has found a website operator liable for copyright infringement because his site linked to an 'audio webcast' without permission. Observers have criticised the judge for failing to understand the internet.

Robert Davis runs Supercrosslive.com and put direct links on his site to audio streams of motorcycle racing. Those streams were created, owned and hosted by SFX Motor Sports, which is behind some of the events covered.

A preliminary injunction was granted on 12th December by Judge Sam Lindsay in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Judge Lindsay followed that ruling with a summary judgment for SFX on 9th January, leaving only damages to be determined at trial, on the same day that Davis filed an appeal against the December ruling.

Judge Lindsay ruled that Davis's activity infringed copyright and curtailed the ability of SFX to sell advertising and sponsorship on its site. That advertising is displayed when the audio streams are listened to from the SFX site but not when they are linked to from Davis's.

In fact the December opinion was unclear on the exact nature of Davis's activity. SFX asserted that "Davis 'streams' the live webcast of the races on his website in 'real time'". Davis denied streaming but admitted to "providing an audio webcast 'link' to the racing events on his website". Judge Lindsay appears to accept that Davis is only linking to a media file, not streaming content from his own site.

"The live broadcasts of the racing events, either via television, radio or internet webcasts, constitute original audiovisual material that can be copyrighted under the Copyright Act," wrote Lindsay in his December opinion. "The court finds that SFX has shown a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its copyright claim against Davis because SFX has shown ownership of the material and 'copying' by Davis."

Davis argued that he did not actually copy any material, he only provided a link to it which opened the material in a user's media player, but the court ruled that that link broke the law.

"The court finds that the unauthorized 'link' to the live webcasts that Davis provides on his website would likely qualify as a copied display or performance of SFX’s copyrightable material," said Lindsay. "The court also finds that the link Davis provides on his website is not a 'fair use' of copyright material as Davis asserts through his Answer."

Judge Lindsay did not look to other cases on deep linking, being hyperlinks that target something other than a website's homepage. Instead, he looked at cases on live television broadcasts. He compared Davis's actions to those of a company sued by the NFL for the unauthorised capture and satellite transmission of live football broadcasts to viewers in Canada. Finding infringement, that court said a public performance or display, for the purposes of the Copyright Act, "includes each step in the process by which a protected work wends its way to its audience."

The opinion and summary judgment prompted one blogger, James Robertson, to accuse Judge Lindsay of having "no idea how the internet works". Davis was representing himself in his case, without the assistance of a lawyer. Perhaps guided by comments from various bloggers (including William Patry, Senior Copyright Counsel at Google, who called it "a deeply disturbing case"), Davis's appeal argues that since the December ruling he has "become familiar with" a 2000 decision on deep linking.

"Had this court been aware of this prior decision, Defendant believes this court may have produced a different ruling," wrote Davis in his latest motion of 12th January, which asks the court to stay the order of 11th December pending his appeal (though it makes no reference to the Summary Judgment handed down three days earlier). The case to which he refers is the dispute between Ticketmaster Corp. and Tickets.com.

Tickets.com, a seller of tickets, was sued for linking to pages on Ticketmaster's website where users could find tickets not available at Tickets.com. The US District Court for the Central District of California concluded: "hypertext linking [without framing] does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act … since no copying is involved."

That court went on to describe the process of hypertext linking: "The customer is automatically transferred to the particular genuine web page of the original author. There is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently."

However, if an appeal is heard, unless Davis's site made clear that the target file was being served by another website, SFX may be able to distinguish its circumstances from those of Ticketmaster.

Davis's site has become a repository for court documents and links to coverage of the case.

Drug dealer spared because of 'fear of prison'

By Sean Fewster

January 29, 2007 01:00am
Article from: The Advertiser

Font size: + -

Send this article: Print Email

A ROOKIE drug dealer has been spared a jail sentence because of his fear of imprisonment.

Kym Sidney Tyrone O'Hara last week faced a 25-year prison term for selling $700 worth of ecstasy and methylamphetamine to friends at Port Lincoln in 2003 and 2004.

But Judge Barry Beazley said the "hard working and highly motivated" 22-year-old's "fear of imprisonment" and his sporting abilities would lead him to reassess his life.

O'Hara was released on a two-year, $1000 good behaviour bond.

Judge Beazley ruled O'Hara's fear of prison would be an "effective deterrent" against future crimes. In sentencing, he said the Adelaide man had been arrested as part of a large-scale police investigation into drug dealing on the West Coast.

Telephone intercepts recorded O'Hara arranging to sell eight ecstasy tablets for $50 each, and six deals of methylamphetamine for $50 each.

"You had been in Port Lincoln for about six months (and) got involved in the local social scene, which involved rave parties," Judge Beazley said.

"You formed a friendship with (a drug dealer) and you were able to source such drugs from him.

"In consequence, your friends also would ask you to source such drugs and provide it to them."

He said O'Hara, a Sacred Heart graduate, had moved to Port Lincoln for work. "You are highly regarded both for your sporting ability and for your work in the construction industry." he said.

"You are a hardworking, highly motivated individual who, through perhaps immaturity and the first occasion being away from your family, got involved in a group who used the drugs regularly in rave parties.

"I have no doubt the seriousness of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty has shocked you into positively reassessing your life." Judge Beazley suspended O'Hara's two-year, three-month jail term with a 12-month non-parole period. "Your future is in your own hands, you realise that?" he told O'Hara as he left court.