|
Kalman posted:What they said is still true in the US - copyright is automatic upon fixation. But you do need a registration (not just an application) in order to file a lawsuit over it. Yes, in some useless sense the copyright exists from fixation. Also, you always don't need a registration; a denial of registration from the Copyright Office also works.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
If I live in a two-party consent state for recording calls, of which I am a resident of and the LLC I want to call is registered in. I live about 30 minutes across the border from a one-party consent state. If I cross the border and record a call without their consent, will it be eligible to be used against them in small claims court?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
Ron White stole my comedy shtick of being a sweaty chain smoking alcoholic how much can I sue him for
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Yes, in some useless sense the copyright exists from fixation. The main problem with suing over a stand up routine is that you'll lose because the copy is going to be using different words, not that it wasn't registered. If it was something like a humorous short story that was being copied exactly in a magazine, that'd be different because you'd probably win (with limited damages and after you file a registration)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Chuu posted:If I live in a two-party consent state for recording calls, of which I am a resident of and the LLC I want to call is registered in. I live about 30 minutes across the border from a one-party consent state. If I cross the border and record a call without their consent, will it be eligible to be used against them in small claims court? Good law school exam question. I think in general the crime (and therefore the applicable law) occurs where the injury occurs, i.e. if you shot a bullet across the border and hit them, you get prosecuted there, but then there's the question of whether the crossing of state lines via the act makes it a federal question, this requiring you to consider whether the applicable federal law would make it a crime, and whether it would supercede the state law in question ❓❓
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Good law school exam question. Norway solves this by claiming jurisdiction over the criminal regardless of the crime's location, based on nationality. It is in fact possible to commit a crime in Australia (insofarasmuch as they have laws? do they? i'm genuinely unsure), get arrested, tried and convicted, released, come back home and get tried and sentenced all over under norwegian law. Maybe not Australia, they might be a treaty member. But a non-treaty country whose verdicts we don't recognize. So I guess in the example above it would be the nationality (or the state of residence) of the criminal who'd settle the place of prosecution. Guess the US doesn't have a rule like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
Kalman posted:What they said is still true in the US - copyright is automatic upon fixation. But you do need a registration (not just an application) in order to file a lawsuit over it. Nice piece of fish posted:What they said is still true in the US - copyright is automatic upon fixation. But you do need a registration (not just an application) in order to file a lawsuit over it. Glitch in the Matrix here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Norway solves this by claiming jurisdiction over the criminal regardless of the crime's location, based on nationality. It is in fact possible to commit a crime in Australia (insofarasmuch as they have laws? do they? i'm genuinely unsure), get arrested, tried and convicted, released, come back home and get tried and sentenced all over under norwegian law. So just to be clear here, we're talking about torts. And there is no question that the tort occurred in state A, the LLC involved is registered in state A, and the plaintiff is a resident of state A. Recording the call is also clearly legal in state B, where the recording took place. The question is just if in court in state A, if the call can be admitted since it would violate the two-party consent rule if it occurred in state A.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
D34THROW posted:Glitch in the Matrix here? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
Chuu posted:So just to be clear here, we're talking about torts. And there is no question that the tort occurred in state A, the LLC involved is registered in state A, and the plaintiff is a resident of state A. Recording the call is also clearly legal in state B, where the recording took place. The question is just if in court in state A, if the call can be admitted since it would violate the two-party consent rule if it occurred in state A. Oh I know I wasn't answering your question, nor could I as a non-US practicioner, I am not your lawyer, I do not consent to creating john deere, this is not legal advice, I accept no responsibility or liability, go gently caress yourself yadda yadda yadda.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
Protecting jokes is a lost cause. Got it. Speaking of lost causes, I got a bullshit parking ticket at a swap meet thats held at a community college. I got ticketed because I parked my car front facing out, instead of front facing in. Had no idea that was even a thing people got tickets for. I looked around and couldn't find a single sign posted about that. I found out they do that because they need to see students parking permits. But this was on a loving sunday, when you don't need a permit. The fine is only $35, but I don't want to pay it on principle. It's not the cities parking enforcement, it's the colleges own parking enforcement. I know disputing it would be a waste of time, so i'm just wondering with a fine so small, if a collections company would even bother picking it up. They get what, half at most of a debt, so like $15? If it was the cities parking enforcement, I would pay up, because they have more ways they could gently caress me. MeatRocket8 fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Apr 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Guess the US doesn't have a rule like that. Not picking on Norway specifically, but Norway has about the population of Dallas/Fort Worth and the land mass of New Mexico. The US has 50 quasi countries inside of it, most of which are larger than many European countries in one respect or another. Rules that work other places may not be well tailored for American jurisprudence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
ChocNitty posted:Protecting jokes is a lost cause. Got it. Speaking of lost causes, I got a bullshit parking ticket at a swap meet thats held at a community college. They absolutely will lock up your academic records / graduation over this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
But if you’re not a student there and don’t care if they lock up your nonexistent student records, I’d be inclined to just gently caress around. Might find out, probably won’t. I’m your lawner and this is illegal advice, let’s create jointer
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:
American jurisprudence doesn't include rules that work, gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Not picking on Norway specifically, but Norway has about the population of Dallas/Fort Worth and the land mass of New Mexico. Surely the US has some level of jurisdiction that attaches to citizens regardless of location. Tax is obviously the easy example, but I can't imagine it's the only one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Surely the US has some level of jurisdiction that attaches to citizens regardless of location. Tax is obviously the easy example, but I can't imagine it's the only one. Federal Jurisdiction applies to everything not reserved to the states. If the State has jurisdiction, the fed doesn't, which I'm sure is the opposite of how most places work. That's why all major federal civil rights laws and supreme Court cases rely on the expansion of the notion of Interstate Commerce. The idea being that Interstate Commerce can't be subject to the jurisdiction of any one state, so it must be federal Jurisdiction. Therefore, anything that materially impacts interstate commerce must be able to be regulated by the Federal Government, i.e. the Legislature. So the federal government wants to end segregation in, let's say, restaurants. Well, that power isnt specifically reserved to the federal government, so it's a State issue. So, in the 50s and 60s in cases like Katzenburg , the Court found that segregation in restaurants - even Bob's diner in rural Georgia or whatever - had a material impact on interstate travel, and therefore the federal legislature could pass laws making it Not OK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
This sort of end-around by the Supreme Court in the early to mid 20th century is the birth of the Republican talking points about legislating from the bench, liberal justices, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
Federal jurisdiction is an entire class in law school and it’s only a survey . It’s one of the most complicated law topics (it owns ) I don’t even think it’s on the multi state exam it’s so bizarre I’m probably forgetting euphronius fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Apr 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Yes, in some useless sense the copyright exists from fixation. Also, you always don't need a registration; a denial of registration from the Copyright Office also works. It isn’t useless - there are non-lawsuit ways to use a copyright that don’t require registration, particularly notice-and-takedown. D34THROW posted:Glitch in the Matrix here? Nah, it just takes a long time for IPoM (IP over Moose) to get to fish’s Norwegian cabin and back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:A lot of words to say "yes Whitlam you're right". Cool, I thought so. It's basically the same here, probably because our system is modelled after yours in no small part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Cool, I thought so. It's basically the same here, probably because our system is modelled after yours in no small part. Is there anything australians won't steal?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Is there anything australians won't steal? I'm taking this bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 09:28
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Not picking on Norway specifically, You should though
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 10:21
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Is there anything australians won't steal? intelligible english
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 12:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:intelligible english It 'sour's now mate and y'ain't get'n it back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Surely the US has some level of jurisdiction that attaches to citizens regardless of location. Tax is obviously the easy example, but I can't imagine it's the only one. It does. The federal "don't go to Thailand for underage sex tourism or we'll put you in jail when you get back" law attaches to US citizens wherever they may be, which is the other easy example. The issue in the hypothetical is more "which state's law applies, because they give different answers", which is an extremely annoying area known as "conflict of laws." Despite being extremely annoying, it's often very important in a lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
Chuu posted:So just to be clear here, we're talking about torts. And there is no question that the tort occurred in state A, the LLC involved is registered in state A, and the plaintiff is a resident of state A. Recording the call is also clearly legal in state B, where the recording took place. The question is just if in court in state A, if the call can be admitted since it would violate the two-party consent rule if it occurred in state A. no one is gonna give you advice on this thing you are planning to do and then use in a court case
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
Chuu posted:If I live in a two-party consent state for recording calls, of which I am a resident of and the LLC I want to call is registered in. I live about 30 minutes across the border from a one-party consent state. If I cross the border and record a call without their consent, will it be eligible to be used against them in small claims court? I suspect a judge would look unfavorably on arguments rooted in "i went to that state to break our state's law and get you this evidence" regardless of the legal technicalities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I suspect a judge would look unfavorably on arguments rooted in "i went to that state to break our state's law and get you this evidence" regardless of the legal technicalities. Don't both parties need to be in a one-party consent state for the recording to be legal? If my buddy lives in a two-party consent state, and I call him up and record him while I'm living in a one-party consent state, have I broken the law? Is there a knowledge/intent component? (I.e. would the legality change if I thought he lived in a state (incorrect state) which has one-party consent when I called him? Or if I knew the correct state he lived in, but that state was actually two-party consent instead of one-party (incorrect knowledge of law)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
Devor posted:Don't both parties need to be in a one-party consent state for the recording to be legal? There's a reason no one in this thread is answering the first question. For me it's I don't know and I am not a lawyer but for many that probably falls under the realm of legal advice. I can tell you that if there is a knowledge and intent component the guy who is posting evidence of his knowledge and intent is making a big mistake
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:There's a reason no one in this thread is answering the first question. For me it's I don't know and I am not a lawyer but for many that probably falls under the realm of legal advice. I'm recalling back to the recent supreme court ruling about remedies available to copyright filers making mistakes of facts vs. mistakes of law, and a hypothetical about whether that had any bearing on this type of law. I suspect not, since wiretapping laws are criminal?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
Devor posted:Don't both parties need to be in a one-party consent state for the recording to be legal? this strikes me as the sort of question that has a clear, definite answer because it's been previously litigated. my unresearched instinct is that (a) it is not a crime to do this, because the location you took the action in, it's legal; and (b) the two-party state might nonethless exclude the evidence as against that state's two-party public policy but the actual legal answer is "pay a lawyer to look it up in the relevant states" because especially (b) might be a wishy-washy standard that's heavily dependent on local practice evilweasel fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Apr 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
Devor posted:Don't both parties need to be in a one-party consent state for the recording to be legal? Conflict of laws. Like mentioned above, this is apparently a huge loving headache between US states, and in my experience also with different european nations but probably not quite as bad (which is hilarious, because you're a country and Europe isn't). I had a cross-border insurance case once, and holy gently caress. Anyway, nobody knows but someone can probably direct you to someone who you can pay to find out. Direct you for money, that is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I'm taking this bit. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
ChocNitty posted:Protecting jokes is a lost cause. Got it. Speaking of lost causes, I got a bullshit parking ticket at a swap meet thats held at a community college. They could send this to collections, where it will rapidly ramp up due to fees from $35 to $1000, then they will slap that on your credit report.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
So update on the car saga. I contacted an attorney yesterday who then got in contact with the dealer who assured the attorney that they have the title in hand. However, today I received a call from the dealer again stating that they are still "working for me" to get me my title. Apparently on their end the person who sold the car to the dealer filled out the title wrong / signed in the wrong place and they are trying to get the old seller to get a new title to fill out correctly so they can then get a title in their name so they can then send the title to me so I can title it in Colorado. Apparently they currently have in their possession the wrong title and an "erasure of affidavit" that somehow erases the old title signature, and also a PoA from the previous owner to get a new title or something. They informed me that they can send me the wrong title and the erasure so that I can somehow try and get it registered in Colorado, which I told them no and that I need the actual title 100% filled out in the dealers name. Allegedly there is a special title clerk coming in tomorrow that can see how they / I can get a new title still and apparently she is able to somehow "pull some strings" at the DMV to get a new title from Nevada. This all sounds like 100% bullshit to me, either they dont have the title because the previous owner died or told them to pound sand, or there is something seriously wrong with the title such as salvage, rebuild, etc and they are trying to launder a clean title through. I told them that I will wait to see what the clerk comes up with tomorrow and we can go from there. Should I contact the attorney again regardless? I am pretty peeved off because they started the whole phone call trying to guilt trip me saying they are doing everything they can and that an attorney really isnt needed, etc. I am well within my rights to get my money back still and I am nearly 95% of the way to having the lawyer write a strong letter making it happen. Tenchrono fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Apr 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
of course the people who lied to you for three months are lying to you again call up the attorney again
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Is this an online car dealership? A number of them are known for these types of shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
nm posted:Is this an online car dealership? A number of them are known for these types of shenanigans. Nope, actual brick and mortar car dealer. evilweasel posted:of course the people who lied to you for three months are lying to you again Yup, going to do that first thing tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 23:23
|
|