Legal Questions: I believe the problem is that they need a well, actually

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: I believe the problem is that they need a well, actually

«‹›1202 »

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

null_pointer posted:

Admirality law, of course.

Fake edit: now, in retrospect, it's a dumb hypothetical. I just thought there might have been some sort of extenuating circumstances given how nebulous everything is with independent contractors.

Unfortunately, it's not nebulous. It's lovely.

# ? Aug 25, 2021 16:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 14:09

null_pointer: Nov 9, 2004; Center in, pull back. Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop.

Thank you, everyone. Really appreciate the answers.

Edit: for posterity, this truly isn't related to me. I am not an independent contractor and am covered under my wife's wonderful state employee insurance. For the purposes of this thread, it is truly a hypothetical. We now return you to your regularly scheduled sovcit discussion

null_pointer fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Aug 25, 2021

# ? Aug 25, 2021 17:00

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

If you are a real IC then you *should* be earning enough in your business to afford health insurance or liability insurance etc

That is the historic paradigm

Obviously that�s busted atm

# ? Aug 25, 2021 17:02

mercenarynuker: Sep 10, 2008

null_pointer is no longer an Independent Contractor

They are now a Sovereign Contractor

# ? Aug 27, 2021 03:57

null_pointer: Nov 9, 2004; Center in, pull back. Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop.

I am frantically attempting to create joinder with you in order to get healthcare coverage

# ? Aug 27, 2021 04:06

mercenarynuker: Sep 10, 2008

You are referring to NULL.POINTER the Corporation, not Null.Pointer, the Flesh and Blood Vessel of God's Law

# ? Aug 27, 2021 12:20

Volmarias: Dec 31, 2002; EMAIL... THE INTERNET... SEARCH ENGINES...

null_pointer posted:

I am frantically attempting to create joinder with you in order to get healthcare coverage

Look at this ignorant cretin impotently trying to create LEFT INNER JOINder with me

# ? Aug 27, 2021 17:40

Captain von Trapp: Jan 23, 2006; I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.

This is an international law question, so I know in some sense the answer is "whatever you can get away with", but still. In a war between two Geneva-convention-respecting countries, under what circumstances can a military legitimately target civilians who are supporting combat operations?

I'm thinking of a continuum of possibilities:

Let's say there are civilian contractors for the military, working on a military base, during a declared war, in a hanger doing maintenance on aircraft which are going to be dropping bombs on you tomorrow. Can you bomb the hangar?
How about civilians working in a civilian-owned factory building tanks, can you bomb the factory?
How about civilians working in a civilian-owned office designing tanks, can you bomb the office?
...
An elementary school where kids might grow up to be soldiers?

Obviously there's a line to be drawn somewhere; I'm wondering how (or if) international law typically draws it.

# ? Aug 27, 2021 21:40

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

Captain von Trapp posted:

This is an international law question, so I know in some sense the answer is "whatever you can get away with", but still. In a war between two Geneva-convention-respecting countries, under what circumstances can a military legitimately target civilians who are supporting combat operations?

I'm thinking of a continuum of possibilities:

Let's say there are civilian contractors for the military, working on a military base, during a declared war, in a hanger doing maintenance on aircraft which are going to be dropping bombs on you tomorrow. Can you bomb the hangar?
How about civilians working in a civilian-owned factory building tanks, can you bomb the factory?
How about civilians working in a civilian-owned office designing tanks, can you bomb the office?
...
An elementary school where kids might grow up to be soldiers?

Obviously there's a line to be drawn somewhere; I'm wondering how (or if) international law typically draws it.

In practice, it's "which side of this are the Western Powers on?" That will always be the side that is complying, and any civilians killed as a result of their actions are simply collateral damage. Whatever the other side does, they are terrorists targeting civilians in violation of the Geneva Convention.

# ? Aug 27, 2021 21:45

Captain von Trapp: Jan 23, 2006; I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.

Sure, but let's say in an ideal world.

Oh, and how about government civilians? Heads of government, ministers of defense, all the way down to intel analysts and payroll clerks drawing ministry of defense salaries.

# ? Aug 27, 2021 21:57

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Captain von Trapp posted:

Sure, but let's say in an ideal world.

Oh, and how about government civilians? Heads of government, ministers of defense, all the way down to intel analysts and payroll clerks drawing ministry of defense salaries.

The Geneva Conventions make this pretty clear:

quote:

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
GENERAL PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN OBJECTS
Article 52 [ Link ] -- General protection of civilian objects

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

I think the key thing to appreciate is that the distinction between combatants and non-combatants is a different concept to the distinction between legitimate and non-legitimate targets. Anything is a legitimate military target if it is contributing to military action and taking it out would provide a definite military advantage. Certain things get protection, but that protection is often based on mutual responsibilities (a hospital is not a military objective. A hospital that the enemy have placed an enormous cache of arms in might well be. The Geneva Conventions do not let you try to play war like it is a game that you can rules lawyer yourself towards an advantage).

So you can almost certainly bomb the hanger. You can bomb the factory, but if you have the option to bomb the factory's power supply you might be on safer ground doing that. The office designing tanks... if you honestly have the view that the war might continue to the point where that work will confer a military advantage on the enemy, sure (a bit harder to justify today than in WW2)

# ? Aug 27, 2021 22:18

Outrail: Jan 4, 2009; www.sapphicrobotica.com

So if the USA is at war with another country, and they MOAB the Whitehouse while they have reasonable intelligence that the president is in there, that's a legitimate military target?

# ? Aug 27, 2021 22:24

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Outrail posted:

So if the USA is at war with another country, and they MOAB the Whitehouse while they have reasonable intelligence that the president is in there, that's a legitimate military target?

There's a bit more to 'military advantage' and there's also a principle of proportionality to goals that applies. So while you might argue that the President is a military leadership target, what's the military advantage you get from killing them? They might be CiC of the armed forces in theory, but they don't have any operational control.

This is aside from the fact that it's generally considered a terrible idea to directly attack the people whom you are going to have to negotiate peace with at some point.

# ? Aug 27, 2021 22:36

OPAONI: Jul 23, 2021

Alchenar posted:

There's a bit more to 'military advantage' and there's also a principle of proportionality to goals that applies. So while you might argue that the President is a military leadership target, what's the military advantage you get from killing them? They might be CiC of the armed forces in theory, but they don't have any operational control.

This is aside from the fact that it's generally considered a terrible idea to directly attack the people whom you are going to have to negotiate peace with at some point.

I've never bought this theory. Seems like the kind of propaganda that the people directing forces would say.

# ? Aug 27, 2021 23:05

Damn Bananas: Jul 1, 2007; You humans bore me

Can an employer contractually bar you from patronizing a competitor in your off time? Not me, just heard from an acquaintance. Texas, a bar-cade. I guess with at-will anything is fireable but it sounds so petty and dumb.

# ? Aug 28, 2021 00:51

toplitzin: Jun 13, 2003

Alchenar posted:

The Geneva Conventions make this pretty clear:

I think the key thing to appreciate is that the distinction between combatants and non-combatants is a different concept to the distinction between legitimate and non-legitimate targets. Anything is a legitimate military target if it is contributing to military action and taking it out would provide a definite military advantage. Certain things get protection, but that protection is often based on mutual responsibilities (a hospital is not a military objective. A hospital that the enemy have placed an enormous cache of arms in might well be. The Geneva Conventions do not let you try to play war like it is a game that you can rules lawyer yourself towards an advantage).

Gestures in Israeli actions against the Palestinians.

# ? Aug 28, 2021 02:27

Ancillary Character: Jul 25, 2007; Going about life as if I were a third-tier ancillary character

drat Bananas posted:

Can an employer contractually bar you from patronizing a competitor in your off time? Not me, just heard from an acquaintance. Texas, a bar-cade. I guess with at-will anything is fireable but it sounds so petty and dumb.

Doesn't this happened to like athletes who are signed to a certain brand and can't wear shoes from another?

# ? Aug 28, 2021 03:54

Devor: Nov 30, 2004; Lurking more.

drat Bananas posted:

Can an employer contractually bar you from patronizing a competitor in your off time? Not me, just heard from an acquaintance. Texas, a bar-cade. I guess with at-will anything is fireable but it sounds so petty and dumb.

SCOTUS held that this type of agreement is unenforceable in Dave v. Buster

# ? Aug 28, 2021 04:02

spacetoaster: Feb 10, 2014

Captain von Trapp posted:

This is an international law question, so I know in some sense the answer is "whatever you can get away with", but still. In a war between two Geneva-convention-respecting countries, under what circumstances can a military legitimately target civilians who are supporting combat operations?

I'm thinking of a continuum of possibilities:

Let's say there are civilian contractors for the military, working on a military base, during a declared war, in a hanger doing maintenance on aircraft which are going to be dropping bombs on you tomorrow. Can you bomb the hangar?
How about civilians working in a civilian-owned factory building tanks, can you bomb the factory?
How about civilians working in a civilian-owned office designing tanks, can you bomb the office?
...
An elementary school where kids might grow up to be soldiers?

Obviously there's a line to be drawn somewhere; I'm wondering how (or if) international law typically draws it.

quote:

Practice Relating to Rule 5. Definition of Civilians

I. Treaties
Additional Protocol I
Article 50 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I states:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol.
2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
Additional Protocol II (draft)
Article 25(1) and (2) of the draft Additional Protocol II submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH provided that �any person who is not a member of armed forces is considered to be a civilian� and �the civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians�.

Paragraph 1 of Article 25 was amended and both paragraphs were adopted by consensus in Committee III of the CDDH.
The approved proposals provided that �a civilian is anyone who is not a member of the armed forces or of an organized armed group� and �the civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians�.
Eventually, however, these draft provisions were deleted in the plenary by consensus.

II. Other Instruments

ILA Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations against New Engines of War
Article 1 of the 1938 ILA Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations against New Engines of War provides:
The phrase �civilian population� within the meaning of this Convention shall include all those not enlisted in any branch of the combatant services nor for the time being employed or occupied in any belligerent establishment as defined in Article 2.
The term �belligerent establishment� is defined in Article 2 as �military, naval or air establishment, or barracks, arsenal, munition stores or factories, aerodromes or aeroplane workshops or ships of war, naval dockyards, forts, or fortifications for defensive or offensive purposes, or entrenchments�.

New Delhi Draft Rules

Article 4 of the 1956 New Delhi Draft Rules states:

For the purpose of the present rules, the civilian population consists of all persons not belonging to one or other of the following categories:

(a) Members of the armed forces, or of their auxiliary or complementary organizations.
(b) Persons who do not belong to the forces referred to above, but nevertheless take part in the fighting.
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 6 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 50 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.

Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.5 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 50 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.

I hope this clears it up for you!

# ? Aug 28, 2021 04:08

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

Outrail posted:

So if the USA is at war with another country, and they MOAB the Whitehouse while they have reasonable intelligence that the president is in there, that's a legitimate military target?

Doesn't the white house contain a war room full of like, generals and military command & control poo poo? I'd think it's a legitimate military target regardless of who is there.

# ? Aug 28, 2021 07:05

Edmund Sparkler: Jul 4, 2003; For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are peris

I bought a big lot of Betamax tapes and one of them is a bootleg tape from the 80s of retirement/going away videos that a local to my area network affiliate news station made for their own internal use. The first video on the tape is especially interesting because they made an entire fake news broadcast where they are reporting on seemingly plausible stories but every story is actually about the guy who's leaving the station and they intercut with embarrassing footage of the guy being drunk and acting weird. Just dunking on the guy, roasting him.

My question is what legal ramifications could I face if I try to sell or share this video? I love found footage and this seems like the kind of find most people only dream of. I just don't want to get sued over it.

I live in Oregon and the news station is based in Oregon.

I can't find anything on the internet about this video so I would be the first to put this content out there.

Edmund Sparkler fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Aug 28, 2021

# ? Aug 28, 2021 11:37

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

Leperflesh posted:

Doesn't the white house contain a war room full of like, generals and military command & control poo poo? I'd think it's a legitimate military target regardless of who is there.

You can't fight in the war room, everyone knows that.

# ? Aug 28, 2021 15:56

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Meredith Baxter-Burnout posted:

I bought a big lot of Betamax tapes and one of them is a bootleg tape from the 80s of retirement/going away videos that a local to my area network affiliate news station made for their own internal use. The first video on the tape is especially interesting because they made an entire fake news broadcast where they are reporting on seemingly plausible stories but every story is actually about the guy who's leaving the station and they intercut with embarrassing footage of the guy being drunk and acting weird. Just dunking on the guy, roasting him.

My question is what legal ramifications could I face if I try to sell or share this video? I love found footage and this seems like the kind of find most people only dream of. I just don't want to get sued over it.

I live in Oregon and the news station is based in Oregon.

I can't find anything on the internet about this video so I would be the first to put this content out there.

# ? Aug 28, 2021 16:06

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Meredith Baxter-Burnout posted:

I bought a big lot of Betamax tapes and one of them is a bootleg tape from the 80s of retirement/going away videos that a local to my area network affiliate news station made for their own internal use. The first video on the tape is especially interesting because they made an entire fake news broadcast where they are reporting on seemingly plausible stories but every story is actually about the guy who's leaving the station and they intercut with embarrassing footage of the guy being drunk and acting weird. Just dunking on the guy, roasting him.

My question is what legal ramifications could I face if I try to sell or share this video? I love found footage and this seems like the kind of find most people only dream of. I just don't want to get sued over it.

I live in Oregon and the news station is based in Oregon.

I can't find anything on the internet about this video so I would be the first to put this content out there.

Publishing a video someone else created that shows private behavior of an individual could potentially result in copyright claims and privacy claims (specifically, public disclosure of private facts.)

# ? Aug 28, 2021 16:11

toplitzin: Jun 13, 2003

There's an entire series of Found Footage Festivals based entirely on crap found in boxes, dumpsters, thrift stores, and garage sales.

http://www.foundfootagefest.com/

# ? Aug 28, 2021 18:05

CharlieX: Nov 23, 2002; like a storm... before you were born... nude love

drat Bananas posted:

Can an employer contractually bar you from patronizing a competitor in your off time? Not me, just heard from an acquaintance. Texas, a bar-cade. I guess with at-will anything is fireable but it sounds so petty and dumb.

The only thing they would be able to do is fire you, and they can fire you for almost any reason anyway. They would not have any other avenue of recourse.

# ? Aug 28, 2021 19:51

Edmund Sparkler: Jul 4, 2003; For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are peris

Thanks for the feedback. I guess I already knew the answer but I thought I'd ask anyway because I really hate to see this footage go unappreciated.

I know there's found footage groups out there that put on festivals, have podcasts, etc. I am curious as to how they navigate legal issues. Is there any way that I could pass it on to people with more experience with what to do with it and avoid legal liability to myself?

# ? Aug 29, 2021 03:30

King of False Promises: Jul 31, 2000

send it to me. I'll throw it up on twitch no problem

# ? Aug 29, 2021 03:39

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

It's been a while since we've done one of these but: guy trusts reddit legaladvice, manages to lose money, house, and friendship group in process.

# ? Aug 29, 2021 12:39

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

That�s strange

They definitely have a case worth pursuing. I don�t know what country they are in

Edit

Oh it�s England. Yeah idk . In Pennsylvania I�d pursue that case.

# ? Aug 29, 2021 12:47

Phyzzle: Jan 26, 2008

In the comments, it is revealed that the shared purchase involved no pile of tickets. It was one ticket per person. The three scratch offs for the three other roommates were still waiting for them unopened on the kitchen table.

# ? Aug 29, 2021 15:41

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

euphronius posted:

That�s strange

They definitely have a case worth pursuing. I don�t know what country they are in

Edit

Oh it�s England. Yeah idk . In Pennsylvania I�d pursue that case.

The issue is he left out a key piece of information from the first post: she bought four tickets, left three unopened at the apartment, and then took the last one for herself, which she opened later after she did the split. People�s instinct was fine but not giving advice before asking all the follow up questions.

# ? Aug 29, 2021 15:42

Organza Quiz: Nov 7, 2009

Lol why do people think "this is worth talking to a lawyer about" means "you are definitely in the right and going to get the thing you're trying to get so you should act accordingly before you see the lawyer to tell you yes or no"?

# ? Aug 29, 2021 16:22

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

evilweasel posted:

The issue is he left out a key piece of information from the first post: she bought four tickets, left three unopened at the apartment, and then took the last one for herself, which she opened later after she did the split. People�s instinct was fine but not giving advice before asking all the follow up questions.

Allegedly.
Abby gave one of the other 3 80k too �to shut them up�

I�d file that lawsuit so fast. Jesus Christ

# ? Aug 29, 2021 17:13

Captain von Trapp: Jan 23, 2006; I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.

If two separate lawyers told me "this is so hopeless I would feel bad taking your money", I'd probably believe them.

# ? Aug 29, 2021 19:54

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

There's an added of you are a penniless student and you are suing someone who just won the lottery

e: if you win the lottery you can give �80k to whoever you want for whatever reason you want. Doesn't change the fact that you were playing the game separately to anyone else.

# ? Aug 29, 2021 20:15