Quotulatiousness

March 31, 2011

Manga translator convicted under Swedish child-porn law

Filed under: Europe, Japan, Law, Media — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:13

It’s a telling result that someone who is paid to translate Japanese manga can fall afoul of child porn laws:

Last year, Lundström was convicted of possession of pornographic material after 50-odd Manga images stored on his hard drive were classified as child porn. The Swedish court of appeal later agreed that 39 of the illustrated images, none of which has been banned in Japan and none of which shows real people, fitted the definition of child porn. Lundström was fined 5,000 Swedish Crowns (£500). Meanwhile, his main employer, publisher Bonnier Carlsen, has stopped giving him translating commissions, and Lundström has been burdened with a reputation of traversing the biggest taboo of our time: getting off on kids. The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Cultural commentator Ulrika Knutson did not exaggerate when, earlier this week, she described the case as a ‘Swedish censorship scandal, perhaps the worst one in modern times’. As she points out, it should not simply be left to ‘other young cartoon nerds and Manga fans’ to defend Lundström against the legal and moral trials he has been subjected to since a note informing him that he was suspected of child pornography crimes was slipped through his home mailbox last summer. Instead, anyone who values freedom of speech must also defend the renowned Manga expert.

Whether you like or dislike Manga, it’s one of Japan’s biggest cultural exports. It may not be mainstream entertainment, but there are lots of fans in all western countries. If Sweden and other countries are going to retroactively decide that they are considered child porn, the courts are going to be very, very busy:

In other words, Swedes are not allowed to own or intentionally look at drawn images of non-real characters that a court could determine might to some people resemble child-like figures in situations that for some could be sexually arousing.

It’s an absurd situation: judges deliberating over the artistic merits of images, trying to determine what stage of puberty illustrated characters might be at and speculating over what kind of thoughts they might stimulate among adults. As for Lundström’s images, apparently the judges who convicted him felt that Manga comics, which are read and loved by millions around the world, violate children.

Men At Work lose copyright appeal

Filed under: Australia, Law, Media, Pacific — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 10:03

As reported last year, Australian band Men At Work launched an appeal against a judgement requiring them to pay 5% of the royalties on their song “Down Under”. The appeal was dismissed:

Australia’s Federal Court upheld the decision which stated part of the song’s melody came from the tune Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree.

Record label EMI argued the writers did not plagiarise because the inclusion of two bars from the tune was a tribute.

The music company has also been ordered to pay costs.

The latest decision clears the way for Larrikin Music, the copyright owners for Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree, to claim millions of dollars in unpaid royalties from Down Under writers Colin Hay and Ron Strykert.

The original judgement was clearly insane: it assessed the damages at up to 60% of the profits earned by the band on that song (for two bars of a three-minute song). The revised judgement was much more proportional: 5%.

March 20, 2011

Stilton cheese

Filed under: Britain, Bureaucracy, Europe, Food, Law — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 11:48

In the comments to a post at BoingBoing about something called a shooter’s sandwich (which itself sounds remarkably edible) was a link to Huntsman cheese. I’ve actually had Huntsman cheese, although I didn’t know it had a formal name: it’s Stilton and Double Gloucester cheeses in alternating layers (very tasty).

Having already made myself hungry — I got up late this morning and still haven’t had breakfast — I followed the link for Stilton cheese to discover the following little bit of EU nomenclature inanity:

Stilton is a type of English cheese, known for its characteristic strong smell and taste. It is produced in two varieties: the well-known blue and the lesser-known white. Both have been granted the status of a protected designation of origin by the European Commission, together one of only seventeen British products to have such a designation. Only cheese produced in the three English counties of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, and Nottinghamshire — and made according to a strict code — may be called “Stilton”. This means that cheese produced in Stilton, the village in Cambridgeshire for which the cheese is named, would not legally be allowed to be called Stilton Cheese.

Absurd, right? Well, for a change, there is actually a good reason for the restriction:

It is commonly believed that the pioneer of blue Stilton was Cooper Thornhill, owner of the Bell Inn on the Great North Road, in the village of Stilton, Huntingdonshire. Traditional legend has it that in 1730, Thornhill discovered a distinctive blue cheese while visiting a small farm near Melton Mowbray in rural Leicestershire — possibly in Wymondham. He fell in love with the cheese and made a business arrangement that granted the Bell Inn exclusive marketing rights to blue Stilton. Soon thereafter, wagon loads of cheese were being delivered to the inn. Since the main stagecoach routes from London to Northern England passed through the village of Stilton he was able to promote the sale of this cheese and the fame of Stilton rapidly spread. However, the first known written reference to Stilton cheese was in William Stukeley’s Itinerarium Curiosum, letter V, dated October 1722, and in his 1724 work A tour thro’ the Whole Island of Great Britain Daniel Defoe describes Stilton cheese as “famous”.

So the cheese called “Stilton” isn’t actually made in Stilton. However, the Bell Inn is still there, and you can indeed get a meal with Stilton cheese in the building that helped to make it famous. I’d dig out my photos of the building, but I was there in the pre-digital photography age, so I’m not at all certain where they are . . .

Hacking a secure WiFi connection not illegal, says Dutch court

Filed under: Europe, Law, Technology — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:09

An interesting legal precedent may not be as far-reaching as the headline might imply:

Breaking in to an encrypted router and using the WiFi connection is not an criminal offence, a Dutch court ruled. WiFi hackers can not be prosecuted for breaching router security.

A court in The Hague ruled earlier this month that it is legal to break WiFi security to use the internet connection. The court also decided that piggybacking on open WiFi networks in bars and hotels can not be prosecuted. In many countries both actions are illegal and often can be fined.

[. . .]

The Judge reasoned that the student didn’t gain access to the computer connected to the router, but only used the routers internet connection. Under Dutch law breaking in to a computer is forbidden.

A computer in The Netherlands is defined as a machine that is used for three things: the storage, processing and transmission of data. A router can therefore not be described as a computer because it is only used to transfer or process data and not for storing bits and bytes. Hacking a device that is no computer by law is not illegal, and can not be prosecuted, the court concluded.

The key here is the definition of a computer under the law: I expect the Dutch to update this definition in response to the outcome of this case.

March 19, 2011

Andrew Sullivan: It’s time to rein in the Imperial Presidency

Filed under: Africa, Government, Law, Military, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 09:32

I stopped reading Andrew Sullivan a long time ago, when he seemed to lose his mind over Sarah Palin and her family. If this is typical of his writing these days, perhaps he’s recovered from his temporary obsession:

The president’s speech was disturbingly empty. There are, it appears, only two reasons the US is going to war, without any Congressional vote, or any real public debate. The first is that the US cannot stand idly by while atrocities take place. Yet we have done nothing in Burma or the Congo and are actively supporting governments in Yemen and Bahrain that are doing almost exactly — if less noisily — what Qaddafi is doing. Obama made no attempt to reconcile these inconsistencies because, one suspects, there is no rational reconciliation to be made.

Secondly, the president argued that the ghastly violence in Libya is destabilizing the region, and threatening world peace. Really? More than Qaddafi’s meddling throughout Africa for years? More than the brutal repression in Iran? And even if it is destabilizing, Libya is not, according to the Obama administration itself, a “vital national interest”. So why should the US go to war over this?

So what is to be done? Sullivan has an answer:

The proper response to this presidential power-grab is a Congressional vote — as soon as possible.

That will reveal the factions that support this kind of return to the role of global policeman, and force the GOP to go on the record. I also look forward to the statements of the various Republican candidates in support of this president.

But it seems clear enough: exactly the same alliance that gave us Iraq is giving us Libya: the neocons who want to see the US military deployed across the globe in the defense of freedom and the liberal interventionists who believe that the US should intervene whenever atrocities are occurring. What these two groups have in common is an unrelenting focus on the reason for intervention along with indifference to the vast array of unintended consequences their moralism could lead us into. I do not doubt their good intentions and motives. No human being can easily watch a massacre and stand by. Yet we did so with Iran; and we are doing so in Yemen and Bahrain as we speak, and have done so for decades because we rightly make judgments based on more than feeling.

March 17, 2011

Police and fire unions threaten to “boycott” businesses that support Wisconsin governor

Filed under: Government, Law, Liberty, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:00

You’ve got a nice office here, guv. Shame if anything were to happen to it, y’know?

Here is another reason public unions should not be allowed to collectively bargain with politicians running a local or state government. Union leadership — including those from law enforcement and firefighters — have sent letters out to local businesses demanding they publicly oppose the efforts of Wisconsin’s legislature and governor or face the consequences.

Not only are they suggesting they publicly oppose the fiscal-sanity measures in Wisconsin, they are flat out telling them they will publicly boycott businesses who do not proactively do so. From James Taranto’s opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

In the letter to Wisconsin businessmen, however, we see why so-called collective bargaining is particularly corrupting to the police. Although the letter explicitly threatens only an economic boycott, when it is written on behalf of the police — of those on whom all citizens depend to protect their safety — it invariably raises the prospect of another kind of boycott. Can a businessman who declines this heavy-handed “request” be confident that the police will do their job if he is the victim of a crime — particularly if the crime itself is in retaliation for his refusal to support “the dedicated public employees who serve our communities”?

LauraW clarifies the message here:

We’re the Police and Firefighters Unions.

If you don’t accede to our demand, we’ll put you on The Naughty List. And, um….boycott you. That’s our threat. We’ll boycott you. That’s all.

Right.

…did we forget to mention that we are cops and firefighters?
Just checking. Making sure you caught that.

H/T to Jon for the link.

March 16, 2011

Nick Clegg: “These laws make a mockery of British justice”

Filed under: Britain, Law, Liberty, Media — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 00:13

Every now and again, you find a politician with the right approach to solving a problem. Right now, that politician appears to be Nick Clegg:

London is the number one destination for libel tourism, where foreign claimants bring cases against foreign defendants to our courts — even when the connection with England is tenuous at best. It is a farce that has prompted Barack Obama to legislate to protect his citizens from rulings in our courts.

These laws make a mockery of British justice. They kill debate and smother scientific inquiry. They undermine our moral authority as we seek to promote the values of an open society in other parts of the world.

And it is ordinary people who really suffer: protecting their interests means ensuring corruption can be unearthed and charlatans exposed. Of course, individual citizens must be able to protect their reputations from false and damaging claims, and we cannot allow companies to be the victims of damaging, untrue and malicious statements.

But from the humble blogger to the consumer watchdog, corporate whistleblower, medical researcher, or roving reporter, public-spirited voices must be heard.

Here’s hoping that the new legislative changes will address the worst of the problems, not just paper over a few of the lesser sins.

March 11, 2011

Another oddity of British law

Filed under: Britain, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 17:19

I was unaware, until today, that it is possible to get a legal injunction that effectively prevents anyone from knowing that the injunction has been issued: a “super injunction“:

The existence of the draconian injunction — so strict it prevents $PERSON being identified as a $OCCUPATION — was disclosed by John Hemming, a back-bench Liberal Democrat MP, in a question during a business debate at the House on Thursday morning. His comments are protected by parliamentary privilege.

He said: “In a secret hearing $PERSON has obtained a super-injunction preventing him being identified as a $OCCUPATION.

“Will the government have a debate or a statement on freedom of speech and whether there’s one rule for the rich like $PERSON and one rule for the poor?”

Leader of the House Sir George Young said a forthcoming Westminster Hall debate would explore freedom of speech, adding: “I will raise with the appropriate minister the issue he has just raised.”

The terms of the injunction are so strict that the Daily Telegraph cannot reveal the nature of the information that $PERSON is attempting to protect.

Because I am not rich, I’ve chosen to avoid including any information which may fall under the strict terms of the injunction . . . others are not being as careful, so you can find out who the rich wanker is and what occupation he wants to prevent the public from discovering by reading the whole thing.

March 10, 2011

“An opportunity to stop English libel law chilling free speech around the world”

Filed under: Britain, Law, Liberty, Science — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:43

Simon Singh at the Guardian‘s “Comment is Free” site explains just how much the chilling effect of English libel law can obstruct free speech:

. . . it is important to remember that for every case of a scientist or journal who dares to face the ordeal of a libel trial, there are dozens of (or probably hundreds of) others who immediately apologise and retract after a libel threat, or who self-censor in order avoid any risk of libel, which is the so-called chilling effect of libel.

For example, I gave an interview to an Australian medical correspondent at the Melbourne Age about the lack of evidence surrounding homeopathy, but he was unable to quote me in detail because his in-house lawyer was frightened of being sued for libel in London. The only reason this came to light was because the journalist in question wrote a blog describing how tough it was to be a health journalist in Australia when the vulture of English libel law was always circling above.

More worryingly, I recently received an email from an American researcher (whose name I cannot mention) who had worked with a librarian (whose name I cannot mention) to write a paper on the subject of impact factors, the scoring system often used by librarians and others to assess the quality of a research journal. The anonymous researchers cited one journal (whose name I cannot mention) which may be using certain techniques to boost its own impact factor. Impact factors are an important issue, so the paper was sent to a respected British journal (which I shall not name in order to avoid embarrassment) with an international readership. The journal replied: “We regret that we are unable to publish after all because unfortunately it has potential legal implications under UK libel law.”

The anonymous researchers then sent the paper to an American journal (which I shall not name), which also had an international readership and which did agree to publish the paper. Initially, there seemed to be no problem, because the in-house lawyer agreed that the paper did not breach US libel law. However, the lawyer went on to demand that edits were necessary or there would be a serious risk of being sued in London according to English libel law.

The British government is to introduce a new bill to (one hopes) address some of these concerns soon. Let’s hope that they’re paying attention.

March 5, 2011

Expanding the already expansive interpretation of the “Commerce Clause”

Filed under: Government, Law, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:51

Rich Lowry explains why the recent court decision by Judge Gladys Kessler has such wide-reaching implications:

The easy-to-grasp distinction between an activity and inactivity is one of the most powerful legal arguments of ObamaCare’s opponents. But they hadn’t yet run up against a jurist as ingenious as Judge Kessler. She brushes aside the activity/inactivity distinction because not doing something is a choice and therefore “mental activity.”

Why hadn’t someone thought of this before? The sophists in Eric Holder’s Justice Department must be embarrassed that they didn’t themselves dredge up this killer rejoinder.

[. . .]

Kessler writes, “It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not ‘acting,’ especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something.”

[. . .]

Under the Kessler principle, there’s no nonconduct that the federal government can’t reach. Every day, most Americans engage in nonactivities that affect interstate commerce. If you decide not to buy a house, not to buy a Chrysler or not to buy a Snuggie, you’ve impacted interstate conduct through affirmative mental actions. We’ve gone from the Constitution giving Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes,” to regulating on the basis of the mental activities of individuals deciding not to do something.

If this precedent stands, the Commerce clause has effectively swallowed the bill of rights: there will be no sphere of human activity that the US federal government can’t regulate.

H/T to David Harsanyi for the link.

Robert Fulford on feminism

Filed under: History, Law, Liberty, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 11:10

Coming up on the 100th observance of International Women’s Day, Robert Fulford takes a step back to view the feminist movement:

Some organized attempts to improve the lot of humanity claim limited victories; others do more harm than good. Only feminism can claim to have broadened, permanently, the lives of half the humans in the West. Its success, based on earnest arguments and improvised political strategies, is without parallel in the last century. Nothing since the Industrial Revolution has done so much to expand opportunity.

Feminism has altered a whole culture’s ideal version of sexual roles. It has changed the professions, most strikingly medicine and law. It has affected how children are raised, how the law deals with domestic life, how corporations and public institutions are staffed.

Like all revolutions, feminism is at war with itself. Many one-time feminists have quietly abandoned that term after watching former comrades flock behind every dubious new faction in the grievance culture. Radical feminists consider feminism a failure because it has not wiped out poverty, which should have been its goal. Events have so addled the radicals that they believe anyone who calls feminism a success is a covert enemy. Radicals believe we are living through a long dark night of conservatism and therefore have a right to be miserable, indefinitely. Celebrating anything, even the success of a movement they helped start, would rob them of their bitterness.

The world still needs the feminist spirit. It should shine a consistent light on the many millions of women who are caged by misogynistic religions and male-made dictatorships. Freeing them should become the central feminist project.

March 4, 2011

The complicated NFL labour situation

Filed under: Football, Government, Law — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 13:16

Update: Twitter rumours are now that the CBA will be extended for another week to allow further negotiations. New deadline is Friday March 11 at 5pm Eastern time.

March 3, 2011

It’s down to the wire for NFL lockout

Filed under: Football, Law, Media — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:42

Mark Craig summarizes the labour situation between the NFL and its players:

A moment incomprehensible to fans of North America’s most popular and profitable sports league is now, finally, upon us.

At a tick past 11 p.m. Thursday, the three-year standoff between billionaire owners and millionaire players could result in the NFL’s first work stoppage since 1987. Barring a new collective bargaining agreement or a temporary extension of the current one, all NFL business except next month’s draft is expected to cease as the owners lock out the players. Meanwhile, all concerns for the 2011 offseason, preseason, regular season and Super Bowl XLVI officially shift to threat level Orange.[. . .]

Owners claim the status quo is a recipe for financial destruction of the league but resist the players’ request to open the books and prove it. Owners possess franchises worth an average of $1.02 billion, charge fans in some cities up to five figures just for the license to buy season tickets, and oversee a thriving empire that drew a record 111 million TV viewers for last month’s Super Bowl.

The two major stumbling blocks since the owners opted out of the current CBA in 2008 are dividing revenue and extending the regular season from 16 to 18 games. The owners get $1 billion off the top before giving the players 59.5 percent of the remaining $8 billion. The owners now want another $1 billion off the top.

Yesterday’s news of the decision in David Doty’s court room may force the owners to negotiate with more urgency, as they were depending on having access to the billions in TV revenue even if no games were played.

Update: Rumour on Twitter is that the players and the owners have agreed to a 24-hour extension of the CBA. Hopefully this time will be used to make progress, not merely postures.

Happy 25th anniversary to independent Australia

Filed under: Australia, Britain, History, Law, Pacific — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 09:30

I had been labouring under the impression that Australia had been freed from the colonial yoke in 1931, but I was mistaken:

TWENTY-FIVE years ago today, Australia became independent.

You might think this statement absurd. Surely Australia has been independent for a lot longer than that? Let me provide a lawyer’s answer: yes and no. Yes, Australia as a nation became independent at some unknown date after 1931. By 1931 it had the power to exercise independence but chose not to do so for some time. Arguably, having the capacity to exercise independence is enough to be classified as independent, although the parents of 20-something children who show no inclination to leave home may beg to differ.

The Australian states, however, did not gain their independence from Britain at that time. Bizarrely, they remained colonial dependencies of the British crown, despite being constituent parts of an independent nation. This meant state governors were appointed by the Queen on the advice of British ministers and that it was the Queen of the United Kingdom (not the Queen of Australia) who gave royal assent to state bills. When an Australian governor-general once complained to the British government about this anomaly, the response of British diplomats was that it was better to “let sleeping anomalies lie”.

H/T to Roger Henry for the link.

March 2, 2011

NFL owners lose key legal battle with players’ union

Filed under: Football, Law, Media — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:16

The looming lockout of NFL players may not be looming quite as large, due to a legal outcome in a Minnesota District Court:

In his ruling, Doty said the NFL breached its union contract by accepting below-established market contracts for their TV deals in 2011 that not only produced less revenue to share with players, but also protected the owners by guaranteeing the payment whether a lockout potentially canceled the season entirely.

In his 28-page opinion, Doty said the record showed the NFL entered contract negotiations with the TV networks with the expressed idea that, if there was no 2011 season, the owners would still get paid while the players would not, creating an imbalance used to “advance its own interests and harm the players.”

Doty overruled Burbank’s decision and ordered another hearing to determine if the owners are liable to paying damages to the NFLPA, which, given the current cost split, would give the players half of the $150 million each team would receive from the TV deal, or to block the owners from collecting any of the TV money without a product on the field. The NFLPA is asking Doty to issue an injunction to put the TV money in escrow until a new labor agreement is worked out.

This money might well have been a useful war-chest for the NFL owners to sit out a long work stoppage (whether a strike by the players’ union or a lockout), but thanks to the decision by David Doty they won’t have that money available until after some agreement is reached.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress