On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 04:50:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Of course, if a company required you to sign an NDA or some other > agreement to look at their database, that would be different, because > it wouldn't necessarily be considered 'published', and it would be > subject to contract law! Then it would be protected, subject to ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > trespass cases, theft cases, and so on. <nitpicks> Your jargon is mismatched. You are correct, TTBOMK, that breach of contract is a civil matter. Therefore: One isn't "prosecuted" by a civil plaintiff, one is sued. There's probably a more precise term but I don't know it. "Theft" is a crime, not a tort. The civil equivalent of "theft" is "conversion", AIUI. My _Black's_ is currently packed away in a box. > (Interestingly, due to the US's "dual sovereignty" principle, what > Congress cannot do, the states might be able to do, since Congress has > enumerated powers and the states don't. If a state established a state > database right it would be subject to First Amendment scrutiny, Yeah right, not with the galloping Goebbels the Republicans have been stacking the Courts with. Contrary to the clear language, intent, and legistlative record, the Fourteenth Amendment is not read as applying to state law. Well, except in Bush v. Gore, where is was a convenient tool to invalidate a state supreme court. Remember, there is one simple rule one must learn to be a successful political conservative: the end justifies *any* means. > I'm not a lawyer. I'm a student of the law. Oh, goody. If my corrections of your statements up top are accurate, maybe I should take the LSAT. -- G. Branden Robinson | If you make people think they're Debian GNU/Linux | thinking, they'll love you; but if firstname.lastname@example.org | you really make them think, they'll http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hate you.
Description: PGP signature