FYI, this was also [reported in the Guardian today](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/12/russian-go...)

It spilled over into /u/MilitaryPorn as well. We had at least four guys from over there battling it out hard for a while with both posts and comments.

That is the maximum for the willful infringement of an image that is registered with the copyright office [1] and awards are highly vaiable. [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright...

[2] http://www.ipinbrief.com/whyitsdifficultpredictstatutorydama...

After the infringement was discovered and before the settlement, I did have to register the photo with the US copyright office. It was a simple procedure and I think I paid $35. This was done to establish that I did indeed hold the copyright Toyota and friends infringed.

I was wary of the elderly on-line scam defence tactic. He spent a significant time on the internet and was familiar with electronic communications. And it took me only a few seconds to find out that lived in L.A. at the time of the scam. That was less than basic due diligence.

His "greatest dream" was to win a Nobel by factually verifying "through experimentation" an amazing prediction. Any great scientist must balance the odds of failure against the price of failure and he seems to have forgotten basic methods during that step in this particular experiment.

I have been following this case for quite some time. I think it is worth noting that the defence lawyers[1] are a pro bono libertarian law firm, initially funded by the Koch brothers, that strategically litigates media friendly cases. It has been said that "In pursuit of its goal of a radical laissez-faire capitalism, the Institute has initiated a number of lawsuits aimed at ending government regulation of business. While the lawsuits generally involve small businesses, often in communities of color, the goal is to set a legal precedent for the deregulation of big business in general."[2]

As a bit of silly trivia, in the movie "Invention of Lying" Ricky Gervais' character had a quicky fling set there where it was named "A Cheap Motel for Intercourse with a Near Stranger".

[1] http://www.ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture [2] http://my.execpc.com/~ajrc/ifj.html [3] http://www.futuregamez.net/movies/inventionoflying/invention...

If someone wants to demonize an organization they don't like, it's popular to accuse them of having ties to the Koch brothers.

Well, here's some other (obviously evil) organizations funded by the Kochs:

  - ACLU
  - MIT
  - NYC Ballet
  - American Museum of Natural History
  - PBS
  - Lincoln Center

Dude, you're hurting the narrative. Not cool.

Generic PP/TOS services are easy to find through google, for example, but are highly inadvisable. Many factors (such as what your business model is, how your business functions, where you are based, where your customers are based, where your data is based and what/how users are creating) must all be considered and none of the services I have seen do that.

Apparently he was the Superintendent for the Richmond RCMP who was appointed to the transit police in 2008-10: http://www.policeofficerleadership.com/rcmpdreamweaver.html

And I agree that the evidence certainly is not widely available.

edit: And oddly enough when I googled "ward clapham recidivism" your comment was the first result.

As a service provider to any industry, it is fundamental that one understand the product. Lawyering is no different but as an attorney it astounds me how many times this is simply ignored.

I believe it is incumbent upon the attorneys to understand the basics of any industry that they are involved with. I first learned BASIC in 1980(?) and have been an amateur ever since and I do believe that has helped me relate to my clients.

BTW, thanks to HN I "learned" Ruby shortly after the posting of a great article on _why.

Agreed but I would note that the benefit to a defendant of having cell phone records as an alibi is that it is ostensibly an objective record.

I doubt a DA would want to establish a precedent by arguing against the credibility of such a third party record.