Elle Benusconi

It's a fake. My suggestion is that you forward this to the DOJ/FBI Cyber Crimes Division. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/cyber

If you take the time to copyright anything you create and import to SL, nothing in the TOS can override your copyright. SL will be subject to DMCA/copy right violations just like anyone else would. No ones ToS can negate your copy right. Copyright protects the expression of ideas, specifically literary, musical, visual, architectural, cinematographic and dramatic works. Copyright gives the holder the exclusive right to use, reproduce or copy, distribute, promote, perform, sell, make derivative works of and translate the work for the duration of the author's life plus 50 to 70 years, depending on the type of work. Copyright infringement or violation occurs when a person in any way uses another person's creative work without the permission of the copyright holder. Once a violation has been documented, the copyright holder can press charges. The copyright holder can press charges regardless of whether the infringement involved financial gain for the violator or was intentional. Generally, copyright holders sue for damages, which can be lost licensing fees or lost profits. When the copyright violator is found guilty, the court orders him to pay the copyright holder's legal fees in addition to damages. According to Chapter Five, Article 504 of the U.S. Copyright Act, each infringement carries a minimum $750 and maximum $30,000 penalty per violation, while willful infringement carries a maximum penalty of $150,000. Willful violation can also carry crimianal penalties. These would be If a violator is found guilty, a fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment of up to five years for a first offense. For subsequent offenses, there is a fine of up to $1 million or imprisonment of up to 10 years. I would say that since SL has stated their intent to violate copy right in advance and willfully, some one could end up in a Federal Correctional Facility. And before anyone asks, yes I am an attorney and a US Federal Agent.

If you take the time to copyright anything you create and import to SL, nothing in the TOS can override your copyright. SL will be subject to DMCA/copy right violations just like anyone else would. No ones ToS can negate your copy right. Copyright protects the expression of ideas, specifically literary, musical, visual, architectural, cinematographic and dramatic works. Copyright gives the holder the exclusive right to use, reproduce or copy, distribute, promote, perform, sell, make derivative works of and translate the work for the duration of the author's life plus 50 to 70 years, depending on the type of work. Copyright infringement or violation occurs when a person in any way uses another person's creative work without the permission of the copyright holder. Once a violation has been documented, the copyright holder can press charges. The copyright holder can press charges regardless of whether the infringement involved financial gain for the violator or was intentional. Generally, copyright holders sue for damages, which can be lost licensing fees or lost profits. When the copyright violator is found guilty, the court orders him to pay the copyright holder's legal fees in addition to damages. According to Chapter Five, Article 504 of the U.S. Copyright Act, each infringement carries a minimum $750 and maximum $30,000 penalty per violation, while willful infringement carries a maximum penalty of $150,000. Willful violation can also carry crimianal penalties. These would be If a violator is found guilty, a fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment of up to five years for a first offense. For subsequent offenses, there is a fine of up to $1 million or imprisonment of up to 10 years. I would say that since SL has stated their intent to violate copy right in advance and willfully, some one could end up in a Federal Correctional Facility. And before anyone asks, yes I am an attorney and a US Federal Agent.

The threat to release personal information would be a civil matter, more or less. Unless it is personal information that would cause you harm and is released with malicious intent. In which case is could be criminal. U.S. Code Title 18 § 875 (d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. On the other hand death threats are another matter. If the threats are to kill or injure someone within SL, then obviously these aren't genuine threat, just hot air. But if the threats are to somehow find and kill or injure someone in RL, then those threats would actually be a crime in the US, and presumably in other countries. If this is the type of threat being made, I would contact your local authorities. In the US this could fall under terrorism laws in some states. You could also contact the local field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Play and abide by the sim rules or leave seems to be the consensus view and I would have to say that's true. I know this won't help answer your question but, it raises some interesting questions. Looking at it from the sim owners angle, simply handing someone a notecard wouldn't be a valid waiver of rights. The only way they could totally cover themselves would be to have the RPers join a group to play. In the group charter it would have to be clearly stated that: "By joining this group and participating in RP on this sim, all participants agree that their IMs may be logged and shared as the Owners and their representatives may deem necessary." But even then, I think it would be incumbent upon LL to verify the purported logs were true and correct if a dispute arose and an abuse report were filed. It may be a no win situation for the sim owner. The concept of an "Implied Consent" under any other circumstances would likely be held invalid in a U.S. Federal Court under current standards (which would have jurisdiction in any legal disputes in such matters). As it would in the majority of State Courts. Reasonably, it seems unlikely that something this trivial would go that far. But any idiot with a few hundred dollars to spare can certainly file a lawsuit which disrupts things for all involved. It happens thousands of times a day. At times we U.S. Citizens seem to be a bunch of very litigious a-holes.

That wonderful group of hackers known as "Anonymous" has now gone from being a group with a "cause" to being nothing more than common thieves. What a surprise. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_HACKER_CHRISTMAS?SITE=CALAK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

In US courts there is one more safeguard built into the system. Once a jury reaches it's verdict the trial court has the option to either affirm the verdict or the judge can choose to depart downward from the jury's findings. If a jury finds a defendant guilty of murder in the 1st degree the judge may rule that the finding was inappropriate based on the evidence and enter a finding of guilt in the 2nd degree. This is especially true in the penalty phase in cases where the jury also decides the sentence, such as capital cases. If the jury decrees a sentence of death, the trial court may lower that to life or life without parole. The trial judge's decision is also reviewed in such cases by the administrative judge for that jurisdiction to insure all the proper procedures were followed. No system is perfect because no humans are perfect. But yes, it's much better that we hold our trials open to the public and the media rather than in secret.

If you haven't deleted the message there is a way to report it. I would suggest you visit this site for information and the procedure on how to file a report for this type scam. http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/fraud/internet_fraud/internet_fraud

I've never been seated on a jury. Nor am I ever likely to be for two reasons. The first is because I have a law degree. No defense attorney wants someone with an intricate understanding of the law and the legal process on a jury. They always play to the emotions of the jury when they can't effectively refute the prosecutions case. That's also why many people choose a jury trial v. a trial by the judge. The judge renders a verdict solely on the facts of the case and leaves emotion and personal opinion out of the decision making process. The law and the evidence are all that matter. The second reason is because I'm a law enforcement officer. I thoroughly understand the investigative process and the limitations involved. I 'm also intimately familiar with the tricks and strategies that defense lawyers typically employ during the course of a criminal trial. They don't want me on a jury because I'd see through the BS and consider only the law and the evidence just as a judge would. The comment that most of the local cops in one poster's location will never end up on CSI is indicative of a mindset common today. It's called "CSI Syndrome". With the proliferation of such television shows as CSI, the average person believes that all criminal cases can be proved, or disproved, through scientific evidence. This assumption couldn't be further from the truth as few cases are ever cut and dried. You need look no further than the Casey Anthony case for an example of this and the types of tactics a defense attorney will employ. The presence of viable forensic evidence is rarely available beyond the most basic premise of "Locard's theory of Transference" in the majority of criminal cases. Simply stated, this is conveyed by the postulation that when someone enters a location they leave behind something brought in with them and take something from the location away with them when they leave. This is generally the most basic type of evidence, such as fiber evidence or dirt on the soles of the shoes. In many cases it is little better than circumstantial and of little or no value beyond supporting a certain theory. The comments on the passing of an indictment by a Grand Jury would indicate a lack of understanding of how the Grand Jury system functions. Each court system seats Grand Juries which serves for a certain term to consider evidence presented to them by a prosecutor. They have no say in which cases they consider, nor can they select which witnesses can testify or what evidence they will consider. These factors are at the sole discretion of the prosecutor. New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler famously observed that prosecutors have so much control over grand juries that they could convince them to "indict a ham sandwich." An indictment, therefore is never considered an indication of guilt and the defendant is always considered innocent until proven otherwise. Being seated on a jury requires no specific understanding of the law. As mentioned, the judge will explain the pertinent aspects and what may or may not be considered when the jury is charged before beginning deliberations. The jury is also instructed, either during a trail, or at the time they are charged as to what weight is given to different pieces of evidence. The standard of evidence needed for a conviction is then considered (a "Mere Preponderance of evidence" for civil trials, or "Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt" for criminal trials). The judge may also act to dismiss the case once he/she has heard all the evidence. Then the jury member is only required to put aside their personal opinions and emotions, consider the evidence presented by both sides and render a verdict based upon whether the burden of proof has been met. If found guilty a defendant has numerous appeals options on several different levels. In the first case cited, Georgia v Davis, these appeals resulted in, first a retrial at which Davis was again convicted, then the automatic appeal required in a capital case. Later appeals were heard by both State and Federal courts with the verdict and sentence being upheld or returned to lower courts for further consideration. This was then reviewed by the higher court to insure it's instructions had been followed and the finding allowed to stand. In the case of Troy Davis, I do feel that the Governor should have commuted the sentence to life without the possibility of parole. This is not because I oppose capital punishment, but because I think it will add further ammunition to the argument that capital punishment should be abolished. I also wonder if those witnesses who twice gave testimony they knew to be false shouldn't be charged with perjury themselves. The attached story detailing protests held outside the White House in the hope that President Obama would intercede demonstrates a lack of understanding about the legal system on the part of the protestors. Since this was a state case, and not federal, Obama had neither the ability nor the authority to intercede. Though never part of a jury, I have, myself, witnessed an execution in a murder case I was involved with. I feel that capital punishment has it's place even in today's society. But it should be reserved for the worst cases. These would include the murder of a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, a child or indiscriminate acts of terrorism. Make no mistake, a trial is about justice but, the punishment is, and always will be, about retribution. And in it's haste to protect the rights of criminals, society all too often forgets the victims and it's duty to protect society as a whole from such acts as rape, murder and indiscriminate violence. (edited for a few misspellings)

My personal policy has always been very simple and straight forward. Whenever someone speaks to me either in local or IM I peruse their profile before I answer. If they have one of the idiotic disclaimers in their profile, I don't answer them, I mute them. I've even de-friended and muted people who've added these things to their profile. Problem solved.

Daniel S. Hamermesh, a professor of economics at the University of Texas, Austin and author of a new book "Beauty Pays" wrote in an op-ed piece in yesterdays New York Times that "Ugly People" are subject to discrimination based on their looks. Dr Hamermesh advocates ugly people being covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act due to the disadvantages they face, both financially and socially, and society must be made to be less judgmental about a persons looks. Upon consideration of the article I was left with two conclusions. First, soon we will see the formation of the "Ugly Lobby" And second, lawyers will latch on to this, and a new group of lawyers specializing in "Ugly Discrimination" cases will flood our over burdened court with this sort of case. Ironically, the news was also covering the arrest of reputed actress Daryl Hannah in front of the White House yesterday, whom I've always thought looks like Abe Lincoln with blond hair. Just thought I'd take the opportunity to throw that in before it's against the law.

I have to agree with the premise that this won't really effect SL all that much. It should remain an affordable form of entertainment unless the government decides to taxes to the internet and on-line entertainment activities further. What surprises me is that with US GDP for the first two quarters averaging less than 1%, unemployment still above 9% and the ratio of debt to GDP at around 100%, anyone would be surprised at the downgrade. I'm also surprised that S & P was the only one to do a downgrade. I hope this means that no one will lend the US anymore money. Maybe that will finally mean that the government will be forced to cut spending and, get rid of some of the new regulations put in place by the Obama administration that is stifling economic growth. As far as China goes, they should be careful what they say. One sure way to raise revenue would be to add a 75% tariff to everything imported into the US form China. The trade balance between the US and China is so heavily skewed it wouldn't effect the US anywhere near as negatively as it would China. Even with the downgrade, I doubt it will really hurt the sale of US T-Bills. They are still more stable than anything else available.