New efforts!

[Biz]

That being said - I have seen Judge Judy cases where she just didn't like the defendant and ruled in the plaintiffs favor, even though there was no evidence what so ever.
That's what I mean by bias - if the judge just doesn't like you, they can abuse their position and it is a pain to rectify such a scenario.

Correct me if I am wrong. I think Judge Judy is actually Arbitrator Judy on that show. So her bias isn't really an abuse of a judgeship position.

[Arcana]

The other thing to remember that the burden of proof is less in civil cases, because generally speaking, they aren't talking about taking away your
1. Life
2. Liberty / Freedom

Learnt that one from Peoples Court. :D

The offset of that is that sometimes the burden of proof is more on the defendant to prove their innocence opposed to the claimant.
The judicial process can be more vulnerable to bias - so the defendant really needs to work to ensure he gets a favorable outcome.

That being said - if both sides have 0 evidence, usually Not Guilty or Not at fault would be the verdict.
That being said - I have seen Judge Judy cases where she just didn't like the defendant and ruled in the plaintiffs favor, even though there was no evidence what so ever.
That's what I mean by bias - if the judge just doesn't like you, they can abuse their position and it is a pain to rectify such a scenario.

"Guilty" is a verdict for criminal trials.  In general, civil trials are not about "fault" per se.  The question is whether the law allows for a party to make a legal claim that provides relief of some kind.  In criminal trials defendants are found guilty or not guilty of a crime.  In civil trials the judge or jury either finds for the plaintiff or finds for the defendant, meaning they decide that on particular issues they either side with the plaintiff or the defendant. 

[Vee]

The Marvel lawyers might be too busy preparing to sue Crayola because their products can be used to reproduce copyrighted characters to notice a relaunched CoH.

[Arcana]

I was about to use Simpson case as an example, but I found an article (I'll keep looking, but I can't find right now) that stated some of the same evidence could be used in both criminal and civil trials because the criminal and civil courts are two separate entities and they don't overlap. Meaning there was no way OJ could be tried for murder again due to winning the criminal case, but, OJ can be held liable for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nichole Brown in monetary constipation.

It is a kind of weird way to state it: yes the same evidence can be used in criminal and civil trials, but that's just because there is no rule restricting that at all, you can use the same evidence repeatedly in criminal trials as well.  Just not against the same person for the same crime.

The topic I suspect that article is alluding to is the question of what is "the same crime" when it comes to double jeopardy and attempting to try the same person twice in criminal court.  The standard involves whether or not the two crimes materially involve the exact same evidence.  The presumption is that if the same evidence would be used to prove guilt in both cases, they are essentially the same "crime" even though it may not appear to be so on the surface.

For example, suppose someone shows up to a bank thirty minutes before they open, forces open the door, demands money at gunpoint, and then leaves.  He is then captured and tried for bank robbery, where he is acquitted.  The government cannot decide to retry him for the crime of breaking and entering the bank, claiming that breaking and entering is a different crime than bank robbery.  On paper, it technically is.  But in this case, it is a component of the single overall "criminal act" the person committed, and the government has a constitutional duty to try that person once for the entire crime.  They cannot try him over and over again for separate pieces of the crime, or by using different criminal charges for the same activity.

There are exceptions, of course.  It is possible to be tried and acquitted for a violent crime in state court, say assault, then be retried in Federal court for civil rights violations related to that offense.  There is legal precedent that the federal crime in this case is a separate crime for which jeopardy was not attached in the original prosecution.  As with all things legal, it is complicated.

In any case, I suspect the article you're referring to was trying to point out that even though the same evidence is used in civil court, that is irrelevant because the rule about using the same circumstances and evidence only applies to multiple criminal prosecutions, because of the double jeopardy rule.  Double jeopardy rule doesn't apply to civil cases, so of course the evidence rules associated with double jeopardy don't apply either.

[Arcana]

The Marvel lawyers might be too busy preparing to sue Crayola because their products can be used to reproduce copyrighted characters to notice a relaunched CoH.

I think Marvel should have and eventually would have lost on the merits of its case.  However, I think the legal questions the case poses are not quite as ridiculous as some people characterized them as.  The question isn't whether City of Heroes was a totally blank canvas that you could hypothetically make an infringing character it.  The question is to what degree did City of Heroes strongly lean in the direction of encouraging people to make infringing works, and the fact that it appears to be more general than that isn't necessarily definitive.

Suppose I were to make a program that claimed to be a do-it-yourself novel writing app.  Basically, its a text editor, and in theory you can write anything in it.  However, it also has a very special unique feature.  If you get stuck, you can ask it to help you with your writing.  You can ask it to, say, insert a colorful description of a forest here, or have a character exclaim surprise there, and the app would generate some appropriate text relevant to your request.  You could then edit it or leave it.

Suppose, however, one day Ms Lackey is wandering around the internet looking at some work generated by that app and starts to notice something odd.  In many cases some of the text seems familiar, like it was something she wrote in the past.  Not precisely, but the choice of words, the sentence structure, and certain writing quirks unique to her keep popping up.  So she decides to download this app and try it out.  Through trial and error, she discovers if she gives it the right requests, it seems to generate text that sounds like her written word, and sometimes it practically quotes her previous work exactly.

Through technical investigation, she discovers that the way the program works is that built into the app is an encoded database that in effect contains the works of thousands of published authors.  The text isn't in the program literally - you can't just yank out Stephen King's The Stand from it - but the binary essence of the works are there in complex neural network databases.  When you ask it for something, it uses its intrinsic library of written words to emulate an amalgam of authors to generate something appropriate.  Sometimes, under the right conditions, it can emulate one particular author to a very strong extent.

She also discovers that the way I market this software is explicitly by saying that this app will allow you to write "just like authors like Stephen King and Mercedes Lackey!"  And that's because deep in the code, the program is capable of emulating them, and many other authors, intentionally.

Okay.  Is this legal?  Actually, that's the wrong question.  The two correct questions are: one: should this be legal?  And two: would a court rule that it is legal?

Suppose my argument is that it is a text editor, and you can literally write anything in it.  It just has some templates to help you out, and none of them directly plagiarize any one particular author, and in any case the text that is generated is based solely on what the user types, and the questions the user asks.  In fact, the only way to get something even close to the voice of a single author would be to explicitly rig the questions that way, precisely as Ms. Lackey did.  It is actually all her fault, and her case should be thrown out because of that.

Are you still on the side of crayola?  It is easy to simply dismiss this thought experiment as being nothing like the City of Heroes case, but of course it isn't identical.  But it is designed to raise the questions the Marvel case asks very weakly, into much stronger focus.  I think the line between the Marvel case and this hypothetical is a lot grayer than some people might think it is.  Legally and ethically, what's the difference between a program that gives you the tools to replicate the appearance and visual capabilities of fictional characters in alternate settings, and a program that gives you the tools to replicate the synthesized writing styles of a lot of different famous authors?  I don't have good answers to that question myself, but it is something I have thought about off and on ever since the Marvel case was first discussed.  That's how complicated I think the question is, that it is worth ten years of thought.  This example above, is just one tiny nugget of the thought process.

[Vee]

My Crayola comparison was tongue in cheek of course. But for any future tongue in cheek comparisons on the subject I'll be combining that with Arcana's app hypothetical to imagine a wizard summoning a demon to possess a box of crayons so that they'll produce beautifully rendered Marvel characters no matter the drawing skill or intent of the user.

I never followed the trial as I didn't start playing CoH 'til well after it was settled. So I'm unfortunately not familiar enough to say anything else dumb about it to spawn some more fun Arcana discussion. Somebody else kgo.

[darkgob]

My Crayola comparison was tongue in cheek of course. But for any future tongue in cheek comparisons on the subject I'll be combining that with Arcana's app hypothetical to imagine a wizard summoning a demon to possess a box of crayons so that they'll produce beautifully rendered Marvel characters no matter the drawing skill or intent of the user.

So basically Scribblenauts?

[Vee]

Don't be silly, Scribblenauts is DC  :P

[Arcana]

My Crayola comparison was tongue in cheek of course. But for any future tongue in cheek comparisons on the subject I'll be combining that with Arcana's app hypothetical to imagine a wizard summoning a demon to possess a box of crayons so that they'll produce beautifully rendered Marvel characters no matter the drawing skill or intent of the user.

I think it works better if the wizard specifically summons Etrigan to possess a box of crayons to produce renderings of Marvel characters.  I'd like to think that would make Jack Kirby smile.

[pinballdave]

I was about to use Simpson case as an example, but I found an article (I'll keep looking, but I can't find right now) that stated some of the same evidence could be used in both criminal and civil trials because the criminal and civil courts are two separate entities and they don't overlap. Meaning there was no way OJ could be tried for murder again due to winning the criminal case, but, OJ can be held liable for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nichole Brown in monetary constipation.

new one to me

[Vee]

I think it works better if the wizard specifically summons Etrigan to possess a box of crayons to produce renderings of Marvel characters.  I'd like to think that would make Jack Kirby smile.

Do the crayons speak in verse as well?

[MM3squints]

new one to me

Ha I don't know what is funnier, my spell check on my phone changed that word to that or what variant of "compensation" I was typing to make the spellcheck think it was that.

[Thunder Glove]

There are pieces in the CoH character creator that closely resemble Cyclops' visor, Iron Man's helmet, and Wolverine's claws, so the Marvel case wasn't entirely ludicrous on its own.  (The Hulk is a bit of an edge case, since you can't exactly trademark "large angry guy in torn clothing" - look at DC's villain Blockbuster, who is exactly that - but you probably can make a case for infringement if that large angry guy in torn clothing also has green - or grey - skin)

DC Comics characters are a different case, since the best-known DC costumes are a combination of generic tights and tights patterns (that could be easily duplicated in the character creator) and highly distinctive chest emblems (that can't).

[Vee]

I always kind of wondered about some of the animations too. Especially the claw pop animation.

[Felderburg]

Regarding criminal vs. civil, I'm trying to remember the phrase exactly as it was put in a class... something like 'civil courts provide a remedy which is not provided for by law.' A google of that phrase indicates it was for equity. But anyways, the law doesn't cover all damages that may be done to a person, and that's where civil cases come about - gaining recompense for those damages that the law doesn't give.

So what do you guys think of this data storage system?

http://www.dailydot.com/technology/eternal-5d-data-storage-south-hampton-university/?fb=dd

1800 degrees is nice, but can it withstand a hammer?

[DocHornet]

Do the crayons speak in verse as well?

Gone, gone shade of tan!
Color now an Ertigan!

[ivanhedgehog]

Regarding criminal vs. civil, I'm trying to remember the phrase exactly as it was put in a class... something like 'civil courts provide a remedy which is not provided for by law.' A google of that phrase indicates it was for equity. But anyways, the law doesn't cover all damages that may be done to a person, and that's where civil cases come about - gaining recompense for those damages that the law doesn't give.

1800 degrees is nice, but can it withstand a hammer?

will it blend?

[Arcana]

Regarding criminal vs. civil, I'm trying to remember the phrase exactly as it was put in a class... something like 'civil courts provide a remedy which is not provided for by law.' A google of that phrase indicates it was for equity. But anyways, the law doesn't cover all damages that may be done to a person, and that's where civil cases come about - gaining recompense for those damages that the law doesn't give.

I wouldn't put it that way.  Criminal courts handle offenses committed against the state.  Even when you murder someone, the crime is committed against the state: you violated the rule that the state has against killing one of its citizens.

Civil court handles disputes between entities that aren't crimes.  Even the federal government can be a party to a civil suit, where they are representing the interests of the government itself in a dispute that isn't about a crime.

Sometimes, the law is pretty specific.  You can sue someone else, but only for certain amounts consistent with the law.  Other times, the law only provides guidance, but judges or juries are required to decide for themselves how to compensate someone to resolve a dispute.  It can be remarkably vague.  The last civil jury I was on was noteworthy for how poorly in my opinion *both* sides presented their case for awarding damages.  I'd say the plaintiff was the scrapper forum on a bad day, and the defendant was the suggestions and ideas forum on a bender.  Considering that actual attorneys were being paid for that work, I was surprised how relatively shoddy the work was.  I wouldn't have considered either party to have generated good work for a player making a suggestion to buff regen.  But it was on that basis, and that basis alone that we in the jury were legally required to come up with a number to award to the defendant (liability was stipulated by both parties, so we were only required to consider damages).

To be honest, I was actually more impressed with my jury peers.  For a random collection of people with limited to zero knowledge of any of the subject matter, they were able to reach a reasonable logical consensus in a reasonable but very well considered period of time.

[Baaleos]

"Guilty" is a verdict for criminal trials.  In general, civil trials are not about "fault" per se.  The question is whether the law allows for a party to make a legal claim that provides relief of some kind.  In criminal trials defendants are found guilty or not guilty of a crime.  In civil trials the judge or jury either finds for the plaintiff or finds for the defendant, meaning they decide that on particular issues they either side with the plaintiff or the defendant.

Yeah - I just couldnt remember the exact phrasing for civil cases.
(Mostly just watched small claims on TV)
But in regards to civil matters, its more about making you 'whole'.
Its not about punishing a party, its about deciding on who was at fault in a particular matter, and awarding damages to the affected party.
To quote 'Peoples Court' its not a means of getting a cash bonanza, its about being compensated for damages that you have to prove you sustained as a result of something that you can prove was someone else's fault.

There is however another outcome from civil cases.
They can be 'dismissed without prejudice'. Allowing the plaintiff to reattempt the same claim at a future date. This is usually only done if the plaintiff is awaiting some sort of crucial evidence. This wouldn't normally be available in a criminal case, as it goes against the defendants right to a speedy trial and double jeopardy laws (if they are still in effect)

[Arcana]

But in regards to civil matters, its more about making you 'whole'.
Its not about punishing a party, its about deciding on who was at fault in a particular matter, and awarding damages to the affected party.
To quote 'Peoples Court' its not a means of getting a cash bonanza, its about being compensated for damages that you have to prove you sustained as a result of something that you can prove was someone else's fault.

There are two kinds of damages that can be awarded in a civil case: compensatory and punitive.  Compensatory damages are intended to compensate someone for actual loss or damages.  Punitive damages are designed to punish bad behavior or deter or prevent people from doing the same thing. 

Not all jurisdictions allow for punitive damages and in most there needs to be extraordinary circumstances to allow them. But in the US, the statutory requirement is lower and they are more common.