Ken Want

With the price of gas in the modern day, I've looked around at scooters/mopeds a little bit. An interesting thing out there is the 3 wheelers.

I pretty much fell in love with the Piaggio MP3 at first site.



The nearest quality competition is the Brudeli 625L. It's not as cool looking as the Piaggio, but it looks sturdier and the articles claim it has more power. Of course, it's $25,000 as opposed to the $8,000 ticket on the Piaggio.



However, it doesn't look like I'd be able to afford either one of them so the Bonzai looks like it might be closer to my price range ($2,000). I like the concept of this vehicle and it's supposed to be street legal. However, since I'm not a mechanic, it probably isn't a good choice.



Of course, there are any number of two wheel vehicles selling for about $700, but none are quite as interesting as the above. Honestly, I doubt that a scooter/moped would get me over the mountains on my way to work unless I buy one of the ones with a powerful engine and I don't think I'm going to find that on this side of $5,000. Oh well, I guess I'll stick with the Jeep.

Newly noticed: Photo Attorney

After a very long hiatus, I've been reinfected with the photography bug thanks to acquiring a new digital SLR (some of my recent work is at http://www.privacylawyer.ca/photo or can be found on Flickr here (RSS)).

And of course, everything has to do with privacy and civil liberties, so I've also become quite interested in the recent "war against photography" (examples here, here, here and here). There are also a few interesting perspectives about photography in public places and privacy. People have been harassed for taking pictures of their own children because other children may also be included in the photos. I don't have all the answers, but it's interesting to try to keep up with the debate. To that end, I've added Photo Attorney to my RSS reader, to follow what Carolyn E. Wright has to say on the topic.

Congress passes the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005

Congress has amended the Federal Communications Act, in response to the super bowl “wardrobe malfunction” of Janet Jackson that caused such controversy.
Congress amplified the penalties for “indecent” broadcasts to $325,000 per violation up to a ceiling of $3 million “for any single act.” Penalties are assessed by the FCC. Previously, the most the FCC was empowered to assess for indecent broadcasts was $32,500 per violation.

Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, P.L. 109-235 (2006), available at http://thomas.loc.gov

Video-gamer Blizzard Entertainment and Blizzard Records do not infringe one another’s trademarks.

Blizzard Entertainment and Blizzard Records can both employ the “Blizzard” trademark; even though they are not related companies and both market recorded music.

The case concerned which company first used the “Blizzard” mark for the sale of music. Blizzard Records began using the mark in 1986 – predating Blizzard Entertainment use. The court found that the record company had abandoned the mark in 1987 and didn’t begin using it again until 1999.

The Blizzard Entertainment computer game company registered the “Blizzard” mark in 1994, but only for computer and video games. However, in 1995, the computer company began selling recordings of the music from its game soundtracks, using the “Blizzard” mark.

Since Blizzard Entertainment used the mark for music before Blizzard Records did, Blizzard Entertainment’s use of the mark did not violate any trademark rights of Blizzard Records.

And Blizzard Records’ use of the mark to sell music did not infringe Blizzard Entertainment’s trademark rights because Blizzard Entertainment introduced evidence that its customers were not likely to be confused about the source of recordings bearing the mark.

Mele v. Davidson & Associates, Inc., 2006 WL 1644693, 2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 39054 (W.D.N.Y. 2006)


The Path To 9/11 Premieres On ABC September 10 & 11.

Congratulations to our client David Cunningham who directed the multi part film –on the events leading up to 9/11. It is told from the CIA, FBI, White House and terrorists perspective and based upon the 9/11 Commission Report.
It stars Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton, Donnie Whalberg and a top notch cast of 250 actors from 14 countries. It was filmed in Toronto, Morocco, New York, Washington D.C., and one of only a few films ever to be allowed to film at the CIA headquarters at Langley.

Time Magazine says: " Fast paced and shot with handheld cameras, 'Path' plays like a somber, dysfunctional '24,' with all the grit. Executive producer Marc Platt hired director David L. Cunningham a documentary veteran, to give the movie a verite look, without emotional tricks like zooming in on fraught moments. …The last few minutes—inside the planes, the towers and the conference rooms on 9/11—are tastefully handled, though no less chilling. But they're beside the point. What matters is what happened before and what happened—and didn't afterward. An epilogue notes the commission's report card, issued last December, which found that most of its recommendations—securing weapons of mass destruction, delegating antiterrorism funds by risk—have been carried out badly or not at all. That endnote is the scariest thing in the miniseries."


http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/index.html

Why is Facebook Trying to Marry Me Off?

Every time I get on Facebook it tries to set me up with someone.

Now, not to be too cynical about things, but girls who looked like that weren't too interested in me when I was young and in far better shape. I suspect they aren't going to be more interesting nowadays unless I win the lottery and become a multi-millionaire.

Saturday Funnies: the Accused

From Cartoonstock. There are more; I just grabbed the ones which most tickled my fancy.

Saturday Funnies: Defense Attorney

SF: Why Defense Attorneys Aren't Allowed to Argue for Jury Nullification

Saturday Funnies: Judge

Saturday Funnies: The Prosecutor

Privacy interests to be considered in publication ban

A long-time friend of this blog just recently sent me a link to a new decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court (R. v. Pickton, 2010 BCSC 1198 ), in which the Court was asked to issue a publication ban to protect the identity of an individual witness for reasons of privacy.

The individual applicant had previously been a sex worker and drug addict. In 1997, police laid a charge against Robert Pickton, alleging that he had attempted to murder her but the prosecution was discontinued. Her evidence is relevant in the current proceeding against Robert Pickton. No publication ban was entered at the time of the 1997 prosecution.

Since then, the applicant has left the sex trade and is no longer a drug user. She is married, has kids and appears to be living a normal life in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

She brought an application to prevent her name from being disclosed during the current prosecution of Pickton. The application was strongly opposed by the media.

When dealing with publication bans, the courts take their lead from Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, 1994 CanLII 39 (S.C.C.) and R. v. Mentuck, 2001 SCC 76, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442, neither of which explicitly address privacy interests.

A publication ban should only be ordered when:

(a) such an order is necessary in order to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and

(b) the salutary effects of the publication ban outweigh the deleterious effects on the rights and interests of the parties and the public, including the effects on the right to free expression, the right of the accused to a fair and public trial, and the efficacy of the administration of justice.

In this case, the media argued that the applicant was only "about embarrassment and nothing more". They suggested that her interests could be protected by changing her name.

Justice Williams did not agree:

[20] I am satisfied that the Applicant will suffer a significant breach of privacy if her name is not protected by a publication ban and that this impacts on her personal security and that of her family. The privacy interests of the Applicant are a legitimate aspect of the proper administration of justice and must be considered in the analysis. The Respondents’ submission that the Applicant’s privacy interests are insufficient seems contrary to a number of authorities including the Criminal Code provisions which deal with publication restrictions for victims and witnesses. These provisions expressly recognize the privacy interests of the victims and witnesses. The concept of dignity springs to mind. Although it is nowhere mentioned in the subsection, I cannot believe that it is not a factor worthy of some consideration in the analysis.

Given that the media are free to report on all the details of her previous encounter with Pickton and of any evidence she has given more recently, but without her name, the balance tilted in favour of protecting her identity.

[28] The Applicant, having participated in the proceedings against Mr. Pickton requests that she be able to live in her community free from the public scrutiny that will arise if her name and identity are published. She does not seek to prevent the details of her story from being published. In my view, granting the Applicant’s request achieves the proper balance that the Dagenais-Mentuk framework requires between the open court principle and the proper administration of justice. The temporary publication ban which has thus far protected the Applicant has been shown to minimally impair the ability of the Respondents to perform their function. The publication ban respects the open court principle and allows the public to scrutinize this proceeding. The publication ban protects the proper administration of justice because it permits the Applicant’s story to be told in a way that illustrates that the justice system respects, where possible, the privacy interests of victims and witnesses of crime.