On the other hand though, it kinda means that every scrap of information that has been taught to us within DMU will be put online… I feel like I’m divuldging trade secrets which may well be illegal… I mean, why go to DMU – or university at all – if you can just come here and look at the material, right? So I’m going to avoid posting actual links to presentations and stuff, and just summerise it in my own words, which I’m fairly sure doesn’t evoke any copyright stuff.

And if it does, I’ll plee educational use, which is covered under fair use. S’all good.

I didn’t know that my systems analysis stuff had to be submitted on- as well as offline. I’m hoping she’ll still accept and mark it without me getting in trouble with due dates and stuff. To be fair, I submitted it by hand weeks before it had to be, that must count for something. She’s knows I did the work on time.

I got 1% chance of plagorism though, which is awesome. Most people get around 30%, apparently. I’ve always prided myself on having my own writing style – even if it is too informal sometimes. When people assume that I’ll steal someone elses work I’m kinda offended because… well, I’m the only person that can ever write like me.

Anyway, computer technology lecture two.

Oh, almost forgot. These computers have CS Flash on them! I’m totally going to learn it some time.

In Warcraft news, I really wanted to do Deadmines tonight, with Ratio, but my connection is being so stupid.

I went to the job center today! I felt crappy going in, like I failed at life or something… I know there’s nothing wrong with using the service, but I don’t feel like it fills its purpose since both my dad and mum have been going since… well, ever. I was pleasently surprised though; there are tonnes of jobs all listed on a touch screen computer and you can print off the details and stuff. I even though programming, PHP and HTML jobs. I printed a bunch off and I’ll start working on those Monday. I’ll probably start this weekend, but I doubt I can do anything (like phoning them up and stuff) till Monday.

Apparently, I’m entitled to job seeker’s allowance, but I really don’t feel like I’m entitled to it. I mean, I am seeking, but I’ve not given the government any money at the moment, so I feel like I’d just be 100% selfishly using other people’s tax money to fund my non-productive lifestyle…

I figure when I get back home (I’m at my mom’s at the moment) I’ll start a vigorous revision cycle. Unit two consists of four 15 mark quests, they’re pretty predictable too.

• What do magistrates do
• What do judges do
• Advantages and disadvantages of judges
• Advantages and disadvantages of magistrates
• ADR methods
• Advantages and disadvantages of ADR

So, if I learn those, I’ll do fine.

Beware though, I recorded it all in one go with no script so there’s a lot of “umm…” that would have been edited out if I had done it in Audacity (but I did it in Powerpoint). It’s in the .pptx format, so you might need Office 2007 to view it, though it’s probably that there’s a backwards computability patch that Microsoft released for it, like Word.

The Selection and Appointment of Judges (14Mb)

Since I’m learning this, I suppose it’s just best to note down what I can work out each different type is, and what happens in them. Yeah… that sounds like good, solid revision.

Tribunals

• Similar to standard civil courts
• They deal with about 750,000 cases a year
• There are different tribunals for different matters, i.e. immigration, employment, child custody.
• Three people: legally qualified chairman, two lay people with expert knowledge on the subject (plus the two sides)
• No legal aid
• No right of appeal, unless the act that set up the tribunal allows them
• Can be subject to judicial review by the House of Lords if there’s a breach of rights

Arbitration

• Less formal
• The outcome is decided by a third party, and it is legally binding as if it were a court judgement
• Costs are paid by parties themselves
• They can chose their own arbitrator, or select one from a list provided by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
• No right of appeal except if there has been a misjustice
• Used normally by businesses

Mediation

• Impartial third party tries to make the two disputing parties reach their own decision for a solution. They basically just make sure the argument isn’t going to be too strong. Like a mum who sits back and watches her children argue about who’s turn it is, until they start hitting each other and then she speaks up.
• Used in family disputes

Conciliation

• Same as mediation, except the mum is more proactive. If the argument doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere, she’ll make the decision who gets to play the damn Gamecube.

Negotiation

• This is where the parties have decided to go to court, but then one of them decides it’s too expensive if they lose, so they try to settle it before they get to court.

Ombudsmen

• Government appointed bodies who regulate stuff
• Ofcom is an example.
• Channel Four didn’t have to listen to them when they were told to apologise for swearing on Big Brother, but they did because they don’t want to make Ofcom and enemy

When I say “software” I mean anything really, including WordPress plugins and themes (which is what I’m most interested in). The “original copyright holder” is the first person to write the script, I’ll abbreviated that to OCH.

• Unless you’re distributing the software, the license doesn’t really apply to you. It’s more about what you can do with the software with regards to sharing it and stuff.
• If you do modify the script though, it is still under GPL license. The OCH still holds the copyright to the script though (they just aren’t pushing for their typical rights). You can’t change the license  on the script just because you’ve changed it a little bit (or even a lot). I suppose though that you do have the copyright of the changes you made. If you removed those, you could release the lines you’ve changed under a different license, with a list of the lines needed to be changed.
• Just to empathsize: if you change the code of a GPL software, it’s still under GPL. You have to abide by the GPL regardless of how you feel.
• If you change the software you don’t have to release those changes. No one, not even the OCH can demand it from you.
• If the GPL’ed script makes a binary (ie. You compile the script to make a runnable program) then the binary is also under GPL.
• GPL requires that you also make the source code public, if you release the binary to the general public. Since I just work with PHP files, there’s nothing to compile the compiled script isn’t made into a binary so there’s nothing to worry about.
• You can sell the GPL’ed code. So, if you wanted, I could sell Firefox from this website. That’s stupid of course, since I’d get zero customers since Firefox is available free from other places.
• On the other hand, I could hack Firefox a little bit, so it shipped with my favorite theme instead of the default one. Maybe people would want it then. Or I could give customer service with it. The point is you can charge for GPL’ed code.
• Even if you sell it, the buyer has the code under the GPL license, which means they can give it away however they like. You can’t tell the buyer to not give out the code.
• You must ship your code with a copy of the license, even if the program is smaller than the license. You can’t just link to a copy of the license. In cases where the license is bigger than the code, GNU suggest just using a “you can do what you like with this code” license.
• You must might have to put the entire license. You can’t miss any of it out. The license text is actually copyrighted and you’re breaking the law (tort law anyway) if you change any of it. It must be output verbatim. Update: If you’re making a script for WordPress or another open source project, like a theme or plugin, you don’t need to put the entire file, since the “work” (WordPress, in this case) already has the GPL license. If you’re releasing a plugin not under GPL, you’ll have to put that licensce in though.

That’s what I think the most important parts of the license are. I have a few questions that I need to find answers to though.

Whilst it’s not related directly to GLP, do all WordPress plugins and themes have to be GPL? The license said that they should be if they’re considered to be a single application with WordPress, but I’m not sure if they are.

Updated answer: They don’t have to be, but most are.

Regarding putting a copy of the license with the software; the purpose of that is so that the downloader knows their rights under GPL. If, before a person is allowed to download something, they’re presented with a screen that says “you’re getting this license under GPL, here’s a link to that license. If you distribute this code, make sure you tell the person about this license”, why wouldn’t that be acceptable? Or even just putting a file or line in with the script that links to the license?

Updated answer: You don’t have to put the entire text if the work it works with has it.

How much of a GPL’ed script needs to be changed before it stops being a derivative script (which would be under GPL too) and becomes an entirely new script, so not having the mandatory license?

Updated answer: A lot.

Can I go to the original copyright holder, and ask to have a copy of the script not covered by GPL?

Updated answer: Yes.

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0pt 5.4pt 0pt 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0pt;
mso-para-margin-right:0pt;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0pt;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Question 3 of the January 2004 paper.

Kellie’s and Jim’s rights would come under the occupier’s liability area of law, which discusses the extent to which the occupier must go to in order to keep people on their land safe.

An occupier, as found in Wheat v. Lacon, is someone who has control over the premises. Lacon tells us that even though the D doesn’t live in the on the premises they can still be held liable as the occupier. A premises is not just limited to buildings, s1.3 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 tells us that it’s anything really, including vehicles and boats.

In this case, the occupier is Highlife Sports. They do have control of the premises since they run the events and most likely own the land and water.

In this area of law people are separated into two groups. The first group is visitors, given rights under OLA ’57. Section 1.2 of that act describes them as people who have a right to be on the land, either expressed or implied through contract or permission. Right through permission is given by the occupier inviting the person onto the land, whilst s2.6 tells us that some people have a contractual right to be there due to law; postmen, or police for instance.

Kellie would be a visitor since she stay within her own area, and was invited to be there (albeit through her membership, no one needed to say “you can go out there now”).

The occupier owes a common law duty of care (Caparo v. Dickman) to all his visitors and their property. Section 2.2 explains this more by saying that an occupier has a duty to keep their visitors reasonably safe from any harm whilst they’re using the premises for the purpose that they’re invited for.

Of course, children are owed a higher duty of care (S2.3a) since they’re younger and won’t understand the risks as much as an adult. These risks include things that children might find attractive and fun, this is discussed further in Glasgow Corp v. Taylor, saying that occupiers must take all reasonable measures to protect children from these risks. Of course, it could be reasonable to expect their parents to be looking after their child if they are around, Phipps v. Richestor Corp.

Professional people are given a lower standard of care (s2.3b) since they should know that they’re doing. However, this lower standard only applies within the professionals expertises, eg. An electrician should know the dangers of faulty cabling and so shouldn’t take that risk, however, if they burn themselves on a candle they are owed the normal duty of care since that has nothing to do with their job (Ogwo v. Taylor).

An obvious way for Highlife Sports to avoid the incident that happened here would be to build another separate pool for swimmers. However, you can see the impracticality of that. So, s2.4 discusses that signs telling of the hazard could discharge their duty. In this case, Highlife Sports did put up signs forbidding swimmers to cross into that area of the water which may make them less liable.

Since Jim strayed out of where he should be, he is a trespasser, given rights under OLA ’84.

A trespasser if someone who is on the land without a right to be, or who was invited to do something but then left the area they had permission to be in. For instance, whilst Jim was swimming in his own area, he was a visitor there. Unfortunately for him, when he left that area he became a trespasser and is given less rights. For instance, the occupier is now only liable for their personal injury and not their property, s1.8.

An occupier is liable for this when he or she is aware that the danger exists. This is contrasted with a visitor where the occupier doesn’t need to know there’s a risk. They must also know that there’s a likelihood that someone may come across that risk. The D must also be reasonable expected to offer precautions to the risk. S1.3.

I think it’s likely that Kellie would be able to claim damagers for her injuries. These damages would be measured by standards that the courts set. She may also be compensated any time that she has to have off worked.

May

In May, I should be (at least, I think I am) retaking computing, unit 2 (CPT2) and law, unit 2 (LAW2). Both of these are AS resits because I failed them last year, which is always fun.

June

A2 exams I’m taking in June are law, unit 6 (LAW6) and unit 4 (LAW4), computing, units 4 (CPT4) and 5 (CPT5), and business studies, unit 11 (BUS11).

I’m resitting law, unit 5 (LAW5).

Jolly good, only seven eight exams. Plus three sets of coursework. Before July. Joy.

(a) Consider what rights and remedies the owners of the cottages, including Irene, may have in connection with the noise and other problems caused by the leisure activities and the oil spillage.

The cottage owners and Irene would have rights in the law concerning nuisance. There are three elements that need to be proven before a the cottage owners could successfully claim against Highlife Sports within the law for private nuisance.

The first is that there must be some indirect interference with the enjoyment or use of the claimant’s land. Indirect means things like noise, smells or vibrations. It should be interference towards the land, or interference with a right to the C’s land, known as a servitude (Hunter v. Canary Warf). In this case, the cottage owners finding it hard to get to and from their property’s due to Highlife’s customer’s is the interference. There is also the matter of the noise.

Next there must be some damage to the claimant, though not necessarily tangible damage. By this, I mean that it just be the occupier’s usage of the land that is affected. For instance, if someone can’t go into their garden because of a horrible smell from a near by house, that would be the damage. The above application also applies here since it shows the damage the occupiers of the cottages have been inflicted with.

Next is a policy question of unreasonable interference, and whether the interference was a legal one. Individual facts from the case are looked into here. The time of the interference is a large part in deciding if it was unreasonable; the level of noise allowed at 4pm in the day will be completely different to the level of noise acceptable at midnight. In this case, the time is during the weekend. It could be argued that the cottage dwellers want to relax after a week of hard work during the weekend and so the level of noise is unacceptable. It may be argued by the defence that the weekend is the time that’s most expected to have parties and such, so noise should be expected. The duration is also a factor; a short period of hammering once a year or so will be acceptable since everyone needs to use a hammer every once in a while, but hammering every day could be a nuisance. If Highlife only had one of these events a month it would be considered less of a nuisance than them doing it each weekend. Locality; it’s expected that factories will be making noise most of the time on an industrial estate, as described in Sturges v. Bridgeman, however a lone factory on a quiet area wouldn’t be permitted to make as much noise. In this case, I imagined the scenario to be set in a quiet, country-side like area. If that’s the case, then Highlife would be expected to make minimal noise, especially during the night and weekends.

There are rules on who can sue: the claimant must first have an interest in the land. The creator of the nuisance can be sued regardless of their interest in the affected land, this means that the defendant didn’t even have to know that they were causing a problem (in practise though, the C would have to have tried other forms of resolution to the problem before they could have filed for court, so the defendant would know they were causing a problem).

If the interference affects an individuals enjoyment of land, it is private nuisance. However, where the interference is affecting a group of people it is known as a public nuisance. Public nuisance is described in Att-Gen v. PYA Quarries LTD as “any nuisance which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects”. Technically, a public nuisance is criminally punishable, however a claimant can file a tort case to get compensation if they were subject to more damage than others.

Public nuisance must first prove all the elements listed for private nuisance, and then a further two.

The first is that it must be a “class of her Majesty’s servant”, or a group of people. This is because public nuisance is a nuisance affecting society.

There must be special damage by which the claimant has suffered more than others.

If Highlife had been doing these events for more than twenty years, they may have a defence of prescription, meaning they have a right to be doing what they are because they’ve always done it.

Irene can get damages through the law set out in Rylands v. Fletcher, a very contraversial law since it’s rarely used and few people see it’s point (for instance, in this case it would have been far better to criminally charge Highlife with property damage). Rylands consists of a five part test to check for liability. First the D must have brough something on to their land, in this case it is Highlife bringing oil onto their land. Next, the thing must be likely to cause damage if it escapes, Att-Gen v. Corke. Next, it must be bought onto the land with the intent of a non-natural use. Here, oil is not found naturally in the land, so this step is confirmed. Last, the thing must escape from the area it is in (Hale v. Jennings Brothers). It does in this case, since it escapes from it’s container, and from the D’s land.