Harry Potter leak / Strafbarkeit der Verbreitung des neuen Harry Potter

The Times online (via Boing Boing) reports that it may be possible to trace the person who leaked the Harry Potter book in photos on the Web yesterday (the publisher, Bloomsbury, won’t confirm that this was genuine, presumably as a damage limitation exercise). The serial number of the camera is part of the EXIF data, and if the camera, an early Digital Rebel, has been repaired or registered, the number will be linked to a name.

However, there would probably be no criminal charges, as there was no commercial gain. Civil damages would be based on the loss in book sales.

If traced, the person who photographed the Harry Potter novel could be found guilty of copyright infringement, but would be unlikely to face criminal charges as the photos appear not to have been published for commercial gain, lawyers said.
“There are criminal provisions in copyright legislation, but they tend to be used in cases of obvious counterfeiting – such as selling fake computer games or DVDs in a car boot sale,” Mark Owen, an intellectual property partner at the London firm Harbottle & Lewis, said. “If Bloomsbury were to pursue an action, it would more likely be a civil case, in which case any damages would be assessed according to the loss in book sales.”

The Times calls the EXIF numbers ‘digital DNA’!

Some EXIF data (bottom left) from a Sony DSC-H5 (click to enlarge).

screenshw.jpg

Unidentified moth / Unbekannter Falter

Can anyone identify this? I don’t take enough photos of insects (all my dragonfly shots have been failures), but this actually came indoors.

DSC08851w.jpg

This is fairly close.

Now closer – at a German site for identifying moths and butterflies, it looks like Phragmatobia fuliginosa (Zimtbär – Ruby tiger moth – borealis? more brown than red on top).

I really should be doing something else, at least cleaning that floor. The insect has disappeared, so I never photographed its underwings.

EU reform treaty / EU-Reform-Vertrag

EUobserver reports that last Thursday, Giuliano Amato said “They [EU leaders] decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception”.

He said that if the document was unreadable, it would make it easier for the UK prime minister to say there is no need for a referendum.

The speech was recorded by UK based think tank Open Europe. It is also available on YouTube.
“This is an extraordinary admission from someone who has been close to the negotiations on the EU treaty”, said Open Europe director Neil O’Brien.
“The idea of just changing the name of the Constitution and pretending that it is just another complex treaty shows a total contempt for voters.”

But quite a few voters have been worn down by the misinformation constantly appearing in the press. I’d heard that to sell the treaty in the UK, it was necessary for it not to be called a constitution – no matter what was in it.

The organization Open Europe has a weblog. The heading of its report on this matter is ‘Loathsome Smugness’. I am not sure it separates fact and comment, but I suppose that’s the thing about blogs.

Judicial dress again/ Richterroben

Following the recent entry on changes to court dress in England and Wales, RA-Blog gives a link to a page with pictures of judicial dress all over the world.

It’s not quite accurate when referring to England and Wales – not surprisingly, since the situation is so complicated. And in England and Wales, ‘justices’ doesn’t refer to judges, but to lay magistrates.

>>Like everything else in Britain, British judicial costumes are regulated according to a myriad of ancient traditions, customs, and laws. Many of these rules date back to at least the 14th Century, making the modern British judicial system one of the world’s oldest.<< Does their dress date back that far? I don't think wigs were worn then. And what happened to 1066? I can't speak for Scotland and Northern Ireland (the page has separate pictures for Scotland later). >>The British judicial branch is very complex, and is composed of dozens of different courts of jurisdiction<< Not dozens. >> with grandiose names like the “Queen’s Bench” the “Chancery Division” and the “Crown Court.” Depending on which branch the judge belongs to, he could wear one of many different costumes. Unlike many other countries which limit their judges to wearing only red or black, in Britain judges wear almost every color. There are judges with blue robes, green robes, white robes, and even purple and pink ones. << I haven't checked the number of colours, but I have my doubts. >>There are several constants, however. All upper court justices in Britain wear the famous “full bottomed” powdered wigs while lower court judges wear the shorter “barrister” wig. << The full-bottomed wig is only for ceremonial occasions. In court they wear the bench wig - except the House of Lords judges, who don't wear wigs at all. On wigs, see earlier entry.

>>This is a holdover from the time when judges were members of the aristocracy, and it was considered fashionable for important people to show off their social status by wearing long flowing wigs. Once a year there is a special ceremony in Westminster Abbey during which all of the nation’s judges assemble to commemorate the start of the legal year. On formal occasions such as that, all judges wear “full bottomed” wigs.<< Exactly, and not on other occasions. The ceremony referred to is the Lord Chancellor's Breakfast. The picture of "more high court judges" with purple trim and full-bottomed wigs is a picture of the procession to the Lord Chancellor's Breakfast. Those are not high court judges, but circuit judges. By the way, the 'cross collar' is called 'bands'. For lots of pictures, including circuit judges in ordinary and ceremonial dress, see the wonderful PDF Legal Habits.

Another mystery to me is the picture that says ‘A lower court judge’. I don’t know what a lower court judge is supposed to mean – it can only mean a circuit judge (not a district judge, I think), and I don’t think it’s one of those. (The term ‘upper court’ quoted earlier is also dubious). I think it’s another manifestation of a high court judge. Here it is – any offers?

uk2.jpg

I’ve got a bit inured to English court dress, so I find the German Federal Constitutional Court judges the oddest. Their hats could have been designed for 2001. And I believe when they were invented, a theatrical costumier was consulted.