Law
Legal systems, legislation, court decisions, and jurisprudence
Baker v. Selden (1879): The Supreme Court Case That Separated Ideas from Expression
This landmark Supreme Court case established that copyright protects the expression of ideas but not the ideas or methods themselves — the foundation of the merger doctrine.
AI Art Copyright: Thaler v. Perlmutter and Human Authorship Requirement
In {{Thaler v. Perlmutter}}, US courts ruled that {{copyright}} requires {{human authorship}}, so a work {{autonomously generated}} by an {{AI}} system cannot be registered. {{AI-assisted}} works remain copyrightable for the human-authored elements, with the line drawn case-by-case based on the human's creative control.
The Affero GPL: Closing the SaaS Loophole in Open Source Licensing
The AGPL extends the GPL's copyleft to network use — if users interact with AGPL software over a network, the operator must provide source code.
The Free Software Foundation: Stallman's Organization for Software Freedom
The FSF, founded by Richard Stallman in 1985, promotes the ethical principle that software must be free to run, study, modify, and redistribute — and stewards the GPL license.
Fiduciary Duty: The Highest Legal Standard of Care
Fiduciary duty is the highest legal standard of care — professionals (lawyers, financial advisors, directors) must prioritize client interests above their own. Breach is a serious legal claim rooted in information asymmetry.
The Mosaic Theory: Why Aggregated Public Data Is More Sensitive Than Its Parts
Individually innocuous public facts compile into something intimate — one location is trivial, a month of them reveals your home, doctor, associates and politics. US v. Jones (2012) and Carpenter v. United States (2018) brought the reasoning into constitutional law, shifting the question from whether each observation was private to what the compilation reveals. It's why 'each individual recording is harmless' fails as a defence.
Criminal Conspiracy: The Agreement Plus an Overt Act
An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime plus, in most US jurisdictions, an overt act in furtherance — a separate offence from the underlying crime, chargeable whether or not that crime was completed. The agreement is normally the hardest element to prove and the overt act a deliberately low bar, which makes anything documenting the agreement disproportionately damaging.
Ex Turpi Causa: Why Courts Void Insurance for Your Own Wrongdoing
'From a dishonourable cause an action does not arise' — courts will not enforce a claim resting on the claimant's own illegal conduct. In insurance it voids cover for criminal fines, intended harm, and illegal enterprises (no valid insurable interest). Narrower than it looks: it bars the wrong and the penalty, not every loss connected to illegality, and defence costs remain insurable.
The EU AI Act: The World's First Comprehensive AI Regulation
The EU AI Act, which entered into force in August 2024 with phased implementation through 2027, is the world's first comprehensive legal framework for artificial intelligence. It classifies AI systems into risk tiers: unacceptable (banned — social scoring, real-time biometric surveillance), high-risk (regulated — hiring tools, credit scoring, law enforcement), limited risk (transparency required), and minimal risk (unregulated). General-purpose AI models face additional obligations including technical documentation and copyright compliance.
Insuring Illegal Acts: Misconceptions About Coverage, Racing Exclusions, and Pools
Breaking the law does not automatically void your insurance — intent decides, not illegality. Criminal defence costs are insurable even though fines are not. The standard ISO racing exclusion is keyed to being inside a racing facility, so the commonly-cited mechanism for street racing is wrong even though the conclusion is right, and track days are often excluded too. Punitive damages insurability is a state-by-state split, and a self-insurance pool for illegal activity makes the legal position worse.
Insuring Illegal Acts in the US: The Act, the Fine, and the Negligent Fallout
You cannot insure the illegal act, the fine, or intended harm — courts void those on public-policy grounds. You can insure the unintended civil consequences of illegal conduct done negligently, plus legal defence costs including criminal defence. Two dividing lines: illegal act versus intended harm, and civil liability versus penalties. Intent, far more than illegality, decides coverage.
Racing Exclusions in Auto Insurance: What the Standard ISO Wording Actually Says
The ISO Personal Auto Policy racing exclusion is keyed to a vehicle located inside a facility designed for racing while competing in or preparing for a prearranged or organised race — so read literally it does not reach public-road speed contests. Street racing is still usually uncovered, via broader carrier wording or intentional-acts provisions. A 2018 revision extended the exclusion to driver-skill events at racing facilities, catching track days.
Unauthorised Insurance: Transacting Insurance Without a Certificate of Authority
Acting as an insurer without a licence is illegal in every US state and a felony in many, with penalties often scaling by premium volume. The statutes target the business of insurance — soliciting, accepting premiums, promising indemnity, holding out to the public. Lawful pooling (municipal pools, captives, self-funded plans, cost-sharing ministries) is common; risk rises with formality, repetition, scale and solicitation.
Insurability of Punitive Damages Varies by US State
Roughly half of US states permit insurance for directly-assessed punitive damages; California, New York, Florida and Illinois are among those barring it as against public policy, on the reasoning that shifting punishment to an insurer defeats deterrence. Several states distinguish directly assessed from vicariously assessed awards. It bites hardest in drink-driving cases, where compensatory damages are covered but punitives may not be.
The Innocent Third Party Doctrine in Compulsory Auto Insurance
Compulsory liability insurance exists to protect victims, so many jurisdictions require an insurer to pay an injured third party even where the insured's own conduct would justify denial — otherwise the statutory purpose would fail precisely in the serious cases. The wrongdoer's own first-party losses remain deniable, and the insurer may retain recovery rights against the driver.
Insurance Runs on Documentation, Crime Survives on Deniability
Why participants in illegal activities cannot pool their own money for protection. The promise is unenforceable, the arrangement may itself be unauthorised insurance, and — structurally — everything insurance requires to function (written agreement, identified participants, records, a planned triggering event) is the same list a prosecutor needs to prove conspiracy, premeditation and organisation. Risk transfer is a legibility machine, so activities that depend on illegibility cannot use it.
Why Juries Cannot Do Their Own Research
Jurors can't research cases because both sides must be able to challenge all evidence. Independent research bypasses due process, introduces unvetted information, and can cause a mistrial.
Fiduciary Duty: Why Some Professionals Must Act in Your Best Interest
Fiduciary duty applies when information asymmetry means clients can't verify the professional's work (lawyers, doctors, financial advisors). It's a legal obligation to prioritize client interests over self-interest.
EU Gig Worker Protection Law: How Platforms Control "Independent" Contractors
EU's gig worker law addresses how platforms classify workers as independent while controlling them like employees — algorithmic penalties, rate control, and deactivation threats contradict contractor status.
Extraterritorial Legal Jurisdiction: When Countries Prosecute Citizens for Acts Abroad
Most countries cannot prosecute citizens for legal acts abroad, except for child sexual exploitation, terrorism, and drug trafficking — where extraterritorial jurisdiction and MLATs enable cross-border prosecution.