tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3563508816261944851..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: "JUDGE IN PRIVACY DAMAGES ROMP WITH 4 BARRISTERS"Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69040927747664127262008-07-25T10:32:00.000+01:002008-07-25T10:32:00.000+01:00Funnily enough, they only seem to do it when the d...Funnily enough, they only seem to do it when the defendant has ben found guilty. And that before the chance of an appeal to be heard. I'm <BR/>always "uncomfortable" when a rather smug detective stands and says "we're very glad that he/she/they were found guilty". Why? Guilt or not is irrelevant to the police who should neutrally gather the facts and/or evidence and not seek a "result!". Perhaps IP lawyers should later reveal secret discusions of their successes?<BR/>But I digress...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3420245552388650382008-07-25T09:20:00.000+01:002008-07-25T09:20:00.000+01:00A tangential question about IP, here.Sometimes, af...A tangential question about IP, here.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes, after high profile court trials in the UK, the police release snippets from custody interview recordings. (This has happened quite recently in the Darwin fraud trial).<BR/><BR/>Who owns the copyright to these recordings?<BR/><BR/>Does anyone know? Surely it should be the accused.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com