Slashdot Mirror

And yet somehow the Fashion Industry survives without copyright

The fashion industry absolutely does use copyright. Clothing is generally specifically excluded from copyright protection as a functional item but it does apply sometimes when the design rises to the level of a creative work. Sometimes it can benefit from design patents or trademarks as well. Furthermore you are comparing apples to oranges. Replicating an article of clothing has a substantial cost, especially at scale. Perhaps you have never seen how clothing is made but it is a laborious process and requires substantial amounts of specialized equipment, fabrics, chemicals, and skilled labor. Replicating written words costs far less and replicating written words digitally is inexpensive as to be approximately zero. Tangible objects generally aren't subject to copyright because the cost to replicate them makes copyright largely irrelevant. Copyright is for protecting intangible works. It isn't the book that is protected by copyright, it is the words in the book that are protected. I can produce a book that is physically identical to The Hobbit just so long as it doesn't have the same words printed in the same order in it.

In school kids are taught to share their toys.

Which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Sharing is for things you cannot copy. If you copy it by definition you aren't sharing it. Sharing means you give someone something and deprive yourself voluntarily of it (in part or in whole) for a time. You can say you are sharing an idea but what you really are doing is providing a copy of the idea.

As adults digital sharing is illegal and (excessively) fined.

It's not sharing. It's copying. And copying WITHOUT PERMISSION is what is prohibited because of the free rider problem. You can go ahead and get permission and then you can copy it all you like. Without such protection, a lot of creative works will never get made because it's FAR cheaper to copy someone else's idea than it is to come up with it yourself. Only someone very naive will think that economics plays no role in the creation of artistic works.

Order your own LexisNexis "Full File" - you will be shocked at the data this private company has collected on you. No shoe size (yet.) https://personalreports.lexisn... Also order your own LexisNexis "C.L.U.E. Auto Report" and "C.L.U.E. Personal Property Report" https://personalreports.lexisn... By Federal law, they are required to provide you with free reports once per year.

Order your own LexisNexis "Full File" - you will be shocked at the data this private company has collected on you. No shoe size (yet.) https://personalreports.lexisn... Also order your own LexisNexis "C.L.U.E. Auto Report" and "C.L.U.E. Personal Property Report" https://personalreports.lexisn... By Federal law, they are required to provide you with free reports once per year.

NLRB indicates that employers cannot prohibit employees from discussing wages with other employees.
https://www.lexisnexis.com/leg...

Setibanya di Bandara Polonia, meeting service oleh aulia paket wisata medan danau toba yang diwakili oleh pemandu wisata pengalaman kami dan berwisata singkat ke Maimoon Palace, Istana Sultan Deli, Masjid Agung, salah satu masjid terbesar di Indonesia. Berangkat menuju paket tour medan berastagi danau toba ke Parapat - resor pegunungan dan danau di pantai timur Danau Toba melalui Pematang dengan jeda sejenak di Paten Shop yang terkenal dengan paket tour medan murah terbaik dan berkualitas produk lokalnya yang gurih dari kacang tanah. Kedatangan di Parapat Cek cek di hotel dan acara bebas. Makan malam dan menginap di Parapat. Setelah sarapan pagi di hotel, dengan tim paket tour medan dan paket tour medan kapal pesiar motor di Danau Toba mengunjungi Desa Ambartita untuk melihat kursi batu dan eksekusi yang dilakukan oleh Raja Siallagan di masa lalu. Diikuti ke Desa Tomok untuk melihat batu makam tua Raja Sidabutar. Di pulau samosir ini Anda bisa menemukan tour medan mura, tour danau toba murah banyak toko suvenir dan kerajinan paket wisata danau toba antik Batak dan membeli souvenir dengan harga murah. Sore hari kembali ke hotel di Parapat.

Sarapan di hotel Lanjutkan ke Brastagi di Dataran Tinggi Karo. Pergilah mengunjungi Istana Raja Kuno Simalungun di Pematang Purba. Hentikan Simarjarunjung untuk menikmati Teh Jahe dan Pisang Goreng (akun pribadi). Berhenti di paket wisata medan danu toba, air terjun sipiso piso yang ramping yang akan memukau Anda dengan pemandangan travel medan indah yang terjun ke Danau Toba dari ketinggian ratusan meter. Tiba di Brastagi berkunjung ke pasar buah travel medan murah, tradisional dan Bukit Gundaling untuk melihat dua gunung berapi yang masih aktif, gunung Sinabung dan gunung Sibayak. check in hotel dan acara bebas.

That's not true. Being poor is not a criminal offense in Georgia. Here's the official Georgia law, all of it: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

Whoosh!

Yes, the text of the law is available for free. What's not available for free is the annotations to the law, which is commentary, summaries of cases decided about the law, etc. The logic of the guy in TFA is is "Romeo & Juliet is public domain, therefore the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Romeo & Juliet should be public domain."

Does any other state do this, and if so what legal standing does GA have to copyright the laws it passes?

TFS and TFA are clickbait. The law is not copyrighted. It's available for free right here.

The way it works in most states is multiple private companies hire their own lawyers and legal aides to annotate the state law. That is, to write brief commentary and summaries of other court cases that have been decided about that law. These are obviously very helpful reference materials for judges and state attorneys, too, so the state winds up buying annotated copies of their own laws from, say LexisNexis. The state of georgia got smart and said "this is stupid, we're spending all this taxpayer money on these annotations. Let's just commission LexisNexis directly to write the Official annotated version of GA state law, and our judges and officials will get it for free because we'll recoup the costs selling it to the private attorneys!"

This seems to work out very well for both GA taxpayers and the government. If you think this is immoral or illegal or something, okay, fine, they can go do it like every other state in which the state is paying the private companies. The costs to taxpayers will rise, and the taxpayers will get exactly the same number of free copies of the annotated laws they get today, and get in every other state: zero.

Yes, but by "official code" they mean "the official set of annotations we commissioned instead of buying them from a 3rd party." The way it works in most states is multiple private companies hire their own lawyers and legal aides to annotate the state law. That is, to write brief commentary and summaries of other court cases that have been decided about that law. These are obviously very helpful reference materials for judges and state attorneys, too, so the state winds up buying annotated copies of their own laws from, say LexisNexis. The state of georgia got smart and said "this is stupid, we're spending all this taxpayer money on these annotations. Let's just commission LexisNexis directly to write the Official annotated version of GA state law, and our judges and officials will get it for free because we'll recoup the costs selling it to the private attorneys!" They even require LexisNexis to make the (unannotated) code available for free to the public.

If you think that this is somehow immoral or evil, okay, the result will not be that the state of Georgia pays for the annotations and makes them available for free to everyone. Largely because no one actually cares about the annotations besides lawyers, so that would be a huge expense to the taxpayer with no real pay-off for them. The result will be GA going right back to the system everyone else uses of buying the annotated code from private 3rd parties, who still aren't going to compile all those summaries and give them away for free. Nothing is going to change because it seems to work out pretty well and saves money for the people and government of georgia, but raging nerds on the internet will continue to rage about the system, maaaaaan.

Terms and Conditions: https://www.lexisnexis.com/ter...

which include...

"The Content on this Web Site is for your personal use only and not for commercial exploitation"

"You may not use the Content to determine a consumer's eligibility for: (a) credit or insurance for personal, family, or household purposes; (b) employment; or (c) a government license or benefit. "

"You may not copy, modify, reproduce, republish, distribute, display, or transmit for commercial, non-profit or public purposes all or any portion of this Web Site, except to the extent permitted above. "

So you can't use this as a source for many cases where the average non-lawyer might want to look up a law, or even quote a law from this source.

Sure. Easily found on the Internet without too much trouble:

You given two sources. Which of those two (if either) is the authorized version of the legislation. If neither where do I go to access the authorized version?

Neither is the authorized website.
The State of Georgia's (.gov) website has numerous links to the freely accessible official code. here's one:
http://law.georgia.gov/legal-r...
The Official Code of Georgia Annotated link goes to the official code, hosted by lexisnexis
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

In the state of Georgia, it's a criminal offense to be poor. Don't believe me? Look it up... Don't have $1200? Off to jail with you!

That's not true. Being poor is not a criminal offense in Georgia.
Here's the official Georgia law, all of it:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

Free copies? The local public libraries in Ga that are on Ga's library network presently have 1005 copies, and the university libraries have many more.

Here's the free website. It is mandated by Ga law that the free website be provided by the publishers of the annotated code. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

The statutory text itself is NOT copyrighted according to the Terms and Conditions.

Also, there is supposed to be a copy available in every county courthouse, but I can't verify that.

That's... entirely untrue. The Official Georgia Code is the law of the land. Annotations are just that - annotations. It's available here, for free: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

https://www.lexisnexis.com/hot... The GA code is free on LexisNexis

Google "Georgia OCGA" and the first link that comes up is "LexisNexis(r) Custom Solution: Georgia Code Research Tool". Click it and a "Code of Georgia - Free Public Access" page comes up. Click "I Agree" and you get complete access to the Georgia Code for free. The opinion mentions that Lexis/Nexis is obligated to maintain this free site.

One might argue about the annotations being missing but the opinion shows precedent for those being copyrightable, even for laws.

The official Georgia Code is the copyrighted code with the annotations. Anything without the annotations is unofficial.

They publish an official code with annotations, but the official statutory law with official numbering is available for free online (here). And the annotations (by law) do not carry the force of law (as that *would* make them uncopyrightable, as the linked decision points out). In short: the summary is not only clickbait, it's actually wrong. GA law is 100% completely free and available to all with no copyright restrictions.

Great, care to point out where those laws are available freely WITHOUT those annotations?

Yes, on the public website of the company that published the annotated texts. Here, to be incredibly specific.

Available online, for free, in all its glory: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/Default.asp

Law should not be subject to copyright, and this person should not be sued for simply making a copy of the law he's subject to. But to say one cannot read the law at all without paying $1000 is just plain incorrect.

BP and DuPont's company Butamax has been fighting with GE Energy Venture's biofuel concern Gevo over who gets to make Butanol for years now. Butamax has got their hands on some basic patents for making the process cost-effective, based on technologies developed at public university and partially with your tax dollars. Recently the patent office declared all of the claims of one of Gevo's central patents invalid, which is unfortunate for you and I because Butamax is not actually trying to sell us fuel and Gevo is.

We therefore already have the technology to make a 1:1 replacement for gasoline which can be made from any organic matter, by bacteria, and we could be running our cars on it right now if only our government had not become primarily a tool for bludgeoning common sense soundly about the neck and head for the sake of profit.

Bicyclists DO have the right to use the full lane.

Law vary from state to state.
In Georgia you would be wrong.
Quick link: http://www.syfert.com/gacode/4...

official State of Ga link: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...
search for O.C.G.A. 40-6-294 (2015)

here's the text.
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, except when turning left or avoiding hazards to safe cycling, when the lane is too narrow to share safely with a motor vehicle, when traveling at the same speed as traffic, or while exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction; provided, however, that every person operating a bicycle away from the right side of the roadway shall exercise reasonable care and shall give due consideration to the other applicable rules of the road.

A simple google search shows that other states have similar laws and people have been ticketed.

The one publicly available edition of the state laws of Georgia is the unannotated version.

This lawsuit is about the annotations, not the code.

wget -r http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

wget -r http://www.lexisnexis.com/

Of course, you do need wget (search for wget using your preferred search engine; most Linux distributions have this installed by default, the GNU Project has also ported it for Windows as wgetwin32). The above string will recursively download the entire site. I don't know about the US Code but the England and Wales Statute Law Database runs some 15,000 primary Statutes and over a hundred thousand secondary instruments to over a million pages, chewing its way through more than 28GB of just text. Triple again that for the Britain and Ireland Legal Information Institute database which is (most of) the case Law. Mostly text, but a good few images in there as well.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

Georgia law is constructively withheld from the public. It is available for free in only one form, the online lexis-nexus search at http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott.... This search page is deliberately contrived so that you can never view more than a small fragment of text at a time. There is no way to obtain PDFs, and the search engine itself is deliberately crippled to hobble searches unless you already know the phraseology of the law involved.

As an example, try to find the "stop and identify" law for Georgia using the lexis search. Unless you already know it's part of the "loitering" statute, you will have to page through hundreds of search results to find the relevant text.

At a minimum, the State of Georgia should be forced to provide full PDF downloads of the Georgia code. More importantly, though, the annotations themselves are effectively part of the law, as they are universally cited in case law (which is simlarly hobbled with RIDICULOUS copyright restrictions) which legally interprets the code and establishes its legal meaning.

So yes, the entire Georgia code, with annotations, needs to be made freely available to the public, as are annotated codes are in most states.

What part of "well fucking regulated" don't you understand?

Which part of "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" don't you understand, citizen?

By your own logic, you don't have a right to any other speech — not to advertise anything, not to produce pornography, not to organize boycotts. Not even political campaign speeches are a right under your reading of the Bill of Rights — unless they are addressed to the sitting government as a form of a petition. If, of course, your thinking is self-consistent, and you are reading the First Amendment with the same literal strictness you are applying to the Second.

And by the logic of others of your kind, your Constitutionally-protected speech is limited to the means available in the 18th century too — even if you are merely petitioning the government, you don't have a right to do that via the Internet, TV, or radio.

I would agree but the courts are the ones who seem to not agree. It you read the entire page, you will also notice that the dissenting opinions seemed to hinge around the reasonable suspicion requirement the court imposed as being to stringent and causing problems with centuries old border search doctrine.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/litigation/b/litigation-blog/archive/2013/03/11/9th-circuit-finds-border-search-of-laptop-did-not-violate-4th-amendment.aspx

In this they cite

The en banc majority cited United States v. Ramsey (431 U.S. 606, 621 [1977]) to support "the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country." This interest at the borders creates "a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches without probable cause," the majority said, although it does not create an "anything goes" atmosphere. Per United States v. Montoya de Hernandez (473 U.S. 531, 539 [1985]), the panel stated that privacy rights at the border are not abandoned but are "[b]alanced against the sovereign's interests."

They changed the law in 2012 to limit it to texting. So they've fixed the law. Now they need to fix the officer enforcing what's no longer a law.

Current: http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=O.C.G.A.+%A7+40-6-241.2

Yes, yes, and no. LEXIS, now apparently just called Lexis, and NEXIS, now apparently just called Nexis, are non-government online data search services, access to which, according to the Cryptome article, "all members of the Intelligence Community have", "all domestic law enforcement has", and "IRS, DOJ, Treasury, Local PD, Sheriffs Office all have".

And LexisNexis, the corporation that offers those services, also offers other services, including, for example, "Identity Management Solutions" that "perform multiple core system data checks against our extensive public records and proprietary databases to ensure the contact's name and address match is valid." So whatever he's referring to when he speaks of "LEXIS-NEXIS", it's either 1) a private-sector program to which US government officials, among others, have access or 2) a government program that involves access to some service or services from LexisNexis and is, cleverly, codenamed "LEXIS-NEXIS".

In other news, another whistleblower has anonymously leaked information on PROTON, CLEARWATER and LEXIS-NEXIS, US government programs

Yes, yes, and no. LEXIS, now apparently just called Lexis, and NEXIS, now apparently just called Nexis, are non-government online data search services, access to which, according to the Cryptome article, "all members of the Intelligence Community have", "all domestic law enforcement has", and "IRS, DOJ, Treasury, Local PD, Sheriffs Office all have".

MD : http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgtmpl.asp?url=/content/pio/emergency/Code_Section_49-24A.asp
"A person is responsible for removing snow and ice on any sidewalk, other walkway, or parking area on or adjacent to property that the person owns, leases, or manages, including any walkway in the public right-of-way, to provide a pathway wide enough for safe pedestrian and wheelchair use. "

DC: http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=D.C.+Code+%2525A7+9-601
"It shall be the duty of every person, partnership, corporation, joint-stock company, or syndicate in charge or control of any building or lot of land within the fire limits of the District of Columbia, fronting or abutting on a paved sidewalk, whether as owner, tenant, occupant, lessee, or otherwise, within the first 8 hours of daylight after the ceasing to fall of any snow or sleet, to remove and clear away, or cause to be removed and cleared away, such snow or sleet from so much of said sidewalk as is in front of or abuts on said building or lot of land."

VA: http://alexandriava.gov/special/weather/snow/default.aspx?id=40386
"Snow and ice must be cleared from all paved sidewalks abutting your property within 24-72 hours of the end of the snowfall, depending on the storm response level"

No idea about CA, and of course city/district level rather than state usually.

Not necessarily true. It depends. Search on this page for "punitive damages".

Do you really think Romney's policies would have been less disastrous?

I do. Part of the problem was simply the Obama administration's callous pursuit of ideological goals during a recession, resulting in great costs and uncertainty to the US and the people who employ people. Romney would have had to do something about the economic climate and the destructive and constitutionally adventuresome regulations coming out of the federal government (such as the EPA's bizarre court tricks). Obama as a reelected, lame duck president, doesn't have to care what sort of mess he leaves for us.

You should verify that before you kill someone and end up destroying a handful of lives (including your own) over a cell phone.

Verified. Please allow me to refer you to my post below, or perhaps the source of that info, or perhaps the actual code. God forbid the day should ever come when I actually need to shoot someone, but rest assured I will feel no guilt. Any lives ruined in the process will be the offenders fault. I didn't ask/tell them to put their life in jeopardy in order to rob a law-abiding armed citizen.

Seriously you would kill someone and "feel not guilt" to keep your cell phone? Either you are full of bluster or you are a dangerous sociopath.

You should verify that before you kill someone and end up destroying a handful of lives (including your own) over a cell phone.

Verified.
Please allow me to refer you to my post below, or perhaps the source of that info, or perhaps the actual code.

God forbid the day should ever come when I actually need to shoot someone, but rest assured I will feel no guilt. Any lives ruined in the process will be the offenders fault. I didn't ask/tell them to put their life in jeopardy in order to rob a law-abiding armed citizen.

Once again, Lawyers are not the smartest cookies in the jar. "He who serves as their own lawyer has a fool for a client." Sounds like a counter claim for harassment, filing a frivolous lawsuit and abusive litigation. See CASE COMMENT: Yost v. Torok and Abusive Litigation: A New Tort to Solve an Old Problem https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=21+Ga.+L.+Rev.+429&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=d376f4fa7d7435dfcf58647c4b43a54c

It is perfectly within a TSA agents job and rights that if they find someone transporting something that could be reasonably believed to be at least $10,000 to question the passenger at the very least if they are travelling internationally, and if they have documented the transport of the cash.

He is not talking about the TSA or leaving the country, he is talking about the police seizing large amounts of money in traffic stops, even when there is no evidence of a crime. Once they seize the money, you have to sue them to get it back. Since this is civil forfeiture, you do not have the same rights as if you were charged with a crime. The police sue the property itself. Perhaps the lawyers at Cornell put it better:

Unlike criminal forfeiture, civil forfeiture proceeds against the property, not the person.
...

Due to its civil nature, the roles of the parties change. Instead of prosecutor versus defendant, the hearing concerns a plaintiff, the United States in the case of Federal forfeitures, and a defendant, the property in question. The owner is effectively put in the position of being a third party claimant. Furthermore, civil hearings involve a more lenient burden of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove by "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not.
...

Unless provided in statute (as in 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(2)), innocence of the owner is typically not a defense.

There have been many cases where money was seized without any evidence of a crime (here is a book about some of them). There is a clear incentive for police to seize money in this manner as they generally get some or all of the seized money to use for departmental operations. This behavior by law enforcement directly contradicts the text of the fourth amendment, another casualty of the drug war.

I just think you're making a lot of assumptions about the laws in the jurisdiction I'm in. Heck, the employment contract I signed was a grand total of one A4 page that was mostly taken up by personal information. Apart from this I also signed a second agreement where I promised not to abuse the company's IT resources (this is the part that included not giving business secrets to competitors or using them against the company in some other way).

Employment agreements do not need to repeat things that are essentially the law of the land. You mentioned Sweden earlier. I did a quick google and found an established "duty of loyalty". This seems to be the local version of the general concept I was referring to.

"Under Swedish law, employees have a far-reaching obligation to be loyal to their employers. The concept of loyalty covers an array of different obligations. Between themselves, these are rather divergent. Their common denominator is that they are considered to be part of a general and overriding employee obligation to be loyal to their employer. In brief, loyalty means an obligation of the employee to put the interests of the employer ahead of personal interests and to avoid situations entailing a collision of interests. To phrase it differently, employees must not act in such a way as to harm the employer. Yet another way to express the concept of loyalty succinctly is to say that the employer enjoys exclusive rights." https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=20+Comp.+Lab.+L.+%26+Pol'y+J.+297&key=ed9a6102cc17d06fdd60c65923ef953f

Really?

Yes, isobutanol provides many benefits over ethanol and petrol, but there's bound to be an IP issue pretty much any time these days, as Gevo is currently finding out. Of course at a time when solutions are needed fast.

Perhaps (un)surprisingly BP is the plaintiff here...

http://corporate.lexisnexis.com/news/corporate-counsel,intellectual-property/cat200003_doc1373404955.html

We're talking monitoring your supposedly private information behind the scenes

Well, here's the thing about US law (for better or worse, I'm just explaining it as I understand how it actually operates) is that there is no constitutional reasonable expectation of privacy in Facebook stuff, since my assumption you have already shared it with others (if only Facebook Inc). This is called "the third party doctrine", since it covers only information that an individual has voluntarily disclosed some third (non-government) entity. See, e.g. United States v. Miller (1976):

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information
revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities,
even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used
only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will
not be betrayed.

The long and short of this is that the act of transmitting to Facebook establishes that you have no REP in whatever you transmit. A lot of ink has been spilled in debating the doctrine, both legally and normatively but that's past the scope of this post so I'll just point you to an article criticizing the doctrine and one defending it. Both contain excellent overviews of the law and the surrounding doctrinal argument.

More interestingly, however, Congress stepped in to provide even more protection than the Court when it passed the Stored Communications Act that provides an intermediate level of scrutiny past the normal scrutiny that attaches to any criminal subpoena[1]. In the SCA, Congress requires the government to prove "specific and articulable facts" that the information is relevant and material to a criminal investigation. That would be the standard applicable to a subpoena to Facebook.

Of course, if Facebook wanted to disclose information voluntarily, that would be well covered by the Third Party Doctrine (as it exists) except to the extent prohibited by the Facebook TOS.

[1] That would be, approximately, 'reasonable possibility that the materials sought will produce information relevant to the investigation'. See, e.g. United States v. R. Enterprises (1991) and FRCP 17.

[2] 18 U.S.C. 2703(d).

It's not like Congress hasn't been busy recently, and presumably NASA and its subcontractors aren't just taking the money and throwing it in a shredder. It takes time and money to properly mothball a project of that size, and in the meanwhile maybe they can make a little progress toward their goals.

Sorry it took so long to reply. The company that I referred to was called: ChoicePoint and is now owned by LexisNexis Risk Solutions. Those links point to a Wikipedia article on a company and the official website under new ownership respectively. Hope this helps, despite being a week overdue.

Google is still distributing illegal copies.

"The 1976 Copyright Act, as amended in 1999, authorizes statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed in cases of willful infringement and from $750 up to $30,000 in cases of non-willful infringement."

Google is making copies, they are possibly illegal. Doesn't matter the license they thought they had, they can still be held responsible up $30,000 a copy.

(source for quote https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=6-93+Intellectual+Property+Counseling+%26+Litigation+93.syn&srctype=smi&srcid=2A4E&key=5aad85e0a403aa12c7b112ffd6180668)

Nota Bene - Journos have had the luxury of Lexis-Nexis long, long before Google ever existed. :)

The first person broadcasting on a specific frequency in a specific area has the right to do so. Anybody who comes after that and interferes has to adjust the frequency they broadcast on or stop broadcasting.

There would have to be court actions to resolve disputes

I know this is slashdot but if you had read the article I linked to you would have read where it said the courts were resolving the issue:
"For when interference on the same channel began to occur, the injured party took the airwave aggressors into court, and the courts were beginning to bring order out of the chaos by very successfully applying the common law theory of property rights--in very many ways similar to the libertarian theory--to this new technological area. In short, the courts were beginning to assign property rights in the airwaves to their 'homesteading' users."

If someone were to start broadcasting in an area on a frequency someone else was already broadcasting on the first person was able to sue those who were interfering and win the right to continue while those interfering had to stop.

or an agency could be created to manage the spectrum and license parts of the spectrum to people to radiate, the licensing fees would go towards the cost of managing the spectrum.

So only those with large bank accounts were able to broadcast? There is no need for the artificial limit to who can broadcast. There is no spectrum scarcity, The End of Spectrum Scarcity. There actually was no scarcity when licenses were first required and with improvements in electronics more and more broadcasters were able to broadcast.

• The Case For Liberal Spectrum Licenses: A T Economic Perspective[pdf]
• Questioning the Scarcity of the Spectrum: The Structure of a Spectrum Revolution
• Inventing American Broadcasting, 1899-1922 (Johns Hopkins Studies in the History of Technology)
• Optimal Abolition of FCC Spectrum Allocation[pdf]
  "Property Rights for Spectrum Markets"
  "Market allocation of radio spectrum was the policy recommendation of Coase (1959). Yet scholars who rst attempted to formulate the enabling mechanism of property rights in frequencies (Coase, Meckling, and Minasian, 1963; Levin, 1968; DeVany, Eckert, Meyers, O'Hara, and Scott, 1969; Minasian 1975) met with limited success. Experience illuminating how such markets would function was scarce. Today, however, data on spectrum rights regimes abound. One body of evidence comes from the U.S. experience with liberal licenses for cellular networks; another from countries that have adopted more general spectrum property regimes."
• The Wireless Craze, the Unlimited Bandwidth Myth, the Spectrum Auction Faux Pas, and the Punchline to Ronald Coase's "Big Joke": An Essay on Airwave Allocation Policy

The FCC needs to be redefined with a much clearer scope

No, the FCC needs to be abolished. It exists only to keep the mass media the mass media reducing competition. Put another way, it's centralized planning with the attending command and control mechanisms. There is no other reason for it to exist.

Falcon

Gotta love the words of the guy who puts the Muslim hate speech up - "We're commanded to terrorize the unbelievers."

Transcript from LexisNexis:

MOHAMMED: We're commanded to terrorize the disbelievers. And this is a religion like I said.

GRIFFIN (on camera): You're commanded to terrorize the disbelievers?

MOHAMMED: The Quran says very clearly in Arabic language, (SPEAKING ARABIC). This means "terrorize them." It's a command from Allah.

Such a "peaceful" religion... makes me want to join up. Wait, no, what's the opposite of join up? Ah yes, expose their totalitarian violent cult for what it is.

All of that data is already publicly available - you just have to drive down to the individual offices.

Will it cause problems? I don't know.

Will it make government more transparent? I think so.

There could also be applications that track less spending on certain neighborhoods. Maybe track gross injustices. Maybe even corruption. "Hey look, why is all that state money going in to that neighborhood way above and beyond that state average? It's the Governor's sister's neighborhood? Well, let's have a closer look, shall we."