Slashdot Mirror

http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign...

Reference, read the first line. Your turn. Can you point to where the recommendations by the IRCP ICRU and IAEA were legally binding in Japan before the Fukushima incident?

Yes -- libraries are rightfully risk-adverse about certain tech-facing facets of their core activities -- specifically, those which pertain to copyright. The nightmare scenario for all libraries and archives is that they make something from their holdings freely available on the Internet when it's in fact not copyright-clear, and then years later someone shows up claiming millions of dollars in damages. Out of necessity, they *must* be conservative when it comes to anything dealing with copyright status.

As Ageh mentions, keeping libraries' donors happy is key, and NYPL and most similar institutions are incredibly under-funded by the gov't and literally live and die by their wealthy patrons. So the technology footprint needs to be aligned with the wants of the donor to a certain extent. Because these people are often older, sometimes they don't have a firm grasp of why the library would want to spend their money on "tech," so the money goes elsewhere. The big donors pretty much get what they want, and sometimes that's more than having a branch named after themselves.

Now, can libraries do cool stuff when it comes to tech? Absolutely, and they do, including NYPL (check out NYPL Labs) and of course, the Library of Congress and their long-term digital strategy. But all of these activities are subject to the two rules above.

The debate on the Civil Rights Act [of 1866, precursor to the Amendment] contained the following exchange:
Mr. Cowan: I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?
Mr. Trumbull: Undoubtedly.
...
Mr. Trumbull: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens? Mr. Cowan: I think not.
Mr. Trumbull: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
Mr. Cowan: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Mr. Trumbull: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.

President Johnson even object to the provision that it would make "anchor babies" legal citizens, and sent it back to Congress, at which point they promptly *overrode* his veto, making their intention quite clear. Relevant citations:
1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 498.
1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891-2.
Johnson's Veto

A reinterpretation would require quite a bit of intellectual dishonesty. Not that I'm putting that past anyone.

The debate on the Civil Rights Act [of 1866, precursor to the Amendment] contained the following exchange:
Mr. Cowan: I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?
Mr. Trumbull: Undoubtedly.
...
Mr. Trumbull: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens? Mr. Cowan: I think not.
Mr. Trumbull: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
Mr. Cowan: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Mr. Trumbull: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.

President Johnson even object to the provision that it would make "anchor babies" legal citizens, and sent it back to Congress, at which point they promptly *overrode* his veto, making their intention quite clear. Relevant citations:
1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 498.
1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891-2.
Johnson's Veto

A reinterpretation would require quite a bit of intellectual dishonesty. Not that I'm putting that past anyone.

Actually, some LOC websites work, some don't. Direct LCCN lookup will fail if you use TLS higher the TLS 1.0. You can set it in Firefox in about:config. Try direct LCCN access: LCCN 41022039. It only works with TLS 1.0.

Is the Library of Congress ready to fight against the fire?
Did it a digital preservation?

https://www.loc.gov/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress

No, it is not. Go read James Madison's first cut at the 2nd Amendment. And then realize he simplified the concept. It's only if you don't LIKE the right that is enumerated that you twist it all around and include stuff like militias.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison

You can find his words in the annals of Congress. The 2nd Amendment is a more concise and clear version of what he wrote. It's only when you don't like what it clearly and plainly states (in the vernacular of the time it was written) that it becomes unclear or cloudy. If you're in doubt about what it said - then go back and read what was debated and proffered by the original writers.

Ha! I didn't think of that very obvious interpretation... it actually refers to that classic unit of measurement, the Library of Congress.

Technically a line of code could be any length though so perhaps they are the same... :-)

You may be to young to remember signs like this.

You're defending people that have made it very clear that this is the sort of thing they want to bring back.

Canada: Currently there is no dedicated program to grant the children of undocumented persons legal status or a pathway to citizenship.

Mexico: Undocumented aliens may apply for immigration status provided that applicable requirements are met (conditions are basically familial relationships or refugee status.

Canada: Currently there is no dedicated program to grant the children of undocumented persons legal status or a pathway to citizenship.

Mexico: Undocumented aliens may apply for immigration status provided that applicable requirements are met (conditions are basically familial relationships or refugee status.

Maybe slightly lower income tax, but wait until they see what ordinance violations exist, and what the payments are, as well as how often they are cited. Also, no guns.

"Singapore has one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. According to the Arms Offences Act, unlawful possession or carrying of firearms is punishable with imprisonment and caning. Using or attempting to use arms when committing a scheduled offense is punishable with death. The death penalty may also apply to the offender’s accomplices present at the scene of the offense."

If you think that the US allows corporate and union donations you are ill-informed. Why does it seem that the people least informed are most likely to act? Generally in irrational ways.

To be Partisan, I would recognize that dems tend to be well meaning but horribly ill-informed on many issues that is the current fashionable outrage.

Section 203 restricts corporations and labor unions from funding electioneering communications from their general funds except under certain specific circumstances, e.g., get-out-the-vote campaigns.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'm sorry, you seem ... heh ... very misinformed. Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is exactly what was overthrown by the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Your first link talks about Citizens United, but doesn't seem to mention the final decision. Your 2nd link is the BCRA that ended up being overturned. That's why Citizens v FEC was so important. Notice your first link doesn't mention any decision after September 9, 2009, when I think the final decision was handed down in January 2010.

Wikipedia - Citizens majority opion
Wikipedia - Citizens political impact

The Citizens United ruling "opened the door" for unlimited election spending by corporations, but most of this spending has "ended up being funneled through the groups that have become known as super PACs... , political action committees which make no financial contributions to candidates or parties, and so can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions.

If you have to use loc.gov, I didn't immediately find the final decision, but here's an article that really does talk about the decision, and it's from 2010.

Abstract: In Citizens United, the Supreme Court relaxed the ability of corporations to spend money on elections, rejecting a shareholder-protection rationale for restrictions on spending

If you think that the US allows corporate and union donations you are ill-informed. Why does it seem that the people least informed are most likely to act? Generally in irrational ways.

To be Partisan, I would recognize that dems tend to be well meaning but horribly ill-informed on many issues that is the current fashionable outrage.

Section 203 restricts corporations and labor unions from funding electioneering communications from their general funds except under certain specific circumstances, e.g., get-out-the-vote campaigns.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'm sorry, you seem ... heh ... very misinformed. Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is exactly what was overthrown by the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Your first link talks about Citizens United, but doesn't seem to mention the final decision. Your 2nd link is the BCRA that ended up being overturned. That's why Citizens v FEC was so important. Notice your first link doesn't mention any decision after September 9, 2009, when I think the final decision was handed down in January 2010.

Wikipedia - Citizens majority opion
Wikipedia - Citizens political impact

The Citizens United ruling "opened the door" for unlimited election spending by corporations, but most of this spending has "ended up being funneled through the groups that have become known as super PACs... , political action committees which make no financial contributions to candidates or parties, and so can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions.

If you have to use loc.gov, I didn't immediately find the final decision, but here's an article that really does talk about the decision, and it's from 2010.

Abstract: In Citizens United, the Supreme Court relaxed the ability of corporations to spend money on elections, rejecting a shareholder-protection rationale for restrictions on spending

If you think that the US allows corporate and union donations you are ill-informed. Why does it seem that the people least informed are most likely to act? Generally in irrational ways.

To be Partisan, I would recognize that dems tend to be well meaning but horribly ill-informed on many issues that is the current fashionable outrage.

Section 203 restricts corporations and labor unions from funding electioneering communications from their general funds except under certain specific circumstances, e.g., get-out-the-vote campaigns.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

you can't casually stroll up to a person that has been chasing you for an hour, whose job it is to apprehend you, and say, "sup"?

You sure about that? I think that's exactly what we want to happen.

30.72 TB is approximately 2 Library of Congresses.

https://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2012/04/a-library-of-congress-worth-of-data-its-all-in-how-you-define-it/

The drill incorrectly included the language "This is not a drill."

Here's some irony for you: see http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mcc/002/0001.jpg and note the date sent.

Hey, a robust merging of the State and the big Capitalists kept the trains running on time, didn't it?

(And btw, where was that fucking "God" asshole? Mysterious deliberately-letting-kids-suffer ways again?)

I see you have read extensively on the problem of theodicy. Hint : Free Will.

Interestingly even if you're not religious the notion that free will and good outcomes for all are incompatible is an important one. It's the basis of this -

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/j...

he British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure.

I.e. Jefferson clearly believes that 'a few lives lost in a century or two' in armed rebellion against the state is the price you pay for liberty.

By who? Citations?

Citations of what? Presumably you know that the primary purpose was to ensure that the federal government could not become tyrannical? The idea was that an armed citizenry would dissuade any potential tyrant, and that this same citizenry could defend the country from invaders.

If you mean citations of where this failed, that's easy.

The first sign that the militia was recognized as insufficient was in 1792, when congress passed a law compelling every able-bodied man to report for military service. It was still a militia - they were not even provided arms, but were expected to bring their own. This obviously did not work, and estimates are wild - but of the people who actually showed up, only 10-65 percent met the requirements of the law in terms of supplying their own arms. This was laid bare during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, when the militias of the neighboring 4 states failed to mobilize. In the end they had to draft soldiers, and this action alone caused riots and even a mini-insurrection complete with liberty poles. 2/3 of the "militia" (now in name only, as it was largely a conscripted army) had no weapons and so they had to be provided from Federal armories.

Strike one. Just before the Whiskey Rebellion, congress saw the writing on the wall and authorized funding for federal armories since the militia was not "well armed" at all.

If the Whiskey Rebellion wasn't compelling - because, I mean, it was a rebellion after all... maybe people simply didn't want to take the side of the federal government? If it wasn't compelling, than the War of 1812 should be. The US called up the militia and - despite having a force that outnumbered the entire population of Canada, were unable to successfully invade - nor prevent the burning of Washington.

After that war, the US saw the need for, and funded a very large naval force. As for the army from then on the US maintained a standing army to fight the Indians. I don't think the militia was used in any substantial way in any war since - unless you include the National Guard, which I hope you'll agree is very different from the structure of the original idea of a militia. It's run more like a volunteer professional reserve force, and is mainly used to support the professional army.

I used to manage an email server and mailing list back in the 1990s. The MBOX format most text-based email programs used for storing mail uses two carriage returns and a "From " at the beginning of the next line as the deliminator for a new mail. That's it.

Occasionally people would send an email to the list which randomly had two blank lines followed by "From " as the first word of the next line. If your (text-based) email client wasn't smart to look at subsequent lines to determine that the person had just randomly typed it in the body of the email rather than the actual start of a new email, it would display it as if it was a new email message.

One day someone sent an email to the mailing list which deliberately abused this. The body was crafted so that the "From" in it and subsequent text was formatted like it was a real, separate email. And the people whose clients interpreted it as a new email got duped into thinking the mail list admin had banned them from the mailing list for inappropriate remarks. The perp was just playing a joke of course, but I shudder to think what modern spammers and phishers would do with that capability.

When did I miss the episode where hate speech and hate crime became synonyms ?

Well you may have missed this episode, which is an important reminder that freedom of speech does not grant you some magical immunity from the consequences of what you say. You only have to look post-Trump USA, and post-Brexit UK, to see how racist (or sexist, homophobic) rhetoric has real world outcomes. As the WWII slogan says "careless talk costs lives."

This is EXACTLY what the Copyright Industry is trying to prevent. They do not want large amounts of formerly-copyrighted recordings to hit the Internet, searchable, streamable, people making remixes, etc.

The Libary of Congress offers a National Jukebox, featuring recordings taken from early shellac disks. For instance the St. Louis Rag recorded 1906-10-05, i.e. more than 110 (one hundred and ten) years ago. And what does the US government tell their citizens?

Rights & Access
This recording is protected by state copyright laws in the United States. The Library of Congress has obtained a license from rights holders to offer it as streamed audio only. Downloading is not permitted. The authorization of rights holders of the recording is required in order to obtain a copy of the recording. Contact jukebox@loc.gov for more information.

Compare to:

U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 8 Clause 8:
The Congress shall have power (...) To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

Since the US can not prosecute people in a foreign land and can not protect people in a foreign land.

The United States Diplomatic Corps disagrees with you. As does the United States Marine Corps. Not to mention the International Military Tribunals.

Your claim about universal law fails basic scrutiny.

No such point was made, you must be confused about international law. And it may surprise you, but there are non-citizens in the US military right now.

Your description of the Federalist papers is absolutely false.

It's entirely true. They are propaganda, and not impartial commentary at all.

They are primarily letters between the founders regarding wording and concepts.

Nope. Instead they were published widely and directly addressed to the people (of New York in particular).

Why do you lie so badly? Do you lack Common Sense?

The anti-Federalist papers are the same, and not really anti-Federalism but more concerned with the amount of power the Federal Government was given.

Well, insofar as you already lied about the nature of the Federalist papers, this is another lie here, what with them also being propaganda documents.

About the closest you can come is something in the way of it being true that they were concerned with the amount of power the Federal Government had under the Constitution, but you overstate your case since many of them did oppose any form of "federal" government.

Still, you get dinged severely for your earlier lies.

Remember that bit I said about common sense? Not only did you just flat out lie, but you seem to lack common sense.

Oh wait, you do. Really, s.petry, are you trying to look as bad as Trump who faked Time Magazine covers to promote himself?

What's the point of making shit up, so badly? Do you like living in a fabrication?

Thus the three short films establishing the character Mickey Mouse will enter the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2024, after the end of the 95th Gregorian calendar year after the films' first publication. They will enter the public domain in the European Union on January 1, 2037, after the end of the 70th Gregorian calendar year after the death of Walter Elias Disney.

So it isn't until the actual grandchildren are all dead, it is until some imaginary, super-healthy grandchild sired minutes before the author him or herself expires is dead?

This isn't about IP -- patents expire infinitely sooner and nobody worries about the grandchildren of the original patent holder. Nor is the DMCA about protecting the income stream of the author (or the descendants of the author) and never has been. It is about protecting the income stream of the blood-sucking ticks who attach themselves to any author's -- or artist's -- work and razor out a chunk of flesh so that they can feast on 95% of all money every actually generated by it, leaving barely enough for the author to feel like they are being compensated and to provide the illusion that one can write books and get rich from them (which happens, sure, for one book in a thousand or less).

Who does it protect? We can start with 40% markup by the retailer. On top of 25% markup for the "distributor", a middleman with no actual useful purpose in the universe except to take a cut of unearned income. Then the publisher takes their cut, which is at least 25% (depending on what kind of book is being sold -- it can be up to 34% if it is a textbook). The publisher, at least, provides some actual services in the publication of the book and takes some risks, although in recent years they've managed to farm out several of the most useful services back to the authors by generally not considering raw manuscripts but instead requiring books submitted to be represented by an "agent" who is then paid BY THE (actual or would-be author) to pre-screen books for the publisher, effectively cutting a point off of the author's small share.

The author makes the least money of anybody involved in the publication and distribution of a book. Ebook releases of paper-published books have made this disparity even worse, as they are often sold at very near paper prices in spite of having effectively zero-marginal cost distribution.

It's very interesting that this discussion has arisen regarding Tolkein in particular, as his works were thought to have fallen out of copyright in the US in 1965 and an "unauthorized" edition was actually produced and sold before things finally settled down:

https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2014...

My original paperback copies of The Hobbit (obtained in the early 70's) had his appeal to readers not to purchase the unauthorized version whether or not it was "legal" out of respect for him if nothing else.

In summary, if the government actually gave a damn about authors, artists, or musicians instead maintaining the publishing industry, they could always write a law mandating (say) that author royalties be at least 25% of the retail price of the work, and then cut the copyright lifetime in half if not more. Most books -- nearly all of them -- sell for a short while and then vanish without a trace, and extending copyright to a century is a waste of time. Then the authors of those books can leave a much more substantial inheritance to those imaginary "grandchildren" in the form of a lot more money made while the works actually sell (just like everybody else makes money while they are actually alive and working) instead of protecting everybody else's right to make almost all of the money produced by their work almost indefinitely, with protection in law.

rgb

It was never the Federal Government's business what a school kid was eating for lunch.

Nope. Turns out Civil Rights matter(somebody passed the 14th Amendment, perhaps while you were sleeping), and in Brown v. Board of Education, and related cases, the court found MASSIVE amounts of discrimination based on race, including the quality of the school lunches. Or even existence.

Furthermore, given that pretty much every state considers it an obligation to provide a system of education (to be honest, I don't know of any that don't, but I'll accept that some might not explicitly phrase it in their constitutions, nonetheless, it is a clear majority, making it accepted by consensus), the Federal Governmnent is obligated to ensure effectiveness, because it must ensure that the States meet their own obligations. That's in the Constitution.

In fact, speaking of treaties, the US has made several with Indian tribes which obligate them to those tribe's school-age kids, the US Congress is responsible, by the Constitution itself, for the District of Columbia (which has school kids), the US military dependents include many school kids which the US government is obligated to serve, by regulation enacted through the Constitution, and there's also the Foreign Service, who are clearly in the position where the Federal Government is obligated to them.

So not only are you wrong on moral principles, you're wrong on legal principles, and your absolute claim is wrong on technical facts.

Sorry, Kohath, I know you love your soundbites, but it's easy to destroy your thoughtless and ill-considered rhetoric, because you know what? You're really just quite stupid. At a basic and fundamental level, you're stupid, and let the mindless indoctrination you've been subjected to, drive you into showing off your inanity, as you recite the mantras of the Sovereign Citizen movement.

After the Sumerians invented a written language pressed into clay tablets, one of the first uses they had for this tech was business:
http://international.loc.gov/i...

Stallman is trying to promote a version of theInternet that by being non-commercial forever fundamentally changes human nature.

I know a game reviewer that does this when truth does not match marketing, ding, ding, ding, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmTyOKAtN0). So here is a Google search https://www.google.com.au/sear.... So the top dominating return is not just an answer on no, it is a redirection to https://www.wsj.com/articles/s..., so was that redirection done for free or is it a paid advert that totally dominates the first page of search results. In reality what would I have really wanted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... but oh know, where there is a buck to be made, lies will prosper, unless actions are taken to prevent it.

So how long before the same search scam is used to corrupt elections, with promotions and redirections. It is for sale, you can buy it, for any kind of marketing, including political, elections for sale to the highest bidder. In the age of the internet where all political information in the US could be distributed neutrally by the US congressional library, https://www.loc.gov/, should private for profit political advertising be banned (all the speeches, all the empty promises on record, you want it, you download it, no more public for votes face and private for profits face).

If you include the web archive for the LoC - then you are looking at just over 600 TB for 1 LoC unit.

As of July of last year the LoC has archived about 545 TB of web data, and add about 5 TB a month on top of that. In addition in 2012 the data size of the books and other media was about 15 TB.

sources -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://blogs.loc.gov/thesigna...

That link goes to a blank page.

The link works fine for me, although it takes about 15 seconds to load. Georgia law is also available for free at the Library of Congress website.

Anyway, TFA is total baloney, and their main point that Georgia is using copyright to restrict access to their laws is false. The summary and headline are even worse. Fake news and garbage journalism, designed to manufacture outrage and generate clicks, rather than inform.

allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from 'pirates' who have reused content for personal profit without consent."

Every time I learned something in school, it profited me, at least in the sense that I knew more than before. The whole idea of education is that people benefit from it. If you make something available to world+dog, do they need to get your permission to actually personally profit from it in some fashion? Of course not.

The way print media such as books get around the obligation to provide access for handicapped people is that copyright allows for 3rd parties that specialize in services to the blind, etc., to make copies of non-dramatic works (written, audio, etc) without having to seek the permission of the copyright owner. Seems to me all the uni should have to do is appeal, and point out that there is already a legal remedy that exempts publishers of copyright non-dramatic media from having to comply with the act, given that the law shifts that right and responsibility to authorized 3rd parties.

The 1996 buyback scheme got rid of 640,000 guns. The 2003 buyback scheme got rid of 70,000 guns. (Source.) Certainly something decreased the homicide rate in 2003 - but if it was the gun buyback, why wasn't there an effect 9 times greater in 1996?

Note also that there was a drop in robbery in 2003, including specifically unarmed robbery. (The stats again.) I can imagine that some change in policing or crime reporting could reduce crime statistics across the board, more easily than I can imagine than a small gun buyback would decrease the rate of unarmed robbery.

But seeing how well that separation of church and state worked, I'd rather not hold my breath.

Are you talking about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or the Thomas Jefferson Letter to the Danbury Bishops?

If it's the former, I'm not aware the Federal Government established a National Religion...

If it's the latter, Jefferson himself allowed that individual states could keep their state-sponsored religions, that the federal government would not create a national religion.

Jefferson's letter is the only source of the phrase "separation of church and state" and as a private letter is not a binding legal document.

Your failure to read is not my mudslinging. www.wikileaks.com just in case you wanted to go read the emails for yourself. Congressional hearing transcripts can be found here, here, and since you appear to be inept with a Web Search you can get help here. If you refuse to find facts and choose to ignore facts, keep your comments to yourself.

According to the LoC her works are in the public domain.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...

Yes her works were protected by copyright until she relinquished them to the public domain.

"Sometimes people wish for a piece of their own work to be freely available to everyone to use with no strings attached, and put the work in the public domain. This isn't very hard to do — the copyright holder merely has to make a statement that they release all rights to the work. Once this irrevocable act is complete they no longer have any power over how the work is used since it is then owned by the public as a whole."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I truly dislike Getty due to the fact that they use an ENORMOUS number of public domain images, and try to pass themselves off as having ownership rights. It is selfish and disgusting. And there should be a way to punish entities who do this. (You might be surprised how many places do this, including taxpayer funded museums here in the USA...)
However, the Library of Congress page of "Carol M. Highsmith - Rights and Restrictions Information" at:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...
States:
"Carol M. Highsmith's photographs are in the public domain."

The article that appears on PDNPULSE:
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/...
"Highsmith says she never abandoned her copyrights to the images. She says the Library of Congress had agreed to notify users of the images that she is the author, and that users must credit her."

If the images are public domain, she did not retain the right to enforce accreditation.
What she is describing would be equivalent to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
http://opendefinition.org/lice...

Part of the reason for a cc-by license is to stop greedy folks from reselling and trying to "own" what would otherwise be public domain works. Of course, those of us who work at organizing, editing and adding our own works to the public domain on sites such as my wpclipart.com, cannot touch anything with a cc-by license.

What would be much better is if there was a legal mechanism to punish people for falsely claiming rights/ownership of images.
Without it, greedy companies/entities are continually narrowing what is available in the public domain.

Maybe you should dig harder. Instead of going to random sites, get your info from the source.

"Publication and other forms of distribution: Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. (See P&P Collection Files.) Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist."
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...

According to the LoC her work is very much in the public domain.

I am not sure she has standing anymore.
The idea we see here, that she licensed her work to the LoC, does not seem to be accurate. According to the LoC it seems that she has relinquished her rights and intentionally placed her works in the public domain. This would mean that the works can be used for any purpose, commercial or private, without her having any say. This does not excuse the false copyright claim but it would also remove any standing she would have had.

From the LoC site.
"Publication and other forms of distribution: Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. (See P&P Collection Files.) Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist."

my source:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...

According to the LoC she actually has relinquished her rights.

"Publication and other forms of distribution: Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. (See P&P Collection Files.) Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist."

https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...

This may cause problems with her standing to sue.

Back in the day, "Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain" was what Hearst shoved down everyone's throats.

Hearst's papers also documented the Spanish concentration camps in Cuba, which were responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Until 2008 and the appearance of an activist conservative court the Supreme Court had not found an individual right to own firearms in the Second Amendment. Until then the Supreme Court had interpreted the Second Amendment as only applying to the Federal Government and that States had the right to regulate firearms.

Citation: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/s...

Going by the book definition of 10 TB. (conveniently bypassing the question of digital archives) According to Wolfram Alpha a microfortnight is 1.21 seconds. 57 GB/s is 68.97 GB/mFn. Divide by 10,000 and you have:

.006897 LoC/GB/mFn

> At that point, corporations are only being forced to hand over what they already should have had to hand over to the US Library of Congress. [emphasis added]

I assume you're calling out duties to participate in the "Cataloging in Publication" program of the Library of Congress?

There is no such obligation for copyright in general.

Picture if there were: Everything - every CHANGE to every website, every version of every application - would have to be sent to the Library of Congress. Every blog post. Every hand-written letter.

The Library of Congress is huge, but even it does not have the capacity to deal with that level of information, even if it wanted to.

It doesn't. So no. You don't have to send a copy of your software to the Library of Congress, if you don't want to.

Rules governing SBU material - Sensitive but Unclassified. Originally started under President Carter, expanded by President Clinton. Hillary broke multiple rules regarding SBU material - let alone classified, secret, and higher information. SBU material isn't even marked. Now, I guess you can contend that she never received anything sensitive via e-mail, but then that raises the question surrounding her competency and role as SecState if she wasn't even aware of what was going on, if she was so kept out of the loop regarding SBU-level information.

How much does the Library of Congress weigh?

Oh, about 6 lbs, according to this blog post. Now, they didn't say it weight 6 lbs., but I used the bullet point that stated

."..it is estimated that the entire collection of the Library of Congress including photos, sound recordings and movies might take 3,000 TB of storage. Assuming $100 each for 2 TB hard drives, the entire book collection of the Library of Congress could be stored on about $1500 worth of hard drives at today's prices." LINK

I looked up 2 GB external HDs and picked one at random. This Seagate Express 2 TB External HD weighs 6.4 oz.

Hence, 15 2TB HDs at 6.4 oz. each, divided by 16 oz/lb = 6 lbs.

Does this mean there is finally a print of Star Wars that can be submitted to the National Film Registry, only 27 years after a copy was requested on its induction?

They weren't drug-addled, nor scum, but they were black.

By all means, provide your source that supports your ridiculous claims.

If I had made any ridiculous claims, I would be glad to supply sources. But since everything I brought to your attention is in the public record, maybe you should shun those moronic sites you have been reading and try reality for a while.

FBI's "Suicide Letter" to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Dangers of Unchecked Surveillance

Pete Seeger

Woody Guthrie

John Lennon

Even more black people were lynched in the U.S. than previously thought, study finds

The Murder of Emmett Till

There's the short list detailing everything you've worked so hard to ignore. So, how about if you do a little reading and see if you can find out how many people went to jail for those thousands of lynchings history has recorded. And while you're at it, how about if you show me where in the FBI's charter authorizes surveillance on lawful folk singers, non-violent rock stars as well as religious men who preached peaceful assembly to redress what they believed to be illegal grievances.

Ignorance can be unlearned while willful ignorance is an inexcusable state of mind.