Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Disney Copyright, Alaa Freed, Kelo Repealed
Egyptian blogger Alaa freed from jail. FleaPlus writes "Egyptian blogger, open source advocate, and Slashdot interviewee Alaa Abd El-Fatah has been released from jail. He had been imprisoned for 45 days after being arrested (along with several others) for taking part in a pro-democracy election reform rally, on charges which included "insulting the Egyptian president." In a blog post Alaa describes the conditions he was subjected to in the jail, as well as his worry about the hundreds of other activists who are still in prison."
Executive order defuses Kelo decision. physicsphairy writes "President Bush has issued an executive order whose effect is to undo the previous Kelo decision of the Supreme Court. From the article: 'It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.' The downside is that what was once affirmed consitutionally is now affirmed only in federal law."
Disney's trouble with Pooh bear. bbernard writes "It seems that the same laws that allow the Mouse to continue generating money for Disney have prevented Disney from taking control of Winny the Pooh. The Supreme Court has denied Clare Milne's bid to get the rights back for Pooh and his buddies. Clare is A.A. Milne's granddaughter, and her court battle was funded by Disney, as she was going to reassign the rights to them. Interesting to see a company foiled by the laws they insisted on in the first place, isn't it?"
NASA engineer fired for opposing shuttle launch. quad4b writes to tell us The New York Daily News reports that Charlie Camarda was has been removed from his post at NASA for questioning the safety of this Saturday's launch. From the article: "Camarda's removal heightened the turmoil over NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's decision to take the 'acceptable risk' of launching the Discovery orbiter despite warnings of potentially fatal blastoff debris. Camarda, who flew aboard the troubled flight of Discovery last July, told colleagues in an e-mail that he was fired from his post as chief engineer at Houston's Johnson Space Center and given another NASA engineering job."
Swedish pirates provide RIAA insurance. An anonymous reader writes "A new insurance company in Sweden is offering a new policy to protect you from the RIAA [Swedish]. For a mere 140 SEK ($19 USD) per year, they will pay all your fines and give you a t-shirt if you get convicted for file sharing. Interesting development in Sweden indeed."
Open source Java months away? bl8n8r writes "A Sun Microsystems Inc. executive said Tuesday said the company is "months" away from releasing its trademark Java programming language under an open-source license. Simon Phipps, chief open-source officer for Sun, said the company is ruminating over two major issues: how to keep Java compatible and ensure no particular company uses market forces as muscle for its own implementation, a move that would threaten Java's "write once, run anywhere" mantra."
Net neutrality amendment defeated in committee. DeathPooky writes "While not the end of the road for net neutrality, the latest vote isn't a good sign. From the article: 'The Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday rejected a network neutrality amendment, handing cable and phone broadband access providers yet another victory over a coalition that has demanded the application of strict nondiscrimination standards against entities that control access to millions of Internet users. The panel voted 11 to 11 to defeat an amendment sponsored by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who had backing from Google, Yahoo!, eBay, Amazon, Microsoft and other firms that deliver voice, video, and information services and applications.' All 10 Democrats on the committee, as well as Republican co-sponsor Sen. Snowe, voted for the amendment. The other 11 Republicans voted against."
If the company does well in Sweden, the service will likely be available in the US soon after. Insurance companies are always looking for more ways to make money.
And of course Federal eminent domain isn't being used like state eminent domain. It is used much less frequently and affects a much smaller group of people. Many states are rightly revising their eminent domain laws because of a couple of well publicized cases. It has been far too easy for local/state governments to take people's property away and this is one area where you might be able to say that the local/state electoriate is actually affecting policy in a big way. Of course, it doesn't hurt that rich people don't want their property taken for "local economic improvements" either.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
All 10 Democrats on the committee, as well as Republican co-sponsor Sen. Snowe, voted for the amendment. The other 11 Republicans voted against."
It is clear here that the Democrats are on the side of the average person on a straightforward issue which is easy to explain and easy to get people excited about-- and the issue is framed in a way which makes it clear that a slight change in the partisan balance of power would have a direct effect on how Congress treats the issue.
With the upcoming Congressional elections, this represents a wonderful opportunity for the Democrats to completely fail at either communicating a message to the American people or presenting a credible alternative to the Republicans. I am sure that Democratic strategists are as we speak working around the clock trying to find some way to fumble this opportunity which has been dropped into their laps.
Copyright infringement is a crime in Sweden as well, AFAIK. What isn't a crime is distributing torrent files, which link to the material in question that is actually provided by other users, not the site from which you downloaded the torrent.
This is why sites like The Pirate Bay are able to stay alive; they aren't actually infringing copyright, they're simply indexing user-uploaded torrents.
In the US, this would count as contributory infringement I believe, and would be shut down.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Interesting to see a company foiled by the laws they insisted on in the first place, isn't it?
Well it would be, but the Disney case is all about Milne selling the merchandising rights back in the 30's and the daughter basically wanting to back out of that contract. What does that have to do with copyright again?
I don't think it's right of Milne (or Disney) to try and break this contract either but you have to feel a little sorry for Milne who had her grandfather basically give away a vast fortune in return for some smaller sum. Still, I think she's doing well just with her contract to Disney...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yup. I absolutely mean "Compulsory Purchase". Hell, even that's way too polite for what it is. Don't show up on my property and say you want it for your town, county, state or federal project because it will help SOMEONE ELSE make money. I might have to go Rambo or Charles Bronson on someone if I don't have a really, really good reason to persuade me that giving up my property is the best thing for a whole lotta people and ME.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
Lets take a look at the text at hand.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
There is no doubt that increase tax revenue is good for a budget but the problem with me is two fold. First, Private property taken for private use is not public use. Or at least wasn't until recently. Obviously all taxed properties in a cities tax base are for city the to use because they collect taxes, and of course taxes are for public use. Bamm dangerous prescient (Which I'm certain you agree with)
The other issue I have is with just compensation. If the land, which is taxed, is being taken then given to someone else so it can be taxed more, then what compensation should that person receive? I don't think just compensation means the cost of the property. It means the loss of liberty, the cost of moving, all expenses associated with being force out of your property, cost of employment, sentimental value, the cost of a new property (Which now wouldn't be yours anyway because it would be taxed and all things taxed in the city is now for public use.) It is very dangerous and I don't think the City of New London will be justly compensating any of the people/land owners force for forfit.
On a side note, if they would just plant some Chaffseed, Gerardia, or Pogonia which are considered endangered, it might make the property even more of a hard pill to swallow, since it would require yet another expensive law suit, since the property is already planned to be mowed over with new development.
There's plenty said about them. The CIA has been in the news an awful lot recently, as I recall. Even the dingy old U.S. Patent & Trademark Office is getting a suprising amount of ink these days.
The reason they're not discussed more is because their functions are pretty mundane. The public doesn't care how the NIH decides to award federal grants, or how the SEC polices the stock market. Just printing the letters "IRS" in an article headline will guarantee that the public ignores it.
This is an extremely deleterious consequence of America's love of drama - the undramatic goes unmonitored. Meanwhile, our politicians keep us amused (and distracted from their actions) by waving flags and conjuring images of terr'ists.
What are the alphabet agencies -- FDA, EPA, OSHA, and so on -- doing when they pass laws? And, while these laws are called regulations, so as not to upset anyone who might actually read the Constitution, the Webster's dictionary defines regulation as a rule, ordinance or law.
Agency regulations are not laws. Laws are rules that apply to your actions: things that you may do, or must do, or must not do. Agency regulations are rules that apply to the actions of an agency: how it can utilize a power (that has already been given to it by the Executive or Legislative), how it cannot utilize a power, etc.
It's true that an agency sometimes relies on its own regulations to determine how to treat you. But the agency's power to deal with you in such a way was given to it by a law. And if the agency oversteps its legal authority, then a regulation won't save it.
Example: The IRS has many regulations that dictate how you must pay your federal taxes. Yet, these regulations aren't laws - the law passed by Congress is that:
- You must submit an annual federal income tax payment; and
- The IRS is responsible for creating a tax formula that adheres to the dictates of the legislature; and
- You must use the IRS formula, and follow the IRS submission procedures, to prove that you're paying the correct amount.
Now, what happens if the IRS believes that you've failed your legal duties under #1 or #3? It can't do anything to you! It has no such power. It merely tells the executive branch that you've violated the tax laws, and the executive prosecutes you for evasion - under the general tax laws passed by Congress.- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
Two flaws in this argument:
As for their perception of your likelihood to settle:
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
The Executive Branch is unilaterally responsible for engaging in executive functions (including those which invoke the Eminent Domain clause of the Constitution), pursuant to the powers granted to it by the Constitution and those granted in statute by the Legislature. Therefore, if the head of the Executive Branch says in an executive order that his government shall not do X, and X is not otherwise required by legislation, then X will not happen
This is why the executive parliamentary model is so much superior to the executive presidential model. In a parliamentary model, power rests with the prime minister, and he can only pass legislation my a majority vote in the parliament. What's more, if he does something outrageous like spy on the states own citizens, he has to go into parilment the next day and be bawled at by the opposition, something executive presidents never have to do. They live in their own, insulated and detached little world, running the country with hardly any oversight for the length of their term. At least prime ministers have their oppositions, and sometimes their backbenchers, watching their backs all the time, often for a place to stick a knife.
The executive president is simply a holdover from the days of monarchy. Some people simply think that "strong government" needs an eleceted dictator or else it won't be powerful enough to get the job done. Whatever. Time and again the parilimentary model has proved superior, with nearly every jumped up dictator now holding the position of a supreme executive presidency. In some parilentary democracies, that position doesn't even exist.
So the next time the president is revealed to have been breaking the law and violating your rights, remember that this isn't a bug in the system. It's a feature.
May the Maths Be with you!
In a parliamentary model, power rests with the prime minister, and he can only pass legislation my a majority vote in the parliament. What's more, if he does something outrageous like spy on the states own citizens, he has to go into parilment the next day and be bawled at by the opposition, something executive presidents never have to do.
In theory, possibly. In practice, the UK at least doesn't work that way anymore, no thanks to Tony Blair. Besides, with a suitably well-whipped majority, it has to be something truly outrageous (or just really, really unpopular with the party's MPs - which shouldn't happen too often, if they're chosen correctly) for any law not to go through. To be honest, sometimes I'm not sure even a law declaring him dictator would be blocked, if it was well-worded and sweetened suitably... the newspapers would kick up hell, and the opposition wouldn't be happy, but that doesn't matter.