DoD Public Domain Archive To Be Privatized, Locked Up For 10 Years

Jah-Wren Ryel writes "Looks like the copyright cartel have raided the public domain yet again — the US DoD has signed an exclusive contract with T3 Media to digitize their media archive in exchange for T3 having complete licensing control for 10 years. Considering that all output from the US government is, by law, ineligible for copyright, this deal seems borderline illegal at best. To make matters worse, it appears that there is no provision to make the digitized content freely accessible after the 10 years are up — which means we risk having all that content disappear into T3."

Comments

Legality vs Enforceability

[Silentknyght]

It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[wonkey_monkey]

If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it?

Dunno. Coastguard?

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[mattie_p]

It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.

The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government. Thus if the executive branch commits an illegal act, the Congress can impeach, the courts can make orders, etc. If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the courts can annul by ruling on the constitutionality. If the courts go overboard, the President and the Congress can appoint new justices. Checks and balances.

This act is on the executive branch side, so it is up to the legislature and/or courts to enforce. Private citizens can speed up the process by trying to sue, but of course, good luck finding someone with standing in this case, based on recent court rulings about domestic surveillance (only the phone companies have standing, not the people whose records were obtained).

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Snarfangel]

If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it?

Dunno. Coastguard?

But who guards the Coastguard?

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.

According to my high school social studies teacher, the voters, of course!

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[TEG24601]

If the Federal Government gets out of hand, the states are supposed to react and put them in check. That is what is meant by "Checks and Balances". The states are to check the power of the Federal Government and object to over reaching laws and those that are unconstitutional or illegal by various means, including invalidating those actions or laws within the state, suing the federal government in court, or calling a Convention of States, which is currently underway.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.

The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government. Thus if the executive branch commits an illegal act, the Congress can impeach, the courts can make orders, etc. If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the courts can annul by ruling on the constitutionality. If the courts go overboard, the President and the Congress can appoint new justices. Checks and balances.

  This act is on the executive branch side, so it is up to the legislature and/or courts to enforce. Private citizens can speed up the process by trying to sue, but of course, good luck finding someone with standing in this case, based on recent court rulings about domestic surveillance (only the phone companies have standing, not the people whose records were obtained).

Thank you for the history lesson. Now let me give you one of my own. Checks and Balances was replaced with Greed and Corruption a long time ago, which really means you can throw all this bullshit about laws and constitution out the window.

It'll be downright comical to see how our history books paint over the financial meltdown of 2008 as a "minor setback" when many children growing up in impacted households will remember damn well what it was like. Question is will the Sheeple give a shit any more then than they do now? You don't even need wool for the eyes these days, and the parents question still stands, as no part of the government seems enforceable or accountable. If you can find one, let me know.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[DoofusOfDeath]

If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it?

Dunno. Coastguard?

But who guards the Coastguard?

Pirates!

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[girlintraining]

The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government.

Wrong. Thomas Jefferson, please excuse me waking you from your long nap, but I need an opinion. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thank you Mr. Jefferson. You can now go lay down again. "Brrraaaaiiinnnss...." Yeah, I know. I miss 'em too, sir.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who's able to hold them accountable?"

As a European, I'd like to answer: the people.
Dear Americans, stop voting Republicans or Democrats.
Thanks, the rest of the world.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[houghi]

That is nice on paper. I suppose he was asking about real life. So perhaps the question is not who could do it, but who will do it.

All this talk about who should or could do it does not seem to be working anymore. If something is broken you either repair it or replace it. Yes, that might mean replacing some old pieces of paper by something better that DOES work and means something besides nostalgic reasons.

(Probably going to hell for even thinking about this.)

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

lone gunman?

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[wickedsteve]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[mattie_p]

The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government.

Wrong. Thomas Jefferson, please excuse me waking you from your long nap, but I need an opinion. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thank you Mr. Jefferson. You can now go lay down again. "Brrraaaaiiinnnss...." Yeah, I know. I miss 'em too, sir.

So... you're saying you agree with me? If the only thing with power over the government is the other parts of the government, then they certainly have nothing to fear from its citizens who can't even sue due to lack of standing (as determined by part of the government).

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[hawkinspeter]

Are ninjas the next line of defense?

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[girlintraining]

So... you're saying you agree with me?

Of course not. Then we'd both be wrong.

If the only thing with power over the government is the other parts of the government, then they certainly have nothing to fear from its citizens who can't even sue due to lack of standing (as determined by part of the government).

Circular logic works because circular logic works because...

Sigh. If only there were some historical document written, perhaps by the author I quoted that explained other remedies available to citizens... maybe then I wouldn't have to spoon feed the truth to people and they could infer from the quote the course of action needed. Or, I don't know, maybe just not falling asleep in civics class...

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Cwix]

Yes, and then the space aliens. After Ninjas, its space aliens all the way down.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[haruchai]

That's what terrorists are for :-)

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[M. Baranczak]

But who guards the Coastguard?

The Reserve Coast Guard.

Either that, or they guard the reserve coast. I can't remember.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[mattie_p]

Strangely enough, I was about to cite the opening paragraph. Let me ask you a question. Which more accurately describes America today: a) the government fears the people; or b) the people fear the government.

If the answer is a), then I am wrong, and should be modded into negative oblivion. If the answer is b), then my original answer was correct.

What should be done about it is another question entirely. But the only reason to "dissolve the political bands" is when b) is more correct than a).

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[girlintraining]

Let me ask you a question. Which more accurately describes America today: a) the government fears the people; or b) the people fear the government.

How about c) you're using a false dichotomy after already having your pants dropped over the use of circular logic. Don't double down on stupid -- there's more than two ways to approach the problem. Pop open your wallet. Flip over the dollar you got in there. What does it say on the back?

E Pluribus Unum.

That is not latin for "Roll over and play dead."

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[haruchai]

Yes, and then the space aliens. After Ninjas, its space aliens all the way down.

Wrong.
After Aliens, it's Cowboys, led by Taco Cowboy and CmdrTaco

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[fahrbot-bot]

Pop open your wallet. Flip over the dollar you got in there. What does it say on the back?
E Pluribus Unum.
That is not latin for "Roll over and play dead."

Perhaps not, but given the way the 1%'ers, corporations and the Government behave today, I'll defer to this quote by Veronica in "Better Off Ted" (Season 1, Episode 4: "Racial Sensitivity"):

"Money before people," that's the company motto. Engraved on the lobby floor. It just looks more heroic in Latin.

[ So, what would that be in Latin? ]

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[mattie_p]

Let me ask you a question. Which more accurately describes America today: a) the government fears the people; or b) the people fear the government.

How about c) you're using a false dichotomy after already having your pants dropped over the use of circular logic. Don't double down on stupid -- there's more than two ways to approach the problem. Pop open your wallet. Flip over the dollar you got in there. What does it say on the back?

E Pluribus Unum.

That is not latin for "Roll over and play dead."

If it is a false dichotomy, it isn't mine. You're the one who brought up Jefferson's quote, not me. I consider it to be a sliding scale, my belief being that the current balance tips towards people fearing the government. While I'd like it to tip the other way, I don't believe that accurately describes the current conditions in the USA. As a result, the only thing with power over the government is itself. Whatever restraints it exercises (or doesn't) over its own power is self imposed. My logic wasn't circular, it was an if-then statement. I didn't even bring up the else:{ ... } as it wasn't pertinent to the discussion (in my belief).

As someone posted below, one false dichotomy is Republicans vs Democrats, because both are two sides of the same coin, coin (or dollars) being the only thing important to both parties.

I would note that "Out of Many, One" could describe just about every government in the world, from the USA back in the 1790's to the USSR of the 30's up to the present day. And that all governments derive their power from the consent (either implicit or explicit) of the people. It just so happens that the vast majority of the voters of the USA have granted their consent, one way or another.

Again, what should be done is an exercise best left to the reader.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[mrbester]

Something along the lines of "Argentum in magis populus"

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[The Mighty Buzzard]

This is where the 2nd Amendment comes in. At least I'm fairly sure that violently overthrowing the government was one of the reasons it was put in, given that they'd just finished doing exactly that with privately owned firearms.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Federal Government gets out of hand, the states are supposed to react and put them in check.

That worked really well last time it was tried. Now we've got one in the white house.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[cascadingstylesheet]

The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government. Thus if the executive branch commits an illegal act, the Congress can impeach, the courts can make orders, etc. If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the courts can annul by ruling on the constitutionality. If the courts go overboard, the President and the Congress can appoint new justices. Checks and balances. This act is on the executive branch side, so it is up to the legislature and/or courts to enforce. Private citizens can speed up the process by trying to sue, but of course, good luck finding someone with standing in this case, based on recent court rulings about domestic surveillance (only the phone companies have standing, not the people whose records were obtained).

The executive branch is running amok with illegality?

Huh ... I wonder if someone is in charge of the executive branch. Some, er, elected official or something. Someone we might hold accountable.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[davester666]

But there is no other party to vote for? It's only a meaningful vote if it is for the party who wins!

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[erroneus]

It's supposed to be the courts. But when the courts rule one way and then law enforcement ignores it, we're just lost. It's depressing. Law enforcement will, for example, trample various right and punish locally even executing prisoners (calling it an accident) when they know the judiciary will rule against them. It's sick. It's disgusting. We don't have rule of law. We have rule of governments.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[BlueStrat]

It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.

The answer to your question is the same answer that's included in the Constitution, the same answer that's always been the ultimate answer to all out-of-control governments.

You. The citizens.

You and others that would be willing to put your lives on the line when all other options have been shown to be worthless/ineffective, to pick up a sniper rifle, build an IED, make Molotov cocktails, organize and plan, and target the criminal leaders and take them out..

There are still a few peaceful options left to try yet, like the recent push for a convention of States to amend the Constitution to rein in the Federal government.

http://conventionofstates.com/

However, if the government steps in to stop such reforms, there will be no alternatives left.

Strat

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

The Watchmen.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[lgw]

Corporations only exist because we buy their products. The government only continues to misbehave because we mostly still vote for them regardless (more concerned about seeing our hero win the big game than fixing anything). The means for fixing these products is in our hands, but democracy means that most people have to care, which is not yet the case. Are you looking for a style of government where a few people who really care a lot can rule? I don't expect you'd like that (hint: you won't be one of them).

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[RobertLTux]

Argentum in conspectu populi,

but yeah somebody needs to create a corporation that has as its Mission "To Increase the Public Good Where others have Failed"

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

No cop. No law.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that should be: Sharks with "fricking laser beams"

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

Circular logic works because circular logic works because...

Hmm. Perhaps a little to recursive for me....

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[pixelpusher220]

It makes logical sense that we 'all' have standing, since these documents were in the public domain and are now not.

Whether that makes legal sense, I don't know.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[pixelpusher220]

Checks and balances was replaced with apathy on the part of the electorate; the greed and corruption blossomed from there.

We can still take it back, but given the state of the elector.....oooo Kardashians!

I won't say I'm too hopeful.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[paiute]

Dollers rulus u screwdium

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Tanktalus]

Given that he can't be re-elected no matter how well or poorly he performs ... no, no one you can hold accountable.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[blackbeak]

Sadly, it took a European to tell us that "We the People of the United States" are the ones to hold our government accountable. Duh, hello! It's "We the People" that granted the United States any powers it may have. Any powers we did not specifically grant the government are powers it does not legitimately possess. And I am certain our European friend is also correct in that the rest of the world would be quite grateful were we to reign in our "monster".

As a side note, perhaps now would be a good time to listen carefully to Steppenwolf's "Monster"(youtube link) -- especially those of you who are unfamiliar with the song.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.

The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government. Thus if the executive branch commits an illegal act, the Congress can impeach, the courts can make orders, etc. If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the courts can annul by ruling on the constitutionality. If the courts go overboard, the President and the Congress can appoint new justices. Checks and balances.

  This act is on the executive branch side, so it is up to the legislature and/or courts to enforce. Private citizens can speed up the process by trying to sue, but of course, good luck finding someone with standing in this case, based on recent court rulings about domestic surveillance (only the phone companies have standing, not the people whose records were obtained).

Suing the Government and/or T3 could be problematic based on the example you cited. But there's another option: ignore the license agreement and continue distributing the material. They can try to DMCA you, and you can file a counter-notice. If they then file another counter-notice, wouldn't that give you standing to sue for a declaration that you have a right to distribute the material? If they sue you, well, you get to make your claim in court.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[AK Marc]

Checks and balances was replaced by parties. When your checks and balances are against another party, not another branch, the system won't work out as intended. The branch loyalty is smaller than party loyalty, so it's all a failure.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

And the turtles! Turtles all the way down! Turtles!

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[LifesABeach]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the part where Americans paid for something and now we don't own it? I'm hoping the Declaration of Independence isn't on the list.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[AJWM]

But there is no other party to vote for? It's only a meaningful vote if it is for the party who wins!

Please, do us all a favor and never go near a voting booth again. That has to be one of the most stupid things I have ever read. By your logic, we should only have one party if votes are to be meaningful, and clearly that is the opposite of the truth.

You've been utterly brainwashed by the two big parties, who fear votes for third parties more than they fear votes for the other major party. We could use a little more fear of the electorate in the big parties. If you must enter a polling booth, please vote third party. Any third party. Sometimes it actually does some good. (Even if third party doesn't win, it can shake up the Republicrats and Demicans enough that they change their policies.)

(And if you were kidding, please include a tag next time.)

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Jane Q. Public]

"If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it?"

But you passed over explaining why this might be an illegal act.

With very few exceptions, government has no copyright to its papers and works. If something is not classified, it is public domain. (After all... it was produced with taxpayer dollars, and quite literally belongs to the public.)

It is EXTREMELY unlikely that DoD has any authority to "license" information or paperwork to anybody.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Jane Q. Public]

"Sigh. If only there were some historical document written, perhaps by the author I quoted that explained other remedies available to citizens"

Thank you for your comment (which should be modded up).

But I would like to offer a suggestion that may be helpful:

It seems to me from experience that the majority of people on Slashdot won't bother to click on the link, much less read the whole thing.

In order to forestall arguments over points that should already (in any reasonable debate) have been settled, I've found it be usually worth my while to quote a specific passage, as well as provide the link, in order to save those intellectually lazy people from actually having to click on something or search for what I meant.

I don't always do it, but when I forget or I just don't want to bother, I've often ended up spending even more time arguing the same point over and over.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

Checks and balances was replaced with apathy on the part of the electorate; the greed and corruption blossomed from there. .

And before apathy, lack of subject-verb agreement. Sigh.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Jane Q. Public]

Snort. It seems I have committed the cardinal sin of not reading OP thoroughly. "My bad", as the kiddies say.

Re: Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

Edward Snowden

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[gmanterry]

This never would have happened when the Constitution was in effect. None of the three branches of government actually do what they were designed to do in the Constitution. We have the Executive branch making laws, such as declaring changes in the health care law without going through Congess. Clearly a violation of law. We have Congress not passing budgets which is their job and giving away powers like controlling the money supple to the Federal Reserve. The Supreme court won't touch any of this and they pretty much just decide what they personally feel rather than the law. Example; corporations can spend huge sums of money to buy corrupt Congress people and Senators because corporations are people. If corporations are people, why aren't they limited to the same spending limits people are?

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[ixuzus]

Standing may not be so hard to come by if a lot of this material truly can't be copyrighted. Crowdsource the licence fee and the cost of a decent lawyer, make the material available for free in a very public manner, and wait for them to come to you.

I also wonder if this agreement would get them around being hit with a FOI request every time something new is released.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[517714]

John Basil Barnhill, ca 1914. Not Thomas Jefferson.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Martin Blank]

Your complaints aren't remotely new, but they're also not remotely realistic.

The Constitution gives Congress certain powers such to coin money, but no one expected them to personally work in the mints. They draft the laws that provide for the duties to be carried out by other parts of government. Technically, they have the power to raise and spend money, but they don't have a constitutional requirement.

The Executive Branch is provided the responsibility to enforce the laws, but for practical matters require that it must sometimes decline to enforce the law due to other, more pressing concerns such as the cost of prosecution or where the effect of enforcing the law could have a larger detriment. This might include not enforcing some aspect of the health care law to allow for practical realities to be ironed out.

The Supreme Court has always had internal politics. In one extreme example, Justice James Clark Reynolds despised Justices Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo simply because the they were Jews and would not sit next to or speak with them nor sign opinions written by them. But one does not ever know for certain how they will rule going in. One of the most stunning to me was in Gonzalez v. Raich over California's legalization of medical marijuana. The case was decided 6-3, but the dissent included one by Justice O'Connor which was joined by the Chief Justice Rehnquist and a separate dissent by Justice Thomas, the latter two of the most conservative justices who broke with their conservative colleagues who grouped with their more liberal colleagues to rule in favor of the federal government.

Finally, on the topic of corporations and politics, the argument is that corporations are groups of people. To block spending by them, every other group would have to be blocked from political spending. Maybe this would be good--it would certainly quell the protest from the right over unions spending money--but as we've seen with 501(c)(4) groups, getting that regulation right is incredibly difficult. But it may also have a detrimental effect on anonymous contribution to political dialogue, as forcing everyone behind the political speech to be named could be seen as oppressive.

Many people want a very simple, straightforward implementation of the ideals in the Constitution. But reality is messy, and political reality even worse. No one gets everything they want, at least not for long, before something swings against them.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it?

The problem is, many people see "the government" as an evil entity. It's not a thing. Government is just people working together. It's an organization of people. So are corporations. Treat them like such and life becomes simpler. Treat it like a supernatural being and you'll do all sorts of crazy stuff.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Corporations have power over the U.S. government! Obviously...just look at this sale of military data.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[strstr]

Without the terrorists, there's nothing to keep the American half bear half pig half human military and police scum in check. The terrorists are their only natural predators...

Now the United States are overrun by these half bear half pig half human scum, the real terrorists of the world.

Look at what they've done: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[kermidge]

"continue distributing the material"

Unless you already have a copy of said DoD archive, how will you distribute what you can't get? Unless you're able to pay the as-yet-unknown fees, or be patient enough to wait ten years, minimum, for unknown future terms and conditions, the public that paid for all this is screwed.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[countach]

It should be the courts, which is why the idea of secret courts is an abomination.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

Argentum in conspectu populi,

but yeah somebody needs to create a corporation that has as its Mission "To Increase the Public Good Where others have Failed"

Vidi Vinci Veni?

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[fafalone]

By your logic, we should only have one party if votes are to be meaningful, and clearly that is the opposite of the truth.

We do only have one party that can win at the national level. It has two sects which differ slightly on some aspects of some issues.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, on the topic of corporations and politics, the argument is that corporations are groups of people. To block spending by them, every other group would have to be blocked from political spending.

Sorry, I don't buy that argument, if corporations are "groups of people" and they want to donate fine. Each individual in that group is free to donate up to the maximum the law allows. They don't need any "special" permission to do this. Corporations are not people! Corporations are entities that were originally created to protect rich people's personal assets from being seized when their business is caught breaking the law. If a corporation breaks the law they get a little fine to pay, even over things that an ordinary individual would spend 25-to-life in prison for.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[antdude]

Davester666 would definitely vote for Demicans! :P

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Scarletdown]

I believe that should be: Sharks with "fricking laser beams"

Would not the foul tempered mutant sea bass come before the sharks?

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Scarletdown]

Checks and balances was replaced with apathy on the part of the electorate; the greed and corruption blossomed from there.

We can still take it back, but given the state of the elector.....oooo Kardashians!

If only we had Bajorans to take care of that problem...

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Martin Blank]

That's your (very incorrect) perception of corporations. Your image of a corporation is Exxon, American Airlines, and Target. But it's counter to the reality that millions of other businesses in the US alone are corporations, and the majority of them are not only not involved in politics, but they're quite small. They're made up of one or more people, and without very strong reason that would reverberate through every other group, they get the same rights and responsibilities as any other group of people including free speech (including political speech), the right to petition the government, and the right to due process.

Your complaint about the origin of corporations is not only factually incorrect (businesses have incorporated for more than 1500 years with varying or even no protection for the founders), but ignores that it prevents small business owners from being personally crushed by the failure of a business, sometimes by factors out of their control. The family sandwich shop, the small machine shop, the furniture maker... Many of these are corporations. Almost everyone that isn't doing business under their own name is incorporated in some fashion. Without that protection, many people would never try to start a business.

Re: Legality vs Enforceability

[DontLickJesus]

Juries.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

apples oranges much ? ? ?

1. you talk of one set of characteristics of korporations (oh noes, he spelt it with a K, he must be a kommie!), while the other poster talks of another set...

2. and -yes- it IS VALID to talk of korporations as a cohort of transnational, blood-sucking parasites who neither pay their fair share of taxes, nor provide ANY benefit to the public...

3. you do realize -that in amerika, at least- korporations were GRANTED charters for fixed terms which expired, and there was also a REQUIREMENT that the korporation provide some PUBLIC GOOD, NOT just that they made money for some 1% greedpigs...

4. further, his "LOGICAL" point obtains: let each REAL person in a korporation donate their legal limit, and let the korporate 'person' (sic) have the same limit...

5. the overarching point is: this 'decision' to allow korporations 'personhood' has numerous implications... one of which is, that korporations are enjoying ALL THE BENEFITS of being declared a 'person', but they bear NONE OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES...

6. further, the basic judgment of the supremes that speech = money, is ABSOLUTELY UNTENABLE in what we are pretending is still some form of democracy...

lastly, i don't like you, you smell like an authoritarian...

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

With all due respect, that's a perfectly stupid point of view. If the government fears the people but the people have literally no fear of the government, there is not liberty but anarchy. Without a powerful government to mediate disputes between the strong and the weak, you have a government by warlords, i.e. Somalia.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[ihtoit]

it's not the Government's job to mediate; that is a matter for the Courts. The Judiciary is necessarily separate from Government as it is they who hold the Government in check by ensuring that they do not operate outside the Law. In England we have the House of Commons (representing the People) and the House of Lords (representing the Judiciary) which together make up the legislative branch of Government. The judicial branch is a separate entity notwithstanding the fact that a significant membership of the House of Lords is also a sizeable chunk of the Upper Judiciary. The executive branch is made up of the Privy Council with HM Queen Elizabeth II at the head of the table, although all decisions are made, at her implied approval*, by the head of the Privy Council (currently David Cameron).

*the Monarch did, until 1911 (with the passing of the Parliament Act which placed supreme executive power in the hands of Parliament), have a right of veto on any Bill put before Parliament. The last time this veto was exercised was 1707 when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill.

Caveat: in an ideal world, this would be a stable situation and one which is obeyed, but sadly this isn't an ideal world, and the last seven lines should be ignored with the exception that as head of the Privy Council, David Cameron is the de facto supreme executive authority in England.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[ihtoit]

I'm sure the Nazis under Hitler would be happy to hear that.

If such were true then the Nuremberg War Crimes trials would never have happened; after all, the supreme executive authority in Germany during WWII ended it all by eating a bullet.

Flip that card over: millions of people still died. "I was just following orders" became the most used phrase in that chamber. It also didn't hold any water.

Re: Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Now is the time to observe the wisdom of Steppenwolf.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[RespekMyAthorati]

That has to be one of the most stupid things I have ever read.

Woosh!

(And if you were kidding, please include a tag next time.)

I'm guessing you are not a native English speaker. If you were, it would have been obvious.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[RespekMyAthorati]

Yes, you bad.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[spectrumlogic]

Building on this...government IT acquisitions routinely pay 100% of the software development costs (with front loaded contracts, no less) yet do not retain ownership of the code or unlicensed access rights. Further, substandard contract performance in terms of capability delivery and budget/time adherence carries virtually no meaningful penalty. When summed with outright disobedience of executive order/congress, scope creep, repetitive illustrations of management deficiencies and territorial disputes between agencies; this quite sadly sounds very much on par. Anyone shocked by this should take a closer look at the general state of federal IT acquisitions...a point of failure for profit for at least 25 years. I refer you to numerous OIG and GAO publications since 1990 for the sordid details.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Dabido]

Coastguard is busy fighting sharks with lasers on their heads!

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Martin Blank]

That poster said "corporations." There was no specificity about which, though I'm fairly certain that he meant only large corporations. But lumping them all together is stereotyping, and it ignores that even large corporations can and do perform good acts. You point out that early corporations were required to "provide some PUBLIC GOOD". True to a degree--by 1800, only a few hundred corporations existed, and most of them were expressly for providing public services. But even without this, there were means of the elite protecting their power and wealth through trusts and limited partnerships.

You clearly are trying to fill in what you believe are my values based on very minimal knowledge. I agree that many large corporations do not pay the taxes that they should, and that this impacts the government's ability to provide the services needed. I'm not at all comfortable with any non-human person donating to the political process, but at the same time, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, you cannot say that one group of people (unions, for example) can express speech in a fashion which costs money while another group (corporations) cannot. I do feel that the PACs need to be reined in, as do the 501(c)(4) "social welfare groups" that are being used to provide cover for political ads.

The courts didn't find that "speech = money", as you say. But the ability to widely publicize a given viewpoint has almost always required some amount of money. Newspapers have always taken money to run ads, pamphlets cost money to print, and advertising on radio, in movie theaters, on television, and on the Internet costs money. Restricting the amount of money that can be spent therefore may be seen as a restriction on free speech. The Supreme Court did not find that this is impossible, but that such restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny: there must be a compelling government interest, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and it must be the least restrictive means for achieving the goal. At the time, the arguments failed to sway a majority of the Court. With the backlash from it, maybe we'll see a new amendment to the Constitution.

Finally, whether you like me or think I'm authoritarian matters little to the conversation. Neither you nor the original poster (presuming you're different people) know anything about me other than what you've read from a couple of posts. There are a lot of things that need to change in the United States and around the world including limiting the power of the elite whether political or economic, and the world will be freer and more prosperous for those changes. But there are processes to that in the US, including engaging in debate, and juvenile ranting doesn't help get your point across.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[dywolf]

so you're basically a troll who doesnt care about actual facts, actual logic, actual history, or actual legal precedent.
begone troll.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[dywolf]

Wow you are funny.
You've got the Fox news version of the story: a couple of minor facts, mixed with equal parts ignorance and outrage.

The Constitution is in effect, but there is no single interpretation, immutable and unchangable for all time. The Founder's wrote a document for their day. We no longer live in their day. Society has advanced. Attitudes and cultural mores have changed. We're reinterpreted core and founding principles to reflect the society of today. Remember that the USC is not, never was, and never will be, perfect. The goal is the creation of a "more perfect union", which carries the implication that that is an eternal struggle, for a noble goal that will never actually be attained.

No, not clearly a violation. In fact, if you knew anything you wold know that the ACA gives the adminstration large leeway in the execution of its precepts. Very few changes in the execution of a law actually requires Congressional approval first. Laws rarely state out a precise series of steps to be followed. It's more like a house: Congress may build the framework, but the Adminstration installs the wiring and pipes, puts up the drywall, paints the walls, and installs the furniture.

You included a dig at the Federal Reserve.....one of the most successful tools in our modern economy. Think about how common bank runs were prior to the creation of the FR. Now think about how rare they are since then. Banks used to fail. A lot. People would end up poor and broke, their money vanished. A lot. There is a regular reason people didnt trust banks back then, preferring mattresses. The FR solved all that, and helped the economy to perpetually grow: no longer would money sit idle, it could be loaned again via banks, to create worth and capital. This too helps stave off stagnation, recessions, etc. It's not foolproof, but its a helluva lot more stable than it was before the FR.

Beyond a few temporary spats, Congress has never not passed a budget. You could argue that the Continuin Resolutions dont count, but really, they do. They perform the task of funding hte government, even if they merely maintain the current status quo. Yes, ideally they would actually have a full debate, and real budget, and yes even the most recent compromise while called a budget is really just another CR, albeit for a much longer term. But they have still be funding the government. This has little to do with the Constitution though, and more to do with obstructionist politics.

The Surpreme Courts job is not to right every wrong, to get involved in every case, to settle everything how you think it should be. The USC is only interested in cases of a national interest. Cases that settle a clear and present legal question, that has implications not just for the persons involved, but potentially the entire nation.You complain about how they feel, yet that is EXACTLY what a Judge does; like complaining about airplanes flying. A Judge's job is to use his own judgement, ie how he feels, about a matter of law to make a decision, based ont he facts of a case weighed against prior legal precedent and established law. You've obviously never actually read an actual legal decision from the USC.

And as for the actual Citizens United decision, corporations CANNOT donate more than ordinary people. They do not get an exemption. The campaign contribution limits are still in force:

The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.[22]

This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[dywolf]

trolls be trollin

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[dywolf]

Oh please. a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote in this country.

There are no serious 3rd parties in this coutnry because of how our elections work. the two big parties havent been in danger from a 3rd party candidate for decades. In the 2012 election even the BEST performing 3rd party candidate only recieved 0.9% of the popular vote, and not a single electoral.

The only forseeable viable third party in this country is the soon to exist Tea Party, if they Republicans succesfully kick them out of the party. They probably won't though because they are still far too dependent on them to win elections. and as we've seen, ideals and message don't matter nearly as much as actually winning elections. IE, Winning > Integrity.

Want to make 3rd parties viable and get actual representitive representation in this country?
Then 4 things need to happen:
1- Kill the Electoral College.
2- Kill the First Past the Post voting system.
3- Kill all campaign contributions.
4- Kill gerrymandering.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[Anonymous Coward]

I think GP meant that it's the opposite of the truth that votes would be meaningful if we only had one party.

His later use of "Demicans" and "Republicrats" suggests that he already knows there's effectively only one party ... and votes for either of those are not meaningful.

Re:Legality vs Enforceability

[AJWM]

I'm guessing you are not a native English speaker. If you were, it would have been obvious.

About as native as it gets.

Alas, I've seen too much actual stupidity posted here for a good simulation of it to be obvious.

Teabaggers strike again....

[Anonymous Coward]

Our only hope is Obama will stop this.

Re:Teabaggers strike again....

[Kuroji]

Yeah, sure, and maybe he'll keep his campaign promises while he's at it...

Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Sarten-X]

From reading TFAs, it seems T3 is getting an "exclusive license to charge for access", which isn't really a legal concept AFAIK. It looks like T3 is taking public-domain DoD images and videos, digitizing and cataloging them, then charging for access to the digital form. They're exclusively selling that access to the digital catalog, but the images and videos themselves are still public domain. I'm not sure whether digitizing counts as creating a new work for copyright purposes.

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm not sure whether digitizing counts as creating a new work for copyright purposes.

What do you mean you're not sure recording an analog movie with a digital camera counts as a new work? How can you not be sure of it when it's been prosecuted for decades? There's entire faux-education systems in place to beat that into the public's consciousness.

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[oldhack]

And when DoD processes request for documents, they would pass on the charge imposed by T3, effectively allowing T3 to set the price of access.

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Trepidity]

The government themselves do this kind of thing sometimes: charge for the actual delivery of the digital documents, which are public domain. That's not illegal, just not really sustainable. Since they're public domain, anyone who buys them could, if they choose, redistribute them. One instance of that that I recall was that in 1999, Bruce Perens bought the TIGER geographic data set from the US Census on CD, for I think $500 or $1000 or something, and then released it online freely. The Census Bureau wised up and you can now download new versions of the TIGER data set directly from the Census at the previous link instead of having to play that game.

Another example is the court document database, PACER, which has public-domain documents but charges per-page for access. That's led to RECAP, a project to slowly siphon documents out of it and republish them.

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sweat of the brow" copyright exists in the UK, but not in the US.

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an attorney, I love RECAP; but not as much as my clients do. Whenever I have a case where I pass the charges for access on to them, many are genuinely confused as to why they should be charged for the documents. I should point out, that a lot of RECAP access is being added for free because the first time (and only the first time) you see a document as the attorney on the case, you get to access it for free.

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if it's a legal concept, power makes it one. Google got away with privatizing works from the public domain by digitizing them, why shouldn't the DoD?

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[LMariachi]

Licensing the material from T3 would almost certainly involve agreeing not to redistribute. You wouldn’t be violating copyright (since there isn’t any,) but you’d be in breach of contract.

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[magic maverick]

With what penalties? I don't believe I've seen an online contract (aka terms of service, which aren't really a contract at all) that matters that has enforceable penalties. So:
1. download
2. redistribute.
2a. if redistributing anonymously, goto 4.
2b. if redistributing in a fashion that is easy to link you to your account, goto 3.
3. lose your account. who cares? end.
4. continue as you please. end.

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Weren't people recently being charged with felonies under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for breaking "contract" when they failed to abide by a website's Terms of Service?

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

With what penalties? I don't believe I've seen an online contract (aka terms of service, which aren't really a contract at all) that matters that has enforceable penalties.

They aren't going to let you download for free, they are going to want money and that is an entirely different type of contract than facebook/google/etc freebie terms of use click-throughs.

And that money trail is going to give them a real and identifiable person to sue for violating the contract.

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what damages would they seek, when finding you in breech?

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[magic maverick]

My point stands. Even when signing up to pay for stuff, that says "don't redistribute", I don't think I've ever seen a clause that says "and if you do redistribute, we'll come and make you pay us". Normally, it would be implied that they have copyright law on their side. Except, that, well, here they don't. So, to repeat the question of the anon coward, what penalties would they be seeking?

Re:Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So, to repeat the question of the anon coward, what penalties would they be seeking?

It's a contract, they can specify whatever penalties they want. They can justify them by inflated costs to digitize and loss of potential sales.

Re: Pictures are public, but the index isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the myspace case, and that failed miserably. Why don't you google your leading troll question before posting?

Derivative works

[Max Threshold]

If I created a piece of art using public domain media, I would still own the copyright on the art... but only if it substantially altered or added to the original public domain work. Either T3's copyright is invalid, or they've just been given permission to rewrite our history.

Re:Derivative works

[blueg3]

T3 isn't claiming copyright.

Re:Derivative works

[Max Threshold]

You're missing the point. Of course T3 doesn't claim the copyright. There can be no licensing control without a copyright, and there can be no copyright on a government work unless T3 has substantially modified or added to the work, which would be an even bigger story.

Re:Derivative works

[blueg3]

There can be no licensing control without a copyright,

Not true at all.

Re:Derivative works

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as we're discussing works in the category of what T3 will be distributing, it's entirely true.

Absent copyright, there is no *need* to have a license to do *anything* with a work. Therefore, without copyright, there is no licensing control *possible*.

Re:Derivative works

[murpup]

Correction: there can be no copyright on work created by government employees. Work created by contractors on behalf of the government CAN be copyrighted, if the contracting officer allows it. Also, the government can hold copyright when said copyright has been transferred to it.

See the FAR Subpart 27.4 as well as 52.227-14.

Also, there are exceptions to the rule. NIST and Dept of Commerce maintains a government-asserted copyright to much of its property data, for example the IAPWS steam tables. The reason it is allowed to do this is because there is a law passed by Congress that creates an exception to the normal Code of Federal Regulations that allows NIST to do this. Don't have that handy to reference but I have seen it.

Re:Derivative works

[Max Threshold]

Exactly.

Re:Derivative works

[Max Threshold]

But none of those conditions apply to the works that T3 will be digitizing.

Google Books would be better.

[FeriteCore]

Google obviously has the technical capability and facilities to handle the job.

Did they have the opportunity to bid the job? Did they submit a bid?

Did the bid evaluation process consider public benefit?

I think we would have been better off had they gotten the job.

Re:Google Books would be better.

[torsmo]

Which would have been fine had they remained merely a vendor to whom the process of digitising the archival content was contracted to, but here this company has essentially been granted the copyrights for said content. They are apparently doing the job for free, but will charge anyone seeking access to the digitised content.

Re:Google Books would be better.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised the NSA's new publishing division didn't get this job. Sure, their editorial staff is slow ... but their director of PR teasers has done a great job keeping everyone interested and waiting for their next teaser like no one ever has.

FOIA

[Dachannien]

These records would seem to be responsive to a proper FOIA request, and if the government already has already-paid-for access to the records, they would be required to pony up those records at the cost of duplication (which would arguably get around the third-party fees this company would charge).

Why they didn't just give all this stuff to Google is beyond me. I'm sure they'd love to have a project like this, and they'd probably make it publicly available for the price of ads.

Re:FOIA

[NoKaOi]

Why they didn't just give all this stuff to Google is beyond me. I'm sure they'd love to have a project like this, and they'd probably make it publicly available for the price of ads.

Can you really not imagine why they might do this? How much money is T3 making off of this, and who are they brib^H^H^H^H contributing campaign funds to?

Re:FOIA

[girlintraining]

Can you really not imagine why they might do this? How much money is T3 making off of this, and who are they brib^H^H^H^H contributing campaign funds to?

There's a simpler explanation than bribery: What's the average age of a US Senator? 57 years old. Average. Google to them is like space aged rocket science. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. A lot of the government's actions can be explained by simple senility -- these people aren't just out of touch with society, in many cases they're in a phase of life marked by significant decline in cognitive reasoning, and studies have been done suggesting that the elderly are far more trusting than they should be due to biochemical changes in the brain. Put another way: They're easily suckered.

This is an exceedingly obvious thing to have to point out, but it seems to be forgotten all the time by people who, were they to just divorce themselves from their own political views for a minute and contemplate the problem objectively, they'd realize that there is an organic element to the problem which far better explains the current circumstances than the radical ideas of conspiracies, bribery, and back room deals. I'm sure those happen, but they are far into the minority...

Re:FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to malice.

They have entire teams of people telling them what they will get and others will lose from their decisions. There is no need to understand the exact mechanics of what they're voting on, senators don't care about that part. The important thing is people inferior to the senate's own expensively educated children will stay down where they belong, and the senator gets a kickback to his campaign or personal coffers in exchange. Everybody wins that matters!

Re:FOIA

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What's the average age of a US Senator? 57 years old. Average. Google to them is like space aged rocket science.

Congress didn't make this deal.

Re:FOIA

[Princeofcups]

There's a simpler explanation than bribery: What's the average age of a US Senator? 57 years old. Average. Google to them is like space aged rocket science. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. A lot of the government's actions can be explained by simple senility -- these people aren't just out of touch with society, in many cases they're in a phase of life marked by significant decline in cognitive reasoning, and studies have been done suggesting that the elderly are far more trusting than they should be due to biochemical changes in the brain.

I have always hated the term ageism, but damn it man, you are truly a bigot. What older folks have is experience and learning that the young simply do not. People are not born wise, it is something that comes with long years of trial and error, good time and bad, wrong decisions and lucky ones. I could just as easily say that the folks over 50 are the only ones I would trust to make political decisions because they remember when college education was a right not a privilege, when the US had goals and aspirations that did not involve the military, racism was forcibly lessened in the deep south, etc. etc. When things were truly different, and how bad things are right now. So stop crying like a baby, and try to learn from your elders. One day some people may look up to you. As to politicians, they were scum bags when young and just as scummy when old, so they can go fuck themselves.

Re:FOIA

[clovis]

There's a simpler explanation than bribery: What's the average age of a US Senator? 57 years old. Average. Google to them is like space aged rocket science. A lot of the government's actions can be explained by simple senility -- these people aren't just out of touch with society, in many cases they're in a phase of life marked by significant decline in cognitive reasoning, and studies have been done suggesting that the elderly are far more trusting than they should be due to biochemical changes in the brain. Put another way: They're easily suckered.

I've seen other posts of yours, and usually you're on target. This time your brain has failed you.
You're looking at a group (average age 57) and extrapolating the deficiencies of a subset of that group ( those with severe cognitive decline) onto a different subset (US Senators).

For example, some people take the fact that some women have debilitating problems during menstruation and extrapolate to all women to state that women can't be trusted to do, well, almost anything they want to stop women from doing.
Can you imagine how your paragraph could be written with simply substituting Blacks, or Irish for the ageist terms?

Consider "Google to them is like space aged rocket science".
I suppose by "them" you mean the ones with PhD's in physics, chemistry, or microbiology? or the physicians? or the Attorneys?
You might also consider that by and large, US Senators come from a group of people on the far side of the bell curve. Losing some points due to age leaves them still on the far side.

Re:FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

Please shoot the motherfucker that coined that phrase. They're not mutually exclusive, assholes!

illegal

[dmbasso]

Considering that all output from the US government is, by law, ineligible for copyright, this deal is illegal.

FTFY.

Re:illegal

[blueg3]

They're not asserting or transferring copyright, and they won't be able to enforce copyright because they don't have it. That doesn't prevent them from making an exclusive-licensing deal, though since there's no copyright on the original works, the deal has less teeth than it normally would.

Re:illegal

[dmbasso]

[...] copyright because they don't have it. That doesn't prevent them from making an exclusive-licensing deal [...]

See that beautiful house with the huge garden? It is not mine! But I'm going to rent it anyway, for your exclusive use.

Re: illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

You see that lovely piece of art? I don't own it, or the copyright, but I'm going to charge you to come to my museum because I paid to make the museum, curate the collection, and maintain this place which allows you to come see it easily.

Non-digitized

[mwvdlee]

I'm assuming the non-digitized archive is still public domain, and third party digitization of this public domain information isn't covered by this contract?

Re:Non-digitized

[gigaherz]

The bit where they give "exclusive rights to digitize" would imply otherwise... but I may have misread.

Re:Non-digitized

[bjwest]

I'm assuming the non-digitized archive is still public domain, and third party digitization of this public domain information isn't covered by this contract?

Until the sprinkler systems malfunction, or there's a real fire and the original documents are destroyed.

Keep it up

[oldhack]

Keep exposing these slimy backdoor deals. For every one exposed, there's gotta be hundreds more.

Re:Keep it up

[WoodstockJeff]

... and exposing one or two occasionally makes people THINK that someone is looking out for the interests of the public. It makes it easier to hide the rest!

Public Has a Right to Know!

[BoRegardless]

If our legislators allow this sort of bastardization of our system, it is time to vote them all out and get in people who represent us, period.

Freedom of knowledge of what our government is doing in all sorts of departments is the only way we get advance warning when they are going off the rails into tyranny and dictatorial powers.

This looks like a job forCarl Malamud

[Lexible]

...and http://public.resource.org./

American Revolution 2?

[gabrieltss]

Maybe it's time to start discussions of the 2nd American Revolution. Our government from the office of the President, to congress to the Supreme Court are completely out of control. All are doing illegal acts and NO ONE can enforce the laws against it - except WE THE PEOPLE! It's high time we start letting our government officials know that they are not above the law and that WE THE PEOPLE can REVOKE their jobs! This is why the 2nd Amendment was amended into our constitution. It was NOT for hunters and sportsman. It was for protecting your family, your property and to fight a tyrannical government! Take a REAL read of the documents written by our founding fathers to see what their REAL intention was. Not the made up BS the anti-gun crown spews.

Re:American Revolution 2?

[dmbasso]

You're really naive if you think you stand a change in a fight with the military that consumes most money in the world (almost 700 billion dollars annually, compare that the second place, China, around 200 billion).

And even if you could, violence is not the best way. This is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Take money out of politics: http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Re:American Revolution 2?

[Nkwe]

Maybe it's time to start discussions of the 2nd American Revolution. Our government from the office of the President, to congress to the Supreme Court are completely out of control.

And after your revolt, what system of government would you replace the current one with? Be specific. What would prevent your proposed system from morphing into or having similar problems that our current government has? If you don't know how to change the overall system but just want to "throw the bums out", what is your plan to prevent the new "bums" from being just like the old ones?

I hear lots of folks ranting on how bad government is, but I don't hear many coherent or comprehensive suggestions about what to do about it. I do, by the way, agree with you that the second amendment is about creating a fail safe to protect the people from the government and I support having that fail safe in place. I do not however, believe that we are anywhere near needing to trigger that fail safe and even if we were, I would want a concrete plan as what to do after your revolution so that we do not end up in the same place again.

Re:American Revolution 2?

[silas_moeckel]

Unfortunately history tells us the revolution is cyclic effective no plan works in perpetuity, Any setup that can be changed will slowly be changed for the worse. Any setup that is fixed does not respond to changing demands.

Re:American Revolution 2?

[Anonymous Coward]

Entropy. It's the Law.

Re:American Revolution 2?

[fnj]

You're really naive if you think you stand a change in a fight with the military that consumes most money in the world

Yeah, those dumb insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan were really naive. Except, duh, it was your vaunted military which was fought to a sandstill and is running out with its tail between its legs, having failed abjectly.

Re:American Revolution 2?

[dmbasso]

Except, duh, it was your vaunted military

Not mine, I'm not American.

which was fought to a sandstill and is running out with its tail between its legs, having failed abjectly.

Failed? That's a matter of perspective. Dick Cheney and Halliburton would certainly disagree with you. Oh wait, did you think the war was about weapons of mass destruction, and bringing democracy to the region? Yeah, sure... :)

Re:American Revolution 2?

[wjcofkc]

The day the American people become so many, organized, and outraged that the United States military (likely the Guard) is ordered to open fire on US citizens, your revolution will start. It will not matter whether they follow the order or not. If things don't get better and the power of the people continues to slip, I believe it's entirely possible that will happen.

Re:American Revolution 2?

[kermidge]

Yeah, Kent State worked. Oh, wait, it was just college students, musta been commie hippies, they don't count. Yawn.

Model Releases?

[MichaelJ]

If these images are then provided for money, does that have implications for requiring model releases for any photos with recognizable individuals in them?

Re:Model Releases?

[Registered Coward v2]

If these images are then provided for money, does that have implications for requiring model releases for any photos with recognizable individuals in them?

Excellant question. DoD has limits on the use of their material, will they apply to this material as well? More to the point, will the originals be available for copying form DoD even if they have been digitized?

30 years

[gmuslera]

I bet the penalty for whoever puts public that ex-public domain information will be more than 30 years this time. The next Aaron Swartz better don't get into activities like supporting the Occupy movement or similars because they know that political persecution goes unpunished in US.

Copyrighted is the New Classified

[Dialecticus]

As it stands, when a whistleblower leaks government secrets to news organizations and independent bloggers, the whistleblower gets in trouble, but the news can still be reported. Once those same government secrets are copyrighted, they'll still be able to go after the whistleblower, but I expect they will then start using DMCA takedown notices against anyone reporting about the leaks because of the unlicensed duplication of portions of their data inherent in any competent reporting of it. (I know, fair use is supposed to cover things like this, but how long do you really expect that to last in the current political climate? Look at what's happening lately with game review videos on YouTube for an example.)

WOULD YOU PREFER IT DISAPPEAR FOREVER !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to neglect ?? T3 is sent from HAVEN !!

Indiana Jones Warehouse

[HighOrbit]

Sarten-X discribes exactly what is going on. In fact, the Contracting Officer probably decided it was in the public interest to digitize and get the data public as opposed to it sitting in the bottom of a box in the proverbial Indiana Jones warehouse lost to the public forever. DoD has some boilerplate contract clauses for this, mainly 252.227-7013 Rights in Technical Data--Noncommercial Items. Alternate I, which states:

(l) Publication for sale.

(1) This paragraph only applies to technical data in which the Government has obtained unlimited rights or a license to make an unrestricted release of technical data.

(2) The Government shall not publish a deliverable technical data item or items identified in this contract as being subject to paragraph (l) of this clause or authorize others to publish such data on its behalf if, prior to publication for sale by the Government and within twenty-four (24) months following the date specified in this contract for delivery of such data or the removal of any national security or export control restrictions, whichever is later, the Contractor publishes that item or items for sale and promptly notifies the Contracting Officer of such publication(s). Any such publication shall include a notice identifying the number of this contract and the Government's rights in the published data.

(3) This limitation on the Government's right to publish for sale shall continue as long as the data are reasonably available to the public for purchase.

The point here is that sometimes the Government wants data to become available to the public (as opposed to sitting in a box in the basement) and uses commercial contractors to do it. An example would be something like this: Say somebody discovered several hundred boxes in the basement at Ft. Dix NJ of first-person interviews of soldiers during WWI and the Spanish flu. Now say university historians of WWI want access to these interviews. The historians can fly to NJ, get a hotel room, a rental car, and spend several thousand dollars and weeks digging through, cataloging, and copying the documents or alternately, the DOD can hire a contractor to digitize everything and any historian anywhere in the world can buy it for a few hundred bucks.

DOD SOO

[Registered Coward v2]

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

Rev#3

DIMOC Digitization and Storage

The Defense Media Activity (DMA) is the headquarters responsible for several operations within the Department of Defense that creates, broadcasts, manages archives, and stores media. The Defense Imagery Management Operations Center (DIMOC) is the operational arm of the Defense Visual Information Directorate (DVI), a component of DMA. The mission of DVI is to operate as the DoDs central visual information (VI) management and proponency office. The DIMOC integrates and synchronizes DoD imagery capabilities and centrally manages and archives current and historical visual information media in support of the Department and the National Archives and Records Administration. DIMOC serves as the official DoD VI Records Center for the storage and preservation of original and irreplaceable motion picture, video, still, audio, and mixed VI records depicting the DoDs heritage and current activities.

In FY 2012, DIMOC was presented with a model used by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) that provides digitization of select records (e.g. documents, photographs, etc.) at no-cost to the Government. This no-cost model permitted a contractor to digitize the selected records and receive a return on their investment during a period of exclusivity in exchange for providing the National Archives digitized copies. This period of exclusive rights allowed the contractor to generate revenue via sales of the digitized records. After this period of time, the digital copies would become public domain via the National Archives. This process assists NARA in accomplishing their mission to increase the public accessibility of Federal Records far quicker than their capability to digitize there and resources would allow.

With DIMOCs similar mission to the National Archives to collect, preserve and increase accessibility, DIMOC is attempting to adopt a variant of the NARA no-cost model. DIMOC used this model to solicit requests for proposals, and even held an industry day to gauge the feasibility to complete this mass digitization and storage for free for the Government. The industry day consensus was for the Government to share some of the up-front costs as a sign of good faith and viability for the contracts success. A clear message, that this project was not going to be feasible for industry without Government funding, was sent when only three RFPs were submitted post- industry day. Subsequently DIMOC is proposing a cost-share variant to the NARA no-cost model.

II. OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this contract is to provide for the digitization, storage and retrieval of still imagery, motion and audio recordings for the Defense Imagery Management Operations Center. DIMOC recognizes there is value to this content being made readily available accessible, and as such, we are soliciting industry proposals for providing the Government digitization, storage and retrieval in exchange for the opportunity to monetize immediate access to Department of Defense visual information material (during an exclusive period for up to 10 years).

The Government intends to solicit a one-year base period with four full option years of performance. The total five-year period will permit a contractor time to digitize DIMOCs vast holdings and help realize a return on investment. The option years will allow for assessment each year on the success of the contract as determined by the contractor and the Government.

The Government realizes the cost burden of digitizing and storing this content is on the vendor despite the contract award off-setting some of the costs. Accordingly the Government is allowing a period of exclusivity for 10 years for marketing and commercial sales of Government content digitized during the previous 5-year cost share term of the contract. Note that the additional five- year period of exclusivity is beyond the cost-share based contract. However, it is expected that the period of exclusivity for years 6 - 10 will be performed at no cost

How do you fight this?

[koan]

I've been saying for decades "deregulation and privatization" will only hurt the public in the end.

You guys do remember the weather company that got it's data form the governments weather stations and then tried to resell it to the public.

Freedom Of Information?

[Anonymous Coward]

The DOD would still be bound by law to comply with the Freedom Of information Act which creates a legal obstacle in itself.
                          Perhaps what we need as a nation both in private and governmental affairs are laws against complex contracts and agreements either when self standing or in combination with other documents. Items such as shell corporations and trust funds would no longer have any protection in law at all. Requiring all food and drink to be labeled in total with all ingredients and their proportions also needs doing without regard for supposedly proprietary secrets at all. These days we still are not allowed to know what we eat or drink. don't believe it? What is in a Coca Cola?

Re:Freedom Of Information?

[viperidaenz]

Mostly sugar and water
The list ingredients are on the bottles I buy. Just not the quantity of each ingredient.

Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada

Of course, it's very obvious why this is happening

[haruchai]

It's because Obama's the most radical, socialist president ever.

As usual, summary is inflammatory

[Pigeon451]

Title copied from Boing Boing, and the article there is full of hyperbole. T3 is providing digitization to the over 1 million physical media, organize and catalog everything, and then will charge a fee for access (however access for authorized government personnel is FREE). T3 is NOT claiming copyright, they just have an exclusive license for 10 years.

Check this out:
300,000 physical videos (300,000 hours!)
37,000 films (11,000 hours)
40,000 audio clips (1.5 million minutes)
700,000 still images
1.2 million digital images.

Seems reasonable to me. HALF the library is not even accessible on the internet as they are physical only. This is a good way to preserve what has been accumulated, and a lot of it is very old.

A much better summary is here:
http://gcn.com/articles/2013/12/12/dod-library.aspx

Re:As usual, summary is inflammatory

[Travelsonic]

Title copied from Boing Boing, and the article there is full of hyperbole. T3 is providing digitization to the over 1 million physical media, organize and catalog everything, and then will charge a fee for access (however access for authorized government personnel is FREE). T3 is NOT claiming copyright, they just have an exclusive license for 10 years.

*facepalms*

NOBODY is claiming that T3 is claiming copyright on anything. Ironic, you claim FUD and misunderstanding, and misunderstand what is being said right in front of you. The problem is the DoD licensing out, restricting access to public domain stuff they made.

Re:As usual, summary is inflammatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the sort of job our government should be doing. Not a private contractor.

Re:As usual, summary is inflammatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright....it is such a dirty word. Just don't say it but grant its powers.Typical legal weaseling to take advantage of our horribly corrupt legal system.

good morning. Obama's team made the deal

[raymorris]

Good morning. I see you've been sleeping the past six years. Obama is the commander in chief and head of the administrative branch. It was Obama's team that came up with this idea (in violation of federal law) in the first place.

Wait for it to be nice and digitised

[viperidaenz]

When file what ever the USA equivalent of an Official Information Request is.

Re:Wait for it to be nice and digitised

[couchslug]

An app for filing FOIA requests would be a fine tool to have. :-)

Re:Wait for it to be nice and digitised

[viperidaenz]

No it wouldn't, because then everyone would do it.
It would cost too much to service and then you'd end up with someone changing the law to allow service charges to be applied.

Re:Wait for it to be nice and digitised

[tomhath]

FOIA requests will still be processed as they are today. Or you could pay a small fee and get a copy of the same thing from T3 - your choice.

sustainable if legal

[raymorris]

> charge for the actual delivery of the digital documents, which are public domain.
> That's not illegal, just not really sustainable.

If I'm not mistaken, legally they are only supposed to charge enough to cover the cost of storing and retrieving them.
Any other self-sustaining effort would also need to cover the same costs and so would need to charge about the same, unless someone else paid the costs as a charitable contribution.

Of course that wouldn't be true if the federal government was inefficient and wasteful, but we know that can't be true, that's liberal canon. If a private organization such as Google, for example, could find and retrieve documents for less than the $3 per page that the government spends, that would mean government is a wasteful, stupid way to do things. That's not the case, of course. It would be heresy to say so.

Re:sustainable if legal

[Trepidity]

PACER charges far more than the cost of operating the service; their goal (as instructed by Congress) seems to be to fund the entire court system's electronic infrastructure out of PACER fees, not only PACER itself. As a result, the service itself generates more than $100m annual surplus.

Missing option

[Anonymous Coward]

CowboyNeal

Re:Missing option

[haruchai]

D'oh!

Don't like this

[Anonymous Coward]

This is terrible. I hope someone stops it from happening. It's like the government is stealing innovation and progress from the entire world when it locks up publicly funded public domain research.

Hundred years from now...

[Anonymous Coward]

United States? Government? What is that?

this is slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

we don't expect common sense, or even comprehension here

Military record archive

[tomhath]

A friend of mine was wondering how he could look up the military records of his great-grandfather. He knew that the man served during the Spanish American War but couldn't find anything online. It turned out that in order to get the record he would have to travel to Washington DC, look it up on the microfiche in the National Archives, then request a printed copy. I'm pretty sure the fee charged by T3 will be cheaper than the current system.

Don't Worry

[Revek]

I'm sure none of it will cease to exist in that time.

Could be a good thing

[mbstone]

Depends on how well T3 does the cataloging and website, and how much they charge for copies.

If it turns out the works are more easily accessible and searchable than at present, and the charges are reasonable (think ), then it's a good thing.

If the catalog website is poorly designed (see the existing DoD website), or if T3 decides to charge, well, DoD prices for things, then not so good.

I guess it's ...

[NoMaster]

... time to download all the interesting DoD sites, data, and documentation I've bookmarked over the years. Probably the rest of the government stuff (e.g. USDA) too, while I'm at it...

Counter attack

[manu0601]

The next Edward Snowden will be purchased by intellectual property lawyers. This is much more scaring that CIA action units. Don't we have international treaties forbidding such kinked approach?

More cronyism and pro-business BS from the top

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, Obama. You are proving that you can do a job just as bad as GW Bush did.

Go equality!

Another verification sign of.....

[3seas]

....government gone rouge.... from a long and growing list that when it gets long enough the people will pull out the Declaration of Independence for the instructions teh founders wrote for the people.

But

[Anonymous Coward]

The Government could have payed for digtizing the data without giving exclusive rights. That way the contractor got payed without keeping the data hostage.

God ?

[Taco Cowboy]

If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it?

God ?

All right, all kidding aside ... but the situation that we have as of now, anything short of a divine intervention there ain't no "legal" way to stop the government of the United States of America from committing illegal acts.

And you're the one who says Snowden is a coward !

[Taco Cowboy]

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

I am surprised to read that quote from Mr. Jefferson inside your comment.

I am very very surprised because you're the same one who lambasted Edward Snowden for being a coward because according to you, Mr. Snowden should have remained INSIDE the USA and face the music for whatever he has done.

If you already know that what we have today is a tyranny, what do you get for wanting Mr. Snowden to face that tyrannical regime ?

Internet Archive

[ihtoit]

Over the last several years, I have seen old DoD propaganda and training movies (The Art Of Escape, anyone?) crop up on the aforementioned site. Does this mean that such content will be taken down?

(I''m just glad I managed to mirror most of the DoD content on the site... mostly for geek value, but I'm also a packrat).

I was curious

[Anonymous Coward]

how America would go on functioning (its academia, defense, agenda etc.) after the country is bankrupt. Enter: Shadow state and the legion of companies that make up its arteries.