As if Harper wouldn't ship him to the States in a heartbeat. Wouldn't even stop to make sure he wouldn't get executed and probably ship you along with him.
America has been like this for a long time, though without the present technology. In the '60's the FBI targeted lots of groups for intensive surveillance, black civil rights groups, hippies, anti-war protesters and the opposition. In the '50's it was the red scare, in the '40's they locked up citizens of Japanese descent en-mass. In the '30's the unemployed, especially the veterans of the first World War. In the '20's perhaps the black market in alcohol. During WW I there was the first red scare as well as the pacifists and anti-conscription group. The Supreme Court then actually ruled that passing out pamphlets that were anti-conscription was equal to yelling fire in a theater so it was fine to throw them in jail for practicing free speech. Before that it was socialists and labour organizers and before that it was north vs south and so on.
The one thing that Russia does not want is a repeat of their last Olympic hosting which was boycotted by many nations. I hate to say it but if America calls for an Olympic boycott they will be joined by others, perhaps a surprising amount of others. I think that Canada would join considering our current government.
I'm talking about An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned., better known as the Statute of Anne, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne Which the founders drew heavily on both in the American Constitution and the first copyright bill passed by congress, The Copyright Act of 1790. Before the Statute of Anne it was the publishers that had all the power and the ideas of modern Anglo-American copyright were introduced to empower the authors, including as you say giving the creators incentive but also enriching the public. There still needs to be a balance and still the publishers are trying to subvert both the creators and the public. People need to be able to make money and they and the public also need previous works that are open to build upon. I don't want to see a return to the days when the private publishers could kick down your door, break or confiscate your stuff and fine you. It's bad enough having the government having those powers but at least in theory the government is responsible to the electorate unlike a private monopoly.
You're correct about the reasons for having a contract and being old fashioned most of that has always been covered verbally for me. Note that I've never hired a wedding photographer having got married on the cheap 20 odd years ago. I have hired portrait photographers (including school portraits which are more of a group thing) and the contracts were fairly simple with only the last one mentioning licensing rights. The photos I paid for were mine. Anyways while your points about contracts are good and mostly correct, my point about copyright holders getting more control also stands. The default for works for hire was changed for photographers to their benefit. Remember copyright was introduced to advance learning (called the arts and sciences in America), not to enrich people and photographers for hire are a good example of a type of creator that could flourish without any copyright.
I like to eat seaweed, especially when it first turns hot and I'm exercising. Seaweed (usually dulse in my case) has the advantage of a good ratio of sodium and potassium along with other salts and lots of iodine as a bonus.
The point is that previously you didn't need a contract beyond a check changing hands. You hire someone to work for you, you pay them (and wedding photographers are expensive), and they do the work, in this case taking high quality photographs for you and if the photographer reneged on the work, the canceled check is good enough to go to court with. Now you need a written contract, perhaps vetted by a lawyer, to get the fruits of the work that you payed for. The natural default of getting the fruits of the labour you've paid for has changed to the labourer keeping the work that you've paid for and time and energy having to be spent on non-productive stuff, perhaps enriching lawyers instead of producers.
Perhaps the business model has always been different in Canada but I've never heard about or experienced wedding photographers selling prints to the wedding guests. Usually when you pay well over a thousand dollars for a professional photographer to spend a couple of hours shooting pictures you end up being able to give the pictures away yourself with only small reasonable payments for more prints. Now the photographer can argue that he should get payed over and over if you don't have exactly the correct contract instead of the old default that when you hire someone they're working for you. Next the default will be for roofers to get payed every time it rains, plumbers to get payed every time you flush and you're car mechanic (who has much money invested in equipment now a days) to get payed every time you put gas in the car.
Wedding photographers are a good example. When the copyright law was updated in Canada, photographers had it changed so that they be default keep the copyright on that wedding you hired them to photograph. Previously the default that if you hired someone to create a work, you kept the copyright. Now if you don't put it into a contract, you have to pay for every reprint you want to give away after paying a good wage for a photographer to shoot pictures of your wedding. Seems like control to me.
While glyphosate is fairly non-toxic and also breaks down quite fast in contact with soil the same can't be said about some of the surfactants added. The general rule with all pesticides is to use as little as possible while doing the job and roundup ready crops just encourage over-usage of herbicides.
Historically companies have been given that right though perhaps not in America. The Hudson Bay Company and East India company come to mind. I'm not aware of anything that prevents governments from giving out the right to imprison people based on what they said besides common sense and with so many governments getting weirder and more authoritarian we may yet see companies given this power if only to work around constitutional limitations. America may have already given this power to companies in places such as Iraq. Thinking of Halliburton or whatever they now call themselves now.
The great lesson about the fall of the Soviet Union is that the thugs will regain power over the people. Actually that was also the lesson of the Russian Revolution over the thuggish aristocracy and Czar.
Can't a lower court declare something unconstitutional? Then the government can appeal if so inclined and the higher courts can decide whether to hear the appeal or not and possibly reverse the lower courts decision? That's how it works in Canada with the lower courts have less jurisdiction (Provincial Supreme courts only covers the Province) but considered everywhere.
Congress has been making laws that abridge free speech for so long that most people accept it, at least in various cases. Child porn, national security, military law are some examples that many people support and the Supreme Court rules constitutional. A major flaw in the American constitution was the lack of a constitutional court. It's questionable whether the Supreme court was meant to rule on constitunional matters and being federally appointed there is a conflict of interest. A court empowered to rule on constitutional matters and independent of the federal government may well have been an improvement. Not sure how it would work, perhaps States appointing the court.
Mostly in the interests of private industry. How many people have suffered to protect outdated business models such as pulp paper when hemp paper was the future? Now with the private prison industry and the associated slave/forced labour etc it is once again business as much as anything encouraging huge prison populations.
They happily would if the government was powerless. Businesses have a long history of doing the equivalent of taking money out of your paycheck, eg the company store and things could swing back that way.
I don't have a Facebook account yet I'm pretty sure that lots of my info is on there, mostly just from family. If I was younger it would be friends even posting more of my personal info. I did create a linkedld account once and they regularly ask me for my email password so they can scan my contacts and ho knows what else. The offer seems harmless enough that lots of non-technical people would probably bite. There has been times in the past where private industry was more powerful then government and it was pretty crappy as well. Perhaps even worse as they usually had the local government in their pocket as well as a large private police force hired to do their bidding.
Read up on the history of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, bigger then the American Army at one point and only one of the numerous private police forces that existed at one point. Private industry will happily employ people to take you out in a hail of bullets if they can't socialize it as they do now.
Like the Railway police or Pinkertons? The history of the Pinkerton Detective Agency shows how things can swing the other way when business does have police forces. Prisons are more and more private institutions lobbying the government for more low risk prisoners. They'd happily supply their own prisoners if the government let them and it wouldn't be dangerous people like murderers.
Get caught pissing in some bushes and those rights are gone for the rest of your life and the reasons for removing those rights have been expanding as long as I can remember.
Slashdot Mirror
Unluckily Russia probably thinks the same and an Olympic boycott is probably the only practical sanction that they care about.
As if Harper wouldn't ship him to the States in a heartbeat. Wouldn't even stop to make sure he wouldn't get executed and probably ship you along with him.
Can you say "Olympic boycott"
America has been like this for a long time, though without the present technology. In the '60's the FBI targeted lots of groups for intensive surveillance, black civil rights groups, hippies, anti-war protesters and the opposition. In the '50's it was the red scare, in the '40's they locked up citizens of Japanese descent en-mass. In the '30's the unemployed, especially the veterans of the first World War. In the '20's perhaps the black market in alcohol. During WW I there was the first red scare as well as the pacifists and anti-conscription group. The Supreme Court then actually ruled that passing out pamphlets that were anti-conscription was equal to yelling fire in a theater so it was fine to throw them in jail for practicing free speech.
Before that it was socialists and labour organizers and before that it was north vs south and so on.
The one thing that Russia does not want is a repeat of their last Olympic hosting which was boycotted by many nations.
I hate to say it but if America calls for an Olympic boycott they will be joined by others, perhaps a surprising amount of others. I think that Canada would join considering our current government.
I'm talking about An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned., better known as the Statute of Anne, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
Which the founders drew heavily on both in the American Constitution and the first copyright bill passed by congress, The Copyright Act of 1790.
Before the Statute of Anne it was the publishers that had all the power and the ideas of modern Anglo-American copyright were introduced to empower the authors, including as you say giving the creators incentive but also enriching the public.
There still needs to be a balance and still the publishers are trying to subvert both the creators and the public. People need to be able to make money and they and the public also need previous works that are open to build upon. I don't want to see a return to the days when the private publishers could kick down your door, break or confiscate your stuff and fine you. It's bad enough having the government having those powers but at least in theory the government is responsible to the electorate unlike a private monopoly.
Dulse is from the east coast of Canada, shouldn't be too radioactive.
You're correct about the reasons for having a contract and being old fashioned most of that has always been covered verbally for me. Note that I've never hired a wedding photographer having got married on the cheap 20 odd years ago. I have hired portrait photographers (including school portraits which are more of a group thing) and the contracts were fairly simple with only the last one mentioning licensing rights. The photos I paid for were mine.
Anyways while your points about contracts are good and mostly correct, my point about copyright holders getting more control also stands. The default for works for hire was changed for photographers to their benefit.
Remember copyright was introduced to advance learning (called the arts and sciences in America), not to enrich people and photographers for hire are a good example of a type of creator that could flourish without any copyright.
I like to eat seaweed, especially when it first turns hot and I'm exercising. Seaweed (usually dulse in my case) has the advantage of a good ratio of sodium and potassium along with other salts and lots of iodine as a bonus.
The point is that previously you didn't need a contract beyond a check changing hands. You hire someone to work for you, you pay them (and wedding photographers are expensive), and they do the work, in this case taking high quality photographs for you and if the photographer reneged on the work, the canceled check is good enough to go to court with.
Now you need a written contract, perhaps vetted by a lawyer, to get the fruits of the work that you payed for. The natural default of getting the fruits of the labour you've paid for has changed to the labourer keeping the work that you've paid for and time and energy having to be spent on non-productive stuff, perhaps enriching lawyers instead of producers.
Perhaps the business model has always been different in Canada but I've never heard about or experienced wedding photographers selling prints to the wedding guests. Usually when you pay well over a thousand dollars for a professional photographer to spend a couple of hours shooting pictures you end up being able to give the pictures away yourself with only small reasonable payments for more prints. Now the photographer can argue that he should get payed over and over if you don't have exactly the correct contract instead of the old default that when you hire someone they're working for you.
Next the default will be for roofers to get payed every time it rains, plumbers to get payed every time you flush and you're car mechanic (who has much money invested in equipment now a days) to get payed every time you put gas in the car.
Wedding photographers are a good example. When the copyright law was updated in Canada, photographers had it changed so that they be default keep the copyright on that wedding you hired them to photograph. Previously the default that if you hired someone to create a work, you kept the copyright. Now if you don't put it into a contract, you have to pay for every reprint you want to give away after paying a good wage for a photographer to shoot pictures of your wedding.
Seems like control to me.
While glyphosate is fairly non-toxic and also breaks down quite fast in contact with soil the same can't be said about some of the surfactants added. The general rule with all pesticides is to use as little as possible while doing the job and roundup ready crops just encourage over-usage of herbicides.
Historically companies have been given that right though perhaps not in America. The Hudson Bay Company and East India company come to mind. I'm not aware of anything that prevents governments from giving out the right to imprison people based on what they said besides common sense and with so many governments getting weirder and more authoritarian we may yet see companies given this power if only to work around constitutional limitations. America may have already given this power to companies in places such as Iraq. Thinking of Halliburton or whatever they now call themselves now.
The great lesson about the fall of the Soviet Union is that the thugs will regain power over the people. Actually that was also the lesson of the Russian Revolution over the thuggish aristocracy and Czar.
Can't a lower court declare something unconstitutional? Then the government can appeal if so inclined and the higher courts can decide whether to hear the appeal or not and possibly reverse the lower courts decision?
That's how it works in Canada with the lower courts have less jurisdiction (Provincial Supreme courts only covers the Province) but considered everywhere.
Congress has been making laws that abridge free speech for so long that most people accept it, at least in various cases. Child porn, national security, military law are some examples that many people support and the Supreme Court rules constitutional.
A major flaw in the American constitution was the lack of a constitutional court. It's questionable whether the Supreme court was meant to rule on constitunional matters and being federally appointed there is a conflict of interest.
A court empowered to rule on constitutional matters and independent of the federal government may well have been an improvement. Not sure how it would work, perhaps States appointing the court.
Mostly in the interests of private industry. How many people have suffered to protect outdated business models such as pulp paper when hemp paper was the future? Now with the private prison industry and the associated slave/forced labour etc it is once again business as much as anything encouraging huge prison populations.
They happily would if the government was powerless. Businesses have a long history of doing the equivalent of taking money out of your paycheck, eg the company store and things could swing back that way.
private parties won't burst into my house in the middle of the night
Unless they think you have a grow-op worth ripping off or such.
I don't have a Facebook account yet I'm pretty sure that lots of my info is on there, mostly just from family. If I was younger it would be friends even posting more of my personal info.
I did create a linkedld account once and they regularly ask me for my email password so they can scan my contacts and ho knows what else. The offer seems harmless enough that lots of non-technical people would probably bite.
There has been times in the past where private industry was more powerful then government and it was pretty crappy as well. Perhaps even worse as they usually had the local government in their pocket as well as a large private police force hired to do their bidding.
Read up on the history of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, bigger then the American Army at one point and only one of the numerous private police forces that existed at one point. Private industry will happily employ people to take you out in a hail of bullets if they can't socialize it as they do now.
Like the Railway police or Pinkertons? The history of the Pinkerton Detective Agency shows how things can swing the other way when business does have police forces.
Prisons are more and more private institutions lobbying the government for more low risk prisoners. They'd happily supply their own prisoners if the government let them and it wouldn't be dangerous people like murderers.
Get caught pissing in some bushes and those rights are gone for the rest of your life and the reasons for removing those rights have been expanding as long as I can remember.
Gerrymandering?