Not necessarily Marxism, French IP laws are marked more in favor of content creators. Droit D'Auteur is enshrined in French copyright laws and allows an author/artist significantly more control over works after they have been published than many other systems of IP law. It seems this person just wants such rights to be applied to social media content. Whether or not it workable is another question.
At the federal level there may not be increased disclosure requirements. But at the state level, the type of corporation that can file to become a 501(c)(3), typically has increased transparency requirements. IDK what state you are in, but I have seen investigative journalists in NC get the entire balance sheet for non-profits in that state. Non-profits in NC are required to disclose them. The journalist then wrote about the use of corporate funds for not approved purposes, and members of the board of that non-profit faced criminal charges after the state AG read the article and did their own investigation.
501(c)(3) does not negate FOIA by any rational stretch of the imagination. I take exception to the writer of the article acting like this irrational argument (501(c)(3) information is confidential) might have some credence, it doesn't.
I actually looked up the filings for the (which is incredibly simple, perhaps the ACLU can learn to use Google).
NEMLEC is a charity for a couple counties of police forces in MA. They have golf outings and other things, to benefit police officers and their families, activities that are completely innocuous.
I guess what the ACLU got their panties in a bunch about is that the organization also acts as a central point of contact for SWAT training/ purchases in the region.
So... a group of police, are setting their training calendars together so they can have a training session with more people at one time so they can save money on instructor costs. And they are buying stuff in bulk to reduce their costs.
The ACLU needs to do some homework and find a more relevant problem to harp on.
ALSO, NEMLEC had their corporation status involuntarily revoked in 06-18-2012, so the whole 501(c)(3) thing is a moot point. They aren't an entity anymore, they can't claim 501(c)(3) anymore, even though that never mattered in the first place.
None of the people quoted in the article seem to have any idea what they are saying. The most disturbing thing is that the ACLU is whining about this as if this was a legitimate argument. It is not.
Here are a few of the most poignant reasons why this argument fails:
First and foremost 501(c)(3) is an IRS regulation that means a corporation does not have to pay income tax. 501(c)(3) is NOT a method by which a corporation maybe formed.
Second, states not the federal government create the rules for creating a corporation.
Third, there are many different types of corporations, one of those types is a municipal corporation. Just because you have something called a corporation does not mean it is private. Municipal corporations are subject to FOIA
Fourth, corporations can register with the IRS as 501(c)(3) non-profits, but to use it as a tool to hide information would be incredibly stupid because 501(c)(3) status means you must release more information about your internal workings than a normal private corporation would need to disclose.
Either the ACLU is whining because they don't have the sharpest knife in the drawer dealing with these FOIA requests, or this is a calculated move to drum up donations.
That is completely wrong, objects that have a function are specifically excluded from copyright law. You would have to apply for and be granted a design patent, which have a shorter life than a normal utility patent.
Actually, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, the law which makes federally backed student loans not dischargeable through chapter 13 or 7 bankruptcy, was first conceived in 1997 and muddled around congress until 2004. Then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa submitted it in its current form, with strong support from Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay from Texas. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on April 20, 2005.
Where I live, the cable company has to pull the line to every customer, regardless of burial requirements. Cable companies don't WANT to bury but that is the compromise they made when they got the franchise, making them the only game in town. Put in a complaint with the franchise authority, let them tell you what the facts are.
Franchises such as cable providers are required to pull lines to all people is a territory. In exchange for being the only cable company, the cable company is typically required to provide services to everyone regardless of the cost.
Google to find out the complaint department for your state franchise authority and place a complaint. I did this is the past and was quickly provided with cable access, even though they had to pull additional lines to reach me.
"and threatened to file criminal charges — unless they settled the civil case immediately"
Threatening criminal charges to gain the upper hand in a civil case is against the rules of ethics for attorneys. Every state has its own flavor of rules but they are derived from the ABA model rules.
Mr. O'Connor should immediately file a complaint with the (every) state bar in which this attorney is licensed.
You clearly do not understand how class actions work. 1000 people harmed for $100 is not worth litigating individually. Lump that together into a $100,000 suit and it is worth the time to do it. Plus most class actions are contingency lawyers get like 30%, if the plaintiffs lose they don't have to pay the attorneys.
I don't see how forcing the taxi drivers to pay union dues will increase their paychecks.
Contract worker versus employee has nothing to do with the workers, it has to do with the company trying to avoid employment taxes. If you are a contract worker, the employer does not have to pay employment tax on you, and the employer cannot set your hours worked in a day.
If you are a contract employee and your employer tries to control your hours, quietly make a phone call to the state/ federal tax authorities.
OH but if they find out they will fire me. Then you have a whistle blower suit against the company.
A fast food restaurant cannot put their trash bags in the paper recycling bin, no, but a few pizza boxes are not going contaminate an entire batch of recycled paper, unlike plastic where dissimilar plastics will contaminate and entire batch.
Paper recycling handles food residue without a problem. To recycle paper you throw it all in a gigantic vat, boil it, and everything breaks down. Inks, Fat, Oil and grease float to the top and are skimmed off, solids like staples and plastic are filtered out.
Unlike plastic where there is no economical way to remove the inks used to make white/blue/green containers and if you mix PET and ABS, you get garbage.
Household waste plastic other than clear plastic PET is not worth recycling. The plastic lobby has pulled the wool over your eyes. Plastic can be easily recycled when sorted, is like saying you can easily walk to work when someone gives you a piggyback ride.
While I agree with your sentiment, what you propose is much more difficult than you think.
The present copyright term and "automatic rights" instead of "rights after registration" are not spontaneous American ideas, they are requirements of the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty.
You will have to get the whole of Europe/ Asia to sign on to whatever changes you propose.
Or America could withdraw from the treaty, but that would mean Americans would lose their rights in treaty countries.
The author fails to realize that most the the rights he cites as reasons for the fifth amendment being unnecessary, are based on the fifth amendment. You do not have a spontaneous right against police beatings to extract a confession, the confession elicited through beatings would be inadmissible because it violates the fifth amendment, therefore police would not beat people. Yes i know people still get beaten, but the fifth amendment is the root of the law which says you can't beat people, if you actually read the law that says you can't beat people, BECAUSE it violates the 5th amendment.
This is like saying we don't need a root directory because we have all these other directories that can hold stuff just as well. It is easy for a 1st year CS student to criticize a system he doesn't grasp, at all.
I guess i FAIL0 on this. Throw the constitution out the window! Bennett Haselton will tell us what our rights are! It must be so hard being the smartest guy in the room. A thousand tears for you.
but as the kid under 18 you or your guardian can void the contract at any time, which would mean Paypal wouldn't have the right to use the information you gave them. Now consider what happens if they fixed a bug based on your information, shipped a product and suddenly they have no permission anymore to use the information. Ugly.
If someone discovers a flaw in a system, you are not barred from ever fixing that flaw in the future. Whether or not the person that discovered the flaw is a minor is irrelevant.
If they offer a potential code fix you can chose not to use their code and avoid all liability.
You can try to fabricate a strawman argument to try to prove your point, but what you said is just plain wrong.
More likely this is a function of the internet, and the ability to search for prior art in a matter of minutes.
In the past a party looking to get a patent would go back and forth with the patent examiner at the USPTO a number of times, because the USPTO had a vast library of prior art that your average person doesn't have access to. Every time the examiner came up with prior art the patent would have to be rewritten to shrink it claims.
Now with the internet, anybody can search just about any database, this means the first draft patent will include more examples of prior art, a patent with less broad claims, and less for the patent examiner to object to.
A better measure of whether the USPTO is lowering its standards is the number of broad claims versus narrow claims in a patent. As well as the number of prior art examples cited in the patent, by definition if the prior art describes an aspect of the patent, that aspect is not patented, it is cited as a reference to what the patent DOES NOT cover.
That is completely wrong and the word inventor doesn't mean what you think it means.
Assuming you are right, if the inventor "needs to be part of the network" then 99% of patent holding companies would be NPEs, because as I said before - Big corporations do not "own" the patents. A shell company in a tax haven like Ireland owns the patents and license them back to the parent, and other licensees. If the Open Invention Network is considered an NPE then so are these shell companies.
1. The Open Invention Network actively licenses the patents it holds, so it would not be considered an NPE.
2. The SCO litigation was about copyright, not patent.
3. Your statement about unequal protection is false, a non sequitur, and illogical. Big corporations do not "own" the patents it. A shell company in a tax haven like Ireland owns the patents and license them back to the parent, and other licensees. If the Open Invention Network is considered an NPE then so are these shell companies.
4. Attorneys fees to a defendant are already allowed in many types of cases when it is determined that the plaintiff had no business filing suit, including patent litigation. Revising the patent law so that a bond has to be placed before the suit can go forward ensures the wrongfully accused defendant will actually get paid and the plaintiff can't just vanish after they lose, thus leaving the defendant with the attorneys fees.
Your visceral knee jerk reaction to a concept that you do not understand is absurd.
The ocean is freezing, the sub is well insulated, that traps heat. Even if you stop the rapid oxidation of the material in the compartment the heat does not dissipate instantly, so as soon as you open the compartment the fire will start again. Also the stored heat will continue to deform/ weaken the material that makes up the compartment.
Look at the coal fires that have been raging underground in PA for decades.
That is not to say that they did not seal off compartments, just that the whole situation is more complicated than just sealing the compartment until there are no visible flames.
Anything that makes court opinions more accessible is a good thing. Your concern about "privately owned services" is about 200 years too late and ignorant of the way court opinions are presently published.
The present system is WestLaw Lexis or another legal publishing company publishes decisions of note, i.e. only decision that change something in the law. Your average case is never published. You have to pay major money to get access to this material.
The courts do store decisions but in such a difficult way to access that it is not worth the effort. Are you going to go and wait in line for a civil service person to go and get the physical copy of the official court opinion, every time you want to see it? Imagine trying to get hundreds of documents from the DMV everyday. And then paying photocopying services because the official court document cannot leave the file storage room.
Isn't this the problem with all hobbies? As you mature and get older you move away from things with which you used to fill your leisure time. Hobbies drop off and are filled with spouse/kid/work related issues.
When the typical editor noted in the article ages through the honeymoon/kids period of their lives, I would suspect they will return to editing Wikipedia, even more so when they retire from work. The typical editor will return to editing just like the typical person that built models as a kid or played with toy trains, when they have leisure time to devote without distraction.
Pity this'll never survive through the appellate courts, since the MafiAA bought off all the appellate judges long ago.
That is pretty cynical, federal judges are appointed for life and get a pension after retirement. Could the MafiAA offer a bribe that is worth more than guaranteed income for life, plus a high likelihood of a professorship at a lawschool, or partnership at a big law firm, after retirement? Pretty unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily Marxism, French IP laws are marked more in favor of content creators. Droit D'Auteur is enshrined in French copyright laws and allows an author/artist significantly more control over works after they have been published than many other systems of IP law. It seems this person just wants such rights to be applied to social media content. Whether or not it workable is another question.
At the federal level there may not be increased disclosure requirements. But at the state level, the type of corporation that can file to become a 501(c)(3), typically has increased transparency requirements. IDK what state you are in, but I have seen investigative journalists in NC get the entire balance sheet for non-profits in that state. Non-profits in NC are required to disclose them. The journalist then wrote about the use of corporate funds for not approved purposes, and members of the board of that non-profit faced criminal charges after the state AG read the article and did their own investigation.
501(c)(3) does not negate FOIA by any rational stretch of the imagination. I take exception to the writer of the article acting like this irrational argument (501(c)(3) information is confidential) might have some credence, it doesn't.
I actually looked up the filings for the (which is incredibly simple, perhaps the ACLU can learn to use Google).
NEMLEC is a charity for a couple counties of police forces in MA. They have golf outings and other things, to benefit police officers and their families, activities that are completely innocuous.
I guess what the ACLU got their panties in a bunch about is that the organization also acts as a central point of contact for SWAT training/ purchases in the region.
So... a group of police, are setting their training calendars together so they can have a training session with more people at one time so they can save money on instructor costs. And they are buying stuff in bulk to reduce their costs.
The ACLU needs to do some homework and find a more relevant problem to harp on.
ALSO, NEMLEC had their corporation status involuntarily revoked in 06-18-2012, so the whole 501(c)(3) thing is a moot point. They aren't an entity anymore, they can't claim 501(c)(3) anymore, even though that never mattered in the first place.
None of the people quoted in the article seem to have any idea what they are saying. The most disturbing thing is that the ACLU is whining about this as if this was a legitimate argument. It is not.
Here are a few of the most poignant reasons why this argument fails:
First and foremost 501(c)(3) is an IRS regulation that means a corporation does not have to pay income tax. 501(c)(3) is NOT a method by which a corporation maybe formed.
Second, states not the federal government create the rules for creating a corporation.
Third, there are many different types of corporations, one of those types is a municipal corporation. Just because you have something called a corporation does not mean it is private. Municipal corporations are subject to FOIA
Fourth, corporations can register with the IRS as 501(c)(3) non-profits, but to use it as a tool to hide information would be incredibly stupid because 501(c)(3) status means you must release more information about your internal workings than a normal private corporation would need to disclose.
Either the ACLU is whining because they don't have the sharpest knife in the drawer dealing with these FOIA requests, or this is a calculated move to drum up donations.
That is completely wrong, objects that have a function are specifically excluded from copyright law. You would have to apply for and be granted a design patent, which have a shorter life than a normal utility patent.
Actually, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, the law which makes federally backed student loans not dischargeable through chapter 13 or 7 bankruptcy, was first conceived in 1997 and muddled around congress until 2004. Then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa submitted it in its current form, with strong support from Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay from Texas. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on April 20, 2005.
Where I live, the cable company has to pull the line to every customer, regardless of burial requirements. Cable companies don't WANT to bury but that is the compromise they made when they got the franchise, making them the only game in town. Put in a complaint with the franchise authority, let them tell you what the facts are.
Franchises such as cable providers are required to pull lines to all people is a territory. In exchange for being the only cable company, the cable company is typically required to provide services to everyone regardless of the cost. Google to find out the complaint department for your state franchise authority and place a complaint. I did this is the past and was quickly provided with cable access, even though they had to pull additional lines to reach me.
"and threatened to file criminal charges — unless they settled the civil case immediately"
Threatening criminal charges to gain the upper hand in a civil case is against the rules of ethics for attorneys. Every state has its own flavor of rules but they are derived from the ABA model rules.
Mr. O'Connor should immediately file a complaint with the (every) state bar in which this attorney is licensed.
If the only thing you have received as a class action settlement is coupons, you have never been involved in a class action for grown ups.
You clearly do not understand how class actions work. 1000 people harmed for $100 is not worth litigating individually. Lump that together into a $100,000 suit and it is worth the time to do it. Plus most class actions are contingency lawyers get like 30%, if the plaintiffs lose they don't have to pay the attorneys.
toss some scraps $70 is better than $0.
I don't see how forcing the taxi drivers to pay union dues will increase their paychecks.
Contract worker versus employee has nothing to do with the workers, it has to do with the company trying to avoid employment taxes. If you are a contract worker, the employer does not have to pay employment tax on you, and the employer cannot set your hours worked in a day.
If you are a contract employee and your employer tries to control your hours, quietly make a phone call to the state/ federal tax authorities.
OH but if they find out they will fire me. Then you have a whistle blower suit against the company.
That is wrong also.
A fast food restaurant cannot put their trash bags in the paper recycling bin, no, but a few pizza boxes are not going contaminate an entire batch of recycled paper, unlike plastic where dissimilar plastics will contaminate and entire batch.
Paper recycling handles food residue without a problem. To recycle paper you throw it all in a gigantic vat, boil it, and everything breaks down. Inks, Fat, Oil and grease float to the top and are skimmed off, solids like staples and plastic are filtered out.
Unlike plastic where there is no economical way to remove the inks used to make white/blue/green containers and if you mix PET and ABS, you get garbage.
They just need to be more thoroughly sorted
Wrong.
Household waste plastic other than clear plastic PET is not worth recycling. The plastic lobby has pulled the wool over your eyes. Plastic can be easily recycled when sorted, is like saying you can easily walk to work when someone gives you a piggyback ride.
While I agree with your sentiment, what you propose is much more difficult than you think.
The present copyright term and "automatic rights" instead of "rights after registration" are not spontaneous American ideas, they are requirements of the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty.
You will have to get the whole of Europe/ Asia to sign on to whatever changes you propose.
Or America could withdraw from the treaty, but that would mean Americans would lose their rights in treaty countries.
The author fails to realize that most the the rights he cites as reasons for the fifth amendment being unnecessary, are based on the fifth amendment. You do not have a spontaneous right against police beatings to extract a confession, the confession elicited through beatings would be inadmissible because it violates the fifth amendment, therefore police would not beat people. Yes i know people still get beaten, but the fifth amendment is the root of the law which says you can't beat people, if you actually read the law that says you can't beat people, BECAUSE it violates the 5th amendment.
This is like saying we don't need a root directory because we have all these other directories that can hold stuff just as well. It is easy for a 1st year CS student to criticize a system he doesn't grasp, at all.
I guess i FAIL0 on this. Throw the constitution out the window! Bennett Haselton will tell us what our rights are! It must be so hard being the smartest guy in the room. A thousand tears for you.
but as the kid under 18 you or your guardian can void the contract at any time, which would mean Paypal wouldn't have the right to use the information you gave them. Now consider what happens if they fixed a bug based on your information, shipped a product and suddenly they have no permission anymore to use the information. Ugly.
If someone discovers a flaw in a system, you are not barred from ever fixing that flaw in the future. Whether or not the person that discovered the flaw is a minor is irrelevant.
If they offer a potential code fix you can chose not to use their code and avoid all liability.
You can try to fabricate a strawman argument to try to prove your point, but what you said is just plain wrong.
More likely this is a function of the internet, and the ability to search for prior art in a matter of minutes.
In the past a party looking to get a patent would go back and forth with the patent examiner at the USPTO a number of times, because the USPTO had a vast library of prior art that your average person doesn't have access to. Every time the examiner came up with prior art the patent would have to be rewritten to shrink it claims.
Now with the internet, anybody can search just about any database, this means the first draft patent will include more examples of prior art, a patent with less broad claims, and less for the patent examiner to object to.
A better measure of whether the USPTO is lowering its standards is the number of broad claims versus narrow claims in a patent. As well as the number of prior art examples cited in the patent, by definition if the prior art describes an aspect of the patent, that aspect is not patented, it is cited as a reference to what the patent DOES NOT cover.
That is completely wrong and the word inventor doesn't mean what you think it means.
Assuming you are right, if the inventor "needs to be part of the network" then 99% of patent holding companies would be NPEs, because as I said before - Big corporations do not "own" the patents. A shell company in a tax haven like Ireland owns the patents and license them back to the parent, and other licensees. If the Open Invention Network is considered an NPE then so are these shell companies.
No that sounds completely wrong.
1. The Open Invention Network actively licenses the patents it holds, so it would not be considered an NPE.
2. The SCO litigation was about copyright, not patent.
3. Your statement about unequal protection is false, a non sequitur, and illogical. Big corporations do not "own" the patents it. A shell company in a tax haven like Ireland owns the patents and license them back to the parent, and other licensees. If the Open Invention Network is considered an NPE then so are these shell companies.
4. Attorneys fees to a defendant are already allowed in many types of cases when it is determined that the plaintiff had no business filing suit, including patent litigation. Revising the patent law so that a bond has to be placed before the suit can go forward ensures the wrongfully accused defendant will actually get paid and the plaintiff can't just vanish after they lose, thus leaving the defendant with the attorneys fees.
Your visceral knee jerk reaction to a concept that you do not understand is absurd.
The ocean is freezing, the sub is well insulated, that traps heat. Even if you stop the rapid oxidation of the material in the compartment the heat does not dissipate instantly, so as soon as you open the compartment the fire will start again. Also the stored heat will continue to deform/ weaken the material that makes up the compartment.
Look at the coal fires that have been raging underground in PA for decades.
That is not to say that they did not seal off compartments, just that the whole situation is more complicated than just sealing the compartment until there are no visible flames.
Anything that makes court opinions more accessible is a good thing. Your concern about "privately owned services" is about 200 years too late and ignorant of the way court opinions are presently published.
The present system is WestLaw Lexis or another legal publishing company publishes decisions of note, i.e. only decision that change something in the law. Your average case is never published. You have to pay major money to get access to this material.
The courts do store decisions but in such a difficult way to access that it is not worth the effort. Are you going to go and wait in line for a civil service person to go and get the physical copy of the official court opinion, every time you want to see it? Imagine trying to get hundreds of documents from the DMV everyday. And then paying photocopying services because the official court document cannot leave the file storage room.
Isn't this the problem with all hobbies? As you mature and get older you move away from things with which you used to fill your leisure time. Hobbies drop off and are filled with spouse/kid/work related issues.
When the typical editor noted in the article ages through the honeymoon/kids period of their lives, I would suspect they will return to editing Wikipedia, even more so when they retire from work. The typical editor will return to editing just like the typical person that built models as a kid or played with toy trains, when they have leisure time to devote without distraction.
This is nothing new. They had a program in 2009 called Clear to speed you through screening and it was abruptly shutdown without explanation. http://daggle.com/clear-airport-security-program-closes-707
It was then started again, but more limited. http://daggle.com/clear-airport-security-with-all-downsides-2179
So... how long will this incarnation last?
Pity this'll never survive through the appellate courts, since the MafiAA bought off all the appellate judges long ago.
That is pretty cynical, federal judges are appointed for life and get a pension after retirement. Could the MafiAA offer a bribe that is worth more than guaranteed income for life, plus a high likelihood of a professorship at a lawschool, or partnership at a big law firm, after retirement? Pretty unlikely.