Agreed - if you have a confirmation of time off in hand, you hold all the cards. Paying for your cancellation and rescheduling is the *minimum* you should be expecting to cancel your wedding.
If they didn't sign off on the time, then you're up the creek. (I've been burnt by that - boss said "yep, yep, shouldn't be a problem", but didn't actually confirm the time in the system - three days out says "we need you here", and since he didn't officially approve it, I didn't have a leg to stand on.
After that I stood in his office until he pressed the button. He blustered and complained that I wasn't being very trusting. I politely said I didn't care.
Current HR mantra is "when terminating employees, do not give them any chance to access our systems and break shit."
That's the mantra here too, but they still pay out the two weeks notice they're required to give by law. They just *also* give you two weeks vacation, which is actually better overall I'd say (I get paid for the last two weeks, but I don't have to show up!)
I've had that talk with my bosses, and the only request I made was to fire me at the end of the day, not when I walk in. Or at least call me so I don't have to drive all the way in just to turn around and go home again.
There are very few people that actually would continue to work if they won the lottery.
Part of that is that any smart financial plan takes a while to kick in - I'd rather work a year so when I start drawing from the winnings, I'm drawing interest instead of principal.
I wouldn't work past that, because while my job is interesting, I can find *more* interesting things to do (that just happen to not pay as well, or at all). So it's a better "career" move for me. My wife, on the other hand, *loves* her job, loves her boss, and works for a small company (current staff: 3). I suspect that she'd just buy into the company and keep working because that's what she loves to do (and she can easily get skin in the game which makes it worthwhile).
Second is how other people start treating them. People start being your friend that wouldn't talk to you before, then people asking for money, can I borrow a few bucks, how about the lotto winner get this round of beers, I have a great investment if I could borrow a few thousand, my mother is real sick but can't afford the treatments. It's about that time you realize that if you don't give people money they start treating you like a selfish dick or if you do give them money that it cost you more than you're making at this job, it's time to get out and enjoy your self.
Oddly, the local radio station morning guy just did an interview with a millionaire, and this is vaguely accurate. He had to cut out a bunch of people who crawled out of the woodwork, but he happily buys the beers (because he likes to tip big, and he knows his buddies can't afford it).
Oddly, there doesn't seem to be a time limit given - does that mean that once you've declined, you're perma-banned from riding, or can you get back in a different line and see if you don't get picked that time? (Or take a cab to the next station)?
I think you can be optimistic about it... if the party splits, perhaps we'll actually have a working three party system.
Warning: three-party systems only work if there's clear differences between the three. Look at us here in Canada where there are three national parties (four if you count BQ). Three of the four are all labeled left-wing, the fourth is Republican-light. Come election night we all learn the problems with vote-splitting.
Cons:
No chance of this being perceived fair. The conspiracy theorists are going to go apeshit the first time a 20% winner gets elected.
Easily fixed. Rent out the Wheel of Fortune wheel (or if that's too pricy, the Big Wheel from Price is Right), replace the usual numbers with the candidate names in the right proportion, bring out Donald Trump to ham it up, let him give it a big ol' spin, and Bob's yer uncle.
Only moderate sarcasm intended - I suspect there's a lot of people who would prefer this system.
"Looking at the economy, there's no way Obama can be reelected. Looking at the Republican field, there's no way Obama can lose."
This.
It's not like Obama has any big wins to point to. (I want to like the guy, but he desperately needs to grow a pair.[1]). But the field of Republican nominees is frankly scary - they all seem to have forgotten that after they win the nomination, they still have to appeal to the rest of the country at some level, and being froth-at-the-mouth crazy is not going to win you an election. (e.g. Santorum is now on record - and video - as being against contraception. Do you think some Democrat PAC isn't going to play that quote a billion times a day if he's the candidate? Anyone think the middle 20% is going to vote for a guy who wants to ban condoms?)
The attack ads this year should be most entertaining.
The smart ones stop working for the career and start working for the weekend.
+1 Sanity.
The days of "career employment" have been over for decades, folks. Unless you own the company, you are expendable - I just watched a 20-year veteran (started with the company as a driver, was a Senior Director) get walked out the door three weeks before Christmas. He was a career man - Blackberry always on, worked nights, weekends, holidays. This will probably be the first Christmas his daughter will see him in any amount since she was born.
(That said, I don't feel *too* sorry for him since he was a bit of a DB, plus you don't get punted from exec jobs without a nice healthy severance, so it's not like he's on a streetcorner panhandling.)
The only brand you want to be building is your own - the days of getting in a business and parking for 25 years are looong past.
As for "maximising his profits," this guy is an *employee*. If one of my employees tried (to use your term) to "roll" me by trying to sell me an application that is clearly directly related to his day-to-day responsibilities, regardless of the location or timing of the software development, I would start the process of replacing that employee.
If memory serves, the original poster specified that software development isn't part of his responsibilities. It will make his job easier, but the software could easily be off-the-shelf - he just developed it inhouse.
I'm guessing (based on the 's' in maximise) that you aren't an American. In the US, holding your employer over a barrel like that is usually frowned upon (I'm guessing that barring any laws to the contrary where you are, it's the same there) and, as a rule, the only compensation you can expect is your final paycheck and an escort to the building exit..
I don't think he's trying to hold the employer over a barrel in any negative sense. He's identified a gap in the company, developed a fix (on his own time - really his only mistake here), and wants to make sure that some manager doesn't take it and the credit, then pat the guy on the head and say "oh well, sucks to be you". (Because bosses never do that, right?). If the company doesn't take/want the fix, then he's put some practice time into programming. It happens.
The law in Canada is, if your boss asks you to work overtime, then you get paid overtime. It doesn't matter if you are a janitor or a CEO. (I know, I'm using extremes.) I tell my boss that, he is a manager, he figures he doesn't get overtime, but that isn't true, he is entitled the same as everyone else. I won't be a manager, just don't want the job.
(In Canada, but in Alberta - terms will vary)
Not exactly true - management staff are often "exempt" from overtime. Generally it's covered in one of two ways: either they're paid assuming they work overtime (my old boss was paid 45 hr/wk instead of 40, for instance), and/or the position doesn't require them to be butt-in-seat for all those hours (so if they put in overtime here, they take an afternoon off there, so long as the department is still running).
So what it usually should boil down to is - overtime is either paid, or banked (I worked extra hours here, I get extra hours off there). Only exception is if the job is "as long as X,Y, and Z are done we don't care where you are", in which case they don't get to complain if I ditch for a day.
And of course, all this comes with the obvious caveat of "don't work for free" - if they won't pay you for the work, you should seriously consider releasing it open-source (or commercially if you're inclined!). Definitely don't let them claim it as their own.
You recognize that you're not infallible and that you don't know everything - this is 80% of the battle of being a Good Boss.
I'll skip the "read this book" stuff, and go straight to the obvious points.
The best job description I have ever seen for management (at any level) is "shit deflector". Your job is to make sure your people can do their jobs - which usually means getting between them and all the incoming stupidity. Make sure you have time in your schedule for this - it's easily the most important thing you do.
You won't know the nuts and bolts of what's going on anymore. That means you need two things - staff that *do* know what's going on (and that can explain the revelant points to you as needed), and a good BS detector (to know when your staff is trying to pull a fast one on you).
If you're hiring and firing, sit down and decide the team culture you want, and start hiring towards that culture. Assuming you stick around long enough, you can at least make your corner of the office worth working in. (In PHB terms, it reduces turnover and increases staff satisfaction. Really, it just means "build the office you want to work in".)
Trust is everything. If your staff trusts you not to throw them under the boss or shoot them for being the messenger, then you'll know what's going on, and they'll go the extra mile for you. If they don't, they can screw you over and you'll never know.
Remember those awesome things that one boss did that made working for them great? Do that stuff. And remember that total DB who made your life a living hell? Don't do that stuff.
Finally - if you only do one thing right, do this one: give a damn. You know when your boss actually cares about your situation (even if they can't do anything about it), and when they're just blowing you off so they can get to their tee time.
You say this like it doesn't happen already - most people I know around here swap personal email addresses for "non-work related" things that IT doesn't like. Not really a surprise to learn that folks keep in touch even when they've moved to the competitor.
You've got to be kidding. No Clothes? No Shampoo? No Nail clippers? No Haircuts? No Shoes? jpeg or it didn't happen...
How about a home phone? My local HR was freaked out about my temporary lack of a landline, "Are you homeless? In Jail?". They're not willing to pay for it, but they assume you have it if you're going to work there. Ended up listing my cellphone as both home and cellphone. Not seeing it as a huge problem.
I got some funny looks from my HR, but I simply told them that my manager (at the time) had abused the privledge of knowing my home phone number one too many times, we had it changed, and I didn't see a compelling need for them to know it - my address is correct, mail is a wonderful thing.
I suspect this panic will wane, though - a lot of folks are going cell-only ("I'm never home, why do I want to pay for a phone there?"), so it will become more common as time passes.
If you are raising money for the next disaster, you should say "We were there from day one at X," not "Help support the victims of X." You shouldn't deceive donors about the money.
If it makes you feel better, look at it this way - the Red Cross has their emergency fund. Disaster X strikes. They start spending the money, and start fundraising to pay for those expenditures. If they don't make enough, the loss comes out of the emergency fund.
Yeah, they're putting some spin on it, but that's fundraising - no-one donates to the "someday there might be a problem - help us" fund.
I think he's referring to efficiency and overstating it for effect. Consider, you make say, $30 an hour. A driver can be hired to drive food around for $8 an hour. You could volunteer your time and drop off the food. Or you could go to work and hire three drivers to do it. Yes, I know you can't just go to work more hours and get more income, and of course I pulled the numbers out of thin air. Your point about preferring to give different ways is a fine one. But GP does have a reasonable point about the most efficient way to support charities as well.
Yeah, I guessed you were pulling numbers out of thin air when you said you could hire a commercial driver for $8/hr.
I work in a field, and if you want to hire someone to do deliveries, you're looking at around $15 per drop. If you want a three-ton truck and driver, figure around $65 per hour.
Food bank deliveries are big - you can't get a kid in an old compact to do it.
4) Finally, and in some ways the biggest point: "fees". First off, let's call a spade a spade, they're bribes. Having said that, though, bribes are important to actually getting shit done in most of the world. I've paid bribes, and I'll almost certainly pay more, but that's just the cost of doing business. Corruption has to be viewed with a certain amount of pragmatism. You're kidding yourself if you think that it doesn't exist in whatever (presumably, though I could be wrong) developed nation you live in, it's just that around here it's right up front where you can keep an eye on it. And really, it's cheaper and easier, too. If I want to do something around here, I slip a couple hundred bucks to someone in the health ministry, and away I go, in the states, I've have to donate a few hundred thousand dollars to an assortment of senators, then wait a year while they finagle a few laws through.
Of course, today's the day I don't have mod points - I'm always amused when people decry "corruption and bribes", but have no problem with their local pols taking huge cash from corporations. While it would be nice if there wasn't either, there's a point to be made for a system where everyone can afford to get special treatment, instead of what we have...
Actually, it's a bit of both - the food bank needs both cash (to buy food), and labour (to sort, distribute, etc.) Sure, they can spend the money to hire people to do the labour, but people who volunteer time are "cheaper" - not to mention that a lot of users of those charities are the ones who can donate time, but not money. (Which brings us back to the implied "go get a job ya bum" argument.)
And, and their host Tom Merrit points out, the video will be down for at least 10 days before this is sorted out. So when it's restored, it will be a 10 day old DAILY News show... The damage is permanent. I really hope the EFF steps up to help TWiT.TV sue Universal into bankruptcy over this BS.
The 10-day requirement was what caught my eye as well. Being able to effectively censor content for the better part of two weeks is astoundingly powerful. (Remember, they can wait the ten days, say "oops - our bad" and walk away with no repercussions.)
I wonder what would happen if Anon or some other group started to game the system...
So Tech News should alert youtube to unblock their video and move on. Oh I forgot: better to post it to slashdot frontpage so Tech News can get a few thousand more hits! Genius! The RIAA is evil after all.
I regret to inform you that TFA does note that they sent in the counter-notice. And while the video was unblocked, it was promptly re-blocked. So they've sent in the second counter-notice and are waiting to be re-unblocked.
Probably because the recording industries use the same layering that the banks do - the person actually filing the complaint is a low-level data clerk churning out paperwork. And no-one wants to be the one sending low-level hard working folks off to jail for perjury.
What, you think you can convict a corporation of perjury?
They're not allowed to vote, so all they can do is lobby and donate.
Let's be honest - the only reason corporations can't vote is because there's no benefit to them being able to. If that one extra vote meant they'd get their wishes, you'd better believe they'd be in front of the justices saying "corporations are people, and people can vote".
But if we're going to take the stance that corporations aren't people, and don't have the right to lobby/donate, then I can't find a valid argument for taxing them.
Counter-argument: corporations are simply implementations of contractual business obligations - it's still people underneath, whom all have the ability of free speech.
A corporation is just a particular kind of business. Timmy's lemonade stand is a business (it could even be a corporation if Timmy's dad has the spare scratch), and no-one believes that it's a person. My dog is taxed (there's a fee for him to be allowed in the city limits; bastard makes me pay for it, though). Does that mean my dog is people too?
Finally, philosophically "corporation as person" fails the simple test of "who is that person?". There is no "Sony" or "Nintendo", no-one and nothing can stand up and claim to *be* the corporation, only a representative. You can't arrest or draft a corporation. Simply put, a corporation is incapable of performing the duties of a person that go along with the rights it argues for.
(I hate people who scream "throw out the bums!" and then re-elect their own Congressmen.)
They did studies on that - most people believe (or are convinced) that it's those other idiot voters that elect the stupid politicians, and it's only *their* guy that's fighting the good fight.
I had a boss that stated "if you don't measure it, it doesn't exist". So he was big on numbers - how many of this do we do, how often does that happen, so on.
But on the plus side, if we were rewarded on metrics it was on the big important ones - did we make a profit? The other numbers were to help narrow down where the issue was, but whatever made the company money was The Correct Answer.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a dummy.
Agreed - if you have a confirmation of time off in hand, you hold all the cards. Paying for your cancellation and rescheduling is the *minimum* you should be expecting to cancel your wedding.
If they didn't sign off on the time, then you're up the creek. (I've been burnt by that - boss said "yep, yep, shouldn't be a problem", but didn't actually confirm the time in the system - three days out says "we need you here", and since he didn't officially approve it, I didn't have a leg to stand on.
After that I stood in his office until he pressed the button. He blustered and complained that I wasn't being very trusting. I politely said I didn't care.
I do not expect to get laid off with zero notice.
Current HR mantra is "when terminating employees, do not give them any chance to access our systems and break shit."
That's the mantra here too, but they still pay out the two weeks notice they're required to give by law. They just *also* give you two weeks vacation, which is actually better overall I'd say (I get paid for the last two weeks, but I don't have to show up!)
I've had that talk with my bosses, and the only request I made was to fire me at the end of the day, not when I walk in. Or at least call me so I don't have to drive all the way in just to turn around and go home again.
There are very few people that actually would continue to work if they won the lottery.
Part of that is that any smart financial plan takes a while to kick in - I'd rather work a year so when I start drawing from the winnings, I'm drawing interest instead of principal.
I wouldn't work past that, because while my job is interesting, I can find *more* interesting things to do (that just happen to not pay as well, or at all). So it's a better "career" move for me. My wife, on the other hand, *loves* her job, loves her boss, and works for a small company (current staff: 3). I suspect that she'd just buy into the company and keep working because that's what she loves to do (and she can easily get skin in the game which makes it worthwhile).
Second is how other people start treating them. People start being your friend that wouldn't talk to you before, then people asking for money, can I borrow a few bucks, how about the lotto winner get this round of beers, I have a great investment if I could borrow a few thousand, my mother is real sick but can't afford the treatments. It's about that time you realize that if you don't give people money they start treating you like a selfish dick or if you do give them money that it cost you more than you're making at this job, it's time to get out and enjoy your self.
Oddly, the local radio station morning guy just did an interview with a millionaire, and this is vaguely accurate. He had to cut out a bunch of people who crawled out of the woodwork, but he happily buys the beers (because he likes to tip big, and he knows his buddies can't afford it).
Oddly, there doesn't seem to be a time limit given - does that mean that once you've declined, you're perma-banned from riding, or can you get back in a different line and see if you don't get picked that time? (Or take a cab to the next station)?
I think you can be optimistic about it... if the party splits, perhaps we'll actually have a working three party system.
Warning: three-party systems only work if there's clear differences between the three. Look at us here in Canada where there are three national parties (four if you count BQ). Three of the four are all labeled left-wing, the fourth is Republican-light. Come election night we all learn the problems with vote-splitting.
Cons: No chance of this being perceived fair. The conspiracy theorists are going to go apeshit the first time a 20% winner gets elected.
Easily fixed. Rent out the Wheel of Fortune wheel (or if that's too pricy, the Big Wheel from Price is Right), replace the usual numbers with the candidate names in the right proportion, bring out Donald Trump to ham it up, let him give it a big ol' spin, and Bob's yer uncle.
Only moderate sarcasm intended - I suspect there's a lot of people who would prefer this system.
"Looking at the economy, there's no way Obama can be reelected. Looking at the Republican field, there's no way Obama can lose."
This.
It's not like Obama has any big wins to point to. (I want to like the guy, but he desperately needs to grow a pair.[1]). But the field of Republican nominees is frankly scary - they all seem to have forgotten that after they win the nomination, they still have to appeal to the rest of the country at some level, and being froth-at-the-mouth crazy is not going to win you an election. (e.g. Santorum is now on record - and video - as being against contraception. Do you think some Democrat PAC isn't going to play that quote a billion times a day if he's the candidate? Anyone think the middle 20% is going to vote for a guy who wants to ban condoms?)
The attack ads this year should be most entertaining.
The smart ones stop working for the career and start working for the weekend.
+1 Sanity.
The days of "career employment" have been over for decades, folks. Unless you own the company, you are expendable - I just watched a 20-year veteran (started with the company as a driver, was a Senior Director) get walked out the door three weeks before Christmas. He was a career man - Blackberry always on, worked nights, weekends, holidays. This will probably be the first Christmas his daughter will see him in any amount since she was born.
(That said, I don't feel *too* sorry for him since he was a bit of a DB, plus you don't get punted from exec jobs without a nice healthy severance, so it's not like he's on a streetcorner panhandling.)
The only brand you want to be building is your own - the days of getting in a business and parking for 25 years are looong past.
As for "maximising his profits," this guy is an *employee*. If one of my employees tried (to use your term) to "roll" me by trying to sell me an application that is clearly directly related to his day-to-day responsibilities, regardless of the location or timing of the software development, I would start the process of replacing that employee.
If memory serves, the original poster specified that software development isn't part of his responsibilities. It will make his job easier, but the software could easily be off-the-shelf - he just developed it inhouse.
I'm guessing (based on the 's' in maximise) that you aren't an American. In the US, holding your employer over a barrel like that is usually frowned upon (I'm guessing that barring any laws to the contrary where you are, it's the same there) and, as a rule, the only compensation you can expect is your final paycheck and an escort to the building exit..
I don't think he's trying to hold the employer over a barrel in any negative sense. He's identified a gap in the company, developed a fix (on his own time - really his only mistake here), and wants to make sure that some manager doesn't take it and the credit, then pat the guy on the head and say "oh well, sucks to be you". (Because bosses never do that, right?). If the company doesn't take/want the fix, then he's put some practice time into programming. It happens.
The law in Canada is, if your boss asks you to work overtime, then you get paid overtime. It doesn't matter if you are a janitor or a CEO. (I know, I'm using extremes.) I tell my boss that, he is a manager, he figures he doesn't get overtime, but that isn't true, he is entitled the same as everyone else. I won't be a manager, just don't want the job.
(In Canada, but in Alberta - terms will vary)
Not exactly true - management staff are often "exempt" from overtime. Generally it's covered in one of two ways: either they're paid assuming they work overtime (my old boss was paid 45 hr/wk instead of 40, for instance), and/or the position doesn't require them to be butt-in-seat for all those hours (so if they put in overtime here, they take an afternoon off there, so long as the department is still running).
So what it usually should boil down to is - overtime is either paid, or banked (I worked extra hours here, I get extra hours off there). Only exception is if the job is "as long as X,Y, and Z are done we don't care where you are", in which case they don't get to complain if I ditch for a day.
And of course, all this comes with the obvious caveat of "don't work for free" - if they won't pay you for the work, you should seriously consider releasing it open-source (or commercially if you're inclined!). Definitely don't let them claim it as their own.
You recognize that you're not infallible and that you don't know everything - this is 80% of the battle of being a Good Boss.
I'll skip the "read this book" stuff, and go straight to the obvious points.
You say this like it doesn't happen already - most people I know around here swap personal email addresses for "non-work related" things that IT doesn't like. Not really a surprise to learn that folks keep in touch even when they've moved to the competitor.
You've got to be kidding. No Clothes? No Shampoo? No Nail clippers? No Haircuts? No Shoes? jpeg or it didn't happen...
How about a home phone? My local HR was freaked out about my temporary lack of a landline, "Are you homeless? In Jail?". They're not willing to pay for it, but they assume you have it if you're going to work there. Ended up listing my cellphone as both home and cellphone. Not seeing it as a huge problem.
I got some funny looks from my HR, but I simply told them that my manager (at the time) had abused the privledge of knowing my home phone number one too many times, we had it changed, and I didn't see a compelling need for them to know it - my address is correct, mail is a wonderful thing.
I suspect this panic will wane, though - a lot of folks are going cell-only ("I'm never home, why do I want to pay for a phone there?"), so it will become more common as time passes.
If you are raising money for the next disaster, you should say "We were there from day one at X," not "Help support the victims of X." You shouldn't deceive donors about the money.
If it makes you feel better, look at it this way - the Red Cross has their emergency fund. Disaster X strikes. They start spending the money, and start fundraising to pay for those expenditures. If they don't make enough, the loss comes out of the emergency fund.
Yeah, they're putting some spin on it, but that's fundraising - no-one donates to the "someday there might be a problem - help us" fund.
I think he's referring to efficiency and overstating it for effect. Consider, you make say, $30 an hour. A driver can be hired to drive food around for $8 an hour. You could volunteer your time and drop off the food. Or you could go to work and hire three drivers to do it. Yes, I know you can't just go to work more hours and get more income, and of course I pulled the numbers out of thin air. Your point about preferring to give different ways is a fine one. But GP does have a reasonable point about the most efficient way to support charities as well.
Yeah, I guessed you were pulling numbers out of thin air when you said you could hire a commercial driver for $8/hr.
I work in a field, and if you want to hire someone to do deliveries, you're looking at around $15 per drop. If you want a three-ton truck and driver, figure around $65 per hour.
Food bank deliveries are big - you can't get a kid in an old compact to do it.
4) Finally, and in some ways the biggest point: "fees". First off, let's call a spade a spade, they're bribes. Having said that, though, bribes are important to actually getting shit done in most of the world. I've paid bribes, and I'll almost certainly pay more, but that's just the cost of doing business. Corruption has to be viewed with a certain amount of pragmatism. You're kidding yourself if you think that it doesn't exist in whatever (presumably, though I could be wrong) developed nation you live in, it's just that around here it's right up front where you can keep an eye on it. And really, it's cheaper and easier, too. If I want to do something around here, I slip a couple hundred bucks to someone in the health ministry, and away I go, in the states, I've have to donate a few hundred thousand dollars to an assortment of senators, then wait a year while they finagle a few laws through.
Of course, today's the day I don't have mod points - I'm always amused when people decry "corruption and bribes", but have no problem with their local pols taking huge cash from corporations. While it would be nice if there wasn't either, there's a point to be made for a system where everyone can afford to get special treatment, instead of what we have...
Actually, it's a bit of both - the food bank needs both cash (to buy food), and labour (to sort, distribute, etc.) Sure, they can spend the money to hire people to do the labour, but people who volunteer time are "cheaper" - not to mention that a lot of users of those charities are the ones who can donate time, but not money. (Which brings us back to the implied "go get a job ya bum" argument.)
Also, if it is dubbed work, then doesn't it become even less likely that Universal owns the rights to it?
And, and their host Tom Merrit points out, the video will be down for at least 10 days before this is sorted out. So when it's restored, it will be a 10 day old DAILY News show ... The damage is permanent. I really hope the EFF steps up to help TWiT.TV sue Universal into bankruptcy over this BS.
The 10-day requirement was what caught my eye as well. Being able to effectively censor content for the better part of two weeks is astoundingly powerful. (Remember, they can wait the ten days, say "oops - our bad" and walk away with no repercussions.)
I wonder what would happen if Anon or some other group started to game the system...
So Tech News should alert youtube to unblock their video and move on. Oh I forgot: better to post it to slashdot frontpage so Tech News can get a few thousand more hits! Genius! The RIAA is evil after all.
I regret to inform you that TFA does note that they sent in the counter-notice. And while the video was unblocked, it was promptly re-blocked. So they've sent in the second counter-notice and are waiting to be re-unblocked.
Probably because the recording industries use the same layering that the banks do - the person actually filing the complaint is a low-level data clerk churning out paperwork. And no-one wants to be the one sending low-level hard working folks off to jail for perjury.
What, you think you can convict a corporation of perjury?
They're not allowed to vote, so all they can do is lobby and donate.
Let's be honest - the only reason corporations can't vote is because there's no benefit to them being able to. If that one extra vote meant they'd get their wishes, you'd better believe they'd be in front of the justices saying "corporations are people, and people can vote".
But if we're going to take the stance that corporations aren't people, and don't have the right to lobby/donate, then I can't find a valid argument for taxing them.
Counter-argument: corporations are simply implementations of contractual business obligations - it's still people underneath, whom all have the ability of free speech.
A corporation is just a particular kind of business. Timmy's lemonade stand is a business (it could even be a corporation if Timmy's dad has the spare scratch), and no-one believes that it's a person. My dog is taxed (there's a fee for him to be allowed in the city limits; bastard makes me pay for it, though). Does that mean my dog is people too?
Finally, philosophically "corporation as person" fails the simple test of "who is that person?". There is no "Sony" or "Nintendo", no-one and nothing can stand up and claim to *be* the corporation, only a representative. You can't arrest or draft a corporation. Simply put, a corporation is incapable of performing the duties of a person that go along with the rights it argues for.
(I hate people who scream "throw out the bums!" and then re-elect their own Congressmen.)
They did studies on that - most people believe (or are convinced) that it's those other idiot voters that elect the stupid politicians, and it's only *their* guy that's fighting the good fight.
Civil: Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Incorporated - Diebold sued for false DMCA and paid $125k.
There's your problem $125K isn't enough to deter a corporation - that's the equivalent of a lawyer's beer offense.
I had a boss that stated "if you don't measure it, it doesn't exist". So he was big on numbers - how many of this do we do, how often does that happen, so on.
But on the plus side, if we were rewarded on metrics it was on the big important ones - did we make a profit? The other numbers were to help narrow down where the issue was, but whatever made the company money was The Correct Answer.
Man, I miss that guy.