"I think a better allegory is if someone tells me that my neighbor is going to build an radio antenna tower on his property for his HAM hobby. Do I have the right to publish that in the housing newsletter?"
Sure -- but it's because it's not a trade secret, or otherwise secret information. If someone tells you something, it's not secret (there's actually a concept known as the "unreliable ear" --basically, you have to assume that anything you say to anyone can get out -- if you want something to remain secret, keep it secret. Or make 'em sign an NDA...)
Trade secrets are specifically defined in the law as information kept by an organization (corporation usually) that is both a) kept secret, and b) valuable because it is kept secret. Marketing information -- like when and what a company is planning on releasing -- is usually considered to be a trade secret because any value the information might have -- be it to create a "buzz" or to suprise the world or whatever -- is based on the fact that the info is secret.
In your example, Coke's recipe and the like are definitely trade secrets. The fact the MS is working on a new version of Office is simply company gossip. But the release date of the new Office, the price of the new Office, the feature set of the new Office, those would very likely be trade secrets, if they were actually kept secret.
An SSN isn't a trade secret either, because you are not an organization -- but it is a personal record, and release of someone's SSN could lead to both criminal (under identity theft laws) and/or civil (the tort of invasion of privacy) liability...
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press
on
Is Blogging Journalism?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"There are related laws to protect non-journalist whistle-blowers. They generally prohibit firing, reducing pay, changing work duties, and any other forms of retaliation."
In addition, the "whistle blowing" must be complaining about something that is illegal, such as OSHA violations, labor violations, wage-and-hour violations, environmental violations, etc. -- it is not "whistle blowing" to share trade secrets, to discuss product or marketing materials (or other company confidential info), or to just generally bitch about the working conditions at your office...
"(or, as extended by the 10th Amendment, the states)"
I think you've got things a bit mixed up here -- the 10th Amendment merely says that anything that isn't discusses in the constitution is for the states to decide.
What you are probably thinking about is the concept of "incorporation" -- originally, the various amendments applied only to the federal government, not to the states. But the courts have used the 14th amendment to "incorporate" certain amendments to be the law over states as well. So, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments (maybe a couple of others) are now the law of the land in the states by virtue of incorporation.
"If they'd even reprinted restricted company marketing sheets given to select individuals I'd agree with you, but they published HEARSAY which isn't even admissible as witness testimony (IANAL) in a criminal case!"
But this isn't a criminal case...
In any event, not all hearsay is inadmissible -- in some cases, there are loopholes big enough to drive a truck through...
And acting on information received from another -- hearsay, in your words -- CAN result in criminal or civil liability in many cases -- securities violations (a la Martha Stewart) for one...
"I think ThinkSecret should have the right to publish corporate gossip and THAT'S Free Speech."
Remember, the first amendment was put into place to allow people to freely bitch about their government -- it wasn't put into place to allow insider trading, or to allow theft of trade secrets, or dissemination of provate information.
If someone tells you someone else's social security number, should you have the right to publish it? What if it was your SSN (assuming you are in the U.S.)? What about your checking account number and PIN code? I mean, if you can't keep track of them, that's YOUR problem, isn't it?
Well, I don't know that such an activity would make the contract void, but anyone (under an NDA or not) who came forward with such information would almost certainly be protected by whistleblower protections...
"This is bullshit. First off, you don't need to pass the patent bar to be considered a patent attorney."
You need to have passed the patent bar in order to hold yourself out as a "patent attorney." You don't need to have passed the patent bar to litigate patent infringement case, or to even write and prosecute patents (as long as you are work under the direction of someone who HAS passed the patent bar), but you can't use the title "patent attorney" unless you have both been admitted to a state bar in any state AND have been admitted to the patent bar.
Employment contracts in the U.S. are pretty unusual, unless you are an executive (CEO of a big company), or are a pro athlete, musician, actor, those sorts of things. Virtually all regular employees in the U.S. work without an employment contract.
I guess there are both advantages and disadvantages of this system. You can be fired at any time -- but on the other hand, you are also free to renegotiate or leave at any time. In the 2000-2004 time period, I'm sure that "being able to leave whenever you want" is a small consolation for being able to be fired at any time -- but during the 1997-1999 period, it was businesses that were complaining that they couldn't keep employees, and were bending over backwards to try and keep them! Working without a contract isn't just pro-company -- it just seems like it right now. When the economy turns around, working without a contract will seem pro-employee...
"Um, I could be wrong, but my understanding is that many states, not just Montana, are not at-will states. I believe California is not at-will, for instance."
All of the states except for Montana are at-will states. Don't get confused with "right-to-work" states -- not all states are "right-to-work" -- but all except Montana are at-will.
At-will means that your employer may terminate you at any time for any reason that isn't specifically illegal, and you have the right to leave at any time without giving any notice. Right-to-work means that in general you can't be forced to join a union.
"They certainly have a lot of other employee-friendly laws, such as noncompete agreements being unenforcable."
In general you are correct -- there are a very limited number of areas where California will enforce a non-compete, see California Business and Professions code 16600. Interestingly, one of the area wherre a California non-compete CAN be enforced is deals with artists and writers who draw comic books...
Dude, it's only 11:00 PM here, it's not THAT late...
"Why are you posting legal opinions online without first disclosing your occupation?"
Actually, if you click on my username, it quite clearly says I am an attorney in my profile. I have nothing to hide.
Why don't you post using an identifiable user ID? Why don't you disclose your profession?
"Trying to keep yourself clear of (being knwon as) violating the additional "requirements" of your "profession"?"
Since I'm not giving legal advice, I'm not violating any rules of my profession. I am as free to opine on the law as you are -- just as I am as free to opine on FireFox or Java as you are...
"Or, just lying?"
Why would I lie? No reason to do that. I may not always be right, I may not always have a popular opinion, but I don't have any reason to lie.
I guess I could post a picture of my bar card, or I could post my bar number, but since my employer's name is public record, I would prefer to remain at least a bit anonymous -- but I guess not an anonymous as you...
"Now back up a few months in time to your initial interview with that same boss. He can not ask you in that interview if you visit strip bars after work."
One more thing -- people generally believe that there are certain questions that it is illegal to ask in an interview. Again, this varies from state to state, but the general rule is that there really aren't any "illegal" questions -- however, any question that asks about membership in a protected or quasi-protected class would probably be frowned upon by HR and your state's labor board, because it would raise the possibility that you weren't fired because of your membership in that protected class, and open you up to lawsuits.
So, from a practical standpoint, there are certain subjects that are "verboten," although they may not technically be "illegal." But usually these questions deal with membership in a protected or quasi-protected class -- whether or not you like to go to strip clubs, or beat animals (or your wife), those sorts of things, are usually fair game.
Most states DO have laws restricting questions about arrests and convictions, and some states do restrict certain questions, but these legal restrictions are much less broad than the "practical" restrictions...
"Now back up a few months in time to your initial interview with that same boss. He can not ask you in that interview if you visit strip bars after work."
Why can't he ask you that? That question would not be illegal under California law (the state I'm most familiar with).
"What this appears to boil down to is, he can fire you because he wants to but he better not admit it was because he saw you go to a strip bar after work. Where this would become questionable is if he specifically mentioned his dislike for strip bars many times to you and you happen to see him see you go into one. If you got fired for "no reason" the next Monday, you'd have a good case to fight back. There are a lot of people that can sense when something is going downhill at work and they get a strong feeling the shit is about to hit the fan. If you can prove you were fired for something not directly work related, you do have an appeal process. The hard part is proving it."
But these aren't LEGAL questions -- the company may have a policy of only firing people for cause; the boss might get in trouble from the company for firing you for such a reason; you might be able to appeal to HR to get your job back -- but this would not be an ILLEGAL firing of any sort.
Whether or not your boss can articulate a good reason to fire you or not may impact whether or not you can obtain unemployment benefits in your state, but it does not affect whether or not it was legal to fire you in the first place. As I and others have noted on this thread, the only time it is ILLEGAL to fire someone is if they are fired because of membership in a protected class, fired for retaliation for asserting a protected right or whistleblowing, or if they are in a union or otherwise are working under a contract (or are in Montana).
Now, from a practical standpoint, your boss might want to articulate a different reason for firing you, because if they can come up with a good reason, then it makes it much less likely that you will try to sue them. But legally speaking, firing you for going to a strip club is just as valid as firing you for failing to show up for work on time. That's at-will employment for you.
Again, the rules vary from state-to-state, and certainly country-to-country, but this is the general rule in the U.S. in 49 of the 50 states (everywhere except Montana...).
" Apparently not, because you say it is limited to, then correct yourself saying it is not limited to later."
Limited to the big three, plus some state actions that vary from state to state. Then I realized I left off a biggie, so added it. What's wrong with that?
"If I tell my friends how bad my day at work sucked at the bar after work, and it gets around to my boss, should he have the right to fire me?"
But the answer to this question -- at least in the U.S., and in 49 of the 50 states -- is yes, your boss does have the right to fire you. Unless you are a member of a union, have a bonafide employment contract, or live and work in Montana, your boss can fire you for any reason at any time -- that's "at will" emplyment for you.
Now, whether your boss "should" have the right to fire you, that's another question altogether. But under current law, your boss CAN fire you for any reason at all, including off-duty badmouthing of the company.
Again, just FYI, "wrongful termination" means being fired for membership in a protected class. So, if you get fired because of your race, religion, gender, national origin, age (if over 40), whatever else is in Title 7 (can't remember off of the top of my head), that's wrongful termination. Plus there are some states that grant further protections, such as marital status, sexual orientation, etc.
Wrongful termination is different from, and often confused with, being fired for "cause" or not. Firing for "cause" only impacts whether or not you can collect unemployment benefits, and varies from state to state. Wrongful termination is a cause of action that allows you to sue your former employer for damages, and is limited (generally) to firing for being a member of a protected class.
Again, this is all U.S. law, and won't necessarily count if you are a member of a union or have a bonafide employment contract.
Just FYI, an action for retaliatory firing is limited to retaliating for the following:
1. Attempting to exercise your rights under the Family Medical Leave Act;
2. Whistleblowers (but it has to be whistleblowing as defined under the applicable statutes, and not just you talking about stuff going on at work);
3. Reporting safety violations under OSHA or applicable state laws.
There are some other causes of action for retaliatory firing that differ from state to state, but these are the biggies, and firing someone from venting a company's dirty laundry on the net is not protected in any state...
While I would agree with your main point anyway, I just thought I would point out that this isn't such a good argument since, in 49 states of the U.S. (Montana being the sole exception), you can be fired from your job at any time, for any reason at all (except for illegal reasons, like firing because of gender, race, national origin, etc., or if you have a union or other employment contract). You employer can fire you for writing porn, whether the writing was done on or off of the job -- it's not a freedom of speech issue, it an "at-will" employment issue...
"The rights of the record companies to make insane amounts of money for propagating, distributing and promoting? "
Sure, why not? If they choose to sign an artist, go through the trouble of recordning an album, then figuring out how to market and distribute the work, hey, it's their dime, they are taking the risk nobody will buy it -- why shouldn't they be allowed to make money? And who are you to tell them how much they can make? If you don't want them making money, don't buy their products.
"Since when should an artist no matter how good get millions for producing their art?"
Why should a basketball player who's not that good get millions? Why should an NFL punter, who doesn't work THAT hard, make more than a manual laborer, who DOES work hard? People make what other people think they are worth. If someone thinks they can make $5 million from a singer, then it is worth it to pay $1 million. It's just economics -- people get paid as much as the person paying them thinks they are worth.
"I don't see teachers or nurses get millions when they do an outstanding or outstandingly popular job."
See above. People don't get paid, in general, based on how hard they work -- they get paid based on how much the person paying them makes from their labors.
And in the U.S. at least, teachers and nurses are all union workers, so how much they get paid has little relevance to how outstanding they do at their job anyway...
"Now, If patents are allowed you NEED to follow the above procedure perfectly if you want to actually stay on the straight-and-narrow. (else someone else might come along and patent your ideas, and you'd be breaking the law if you still produce your product.)"
Europe, unlike the U.S., uses a strict first-to-file system, and requires that there be no public disclosure before filing. If you are doing open-source work, you should be able to at least keep your ideas from being patented by continually publishing your work in a trade journal or paper or whatever -- flood the market with prior art, and that should keep others from patenting your ideas (unless they came up with them independently and filed before you published, of course).
Wouldn't work in the U.S., since we have a 1-year grade period, but it potentially could work in Europe...
"Actually, I believe there may be criminal penalties for copyright violations in some places."
There are in the U.S., but it is unlikely that a file sharer would ever come under the criminal copyright statutes, so file sharers generally have to worry about civil liability.
"Can anyone in the know tell us the maximum and average penalties for shoplifting a cd, rape, and copyright violation in your area? Might as well add price fixing while you are at it. Oh no wait, that should be covered under the request for the rape info if we are to use terminology they way people seem to like to do."
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious here, but either way, it's irrelevant.
If people want to say that file sharing isn't theft, like shoplifting a CD clearly is, then why should they expect that file sharing should have the same penalties as shoplifting a CD?
"As a matter of fact, can he not prevent you from building two buildings from the same set of plans even though you paid him to make those plans for you?"
If the architect developed truely custom (i.e., copyrightable) plans, and you only paid for one license, then yeah, I guess he could.
"And why would it not be a work for hire?"
Work for hire is actually a very narrow exception -- it doesn't cover hiring a professional, or hiring a contractor -- it only covers employees (employees as defined by state law -- usually means you withhold taxes and provide them with a W2). Now, that doesn't mean that you can't, as part of your contract with an architect, have him or her transfer the copyrights to you, but it does mean that it doesn't automatically happen under a work-for-hire situation.
"What is a public place? Is it the same as public property? So, no pictures inside of the buildings?"
A "public place" is anyplace where the public generally has access to, but it can also be broader than that. Basically, if you MUST trespass onto private property in order to get the photo, then it is not a "public vantage point." Pretty much everything else would be.
Now, as far as inside the building, the owner can generally restrict photography, but that is not a copyright issue, that's a property rights issue.
"My hairdo including the shape and colourings."
That might be copyrightable, if it is "creative" enough -- but it can be hard to separate the "creative" aspects (which may be copyrightable) from the "utility" aspects (which are not).
"My poodle's cut."
Ditto.
"The tree in my yard."
No creativity there, so no copyright.
"The other tree in my yard which I have trimmed in the shape of a rocket ship I designed."
Maybe copyrightable.
"The paint scheme on my house."
Unless it is an artwork, the paint on a house would be unlikely to be creative enough to qualify for copyright protection.
"Any other places have similar laws and exceptions?"
Slashdot Mirror
"I think a better allegory is if someone tells me that my neighbor is going to build an radio antenna tower on his property for his HAM hobby. Do I have the right to publish that in the housing newsletter?"
Sure -- but it's because it's not a trade secret, or otherwise secret information. If someone tells you something, it's not secret (there's actually a concept known as the "unreliable ear" --basically, you have to assume that anything you say to anyone can get out -- if you want something to remain secret, keep it secret. Or make 'em sign an NDA...)
Trade secrets are specifically defined in the law as information kept by an organization (corporation usually) that is both a) kept secret, and b) valuable because it is kept secret. Marketing information -- like when and what a company is planning on releasing -- is usually considered to be a trade secret because any value the information might have -- be it to create a "buzz" or to suprise the world or whatever -- is based on the fact that the info is secret.
In your example, Coke's recipe and the like are definitely trade secrets. The fact the MS is working on a new version of Office is simply company gossip. But the release date of the new Office, the price of the new Office, the feature set of the new Office, those would very likely be trade secrets, if they were actually kept secret.
An SSN isn't a trade secret either, because you are not an organization -- but it is a personal record, and release of someone's SSN could lead to both criminal (under identity theft laws) and/or civil (the tort of invasion of privacy) liability...
"There are related laws to protect non-journalist whistle-blowers. They generally prohibit firing, reducing pay, changing work duties, and any other forms of retaliation."
In addition, the "whistle blowing" must be complaining about something that is illegal, such as OSHA violations, labor violations, wage-and-hour violations, environmental violations, etc. -- it is not "whistle blowing" to share trade secrets, to discuss product or marketing materials (or other company confidential info), or to just generally bitch about the working conditions at your office...
"(or, as extended by the 10th Amendment, the states)"
I think you've got things a bit mixed up here -- the 10th Amendment merely says that anything that isn't discusses in the constitution is for the states to decide.
What you are probably thinking about is the concept of "incorporation" -- originally, the various amendments applied only to the federal government, not to the states. But the courts have used the 14th amendment to "incorporate" certain amendments to be the law over states as well. So, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments (maybe a couple of others) are now the law of the land in the states by virtue of incorporation.
A technical point, I admit...
"If they'd even reprinted restricted company marketing sheets given to select individuals I'd agree with you, but they published HEARSAY which isn't even admissible as witness testimony (IANAL) in a criminal case!"
But this isn't a criminal case...
In any event, not all hearsay is inadmissible -- in some cases, there are loopholes big enough to drive a truck through...
And acting on information received from another -- hearsay, in your words -- CAN result in criminal or civil liability in many cases -- securities violations (a la Martha Stewart) for one...
"I think ThinkSecret should have the right to publish corporate gossip and THAT'S Free Speech."
Remember, the first amendment was put into place to allow people to freely bitch about their government -- it wasn't put into place to allow insider trading, or to allow theft of trade secrets, or dissemination of provate information.
If someone tells you someone else's social security number, should you have the right to publish it? What if it was your SSN (assuming you are in the U.S.)? What about your checking account number and PIN code? I mean, if you can't keep track of them, that's YOUR problem, isn't it?
Well, I don't know that such an activity would make the contract void, but anyone (under an NDA or not) who came forward with such information would almost certainly be protected by whistleblower protections...
"This is bullshit. First off, you don't need to pass the patent bar to be considered a patent attorney."
You need to have passed the patent bar in order to hold yourself out as a "patent attorney." You don't need to have passed the patent bar to litigate patent infringement case, or to even write and prosecute patents (as long as you are work under the direction of someone who HAS passed the patent bar), but you can't use the title "patent attorney" unless you have both been admitted to a state bar in any state AND have been admitted to the patent bar.
Employment contracts in the U.S. are pretty unusual, unless you are an executive (CEO of a big company), or are a pro athlete, musician, actor, those sorts of things. Virtually all regular employees in the U.S. work without an employment contract.
I guess there are both advantages and disadvantages of this system. You can be fired at any time -- but on the other hand, you are also free to renegotiate or leave at any time. In the 2000-2004 time period, I'm sure that "being able to leave whenever you want" is a small consolation for being able to be fired at any time -- but during the 1997-1999 period, it was businesses that were complaining that they couldn't keep employees, and were bending over backwards to try and keep them! Working without a contract isn't just pro-company -- it just seems like it right now. When the economy turns around, working without a contract will seem pro-employee...
"Um, I could be wrong, but my understanding is that many states, not just Montana, are not at-will states. I believe California is not at-will, for instance."
All of the states except for Montana are at-will states. Don't get confused with "right-to-work" states -- not all states are "right-to-work" -- but all except Montana are at-will.
At-will means that your employer may terminate you at any time for any reason that isn't specifically illegal, and you have the right to leave at any time without giving any notice. Right-to-work means that in general you can't be forced to join a union.
"They certainly have a lot of other employee-friendly laws, such as noncompete agreements being unenforcable."
In general you are correct -- there are a very limited number of areas where California will enforce a non-compete, see California Business and Professions code 16600. Interestingly, one of the area wherre a California non-compete CAN be enforced is deals with artists and writers who draw comic books...
" So sayeth Macadamizer late at night."
Dude, it's only 11:00 PM here, it's not THAT late...
"Why are you posting legal opinions online without first disclosing your occupation?"
Actually, if you click on my username, it quite clearly says I am an attorney in my profile. I have nothing to hide.
Why don't you post using an identifiable user ID? Why don't you disclose your profession?
"Trying to keep yourself clear of (being knwon as) violating the additional "requirements" of your "profession"?"
Since I'm not giving legal advice, I'm not violating any rules of my profession. I am as free to opine on the law as you are -- just as I am as free to opine on FireFox or Java as you are...
"Or, just lying?"
Why would I lie? No reason to do that. I may not always be right, I may not always have a popular opinion, but I don't have any reason to lie.
I guess I could post a picture of my bar card, or I could post my bar number, but since my employer's name is public record, I would prefer to remain at least a bit anonymous -- but I guess not an anonymous as you...
Somehow I doubt an AC's unfavorable interpretation of my legal acumen is going to keep me up at night, but you never know...
"Now back up a few months in time to your initial interview with that same boss. He can not ask you in that interview if you visit strip bars after work."
One more thing -- people generally believe that there are certain questions that it is illegal to ask in an interview. Again, this varies from state to state, but the general rule is that there really aren't any "illegal" questions -- however, any question that asks about membership in a protected or quasi-protected class would probably be frowned upon by HR and your state's labor board, because it would raise the possibility that you weren't fired because of your membership in that protected class, and open you up to lawsuits.
So, from a practical standpoint, there are certain subjects that are "verboten," although they may not technically be "illegal." But usually these questions deal with membership in a protected or quasi-protected class -- whether or not you like to go to strip clubs, or beat animals (or your wife), those sorts of things, are usually fair game.
Most states DO have laws restricting questions about arrests and convictions, and some states do restrict certain questions, but these legal restrictions are much less broad than the "practical" restrictions...
"Now back up a few months in time to your initial interview with that same boss. He can not ask you in that interview if you visit strip bars after work."
Why can't he ask you that? That question would not be illegal under California law (the state I'm most familiar with).
"What this appears to boil down to is, he can fire you because he wants to but he better not admit it was because he saw you go to a strip bar after work. Where this would become questionable is if he specifically mentioned his dislike for strip bars many times to you and you happen to see him see you go into one. If you got fired for "no reason" the next Monday, you'd have a good case to fight back. There are a lot of people that can sense when something is going downhill at work and they get a strong feeling the shit is about to hit the fan. If you can prove you were fired for something not directly work related, you do have an appeal process. The hard part is proving it."
But these aren't LEGAL questions -- the company may have a policy of only firing people for cause; the boss might get in trouble from the company for firing you for such a reason; you might be able to appeal to HR to get your job back -- but this would not be an ILLEGAL firing of any sort.
Whether or not your boss can articulate a good reason to fire you or not may impact whether or not you can obtain unemployment benefits in your state, but it does not affect whether or not it was legal to fire you in the first place. As I and others have noted on this thread, the only time it is ILLEGAL to fire someone is if they are fired because of membership in a protected class, fired for retaliation for asserting a protected right or whistleblowing, or if they are in a union or otherwise are working under a contract (or are in Montana).
Now, from a practical standpoint, your boss might want to articulate a different reason for firing you, because if they can come up with a good reason, then it makes it much less likely that you will try to sue them. But legally speaking, firing you for going to a strip club is just as valid as firing you for failing to show up for work on time. That's at-will employment for you.
Again, the rules vary from state-to-state, and certainly country-to-country, but this is the general rule in the U.S. in 49 of the 50 states (everywhere except Montana...).
" Hi. Are you a lawyer? "
Yeah, I am.
" Apparently not, because you say it is limited to, then correct yourself saying it is not limited to later."
Limited to the big three, plus some state actions that vary from state to state. Then I realized I left off a biggie, so added it. What's wrong with that?
Ahhh, must be Montana -- the only state in the U.S. that doesn't have "at will" employment...
"If I tell my friends how bad my day at work sucked at the bar after work, and it gets around to my boss, should he have the right to fire me?"
But the answer to this question -- at least in the U.S., and in 49 of the 50 states -- is yes, your boss does have the right to fire you. Unless you are a member of a union, have a bonafide employment contract, or live and work in Montana, your boss can fire you for any reason at any time -- that's "at will" emplyment for you.
Now, whether your boss "should" have the right to fire you, that's another question altogether. But under current law, your boss CAN fire you for any reason at all, including off-duty badmouthing of the company.
Also, I left out filing a complaint for sexual harrasment or filing a complaint for a wage and hour violation.
Again, just FYI, "wrongful termination" means being fired for membership in a protected class. So, if you get fired because of your race, religion, gender, national origin, age (if over 40), whatever else is in Title 7 (can't remember off of the top of my head), that's wrongful termination. Plus there are some states that grant further protections, such as marital status, sexual orientation, etc.
Wrongful termination is different from, and often confused with, being fired for "cause" or not. Firing for "cause" only impacts whether or not you can collect unemployment benefits, and varies from state to state. Wrongful termination is a cause of action that allows you to sue your former employer for damages, and is limited (generally) to firing for being a member of a protected class.
Again, this is all U.S. law, and won't necessarily count if you are a member of a union or have a bonafide employment contract.
Just FYI, an action for retaliatory firing is limited to retaliating for the following:
1. Attempting to exercise your rights under the Family Medical Leave Act;
2. Whistleblowers (but it has to be whistleblowing as defined under the applicable statutes, and not just you talking about stuff going on at work);
3. Reporting safety violations under OSHA or applicable state laws.
There are some other causes of action for retaliatory firing that differ from state to state, but these are the biggies, and firing someone from venting a company's dirty laundry on the net is not protected in any state...
While I would agree with your main point anyway, I just thought I would point out that this isn't such a good argument since, in 49 states of the U.S. (Montana being the sole exception), you can be fired from your job at any time, for any reason at all (except for illegal reasons, like firing because of gender, race, national origin, etc., or if you have a union or other employment contract). You employer can fire you for writing porn, whether the writing was done on or off of the job -- it's not a freedom of speech issue, it an "at-will" employment issue...
"The rights of the record companies to make insane amounts of money for propagating, distributing and promoting? "
Sure, why not? If they choose to sign an artist, go through the trouble of recordning an album, then figuring out how to market and distribute the work, hey, it's their dime, they are taking the risk nobody will buy it -- why shouldn't they be allowed to make money? And who are you to tell them how much they can make? If you don't want them making money, don't buy their products.
"Since when should an artist no matter how good get millions for producing their art?"
Why should a basketball player who's not that good get millions? Why should an NFL punter, who doesn't work THAT hard, make more than a manual laborer, who DOES work hard? People make what other people think they are worth. If someone thinks they can make $5 million from a singer, then it is worth it to pay $1 million. It's just economics -- people get paid as much as the person paying them thinks they are worth.
"I don't see teachers or nurses get millions when they do an outstanding or outstandingly popular job."
See above. People don't get paid, in general, based on how hard they work -- they get paid based on how much the person paying them makes from their labors.
And in the U.S. at least, teachers and nurses are all union workers, so how much they get paid has little relevance to how outstanding they do at their job anyway...
But that's a grey market trademark issue, not a copyright issue.
"Ever heard of open source? I hear it's quite the rage these days..."
But how many people are making a living doing open-source programming versus closed-source (commercial) programming?
Just a thought on one thing your brought up:
"Now, If patents are allowed you NEED to follow the above procedure perfectly if you want to actually stay on the straight-and-narrow. (else someone else might come along and patent your ideas, and you'd be breaking the law if you still produce your product.)"
Europe, unlike the U.S., uses a strict first-to-file system, and requires that there be no public disclosure before filing. If you are doing open-source work, you should be able to at least keep your ideas from being patented by continually publishing your work in a trade journal or paper or whatever -- flood the market with prior art, and that should keep others from patenting your ideas (unless they came up with them independently and filed before you published, of course).
Wouldn't work in the U.S., since we have a 1-year grade period, but it potentially could work in Europe...
"Actually, I believe there may be criminal penalties for copyright violations in some places."
There are in the U.S., but it is unlikely that a file sharer would ever come under the criminal copyright statutes, so file sharers generally have to worry about civil liability.
"Can anyone in the know tell us the maximum and average penalties for shoplifting a cd, rape, and copyright violation in your area? Might as well add price fixing while you are at it. Oh no wait, that should be covered under the request for the rape info if we are to use terminology they way people seem to like to do."
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious here, but either way, it's irrelevant.
If people want to say that file sharing isn't theft, like shoplifting a CD clearly is, then why should they expect that file sharing should have the same penalties as shoplifting a CD?
"As a matter of fact, can he not prevent you from building two buildings from the same set of plans even though you paid him to make those plans for you?"
If the architect developed truely custom (i.e., copyrightable) plans, and you only paid for one license, then yeah, I guess he could.
"And why would it not be a work for hire?"
Work for hire is actually a very narrow exception -- it doesn't cover hiring a professional, or hiring a contractor -- it only covers employees (employees as defined by state law -- usually means you withhold taxes and provide them with a W2). Now, that doesn't mean that you can't, as part of your contract with an architect, have him or her transfer the copyrights to you, but it does mean that it doesn't automatically happen under a work-for-hire situation.
"What is a public place? Is it the same as public property? So, no pictures inside of the buildings?"
A "public place" is anyplace where the public generally has access to, but it can also be broader than that. Basically, if you MUST trespass onto private property in order to get the photo, then it is not a "public vantage point." Pretty much everything else would be.
Now, as far as inside the building, the owner can generally restrict photography, but that is not a copyright issue, that's a property rights issue.
"My hairdo including the shape and colourings."
That might be copyrightable, if it is "creative" enough -- but it can be hard to separate the "creative" aspects (which may be copyrightable) from the "utility" aspects (which are not).
"My poodle's cut."
Ditto.
"The tree in my yard."
No creativity there, so no copyright.
"The other tree in my yard which I have trimmed in the shape of a rocket ship I designed."
Maybe copyrightable.
"The paint scheme on my house."
Unless it is an artwork, the paint on a house would be unlikely to be creative enough to qualify for copyright protection.
"Any other places have similar laws and exceptions?"
That I do not know.