Thing is, the individuals and the corporations often seem to want different things. I bet the people in charge of Ford want clean air, and less crowded roads, but Ford wants to sell lots of polluting cars.
The corporations want to screw us for every penny.
That's not a criticism. It's what corporations are there for. Consumers want to get as much from them as possible while spending as little money as possible. That's just basic careful spending.
These goals are not totally compatible. So we need to find a compromise. Fair use exceptions are an example of one of the many compromises. No compromise will be perfect. The internet gave a little more power to the consumer. The DMCA gave a little more power to the corporations, but it was extremely badly balanced (especially the notice and takedown aspect).
It's the "summons" bit that I don't understand. I think the newspaper got it wrong.
My understanding is that issuing a summons that was the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution service, usually a few days after the offence. So either I'm wrong, or he was issued with a fixed penalty notice (which seems unlikely because reporters know what they are and would have said), or the kid is mistaken. That and the only photo of any piece of paper he received appeared to be a written warning rather than anything indicating intention to prosecute.
Which letter do you change to make "cult" into "Evil, life-ruining, money grabbing organisation pretending to be a religion for entirely self serving purposes"?
Unfortunately the account is of a reporters understanding of a 16 year old's understanding of the law. Was he arrested, or charged, or was his name just taken down? Since he was involved with the police, the kid may have thought he was in more trouble than he actually was.
A calendar and an advertisement are different though. A photo of an item you're trying to sell is clearly fair use. A photo to sell a calendar is probably also fair use but it's not quite so clear.
Well, to demand an explicit percentage of gross you need to be the reason people will see the film, but anyone on the credits will still receive residuals based on standard Screen Actors guild rates.
There's more to it than that. You can't talk non-stop for 5 hours. There will be a lot more than 5 takes worth of talking. Each line will be directed and tried in a number of ways. Even our placeholder speech about 5 times as long to record as play back, and that's just done by one of the guys in the office.
Speaking as a game developer, I wouldn't say no to per-unit royalties either.
It's not going to happen. I don't think it happens in most of the TV and film industry either. Special effects guys are paid an agreed upfront rate. I'm pretty certain the only people that can demand a percentage of gross are the actors, writer and director.
did they lay off every single person in the company? I'm guessing they didn't
They closed our division. It was a small experimental entry into a related market. All the other company divisions were pretty well established, and layoffs were extremely uncommon in the company.
Big companies look out for themselves. Always. If you find a situation where that doesn't seem to be the case, you're not thinking about it hard enough.
The people who decided to close the department were mostly salaried managers. They were also the people who arranged the settlement. The success of the company really didn't mean that much to them. Yes, they wanted the company to be successful because it looked good on them, but they also wanted to make sure we were okay because we'd been working well for them, and the managers were human beings who felt bad for people who'd been good to them.
the problem that the quran itself is an extremely racist book, so equal treatment of religions and outlawing hate speech de-facto means outlawing islam
A lot of religious books preach a fair amount of hate. Most practitioners of most religions tend to take a more pragmatic approach and find some reason that the sections that don't really work in a modern secular society don't apply. Most muslims want the same as everyone else. A nice home, a decent job, good schools for their children, free time to spend with friends. Their religion isn't the be all and end all of who they are.
Well, the immediate concern is to make sure that people don't face charges for calling a cult a cult. Protests aren't going to be worth a thing if Scientology can get all the protesters arrested on spurious grounds.
Minor offences like this don't go before a full jury in England. It will be tried before a bench of judges, usually made up of fairly ordinary middle class people (often retired) rather than legal professionals.
If it actually gets that far (The Crown prosecution service needs to believe there's actually a case), he presents his case reasonably, and mentions the Human Rights Act, and proves that Scientology is not a religion but a dangerous cult, then I'd be surprised if the case wasn't dismissed.
He was charged for carrying a sign saying "Scientology is not a religion, it's a dangerous cult".
Specifically he was charged for carrying a sign likely to cause alarm, distress or harassment. Use of the word "Cult" is largely irrelevant.
It's still a trumped up charge, but saying it's for calling Scientology a cult is completely misrepresenting it. Misleading stories are counter productive when you already have a fragrant abuse of the law.
No. A good company treats its employees well because it's in the companies best interest to retain good staff.
I was laid off from a multinational company. This was one of the top ten companies in the sector. They helped me find a new job, and paid me far more redundancy than was required by law or the contract, and managed to find a tax loophole that only benefited me. Hell, if I'd have asked, they probably would have found anm alternative position for me, and even just payment in lieu of notice would have been a decent payment (I had a 3 month notice period). So why did they do all this for me?
Sorry you haven't worked for a company that will support you, but some of them are run by human beings who actually do care about other people.
Well, there is always a point when you're being taken for a ride, but there's nothing wrong with being a conscientious employee. Ultimately, yes, you want the money and the company wants whatever you can produce, but these goals are not mutually incompatible.
A good company will treat its staff well simply because the staff deserve to be treated well. A good employee will try to do as good a job as he can simply because he feels he should. Not all companies have maximising profits as their only goal.
80 hour weeks are not an example of the above. They're an example of the above system breaking down, and the company abusing its employees' trust.
This is Slashdot. A 1903 article might look something like this: "Two Cycle repairman brothers have somehow patented a novel invention of a a system of aerodynamic control that manipulates a flying machine's surfaces. It looks obvious and it seems to me that this already exists and is called a bird. Can anyone say Prior art?"
It's always a difficult one. We allow runners to have spiked shoes. The rules for permitted cycles in cycle races have changed from time to time. An olympic archer will typical use a bow that costs well over $1000, and there must be some advantage to them for them to be worth paying so much.
But, at least with most of these there's nothing (except cost) stopping other athletes from using these. With a prosthetic leg, you'd need to have your legs amputated.
But unlike copyrights, Bletchley park doesn't want to preserve itself for enrichments of its owners, but because those who are looking after it consider it to be important to preserve it for the world.
If copyrighted works ceased to exist the moment copyright expired, I'd be all in favour of perpetual copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is, the individuals and the corporations often seem to want different things. I bet the people in charge of Ford want clean air, and less crowded roads, but Ford wants to sell lots of polluting cars.
The corporations want to screw us for every penny.
That's not a criticism. It's what corporations are there for. Consumers want to get as much from them as possible while spending as little money as possible. That's just basic careful spending.
These goals are not totally compatible. So we need to find a compromise. Fair use exceptions are an example of one of the many compromises. No compromise will be perfect. The internet gave a little more power to the consumer. The DMCA gave a little more power to the corporations, but it was extremely badly balanced (especially the notice and takedown aspect).
Does it really need a COURT judgment to decide that this was A Very, Very Stupid Idea?
No. It wasn't a court decision. The Crown Prosecution service is just the organisation that brings the prosecution on behalf of the government.
See what he says. If he wants you to do something then do it.
If he can't find anything worthwhile to keep you busy, find a personal project. Learn something useful - preferably something that looks like work.
Hopefully they'll consider doing so with no clear aim a waste of resources.
If they do though, I'd love to see them charged under section 5 of the public order act as a result:)
It's the "summons" bit that I don't understand. I think the newspaper got it wrong.
My understanding is that issuing a summons that was the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution service, usually a few days after the offence. So either I'm wrong, or he was issued with a fixed penalty notice (which seems unlikely because reporters know what they are and would have said), or the kid is mistaken. That and the only photo of any piece of paper he received appeared to be a written warning rather than anything indicating intention to prosecute.
Which letter do you change to make "cult" into "Evil, life-ruining, money grabbing organisation pretending to be a religion for entirely self serving purposes"?
Unfortunately the account is of a reporters understanding of a 16 year old's understanding of the law. Was he arrested, or charged, or was his name just taken down? Since he was involved with the police, the kid may have thought he was in more trouble than he actually was.
A calendar and an advertisement are different though. A photo of an item you're trying to sell is clearly fair use. A photo to sell a calendar is probably also fair use but it's not quite so clear.
Well, to demand an explicit percentage of gross you need to be the reason people will see the film, but anyone on the credits will still receive residuals based on standard Screen Actors guild rates.
There's more to it than that. You can't talk non-stop for 5 hours. There will be a lot more than 5 takes worth of talking. Each line will be directed and tried in a number of ways. Even our placeholder speech about 5 times as long to record as play back, and that's just done by one of the guys in the office.
Speaking as a game developer, I wouldn't say no to per-unit royalties either.
It's not going to happen. I don't think it happens in most of the TV and film industry either. Special effects guys are paid an agreed upfront rate. I'm pretty certain the only people that can demand a percentage of gross are the actors, writer and director.
did they lay off every single person in the company? I'm guessing they didn't
They closed our division. It was a small experimental entry into a related market. All the other company divisions were pretty well established, and layoffs were extremely uncommon in the company.
Big companies look out for themselves. Always. If you find a situation where that doesn't seem to be the case, you're not thinking about it hard enough.
The people who decided to close the department were mostly salaried managers. They were also the people who arranged the settlement. The success of the company really didn't mean that much to them. Yes, they wanted the company to be successful because it looked good on them, but they also wanted to make sure we were okay because we'd been working well for them, and the managers were human beings who felt bad for people who'd been good to them.
the problem that the quran itself is an extremely racist book, so equal treatment of religions and outlawing hate speech de-facto means outlawing islam
A lot of religious books preach a fair amount of hate. Most practitioners of most religions tend to take a more pragmatic approach and find some reason that the sections that don't really work in a modern secular society don't apply. Most muslims want the same as everyone else. A nice home, a decent job, good schools for their children, free time to spend with friends. Their religion isn't the be all and end all of who they are.
Well, the immediate concern is to make sure that people don't face charges for calling a cult a cult. Protests aren't going to be worth a thing if Scientology can get all the protesters arrested on spurious grounds.
Velly solly. I must have been typing on a chinese keyboard.
Minor offences like this don't go before a full jury in England. It will be tried before a bench of judges, usually made up of fairly ordinary middle class people (often retired) rather than legal professionals.
If it actually gets that far (The Crown prosecution service needs to believe there's actually a case), he presents his case reasonably, and mentions the Human Rights Act, and proves that Scientology is not a religion but a dangerous cult, then I'd be surprised if the case wasn't dismissed.
It's a minor case with a maximum fine of £1000 ($2000). Legal representation would not be worth it and the kid couldn't afford it.
He was charged for carrying a sign saying "Scientology is not a religion, it's a dangerous cult".
Specifically he was charged for carrying a sign likely to cause alarm, distress or harassment. Use of the word "Cult" is largely irrelevant.
It's still a trumped up charge, but saying it's for calling Scientology a cult is completely misrepresenting it. Misleading stories are counter productive when you already have a fragrant abuse of the law.
No. A good company treats its employees well because it's in the companies best interest to retain good staff.
I was laid off from a multinational company. This was one of the top ten companies in the sector. They helped me find a new job, and paid me far more redundancy than was required by law or the contract, and managed to find a tax loophole that only benefited me. Hell, if I'd have asked, they probably would have found anm alternative position for me, and even just payment in lieu of notice would have been a decent payment (I had a 3 month notice period). So why did they do all this for me?
Sorry you haven't worked for a company that will support you, but some of them are run by human beings who actually do care about other people.
Well, there is always a point when you're being taken for a ride, but there's nothing wrong with being a conscientious employee. Ultimately, yes, you want the money and the company wants whatever you can produce, but these goals are not mutually incompatible. A good company will treat its staff well simply because the staff deserve to be treated well. A good employee will try to do as good a job as he can simply because he feels he should. Not all companies have maximising profits as their only goal.
80 hour weeks are not an example of the above. They're an example of the above system breaking down, and the company abusing its employees' trust.
and a reasonable patent...
This is Slashdot. A 1903 article might look something like this: "Two Cycle repairman brothers have somehow patented a novel invention of a a system of aerodynamic control that manipulates a flying machine's surfaces. It looks obvious and it seems to me that this already exists and is called a bird. Can anyone say Prior art?"
It's always a difficult one. We allow runners to have spiked shoes. The rules for permitted cycles in cycle races have changed from time to time. An olympic archer will typical use a bow that costs well over $1000, and there must be some advantage to them for them to be worth paying so much.
But, at least with most of these there's nothing (except cost) stopping other athletes from using these. With a prosthetic leg, you'd need to have your legs amputated.
It doesn't matter if there's anything in the act that applies. Just lie. Say that uyour legal advisor is worried about breeaches of the act.
But unlike copyrights, Bletchley park doesn't want to preserve itself for enrichments of its owners, but because those who are looking after it consider it to be important to preserve it for the world.
If copyrighted works ceased to exist the moment copyright expired, I'd be all in favour of perpetual copyrights.