Sure, you could define the word "stealing" as "copyright infringement" and then turn around and offer your definition as a proof that copyright infringement is indeed stealing.
Well said. Beware managers who do this at performance review time. Redefine expectation A as goal B then use the new definition to prove that A always was B.
Using that method it's possible to make the janitor directly responsible for the recruitment of new investment partners.
1) Let MPAA be central directory service for torrents 2) MPAA sues itself for linking to unauthorized distributions 3) ??? 4) NO profit!
Honestly, it doesn't take much tin foil to work with this one. The media industry would be so happy as to pee its pants if the US Government would give it taxpayer money and government backed-support to lay legal claim to a major network distribution protocol and its infrastructure.
If that would happen, BitTorrent would be the only transfer protocol legal to use in about five years. Okay. That's a little more tin-foil but it's only extrapolation of the initial logical curve. It's not off base.
I would probably base part of my defense on fighting the language abuse that blows everything out of proportions and presumes factual things that are fundamentally hypothetical.
Already been tried. The standard legal response is something along the lines of condescending, completely disregards that you have any point, and then redirects the flow of the conversation. Usually similar to,"That was a very pretty speech, sir, but if you would please remain focused on the law then I'm sure we'll get to the heart of this issue much more quickly."
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I'm simply passing on to you the tip not to bother trying that one.
What I did say was that, as a human being, he needs to learn how to cope or the world will eat him alive.
It's the same thing all of us deal with. I went through it in my profession, and most people (unless they're pampered) go through it in theirs. Some people learn to cope and go on to be successful. Some people don't learn to cope, burn up, and drop out.
Note the mods are obviously in the pampered group since they don't seem to be familiar with this concept.
I archive anything which contains information which I can't find elsewhere on the local HD. I delete 90% of my e-mail because there's no real information in it. I really really really dislike must-keep laws. I don't know about the real merits of the case but shouldn't the judge be required to show that there was anything of value, important, or even relevant in the next batch of 1000 tapes?
Of course, we're dealing with lawyers here. They'd make an e-mail with a dinner recipe the lynchpin of their case if that's what it took to ensure that there was something important in 1000 tapes of useless junk.
He can't deal with it? Come on, buddy... it's life. What did he expect? A rose garden?
Look. Everyone has problems in life. If he was truly devoted to his work he would trudge through it like the rest of us. As long as he can still pay rent, have a roof over his head, food on his plate, and electricity to feed his machine, then he has nothing to complain about.
Complete and utter FUD. Performing artists, inventors, and creators have been producing ideas, works, and inventions since the days of cavedwellers with little or no guaranteed acceptance from those around them. Those who came up with the best ideas, if they were in it solely for profit, kept their ideas to themselves and only shared them with people who could provide extraordinary compensation or those who they trusted with their very lives.
it can't be *free*
If you deal in a product which is easily replicated then you need to face reality that the majority of the population will copy that product. Screen your customers, raise the price, and do whatever it takes to adapt proactively. You know ahead of time what your product is. You know ahead of time what the public is like. There is no secret here.
Twisting a Constitutional protection for authors and inventors into a legal protection for King George is the worst possible expression of American patriotism that I've ever seen. What's even more reprehensible is that people who think in this fashion get to vote and they often do in greatest numbers.
Mob rule indeed. It only takes 2 greedy people to spread false logic to 80 gullible people. It takes only 20 gullible people to harass and detain 5 intelligent people who see through the scam. That leaves 60 gullible people to form a voting majority.
So you purchase one CD for $20 and you own the rights to all of the songs on it?
If you feel you're not getting a good deal then you are free to screen your customers more carefully to identify the ones who won't copy and redistribute or you're free to raise the price. Why should the music industry be exempt from the same considerations which every other business owner in the world must think about?
You know you just want to steal music for free.
I own over 400 CDs. I do not share them on the open network. I do not use p2p software such as Napster or Kazaa. I have fewer than 30 mp3s which I don't own on a studio produced CD.
What I am sick and tired of is a business hunting down customers because it can't get its head out of its ass and face reality.
When you download music for free, you are stealing.
100% false. When downloading music for free I am entering into an exchange with a person who may or may not be legally offering that product. From my vantage point as the downloader I have no knowledge of the offering parties' legal right to share the music.
Besides, I download all my music off of free forums like this one. Go troll elsewhere.
don't try to tell me you have a legal right to do it.
I have a legal right to share any product which I've purchased legally. What that product is does not matter. The keywords here are "consumer" "bought" "product" "legally" and "sold".
You are a member of that portion of society which just can't handle the truth. Once you've sold something you no longer have any real right to it. Face reality. Quit pretending that you have any power over your customer's behavior.
You can preach about intellectual property rights when the courts uphold that part of the Constitution which specifically says "authors and inventors". You can preach about intellectual property rights when those authors and inventors are federally protected from predatory employment (or, in the case of the music industry, recording and production) contracts which transfer the Constitutional protection from the real author and inventor to some vacuous entity with a stronger economic position. What's the point of protecting rights if King George can afford to buy (or outright extort) those rights?
Effort is never wasted if that's what it takes to do the job properly.
Sex, as one example. If done properly it takes about two weeks.
Back to computer programming. The security snafu that is a registry will never be balanced by the fictitious ease-of-integration. Just like government: it is preached and sold on benefits that no one bothers to go back and check for after the go-ahead. That ease-of-integration will never be implemented properly with a registry. All registries do is create their own subset of problems and waste more resources troubleshooting them. There's also aging: real bit rot and cruft.
If you can't integrate without a registry it's probably because you've forgotten that the first rule of programming is to communicate with the other programmers.
I prefer that the law protect reality. For example, the reality that a customer owns something which they've paid money for and the reality that they can share it with whoever they like.
If Macrovision feels they're not profitting richly enough, they're free to screen their customers more carefully or raise the price of their product. Deliberately flooding networks with extraneous junk is no better than flaming tires thrown on the freeway.
Yet the USPTO grants them a legal patent on it. Why oh why didn't the Black Panthers think of this one?
# Stifles innovation by making improving products unprofitable
This is not a fault of the GNU GPL. This is a direct result of the collusion between big business and government. The business atmosphere is clouded with misconceptions about intellectual property, overuse and abuse of patents, and the creation of an abominable copyright system which does little-to-nothing to fulfill the Constitutional requirement that rights be reserved to authors and inventors--choosing to focus solely on protecting the (fictitious) legal rights of those who can economically corner the author/inventor and get them shackled to a single-sided contract.
Innovation and improvement is never stifled by freedom to redistribute.
You could say the GPL stifles the ability to create vendor lockin and easy profit margins but, hey... No one else gets a free ride in life.
Whimsical conjecture. As near as I can tell using the standard five senses that nature endows (nearly) everyone with, they sold to me a physical object. It is well within my technological capabilities to reproduce this object, or something very near to it with the same functionality. They know this before, during, and after the point of sale. If they don't take this into proper consideration then they are poor businessmen and I do not want my taxpayer dollars supporting such a blatant oversight. It's not like they're being blindsided out of the blue by aliens with magical technology. Every other business in the world must carefully consider its supply lines, its customer base, its distribution routes and it is the responsibility of the business owner to ensure that these considerations are properly accounted for before selling the product. If not, it is still the responsibility of the business owner to modify their own processes accordingly to adjust their profit margin.
It is not my responsibility, as a taxpayer, to support a business which sticks its head in the sand about the viability of its product and the availability of technologies which affect its product. Did the makers of leather armor try to take the makers of the longbow to court? No. They made better plate armor. Did the makers of the ancient wooden galleons try to take the makers of steamships to court? Maybe, if they were caught up in ridiculous patent disputes but, in the end, it is their responsibility to make a better product.
Stick with reality.
The physical medium of the CD just happen to be a convienent vessel to transfer the information
More whimsical conjecture. The reality is they sold to me an object. I own that object. They should quit trying to pretend they still own that object.
You have to think of IP rights as a concert ticket
No, I don't... but go on.
With the ticket you can listen to the music at the concert, you can even give the ticket to a friend to go in you place, but should you really expect that you and your hundred buddys get in the door because you made a bunch of photocopys of the orginal ticket?
Did you even read what I originally wrote? This metaphor is the same as hardware players with hardware encryption. The door bouncers at the concert venue are the microchips checking to ensure that the ticket isn't a photocopy. I said that the media industry is free to attempt to implement this. See how far that business model gets them when we have to buy a new player every few years at $200 each.
but one physical cd = one rightful owner
Absolutely. One physical toothpick, one tissue, one sheet of toilet paper... until someone makes more.
There's no secret in the world that the everyday consumer has the technological capability to make more. That issue was brought up at the time CD writers were put on the market and the appropriate compensatory tax was added to the cost of blank CDs (supposedly).
but then again he was stealing IP no matter which way you look at it it was wrong
On the contrary. Joe User is receiving a perfectly legal copy from someone who is sharing it with him. Joe User is not stealing anything. That person who is sharing the copy, in most cases, legally purchased a copy. All whimsical arguments about licensing aside, once a person legally purchases a product and is in possession of it then it is perfectly legal for them to share it with any and everyone.
The US military solves the IP problem in a practical way: If they don't want you to share something they don't share it with you. It's that simple. Military minds are very practical when it comes to solving the real problem as opposed to running around in endless circles debating the legal definition of intellectual property.
If the media industry feels their profit margin isn't high enough they're free to jack up the price of each copy sold. They're even free to come up with customized hardware players that work on an encrypted data format (HA! See how far THAT business model takes them!). This business about pretending they still own something after they've legally sold it is ridiculous. This business about making federal felons out of legitimate customers after the point of sale is equally ridiculous.
Face reality. They legally sold it and the owner of the new copy is legally sharing it. This artificial creation of licensing has got to stop. There are two types of transactions in reality: full sale and rental. If I rent something then I fully expect to give it back. If I buy something, however, then the seller knows at the point of sale that I own it once they've accepted money for it.
I have over 400 legally purchased CDs and fewer than 30 mp3s which I don't legally own the original CD for. I don't share my material on the public network and I don't use common p2p sharing software (Kazaa, napster, whathaveyou) but I am sick and tired of the arguments, dischord, and strife being caused by people who can't cope with the concept of "It's bought and sold... Let go!"
Let's simply ignore that the virtue of the RIAA being strongly government backed, and backed by the major players in the industry, makes it financially extraordinarily difficult for anyone with a more fair business model to compete in the market.
As for unbreakable DRM... I'm all in favor of it. I'm also in favor of the government staying neutral if someone breaks the unbreakable DRM. At some point, people are going to have to come to grips with reality and the reality is that nothing is unbreakable.
The consumer wants RIAA crap? Hardly. The consumer wants music. Given current business models and the distribution of available resources (ie. cash) to concentrate in a handful of established social circles, I'd say the consumer doesn't have much of an option. Your average 8-18 year old isn't looking any farther than the mall to find music nor or they listening any farther than the ubiquitous AM/FM radio.
XFM, Sirius, and internet radio is beginning to change some of that but until the politicians finally decide to separate their ego from their backsides it'll all end up the same as it is now.
And, if you're in good with a manager of an HR department, you'll know that companies (especially large multi-national companies) have worked out hundreds of little tricks for the mgmt at one company to pass unofficial reviews to the inquiring HR dept of another company. The only thing that's required is that the two companies involved are on the same page when it comes to this sort of behavior.
It's commonly referred to as blackballing. No amount of legislation will ever stop the practice from happening. There can be no lawsuit if the plaintiff can never get their hands on the paperwork.
You'd have to be an international spy or professional cat burglar to have the skills necessary to catch big companies in the crap they pull.
Yes, it is, but there are several fine points which make it not quite so cut and dried. These include (but are not limited to) any of the following.
The cost of a private attorney. Not cheap. Unless you're a member of a federally defined demographic (race, religion, sexual preference, disability, military service, gender) which nearly guarantees an upper hand in a legal battle, most employment law attorneys will ask for a $5000 retainer fee (at least) just to file the paperwork for the initial inquiries. Meanwhile, you still may be without income.
Witnesses. Very few coworkers are willing to jeopardize their positions just to testify for you. Without witnesses or a member of a federally defined demographic the case is extremely weak. Companies are very careful to put nothing in official paperwork which can be used against them.
If a manager wants to harass someone there's a very easy way to play the game. Harass the employee just a little, just a little, just a little, and wait for the employee to retaliate. The moment the employee does anything which could be remotely considered unruly or disruptive it is quietly documented without any notice given to the employee. Repeat repeat repeat. If done correctly the employee's retaliation will gradually become more and more noticeable and possibly increase in severity. The manager escalates their harassment accordingly being very careful to only commit the harassment in forums which are private or watched only by people who back them politically. After about 25 or so secret documented instances the company has a perfect case against the employee. The manager is then free to harass at will and, when the employee finally explodes, they can be terminated without a problem.
Simple.
You're also forgetting that, for some pathetic reason, the concept of hazing by those in authority is ingrained in our society, maybe even in human behavior. People in superior positions are always harassing their subordinates. Some do it because they like to watch people run in circles--it's amusing for them. Many do it because they feel "it happened to me, so I can do it to them" (it's sick, but many people think this way). Others do it because they're trying to manipulate their subordinates. Sometimes it's done to wear an employee down for sexual advances. Often it's done because the manager has a poor personal life and they're simply letting the crap roll downhill, using their subordinates as stress relievers. Many families function this way. In American society especially (and possibly in others) the older folks generally love to wind up a younger person just to watch them spin off. For them its cheap entertainment. If it gets out of hand the police can always be called. The harasser is always in a calm state of mind--they've been entertained. The harassee is always distraught and out of their head. Police, in general, are pretty stupid about this and won't even question the older person's story that the younger person just randomly flew off the handle.
Laws against harassment are little more than lip service and token gestures to pacify the general population. Those who win harassment suits are poster children--again, token gestures to pacify the general population.
For the most part, it's business as usual in the world. It's all fun and games until someone gets poked in the eye--and then it's the victim's fault.
The point is that they *can* require you to come back after a vacation to get paid for the vacation
I think you're baiting the argument. In many states, when and how you take your vacation is something that the law reserves to you as the employee.
What's illegal again? It is legal to require you to come to work to get paid for working
The harassment was definitely illegal but I'm not the kind of guy who can afford the attorney, nor would I really want to, nor would I ask anyone else to jeopardize their jobs just to testify on my behalf. Withholding pay for not working is fine. Withholding pay for legitimately earned vacation is at best a technicality but still ethically wrong.
Maybe the law should require that you get all vacation pay after quitting
If you were truly paying attention, rather than trolling for the sake of argument, you'd notice that the order is exactly the opposite: I was taking my vacation and then quitting.
Standard procedure does require victims to go through exit interviews with their assailants; it's called a trial
You're destroying the metaphor to bait the argument (I'm seeing a pattern here). But, to continue, I don't remember that it's ever possible for the assailant to cross-examine the victim in a trial. I doubt quite highly that the company would've given me the honor of a proxy attorney at the exit interview.
which is the question of whether or not an employer can be compelled to issue a paycheck for time worked.
If not, I certainly hope they start withholding yours for being an argument baiter.
It was two years ago and 1000 miles away. If I could make a lifelong killing off of pursuing it, then I'd happily scorch 'em all and spend the rest of my life tending a garden, washing my car, jogging/cycling, working with LFS, and learning trade skills like pottery and woodworking. Anything less than a ridiculous windfall and, well, I guess I'm not doing so bad now. I'm still employed as a research chemist and, while I lost 8 months of pay before I could get my head together, I'm back to the same pay scale that I had just before I left.
I was really hoping to increase my paycheck more but, all things considered, I'm not doing so bad for having taken a department head, a senior group leader, and an HR rep to task at their own game before the age of 30.
I think you're leaving out the part that normal employees don't have access to resume databases.
Sure, you could register with any of the online job boards purporting to be an employer. I imagine there are roadblocks to that which must be circumvented, possibly even financial roadblocks. HR departments don't let just any employee go perusing through their stack of submitted resumes.
All in all, companies LIKE keeping employees ignorant of the competing talent. It'd probably be quite a huge hole blown in the HR industry if we could all see each other's resumes. I bet it'd be better than catching the president with his pants down, his hand on the VPs wife, his foot on the neighbor's husband, and his mouth full of shaving cream while wearing women's lingerie.
I'd have loved to give them that interview - and I would have been the most helpful, respectful, level headed example of a model employee those HR people had ever seen
There's a reason why workplace harassment is technically illegal (though rarely proveable). It creates a situation that takes months, sometimes years, to return to a frame of mind where you can be helpful, respectful, and level-headed.
I agree. That approach would have been the best way to handle the situation but, at the time and after dealing with that manager, the department head above him, and the new mgmt pet HR rep, I couldn't have pulled myself together to order a polite cup of coffee much less endure an antagonistic exit interview.
Does it say anything that, when the HR rep called me at home, she offered that the company would not only give me my vacation pay, but a full month's salary if I'd come in for the exit interview? I replied,"You've been handling this case for six months. You know exactly what's gone on. You simply cannot treat someone like that."
Slashdot Mirror
Using that method it's possible to make the janitor directly responsible for the recruitment of new investment partners.
And you don't have them on mp3 yet?
Get with it!
If that would happen, BitTorrent would be the only transfer protocol legal to use in about five years. Okay. That's a little more tin-foil but it's only extrapolation of the initial logical curve. It's not off base.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I'm simply passing on to you the tip not to bother trying that one.
Beautifully done. Bravo!
Where did I say Shorewall wasn't a fine product?
Where did I say Tom hadn't done a fantastic job?
Where did I say he wasn't devoted to his work?
What I did say was that, as a human being, he needs to learn how to cope or the world will eat him alive.
It's the same thing all of us deal with. I went through it in my profession, and most people (unless they're pampered) go through it in theirs. Some people learn to cope and go on to be successful. Some people don't learn to cope, burn up, and drop out.
Note the mods are obviously in the pampered group since they don't seem to be familiar with this concept.
I archive anything which contains information which I can't find elsewhere on the local HD. I delete 90% of my e-mail because there's no real information in it. I really really really dislike must-keep laws. I don't know about the real merits of the case but shouldn't the judge be required to show that there was anything of value, important, or even relevant in the next batch of 1000 tapes?
Of course, we're dealing with lawyers here. They'd make an e-mail with a dinner recipe the lynchpin of their case if that's what it took to ensure that there was something important in 1000 tapes of useless junk.
He can't deal with it? Come on, buddy... it's life. What did he expect? A rose garden?
Look. Everyone has problems in life. If he was truly devoted to his work he would trudge through it like the rest of us. As long as he can still pay rent, have a roof over his head, food on his plate, and electricity to feed his machine, then he has nothing to complain about.
Amateur.
If you deal in a product which is easily replicated then you need to face reality that the majority of the population will copy that product. Screen your customers, raise the price, and do whatever it takes to adapt proactively. You know ahead of time what your product is. You know ahead of time what the public is like. There is no secret here.
Twisting a Constitutional protection for authors and inventors into a legal protection for King George is the worst possible expression of American patriotism that I've ever seen. What's even more reprehensible is that people who think in this fashion get to vote and they often do in greatest numbers.
Mob rule indeed. It only takes 2 greedy people to spread false logic to 80 gullible people. It takes only 20 gullible people to harass and detain 5 intelligent people who see through the scam. That leaves 60 gullible people to form a voting majority.
I own over 400 CDs. I do not share them on the open network. I do not use p2p software such as Napster or Kazaa. I have fewer than 30 mp3s which I don't own on a studio produced CD.
What I am sick and tired of is a business hunting down customers because it can't get its head out of its ass and face reality.
100% false. When downloading music for free I am entering into an exchange with a person who may or may not be legally offering that product. From my vantage point as the downloader I have no knowledge of the offering parties' legal right to share the music.
Besides, I download all my music off of free forums like this one. Go troll elsewhere.
I have a legal right to share any product which I've purchased legally. What that product is does not matter. The keywords here are "consumer" "bought" "product" "legally" and "sold".
You are a member of that portion of society which just can't handle the truth. Once you've sold something you no longer have any real right to it. Face reality. Quit pretending that you have any power over your customer's behavior.
You can preach about intellectual property rights when the courts uphold that part of the Constitution which specifically says "authors and inventors". You can preach about intellectual property rights when those authors and inventors are federally protected from predatory employment (or, in the case of the music industry, recording and production) contracts which transfer the Constitutional protection from the real author and inventor to some vacuous entity with a stronger economic position. What's the point of protecting rights if King George can afford to buy (or outright extort) those rights?
Effort is never wasted if that's what it takes to do the job properly.
Sex, as one example. If done properly it takes about two weeks.
Back to computer programming. The security snafu that is a registry will never be balanced by the fictitious ease-of-integration. Just like government: it is preached and sold on benefits that no one bothers to go back and check for after the go-ahead. That ease-of-integration will never be implemented properly with a registry. All registries do is create their own subset of problems and waste more resources troubleshooting them. There's also aging: real bit rot and cruft.
If you can't integrate without a registry it's probably because you've forgotten that the first rule of programming is to communicate with the other programmers.
I prefer that the law protect reality. For example, the reality that a customer owns something which they've paid money for and the reality that they can share it with whoever they like.
If Macrovision feels they're not profitting richly enough, they're free to screen their customers more carefully or raise the price of their product. Deliberately flooding networks with extraneous junk is no better than flaming tires thrown on the freeway.
Yet the USPTO grants them a legal patent on it. Why oh why didn't the Black Panthers think of this one?
Innovation and improvement is never stifled by freedom to redistribute.
You could say the GPL stifles the ability to create vendor lockin and easy profit margins but, hey... No one else gets a free ride in life.
I see you've saved "drag queen" for yourself.
No, you can't be Burger King. My roommate from college was Burger King.
It is not my responsibility, as a taxpayer, to support a business which sticks its head in the sand about the viability of its product and the availability of technologies which affect its product. Did the makers of leather armor try to take the makers of the longbow to court? No. They made better plate armor. Did the makers of the ancient wooden galleons try to take the makers of steamships to court? Maybe, if they were caught up in ridiculous patent disputes but, in the end, it is their responsibility to make a better product.
Stick with reality.
More whimsical conjecture. The reality is they sold to me an object. I own that object. They should quit trying to pretend they still own that object.
No, I don't... but go on.
Did you even read what I originally wrote? This metaphor is the same as hardware players with hardware encryption. The door bouncers at the concert venue are the microchips checking to ensure that the ticket isn't a photocopy. I said that the media industry is free to attempt to implement this. See how far that business model gets them when we have to buy a new player every few years at $200 each.
Absolutely. One physical toothpick, one tissue, one sheet of toilet paper... until someone makes more.
There's no secret in the world that the everyday consumer has the technological capability to make more. That issue was brought up at the time CD writers were put on the market and the appropriate compensatory tax was added to the cost of blank CDs (supposedly).
Get over it. Face reality.
The US military solves the IP problem in a practical way: If they don't want you to share something they don't share it with you. It's that simple. Military minds are very practical when it comes to solving the real problem as opposed to running around in endless circles debating the legal definition of intellectual property.
If the media industry feels their profit margin isn't high enough they're free to jack up the price of each copy sold. They're even free to come up with customized hardware players that work on an encrypted data format (HA! See how far THAT business model takes them!). This business about pretending they still own something after they've legally sold it is ridiculous. This business about making federal felons out of legitimate customers after the point of sale is equally ridiculous.
Face reality. They legally sold it and the owner of the new copy is legally sharing it. This artificial creation of licensing has got to stop. There are two types of transactions in reality: full sale and rental. If I rent something then I fully expect to give it back. If I buy something, however, then the seller knows at the point of sale that I own it once they've accepted money for it.
I have over 400 legally purchased CDs and fewer than 30 mp3s which I don't legally own the original CD for. I don't share my material on the public network and I don't use common p2p sharing software (Kazaa, napster, whathaveyou) but I am sick and tired of the arguments, dischord, and strife being caused by people who can't cope with the concept of "It's bought and sold... Let go!"
Let's simply ignore that the virtue of the RIAA being strongly government backed, and backed by the major players in the industry, makes it financially extraordinarily difficult for anyone with a more fair business model to compete in the market.
As for unbreakable DRM... I'm all in favor of it. I'm also in favor of the government staying neutral if someone breaks the unbreakable DRM. At some point, people are going to have to come to grips with reality and the reality is that nothing is unbreakable.
The consumer wants RIAA crap? Hardly. The consumer wants music. Given current business models and the distribution of available resources (ie. cash) to concentrate in a handful of established social circles, I'd say the consumer doesn't have much of an option. Your average 8-18 year old isn't looking any farther than the mall to find music nor or they listening any farther than the ubiquitous AM/FM radio.
XFM, Sirius, and internet radio is beginning to change some of that but until the politicians finally decide to separate their ego from their backsides it'll all end up the same as it is now.
And, if you're in good with a manager of an HR department, you'll know that companies (especially large multi-national companies) have worked out hundreds of little tricks for the mgmt at one company to pass unofficial reviews to the inquiring HR dept of another company. The only thing that's required is that the two companies involved are on the same page when it comes to this sort of behavior.
It's commonly referred to as blackballing. No amount of legislation will ever stop the practice from happening. There can be no lawsuit if the plaintiff can never get their hands on the paperwork.
You'd have to be an international spy or professional cat burglar to have the skills necessary to catch big companies in the crap they pull.
Do you want to be known as a lapdog who will happily eat a mouthful of poo and ask for more...
Or do you want to be known as the guy who will put his foot down and say "Enough is enough" when things go too far?
The cost of a private attorney. Not cheap. Unless you're a member of a federally defined demographic (race, religion, sexual preference, disability, military service, gender) which nearly guarantees an upper hand in a legal battle, most employment law attorneys will ask for a $5000 retainer fee (at least) just to file the paperwork for the initial inquiries. Meanwhile, you still may be without income.
Witnesses. Very few coworkers are willing to jeopardize their positions just to testify for you. Without witnesses or a member of a federally defined demographic the case is extremely weak. Companies are very careful to put nothing in official paperwork which can be used against them.
If a manager wants to harass someone there's a very easy way to play the game. Harass the employee just a little, just a little, just a little, and wait for the employee to retaliate. The moment the employee does anything which could be remotely considered unruly or disruptive it is quietly documented without any notice given to the employee. Repeat repeat repeat. If done correctly the employee's retaliation will gradually become more and more noticeable and possibly increase in severity. The manager escalates their harassment accordingly being very careful to only commit the harassment in forums which are private or watched only by people who back them politically. After about 25 or so secret documented instances the company has a perfect case against the employee. The manager is then free to harass at will and, when the employee finally explodes, they can be terminated without a problem.
Simple.
You're also forgetting that, for some pathetic reason, the concept of hazing by those in authority is ingrained in our society, maybe even in human behavior. People in superior positions are always harassing their subordinates. Some do it because they like to watch people run in circles--it's amusing for them. Many do it because they feel "it happened to me, so I can do it to them" (it's sick, but many people think this way). Others do it because they're trying to manipulate their subordinates. Sometimes it's done to wear an employee down for sexual advances. Often it's done because the manager has a poor personal life and they're simply letting the crap roll downhill, using their subordinates as stress relievers. Many families function this way. In American society especially (and possibly in others) the older folks generally love to wind up a younger person just to watch them spin off. For them its cheap entertainment. If it gets out of hand the police can always be called. The harasser is always in a calm state of mind--they've been entertained. The harassee is always distraught and out of their head. Police, in general, are pretty stupid about this and won't even question the older person's story that the younger person just randomly flew off the handle.
Laws against harassment are little more than lip service and token gestures to pacify the general population. Those who win harassment suits are poster children--again, token gestures to pacify the general population.
For the most part, it's business as usual in the world. It's all fun and games until someone gets poked in the eye--and then it's the victim's fault.
The harassment was definitely illegal but I'm not the kind of guy who can afford the attorney, nor would I really want to, nor would I ask anyone else to jeopardize their jobs just to testify on my behalf. Withholding pay for not working is fine. Withholding pay for legitimately earned vacation is at best a technicality but still ethically wrong.
If you were truly paying attention, rather than trolling for the sake of argument, you'd notice that the order is exactly the opposite: I was taking my vacation and then quitting.
You're destroying the metaphor to bait the argument (I'm seeing a pattern here). But, to continue, I don't remember that it's ever possible for the assailant to cross-examine the victim in a trial. I doubt quite highly that the company would've given me the honor of a proxy attorney at the exit interview.
If not, I certainly hope they start withholding yours for being an argument baiter.
It was two years ago and 1000 miles away. If I could make a lifelong killing off of pursuing it, then I'd happily scorch 'em all and spend the rest of my life tending a garden, washing my car, jogging/cycling, working with LFS, and learning trade skills like pottery and woodworking. Anything less than a ridiculous windfall and, well, I guess I'm not doing so bad now. I'm still employed as a research chemist and, while I lost 8 months of pay before I could get my head together, I'm back to the same pay scale that I had just before I left.
I was really hoping to increase my paycheck more but, all things considered, I'm not doing so bad for having taken a department head, a senior group leader, and an HR rep to task at their own game before the age of 30.
I think you're leaving out the part that normal employees don't have access to resume databases.
Sure, you could register with any of the online job boards purporting to be an employer. I imagine there are roadblocks to that which must be circumvented, possibly even financial roadblocks. HR departments don't let just any employee go perusing through their stack of submitted resumes.
All in all, companies LIKE keeping employees ignorant of the competing talent. It'd probably be quite a huge hole blown in the HR industry if we could all see each other's resumes. I bet it'd be better than catching the president with his pants down, his hand on the VPs wife, his foot on the neighbor's husband, and his mouth full of shaving cream while wearing women's lingerie.
I agree. That approach would have been the best way to handle the situation but, at the time and after dealing with that manager, the department head above him, and the new mgmt pet HR rep, I couldn't have pulled myself together to order a polite cup of coffee much less endure an antagonistic exit interview.
Does it say anything that, when the HR rep called me at home, she offered that the company would not only give me my vacation pay, but a full month's salary if I'd come in for the exit interview? I replied,"You've been handling this case for six months. You know exactly what's gone on. You simply cannot treat someone like that."