answer this: Do you consider honorable agreements between two people to be worth anything, and to actually mean what they say?
Any agreement is terminated the moment you piss me off. If I find out that you've been borrowing my money to help your friends harass me you've just pissed me off. If I find out that you've been giving me impossible yearly goals so that you can amuse yourself beating me up at performance review time you've just pissed me off. If I find out that you've been paying me about half what someone else makes to do the same job you've just pissed me off.
See. Companies just wouldn't go for that if I added a section of,"Conditions under which you'll piss me off." They wouldn't understand why it's not their right to do those things and why I do have a right to be pissed off.
Except that when you explicitly choose to waive your claim to something
First, there's nothing explicit in an employee agreement. It's all vague references to something you might do in the future. Second, you cannot waive your Constitutionally protected rights. It's not possible. Anyone who thinks it is just bought the Brooklyn Bridge.
the constitution can't possibly discuss all of the potential variations of contracts between two parties
Are you daft?
"The enumeration of the Constitution" The interpretation and implementation of this document "of certain rights" Of the rights given to the Government "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
There will be no interpretation of the Constitution to give the federal government any rights which are retained by the people.
I suppose you don't know which rights are retained by the people. Read Amendment 10. The Constitutional authors were very explicit in their declaration of,"this is all the federal government does. No more."
My current contract has about a page and half that expressly outlines my rights to certain IP that I championed or otherwise produced
I knew long ago you were preaching from an elevated level, shouting down your taunts and insults because you happen to be in a priveleged position. It's no wonder your arguments have been heavy handed. I'm happy for you. *clap* *clap* *clap* You have an easier life.
But it doesn't have to supersede the constitution in order to be valid
If it supersedes the Constitution it is invalid.
The constitution doesn't lay out every right
Incorrect. According to Amendment 9, the Constitution does indeed lay out every right that the Federal Government has. With respect to intellectual property, the Federal Government has the right only to protect inventors and creators. It does not have the right to back employee agreements.
Two people have sat down and assigned each other certain rights
It's obvious you don't work in an industry with intellectual property. There isn't a single employee agreement which details any rights of the employee. That, in and of itself, is enough to raise suspicion. A contract cannot supersede the Constitutional rights retained by inventors and creators.
Multiple parties produce something under a contract of joint ownership
That's unrealistic and unreasonable. Honestly, it's a stupid position that is only assumed by the most immoral people in society.
If you're concerned about "signing away your rights" as you apply for a job, don't seek that job
That's not the way it works. The Constitution specifically names inventors and creators as the people to be protected. Rights given by the Constitution cannot be signed away.
They all insist that if I hire them, and pay them, that they still get to take what the company produces, and use it elsewhere
That is entirely your problem to keep your employees satisfied and happy. If you piss them off then you accept the consequences. I'll not have my taxpayer dollars supporting your theoretical right to hamstring your fellow man.
You're looking to have it both ways: control over something the company wants to control, and the company's money, too
The company is using my tax money and my government to take rights which are granted to me by the Constitution. It's not my job to make you believe it.
If the movie industry sees a slowdown in ticket sales or DVD sales
I see them as being directly related, not inversely related. Evidence is in my favor. Since 1950, for example, piracy, movie releases, and total revenues are all on the rise.
I don't suppose you know of any actual figures to correlate rising piracy to a decrease in movie-making?
the vulnerability would have circulated among your basic bad guys so quickly that it was probably appropriate for that to hit the media they way it did
they would also know that this particular vuln doesn't escape that definition either.
and anyone skilled enough to do the hack knows that.
I have a very unpopular view about this. Feel free to troll back.
"slavery" is a game. It's a game like economics is a game and business is a game and insider trading is a game. There are rules which define right and wrong. "Slavery" has a definition typically associated with public bidding and meat markets. Same goes for gambling and, again, insider trading.
That says nothing about the form in which it exists and whether or not you see it so obviously.
if both parties enter into a more exclusive agreement
As I pointed out earlier you never draw a line. How many of your basic rights can you sign away to an agreement made at a point of economic duress? For example... when running out of unemployment benefits? When employed part time and running out of options?
You never draw a line. There are some rights which cannot be signed away. I happen to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution along with a full recognition of the ramifications of the 9th and 10th Amendment. When you find a group of attorneys that can win that viewpoint I'm right there with you.
The word "scam" implies deceit or fraud, and I don't think you mean that.
I do. I can't explain it very well. It's like walking into a casino. Everything looks so fun but you know, in the back of your mind, that the house never loses. Even if you walk out of the casino $100 up they know that somewhere, statistically, they will get their money back and so much more. It's similar to that. When you figure it out, hire an attorney, and I'll be happy to add my name to the list of claimants.
Otherwise, you'd have a claim against their lying during the hiring process
Legally I don't. I should. The Constitution protects inventors and creators (or is it authors and inventors? whatever). Why have the courts not ruled most employee agreements to be in violation of the Constitution? When you figure out how to put that, in legalese, and hire enough attorneys to make it stick, I'll be the first to add my name to the list of claimants.
Who cares if it's reasonable?
That's okay. I was going to bed anyways. Enforcement of legal power should always be within the realm of reasonable.
There is no direct link between some torrent server in Iceland and a ticket-puncher in the midwest.
or indirectly
The moment anyone starts talking about using tax dollars and government clout to protect indirect revenue, well, maybe they just have a bad business model. Indirectly, if you don't give all your money to charity, you're contributing to worldwide hunger and human rights abuses. Do you really want to make "indirectly" the premise for anything legally prosecutable? "Indirectly" has no limits. Indirectly, you're responsible for nearly anyone's death. Do not tread this "indirectly" road.
Because piracy is rampant and those people are still getting paid. Take an industry where piracy isn't rampant, say in the industry of banking. Bank tellers don't get paid much more than your average key grip or recording tech. The construction workers who build banks and excavate parking lots don't get paid any more than any movie set laborer or security guard.
Profits (income, salary, wage) for the common people are independent of piracy. The only profits that will be hurt are those for the CEOs and execs and, frankly, I can't feel sorry for anyone who has more than 6 months rent in the bank. If they don't want to take the chance in business they're free to quit selling the CDs to pirates. How they figure it out is not my problem. Once they legally sell a CD to a pirate it's not my problem. They know exactly what a pirate will do with a CD. It's not my problem to figure out how they choose their customers. If they can't do it right they shouldn't be in business.
If Comcast will be more vehement about tracking and prosecuting individuals who harass their customers...
Look. I owe money on a car. I'll be more than happy to pay $50/mo. That's all I can afford. How is saying,"I want to pressure you until you crack" going to raise my salary?
Even small, family-owned or guys-in-the-basement businesses have investors (or loans) and involve risk
You're citing small fish to justify the scam set up by people who work with money in 1000x the amounts that the little guys will ever see.
as understood by any reasonable person
There's nothing reasonable about using legal threats to keep me from presenting my own work in an interview process. No reasonable person could argue to change the interview process at a multibillion dollar international company.
People who (legally and ethically) retain rights to their brain-work are either valuable enough that the person with the cash is willing to stipulate that going into the relationship, or risk-tolerant enough to start their own venture
If I'm not valuable enough to retain my brain work then how is that valuable enough for a company to gain any intellectual property on it?
That's not the way it works. They own the product but it's my intellectual property. The Constitution says that rights are reserved to inventors and creators. Anything after that is a cheap scam. I'll not sign my rights away from some vacuous vague interpretable contract which was put forth long before I had my own ideas figured out.
Where do you draw the line? I feel EULAs have gone too far, yet there's no line drawn there. Just how many of your rights can you legally sign away just because someone else has an economic upper hand?
o steal your work and build a business
Who said anything about building a business? If the company didn't value me highly enough to keep me happy then they must risk losing me. When I leave I've still retained my intellectual property. That's why it's intellectual property. While the legal right may be set by the courts, I'll not honor any man or company who threatens me for using my intellectual property in a presentation in an attempt to gain honest lawful employment. I cannot change the interview requirements without endangering the very delicate first impressions which govern an interview.
If you risked your capital, or talked friends/relatives into investing in a company of your own, making you beholden to them, at least for a while, as investors
I think the stock market fallout of the last 6 years coupled with the witch hunt, in a vain attempt to hold executives and top investors accountable, disproves any thought about "risk". I'm not going to argue the legality. Legally, you're right. Morally you can speak high and mighty about risk all you want but there's not an executive in the world that risks as much as the middle class employee putting up with office politics on a daily basis. "Risk" is without home or means to pay rent for the month. Risk is not some vacuous term dictated by pushing electronic money through electronic transactions.
Believe me
I don't. Your arguments are heavy handed and unreal. You've ascribed admirable moral qualities to people who have none. The very nature of business, Wall Street, and politics is cutthroat, dirty, underhanded, and immoral. You'll not convince me that there's a single law past the strict interpretation of the Constitution (with the 9th and 10th Amendments intact, thank you very much) which is doing me, as a private citizen, any favors.
anyone who produces and works should look for our government to intercede when someone else
The way I see it, though, 95% of the time the someone else who's depriving me of the value of my work is doing so with government backing and blessing. Take my employee agreement, for example. It's all about bargaining power. What's the government done to protect my intellectual property rights when, with the sweep of an all-inclusive employee agreement, the company has legal right to prosecute me for my own ideas?
My job interviews are all-day events. They always include a one-hour presentation given by me on my relevant work. I don't have much to present when my former employer can prosecute me for leaking their intellectual property.
Because without embracing the very engine that produces our standard of living
I don't know what standard of living you're at, but it's not doing any more for me than a similarly educated and motivated chemist at my age in Japan or China. So yes, I can bitch about it, because I'm paying for benefits that others are getting and I'm not.
I don't think you can convincingly demonstrate that the prison industry has ever even tried to lobby for harsher laws
I'm sure someone on Wall Street somewhere has made a social network map. Someday, I'm going to get my hands on it because it's the only definitive proof of the conspiracy. A map which shows executives who sit on the same boards, attend the same golf clubs regularly, go to the same Churches, invest in the same funds, have lunch with the same politicians...
Slashdot Mirror
answer this: Do you consider honorable agreements between two people to be worth anything, and to actually mean what they say?
Any agreement is terminated the moment you piss me off. If I find out that you've been borrowing my money to help your friends harass me you've just pissed me off. If I find out that you've been giving me impossible yearly goals so that you can amuse yourself beating me up at performance review time you've just pissed me off. If I find out that you've been paying me about half what someone else makes to do the same job you've just pissed me off.
See. Companies just wouldn't go for that if I added a section of,"Conditions under which you'll piss me off." They wouldn't understand why it's not their right to do those things and why I do have a right to be pissed off.
On top of that. I voted.
Except that when you explicitly choose to waive your claim to something
First, there's nothing explicit in an employee agreement. It's all vague references to something you might do in the future. Second, you cannot waive your Constitutionally protected rights. It's not possible. Anyone who thinks it is just bought the Brooklyn Bridge.
the constitution can't possibly discuss all of the potential variations of contracts between two parties
Are you daft?
"The enumeration of the Constitution" The interpretation and implementation of this document
"of certain rights" Of the rights given to the Government
"shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
There will be no interpretation of the Constitution to give the federal government any rights which are retained by the people.
I suppose you don't know which rights are retained by the people. Read Amendment 10. The Constitutional authors were very explicit in their declaration of,"this is all the federal government does. No more."
My current contract has about a page and half that expressly outlines my rights to certain IP that I championed or otherwise produced
I knew long ago you were preaching from an elevated level, shouting down your taunts and insults because you happen to be in a priveleged position. It's no wonder your arguments have been heavy handed. I'm happy for you. *clap* *clap* *clap* You have an easier life.
But it doesn't have to supersede the constitution in order to be valid
If it supersedes the Constitution it is invalid.
The constitution doesn't lay out every right
Incorrect. According to Amendment 9, the Constitution does indeed lay out every right that the Federal Government has. With respect to intellectual property, the Federal Government has the right only to protect inventors and creators. It does not have the right to back employee agreements.
Two people have sat down and assigned each other certain rights
It's obvious you don't work in an industry with intellectual property. There isn't a single employee agreement which details any rights of the employee. That, in and of itself, is enough to raise suspicion. A contract cannot supersede the Constitutional rights retained by inventors and creators.
Multiple parties produce something under a contract of joint ownership
Joint ownership means it's still part mine, too.
Nice cowardly
Oh good. A troll.
how does entering into a contract with someone take away the rights of either party?
A contract cannot supersede the Constitution.
who is having their rights violated when you break that agreement?
The contract was never legal because it's in violation of the Constitution.
In fact, it's the presence of our constitution that allows us to enter into contracts with some expectation that they will be honored
Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. The federal government has no power to reassign rights which are assigned to the people based upon contracts.
No amount of insult, no amount of laws, and no amount of brute force can legitimize something which is unconstitutional.
How is it unreasonable to say that you are not forced to take any particular job?
It is unreasonable to think that you can take Constitutional rights away from anyone, by any means.
Where do the tax dollars come in?
Courts.
during the life of a contractual engagement
A contractual agreement does not supersede the highest law of the land. EULAs are no better.
no one is forcing you to take it
That's unrealistic and unreasonable. Honestly, it's a stupid position that is only assumed by the most immoral people in society.
If you're concerned about "signing away your rights" as you apply for a job, don't seek that job
That's not the way it works. The Constitution specifically names inventors and creators as the people to be protected. Rights given by the Constitution cannot be signed away.
They all insist that if I hire them, and pay them, that they still get to take what the company produces, and use it elsewhere
That is entirely your problem to keep your employees satisfied and happy. If you piss them off then you accept the consequences. I'll not have my taxpayer dollars supporting your theoretical right to hamstring your fellow man.
You're looking to have it both ways: control over something the company wants to control, and the company's money, too
The company is using my tax money and my government to take rights which are granted to me by the Constitution. It's not my job to make you believe it.
If the movie industry sees a slowdown in ticket sales or DVD sales
I see them as being directly related, not inversely related. Evidence is in my favor. Since 1950, for example, piracy, movie releases, and total revenues are all on the rise.
I don't suppose you know of any actual figures to correlate rising piracy to a decrease in movie-making?
Then I am assuming you are not outraged when they punish pirates caught selling CDs?
I'm outraged that they're using my taxpayer dollars to do it. Once they sell a CD to a pirate, it becomes their problem, not mine.
Would it have been different had the election turned out different?
You are so going to prison for the rest of your life.
When it comes to vulnerabilities, it is presumptuous to assume that you are the first to discover the bug
That's it exactly!
We have discovered countless bugs that we've never disclosed to anyone
And other interesting academic exercises in remote administration... *mumble* *mumble* *mumble*
the vulnerability would have circulated among your basic bad guys so quickly that it was probably appropriate for that to hit the media they way it did
they would also know that this particular vuln doesn't escape that definition either.
and anyone skilled enough to do the hack knows that.
Ouch. Ya got me.
If a company makes a product, and I point out a flaw, shouldn't they be offering me a job?
It could've saved the pharmaceutical industry.
Like this?
anti-slavery laws
I have a very unpopular view about this. Feel free to troll back.
"slavery" is a game. It's a game like economics is a game and business is a game and insider trading is a game. There are rules which define right and wrong. "Slavery" has a definition typically associated with public bidding and meat markets. Same goes for gambling and, again, insider trading.
That says nothing about the form in which it exists and whether or not you see it so obviously.
if both parties enter into a more exclusive agreement
As I pointed out earlier you never draw a line. How many of your basic rights can you sign away to an agreement made at a point of economic duress? For example... when running out of unemployment benefits? When employed part time and running out of options?
You never draw a line. There are some rights which cannot be signed away. I happen to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution along with a full recognition of the ramifications of the 9th and 10th Amendment. When you find a group of attorneys that can win that viewpoint I'm right there with you.
entered into willingly
Mmmmmm... yes... willingly. What a simple term.
The word "scam" implies deceit or fraud, and I don't think you mean that.
I do. I can't explain it very well. It's like walking into a casino. Everything looks so fun but you know, in the back of your mind, that the house never loses. Even if you walk out of the casino $100 up they know that somewhere, statistically, they will get their money back and so much more. It's similar to that. When you figure it out, hire an attorney, and I'll be happy to add my name to the list of claimants.
Otherwise, you'd have a claim against their lying during the hiring process
Legally I don't. I should. The Constitution protects inventors and creators (or is it authors and inventors? whatever). Why have the courts not ruled most employee agreements to be in violation of the Constitution? When you figure out how to put that, in legalese, and hire enough attorneys to make it stick, I'll be the first to add my name to the list of claimants.
Who cares if it's reasonable?
That's okay. I was going to bed anyways. Enforcement of legal power should always be within the realm of reasonable.
directly
There is no direct link between some torrent server in Iceland and a ticket-puncher in the midwest.
or indirectly
The moment anyone starts talking about using tax dollars and government clout to protect indirect revenue, well, maybe they just have a bad business model. Indirectly, if you don't give all your money to charity, you're contributing to worldwide hunger and human rights abuses. Do you really want to make "indirectly" the premise for anything legally prosecutable? "Indirectly" has no limits. Indirectly, you're responsible for nearly anyone's death. Do not tread this "indirectly" road.
Where is the fault in the logic?
Because piracy is rampant and those people are still getting paid. Take an industry where piracy isn't rampant, say in the industry of banking. Bank tellers don't get paid much more than your average key grip or recording tech. The construction workers who build banks and excavate parking lots don't get paid any more than any movie set laborer or security guard.
Profits (income, salary, wage) for the common people are independent of piracy. The only profits that will be hurt are those for the CEOs and execs and, frankly, I can't feel sorry for anyone who has more than 6 months rent in the bank. If they don't want to take the chance in business they're free to quit selling the CDs to pirates. How they figure it out is not my problem. Once they legally sell a CD to a pirate it's not my problem. They know exactly what a pirate will do with a CD. It's not my problem to figure out how they choose their customers. If they can't do it right they shouldn't be in business.
I'm sorry I have a moral compass.
*nudge* North is that way. *pointing*
If Comcast will be more vehement about tracking and prosecuting individuals who harass their customers...
Look. I owe money on a car. I'll be more than happy to pay $50/mo. That's all I can afford. How is saying,"I want to pressure you until you crack" going to raise my salary?
Even small, family-owned or guys-in-the-basement businesses have investors (or loans) and involve risk
You're citing small fish to justify the scam set up by people who work with money in 1000x the amounts that the little guys will ever see.
as understood by any reasonable person
There's nothing reasonable about using legal threats to keep me from presenting my own work in an interview process. No reasonable person could argue to change the interview process at a multibillion dollar international company.
People who (legally and ethically) retain rights to their brain-work are either valuable enough that the person with the cash is willing to stipulate that going into the relationship, or risk-tolerant enough to start their own venture
If I'm not valuable enough to retain my brain work then how is that valuable enough for a company to gain any intellectual property on it?
If you don't like working for a company
That's not the way it works. They own the product but it's my intellectual property. The Constitution says that rights are reserved to inventors and creators. Anything after that is a cheap scam. I'll not sign my rights away from some vacuous vague interpretable contract which was put forth long before I had my own ideas figured out.
Where do you draw the line? I feel EULAs have gone too far, yet there's no line drawn there. Just how many of your rights can you legally sign away just because someone else has an economic upper hand?
o steal your work and build a business
Who said anything about building a business? If the company didn't value me highly enough to keep me happy then they must risk losing me. When I leave I've still retained my intellectual property. That's why it's intellectual property. While the legal right may be set by the courts, I'll not honor any man or company who threatens me for using my intellectual property in a presentation in an attempt to gain honest lawful employment. I cannot change the interview requirements without endangering the very delicate first impressions which govern an interview.
If you risked your capital, or talked friends/relatives into investing in a company of your own, making you beholden to them, at least for a while, as investors
I think the stock market fallout of the last 6 years coupled with the witch hunt, in a vain attempt to hold executives and top investors accountable, disproves any thought about "risk". I'm not going to argue the legality. Legally, you're right. Morally you can speak high and mighty about risk all you want but there's not an executive in the world that risks as much as the middle class employee putting up with office politics on a daily basis. "Risk" is without home or means to pay rent for the month. Risk is not some vacuous term dictated by pushing electronic money through electronic transactions.
Believe me
I don't. Your arguments are heavy handed and unreal. You've ascribed admirable moral qualities to people who have none. The very nature of business, Wall Street, and politics is cutthroat, dirty, underhanded, and immoral. You'll not convince me that there's a single law past the strict interpretation of the Constitution (with the 9th and 10th Amendments intact, thank you very much) which is doing me, as a private citizen, any favors.
anyone who produces and works should look for our government to intercede when someone else
The way I see it, though, 95% of the time the someone else who's depriving me of the value of my work is doing so with government backing and blessing. Take my employee agreement, for example. It's all about bargaining power. What's the government done to protect my intellectual property rights when, with the sweep of an all-inclusive employee agreement, the company has legal right to prosecute me for my own ideas?
My job interviews are all-day events. They always include a one-hour presentation given by me on my relevant work. I don't have much to present when my former employer can prosecute me for leaking their intellectual property.
Because without embracing the very engine that produces our standard of living
I don't know what standard of living you're at, but it's not doing any more for me than a similarly educated and motivated chemist at my age in Japan or China. So yes, I can bitch about it, because I'm paying for benefits that others are getting and I'm not.
I don't think you can convincingly demonstrate that the prison industry has ever even tried to lobby for harsher laws
I'm sure someone on Wall Street somewhere has made a social network map. Someday, I'm going to get my hands on it because it's the only definitive proof of the conspiracy. A map which shows executives who sit on the same boards, attend the same golf clubs regularly, go to the same Churches, invest in the same funds, have lunch with the same politicians...