Follow-up: On the other hand, if you're sending data that is defined as unused in the HIPAA (as opposed to the payer's) Implementation Guide, then they are correct in rejecting it as your transaction isn't compliant.
You say they are compliant. However, if they're rejecting claims because you're including information that they don't use, they're not compliant with the standard. From the X096/X097/X098 4010 837 transaction set implementation guides:
1.3 Business Use and Definition ... Trading partners agreements are not allowed to set data specifications that conflict with the HIPAA implementations. Payers are required by law to have the capability to send/receive all HIPAA transactions. For example, a payer who does not pay claims with certain home health information must still be able to electronically accept on their front end an 837 with all the home health data. The payer cannot up-front reject such a claim. However, that does not mean that the payer is required to bring that data into their adjudication system. The payer, acting in accordance with policy and contractual agreements, can ignore data within the 837 data set. In light of this, it is permissible for trading partners to specify a subset of an implementation guide as data they are able to process or act upon most efficiently. A provider who sends the payer in the example above, home health data, has just wasted their resources and the resources of the payer. Thus, it behooves trading partners to be clear about the specific data within the 837 (i.e., a subset of the HIPAA implementation guide data) they require or would prefer to have in order to efficiently adjudicate a claim. The subset implementation guide must not contain any loops, segments, elements or codes that are not included in the HIPAA implementation guide. In addition, the order of data must not be changed. Trading partners cannot up-front, reject a claim based on the standard HIPAA transaction.
I don't have the 5010 guides, but I'm sure you'll find the same or similar language
Ok, what if they give you "legal ability" to sell it, but update it every year and the update is still only $5-$10? You'll have the legal ability to sell something that is now nearly worthless.
The problem is that your model is easily made obsolete, and doesn't address the very real and significant costs of producing the content. If you want quality textbooks, or books, movies, music, games, etc. the people producing them need to have a reasonable expectation (but not a guarantee) to make a profit from that work. When selling digital copies that don't wear out, and can be trivially reproduced, the model used for physical goods (that have high production/copying costs, and wear out) breaks down. A "used" physical item has wear and is worth less than a new item. A used digital work is indistinguishable from a new one. Therefore, if resale is allowed, the producer/publisher must make all money from the first wave of sales, with few repeat sales. For items such as books, textbooks, etc, there is not a significant reason for the original purchaser to keep it if they can sell it for ~ the same price they paid for it.
So, while there may be dramatic decreases in production and distribution costs with digital goods, they're selling into a completely different market. Either they charge a high price to the first purchaser knowing that one sale will be resold numerous times thus decreasing total sales, or they sell at a lower price, but prevent resale. You're not going to get both and still get high quality content.
Before someone brings up FOSS as a counter example, yes, it is a counter example. And it's been a challenge for OSS companies to figure out how to make money. Much of the OSS development is paid for by for profit companies, so it isn't necessarily a great counter example, but it is another economic model that can work. And, OSS frequently has a steeper learning curve and/or mediocre user interface, so despite being stable, it's frequently not of comparable quality to commercial software. And, yes, there are exceptions, such as Audacity.
Well, the DataWind Aakash actually came in at a cost to the govt of slightly over $50, not $35, that's the subsidized price. Still, that's a long way below Intel's $299 price target. Sure, Intel is talking about a 10" tablet, with more power, but it's a huge price differential. And for a device that is intended to be used by school children, price and durability are two key factors, both of which Intel has missed.
... but can't yet prove causation. Still, the correlation is significant enough to justify significant caution in the continued use of fracking, and to merit further study on causation. As others have noted, this has the potential to be useful geoengineering, but like many discoveries, it has the potential to be very dangerous. A healthy dose of caution is warranted.
Which doesn't happen if they are required to honor a proper counter notice, which is exactly what I stated in the first place. A proper counter notice should result in the material being restored until a court rules otherwise. Then you don't have this silly BS of it being taking down a second time unless a court has already ruled.
So, your solution is to keep the bad law we have AND have it implemented poorly as well?
I have no idea what you're arguing for/against. I simply pointed out that under DMCA, it's important that intermediaries honor all proper counter notice claims by reinstating the material until a court rules otherwise.
Easily preventable, and legally flawed on it's face. If the employee can be forced to surrender it, then it's clearly not really theirs, ergo, it's the corporations copyright, and it would expire in 20 years.
And if the employee holds the copyright, they're the one due royalties, not the company.
And, yes, I've already thought out how you can have an organization handle collecting the royalties so each artist doesn't have to personally do that if they don't want to spend the time. The artist could contract out the administration and collection of royalties to an organization (trust, corporation, company, etc.), with a limit that the fee for such service would be capped at less than 50% of the collected royalties, ensuring that the rights holder actually receives more than 50% of all royalties collected. The exact percentage TBD or contractually negotiated.
That way, if a corporation wants to try to game the system (or support their content creators) by assigning rights to the content creators, they can have the longer copyright, but the majority of the royalties still go to the individual creators.
Under this plan, a "work made for hire" would be the property of the non-person entity for 20 years, and then public domain. So, it becomes a choice of 20 years of "made for hire" corporate ownership, or give the actual content creators ownership and more than 50% of the royalties to get a share of the royalties for a longer term.
This is why it's important that intermediaries such as YouTube honor a proper DMCA Counter notice, and reinstate the material until a court orders otherwise.
This^^^. Better editing of submissions. At least, spell check, grammar check, and URL validation. Way too many spelling and major grammar errors on initial posting of submissions. Spelling and grammar checking of comments on the preview would also be nice, but I'm mostly concerned with the quality of the submissions that get posted, comments are secondary. This is the #1 request I see mentioned daily.
Banning Flash based ads (and videos that require Flash). Yes, my karma is high enough that I can simply disable ads, but I don't because I presume you make some money on showing them. However, I do not have Flash installed, and yet about 50% of the time Firefox tells me "additional plugins are necessary...". No additional plugins are necessary, and none will be installed, Flash sucks and it's finally dying.
Add support for the tag. Strikethrough is extremely useful in some comments.
Finally, Javascript that gives a nice electric shock to moderators who mod-down comments simply because they disagree with an opinion. And when you figure out how to do that, be sure to patent it and give an open license to it so MegaCorp doesn't patent it afterward and sue you.
I think a slightly different policy is viable. Corporate (non person entities) can only have a copyright for 20 years. Real people (e.g. the author/creator) can have a copyright for 40 years or until death, whichever comes later).
Just some thoughts I've been bouncing around on the matter.
Actually, most of the time I claim the opposite, home has too many distractions, I'm usually more productive in the office after 5pm. But I'm also a "night owl", so I'm quite productive at home in the evening until about 1am. Just don't expect me to do any real thinking before 10am.
Hydrogen exceeding ~4.5% in air is explosive, so a slow leak in a ventilated area just escapes into the atmosphere. A faster leak, or a poorly ventilated area presents a tremendous explosion potential. Remember the reactor buildings in Fukushima? Those were from hydrogen building up inside the building.
Slashdot Mirror
Follow-up: On the other hand, if you're sending data that is defined as unused in the HIPAA (as opposed to the payer's) Implementation Guide, then they are correct in rejecting it as your transaction isn't compliant.
You say they are compliant. However, if they're rejecting claims because you're including information that they don't use, they're not compliant with the standard. From the X096/X097/X098 4010 837 transaction set implementation guides:
1.3 Business Use and Definition
...
Trading partners agreements are not allowed to set data specifications that conflict with the HIPAA implementations. Payers are required by law to have the capability to send/receive all HIPAA transactions. For example, a payer who does not pay claims with certain home health information must still be able to electronically accept on their front end an 837 with all the home health data. The payer cannot up-front reject such a claim. However, that does not mean that the payer is required to bring that data into their adjudication system. The payer, acting in accordance with policy and contractual agreements, can ignore data within the 837 data set. In light of this, it is permissible for trading partners to specify a subset of an implementation guide as data they are able to process or act upon most efficiently. A provider who sends the payer in the example above, home health data, has just wasted their resources and the resources of the payer. Thus, it behooves trading partners to be clear about the specific data within the 837 (i.e., a subset of the HIPAA implementation guide data) they require or would prefer to have in order to efficiently adjudicate a claim. The subset implementation guide must not contain any loops, segments, elements or codes that are not included in the HIPAA implementation guide. In addition, the order of data must not be changed. Trading partners cannot up-front, reject a claim based on the standard HIPAA transaction.
I don't have the 5010 guides, but I'm sure you'll find the same or similar language
Ok, what if they give you "legal ability" to sell it, but update it every year and the update is still only $5-$10? You'll have the legal ability to sell something that is now nearly worthless.
The problem is that your model is easily made obsolete, and doesn't address the very real and significant costs of producing the content. If you want quality textbooks, or books, movies, music, games, etc. the people producing them need to have a reasonable expectation (but not a guarantee) to make a profit from that work. When selling digital copies that don't wear out, and can be trivially reproduced, the model used for physical goods (that have high production/copying costs, and wear out) breaks down. A "used" physical item has wear and is worth less than a new item. A used digital work is indistinguishable from a new one. Therefore, if resale is allowed, the producer/publisher must make all money from the first wave of sales, with few repeat sales. For items such as books, textbooks, etc, there is not a significant reason for the original purchaser to keep it if they can sell it for ~ the same price they paid for it.
So, while there may be dramatic decreases in production and distribution costs with digital goods, they're selling into a completely different market. Either they charge a high price to the first purchaser knowing that one sale will be resold numerous times thus decreasing total sales, or they sell at a lower price, but prevent resale. You're not going to get both and still get high quality content.
Before someone brings up FOSS as a counter example, yes, it is a counter example. And it's been a challenge for OSS companies to figure out how to make money. Much of the OSS development is paid for by for profit companies, so it isn't necessarily a great counter example, but it is another economic model that can work. And, OSS frequently has a steeper learning curve and/or mediocre user interface, so despite being stable, it's frequently not of comparable quality to commercial software. And, yes, there are exceptions, such as Audacity.
Well, the DataWind Aakash actually came in at a cost to the govt of slightly over $50, not $35, that's the subsidized price. Still, that's a long way below Intel's $299 price target. Sure, Intel is talking about a 10" tablet, with more power, but it's a huge price differential. And for a device that is intended to be used by school children, price and durability are two key factors, both of which Intel has missed.
And if they were to price it at $5-$10 per student per year, not being able to resell it would be just fine.
Sorry for the delay, but military bureaucracy means it takes a while to get all the forms approved before posting AF jokes.
... but can't yet prove causation. Still, the correlation is significant enough to justify significant caution in the continued use of fracking, and to merit further study on causation. As others have noted, this has the potential to be useful geoengineering, but like many discoveries, it has the potential to be very dangerous. A healthy dose of caution is warranted.
Which goes right back to what I originally said about how it SHOULD work.
Which doesn't happen if they are required to honor a proper counter notice, which is exactly what I stated in the first place. A proper counter notice should result in the material being restored until a court rules otherwise. Then you don't have this silly BS of it being taking down a second time unless a court has already ruled.
So, your solution is to keep the bad law we have AND have it implemented poorly as well?
I have no idea what you're arguing for/against. I simply pointed out that under DMCA, it's important that intermediaries honor all proper counter notice claims by reinstating the material until a court rules otherwise.
Agreed. But right now, it's the bad law we have, and until it's repealed or replaced, we have to live with it.
Easily preventable, and legally flawed on it's face. If the employee can be forced to surrender it, then it's clearly not really theirs, ergo, it's the corporations copyright, and it would expire in 20 years.
And if the employee holds the copyright, they're the one due royalties, not the company.
And, yes, I've already thought out how you can have an organization handle collecting the royalties so each artist doesn't have to personally do that if they don't want to spend the time. The artist could contract out the administration and collection of royalties to an organization (trust, corporation, company, etc.), with a limit that the fee for such service would be capped at less than 50% of the collected royalties, ensuring that the rights holder actually receives more than 50% of all royalties collected. The exact percentage TBD or contractually negotiated.
That way, if a corporation wants to try to game the system (or support their content creators) by assigning rights to the content creators, they can have the longer copyright, but the majority of the royalties still go to the individual creators.
Under this plan, a "work made for hire" would be the property of the non-person entity for 20 years, and then public domain. So, it becomes a choice of 20 years of "made for hire" corporate ownership, or give the actual content creators ownership and more than 50% of the royalties to get a share of the royalties for a longer term.
There would be no copyright renewal/extension.
This is why it's important that intermediaries such as YouTube honor a proper DMCA Counter notice, and reinstate the material until a court orders otherwise.
You narcissistic xenophobe. Sol is not superior to other suns.
End Solar Supremacy! We demand equal treatment of all planetary systems.
However, most interstellar travel only goes to HD 7120, getting service to HD 10180 is much more rare.
Good catch.
Which part of
"...court won't work with copyright holders who pursue settlement programs."
doesn't make that expressly clear?
This^^^. Better editing of submissions. At least, spell check, grammar check, and URL validation. Way too many spelling and major grammar errors on initial posting of submissions. Spelling and grammar checking of comments on the preview would also be nice, but I'm mostly concerned with the quality of the submissions that get posted, comments are secondary. This is the #1 request I see mentioned daily.
Banning Flash based ads (and videos that require Flash). Yes, my karma is high enough that I can simply disable ads, but I don't because I presume you make some money on showing them. However, I do not have Flash installed, and yet about 50% of the time Firefox tells me "additional plugins are necessary...". No additional plugins are necessary, and none will be installed, Flash sucks and it's finally dying.
Add support for the tag. Strikethrough is extremely useful in some comments.
Finally, Javascript that gives a nice electric shock to moderators who mod-down comments simply because they disagree with an opinion. And when you figure out how to do that, be sure to patent it and give an open license to it so MegaCorp doesn't patent it afterward and sue you.
What about ocean-front property in Arizona? I've got lots of that and treasure maps too.
I think a slightly different policy is viable. Corporate (non person entities) can only have a copyright for 20 years. Real people (e.g. the author/creator) can have a copyright for 40 years or until death, whichever comes later).
Just some thoughts I've been bouncing around on the matter.
Hindenburg wasn't an explosion, and it was much higher than 5% hydrogen. So, yea, I'm sticking with Fukushima.
Why wouldn't I make that claim?
Actually, most of the time I claim the opposite, home has too many distractions, I'm usually more productive in the office after 5pm. But I'm also a "night owl", so I'm quite productive at home in the evening until about 1am. Just don't expect me to do any real thinking before 10am.
They're making comeback (or at least a rapid expansion) under their current (Japanese???) ownership.
Hydrogen exceeding ~4.5% in air is explosive, so a slow leak in a ventilated area just escapes into the atmosphere. A faster leak, or a poorly ventilated area presents a tremendous explosion potential. Remember the reactor buildings in Fukushima? Those were from hydrogen building up inside the building.
MySpace is the first place I would to find someone who has thrown people off bridges.