Feds hint at charges for WikiLeaks' Assange | Privacy Inc. - CNET News
Bathetic as it may be, I wonder whether or not the Feds will include copyright infringement among their list of charges against the WikiLeaks founder. It might stick, and the maximum penalty for knowing, repeated copyright infringement is five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each work.
Works are usually books, or songs, or movies, or games.
Usually, for full copyright protection, the "work" has to be registered with the Library Of Congress. Are state secrets entered into the loc.gov?
Can one argue that government employees' reports are "works"? Were they "works for hire" and does that make a difference? I don't know. Everything one writes is said to be instantly copyrighted to the author.
Copyright infringement is the unauthorized copying and publishing of works without the permission of the copyright owner... usually the author.
It seems to me, that the WikiLeaks problem may make passage of COICA (s~3804) much more likely.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Google Vows to Crack Down on Internet Copyright Violations - DailyFinance
Google Vows to Crack Down on Internet Copyright Violations - DailyFinance
The AP gives a dumbed down account of what the law provides. I wonder why the Media persistently fails to inform the public of the truth.
Here's the wording of OCILLA (the "Safe Harbor" provision)
The AP gives a dumbed down account of what the law provides. I wonder why the Media persistently fails to inform the public of the truth.
Here's the wording of OCILLA (the "Safe Harbor" provision)
OCILLAThe Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including Internet service providers) and other Internet intermediaries by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement (when they make unauthorized copies) as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users......First, the OSP must “adopt and reasonably implement a policy”[2] of addressing and terminating accounts of users who are found to be “repeat infringers.”[2] Second, the OSP must accommodate and not interfere with “standard technical measures.”[3] OSPs may qualify for one or more of the Section 512 safe harbors under § 512(a)-(d), for immunity from copyright liability stemming from: transmitting [4], caching [5], storing [6], or linking [7] to infringing material. An OSP who complies with the requirements for a given safe harbor is not liable for money damages, but may still be ordered by a court to perform specific actions such as disabling access to infringing material.Section 512(c) applies to OSPs that store infringing material. In addition to the two general requirements that OSPs comply with standard technical measures and remove repeat infringers, § 512(c) also requires that the OSP: 1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Immigration
There have been amnesties before, I believe, and nothing changed. Legal immigration is one thing. It's difficult, and takes years for good reason.
A fast track for illegal immigrants would be absolutely wrong, and maybe the "anchor baby" law should be reviewed.
It is obviously a dangerous law, open to abuse, that encourages vulnerable women to behave illegally and in a manner that endangers their own life and that of their unborn child.
Maybe the emergency rooms of hospitals should be deemed neutral zones, like foreign embassies, for the purposes of establishing citizenship.
Those illegal immigrants who are considered for any kind of compassionate "amnesty" should meet some very strict criteria.
Illegal immigrants should not be permitted to vote until they have passed the same (or even more stringent) English language, American History and knowledge of the Constitution exams as new legal immigrants (with no credit whatsoever for their time already here), and they ought to have to live in America without breaking any laws for at least five MORE years from the time they turn themselves in.
Maybe, they should have to study and pass SATs in English and Economics. Maybe 16 years of probation would be appropriate, during which time they should pay all city, state, federal, sales etc taxes, and receive no welfare, and no tax refunds.
If probationary immigrants could not vote for 16 years, that would somewhat depoliticize the debate.
I'm worried about the "they must pay taxes" discussion. Illegal immigrants are likely to be in the lower 40% tax bracket. We're told that "taxpayers" in the lowest tax bracket don't pay taxes.
Legal immigrants and American citizens deserve the assurance that the "fines" being suggested will be substantial enough to deter illegal immigration in the future, and make a meaningful contribution to the coffers that have been depleted by welfare for illegal immigrants.
If we cannot incentivize people to pay their own mortgages, how as a practical matter, are illegal immigrants going to pay a substantial fine?
Maybe the fines should be like a posted bond, imposed by judges on persons not deemed a threat to society between the time of arraignment and trial.
Possibly, those employers who have employed illegal immigrants ought to be obliged to be the immigrants' legal and financial sponsors, and post bond, and be co-signers of their housing and car loans, etc. And, be legally responsible for the illegal immigrants' schooling and health insurance and drivers' ed.
That should deter employers in the future from importing and exploiting undocumented workers.
A final criteria for legal immigration (apart from having a sponsor, having an income, being law-abiding, paying taxes, learning the laws, history and language) is HEALTH. Legal immigrants have to prove that they don't have AIDS or lung disease, and won't be a burden on the health care system.
What's to be done about unhealthy illegal immigrants?
Lastly, is an insistence that immigrants study the Constitution a tad hypocritical?
Possibly, the lawmakers and members of the Administration who are framing any laws regarding illegal immigrants should also, publicly, be required to demonstrate a thorough comprehension of what is actually written in the Constitution (by verbal examination simultaneously broadcast on Fox News and CNN), and if they fail the exam, they should recuse themselves from voting on illegal immigration.
A fast track for illegal immigrants would be absolutely wrong, and maybe the "anchor baby" law should be reviewed.
It is obviously a dangerous law, open to abuse, that encourages vulnerable women to behave illegally and in a manner that endangers their own life and that of their unborn child.
Maybe the emergency rooms of hospitals should be deemed neutral zones, like foreign embassies, for the purposes of establishing citizenship.
Those illegal immigrants who are considered for any kind of compassionate "amnesty" should meet some very strict criteria.
Illegal immigrants should not be permitted to vote until they have passed the same (or even more stringent) English language, American History and knowledge of the Constitution exams as new legal immigrants (with no credit whatsoever for their time already here), and they ought to have to live in America without breaking any laws for at least five MORE years from the time they turn themselves in.
Maybe, they should have to study and pass SATs in English and Economics. Maybe 16 years of probation would be appropriate, during which time they should pay all city, state, federal, sales etc taxes, and receive no welfare, and no tax refunds.
If probationary immigrants could not vote for 16 years, that would somewhat depoliticize the debate.
I'm worried about the "they must pay taxes" discussion. Illegal immigrants are likely to be in the lower 40% tax bracket. We're told that "taxpayers" in the lowest tax bracket don't pay taxes.
Legal immigrants and American citizens deserve the assurance that the "fines" being suggested will be substantial enough to deter illegal immigration in the future, and make a meaningful contribution to the coffers that have been depleted by welfare for illegal immigrants.
If we cannot incentivize people to pay their own mortgages, how as a practical matter, are illegal immigrants going to pay a substantial fine?
Maybe the fines should be like a posted bond, imposed by judges on persons not deemed a threat to society between the time of arraignment and trial.
Possibly, those employers who have employed illegal immigrants ought to be obliged to be the immigrants' legal and financial sponsors, and post bond, and be co-signers of their housing and car loans, etc. And, be legally responsible for the illegal immigrants' schooling and health insurance and drivers' ed.
That should deter employers in the future from importing and exploiting undocumented workers.
A final criteria for legal immigration (apart from having a sponsor, having an income, being law-abiding, paying taxes, learning the laws, history and language) is HEALTH. Legal immigrants have to prove that they don't have AIDS or lung disease, and won't be a burden on the health care system.
What's to be done about unhealthy illegal immigrants?
Lastly, is an insistence that immigrants study the Constitution a tad hypocritical?
Possibly, the lawmakers and members of the Administration who are framing any laws regarding illegal immigrants should also, publicly, be required to demonstrate a thorough comprehension of what is actually written in the Constitution (by verbal examination simultaneously broadcast on Fox News and CNN), and if they fail the exam, they should recuse themselves from voting on illegal immigration.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
You cannot auction other peoples' ebooks
If it's e- and if you did not write it yourself, you may not sell it.
How hard is that to understand?
Currently, a bunch of crooks are illegally auctioning approximately 38,000 ebooks that they do not own on iOffer.com
How hard is that to understand?
Currently, a bunch of crooks are illegally auctioning approximately 38,000 ebooks that they do not own on iOffer.com
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Sunday, December 6, 2009
AARP appears economical with the truth
Here's a letter I received from the AARP yesterday. Today, I learn that the Senate voted to cut in-home services to Medicare recipients.
I do have to wonder about the "nonpartisan" part of the description of the AARP. Is this description compatible with "Truth in Advertising"? If they take sides, "on our side" ... how is the AARP "non-partisan"?
AARP
Dear Rowena,
The Senate voted to protect guaranteed benefits for Medicare recipients yesterday.
But reform must also strengthen the program for its 45 million recipients.
Senators are debating the health reform bill right now and need to hear from you.
Tell your senators to strengthen Medicare today.
With all the partisanship lately, it seems like a minor miracle for 100 Senators to agree on anything. But it happened yesterday when every Democrat and Republican Senator voted to pass an amendment that makes it clear that every Medicare recipient will continue to receive all of the guaranteed benefits that they rely on.
But after we savor this moment, we must face the reality that the health reform debate in the Senate is far from over.
Rowena, this amendment vote signals that NO ONE supports reforming health care by reducing benefits for seniors. But we cannot stop here.
We must build on this momentum by holding our Senators to this commitment – not just to hold the line on Medicare but also to strengthen it.
Send a message to your senators telling them that health reform must protect Medicare benefits and strengthen the program for the long-term.
While the entire Senate voted to protect Medicare benefits yesterday, there are big steps that must be made to the reform bill. The Senate must:
*
Lower drug costs and close the Medicare Part D coverage gap or "doughnut hole";
*
Prevent costly hospital readmissions by creating a follow-up care benefit in Medicare to help people safely transition home after a hospital stay;
*
Increase home and community based services so older Americans can remain in their homes and avoid costly institutions; and
*
Improve programs that help low income Americans in Medicare afford the health care and prescription drugs they need.
Momentum is on our side with yesterday's victory, and right now we have the Senate's attention. Senators from both parties are focused on what AARP and AARP members are saying. That's why we must take advantage of this moment to secure meaningful health reform for America's seniors.
Will you help? Now is the time to be heard.
Click here to tell Sen. Carl Levin and Sen. Debbie Stabenow to make America's seniors a priority in the Senate's health reform bill.
Once you send your message, you can really help get the ball rolling by forwarding this message to your friends and family and asking them to join you.
Thank you in advance for your continued support. I know you know how important this legislation is to our future and I look forward to working together for meaningful health reform.
Sincerely,
Barry Jackson
AARP Online Advocacy Manager
Donate
AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization for people 50 and over www.aarp.org/about_aarp/aarp_overview/a20021218aarpmission.html
Visit AARPs Politics & Advocacy page at www.aarp.org/makeadifference/politics/ to learn more about AARP legislative activities.
AARP Membership: Join/Renew at www.aarp.org/join/
Make a donation today to AARP and help us ensure the voices of our 39 million members are heard in the nations capital and state capitals across the country.
To Unsubscribe from AARP Advocacy e-mails, please click here.
To Unsubscribe from all AARP e-mails or manage your global e-mail preferences (login required), please click here.
I do have to wonder about the "nonpartisan" part of the description of the AARP. Is this description compatible with "Truth in Advertising"? If they take sides, "on our side" ... how is the AARP "non-partisan"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
