Mike Taylor's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the shiny-digital-future dept
Mike Taylor here, and it's my pleasure to be your Posts Of The Week host. By day I'm a computer programmer, working for Index Data, the world's tiniest multinational software house, with a portfolio mostly made up of free software. At night, I transform into a palaeontologist. I study sauropods, the biggest and best of the dinosaurs. I'm an associate researcher at the University of Bristol, UK.
Along with Matt Wedel of Western University, USA, I co-write the palaeontology blog Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week, or SV-POW! for short. Over the last few years, we've found that blog naturally mutating into being 50-50 about sauropods and open access. Lots of our thoughts on the appalling mess that copyright abuse has got scholarly publishing into can be found in the Shiny Digital Future section of our blog.
Saturday brought a welcome reminder that we need to get the basics of copyright right. It's not good enough just reforming bits and pieces in an ad-hoc way -- a change of term here, an orphan works ruling there. We need to start from a proper understanding of what copyright is for (it's right there in the Constitution, folks!), with a recognition that there's no clear Creator/Consumer dichotomy now (if there ever was), and a realistic perspective on how technology is irrevocably changing the field. These aren't new insights -- far from it, they're Techdirt perennials -- but they're worthy of revisiting repeatedly. These should be the foundations of our laws, not afterthoughts.
Sunday gave us a Funniest/Most Insightful Comments post touching on last week's story on how anonymous NSA officials want to murder Edward Snowden. I mention this really as a sneaky excuse to link to my own Martin Luther King Day post, Snowden-haters are on the wrong side of history, where I note the similarity of the rhetoric between Hoover's FBI against King and Clapper's NSA against Snowden. Ever notice how we don't have a J. Edgar Hoover Day?
(In a similar vein, later in the week, see Before Snowden, Nixon Admin Pioneered Evidence-Free 'Russian Spy' Smears Against Daniel Ellsberg.)
Monday ... was quiet.
Tuesday saw confirmation that the Department of Homeland Security yanked a guy out of a movie and interrogated him for hours because they didn't like his glasses. This was a man who wears Google Glass as his regular spectacles with prescription lenses, and who of course had them turned off as he watched the movie. Apparently that gets you a grilling from the federal government now. As the DHS helpfully explains on its own web-site, "The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the nation from the many threats we face. [...] Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear - keeping America safe." Safe from men wearing spectacles.
Better news on Wednesday as the Supreme Court reaffirmed something lower courts seem insistent on getting wrong: that in patent cases, the burden of proof is with the patent holder. This is good news because patents, originally intended as an incentive for innovation, far more often turn out to be impediments. The idea that the accused party is guilty until proven innocent is pure gravy to patent trolls, and it's encouraging to see anything that helps to bulldoze them out of the path of the Future Train.
And more good news on Thursday, from a most unlikely source. Microsoft have traditionally been Bad Guys, the owner-operators of a monopoly operating system that's modeled all that's bad about proprietary software, and taught a generation of people that daily crashes are normal, and a new computer can be expected to function well for about a year before it starts mysteriously slowing down and generally not working. It's well documented that Microsoft have abused their monopoly.
But today they're the Good Guys. All of Microsoft Research's papers will be published open access, free for the world to read. Their actual policy is not particularly detailed -- crucially, it says nothing about what license the papers will use -- but we can expect to see that firmed up, and hope that they will use the minimally restrictive Creative Commons Attribution license that's favored by major open-access players like BioMed Central, The Public Library of Science and PeerJ because it allows the freedom to re-use as well as to read.
"Many are the strange chances of the world", said Mithrandir, "And help oft shall come from the hands of the weak when the Wise falter." -- J. R. R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion
Rounding off the week, Friday showed us that while copyright abuse is common and patents hardly seem to have any other use but abuse, trademarks are perfectly capable of holding their own when it comes to the Unholy Trinity of abused intellectual properties. King, who make the popular game Candy Crush, have somehow managed to obtain a trademark on the word "candy". Not the phrase "candy crush", you understand -- which would make some sense. But the word "candy".
Frankly, this one baffles me. I can understand the motivation of patent trolls: they hope to leech free money out of society by coercing productive citizens into buying licenses for their patents. I can understand why copyright holders abuse their rights to squeeze more money out of customers. But I just don't see where the revenue stream is in this kind of trademark abuse. It's not possible to sell a license to use a trademark, so what's in it for King? I just don't get it.
Finally, and speaking of abusing a right, I'd like to take the opportunity of abusing this platform to draw attention to a speech I heard about this week. It was given by Labour MP Michael Meacher on 13 January in the House of Commons (UK): poverty in Britain. Admittedly, this isn't a techie issue; but it's relevant to Techdirt readers because Techdirt readers are human beings:
There are at least 345 food banks [...] Emergency food aid was given to 350,000 households [...] The Red Cross is setting up centers to help the destitute, just as it does in developing countries.
This in a country with the 6th highest GDP in the world. This would be appalling even if it was just an unavoidable consequence of the global economic downturn; but as Meacher's speech shows, it's largely the result of deliberate government policies, particularly benefit sanctions. Horrifying, disgraceful and shameful. We have to find a better way.
Sorry to sign off on such a negative note, but this is important and needs to be widely known. Let's hope next week brings better news.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
The First Word
“[citation needed]
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Huh...
Well, that's just fucking cool. Please tell me you've dignified this with an over the top awesome business card?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh...
I do have an awesome business card, but it doesn't mention my spare-time career in palaeo. It does give my official job title as "Software Guy", though.
BTW., if you're interested in how to get into palaeo, some of my story is told in The Accidental Palaeontologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh...
(well may be sometimes)
looking at your web site, I would say you are in the field of systems analyst.
looks like basically what the NSA does for a living too !!!!
"Search and harvesting" "integrating into new or existing platforms" "mix and match between our pieces and yours"
So basically enable people to search and harvest giant databases and allow them to derive all sorts of information from that meta-data in order find things out ! and to provide more value from that data. (do it for money)..
but the 'software guy' title is pretty cool.. I could think of worse (programmer for one).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh...
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh...
or "Schema scammer"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh...
went there because I did not know what a Sauropod looked like, found a picture of a dead mouse, said to self "that dino looks just like a dead mouse".
Note: theory confirmed by reading text ! :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh... Point being?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
Simple little lies are difficult to counter with the always complex truth, but the facts will bear me out.
Perhaps he's just ignorant of how much tracking Google does and how pervasive it is. But Google's over 900,000 servers aren't sitting idle in between search terms: they're collating web site visits and enough other bits to uniquely identify anyone.
At best "voluntary" could be true only if all the following are known and done with never a slip:
1) NEVER even go to Google's search page: at the very least it snags browser header, IP address, plus search terms, storing those for long as can, years at least. (Google doesn't just list plain links, either, but re-directs every click through its own servers for tracking.)
2) NEVER hit any web page which re-directs to or uses Google's search or #1 applies. Again, even if you don't search it snags enough for tracking, along with site you were on. As search engine may not be explicitly stated and even hosting out Google can't prevent indirect use, this is impossible.
3) Entirely disable javascript, including manually remove Google from its paid whitelisting in popular Noscript Firefox extension: completely undermines stated function by allowing the very worst. -- NOTE only applies to browswers in which one can disable javascript (actually, assumes that clicked check box works as implied): appears that on any Android system besides Chrome browser, one cannot.
4) In Firefox about:config remove all Google data, but you again just have to assume it's not in actual code... Google funds Mozilla, gets its search engine installed in every copy as default, so who knows what else is sneaked in?
5) NEVER allow Google "cookies". Those are explicitly for tracking.
6) In system "hosts" file list ALL of Google's many parasites. -- Also assumes this actually works in every operating system, including Google's...
7) NEVER use a site which requires Google's APIs for crucial function so that one MUST enable javascript: those include captchas and much CGI. That's spreading rapidly. For example, it's become apparently impossible to download the Korora Linux distro without letting Google snoop. It's totally unnecessary for a simple download, but Google has billions to corrupt with. -- NOTE specifically this will rule out Youtube: you're shut out from much of the internet unless surrender to the corporate monster.
8) Even after ALL the above NEVER use a site which directly supplies Google with information besides javascript and parasites.
There are surely yet more ways Google snoops: it has people working every day on how to do more and better snooping, besides lock in advertising and every commercial function. It's not too much to say that nearly every corporation will be against you if try to avoid Google. Also general trends are increasing to find ways to snag even those who actively try to avoid being tracked -- because we're the most interesting in every way, and "commercial" spooks just can't stand to not "get it all", either.
Do even you supposed techies know ALL the ways Google is snooping? ... Of course not.
And do you know EVERY site to avoid in advance? ... Of course not.
Even if one could entirely avoid Google, you are then hampered and crippled on the web. Is that the techie ideal of a free internet? ... HELL NO.
Google is NOT voluntary, and NOT wanted, that's why it SNEAKS in.
Does the public even suspect this and explicitly agree to be tracked? Or is it impossible to avoid even with knowledge and effort? -- Clearly the latter. Google is NOT voluntary especially to the foolishly trusting public.
Fenderson's simple little LIE is excusing a corporation to prey on public trust. Manifestly he trusts corporations but not the public.
Now, I'm sure "John Fenderson" will at this point try to dismiss as unfounded raving of future fears. Or say stay off the net, then. -- Anything to avoid confronting the actuality of Google's unavoidable tracking and its direct ties to the surveillance state.
So when will this already mega-corporation stop snooping on and tracking us? At the last shreds of privacy on the net? -- HA! It's NOT staying on the net, it's NOW getting into household gadgets to spy on you constantly! Explicitly going for camera and microphone in every room just like Orwell's "1984"! It can't be more clear that whatever slight "voluntary" is left now will soon be gone.
And will Google's militarized robots obey the Asimov Laws? Of course not: they'll just be first generation Terminators.
This week Snowden said:Clearly that applies to the information Google has. We just have to trust won't be abused.
And protesters in Romania were actually threatened by what I've long had in tagline: Google's ability to target you for advertising is EXACTLY what NSA needs to target you as political dissident, NOT coincidentally.
Google's spying is big as NSA and increasing every day. (Go on, deny it! You'd only prove it's on same scale.) And the problem is not just Google; there are hundreds of corporations which are "commercial" fronts of NSA all conspiring to funnel bits of information to be collated to implement the police state.
SPYING is the main "business model" of the internet. Commercial interests are greedy for money and control. Greed makes ALL businesses conspire together to TAKE all privacy from "natural persons" in order to use the internet at all.
When globalist corporations have trapped us all into de facto Panopticon system, even if only "commercial" for non-stop ruthless advertising, will "John Fenderson" blithely tell us we accepted it "voluntarily"?
Are you utterly unable to look forward and see the dystopia of an economic system based on surveillance that "monetizes" your privacy?
Wouldn't it be wise to stop "The Rise Of The Machines" NOW?
Instead of "John Fenderson" lying that "Google is voluntary" we need a "John Carter" yelling "STOP, YOU FOOLS! That's Skynet itself!"
All the news you saw last week on other sites, re-written to cherry pick points that fit Mike's agenda.
08:16:37[j-257-1]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/Google-buys-Nest-to-feather-its-data-trackers-5160286. php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
I don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
Is that the same reason why TD has not covered this issue? we've been waiting, but NOTHING, and when someone does say something its hidden, very telling..
says more about Masnicks attitude to Google than a million words of denial that he is not a Google apologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
Maybe Blue has a bit of a point that we are being over-simple in calling Google voluntary -- there is some challenge in avoiding it, and doing so would drastically reduce the usefulness of the internet even beyond the direct loss of Google tools.
Now, what would happen if Blue had his way with copyright? I mean all the things he's advocated: secondary & tertiary liabilities, ISP strike programs and other heavy enforcement at the user level, official treatment of all piracy as "simple theft". Blue has always insisted that it's easy to just go without media that you can't acquire legally and for a fee -- but how many "steps" would be involved in preparing your computer to go online without almost immediately becoming a criminal by accidentally clicking the wrong link or watching the wrong youtube video?
So I challenge blue to try both -- spend a week completely avoiding any chance of Google seeing you at all in any way, and then a week avoiding any chance of any shred of unauthorized material crossing your connection.
(There, that's two weeks without ootb on the internet)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
(you honestly don't?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
impossible challenges!!!
See even TD's writers are concerned with the TD 'extremists' that populate it. As they should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
You know it, we know it, some of you extremists don't want to believe it, some deny it, but we all know the reality. As you tacitly admit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
it does not matter what is "easier" or not, 'easier' is not a defence for theft. The point is YOU WANT IT, therefore you value it on some level (if you did not value it you would not want it) legal or not, you feel if you value something (but are not willing to pay for it) you have 'the right' to acquire it illegally, with the excuse its "easier" to not pay for it, or to acquire it.
so you want it, you consider it of value to you, so you want it (demand), and you value it (value), but because you have to pay for something you want and value and you have an 'easier' way to acquire it you feel you have the right to take what you want and value for free, that is simple theft.
If it has value for you (even if you would prefer to steal it) then it has far more value to the person or group who created it, and enough value for honest people to accept that value and pay for it, in turn maintaining its value of it to the person who made it.
Its clear if you did not want it and you did not value it you would not want to steal it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
if you think someone could not go for a week without having some "Youtube" send you "unauthorized material" then you need to look at the service providers and the Googles to fix that, which they can easily do, (they know who to search data for information you know)!!
If you are trying to avoid Google how are you not going to be able to avoid watching a Youtube vid ? Youtube is GOOGLE !
TD is Google too (as you also know), TD gives its meta-data to Google and Goolag pay TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Google is voluntary." -- Now there's a good brazen LIE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft Research's Open Access
I'm still not sure why one of the major sports in the US is hoping that Microsoft will start making nice with others. It always ends in disappointment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Microsoft Research's Open Access
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Microsoft Research's Open Access
Now keep in mind, cool does not equate to useful let alone marketable to any size-able audience.
I have a slight feeling this is a move to license patents on the research even if the papers are open. They are just opening the papers so that ANYONE who figures out how to make the millions spent on mostly useless but really cool R&D can be turned into a income source for Microsoft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
we find it funny too, most people are upset about all the Google spying, but this is TD, they are Google apologists.
But its still funny... as some point out here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creatir/consumer dichotomy ?? what !!!!!
we already understand what it is, that's right ITS PROPER UNDERSTANDING !!!!
As you say, its right there in the Constitution (even though you linked to Wikipedia!!).
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
BY
SECURING FOR A LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITING AND DISCOVERIES.
You might want to redefine it, but we all understand it now.
"with a recognition that there's no clear Creator/Consumer dichotomy now (if there ever was), and a realistic perspective on how technology is irrevocably changing the field"
what the hell does that suppose to mean, "no clear creator/consumer dichotomy now" ?????????
I would of thought the very reason why TD drones on and on about copyright is because there is (in its mind) a clear dichotomy. That being the consumers want stuff that is copyrighted, and the creators want their constitutional protection for the exclusive right to their respective works.
That's a clear dichotomy! You (as a consumer) and what the constitution says you cannot have (its right there in the constitution, and wiki).
The dichotomy is that you want it but the constitution and the law backing the constitution says you cannot have it.
Just saying something does not make it true, although it is common TD practice to do so.
" and a realistic perspective on how technology is irrevocably changing the field."
and you fail to elaborate on that as well, are you saying its easier to steal and defy the constitution now days with 'technology' therefore as its easier it should also be legal ?
Its a hell of a lot easier to kill someone these days with "technology" (guns and such) so by your argument murder should be legalised ?
What field is technology changing??? it might change how things are created, it does not change the underlying laws in regard to that creation.
existing copyright is a reflection of the constitution, should you want to quote the constitution make sure it agrees with your argument.
It does not.. and no technology will change that basic fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Creatir/consumer dichotomy ?? what !!!!!
Boy, your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking (to say the least) aren't they? You stress the last part of the sentence of that sentence as if it's the end-all-be-all of the Copyright Clause and the reason for it's existence. But it's not.
Securing those rights is just a side-effect of the real purpose of copyright. Or, it might be more accurate to say that it's the tool that is used. And the only reason for the existence of that tool is TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS.
If, at the time of writing, the authors would have thought of a different way to achieve that goal those "rights" would be have never existed in the first place. They certainly didn't prior to that, and they are certainly not inalienable human rights. Governments don't grant those type of rights, they can only make laws forbidding taking them away. This copyright "right" was GRANTED by the government. Big difference.
No, clearly you do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Creatir/consumer dichotomy ?? what !!!!!
get real.. its what the constitution THE AUTHOR QUOTED says, you don't like what it says, stop using the term all together.
but don't make yourself look stupid by omitting the part that IS THE MEANING of why it was put there.
One part say "artists need protect" the second part is HOW THEY ARE PROTECTED..
nice try, but no prize..
until your asked to re write the constitution, you might as well accept the one you have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Creatir/consumer dichotomy ?? what !!!!!
SECURING FOR A LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITING AND DISCOVERIES.
I put that separately, as it has one important issue..
IT IS THE VERY DEFINITION AND REASON FOR COPYRIGHT LAW. (in the US).
BY
SECURING FOR A LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITING AND DISCOVERIES.
=
COPYRIGHT
people here are always talking about "what is copyright" and trying to redefine it for their own reasons (usually desire to steal).
But I include it because it is the definition of copyright, directly from the constitution, it is what copyright is, so it might pay for you to read that line 100 times a day until you understand not only the words but the meaning of it.
Its just one little line, but it has a lot of meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Creatir/consumer dichotomy ?? what !!!!!
Here, I'll try and make it nice and clear, and point out the flaw in your argument.
This is the text:
'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8'
Did you catch it this time? That 'by' means that the second half, the 'securing for limited times...' bit is the method to accomplish the first half, the 'exclusive rights' are not the goal, despite your claims to the contrary.
If those 'exclusive rights' fail to accomplish the purpose, namely 'To promote the progress of science and useful arts', then they are going against the entire purpose copyright was brought into law in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Creatir/consumer dichotomy ?? what !!!!!
I didn't. WTF are you talking about?
One part say "artists need protect"
Where the hell does it say that? You are completely making shit up now.
nice try, but no prize..
Fuck you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Creatir/consumer dichotomy ?? what !!!!!
BY
SECURING FOR A LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITING AND DISCOVERIES.
70+ years is not limited in any way except an extremely perverted one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Creatir/consumer dichotomy ?? what !!!!!
The constitution is a guide, for the creation of laws.
Its what the constitution says, A limited time is limited to 70+ years (or whatever) that is a law issue.
If you become a lawmaker you can argue another period should be consider "a limited time" but your not, do deal with it..
If you have to wait 70 years to have the right to copy that thing, even after that 70 you still value it enough to want to copy, then it still have value for the owner of the copyright AND YOU.. otherwise you would not want to pirate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SPYING is the main "business model" of the internet.
So 100% correct, everyone on the internet who makes money has a massive interest if:
FINDING OUT WHAT YOU WANT AND PROVIDING IT TO YOU.
TD does it, it has found a very small market for freetards and pirate supporters, and provides those people products and services (and comment) to support for them.
Google does it, it find out what people want by spying on users and finding what they want, they then direct advertising and services to provide those services it IS their business model.
NSA does not do it, it does not use its data in order to provide a service for profit.
Facebook does it, Masnick you LIVE it, you make your living off finding out what people want (from statistics and spying from your web site) and you provide a service based on that spying.
and you accept that when you go on the internet, you know it is the case, stating otherwise is simply a lie to yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPYING is the main "business model" of the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SPYING is the main "business model" of the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SPYING is the main "business model" of the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One AC who got out of the wrong side of the bed today
Anyway, I think the best point out from Mike Taylor's post this week was about the food banks. I am involved with a small food bank myself. Our "clientele" consists of those who cannot access support services because they cannot get access to the health care card. They earn too much to receive help but not enough to properly live.
Here in Australia, if you earn below a particular fortnightly wage, you can get a health care card which enables you to get access to support services. To maintain this access, you can then earn an extra amount each fortnight. But if you earn just above the the initial amount but below the maintenance amount you cannot access the services, go figure. It is this group of people who quite often need help but in general cannot access the help required.
Under our current federal government, these support services will become increasingly difficult to access and the requirement for access to food banks will become more prevalent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course it is. As an example: just about every McDonald's store is a franchise (which is not owned by the McDonald's corporation) and they pay a substantial fee to use the McDonald's trademark. Nothing is stopping them from selling hamburgers under another name; they're pretty much paying for the trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]