I didn't address "acceptable" one way or the other. I just said that I don't believe the statement as reported in the article above is, strictly construed, false. I'll readily agree that it makes it sound like Valentin was arrested on drug-related charges, but it doesn't actually say that. The press release can legitimately be criticized for any number of reasons, but I don't think libel's going to stick.
This arrest was followed up by the police department issuing a press release falsely stating Valentin had been arrested in connection with a heroin trafficking investigation.
Was the press release (based on your characterization here) misleading? Absolutely. But false? I don't think so. Based on your description of the events, yes, his arrest was "in connection with" the heroin investigation. A somewhat lengthy and attenuated connection, to be sure, but a connection nonetheless.
What was he arrested for? Recording the cops. Why was he recording the cops? Because they were in his home. Why were they in his home? To investigate heroin trafficking. Thus, he was arrested in connection with the heroin investigation.
To fly an ultralight in Class B, C, or D airspace requires permission, true. However, the surface areas of those airspaces aren't very large. The surface area (that is, the area that extends down to the surface) of Class B, which is what surrounds the largest airports, has a (typical) radius of 5 nm. The surface area of Class C, and the entirety of Class D, has a (typical) radius of 4 nm. I'm focusing on the surface areas since the larger-radius areas start at 1200' AGL, and ultralight operations are typically below this altitude.
In short, and very roughly speaking, this means that ultralights need prior permission to fly within 5 nautical miles of major airline hubs, and within 4 nautical miles of most other commercial airports. This isn't really much of a restriction. In the vast majority of the country, ultralights can, in fact, fly right over peoples' heads without any registration, licensing, testing, etc.
This post (and all the comments I've seen that actually discuss the subject of the post, rather than heading off on tangents) seems to assume that Davis and/or her office are using a traditional email client (Outlook, Thunderbird, etc.). If that's the case, then yes, making electronic copies would be trivial. For that matter, printing the emails would also be (relatively) trivial--Ctrl-A, Ctrl-P, repeat for each folder with responsive emails, done.
But what if she's using some sort of hosted webmail product? If she's on Google Apps for Business, Office 365, or something of that ilk, it could well be that there's no obvious or easy way to save individual emails to disk, nor to print large numbers of messages in one fell swoop. It could still be done, no doubt, but it may be that the only way is to forward the messages to another account.
This, of course, conflicts with the "Kim Davis is an ignorant hick" narrative, but it really should have been considered, given the prevalence of webmail systems.
If they have an invention people want, then they can sell that product and make money that way. You don't need patents for that.
True. You need patents to keep your competitors from copying what you did and undercutting you on price (since they didn't have to do much in the way of R&D).
There are lots of abuses in the patent system, and lots of patents out there that never should have been granted. There are lots of ways in which the system doesn't serve its intended purpose, and it may well be that the best answer is to burn the whole system to the ground (metaphorically) and start over (or maybe not start over at all).
But in considering that, we shouldn't lose sight of the underlying intent. It was the belief of the framers that people would have an increased incentive to innovate if they believed they could profit from their inventions. Thus, they believed, someone who invented something truly innovative should be temporarily guaranteed the exclusive right to make that invention. Hence, patents. I have trouble seeing how, in principle, this is a bad thing.
When you say that "you don't need patents" to create and sell something, you're setting up a strawman. Nobody's saying that patents are essential to creating products, that they're essential for innovation, or that profit is the only incentive people have to innovate--all of these are demonstrably false. But to deny that profit provides any incentive to innovate just doesn't make sense.
Sounds like a job for FreeBSD's GBDE "embassy-grade" encryption. Give them the "self-destruct" password rather than the normal password, and the keys are wiped, rendering the data non-recoverable. Obviously that depends on either the data not being that important, or your having a backup somewhere.
This really seems to bother you. Why? Facebook is saying, "you may use our service on these terms. If you don't agree to them, you may not use our service." It is, after all their service. What would you propose as an alternative?
Nobody is obliged to negotiate with anybody else. If you go to a large American retail store and try to haggle on price, most likely they'll refuse--the price is what it is. That's their absolute right. It's equally your absolute right to choose not to shop there. If they believe it's in their interest to negotiate, they certainly can, but there's no such legal or moral requirement.
Yet it bothers you that Facebook's terms (like, I'd wager, virtually all other internet services) are "take it or leave it." Why?
Re: But you're okay with Facebook's arbitrary insane pages of unfounded legalese that says it can grab any and all content it hosts?
Facebook's TOS say a lot of things, including that they can use your material however they like without compensation. If you don't agree to those terms, you have a very simple remedy: don't use Facebook. You have another, less-drastic (but less-effective) remedy: don't post things to Facebook that you don't want all over the Internet. Posting a status update accomplishes nothing but making you look like an idiot (and probably member of the tinfoil-hat brigade).
Recognizing this fact does not show that Mike is "okay with" Facebook's TOS, any more than his repeatedly describing how the DMCA (fails to) work shows that he's "okay with" that.
Corpses don't need money, or houses, or cars, so when someone dies, everything he owns should go into the public domain. I don't expect you'll agree with this, but how is it fundamentally different?
Of course, this case has nothing to do with copyright, making this thread quite the non sequitur.
User count before the price increase was sitting at about 8000, according to figures I could find online, or about 2 million pills.
...which means, assuming that prescription volume doesn't change much (and assuming the new price actually sticks), that a $55M investment is going to yield a return of $1.5B/year. That's $1.5B of revenue, not profit, but supposing they were barely breaking even at $14/pill (which they weren't; they were making a profit, otherwise they wouldn't have been selling it), that works out to $30M/year in production costs. Negligible.
That's kind of what I was thinking/wondering. If that's the case, the problem should self-correct fairly quickly, I'd think.
Tim tries to paint this as an issue with drug patents, but I can't see how they're relevant to this case. The patents, he says, are 60+ years old, and patents at that time didn't last more than 17 years from issue. It would thus follow that this drug isn't under patent any more (and hasn't been for a good long time). Thus, whatever the problem is here, it isn't likely to be patents.
In most industries, this would appear to be an antitrust violation. Having a monopoly, by itself, isn't illegal (after all, the government can't force another company to compete with you if it doesn't want to), but taking undue advantage of that monopoly is. If (as it appears) nothing has changed but a desire to jack up prices, that would probably qualify. Given the regulations on pharmaceuticals, though, I'm not sure if or how the traditional antitrust rules apply to them.
...and I once again point out (since Mike seems determined to frame the issue incorrectly) that this case has nothing to do with access to the law. The law is in the public domain, and nobody involved in this case is suggesting anything to the contrary. It's already available, for free, on the web, from multiple sources (including at least one provided by the state of GA).
The issue in this case is Malamud's publication of the annotations, which are prepared and copyrighted by a private publisher (LexisNexis, in this case). It's never been seriously challenged that annotations are copyrightable, but in this case, the state has a contract with LexisNexis, and LexisNexis thus publishes the "Official" code of GA annotated. Malamud makes an interesting and novel legal argument that its status as the official annotated code somehow renders those annotations non-copyrightable. It's interesting, but I don't believe it will ultimately be successful. Deeming this an "official" state publication does not make it the law, and states are allowed to copyright publications.
This is also not in any way fair use. Malamud isn't doing anything transformative with the code, he's merely copying it outright. He's copying the entirety of a 40-volume commercial publication. And while the extent could certainly be disputed, it's pretty obvious that having the entirety of the publication available for free online will affect the market for that publication.
Yes indeed. In fact, it's common for courts at all levels, across the country, to cite a wide array of treatises on an equally-wide array of topics (Friedenthal, Wright, Kane, & Miller on Civil Practice & Procedure; Prosser on Torts; Epstein on Contracts, to name just a few). All of these treatises are very expensive (and very large, 20+ volumes is the norm), and all are protected by copyright.
None of these treatises is the law. They explain and analyze the law, and judges will frequently cite to their analysis and explanation. Sometimes a court will explicitly adopt a part of the treatise's analysis, making that part the law, at least within his jurisdiction (and the court's opinion is thus in the public domain).
There's a good chance you could find at least some of them in your local law library (which is typically open to the public), but they're unlikely to be in the public library system--they're too expensive, and too specialized, for a public library to spend its money on them.
On the post: Court Tosses Bogus Wiretapping Charge Against Man Who Recorded Cops Who Raided His House
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Tosses Bogus Wiretapping Charge Against Man Who Recorded Cops Who Raided His House
Was the press release (based on your characterization here) misleading? Absolutely. But false? I don't think so. Based on your description of the events, yes, his arrest was "in connection with" the heroin investigation. A somewhat lengthy and attenuated connection, to be sure, but a connection nonetheless.
What was he arrested for? Recording the cops. Why was he recording the cops? Because they were in his home. Why were they in his home? To investigate heroin trafficking. Thus, he was arrested in connection with the heroin investigation.
On the post: Reports: Department Of Transportation To Require All Drones Be Registered
Re: Re: Re: Depends what "drone" is
In short, and very roughly speaking, this means that ultralights need prior permission to fly within 5 nautical miles of major airline hubs, and within 4 nautical miles of most other commercial airports. This isn't really much of a restriction. In the vast majority of the country, ultralights can, in fact, fly right over peoples' heads without any registration, licensing, testing, etc.
On the post: Kim Davis's Approach To Email More Outdated Than Her Views On Marriage
Providing electronic copies
But what if she's using some sort of hosted webmail product? If she's on Google Apps for Business, Office 365, or something of that ilk, it could well be that there's no obvious or easy way to save individual emails to disk, nor to print large numbers of messages in one fell swoop. It could still be done, no doubt, but it may be that the only way is to forward the messages to another account.
This, of course, conflicts with the "Kim Davis is an ignorant hick" narrative, but it really should have been considered, given the prevalence of webmail systems.
On the post: Stanford Professor Insists Consumers Are Helped By Patent Trolls
True. You need patents to keep your competitors from copying what you did and undercutting you on price (since they didn't have to do much in the way of R&D).
There are lots of abuses in the patent system, and lots of patents out there that never should have been granted. There are lots of ways in which the system doesn't serve its intended purpose, and it may well be that the best answer is to burn the whole system to the ground (metaphorically) and start over (or maybe not start over at all).
But in considering that, we shouldn't lose sight of the underlying intent. It was the belief of the framers that people would have an increased incentive to innovate if they believed they could profit from their inventions. Thus, they believed, someone who invented something truly innovative should be temporarily guaranteed the exclusive right to make that invention. Hence, patents. I have trouble seeing how, in principle, this is a bad thing.
When you say that "you don't need patents" to create and sell something, you're setting up a strawman. Nobody's saying that patents are essential to creating products, that they're essential for innovation, or that profit is the only incentive people have to innovate--all of these are demonstrably false. But to deny that profit provides any incentive to innovate just doesn't make sense.
On the post: Homeland Security Detains Stockton Mayor, Forces Him To Hand Over His Passwords
GBDE
On the post: John Oliver Would Like You To Replace Your Bogus Facebook Copyright Privacy Statement With His Own
Re: Re: Re: Understanding the real law at work
This really seems to bother you. Why? Facebook is saying, "you may use our service on these terms. If you don't agree to them, you may not use our service." It is, after all their service. What would you propose as an alternative?
Nobody is obliged to negotiate with anybody else. If you go to a large American retail store and try to haggle on price, most likely they'll refuse--the price is what it is. That's their absolute right. It's equally your absolute right to choose not to shop there. If they believe it's in their interest to negotiate, they certainly can, but there's no such legal or moral requirement.
Yet it bothers you that Facebook's terms (like, I'd wager, virtually all other internet services) are "take it or leave it." Why?
On the post: John Oliver Would Like You To Replace Your Bogus Facebook Copyright Privacy Statement With His Own
Re: But you're okay with Facebook's arbitrary insane pages of unfounded legalese that says it can grab any and all content it hosts?
Recognizing this fact does not show that Mike is "okay with" Facebook's TOS, any more than his repeatedly describing how the DMCA (fails to) work shows that he's "okay with" that.
On the post: Marilyn Monroe Estate Trying To Use Trademark To Enforce Publicity Rights Court Said It Doesn't Have
Re: Re: and this is why
Of course, this case has nothing to do with copyright, making this thread quite the non sequitur.
On the post: Company Acquires Rights To Drug Used By AIDS/Cancer Patients; Immediately Raises Per Pill Price From Under $14 To $750
Re: Update
On the post: Company Acquires Rights To Drug Used By AIDS/Cancer Patients; Immediately Raises Per Pill Price From Under $14 To $750
Update
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/business/big-price-increase-for-tb-drug-is-rescinded.html? _r=0
On the post: Company Acquires Rights To Drug Used By AIDS/Cancer Patients; Immediately Raises Per Pill Price From Under $14 To $750
Re: A little background
...which means, assuming that prescription volume doesn't change much (and assuming the new price actually sticks), that a $55M investment is going to yield a return of $1.5B/year. That's $1.5B of revenue, not profit, but supposing they were barely breaking even at $14/pill (which they weren't; they were making a profit, otherwise they wouldn't have been selling it), that works out to $30M/year in production costs. Negligible.
On the post: Company Acquires Rights To Drug Used By AIDS/Cancer Patients; Immediately Raises Per Pill Price From Under $14 To $750
Re:
And where do the health insurance policies get their money?
On the post: Company Acquires Rights To Drug Used By AIDS/Cancer Patients; Immediately Raises Per Pill Price From Under $14 To $750
Re: Re: Why no generics?
Tim tries to paint this as an issue with drug patents, but I can't see how they're relevant to this case. The patents, he says, are 60+ years old, and patents at that time didn't last more than 17 years from issue. It would thus follow that this drug isn't under patent any more (and hasn't been for a good long time). Thus, whatever the problem is here, it isn't likely to be patents.
In most industries, this would appear to be an antitrust violation. Having a monopoly, by itself, isn't illegal (after all, the government can't force another company to compete with you if it doesn't want to), but taking undue advantage of that monopoly is. If (as it appears) nothing has changed but a desire to jack up prices, that would probably qualify. Given the regulations on pharmaceuticals, though, I'm not sure if or how the traditional antitrust rules apply to them.
On the post: Company Acquires Rights To Drug Used By AIDS/Cancer Patients; Immediately Raises Per Pill Price From Under $14 To $750
Why no generics?
On the post: VW Accused Of Using Software To Fool Emissions Tests: Welcome To The Internet Of Cheating Things
Re: Man, what a cup of cold, left over the weekend with a cigarette in it, coffee this is to start the week with.
On the post: Come See An Uninformed Asshole Try To Trademark-Corner A School Into Keeping Their Unwanted Nickname
Re:
On the post: Carl Malamud's Response To Georgia's Lawsuit Over The Copyright Of Its Annotated Code
Re: How can one follow the law,
The issue in this case is Malamud's publication of the annotations, which are prepared and copyrighted by a private publisher (LexisNexis, in this case). It's never been seriously challenged that annotations are copyrightable, but in this case, the state has a contract with LexisNexis, and LexisNexis thus publishes the "Official" code of GA annotated. Malamud makes an interesting and novel legal argument that its status as the official annotated code somehow renders those annotations non-copyrightable. It's interesting, but I don't believe it will ultimately be successful. Deeming this an "official" state publication does not make it the law, and states are allowed to copyright publications.
This is also not in any way fair use. Malamud isn't doing anything transformative with the code, he's merely copying it outright. He's copying the entirety of a 40-volume commercial publication. And while the extent could certainly be disputed, it's pretty obvious that having the entirety of the publication available for free online will affect the market for that publication.
On the post: Carl Malamud's Response To Georgia's Lawsuit Over The Copyright Of Its Annotated Code
Re: Speaking of secret laws
None of these treatises is the law. They explain and analyze the law, and judges will frequently cite to their analysis and explanation. Sometimes a court will explicitly adopt a part of the treatise's analysis, making that part the law, at least within his jurisdiction (and the court's opinion is thus in the public domain).
There's a good chance you could find at least some of them in your local law library (which is typically open to the public), but they're unlikely to be in the public library system--they're too expensive, and too specialized, for a public library to spend its money on them.
On the post: Comcast Users Now Need To Pay A $30 Premium If They Want To Avoid Usage Caps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Business account?
Next >>