I love the lengths people stretch their arguments to in order to support such insane regulations. For example from your post a person braiding hair is liable to hurt people by:
poking them with the sharp end of the metal comb - Oh wow. How threatening. Help I was poked in the head by a sharp object and had to hold a tissue in plaec for 2 minutes. I am going to sue you for pain and suffering to the tune of $250k.
illegal or home brew products that may damage or hurt the client - Like what? What dangerous homebrew product would a hair braider use? Is it more dangerous than peroxide that thousands use to home bleach their hair? What about hair gel and hair spray? Are those so dangerous that they need to be regulated? For that matter, what are some life threatening dangers from any cosmetologist? All I have heard so far is poking and lice. Maybe some cuts and scrapes.
There is a reason why things are done under regulation - Yes. We have discussed them at length here and before. They are 1) Limit competition. 2) Control the flow of new workers. 3) Provide kickbacks to buddies. Did I miss anything?
Frankly, cosmetology is one of those areas where the free market would actually work. Someone does a poor job consistently? They go out of business as people do go there any more. Someone runs a filthy business? They go out of business as people don't go there any more. Did I miss anything?
Does someone really need to go to school for 2-4 years and end up paying $16000 for skills they will probably never use to accomplish that objective? No. Absolutely not. If disease prevention is the goal of the licenses, why not just put the shops under the authority of the health department and forgo the license?
No. It is not Windows that is doing this. It is a piece of network security software that many companies use to prevent their public facing network users from navigating to potentially dangerous or unsavory websites.
Or when the Simpsons got onto that Wife Swap show and Lisa complained to the exec that was giving them a tour. He then gave Lisa an ABC hoodie that zip all the way up.
I don't think I mentioned anything about drivers and pilot licenses. I also qualified my statement with a "90% of the licenses the state requires are pointless". So I don't think all licenses are bad.
You are "seriously curious" or just defending this article? I actually agree with the criticism of this article.
I am always curious to learn why some people defend state licensing requirements. Sometimes it helps me to understand a real need to ensure that people know what they are doing and are competent enough to prevent unnecessary harm. Other times I learn just how backward their thinking is and how much they hate competition.
If you don't like the licensing model, what else would you suggest to verify skills? Screw the teachers license and just audition every teaching applicant in the class for 2 weeks? How does that help kids?
Why is that a bad Idea? Perhaps we could implement and audition followed by a 1 or 2 semester long qualification period followed by a performance review.
A lot of occupations follow that path of hiring on people who show that they have the required skills and then regularly audit their real performance. Is it really that hard to do for teaching? I don't think so. If the teacher is so bad that they are hurting the students' education, we need to have ways of monitoring that consistently.
My point is that not all "consumer protection" systems require the state to be involved in any way. For instance, cosmetology. Why do people need to be forced to go to school for 2-3 years, pay hundreds of dollars to the state all in order to cut hair or apply make-up? Its insane. On average, cosmetologists spend more time in training and spend more out of pocket than EMTs. Often as much as 10 times. If that is not insane, then what is?
Check out this bit of research on the crazy licensing systems throughout the US. Doesn't delve into general teaching but there are some teaching related licenses studied.
And that's what annoys me about the recent spate of anti-licensing furor sparked by the NY Times article. Sometimes, licenses are arbitrary hoops erected by gatekeepers to keep out competition. And sometimes -- believe it or not -- they are standards set to protect the citizen and the consumer. Painting with a broad brush doesn't really help us highlight the ones that should be changed.
How does getting an arbitrary piece of paper protect the consumer or citizen? I am seriously curious. I work with the state, I develop applications that allow for people apply and reapply for such certifications and licenses. I am well aware that about 90% of the licenses the state requires are pointless. They are 1) a way for incumbent businesses to restrict competition or 2) Just a way for the state to extract and additional tax from the working class.
If getting a license to work only requires paying money to the state, why have it?
If getting a license to work involves getting years of training in skills and other areas that fall outside your area of expertise, why have it?
In the case of teaching, getting a piece of paper does not prove you can teach. It proves that you can follow instructions on how to get a piece of paper. Getting a piece of paper does not protect anyone either.
But the original site and all its content still exists in its original location and is still owned by the original owner.
Theft requires the owner to be deprived of rightfully owned property. Since no person is deprived of property when copyright is infringed, nothing is stolen.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 11:01am
So, you should think of Conversation Ads as a way for Skype to generate fun interactivity between your circle of friends and family and the brands you care about.
I had an experience with this exact phenomena this past Sunday. I was on a call with a podcast cohost and an ad popped up on his end. We then began talking about how Skype decided that we needed ads in our phone calls.
See. It got us talking, just not about whatever was in the ad that my friend saw but rather the presence of the ads themselves.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 18 Jun 2012 @ 10:59am
Re:
??? You comparison makes absolutely no sense.
Here is a better one for you.
You have a phone that you let people use when they ask to use it. You do not monitor the calls as you respect people's privacy even though they are using your phone. One day someone uses your phone to do something illegal (who cares what it is, it is beside the point.) Should we prosecute the person who let people use their phone because they were "negligent" in preventing criminal activity? Absolutely not.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 11:45am
Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
I remember visiting a site that used Google maps to show you the exact opposite point on the globe of any position on the planet you selected. If I dug a hole from my home to the opposite point, I would have ended up in the middle of the ocean. Yikes.
Fair use is a right, but it's a right to use someone else's property.
What property? Does someone's article disappear if I decide to quote it and comment on it? Was it taken from the person who wrote while I was busy quoting and commenting on it?
Fair use is a right that was meant to be a line in the sand on how far copyright could extend. It is meant to protect those areas of expression that use copyrighted work without infringing on the copyright owner's right to control the copies of their work.
The problem with fair use is that the person exercising their fair use rights always runs the risk that his assessment of what use is fair may turn out to be incorrect.
That is partially correct. However, it is not for the copyright owner to determine what is fair. It is for the court to determine. In this case, the copyright owner feels he should be the final say in what is a fair use of his work. But he is absolutely wrong on that part. He has the right to petition the court to uphold his interpretation, but it is the court's job to have the final word.
You don't have to negotiate, but doing so makes sense since having a license is better than not having one. It's riskier to claim fair use later than it is to negotiate a license up front.
It may be slightly risky, if you are moving into uncharted territory. However, the act of quoting other articles to comment on them or the issues discussed therein is pretty solidly ruled to be fair use. It is already trodden ground and the only risk in doing so is the risk of running into people who have no clue what fair use is or what the courts have said on the matter.
On the other hand, there are areas where the waters are a bit more murky, such as using copyrighted music in videos. Here your arguments may be valid as music licensing is pretty common. However, there may still be fair use rights if you are not playing the whole song and are commenting on it, such as for a music review.
Fair use is not black and white. It is a legal grey area that gets whiter or darker as the courts add precedence to the legal arena. As the courts take on fair use cases and provide rulings on the matter, what is clearly fair use and what is clearly not fair use become easier for the lay person to determine.
Don't really know how much money the show made being on public television and all. However, I guess it was worth mentioning in the post, but got overlooked.
Steve Smith has a very popular and very profitable traveling stand up act. That is where he makes the real money. He also makes money from the books he has written.
He has recognized that the show is not a scarcity and his live performance is. So he gives away the show to help sell his performance.
Not sure what you are responding to. I was asking a question that was meant to lead to the thought "Oh, maybe suing someone for stating their opinion of your actions is a bad idea." Neither The Oatmeal's or the MPAA etc should be sued for saying that copyright infringement is stealing.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 12 Jun 2012 @ 12:14pm
Re:
If it is evidence of a crime being committed, then the officer should have subpoenaed the phone or a copy of the recording rather than arrest her and take it.
On the post: Why You Can't Braid Someone's Hair In Utah For Money Without First Paying $16k
Re:
poking them with the sharp end of the metal comb - Oh wow. How threatening. Help I was poked in the head by a sharp object and had to hold a tissue in plaec for 2 minutes. I am going to sue you for pain and suffering to the tune of $250k.
illegal or home brew products that may damage or hurt the client - Like what? What dangerous homebrew product would a hair braider use? Is it more dangerous than peroxide that thousands use to home bleach their hair? What about hair gel and hair spray? Are those so dangerous that they need to be regulated? For that matter, what are some life threatening dangers from any cosmetologist? All I have heard so far is poking and lice. Maybe some cuts and scrapes.
There is a reason why things are done under regulation - Yes. We have discussed them at length here and before. They are 1) Limit competition. 2) Control the flow of new workers. 3) Provide kickbacks to buddies. Did I miss anything?
Frankly, cosmetology is one of those areas where the free market would actually work. Someone does a poor job consistently? They go out of business as people do go there any more. Someone runs a filthy business? They go out of business as people don't go there any more. Did I miss anything?
On the post: Why You Can't Braid Someone's Hair In Utah For Money Without First Paying $16k
http://www.ij.org/utah-hairbraiding-2
They fight a lot of these types of license schemes and have been successful in a number of cases.
On the post: Why You Can't Braid Someone's Hair In Utah For Money Without First Paying $16k
Re:
On the post: Microsoft's 'Threat Management Gateway' Blocks Free Software Foundation Donation Page As 'Gambling'
Re:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/forefront/threat-management-gateway.aspx
As a windows users, you don't have to have this. However, since it is falsely flagging websites, it seems that it is practically useless for real use.
On the post: Do We Need A 'Circle Section' Registry To Prove Digital Ownership?
Re: Here's an idea
On the post: CBS Mocks Its Own Failed Copyright Lawsuit By Sarcastically Announcing New 'Completely Original' Show 'Dancing On The Stars'
Re: Re: Simpsons did it...
On the post: The Chilling Effects On Innovation Caused By Bad Copyright Law
Re: Re:
On the post: A Broken System: Einstein Wouldn't Have Been 'Qualified' To Teach High School Physics
Re: Re: Re: Not so fast
Sure go ahead. You haven't yet.
What, no drivers licenses? No pilots licenses?
I don't think I mentioned anything about drivers and pilot licenses. I also qualified my statement with a "90% of the licenses the state requires are pointless". So I don't think all licenses are bad.
You are "seriously curious" or just defending this article? I actually agree with the criticism of this article.
I am always curious to learn why some people defend state licensing requirements. Sometimes it helps me to understand a real need to ensure that people know what they are doing and are competent enough to prevent unnecessary harm. Other times I learn just how backward their thinking is and how much they hate competition.
If you don't like the licensing model, what else would you suggest to verify skills? Screw the teachers license and just audition every teaching applicant in the class for 2 weeks? How does that help kids?
Why is that a bad Idea? Perhaps we could implement and audition followed by a 1 or 2 semester long qualification period followed by a performance review.
A lot of occupations follow that path of hiring on people who show that they have the required skills and then regularly audit their real performance. Is it really that hard to do for teaching? I don't think so. If the teacher is so bad that they are hurting the students' education, we need to have ways of monitoring that consistently.
My point is that not all "consumer protection" systems require the state to be involved in any way. For instance, cosmetology. Why do people need to be forced to go to school for 2-3 years, pay hundreds of dollars to the state all in order to cut hair or apply make-up? Its insane. On average, cosmetologists spend more time in training and spend more out of pocket than EMTs. Often as much as 10 times. If that is not insane, then what is?
Check out this bit of research on the crazy licensing systems throughout the US. Doesn't delve into general teaching but there are some teaching related licenses studied.
http://www.ij.org/l-l-license-to-work
On the post: A Broken System: Einstein Wouldn't Have Been 'Qualified' To Teach High School Physics
Re: Not so fast
How does getting an arbitrary piece of paper protect the consumer or citizen? I am seriously curious. I work with the state, I develop applications that allow for people apply and reapply for such certifications and licenses. I am well aware that about 90% of the licenses the state requires are pointless. They are 1) a way for incumbent businesses to restrict competition or 2) Just a way for the state to extract and additional tax from the working class.
If getting a license to work only requires paying money to the state, why have it?
If getting a license to work involves getting years of training in skills and other areas that fall outside your area of expertise, why have it?
In the case of teaching, getting a piece of paper does not prove you can teach. It proves that you can follow instructions on how to get a piece of paper. Getting a piece of paper does not protect anyone either.
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
Theft requires the owner to be deprived of rightfully owned property. Since no person is deprived of property when copyright is infringed, nothing is stolen.
On the post: Because We All Know What Skype Was Missing Was Intrusive Advertising, Microsoft Has Decided To Add It
I had an experience with this exact phenomena this past Sunday. I was on a call with a podcast cohost and an ad popped up on his end. We then began talking about how Skype decided that we needed ads in our phone calls.
See. It got us talking, just not about whatever was in the ad that my friend saw but rather the presence of the ads themselves.
On the post: Would We Prefer HTC To Be Making Cool New Products? Or Just Getting More Patents
Re: Re: but but but...
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
Re:
Here is a better one for you.
You have a phone that you let people use when they ask to use it. You do not monitor the calls as you respect people's privacy even though they are using your phone. One day someone uses your phone to do something illegal (who cares what it is, it is beside the point.) Should we prosecute the person who let people use their phone because they were "negligent" in preventing criminal activity? Absolutely not.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
On the post: Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission
Re:
What property? Does someone's article disappear if I decide to quote it and comment on it? Was it taken from the person who wrote while I was busy quoting and commenting on it?
Fair use is a right that was meant to be a line in the sand on how far copyright could extend. It is meant to protect those areas of expression that use copyrighted work without infringing on the copyright owner's right to control the copies of their work.
The problem with fair use is that the person exercising their fair use rights always runs the risk that his assessment of what use is fair may turn out to be incorrect.
That is partially correct. However, it is not for the copyright owner to determine what is fair. It is for the court to determine. In this case, the copyright owner feels he should be the final say in what is a fair use of his work. But he is absolutely wrong on that part. He has the right to petition the court to uphold his interpretation, but it is the court's job to have the final word.
You don't have to negotiate, but doing so makes sense since having a license is better than not having one. It's riskier to claim fair use later than it is to negotiate a license up front.
It may be slightly risky, if you are moving into uncharted territory. However, the act of quoting other articles to comment on them or the issues discussed therein is pretty solidly ruled to be fair use. It is already trodden ground and the only risk in doing so is the risk of running into people who have no clue what fair use is or what the courts have said on the matter.
On the other hand, there are areas where the waters are a bit more murky, such as using copyrighted music in videos. Here your arguments may be valid as music licensing is pretty common. However, there may still be fair use rights if you are not playing the whole song and are commenting on it, such as for a music review.
Fair use is not black and white. It is a legal grey area that gets whiter or darker as the courts add precedence to the legal arena. As the courts take on fair use cases and provide rulings on the matter, what is clearly fair use and what is clearly not fair use become easier for the lay person to determine.
On the post: Red Green Show Thrives Thanks To The Internet And A Whole Lot Of Duct Tape
Re: But..
Steve Smith has a very popular and very profitable traveling stand up act. That is where he makes the real money. He also makes money from the books he has written.
He has recognized that the show is not a scarcity and his live performance is. So he gives away the show to help sell his performance.
On the post: The Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk: How The Court Of Public Opinion Beats The Court Of Baseless Legal Threats
Re: Re: Re: Funnyjunk isn't entirely wrong
On the post: The Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk: How The Court Of Public Opinion Beats The Court Of Baseless Legal Threats
Re: Funnyjunk isn't entirely wrong
On the post: Police Arrest Woman For Filming Them, Take Phone Out Of Her Bra, Claim That It Must Be Kept As 'Evidence'
Re:
Next >>