Slashdot Log In
Slashback: Disney Copyright, Alaa Freed, Kelo Repealed
from the more-bad-news dept.
Egyptian blogger Alaa freed from jail. FleaPlus writes "Egyptian blogger, open source advocate, and Slashdot interviewee Alaa Abd El-Fatah has been released from jail. He had been imprisoned for 45 days after being arrested (along with several others) for taking part in a pro-democracy election reform rally, on charges which included "insulting the Egyptian president." In a blog post Alaa describes the conditions he was subjected to in the jail, as well as his worry about the hundreds of other activists who are still in prison."
Executive order defuses Kelo decision. physicsphairy writes "President Bush has issued an executive order whose effect is to undo the previous Kelo decision of the Supreme Court. From the article: 'It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.' The downside is that what was once affirmed consitutionally is now affirmed only in federal law."
Disney's trouble with Pooh bear. bbernard writes "It seems that the same laws that allow the Mouse to continue generating money for Disney have prevented Disney from taking control of Winny the Pooh. The Supreme Court has denied Clare Milne's bid to get the rights back for Pooh and his buddies. Clare is A.A. Milne's granddaughter, and her court battle was funded by Disney, as she was going to reassign the rights to them. Interesting to see a company foiled by the laws they insisted on in the first place, isn't it?"
NASA engineer fired for opposing shuttle launch. quad4b writes to tell us The New York Daily News reports that Charlie Camarda was has been removed from his post at NASA for questioning the safety of this Saturday's launch. From the article: "Camarda's removal heightened the turmoil over NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's decision to take the 'acceptable risk' of launching the Discovery orbiter despite warnings of potentially fatal blastoff debris. Camarda, who flew aboard the troubled flight of Discovery last July, told colleagues in an e-mail that he was fired from his post as chief engineer at Houston's Johnson Space Center and given another NASA engineering job."
Swedish pirates provide RIAA insurance. An anonymous reader writes "A new insurance company in Sweden is offering a new policy to protect you from the RIAA [Swedish]. For a mere 140 SEK ($19 USD) per year, they will pay all your fines and give you a t-shirt if you get convicted for file sharing. Interesting development in Sweden indeed."
Open source Java months away? bl8n8r writes "A Sun Microsystems Inc. executive said Tuesday said the company is "months" away from releasing its trademark Java programming language under an open-source license. Simon Phipps, chief open-source officer for Sun, said the company is ruminating over two major issues: how to keep Java compatible and ensure no particular company uses market forces as muscle for its own implementation, a move that would threaten Java's "write once, run anywhere" mantra."
Net neutrality amendment defeated in committee. DeathPooky writes "While not the end of the road for net neutrality, the latest vote isn't a good sign. From the article: 'The Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday rejected a network neutrality amendment, handing cable and phone broadband access providers yet another victory over a coalition that has demanded the application of strict nondiscrimination standards against entities that control access to millions of Internet users. The panel voted 11 to 11 to defeat an amendment sponsored by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who had backing from Google, Yahoo!, eBay, Amazon, Microsoft and other firms that deliver voice, video, and information services and applications.' All 10 Democrats on the committee, as well as Republican co-sponsor Sen. Snowe, voted for the amendment. The other 11 Republicans voted against."
Swedish pirates provide RIAA insurance. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Swedish pirates provide RIAA insurance. (Score:2)
That depends whether it's only valid in Sweden, or if us Americans can get it too. For us, $19/year is a bargain!
Re:Swedish pirates provide RIAA insurance. (Score:3, Insightful)
New RIAA scheme:
1. Start RIAA insurance company
2. Wait for P2P-using "pirates" to sign up
3. Send each of them a settlement offer for $2k
Re:Swedish pirates provide RIAA insurance. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, in that case it really is like "volcano insurance" since there'd be no grounds for the RIAA to sue anyone in Sweden to begin with -- it's $19/year to protect from nothing.
Parent
Disney learns.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Disney learns.... (Score:2)
Problem is Disney hasn't built much positive karma in the last many years. But it would take a massive amount of mod points for us to silence them.
Kelo Untouched (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Kelo Untouched (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Kelo Untouched (Score:5, Insightful)
What you really mean is "Compulsory Purchase".
Never trust lawyers to name ANYTHING!
Parent
Re:Kelo Untouched (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Kelo Untouched (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing in this executive order (or in state and local laws that are being enacted al
Re:Kelo Untouched (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Kelo Untouched (Score:4, Informative)
Presidents of the United States have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3.
Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to United States executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers.
If wikipedia is accurate, then an executive order only has force of law if made with the backing of a congressional act. Also sounds like you couldn't be jailed or fined for ignoring it.
Parent
Re:Kelo Untouched (Score:4, Informative)
In this case, since the federal government, per executive order, is not to take property via eminent domain when the property won't be used specifically for the public good, the federal government simply won't do it. No other part of the federal government has the capability to exercise such power, so the order is as good as law until a subsequent president revokes the policy, even though it's not statute.
It's essentially the same thing as a federal regulation [wikipedia.org] - these are things defined not in statute, but rather by the Executive Branch of the government. Some things in the CFR are there because the legislature specifically requires them, while others are regulations crafted under the broad discretion that Congress sometimes gives. In the case of the anti-Kelo executive order, (fairly) broad discretion is granted by the Constitution, and the executive order sets a specific procedure under which that power is exercised. The entirety of the federal Executive Branch must abide by that order (under penalty of at least getting fired, and possibly incurring substantial civil damages against oneself if one attempts to bypass the order), and so it's as good as law as long as it's not revoked.
Parent
Re:Kelo Untouched (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why the executive parliamentary model is so much superi
Re:Kelo Untouched (Score:3, Interesting)
In theory, possibly. In practice, the UK at least doesn't work that way anymore [independent.co.uk], no thanks to Tony Blair. Besides, with a suitably well-whipped majority, it has to be
Re:Returning to a Constitutionally Limited Governm (Score:4, Interesting)
There's plenty said about them. The CIA has been in the news an awful lot recently, as I recall. Even the dingy old U.S. Patent & Trademark Office is getting a suprising amount of ink these days.
The reason they're not discussed more is because their functions are pretty mundane. The public doesn't care how the NIH decides to award federal grants, or how the SEC polices the stock market. Just printing the letters "IRS" in an article headline will guarantee that the public ignores it.
This is an extremely deleterious consequence of America's love of drama - the undramatic goes unmonitored. Meanwhile, our politicians keep us amused (and distracted from their actions) by waving flags and conjuring images of terr'ists.
What are the alphabet agencies -- FDA, EPA, OSHA, and so on -- doing when they pass laws? And, while these laws are called regulations, so as not to upset anyone who might actually read the Constitution, the Webster's dictionary defines regulation as a rule, ordinance or law.
Agency regulations are not laws. Laws are rules that apply to your actions: things that you may do, or must do, or must not do. Agency regulations are rules that apply to the actions of an agency: how it can utilize a power (that has already been given to it by the Executive or Legislative), how it cannot utilize a power, etc.
It's true that an agency sometimes relies on its own regulations to determine how to treat you. But the agency's power to deal with you in such a way was given to it by a law. And if the agency oversteps its legal authority, then a regulation won't save it.
Example: The IRS has many regulations that dictate how you must pay your federal taxes. Yet, these regulations aren't laws - the law passed by Congress is that:
- You must submit an annual federal income tax payment; and
- The IRS is responsible for creating a tax formula that adheres to the dictates of the legislature; and
- You must use the IRS formula, and follow the IRS submission procedures, to prove that you're paying the correct amount.
Now, what happens if the IRS believes that you've failed your legal duties under #1 or #3? It can't do anything to you! It has no such power. It merely tells the executive branch that you've violated the tax laws, and the executive prosecutes you for evasion - under the general tax laws passed by Congress.- David Stein
Parent
Re:Returning to a Constitutionally Limited Governm (Score:3, Informative)
The FCC, for example, was created as part of the Federal Communications Act of 1934. Their powers ar
Re:Kelo Untouched (Score:3, Informative)
As well it shouldn't - such an order would be an unjustified intrusion into the powers reserved to the states, and hence unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.
Furthermore, it's probably really only good as "advice" to the Attorney General.
Not just the AG, but the entire executive branch - which is almost always the branch that invokes eminent domain on behalf of the federal gover
I really hope that part about Java is true (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I really hope that part about Java is true (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry to disappoint you, but it's entirely possible (and reasonable!) to open-source an implementation without letting people mess with the standard too.
Parent
Re:I really hope that part about Java is true (Score:4, Insightful)
Working on unsigned data coming in from another source is VERY bug prone in Java. Writing file format readers in Java is a nightmare.
Parent
If it's a hit in Sweden, US will hopefully follow (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If it's a hit in Sweden, US will hopefully foll (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why sites like The Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.org] are able to stay alive; they aren't actually infringing copyright, they're simply indexing user-uploaded torrents.
In the US, this would count as contributory infringement I believe, and would be shut down.
Parent
Re:If it's a hit in Sweden, US will hopefully foll (Score:3, Interesting)
Two flaws in this argument:
Regulation, Good or Bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lesson #1 on why politics is a completely different thing than ideology: Network Neutrality failing slowly, but the Broadcast Flag gradually gaining steam.
Are Republicans for or against regulation? The answer is "yes." Regulation is a bad thing, if their current "donors" say so. It's also a good thing, for the very same reasons. We need look no further than these two similar issues to see that what congress is really about is doing good for big business, and failing to protect the consumer. Any "ideology" they spout while debating this stuff is a means to an end, nothing more.
I know none of this comes as a shock to anyone reading /. but when will it escape being a truism and start being a concern for voters!? This isn't limited to technology, either. Think about Federalism... Federalism is the flag flown by the minority party. It used to be a Republican mantra, until they managed to win power, now suddenly old "tax-and-spend" liberals are thinking federalism isn't such a bad idea.
I don't want to be the old codger leaning back and saying how "ideology used to mean something, now it's all just politics" when in fact politicians are about as beholden to money as ever they were... but I know that we've had some bright spots in our 200+ years of history. I sure would like to see those come along more often. Or indeed, ever again...
Try "double-digit" months away (Score:5, Informative)
What an opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
It is clear here that the Democrats are on the side of the average person on a straightforward issue which is easy to explain and easy to get people excited about-- and the issue is framed in a way which makes it clear that a slight change in the partisan balance of power would have a direct effect on how Congress treats the issue.
With the upcoming Congressional elections, this represents a wonderful opportunity for the Democrats to completely fail at either communicating a message to the American people or presenting a credible alternative to the Republicans. I am sure that Democratic strategists are as we speak working around the clock trying to find some way to fumble this opportunity which has been dropped into their laps.
Disney story unrelated to copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
Well it would be, but the Disney case is all about Milne selling the merchandising rights back in the 30's and the daughter basically wanting to back out of that contract. What does that have to do with copyright again?
I don't think it's right of Milne (or Disney) to try and break this contract either but you have to feel a little sorry for Milne who had her grandfather basically give away a vast fortune in return for some smaller sum. Still, I think she's doing well just with her contract to Disney...
Re:Disney story unrelated to copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Disney story unrelated to copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
She had ancestors who created marketable characters. Well, great for her.
You can use that fact to make small talk about yourself, but make your own damn money.
Parent
Re:Disney story unrelated to copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Seeing as how Clare Milne has cerebral palsy, that was a crummy thing to write.
In actuality, IIRC, Christopher Robin (Milne) refused any 'Pooh' money until his daughter was born with that medical condition. He realized she would need money so as to be looked after, when he was gone.
Re:Not subcomment in story (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush can't ever get it right! (Score:3, Funny)
God Damn, President Bush can never get anything right. I can't believe he is trying to overturn the power of the courts with this balancing action from another branch of the government.
Oh wait. I guess he did something good here. Darn, going to get moderated for pointing that out :)
lousy t-shirt (Score:5, Funny)
A good Mubarak joke (Score:5, Funny)
Mubarak still doesn't have a vice president.
I heard that joke in the El Maadi district of Cairo.
Not only net neutrality (Score:4, Informative)
My submission got rejected, but net neutrality is not the only bad thing on the way via bill S.2686. This is the same bill that grants the FCC the power to require audio and video broadcast flag recognition on every device made or sold. This is one of the last opportunities you have to contact your Senators to let them know you are opposed to this bill before it gets voted through in the middle of the night.
Kelo as viewed from the perspective of a local (Score:4, Informative)
See, the thing is, New London is dirt poor. It's been in decline since it's peak in the 1800s, ever since whaling and fishing stopped being a reasonable basis for a small New England city's economy. For a long time now New London has been the poorest town in the area, with the most densely packed suburban sprawl, and a small downtown area which is mostly boarded up. Over the past twenty or thirty years, New London has been slowly building itself back up. They've cleaned up a lot of the bad crime that was going on, and businesses have been moving back in to areas that had lain dormant. They're developing themselves as a cultural center for the area, and doing a good job of it.
Now, with the whole eminent domain issue, here's the thing: It didn't particularly benefit the company much at all. Pfizer was going to build in the area, at comparable price, regardless, just not in New London. The government of New London saw the opportunity to bring that economic boon into their own town, and jumped on it. Now, there was no readily available area to give to Pfizer. New London is very small, with a high population for it's size. They had to move some people in order to make this go through, or they'd lose the tax base of having that industry to a neighboring, richer town.
The money generated for the town by having Pfizer there is going to allow them to increase the quality of their public services greatly. The school system is going to improve, the police effectiveness is going to improve, the quality of life for the entire town going up as a result of this. It's unfortunate that some people had to be removed for this to happen, and even more unfortunate is the level of malcontent some have felt over this act, but the town and it's inhabitants are going to benefit tangibly. The business received some benefit in order to entice them to the town, but that's a marginal amount. Big Business didn't trump the people here. The town made a heavily debated and difficult decision, and made it for the benefit of it's residents as a group.
Now, as a precedent, Kelo is undeniably dangerous. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that in the particular case of New London, it was the right choice to make.
Re:Kelo as viewed from the perspective of a local (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, as a precedent, Kelo is undeniably dangerous. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that in the particular case of New London, it was the right choice to make.
Since New London was foolishly permitted to make that choice, a multitude stand to lose homes, property, and businesses anytime bigger fish feel like greasing palms. Expediency for New London is no excuse for what is going to happen now.
Parent
Re:Kelo as viewed from the perspective of a local (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Kelo as viewed from the perspective of a local (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets take a look at the text at hand.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
There is no doubt that increase tax revenue is good for a budget but the problem with me is two fold. First, Private property taken for private use is not public use. Or at least wasn't until recently. Obviously all taxed properties in a cities tax base are for city the to use because they collect taxes, and of course taxes are for public use. Bamm dangerous prescient (Which I'm certain
Re:Kelo as viewed from the perspective of a local (Score:3, Insightful)
Displacing people for a private company is wrong no matter how much money it brings into the community. Of course, I doubt they (pfizer) will be paying that much in taxes, so the tax will be generated by taxing the goods the workers purchase. Now, how to you garantee all those purchases happen in new London?
If true, NASA is terminally ill (Score:3, Insightful)
This incident should put an end to the allegations that engineers with decades of experience were just engaged in CYA when they warned about safety problems. This is a guy who's had his A handed to him for speaking up. A bureaucrat would have gone along: he was willing to lose his job rather than toe the line(*).
Unless the reporting on this was seriously wrong then it is time to scrap NASA and start over.
(*)Sorry, forgot where I was. Make that "loose his job rather than tow the line".
Re:If true, NASA is terminally ill (Score:4, Insightful)
This engineer felt that there was a fundamental design issue with an IC used in the pressurization system of an airliner. His bosses and fellow engineers, all the way up the chain felt otherwise. This has been an absolute nightmare for Airbus, and even if we assume that the directors have no sense of morals and are just looking at the bottom line, it would likely have been cheaper just to fix whatever problem was there than deal with the aftermath of some engineer writing to any newspaper that'll print him, so they looked. And, in the opinion of all the other engineers in the program, there wasn't a problem. Now what? You either keep him on and let this guy spout off forever about how dangerous your product is, likely causing the shareholders to demand a vendor switch even with nothing at all wrong just because it will look bad for the airframe, a hugely expensive gamble for the Airbus group, or you fire him and try to shut him up, and now everybody screams cover-up.
I'm not necessarily saying this is an analogous situation. I don't know what went on in the meetings where he got transferred, or what he said to piss people off. I am saying that it's not always as simple as people think.
Parent
Protecting the Java trademark:No Problem (Score:3, Informative)
If Sun wants to protect the use of the Java trademark so that others implementing Java runtime systems remain compatible with the standard, there already is a method available. It's called a "certification mark" or "membership mark" class of trademark or servicemark. If you live in the United States, you're almost certainly aware of one very famous certification mark, the "UL" label on electrical appliances. Companies supply samples of their equipment to Underwriters Laboratories, which basically tests the device to destruction, then if the fail point is higher than the minimum standard, UL grants them permission to affix the UL certification mark to their equipment.
A "membership mark" would be used where some organization is allowed to use a mark to show it's a member of a group or has qualified to show the particular mark. I think the "Energy Star" label from the Department of Energy would fit here.
The only requirement to do this is that someone else — that does not distribute the software — has to be the certification authority (you can't be both owner of a certification mark and a user of it, that would be a conflict of interest.) But they'd probably want to do that anyway, the way IBM turned over the Eclipse IDE to a separate foundation after they decided to release it open source.
So, there's already plenty of existing systems available for Sun to use a system to "protect" the Java trademark and the "write once, run anywhere" concept. And a small license fee for those who want to use the mark to cover testing costs for verifying compliance could make the whole thing self-funding.
Paul Robinson paul@paul-robinson.us [mailto]
Re:fp (Score:4, Funny)
It comes from mixing peanut butter with saliva then kissing. And kicking orphans to the ground and stealing their iPod. And putting SCO on your grandma's PC. And setting her up with Kazaa and no firewall then anonymously emailing the RIAA. That's the starter list.
Parent
Re:More Disney details please (Score:4, Informative)
By the way - to the editors.... It's Winnie not Winny.
Parent
Re:More Disney details please (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What a hypocrite (Score:3, Informative)
Issuing an executive order is not the same as legislating. As the head of the executive branch, the President can authorise or limit the actions of any agency under the executive branch as long as doing so would not contradict any legislation.
Re:I'm Illiterate (Score:3, Funny)
Deities who don't show up for the weekly DoJ prayer meetings are automatically placed on the "potential terrorists" list and subject to detention/interrogation whenever or wherever they are found.
It's in the DoJ bylaws somewhere.