InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comSat, 25 May 2013 10:04:30 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Revenant (1/11/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/11/2012)[/b][hr]Ah, so you can assign our a portion of your copyright. The authors retain copyright for their work published here, but they grant us perpetual publication (distribution) rights on this site. They can republish elsewhere after a short time (90 days) if they like and they own the work.Some companies will do exclusive distribution rights for content, but they don't own the copyright and after some time, the distribution reverts to the owner. But I believe that's a contract that is a sub-assignment of the copyright.Talking about this stuff shouldn't be that confusing.[/quote]There are lots of lawayers who has a vested interest in keeping it that way - unfortunately.[/quote]That in itself is one of the biggest problems I think we face in the U.S. right now. This bill, if it could be taken at face value, might have been a viable law. It's the intertwinement with all the other laws, and untrackable results, that make it too confusing to actually learn how to do things properly.I'll stop there before I start up a rant. The House's version of the Bill (SOPA) is much more open to interpretation. I understand the intent of the PIPA (the senate version) and I personally believe that the usual government morass will stop trivial and silly things from wandering through and only having important components get involved. Will there be occassional outliers? Yeah, of course, but we don't have perfect, we just have humans.Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:51:35 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/11/2012)[/b][hr]Ah, so you can assign our a portion of your copyright. The authors retain copyright for their work published here, but they grant us perpetual publication (distribution) rights on this site. They can republish elsewhere after a short time (90 days) if they like and they own the work.Some companies will do exclusive distribution rights for content, but they don't own the copyright and after some time, the distribution reverts to the owner. But I believe that's a contract that is a sub-assignment of the copyright.Talking about this stuff shouldn't be that confusing.[/quote]There are lots of lawayers who has a vested interest in keeping it that way - unfortunately.Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:04:12 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspxAh, so you can assign our a portion of your copyright. The authors retain copyright for their work published here, but they grant us perpetual publication (distribution) rights on this site. They can republish elsewhere after a short time (90 days) if they like and they own the work.Some companies will do exclusive distribution rights for content, but they don't own the copyright and after some time, the distribution reverts to the owner. But I believe that's a contract that is a sub-assignment of the copyright.Talking about this stuff shouldn't be that confusing.Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:42:36 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspxOn a second thought, distribution separated frrom copyright is bnecoming common in software, too. I believe BillG pioneered that approach when he got distribution rights to Flight Simulator, which was developed by and copyrighted to subLOGIC. Now it is more rule than exception for Xbox games.Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:21:22 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/11/2012)[/b][hr]I think reposting a copyrighted work without permission is still copyright. The copyright laws control distribution as a protected right. . . .[/quote]As a general principle, yes. However, SOPA is supposed to protect music by the big four and Hollywood movies, and those, except for indies, separate distribution rights from copyright by design. I may be wrong but I believe there has not been a Hollywood movie distributed by its studio since 1954. Music industry followed in the 90s.Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:17:13 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspxI think reposting a copyrighted work without permission is still copyright. The copyright laws control distribution as a protected right.The bigger problem is fair use. There's no provision in there for fair use. If someone uses a copyrighted work and it's a limited use for the purposes of criticism/comment/etc, we don't have a good way to allow those. We also don't seem to be good at inadvertent allowances. I shoot a podcast in from of some work of copyrighted art, even though the art isn't necessarily a part of what I do, I can't distribute the podcast because I'm "infringing", which seems silly. Same if I shot and there's a TV visible (no audio) of some program that's copyrighted.The DCMA has worked OK for removing copyrighted stuff for me, as long as a large hosting company controls the domain. When it's joe's garage server, there's no recourse. Whether there should be is a debate to have, but I think in a limited time, I ought to have some ability to remove stuff, but not whack the domain.Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:53:49 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/11/2012)[/b][hr]. . . Someone uploads a bad video to YouTube.UK, they don't agree it's infringing, the whole domain is whacked because of one content item. . . .[/quote]Even worrse, someone uploads a video which includes a clip whose author (or copyright holder or distribution rights holder) disagrees whether it is or is not fair use, and those laws vary from country to country as well.Note interesting thing: SOPA talks about copyright, but if you post say a video with proper attribution, it is not violation of copyright but of distribution rights. This will be much deeper mess than it seems now. If history gives any guidance, it will be like with DMCA which was also meant to protect online contents. The first case filed under DMCA dealt with violation of proprietary interfaces of the Tiptronic transmission.I wonder what will be SOPA used for.Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:25:58 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Evil Kraig F (1/10/2012)[/b][hr]There are a few sections in this bill that concern me, but I am not a lawyer, so I may not be seeing the whole picture that one of them would. In particular this bill references other existing laws that I didn't do the research on.In essence, though, from what I gather from the Senate's version (PIPA), all work and disclaimers would need to go either through the Attorney General's office for a temporary injunction (with no specific requirement for due processing timelines) or via a court order. It does not specify WHAT court, though I'm not sure if that's necessary. At no time, at least without having the Attorney General's office under their wing, can a private company's claim force an immediate injunction.I haven't read through the House's version though.[/quote]Ditto for me. I didn't research the other laws in there. However I assume the AG will seek a "friendly" court (dem = liberal judge, gop = conservative judge). I do think that overall the courts tend to rule fairly, although their interpretations vary, at least they tend to think about the issues a bit. I don't always agree, and there are exceptions, but having some review is good.The main problems I have are that this is a gross block. Someone uploads a bad video to YouTube.UK, they don't agree it's infringing, the whole domain is whacked because of one content item. There are provisions to work with the "portion thereof" the site, but the DNS blocks are an issue to me. I think the proposed alternative I saw which limited the penalties to financial institutions is better. I can also see a bill which requires search engines to block the particular page as being better, rather than the site.Ultimately it sucks if someone overseas rips you off, but either we have agreements with their government to handle things or we don't. We can't have perfect enforcement and we shouldn't. That's a police state where justice is too swift, hard, and corrupt (absolute power and all that).Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:01:24 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Revenant (1/10/2012)[/b][hr]"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."[-- Mark Twain[/quote]True dat. It's one reason I think we ought to change the people in the legislature often.Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:53:37 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Evil Kraig F (1/10/2012)[/b][hr]There are a few sections in this bill that concern me, but I am not a lawyer, so I may not be seeing the whole picture that one of them would. In particular this bill references other existing laws that I didn't do the research on.In essence, though, from what I gather from the Senate's version (PIPA), all work and disclaimers would need to go either through the Attourney General's office for a temporary injuction (with no specific requirement for due processing timelines) or via a court order. It does not specify WHAT court, though I'm not sure if that's necessary. At no time, at least without having the Attorney General's office under their wing, can a private company's claim force an immediate injunction.I haven't read through the House's version though.[/quote]"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."[-- Mark TwainTue, 10 Jan 2012 17:55:00 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspxThere are a few sections in this bill that concern me, but I am not a lawyer, so I may not be seeing the whole picture that one of them would. In particular this bill references other existing laws that I didn't do the research on.In essence, though, from what I gather from the Senate's version (PIPA), all work and disclaimers would need to go either through the Attourney General's office for a temporary injuction (with no specific requirement for due processing timelines) or via a court order. It does not specify WHAT court, though I'm not sure if that's necessary. At no time, at least without having the Attorney General's office under their wing, can a private company's claim force an immediate injunction.I haven't read through the House's version though.Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:30:59 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspxwww.senate.govBill # is S.968Put it into the box for 'THOMAS' and it will bring you to a non-pasteable link.The final link is here for the pdf as of this date:[url]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s968rs/pdf/BILLS-112s968rs.pdf[/url]Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:08:39 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (1/10/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/10/2012)[/b][hr]I'd have to dig around, and it's hard to even know what the current version of the bill might change, but in one of the revisions... [/quote]That's one of the best points made yet. :-) Does anyone happen to have a link to the latest copy of the bill?[/quote]I looked around, but there's so much nonsense out there, that at this time I was struggling to get through the clutter. There's this: [url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3261:[/url]But current could be changed tomorrow as amendments are added. Or it could have changed and not yet publicly posted.Here only 1% of the people seeing it support it, but I'm not sure that's a good poll. I would like to see something more like this and have a way to solicit opinions and get some summary every day: [url]http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show[/url]Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:42:16 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/10/2012)[/b][hr]I'd have to dig around, and it's hard to even know what the current version of the bill might change, but in one of the revisions... [/quote]That's one of the best points made yet. :-) Does anyone happen to have a link to the latest copy of the bill?Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:37:07 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (1/9/2012)[/b][hr]. . . While it's true that section 104 looks like [i]card blanche [/i]privs by itself, all of the sections of the bill form a "single" law. Section 104 doesn't exclude the requirement for the court orders stated in Section 103.[/quote]I does -- it EITHER a court order or a voluntary action, "voluntary" implying action on provider's own, without an order, for which the provider gets immunity.As I said, I am not a lawyer, so I will ask one how she would read it.Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:21:53 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (1/9/2012)[/b][hr]Speaking of laws... I wonder why we need so many. Weren't the first 10 sufficient?[/quote]There were 15, according to Mel Brooks, and the Congress apparently has been trying to make up for those five that were dropped, but they cannot get it right.Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:18:03 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspxI'd have to dig around, and it's hard to even know what the current version of the bill might change, but in one of the revisions there was a place the Attorney General, a political appointee, could take action with an ISP without a court order. Perhaps that has been removed from the bill at this point.Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:57:28 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspxSpeaking of laws... I wonder why we need so many. Weren't the first 10 sufficient?Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:19:02 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Revenant (1/9/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Jeff Moden (1/9/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/9/2012)[/b][hr]It also allows for the bypass of a court order...[/quote]I don't believe that's true.... here's a quote from pages 13 and 14 of the bill...19 (c) [b]ACTIONS BASED ON COURT ORDERS[/b].—20 (1) SERVICE.—A process server on behalf of21 the Attorney General, with prior approval of the22 court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pur23 suant to this section on similarly situated entities24 within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof25 of service shall be filed with the court.1 (2) REASONABLE MEASURES.—[b]After being[/b]2 [b]served with a copy of an order[/b] pursuant to this sub3 section, the following shall apply:4 (A) SERVICE PROVIDERS.—5 (i) IN GENERAL.—A service provider6 shall take technically feasible and reason7 able measures designed to prevent access8 by its subscribers located within the9 United States to the foreign infringing site10 (or portion thereof) that is subject to the11 order, including measures designed to pre12 vent the domain name of the foreign in13 fringing site (or portion thereof) from re14 solving to that domain name’s Internet15 Protocol address. Such actions shall be16 taken as expeditiously as possible, but in17 any case within 5 days [b]after being served[/b]18 [b]with a copy of the order[/b], or [b]within such[/b]19 [b]time as the court may order[/b].The highlighting is mine, of course, but it sure does sound like a court order is involved there.[/quote]Jeff, I am not a lawyer, but IMO the devil is in SEC. 104. IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.Meaning, government is being given a [i]card blanche[/i] to strong-muscle service providers to do govt's bidding, guaranteening immunity. Say you are a service provider and you get a phone call from say attorney general's office [b]suggesting[/b] that you take a site out. If you do, quote Section 104 and you are off the hook. If you don't, you will get audited twice a year.No court order needed.[/quote]Gosh, I have to disagree. While it's true that section 104 looks like [i]card blanche [/i]privs by itself, all of the sections of the bill form a "single" law. Section 104 doesn't exclude the requirement for the court orders stated in Section 103.Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:45:21 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (1/9/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/9/2012)[/b][hr]It also allows for the bypass of a court order...[/quote]I don't believe that's true.... here's a quote from pages 13 and 14 of the bill...19 (c) [b]ACTIONS BASED ON COURT ORDERS[/b].—20 (1) SERVICE.—A process server on behalf of21 the Attorney General, with prior approval of the22 court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pur23 suant to this section on similarly situated entities24 within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof25 of service shall be filed with the court.1 (2) REASONABLE MEASURES.—[b]After being[/b]2 [b]served with a copy of an order[/b] pursuant to this sub3 section, the following shall apply:4 (A) SERVICE PROVIDERS.—5 (i) IN GENERAL.—A service provider6 shall take technically feasible and reason7 able measures designed to prevent access8 by its subscribers located within the9 United States to the foreign infringing site10 (or portion thereof) that is subject to the11 order, including measures designed to pre12 vent the domain name of the foreign in13 fringing site (or portion thereof) from re14 solving to that domain name’s Internet15 Protocol address. Such actions shall be16 taken as expeditiously as possible, but in17 any case within 5 days [b]after being served[/b]18 [b]with a copy of the order[/b], or [b]within such[/b]19 [b]time as the court may order[/b].The highlighting is mine, of course, but it sure does sound like a court order is involved there.[/quote]Jeff, I am not a lawyer, but IMO the devil is in SEC. 104. IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.Meaning, government is being given a [i]card blanche[/i] to strong-muscle service providers to do govt's bidding, guaranteening immunity. Say you are a service provider and you get a phone call from say attorney general's office [b]suggesting[/b] that you take a site out. If you do, quote Section 104 and you are off the hook. If you don't, you will get audited twice a year.No court order needed.Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:18:48 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Michael Valentine Jones (1/8/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Jeff Moden (1/7/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Michael Valentine Jones (1/7/2012)[/b][hr]Police abuse of this is so common that it is more like robbery than police work, especially because police departments are often allowed to keep the money.[/quote]Although I certainly agree that there will always be abuses by people in positions of authority, I'd really like to see the statistics for how "common" that really is and how often non-drug activity is actually involved. Although such incidents are certainly sensationalized by the media, I believe you're going to find that it's actually a whole lot less common than folks think.[/quote]I think if you really look into it, you will see it is a whole lot more common than you think. Take a look at some of the links I posted. There are actually many worse cases than these.The real problem is that because police departments are allowed to keep the money, they have a huge financial incentive to do this. Even when the state law is much more restrictive, they can get around it by inviting the federal government to make the seizure, and then the feds kick up to 80% of the money back to local police.Plenty more info here:[url]http://www.fear.org/FEARintro.html[/url]Police in this town of 1,046 people siezed more than $3,000,000 in property in 3 years.[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Police_seizures_scandal[/url][i]"Police seizures scandalTenaha has the dubious distinction of allegedly utilizing a state forfeiture regulation to seize property from unsuspecting motorists to raise revenue for the local police. A Houston Chronicle article detailed the allegations that led Texas State Senator John Whitmire to declare, "The idea that people lose their property but are never charged [with a criminal offense] and never get it back, that's theft as far as I'm concerned." Law enforcement authorities in Tenaha seized property from at least 150 motorists between 2006 and 2008, totaling more than $3 million USD.[3] In most of the cases where the seizures were improper, the victims were African-American or Latino.[3][6] The allegations are that the town has used its proceeds to build a new police station, reward high revenue generating officers personally,[3] and buy a second police car.[7] Linda Dorman, an Akron, Ohio, great-grandmother had $4,000 in cash taken from her by local authorities when she was stopped while driving through town after visiting Houston in April 2007. Court records make no mention that anything illegal was found in her van. She's still hoping for the return of what she calls her life savings.[8] In another instance, a man was taken to the local prison and directed to surrender thousands of dollars in cash and jewelry, then released without charges. The town's District Attorney, Lynda Russell, has been accused of corruption for allegedly making commission payments to one of the arresting officers and local clubs, when Texas law explicitly states that forfeited money can only be used "for official purposes".[9] In July 2008, 10 plaintiffs filed suit in federal court against Tenaha and Shelby county officials, alleging that police officers had stopped them without cause and unjustly seized their property. The plaintiffs allege that officers threatened them with criminal prosecution if they did not cooperate. Officials named in the suit included Tenaha mayor George Bowers, deputy city marshal Barry Washington and Shelby County district attorney Lynda Kay Russell.[10] In March 2009, the plaintiff's attorney Timothy Garrigan announced that he would seek class-action status for the lawsuit, citing a large number of similar reports from other alleged victims..."[/i][/quote]I just read the PDF, including the assessment of many of the states I've lived in or been through, at the following link you indirectly provided...[url]http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf[/url]On that subject, I humbly submit that I stand corrected. :blush: Thanks for the kind correction, Michael.Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:57:04 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/9/2012)[/b][hr]It also allows for the bypass of a court order...[/quote]I don't believe that's true.... here's a quote from pages 13 and 14 of the bill...19 (c) [b]ACTIONS BASED ON COURT ORDERS[/b].—20 (1) SERVICE.—A process server on behalf of21 the Attorney General, with prior approval of the22 court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pur23 suant to this section on similarly situated entities24 within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof25 of service shall be filed with the court.1 (2) REASONABLE MEASURES.—[b]After being[/b]2 [b]served with a copy of an order[/b] pursuant to this sub3 section, the following shall apply:4 (A) SERVICE PROVIDERS.—5 (i) IN GENERAL.—A service provider6 shall take technically feasible and reason7 able measures designed to prevent access8 by its subscribers located within the9 United States to the foreign infringing site10 (or portion thereof) that is subject to the11 order, including measures designed to pre12 vent the domain name of the foreign in13 fringing site (or portion thereof) from re14 solving to that domain name’s Internet15 Protocol address. Such actions shall be16 taken as expeditiously as possible, but in17 any case within 5 days [b]after being served[/b]18 [b]with a copy of the order[/b], or [b]within such[/b]19 [b]time as the court may order[/b].The highlighting is mine, of course, but it sure does sound like a court order is involved there.Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:33:39 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspxI would like to suggest that anyone interested in leaning more about SOPA and it's potential effects should read Mike Masnick at techdirt.com.Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:59:05 GMTRML51http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/9/2012)[/b][hr]. . . For the record, as an author and creative person, I fully support copyright. However I support the original 14 + 14 yrs for copyright. Creating content depends on other content, either using it or being inspired. You ought to profit from it, but it's not a lottery for a person or company and shouldn't be there for you to live off for your entire life. . . .[/quote]Or even worse, not you but your remote descendants. If the current copyright law applied in the 1800's, Dickens's novels would have gone to public domain in 2011. In 2010, royalties would have gone to his grand-grand-grand-grandchildren who never met one of his grandchildren in person.Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:31:31 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote]Although such incidents are certainly sensationalized by the media, I believe you're going to find that it's actually a whole lot less common than folks think.[/quote]Everything is less common than we think. The media distorts things because we think it's important because it's shown. Or it's common. In reality it might be a very small percentage of the actual cases of xxxMon, 09 Jan 2012 09:02:15 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspxJust saw this[quote][b]bteraberry (1/4/2012)[/b][hr]Anyone against SOPA is either making money by stealing others intellectual property or they are not familiar with what the proposed legislation actually say or both.[/quote]I disagree. I am against SOPA for a few reasons. It is a blunt instrument that doesn't discriminate against proper v improper content on a site. It is blocking an entire domain when there may be a single infraction. In theory it's aimed at sites that infringe, but in practical terms, a site like this one that is in the UK (i.e. foreign site) and has someone post copyrighted material in the forums (it happens, we remove it all the time), could be blocked by a writ from an Apress/Manning/Sybex, etc.Not all infringing content is from large content farms that are violating copyright.It also allows for the bypass of a court order, which is fundamentally wrong. We can't be sure courts will rule fairly, but we definitely can be sure corporations will not.[quote]Google is happy that people are so up in arms about SOPA. They make tons of money off of illegal enterprises.[/quote]Google has boycotted SOPA. They do benefit from these sites, though I think (hope?) they are trying to remedy the copyright violations.For the record, as an author and creative person, I fully support copyright. However I support the original 14 + 14 yrs for copyright. Creating content depends on other content, either using it or being inspired. You ought to profit from it, but it's not a lottery for a person or company and shouldn't be there for you to live off for your entire life.Plus, if you can't create more within 28 years to earn more money, then too bad. We want to protect the creative people, not the lucky guy that threw poop on a wall once and managed to get people to buy it.Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:59:20 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (1/7/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Michael Valentine Jones (1/7/2012)[/b][hr]Police abuse of this is so common that it is more like robbery than police work, especially because police departments are often allowed to keep the money.[/quote]Although I certainly agree that there will always be abuses by people in positions of authority, I'd really like to see the statistics for how "common" that really is and how often non-drug activity is actually involved. Although such incidents are certainly sensationalized by the media, I believe you're going to find that it's actually a whole lot less common than folks think.[/quote]I think if you really look into it, you will see it is a whole lot more common than you think. Take a look at some of the links I posted. There are actually many worse cases than these.The real problem is that because police departments are allowed to keep the money, they have a huge financial incentive to do this. Even when the state law is much more restrictive, they can get around it by inviting the federal government to make the seizure, and then the feds kick up to 80% of the money back to local police.Plenty more info here:[url]http://www.fear.org/FEARintro.html[/url]Police in this town of 1,046 people siezed more than $3,000,000 in property in 3 years.[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Police_seizures_scandal[/url][i]"Police seizures scandalTenaha has the dubious distinction of allegedly utilizing a state forfeiture regulation to seize property from unsuspecting motorists to raise revenue for the local police. A Houston Chronicle article detailed the allegations that led Texas State Senator John Whitmire to declare, "The idea that people lose their property but are never charged [with a criminal offense] and never get it back, that's theft as far as I'm concerned." Law enforcement authorities in Tenaha seized property from at least 150 motorists between 2006 and 2008, totaling more than $3 million USD.[3] In most of the cases where the seizures were improper, the victims were African-American or Latino.[3][6] The allegations are that the town has used its proceeds to build a new police station, reward high revenue generating officers personally,[3] and buy a second police car.[7] Linda Dorman, an Akron, Ohio, great-grandmother had $4,000 in cash taken from her by local authorities when she was stopped while driving through town after visiting Houston in April 2007. Court records make no mention that anything illegal was found in her van. She's still hoping for the return of what she calls her life savings.[8] In another instance, a man was taken to the local prison and directed to surrender thousands of dollars in cash and jewelry, then released without charges. The town's District Attorney, Lynda Russell, has been accused of corruption for allegedly making commission payments to one of the arresting officers and local clubs, when Texas law explicitly states that forfeited money can only be used "for official purposes".[9] In July 2008, 10 plaintiffs filed suit in federal court against Tenaha and Shelby county officials, alleging that police officers had stopped them without cause and unjustly seized their property. The plaintiffs allege that officers threatened them with criminal prosecution if they did not cooperate. Officials named in the suit included Tenaha mayor George Bowers, deputy city marshal Barry Washington and Shelby County district attorney Lynda Kay Russell.[10] In March 2009, the plaintiff's attorney Timothy Garrigan announced that he would seek class-action status for the lawsuit, citing a large number of similar reports from other alleged victims..."[/i]Sun, 08 Jan 2012 19:59:53 GMTMichael Valentine Joneshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Michael Valentine Jones (1/7/2012)[/b][hr]Police abuse of this is so common that it is more like robbery than police work, especially because police departments are often allowed to keep the money.[/quote]Although I certainly agree that there will always be abuses by people in positions of authority, I'd really like to see the statistics for how "common" that really is and how often non-drug activity is actually involved. Although such incidents are certainly sensationalized by the media, I believe you're going to find that it's actually a whole lot less common than folks think.Sat, 07 Jan 2012 07:46:55 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]bteraberry (1/6/2012)[/b]... The argument against SOPA is sort of like saying the government should not be able to seize property involved in narcotics distribution ... because we don't want the government to be able to take our stuff, right?...[/quote]I think you provided the perfect argument against SOPA by comparing it to civil forfeiture.Seizure of property that is alleged to have been used in the drug trade is one of the most outrageous abuses of property rights today. No evidence needed, no drug charges need to be made, no probably cause, no warrant needed; just take property based on the arbitrary decision of a cop. Punishment with no trial, no judge, no due process, or even any pretense of fairness.Police abuse of this is so common that it is more like robbery than police work, especially because police departments are often allowed to keep the money. Police chief needs a new coffee maker or wants to buy a new car? No problem, just stop some stranger driving through town and seize his cash.United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Mass. (The Motel Caswell)Federal & Local Law Enforcement Agencies Try to Take Family Motel from Innocent Owners[url]https://www.ij.org/privateproperty/4058[/url]State of Texas v. One 2004 Chevrolet SilveradoEnding “Policing for Profit” in Texas[url]https://www.ij.org/privateproperty/3307[/url]Shining the Light on Georgia's Law Enforcement Slush Funds[url]https://www.ij.org/privateproperty/3743[/url]IJ's Scott Bullock discusses civil forfeiture abuse with John Stossel[url]http://www.youtube.com/user/InstituteForJustice#p/u/22/yLSz_p7Q1lg[/url]Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:28:25 GMTMichael Valentine Joneshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr]I do, however, have doubts about a law that, as I wrote in one of my earlier posts, allows the government to shut down ANYBODY'S Web site on someone's say-so, even if that someone is a competitor or a lawyer for a competitor; practically anyone. IMO the biggest error would be to assume that the government will never misuse this law.[/quote]You understand that the government has to go in front of a judge to get permission and the guiding discretion is whether or not the major purpose of the site is illegal activity? The argument against SOPA is sort of like saying the government should not be able to seize property involved in narcotics distribution ... because we don't want the government to be able to take our stuff, right?As right wing as I am, I do understand that the government has a purpose. Right now the owners of intellectual property and not protected on the web. SOPA is a solution to that problem primarily by shutting down these crooks' ability to receive payment.Don't believe the scare tactics that companies like Google put forth because they have a lot to gain from piracy. Read the proposed legislation yourself.Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:49:46 GMTbteraberryhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspxI am all for copyright, because without it I would have very little chance of making my living writing software. (Yes, I am a dev.)And as a guy who depends on copyright protection, I have sat through over a dozen briefings on software copyright, copyright in general, etc. I hope it shows in my previous postings on this thread.I am also all for IP. The problem, IMO, is that IP means different things to different people. To lawyers it means Intellectual Property. It is fine, you can make lots of money out of that, most of that legally and some of that even ethically.To me IP means Innovative Products. I am all for the guy who brings a truly innovative product to the market and makes good living out of that. More power to him. (Much less often to her.) I am trying to be the one.Please note one difference between the dot com bubble and today: today funding does not go to the companies that claim that they have the right technical vision but to the companies that can prove that they have top-notch lawyers who are able to buy or extort IP rights (including patents) to make the startup the king of the hill, impervious to any legal attack. These days, the first tranche of funding, if you can get it, is typically $10M+ and the next tranche is not dependent on company's R&D milestones but on success in buying patents. That's why lately you don't hear much about companies that got substantial funding.I have nothing against the law coming down as a ton of bricks on a company that violates someone's copyright. That violated company could be mine.I do, however, have doubts about a law that, as I wrote in one of my earlier posts, allows the government to shut down ANYBODY'S Web site on someone's say-so, even if that someone is a competitor or a lawyer for a competitor; practically anyone. IMO the biggest error would be to assume that the government will never misuse this law.There is a reason why in Magna Carta it was established, almost 800 years ago, that is was socially beneficial to give the accused the right to meet his accuser, not to be deprived of his (then only 'his') property without a judgment of a jury of his peers, etc.Even when this was written in Magna Carta, it was already a centuries old Nordic Common Law.It seems to me this is quite important if your livelihood depends on that Web site, that an anonymous goverment official cannot just shut it down. And that the government cannot seize your domain, without any recompense, leaving the proof of innocence to you. (At your expense, of course.)If you guys want to throw your rights out of the window, go ahead. It is your world and you will live in it for most of your lives.If you think I am making this up, check the briefs at [url]www.eff.org[/url].Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:06:30 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspxAnyone against SOPA is either making money by stealing others intellectual property or they are not familiar with what the proposed legislation actually say or both.I would like to see the sheep in the reddit crowd invest tons of time and money into intellectual property and then be able to do absolutely nothing as their material gets sold by Russians on the Internet with impunity.Google is happy that people are so up in arms about SOPA. They make tons of money off of illegal enterprises.Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:37:28 GMTbteraberryhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr]Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension.[/quote]I'm not talking about 70 years. I'm talking about infringements literally within minutes. Write a book, sometime, ol' friend. Then watch it go up on free sites and you get nothing for it like that which has happened to so very many authors. Or write an article on a copyrighted web site (like SSC) and watch it be on some parasitic web site just minutes after it goes up on the original. Sites that refuse to comply with even just the courtesy of not stealing need to be shutdown and, if they can't be, then they need the punishment of not having the American market, IMHO.Maybe SOPA isn't the way to go but I'm damned happy that people are starting to to think and fight for the rights of intellectual property owners. ;-)Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:35:32 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Ninja's_RGR'us (1/4/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b] Dev (1/4/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr]Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). [b]When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take care about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension[/b].[/quote]Count me in for disagreement ;-). Is it the same for patents, I believe it's only 15 years for patents? I also believe it differs from country to country. (Just FYI for those who are unaware, Patents <> Copyrights)[/quote]Yes, patents are 15 only. Re the 70 years I mentioned, check whether Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted. (Yes, it is, and not to a company.)I forgot to mention that lately there is also considerable pressure on fair use, among others, that even spoofing a work (such as say putting a moustache on Mona Lisa) is not fair use and if Mona Lisa were still copyrighted, Leonardo would be entitled to royalties. And museums are lobbying to get copyright on all works they have in their collections.[/quote]What would it get to the museums? Wouldn't the $ go to the authors? I'm sure they could then negociate a share of the sales in the souvenir shop but that's about it.[/quote]If the meuseums got their way - which I think they will not, for the time being -, if you wanted to reproduce say Mona Lisa in a book on history of art, you would have to pay royalty to the Louvre.[/quote]Ok so they try the angle that I'm the owner of product X (almost like a hockey franchise). And nobody else got the rights to this because the poor bloke has been dead for more than X years, so I'll take all the money I can. Something like that??I C why this will have very little chance of succeeding with a judge in his right mind!Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:19:12 GMTNinja's_RGR'ushttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Ninja's_RGR'us (1/4/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b] Dev (1/4/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr]Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). [b]When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take care about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension[/b].[/quote]Count me in for disagreement ;-). Is it the same for patents, I believe it's only 15 years for patents? I also believe it differs from country to country. (Just FYI for those who are unaware, Patents <> Copyrights)[/quote]Yes, patents are 15 only. Re the 70 years I mentioned, check whether Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted. (Yes, it is, and not to a company.)I forgot to mention that lately there is also considerable pressure on fair use, among others, that even spoofing a work (such as say putting a moustache on Mona Lisa) is not fair use and if Mona Lisa were still copyrighted, Leonardo would be entitled to royalties. And museums are lobbying to get copyright on all works they have in their collections.[/quote]What would it get to the museums? Wouldn't the $ go to the authors? I'm sure they could then negociate a share of the sales in the souvenir shop but that's about it.[/quote]If the meuseums got their way - which I think they will not, for the time being -, if you wanted to reproduce say Mona Lisa in a book on history of art, you would have to pay royalty to the Louvre.Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:25:03 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspxI got (almost) an opportunity to work on Intellectual Property Rights Management project. We analyzed the requirements & put forward the proposal. But customer wasn’t ready to accept any solution except open source (or cheap) database and my company was absolutely against it. Finally we lost the bet. It would have been fun (missing it already) :hehe:Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:26:29 GMTDevhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b] Dev (1/4/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr]Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). [b]When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension[/b].[/quote]Count me in for disagreement ;-). Is it the same for patents, I believe it's only 15 years for patents? I also believe it differs from country to country. (Just FYI for those who are unaware, Patents <> Copyrights)[/quote]Yes, patents are 15 only. Re the 70 years I mentioned, check whether Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted. (Yes, it is, and not to a company.)I forgot to mention that lkately there is also considerable pressure on fair use, among others, that even spoofing a work (such as say putting a moustache on Mona Lisa) is not fair use and if Mona Lisa were still copyrighted, Leonardo would be entitled to royalties. And museums are lobbying to get copyright on all works they have in their collections.[/quote]What would it get to the museums? Wouldn't the $ go to the authors? I'm sure they could then negociate a share of the sales in the souvenir shop but that's about it.Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:20:40 GMTNinja's_RGR'ushttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b] Dev (1/4/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr]Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). [b]When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension[/b].[/quote]Count me in for disagreement ;-). Is it the same for patents, I believe it's only 15 years for patents? I also believe it differs from country to country. (Just FYI for those who are unaware, Patents <> Copyrights)[/quote]Yes, patents are 15 only. Re the 70 years I mentioned, check whether Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted. (Yes, it is, and not to a company.)I forgot to mention that lkately there is also considerable pressure on fair use, among others, that even spoofing a work (such as say putting a moustache on Mona Lisa) is not fair use and if Mona Lisa were still copyrighted, Leonardo would be entitled to royalties. And museums are lobbying to get copyright on all works they have in their collections.[/quote]In that sense, heir of Leonardo will enjoy (born to be rich :-D).Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:17:14 GMTDevhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b] Dev (1/4/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr]Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). [b]When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension[/b].[/quote]Count me in for disagreement ;-). Is it the same for patents, I believe it's only 15 years for patents? I also believe it differs from country to country. (Just FYI for those who are unaware, Patents <> Copyrights)[/quote]Yes, patents are 15 only. Re the 70 years I mentioned, check whether Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted. (Yes, it is, and not to a company.)I forgot to mention that lkately there is also considerable pressure on fair use, among others, that even spoofing a work (such as say putting a moustache on Mona Lisa) is not fair use and if Mona Lisa were still copyrighted, Leonardo would be entitled to royalties. And museums are lobbying to get copyright on all works they have in their collections.Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:08:49 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1213353-61-1.aspx[quote][b]Revenant (1/4/2012)[/b][hr]Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). [b]When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension[/b].[/quote]Count me in for disagreement ;-). Is it the same for patents, I believe it's only 15 years for patents? I also believe it differs from country to country. (Just FYI for those who are unaware, Patents <> Copyrights)Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:27:37 GMTDev