Come with me as I clear out the toxic debris of my life. I have some old car batteries and tires that I'm going to throw into Lake Ponchartrain early in the morning. After that I thought I'd treat myself to an hour or two of 4-wheeling through some protected woodlands. Might bag a few bald eagles if I see any.
After lunch, which I plan to only eat half of, then leave on the ground near the plastic bags I packed it in, I'm going to see how many 2-litre bottles it takes to jam up the water purification plant near my house. Then it's off to the recycling plant to pick up a load of aluminum cans to toss out during my City Park Earth Day Mardi Gras and 4x4-Making Donuts On The Golf Course Parade.
Dinner will find me eating whatever I can buy that comes in plastic packaging. A lot of it too. Maybe a case or two of those single serving size potato chips. I'm gonna throw those things off the top of One Shell Square in honor of the First Ape's visit to New Orleans, aka 'The City That George Forgot.'
Later tonight I'm going to turn on every light and appliance in the house, including the spare generators. This should give me enough light to see as I burn my next-door neighbor's trees down. They interfere with my diesel powered satellite dish. But don't worry... no fire hazard as I've had about twenty sprinklers on all day to saturate the ground. You know, for the Muddy Midnight Motocross Madness!
Whoops, gotta go... the chainsaw and lawnmower symphony I've got running out back needs some more gasoline! Happy Earth Day!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Who Owns John Galt?
(Your © Is About To Expire. Forever.)
Have you heard of the Orphan Works Act? Not many people have, but after Easter break both the House and Senate will be looking at a fast track bill designed to strip the copyright from every work you've ever created. From murals to sculpture to songs to home videos and doodles on Post-It notes, anything you create is about to become fair game for intellectual property theft.
A new version of this bill is currently being hammered out and was originally designed by a cadre of eight law students under the direction of Peter Jaszi, a law professor at American University who believes that all art is communal. His view is one of communist idealism in the strictest Marxist sense.
Perhaps I like the dreamy quality of Photographer X's photos and I try to make mine look that way. Well, she was emulating Photographer Q, who emulated Photographer B who was trying to evoke the paintings of Artist F who in turn learned his technique from Artist O. Under this reasoning, even though I'm creating, I'm creating by benefit of others who have influenced me, so my creation is not mine, but theirs as well, and therefore belongs not just to me but to everyone. Post-war, post-modernist deconstructionism at its very worst.
This bill would force artists and authors to register any intellectual property with as-yet-non-existant private sector companies. When someone comes across one of your works and decides they'd like to use it for profit, they check with the registries and if they do not find your work listed, they will be free to use it as they see fit. The bill stipulates that the infringer must use search to find your registration, but does not state how hard the infringer must look.
Let's say 20 companies start up intellectual property registries. Each charges a fee to register your work. In essence, you have to register with and pay every single company in order to be protected. If not, and an infringer checks five companies that you haven't registered with, he is free to use your work. It doesn't matter that you registered with other companies, only that the infringer didn't find your work at the five or so he searched.
So let's say someone lifts you work and starts selling T-shirts of it. Eventually you find out and say, "Hey, whoah buddy, that's my work! Let's go to court." Under this bill, if you can prove the original work is yours, the infringer will owe you money in an amount that HE sets. If he says he pays fifty bucks for t-shirt designs, that's what the court will order him to pay you. Regardless that he's made $100,000 selling shirts with your work on them. Regardless that the work in question was a one of a kind artwork done for a private collector for which you were paid $10,000. If he pays fifty bucks for t-shirt designs, that's what he owes you. Unless you want to drag him to a higher court. How much money will you have to pay to protect work which was stolen from you?
This bill is being endorsed by some very heavy hitters. Search engines like Google are in favor of it to free up copyrights on books and art in order to deliver more free content to users. Conversely, it is being lobbied by stock agencies such as Getty Images and the Bill Gates owned Corbis Images. (Side note: Getty was recently sold for 2.8 million dollars. Did the artists whose work Getty sells receive any of that money? Why not? Without those images Getty is worthless. Yet Getty is fighting for the right to steal other artists images in order to boost profits.) In fact a former employee of the U.S. Copyright Office is now the head lobbyist for Getty and Corbis working to squeeze the most out of this bill for Bill Gates and Mark Getty. Buying up the Mom-N-Pop stock image services isn't enough for them anymore. They want it all, now, free.
Now if you think this is all contrary to the Bern Convention and the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, you're correct! One of the 'positives' that this bill supposedly addresses is those poor, poor schoolchildren you hear so much about in the news. You know, the ones that do a book report about Walt Disney and they put a picture of Mickey Mouse on the cover of the report and then Disney sues them for copyright infringement? Excuse me? Disney, however evil you may think they are, has never sued a child over a book report. The 1976 U.S. Copyright Act covers this quite well in the Fair Use section. So there's one argument shot right down the tubes.
As for international copyright law, it is against the Bern Convention for any country to impose registration of intellectual property. The U.S. is skirting this issue with the statement that they are not imposing registration, simply allowing others to freely use intellectual property that is not registered with one of those as-yet-non-existant registries. Can you say sophistry? Can you say bullshit?
One of the final bills lead authors, a former U.S. Copyright Office employee who now works for Microsoft, says that since artists never cared enough to create their own organization for the protection of intellectual property rights, it's about time someone did and that these private sector registries are just what's needed. Really? I was unaware that copyright protection and enforcement was the artists responsibility. Certainly, the artist should be on the lookout for violations, but I was under the impression that our work was safely protected and enforced by the U.S. Copyright Office!
Basically, the Orphan Works Act essentially takes the position that if you do not register your work, then you freely admit that it has no commercial value and should be public property. Brad Holland of the Illustrators Partnership states, (and correctly so, I believe,) that if someone wants to use your work, it indeed has inherent value, ipso facto.
Three years ago in closed session, the Illustrators Partnership was listing it's numerous objections to the bill and the head of the U.S. Copyright office simply replied, and I paraphrase here, "Oh, we think people will basically obey the laws." Is this a great country, or what? Where the hell is Ayn Rand when you need her?
Please visit The Illustrators Partnership and sign up for e-mail updates regarding this issue. It's not yet time to write your congressman or senator, but that time is coming soon. For more info, check out their resources page here.
You can hear Brads interview here.
To find your state and federal reps, go here.
Have you heard of the Orphan Works Act? Not many people have, but after Easter break both the House and Senate will be looking at a fast track bill designed to strip the copyright from every work you've ever created. From murals to sculpture to songs to home videos and doodles on Post-It notes, anything you create is about to become fair game for intellectual property theft.
A new version of this bill is currently being hammered out and was originally designed by a cadre of eight law students under the direction of Peter Jaszi, a law professor at American University who believes that all art is communal. His view is one of communist idealism in the strictest Marxist sense.
Perhaps I like the dreamy quality of Photographer X's photos and I try to make mine look that way. Well, she was emulating Photographer Q, who emulated Photographer B who was trying to evoke the paintings of Artist F who in turn learned his technique from Artist O. Under this reasoning, even though I'm creating, I'm creating by benefit of others who have influenced me, so my creation is not mine, but theirs as well, and therefore belongs not just to me but to everyone. Post-war, post-modernist deconstructionism at its very worst.
This bill would force artists and authors to register any intellectual property with as-yet-non-existant private sector companies. When someone comes across one of your works and decides they'd like to use it for profit, they check with the registries and if they do not find your work listed, they will be free to use it as they see fit. The bill stipulates that the infringer must use search to find your registration, but does not state how hard the infringer must look.
Let's say 20 companies start up intellectual property registries. Each charges a fee to register your work. In essence, you have to register with and pay every single company in order to be protected. If not, and an infringer checks five companies that you haven't registered with, he is free to use your work. It doesn't matter that you registered with other companies, only that the infringer didn't find your work at the five or so he searched.
So let's say someone lifts you work and starts selling T-shirts of it. Eventually you find out and say, "Hey, whoah buddy, that's my work! Let's go to court." Under this bill, if you can prove the original work is yours, the infringer will owe you money in an amount that HE sets. If he says he pays fifty bucks for t-shirt designs, that's what the court will order him to pay you. Regardless that he's made $100,000 selling shirts with your work on them. Regardless that the work in question was a one of a kind artwork done for a private collector for which you were paid $10,000. If he pays fifty bucks for t-shirt designs, that's what he owes you. Unless you want to drag him to a higher court. How much money will you have to pay to protect work which was stolen from you?
This bill is being endorsed by some very heavy hitters. Search engines like Google are in favor of it to free up copyrights on books and art in order to deliver more free content to users. Conversely, it is being lobbied by stock agencies such as Getty Images and the Bill Gates owned Corbis Images. (Side note: Getty was recently sold for 2.8 million dollars. Did the artists whose work Getty sells receive any of that money? Why not? Without those images Getty is worthless. Yet Getty is fighting for the right to steal other artists images in order to boost profits.) In fact a former employee of the U.S. Copyright Office is now the head lobbyist for Getty and Corbis working to squeeze the most out of this bill for Bill Gates and Mark Getty. Buying up the Mom-N-Pop stock image services isn't enough for them anymore. They want it all, now, free.
Now if you think this is all contrary to the Bern Convention and the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, you're correct! One of the 'positives' that this bill supposedly addresses is those poor, poor schoolchildren you hear so much about in the news. You know, the ones that do a book report about Walt Disney and they put a picture of Mickey Mouse on the cover of the report and then Disney sues them for copyright infringement? Excuse me? Disney, however evil you may think they are, has never sued a child over a book report. The 1976 U.S. Copyright Act covers this quite well in the Fair Use section. So there's one argument shot right down the tubes.
As for international copyright law, it is against the Bern Convention for any country to impose registration of intellectual property. The U.S. is skirting this issue with the statement that they are not imposing registration, simply allowing others to freely use intellectual property that is not registered with one of those as-yet-non-existant registries. Can you say sophistry? Can you say bullshit?
One of the final bills lead authors, a former U.S. Copyright Office employee who now works for Microsoft, says that since artists never cared enough to create their own organization for the protection of intellectual property rights, it's about time someone did and that these private sector registries are just what's needed. Really? I was unaware that copyright protection and enforcement was the artists responsibility. Certainly, the artist should be on the lookout for violations, but I was under the impression that our work was safely protected and enforced by the U.S. Copyright Office!
Basically, the Orphan Works Act essentially takes the position that if you do not register your work, then you freely admit that it has no commercial value and should be public property. Brad Holland of the Illustrators Partnership states, (and correctly so, I believe,) that if someone wants to use your work, it indeed has inherent value, ipso facto.
Three years ago in closed session, the Illustrators Partnership was listing it's numerous objections to the bill and the head of the U.S. Copyright office simply replied, and I paraphrase here, "Oh, we think people will basically obey the laws." Is this a great country, or what? Where the hell is Ayn Rand when you need her?
Please visit The Illustrators Partnership and sign up for e-mail updates regarding this issue. It's not yet time to write your congressman or senator, but that time is coming soon. For more info, check out their resources page here.
You can hear Brads interview here.
To find your state and federal reps, go here.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Toobie, Or Not Toobie
Well, it looks like the reports of his freedom may be greatly exaggerated. Authorities today announced that before releasing suspected armed robber and car thief Elton "Toobie" Phillips, they will be interviewing Phillips' mother and suspected aunt. After appearing on WDSU Channel 6 News last week, the ladies have caught the interest of prosecutors for comments they made to Travers Mackel.
Carolyn Jackson, Phillips' suspected aunt, told Mackel that Elton confessed to "robberin'." I say suspected because she now claims that she is not his aunt. In fact, she now says she's not related to him at all. Jackson now claims that she met Phillips only once, in Hammond where she lives, and where Phillips fled after being mistakenly released in December, 2007. Her current claim is that Phillips confessed to "general wrong-doing" while they were praying together.
Phillips mother, Kim Wicker, stated that her son didn't tell here he did it, but he didn't say he didn't do it either. The AG's office has asked for a week long continuance to investigate both women's stories.
Carolyn Jackson, Phillips' suspected aunt, told Mackel that Elton confessed to "robberin'." I say suspected because she now claims that she is not his aunt. In fact, she now says she's not related to him at all. Jackson now claims that she met Phillips only once, in Hammond where she lives, and where Phillips fled after being mistakenly released in December, 2007. Her current claim is that Phillips confessed to "general wrong-doing" while they were praying together.
Phillips mother, Kim Wicker, stated that her son didn't tell here he did it, but he didn't say he didn't do it either. The AG's office has asked for a week long continuance to investigate both women's stories.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
God Bless America!
Here's a little story that is bound to make everyone sick a little bit at a time.
A while back, a Wal-Mart employee named Debra Shank was driving along the road when her vehicle was struck in the driver's side door by an eighteen-wheeler. The accident left her brain damaged and almost totally incapacitated, requiring around-the-clock care. A $700,000 settlement was agreed on with the trucking company to cover Debra's medical expenses.
The money was put into a trust fund for Debra's perpetual care. Well, sort of. After legal fees there was only about $417,000 left. The lawyers basically snag forty percent of the settlement. God Bless America.
That made me a little ill, but wait... it gets worse.
Wal-Mart sued Debra in order to recover over $470,000 its health care plan paid for her initial care after the accident! That queasy feeling was growing. If Wal-Mart is involved, you know it can't get any better. And it doesn't. It seems that when Debra crossed all her t's and dotted her i's with Wal-Mart, she overlooked a small clause in her contract where Wal-Mart had the right to reimbursement from any settlement she received if she also received money from her health care plan. It's incredibly disturbing, but look around and you'll find similar clauses in company handbooks all across this great nation. God bless America.
Employers are beginning to go after settlement money as a direct result of escalating health care costs. In this case, the multi-billion dollar entity says it's looking after the interests of all it's employees by insuring the integrity of it's health care funds. God Bless America.
Currently, just over $200,000 remains in Debra's trust fund, set up by her ex-husband, Jim, and though they refuse to be interviewed, Wal-Mart released a statement saying that they are showing compassion by settling for what's left instead of the full $470,000. And you know what? They sued the Shanks and won! Not only that, but an appellate court upheld the decision! God Bless America.
Debra's ex-husband Jim is currently working two jobs to pay for her nursing care.He recently had to let her private nurse go because he simply can't afford to pay her. Jim's two jobs mean that he can't be there for Debra all that much either. Remember, Debra can't do anything for herself. She can't walk. She can't feed herself. She can't bathe or use the bathroom by herself. And Wal-Mart, the largest corporation on the planet, wants its money. God Bless America.
I mentioned that Jim Shanks is Debra's ex-husband. You might think he's something of a saint, fighting hard for a former spouse, but that's not really the case. Until recently the Shanks were still happily married, but thanks to the United States Government their divorce was inevitable. You see, Debra qualifies for more government aid if she's single. I'm not kidding. I recently ran across an old friend in the same situation. I hadn't seen Mister Ronnie since the Pre-Katrina days, but he and his wife were the picture of a happy couple. When I last saw him I asked how everything was and with that wry smile he usually reserves for jokes, he told me he was divorced. My jaw dropped and he told me that was the only way he could afford his medication. So the next time you hear politicians wailing about Family Values and the sin of divorce, remember that there are a lot of divorces caused by the laws made by those same politicians. God Bless America.
And just to make you even sicker, I'll go for the jugular and mention that one of the Shank's sons was killed in Iraq, fighting for the country that forced his parents to divorce so that his mother could receive the best care possible. Is this a great country, or what? God Bless America!
For more on this whole sordid affair, visit MSN here: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/KnowYourRights/EmployersGrabAccidentVictimsCash.aspx
A while back, a Wal-Mart employee named Debra Shank was driving along the road when her vehicle was struck in the driver's side door by an eighteen-wheeler. The accident left her brain damaged and almost totally incapacitated, requiring around-the-clock care. A $700,000 settlement was agreed on with the trucking company to cover Debra's medical expenses.
The money was put into a trust fund for Debra's perpetual care. Well, sort of. After legal fees there was only about $417,000 left. The lawyers basically snag forty percent of the settlement. God Bless America.
That made me a little ill, but wait... it gets worse.
Wal-Mart sued Debra in order to recover over $470,000 its health care plan paid for her initial care after the accident! That queasy feeling was growing. If Wal-Mart is involved, you know it can't get any better. And it doesn't. It seems that when Debra crossed all her t's and dotted her i's with Wal-Mart, she overlooked a small clause in her contract where Wal-Mart had the right to reimbursement from any settlement she received if she also received money from her health care plan. It's incredibly disturbing, but look around and you'll find similar clauses in company handbooks all across this great nation. God bless America.
Employers are beginning to go after settlement money as a direct result of escalating health care costs. In this case, the multi-billion dollar entity says it's looking after the interests of all it's employees by insuring the integrity of it's health care funds. God Bless America.
Currently, just over $200,000 remains in Debra's trust fund, set up by her ex-husband, Jim, and though they refuse to be interviewed, Wal-Mart released a statement saying that they are showing compassion by settling for what's left instead of the full $470,000. And you know what? They sued the Shanks and won! Not only that, but an appellate court upheld the decision! God Bless America.
Debra's ex-husband Jim is currently working two jobs to pay for her nursing care.He recently had to let her private nurse go because he simply can't afford to pay her. Jim's two jobs mean that he can't be there for Debra all that much either. Remember, Debra can't do anything for herself. She can't walk. She can't feed herself. She can't bathe or use the bathroom by herself. And Wal-Mart, the largest corporation on the planet, wants its money. God Bless America.
I mentioned that Jim Shanks is Debra's ex-husband. You might think he's something of a saint, fighting hard for a former spouse, but that's not really the case. Until recently the Shanks were still happily married, but thanks to the United States Government their divorce was inevitable. You see, Debra qualifies for more government aid if she's single. I'm not kidding. I recently ran across an old friend in the same situation. I hadn't seen Mister Ronnie since the Pre-Katrina days, but he and his wife were the picture of a happy couple. When I last saw him I asked how everything was and with that wry smile he usually reserves for jokes, he told me he was divorced. My jaw dropped and he told me that was the only way he could afford his medication. So the next time you hear politicians wailing about Family Values and the sin of divorce, remember that there are a lot of divorces caused by the laws made by those same politicians. God Bless America.
And just to make you even sicker, I'll go for the jugular and mention that one of the Shank's sons was killed in Iraq, fighting for the country that forced his parents to divorce so that his mother could receive the best care possible. Is this a great country, or what? God Bless America!
For more on this whole sordid affair, visit MSN here: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/KnowYourRights/EmployersGrabAccidentVictimsCash.aspx
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Rest In 10-Piece
I almost forgot. Al Copeland bought his last 10-piece dark last week. He died of cancer of the salivary glands. Makes you wonder what was in that chicken recipe he 'borrowed' from his grammaw, don't it? I will fondly remember his Popeye's chain as the haven it was for rude, unhelpful employees who turned off the fryers an hour early every night and consistently used every piece of product, no matter how many times it fell on the floor.
Don't Mock Me!
A mock terrorist drill was held today near the river, simulating an exploded river craft and toxic gas. It certainly was comforting to see the news coverage of emergency vehicles proceeding slowly to the drill site and first responders casually strolling from victim to victim. A mock hurricane drill is scheduled in the near future. Sources report that Mayor C Ray Nagin has already purchased tickets to Houston for his family.
Jordan's Squeezes 'Special' Friend Gets Off
Accused armed robber Elton Phillips is a free man again, but this time it's legal. (For the story, check past posts, I'm too lazy to recap it here.) According to the DA's office, the two witnesses had conflicting stories and were unable to pick him out of a lineup. Sources say this is the only reason for his release and not the fact that the accused is chummy with former DA Eddie Jordan's current moll.
In an interview with WDSU Channel 6, Phillips' aunt says he apologized to her and to God for the "things he done," and she said that he had to "say what he done," and he apologized to god for "robberin." Phillips mother said that he never admitted his guilt to her and she even "kinda axed him about it." Phillips says his aunt is "mistaken." Whatever the case, this is an opportunity for Elton Phillips to get his life back on track. Elton, if you reading this, take my advice and stop hanging out with bad elements of society like Eddie and his cruiser.
As to the police lineup, they're a fucking joke. I witnessed a hit and run about ten years ago and hung around with three or four other witnesses until the police came. We wrote down the license number and description of the van for the officers and I gave them my number. Two months later I was called in for the lineup. Needless to say, I failed to pick out the guy but apparently one of the witnesses did. But this was Kenner, so perhaps the NOPD is a little more on the ball, but somehow I doubt it.
In an interview with WDSU Channel 6, Phillips' aunt says he apologized to her and to God for the "things he done," and she said that he had to "say what he done," and he apologized to god for "robberin." Phillips mother said that he never admitted his guilt to her and she even "kinda axed him about it." Phillips says his aunt is "mistaken." Whatever the case, this is an opportunity for Elton Phillips to get his life back on track. Elton, if you reading this, take my advice and stop hanging out with bad elements of society like Eddie and his cruiser.
As to the police lineup, they're a fucking joke. I witnessed a hit and run about ten years ago and hung around with three or four other witnesses until the police came. We wrote down the license number and description of the van for the officers and I gave them my number. Two months later I was called in for the lineup. Needless to say, I failed to pick out the guy but apparently one of the witnesses did. But this was Kenner, so perhaps the NOPD is a little more on the ball, but somehow I doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
