I'm not arguing that they cost $100 to produce, but even in this article they cost more than the stated "<$5 to make". And this doesn't include any recoup of research cost. I'm not arguing for higher insulin cost, even though it seems like I am. I have to buy the stuff and take it or die. On the other hand, a consistent supply and further research into better fast acting and long acting insulins also matter to me, as they make a HUGE difference in the quality of life. It's a double edge sword, unfortunately. Until such time as profit motive is replaced (and I would be ecstatic if it were), those of us with type I diabetes have to thread that needle very carefully =\
The inside lane changes into the outside lane. This is usually done by traffic analysis. Meaning: it doesn't always immediately change the inside lane into the outside one. It works quite well for roundabouts with heavy uneven traffic (close to an Ikea :-P).
>“But given your access to the MTA map on the MTA website, and the substantial similarities of your map to the MTA map, the only rational conclusion is that your map is based on the MTA Vignelli map.”
>But there is a potentially critical flaw in that logic. The MTA created The Weekender in 2011, two years after Berman created his map, which he uploaded to Wikipedia in 2009.
There needs to be consequences for such blatant fraud and abuse of the DMCA, ridiculous claims like this have gotten so common.
To be clear, it's not cities claiming copyright: it's private standards organizations, etc. that have written up a document (that can be covered by copyright law), and then it gets included or referenced in a city's law (that shouldn't be). They're just ignoring that transition.
I don't think the city should be able to automatically nullify someone's copyright claim by referencing it in law, and I don't think they should release laws that require citizens to pay fees (or anything else unreasonable) to read. It should be on the city to figure out a deal before it's the law.
That said, I think it's counter-productive for a standards organization to not make standards public domain in the first place if they're so widely applicable as to become a law, but maybe there's an angle here I'm missing.
I'll take the countervailing opinion here: regardless what the usual expectations of the standards organization might be, the situation changes as soon as it's included as legal requirements.
At soon as its inclusion in law is effective, their ability to collect fees or in any way restrict access is void. The referenced version, from that point forward, needs to be publicly accessible at no charge for as long as it is legally binding.
If they don't want to relinquish financial control, don't make it part of the public record or legally binding. QED.
I would agree, but only if the copyright holder is an active participant in making their standards legally binding, otherwise some city council somewhere is just unilaterally eliminating their copyright, which they have no right to do IMO. I mean if the standards bodies are pushing for their standards to become laws because that's an amazing business model, then I agree they should be waiving license fees as part of that push, but the buck stops with the government on that IMO. It shouldn't just be assumed or permitted. Don't have time to go dig myself right now to see if that's what's happening.
The end result is the same either way: The law, including all required references, must be available to the public in a free, non-discriminatory, and modern form (i.e. on the Internet, not a single paper copy accessible only in the basement of the state capitol building behind a door marked "beware of leopard") before it can be enforced. That means the state must find a way to make the law available to the public before it takes effect, and standards organizations likewise must agree to allow public access before their standards can be incorporated into the law. The federal government can, of course, revoke the copyright on a standard to achieve that result if permission is not forthcoming—despite the name it's merely an artificial privilege, not a natural right, and as such ought to be revoked the moment it fails to serve its intended purpose of benefiting the public.
I wasn't trying to interpret existing law, I was expressing my opinion on how the process _should_ work.
No one should be denied access to legal documentation that they could be held liable for compliance/non-compliance.
I'd argue even further and say that if any portion of the law or any supporting documentation is not fully accessible at any time, there should be no liability for non-compliance.
While I understand your approach, taking itvto the extreme it sounds to the lawmaker a little bit like: I didn't wear a helmet, you have any whatbthese things cost? I'm not going to get my car checked, unless you pay for it (it's my understanding frequent check-ups are not in fact mandatory in the US anyway). I didn't pay for this car, why would I?
I'm joking of course. What was the problem, MTA maps? Yeah, those are publicly accessable.
> The MTA is a “public benefit corporation“ owned by the State of New York.
I've explained in a comment below what a public benefit corporation is. Court rulings have confirmed their status as private corporations, even though the governor has the authority to appoint the board of directors.
> Which are not part of the federal government and so able to make copyright claims.
If you'd like to be deliberately obtuse, go for it, but I think it's clear the original comment was in reference to the fact that state and local governments can own copyright (they can, but that's irrelevant here, because the MTA is not a branch of the state government).
I think that point is that everything is covered by copyright, by default. This is true for all entities - corporations, individuals or government. It's automatic.
The works of the federal government are a well known exception. And while I'm sure there are some state/county/city governments that also place their works in the public domain that's not the default.
It's a pretty fair generalization to say that if something wasn't produced by the federal government that it is most likely covered by copyright.
MTA is a public benefit corporation which is a separate things and has different rules. This is why state works and MTA workers have different pensions etc. MTA police officers being the exception that proves the rule. https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/retirement-and-social-security-...
Surprised none of the other comments have pointed out that this is not true. The MTA is a public benefit corporation, which is a concept particular to New York State.
The simplest way to describe a NY public benefit corporation is that it's a private corporation, but the board of directors for the corporation is appointed by the governor.
Court rulings have confirmed that employees of PBCs in NY are not state employees; they are employees of the corporation.
A bond issued by the MTA is considered a revenue bond. The only source of income to pay the bond holders have is the revenues of the MTA. A bond issued by New York State is considered a general obligation of the state, with the expectation that New York State will use its tax power to pay the bond holders.
Can I patronize another MTA -- or start one - if I don't like the policies of this one?
No?
Then they're either state employees, or private actors wearing the colors of state authority. Which one of those is true is not interesting or relevant.
If it behaves the way the MTA is behaving, what difference does it make? That's the point that people taking your side of this question keep ignoring.
As we've seen with PG&E's behavior on the other side of the country, these entities are treated like official state agencies whenever they find it convenient to be treated that way, and like private businesses when that's more convenient.
It is not in the riders' interest -- or the taxpayer's -- for anyone to be allowed to dictate who can publish maps of a publicly-funded transit system. Whether the MTA is called a "public-private partnership," a "utility," a "transit authority," a "public benefit corporation," or simply a "government agency" is, again, not the least bit relevant.
In fairness, I think the claim (still meritless) would be that he adapted the original Vignelli map, not the version of it that the MTA started using in 2011.
There would be consequences if he sued, but most likely the complaint will just be reversed and everybody moves on.
Based on the article, though, the MTA might have a good faith defense. If they believed it was based on their map, and retract it after being made aware that it was not, they could win on a good faith defense.
Those things are bad for your health, obviously, but aren't as easy to charge for since they aren't binary. How would you decide if someone was 'overweight' or didn't exercise? You couldn't base it on weight, because some people have a lot of muscle. How many hours do you need to exercise? What counts as exercise? How intense does it have to be? Do you charge someone who is 100 pounds overweight the same as someone who is 200? Or 10?
Smoking is binary, so you can easily price for it.
Sure. Neither is being overweight, which is just as measurable as nicotine use. (Probably more measurable, since you can't easily lie about being overweight.)
My perspective - I do not want to see ads relevant to my interests. If I want to buy something that I care about I'll do my own due diligence for what a good product is. I don't want to be lied to and distracted by junk marketing trying to convince me I should buy something.
"Devin Nunes' Cow" is obviously a satire account. As the judge ruled, a cow clearly can not tweet so nobody reasonably can believe that is actually his cow.
"ZweinerforTexas.com", "ZweinerforTx.com" are not obviously satire, they look like normal campaign urls and are clearly made to deceive.
Only last week discovered this and binged the current 3 seasons, not met a sci fi series that got me as excited since Babylon 5. Hard to pin it down as well as has so much of everything that it is unique in itself, highly recommended.
The distinction between a social construct and biology is artificial. Reading and writing are a social construct but learning to read and write at a young age has a profound impact on your brain structure.[1] I think what you mean to say is that there is no instinctual sense of gender identity that people are born with... that it is purely a learned identity. I'm not certain that is true as gender distinctions are pretty deeply ingrained nearly every culture around the world including most hunter-gather cultures, (The exact extent and nature of the distinction varies, but mere existence of an distinction is close to a constant.) and there is reason to believe that the sexual division of labor was key to the evolution of human sociality, which would make gender identity distinction hundreds of thousands of years old at the youngest. I'd be interested in any studies demonstrating that there is no instinctual component.
The parent is completely correct, why are you fighting it? This isn’t something you can out-logic, the words have definitions. Sex is the biological part and gender is the social & cultural aspects of sex.
According to Merriam-Webster, gender /includes/ the social & cultural aspects of sex. The exclusion of sex from gender is an extremely recent development that isn't widely accepted yet.
Also, motherhood and fatherhood are biologically gender-linked roles. They are measurable biological phenomena that tie strongly into your definition of gender.
Gender doesn’t exclude sex. Gender relates to sex, but it is not the same thing.
> The exclusion of sex from gender is an extremely recent development that isn’t widely accepted yet.
What are you talking about? The use of gender as a sex “role” was coined in 1955, over 60 years ago. Before that “gender” referred to grammatical gender, not to people. So if you use “gender” relating to people, that form of the word has always meant the social aspects of sex, not the biological aspects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
There was never a time when “gender” meant the same thing as “sex”.
> Also, motherhood and fatherhood are biologically gender-linked roles.
You’re confusing yourself. Being a mother & father are sex based facts. Fatherhood and motherhood as words that can mean that someone is factually a mother or father, or it can in context be referring to the gender roles of motherhood and fatherhood. The stereotype of a father playing catch with a son is a gender role, not biology. You’re choosing words which have both meanings, which doesn’t help you understand what sex and gender actually mean.
If there is nothing innate to the human on Gender identity, if its purely a construct, then you can engage in full repression of gender identities with no consequences.
