Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.
Yeah but that applies to non-business travel as well. The purchase contract says the card is non-transferable, whether for business travel or otherwise.
There are some roads that say "no commercial traffic" (like the Merrit Pkwy), but that's about it. The streets in NY are shared by commercial traffic, non-commercial traffic, and even the occasional terrorist.
Dr. Henry's case is just "sound and fury signifying nothing." The case law is against her. I can understand being annoyed that she is trying to shut you up, but as a practical matter, her effort is just doomed to fail.
No, it's not the doctor's thin skin I'm worried about, it's the patient. If the patient tries to sue doctor for malpractice, all his posted comments may just come back to haunt him at trial. (same advice to doctor, anything she says might also come back to haunt her).
This makes no sense at all. Just because an expense is deductible doesn't mean you're not supposed to try and save money. Are you saying you can't use the subway for "business" travel? So are you saying that if it's business travel you can only take taxis and help clog up the streets and burn gas?
What's next? Business travelers can't drink from a public water fountain because bottled water expenses are deductible?
If a patient thinks treatment is substandard, the usual remedy is to sue for malpractice. That way you at least have a hope of some compensation for harm. Mouthing off wouldn't really help as it just creates a paper trail of evidence that is not really within your control.
Yoga moves themselves are not copyrightable anymore than dance steps (as opposed to a choreography chart) are. They do not fall into one of the categories in s.102 of the copyright act and they are not embodied in a tangible medium. If you do the moves, you are not copying because you have not set anything down in a tangible medium.
So if anyone tries to assert a copyright on a yoga move, just say "go ahead and sue me". You will make out like a bandit on Rule 11 penalties.
Re: Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
Great, another reason to avoid putting time into writing great music. It might just be adopted by a cause you happen to hate. Never mind the money. This is a whole new reason to suppress creativity and just get a job thinking of new financial instruments. It pays better, and you want find your work being used to support a war or something.
So the police are now outsourcing detective work to crime victims? What do the police get paid to do? Good thing the police let them out of jail to investigate the crime. I wonder if they had to supply their own badges.
some but not all claims are invalid or not infringed
What do you do with a "loser-pays" system in which some asserted claims are infringed and some aren't? Does loser lose attorneys fees if even one claim hits its mark? Would it be some sort of ratio of hits to misses?
Re: Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
Yes, I raised the moral rights issue because it removes money from the equation.
We don't have moral rights. But the Lanham Act provides a similar remedy (see the Monty Python case, when the network chopped off material to fit a commercial break and as a result, the joke fell flat.)
Of course, it seems a bit unfair to draw the musician into a fray he may have preferred to avoid, especially if it distracts him from writing more music.
So what does a songwriter do if he writes a good song, and some political action group starts using it as its anthem? What if the songwriter finds the political action group repulsive? What should he do?
"Give us a break, when they were invented people knew exactly what they were and how it would play out, they probably didn't knew how good at it those corporations would be, corporations have no natural predators and so grow exponentially "
There used to be some laws in place to hinder corporate abuses, way back in the 1700's and early 1800's. They've since been eroded. We need to bring those back.
"the way to counter them is to lower IP which is the principal instrument being used to keep competition at bay"
Not the answer. Patent term is a blip in the life of a corporation. The best way to limit corporate abuse is to restore the eroded statutory protections we used to have. There are many other instruments, far more effective than IP, to suppress competition. Look at the Standard Oil story. They didn't waive a lot of patents and copyrights around.
"One thing that also inhibit growth is strong unions"
No. Strong unions are essential to check corporate abuses. Lone individuals simply lack the power to fight back unless they are organized. If management had treated labor fairly all along, there would be no need for unions.
Besides, you sound like you think growth is an end in itself. Look at your language "cancer that spreads"...that's what corporations are. We need to check their growth. Reform of IP law would just be a speed bump. If you want to fight corporate abuses, you need to go for the jugular!
Well, that's what Dude's post suggested, innovation is "the natural human order of progression." People will always innovate...the laws people complain about here just tend to drive the innovation underground, so that not a lot of people benefit from it.