Another of those rare bits of good news:


Background: "fair use" of a small portion of copyrighted material, for education, journalism, criticism, or satire, has always been permitted under copyright law. The truly vile Digital Millenium Copyright Act, thanks to heavy lobbying, tilted the playing field far in the direction of copyright owners, by allowing them to demand that material be removed from the Internet on a mere allegation of infringement. As a vain measure to prevent this power from being misused, the DMCA allowed legal recourse if the "takedown" notice involved misrepresentation of the infringement. Up to now, DMCA "misrepresentation" has been prosecuted about as often as false allegations of child abuse during divorce proceedings (i.e., approximately never). Now Judge Fogel has taken some of that advantage away from Big Media, by ruling that falsely claiming a fair use is "infringement" is, in fact, misrepresentation.

A salute to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for winning this ruling!

A reader, friend and lawyer writes a welcomed counter-point to today's tidbit of wisdom from Grandpa. The criticism is welcomed because I have NO set agenda or belief as to which strategy works best when or where. I am open to contradiction, debate, elaboration, and politely-phrased "boy are you stupid!" arguments. As a community, freedom-loving people must consider all the options, all the objections to options...and start protecting ourselves according to our own judgment. (BTW, despite the malicious vandalism of men's rights activists, I've been thinking about opening up comments on this blog; this disagreement would be extremely valuable to hash out in comments because it is a black-and-white different take on an issue which comes from people with the same basic goal: freedom from government.)

My reader explodes thusly: OHMIGAWD!!!!! THE BIT ON "DISPOSABLE ATTORNEYS" IS SO FAR OUT OF WHACK AS TO BE UNBELIEVABLE!!!! I mean, it's so out in left field I'm actually typing to you in all-caps!!!

One of the stupidest, dumbest, most idiotic things you can do is to NOT tell your attorney the whole story. If you cannot trust your attorney with your deepest darkest secrets, then you need another attorney, pronto. There is nothing an attorney hates more than finding out that a client has held back stuff that could make a serious difference to whatever the matter is.

Case in point - A couple years back I'm doing a custody battle, I have mom who is a reasonably nice lady, and dad is reasonably jerkish. Nothing horrible on either side. Dad is on the stand testifying as to mother's fitness to be a parent and begins discussing her previous employment at the Midnight Bunny Ranch in Nevada!!!! I do a WHOLE lot of tapdancing with the judge (it's legal, it was then - this is now, it's not relevant, blah blah, blah) and it's relegated to non-issue status and we get custody. But when I asked my client why she didn't tell me that during any of our previous conversations she said that she was embarrassed and that it was legal, etc. It would have been nice and useful to have made the arguments before he brought them up, though, because it was looking for a bit like we were hiding something, and hiding things is often seen by the court as Very Bad (except, you know, when it's a prosecutor with exculpatory evidence - then it's no big deal).

Furthermore, just what does "Grandpa" worry about his regular attorney doing? I'm ethically prohibited from revealing most client communications - and even a disposable attorney is not going to give him advice on things like "how to further a crime" that his own attorney could reveal. A disposable attorney does not know the client and cannot incorporate those questions into other matters that the client may have going. And how can you evaluate the quality of advice you might get from a disposable attorney? To paraphrase George Carlin, "Some attorney had to have graduated at the bottom of his law school class, some attorney - by definition - has to be the worst attorney in the state. And somebody has an appointment with him at 2:00 this afternoon."

Bottom line, if you don't trust your attorney enough to ask him the really whackjob questions, then you need to get yourself another attorney you do feel comfortable with. It's not like you're going to shock him or anything - and I'm pretty sure you'll get better and/or more useful advice from the guy you know, and who knows you.

Your capital-typing-jaw-dropping friend,

Whoa...I take CAPITALS from this fellow SERIOUSLY.

Well, golly gosh. It looks like my Linux system does violate a Microsoft patent -- specifically, the patent Microsoft was just granted on the "Page Up" and "Page Down" keys on the keyboard.

No, I'm not kidding.

Good luck enforcing that one, guys. If necessary, I'll blow the dust off of one of my old CP/M systems and fire up WordStar -- or better still, its predecessor, WordMaster -- just to demonstrate that software was doing this long before Microsoft had produced anything but Altair BASIC.

I'm hoping that PubPat challenges this one. One problem with the U.S. patent system* is that patents are assumed to be valid until they are successfully overturned. Another problem -- as this patent illustrates -- is that the system relies upon the one requesting the patent to fairly and completely disclose relevant "prior art." And if Microsoft had done any such thing, this patent would never have been granted.

__________
* Aside from the very idea of patents; that is. By now I hope you realize that patents are not to protect the "little guy"; they're a weapon used by large corporations to squash competition and stifle innovation.

I have been listening to Grandpa again. Translation: I've been reading "Bye Bye Big Brother" -- a how-to instruction manual on personal freedom that is "the Bible of Perpetual Traveler theory and practice backed by decades of experience." I am not a perpetural traveler but I'm finding Grandpa's advice both useful and innovative. For example...

Use a disposable attorney to ask sensitive questions that should not be asked of your permanent legal advisor. What questions are those? Anything so private that you wish to take it to the grave -- e.g. a past indiscretion, a sexual orientation, the contents of a strong box. Or anything to do with an illegal activity. And, remember, many activities that are both moral and properly no one else's business are currently illegal; indeed, it is becoming more difficult to navigate an average day without breaking the law in some manner. Still other activities could be potentially illegal in ways with which you are unaware. Grandpa advises: "Set up an appointment [with a disposable attonrye]. The story is you're just passing through. Use a pen name. Pay cash for the consultation. Ask every damned question you want to. Suggest every 'what if' you can think of. Remember, it's your cousin who needs help."

Then...

[ Read the rest ... ]

Tom Tomorrow brings us About This Obama Fellow -- I particularly like the (unintended, I'm sure) suggestion that Obama will be a re-run of Bush. Also from Tom Tomorrow, The Latest Stupid Distraction, which highlights why I've stopped watching American news for the duration of the election season.

From The Borowitz Report we learn that Bill Clinton's Denver Speech to be on Five-second Delay, and last week (before the VP announcement!) that Biden Prepares 50,000-Word Acceptance Speech.

Also, Jim Borgman's Cha-ching!, and Mark Fiore's Private Contracting Games.

A interesting letter from a reader opens by quoting an article she mistakenly attributes to me. The article/blog post in question is Support Your Local Rape Gang by William N. Grigg on the Pro Libertate blog. The confusion arose because the post ends with the note, Thanks to Wendy McElroy and "CLS" at Classically Liberal for their work on this story -- in short, my name was the first one the reader saw at the end of the piece. (BTW, I thank Grigg in return for his impassioned and in-depth analysis of the story upon which I commented on August 11th in the post Teach Children to Fear the Police.)

The news story in question dealt with an 18-year-old high school student who was brought into a detention center in Kentucky on traffic charges. Three deputies teased the teenager about his physical appearance and, then, broke procedure by housing him with violent criminals who proceeded to rape him repeatedly over a period of hours. Some accounts state that the 3 deputies solicited the assault upon the boy. Certainly, the deputies and their co-workers would have been aware of the boy's screams for help through the night. Reports were falsified to cover the incident.

That's the background. Here's the letter I received from a mother who had a less dramatic but chilling story to tell about her young son's run-in with the police state. One of the reasons her story is chilling, BTW, is because I think it is more typical and far more common than the jailhouse rape. Two key differences: her son's brutalization by the system is stretched out over years, and no one will be held accountable for the boy's nightmares.

K. writes...

[ Read the rest ... ]

You'd think that, having just obtained one long-sought book, I'd be satisfied. And I am; but there is another out-of-print book I'm seeking -- which I shall not name, lest I jinx the quest -- that currently is not affordable. While searching for it, I stumbled upon the useful site WorldCat, which lets you search "more than 10,000 libraries worldwide" for a particular book. It seems to index mostly college and university libraries at present. (I tried a search for a "popular" book that I had seen in my local town library, and got only college and university libraries from the search.)

Alas, it's 300 kilometers, round trip, to the nearest library with the book I want. Call it 20 litres of gasoline at $1.25 a litre. One trip to borrow, one to return, and I'm looking at $50 just to borrow it. I think I'll keep browsing the used-book listings. Fortunately, I've found another useful site: AllDiscountBooks, which is a "meta-search" engine that checks prices at a multitude of new and used booksellers -- including AbeBooks and Amazon, but not, for some reason, Chapters.ca.

On Friday, I received a fascinating book from the rebel press Vera Verba entitled "Bye Bye Big Brother" (abridged edition) for my review. Since then I've been absorbing the oversized, thick work. Having received permission from the publisher -- the author is anonymously referred to as "Grandpa and Others" -- in the coming days I'll be quoting brief passages from the book and commenting on some of the practical advice being offered. And, yes, this is an endorsement of the book's value to anyone who values their personal liberty.

I won't deal with the first half of the book, which gives psychological, political and social commentary/guidance on how to free yourself from Big Brother and his attendant bureaucracy. Reducing the guidance to one sentence: Leave the U.S.. I find myself in increasing agreement with that strategy but I have significant disagreement with some of the other messages within the book's first half... On the other hand, you might find yourself in full agreement.

And, so, on to the practical...Grandpa's advice for today:

[ Read the rest ... ]

Chad Lowe's Independent Voter; Chuck Asay's Orwellian Titles; Steve Sacks' Home Sweet Home; Tom Toles' Continuity in Afghanistan; Glenn McCoy's Shame; and, my favorite, Ben Sargent's Take35.

The most effective action you can take vis-a-vis government is nothing. That is, do not participate in its programs, do not respect unjust laws, do not vote. I agree with the theory that 80% of life consists of showing up. Whether you are talking about relationships, an exercise regime or a career -- 80% of success comes from showing up consistently and putting in an effort. Those who consistently show up FOR government by sanctioning it 80% of the time -- e.g. they take a state tax-paid salary every week -- try to balance the scale by writing or speaking out against the very concept of taxation or for the need to privatize the production of Acme anvils. The state ignores their efforts...as well it should. Those who show up 80% of the time are no worry.

What bothers the state are the people who will not participate, the people who will not obey because their refusal strikes at the very heart of the state's raison d'etre; such people are saying "we don't need or value your services or presence". This statement worries authorities so much that they are willing to impose draconian corrective measures upon those who simply want to NOT participate. Consider one case reported by Yahoo Daily News (08/23): Court authorities here will be able to track students with a history of skipping school under a new program requiring them to wear ankle bracelets with Global Positioning System monitoring. The mandated GPSs would be full-time. Asked why 'full-time', an authority "cited problems with runaways.:" In other words, the bracelets are also a tool of social control -- all in the name of educating and protecting children, of course, Politicians could get away with establishing concentration camps these days if they were built in the name of protecting children.

I dropped out and ran-away at the age of 16 in order to protect myself against a homelife of violence to which the police would have probably returned me. Or worse. They would have put me into the system which is often more brutal than taking your chances with violent parents or life on the streets. Certainly, you have less control. GPS devices strapped to the ankles of children who have done no wrong other than say NO to a state program has nothing to do with protecting them. It has everything to do with protecting the legitimacy and flowing wealth of the state.

BTW, has anyone else noticed how strange the "wealth" argument against truancy is? School officials say "we lose X tax-dollars for every student who doesn't show up?" In a sane world, shouldn't they be happy that the tax burden on the average person has just gone down? Shouldn't they celebrate that students who hate, hate, hate the 'service' they provide have "left the building" and, so, are no longer there to cause trouble and require expensive security? Of course, they are not happy. Because these students are saying "the emperor has no clothes." There is no service here, only a publicly-applauded prison sentence. No wonder they are treated like criminals and strapped with GPS devices (formerly) assigned mostly to parolees and sex offenders.

Other people get excited about a new car, or new clothes, or a new iPhone. For me, it's a new book. And not just any book: Cody and Waite's Software Manual for the Elementary Functions, which I finally found via AbeBooks.

To explain: while other computer programmers are content to type sin(x) in their programs to get the sine of some angle, I am one of that peculiar few who actually have to implement the sin(x) function (and its kin) from time to time. "Cody and Waite" is the book to own on this subject, but it's long out of print, and still in demand. So, in the years I've been searching for a used copy, it's either been unavailable or priced in the hundreds of dollars.

A few weeks back, one of my periodic checks turned up an ex-library copy for $36, and I jumped on it. It has now arrived, and it's in flawless condition, unless you count the library stamps on the inside covers. (And I'm amused to see that it was previously owned by Sperry Univac.)

P.S. As if to mock me, now that I have my copy, I see that Amazon is listing twelve copies for sale, with three for $30 each. Where were they three years ago?

Oopsie:


Questions:
1. How many jurisdictions don't have "several voters"? (Or voting machines?)
2. Was it just pure luck that officials "noticed" the cards weren't being read properly? What kind of indication did they get?
3. What kind of voting machine errors don't "produce dropped votes"? Would these be errors that switch votes from one candidate to another?
4. What does it take to get these clowns booted out of the voting-machine business?

A reader and friend writes, Wendy, how do you deal with people who simply won't be reasoned with? I don't mean "people who won't agree with my point of view." I mean people who complain on the one hand that MRA's (their label for me, not mine) refuse to engage in "dialogue" with feminists, but when engaged in dialogue, immediately (and I do mean immediately) retreat to strawman after strawman, will not address the issue, outright dishonesty and ad hominem attack? I'm guessing you know the species. is there a point in trying to deal with it? If so, what is the principled way to do so?

By way of answering, I reprint below part of Chapter 15 of my book The Reasonable Woman...

[ Read the rest ... ]

I knew these TSA jerks were really dim bulbs, but the stupidity of this action astonishes even me:


Why this genius thought he needed to "gain access" by climbing up the outside of the plane is baffling enough. But using temperature probes as a ladder? I guess the airlines are going to have to start slapping "No Step" signs all over their planes...but do TSA employees have that much reading comprehension?

Perhaps the scariest thing is the statement from a TSA spokesman, who said "Our inspector was following routine procedure for securing the aircraft that were on the tarmac". I presume that no disciplinary action is planned.

Update: According to CNN's report, "most" of these sensors already have "No Step" decals. The agency says it will "retrain" its inspectors...in remedial English perhaps? And, suddenly the TSA is accusing American of "security violations"...so their valiant moron was really just protecting the public, you see.

(Hat tip to Bruce Schneier.)

"A new law in Philadelphia will make it a crime in the coming weeks to talk about the Liberty Bell for money without the government’s permission. Unlicensed tour guides will be subject to hundreds of dollars in fines for talking about the place where the Declaration of Independence was written."

The foregoing is a quote from a fascinating piece at the Foundation for Economic Education site, written by Bob Ewing of the Institute for Justice (IJ), on the increasing cartelization of common professions such as interior design or hair styling. (For the full article, click here. For more on the deadening impact of such "transaction costs" on liberty and prosperity click on an earlier blog post of mine here.)

Cartels occur when independent business organizations in the same area of production or service provision (e.g. the sale of widgets or the provision of landscaping) combine together to regulate the production, pricing, and marketing done by its members. An essential part of enforcing the regulation is the ability to establish a de facto monopoly that excludes newcomers from entering the marketplace and underselling, "over-producing" or otherwise violating the terms of the cartel. Thus, cartels appeal to government to enforce measures:

1) that make it difficult for newcomers to enter the market or to compete -- e.g. a requirement for licenses, high fees, special education, etc. For example, in Maryland "two powerful groups have monopolized the growing field of animal massage by requiring all practitioners to spend four years in veterinary school -- where massage is not even taught." (Quoted from Bob's article.)
and/or
2) that place existing businesses (cartel members) in a position of power over approving the credentials of newcomers -- e.g. being on the licensing boards. For example "in Louisiana it is illegal to sell and arrange flowers without permission from the government. Aspiring florists must pass a subjective licensing exam that is graded by existing florists, who have a direct incentive to keep new competitors from entering the market."

I vividly remember discussions I had with an acquaintance from Russia who stayed at our farm for a few days. He was amazed by the Mennonites selling maple syrup at roadside, by yard sales, farms selling bulk flowers at the end of their driveways and even the hot dog stands or kids with lemonade...in short, he marvelled at the ability of people to sell and trade freely. He explained that, in Russia, it was so difficult to open an above-board business to simply sell your service or goods that many people do not even attempt it even though it was one of the few paths out of crushing poverty. The punishments were simply too severe. And, yet, people have children to feed and, so, many others entered the black market despite absurdly high prison sentences. He looked at North America as a miraculous place where hard work and merit were rewarded rather than discouraged by those with privilege and pull.

I applaud the work IJ is doing to return the miracle of America to Americans themselves.