The writer calls out sharing passwords as a form of piracy, right before saying that these services allow multiple streams at once.

Too many people accept this as true. I agree that password sharing in general is bad since most people poorly manage their own passwords. But to say that it's piracy for sharing when the service explicitly supports it? Eat a dick.

Not necessarily Marxism, French IP laws are marked more in favor of content creators. Droit D'Auteur is enshrined in French copyright laws and allows an author/artist significantly more control over works after they have been published than many other systems of IP law. It seems this person just wants such rights to be applied to social media content. Whether or not it workable is another question.

In your opinion are electric cars "good enough" for the majority of everyday uses and governments should be encouraging their purchase with either subsidies or tax breaks or is the technology still too young and any premature touting of it will end in its demise?

At the federal level there may not be increased disclosure requirements. But at the state level, the type of corporation that can file to become a 501(c)(3), typically has increased transparency requirements. IDK what state you are in, but I have seen investigative journalists in NC get the entire balance sheet for non-profits in that state. Non-profits in NC are required to disclose them. The journalist then wrote about the use of corporate funds for not approved purposes, and members of the board of that non-profit faced criminal charges after the state AG read the article and did their own investigation.

501(c)(3) does not negate FOIA by any rational stretch of the imagination. I take exception to the writer of the article acting like this irrational argument (501(c)(3) information is confidential) might have some credence, it doesn't.

I actually looked up the filings for the (which is incredibly simple, perhaps the ACLU can learn to use Google).

NEMLEC is a charity for a couple counties of police forces in MA. They have golf outings and other things, to benefit police officers and their families, activities that are completely innocuous.

I guess what the ACLU got their panties in a bunch about is that the organization also acts as a central point of contact for SWAT training/ purchases in the region.

So... a group of police, are setting their training calendars together so they can have a training session with more people at one time so they can save money on instructor costs. And they are buying stuff in bulk to reduce their costs.


The ACLU needs to do some homework and find a more relevant problem to harp on.

ALSO, NEMLEC had their corporation status involuntarily revoked in 06-18-2012, so the whole 501(c)(3) thing is a moot point. They aren't an entity anymore, they can't claim 501(c)(3) anymore, even though that never mattered in the first place.

None of the people quoted in the article seem to have any idea what they are saying. The most disturbing thing is that the ACLU is whining about this as if this was a legitimate argument. It is not.

Here are a few of the most poignant reasons why this argument fails:

First and foremost 501(c)(3) is an IRS regulation that means a corporation does not have to pay income tax. 501(c)(3) is NOT a method by which a corporation maybe formed.

Second, states not the federal government create the rules for creating a corporation.

Third, there are many different types of corporations, one of those types is a municipal corporation. Just because you have something called a corporation does not mean it is private. Municipal corporations are subject to FOIA

Fourth, corporations can register with the IRS as 501(c)(3) non-profits, but to use it as a tool to hide information would be incredibly stupid because 501(c)(3) status means you must release more information about your internal workings than a normal private corporation would need to disclose.


Either the ACLU is whining because they don't have the sharpest knife in the drawer dealing with these FOIA requests, or this is a calculated move to drum up donations.

That is completely wrong, objects that have a function are specifically excluded from copyright law. You would have to apply for and be granted a design patent, which have a shorter life than a normal utility patent.

Actually, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, the law which makes federally backed student loans not dischargeable through chapter 13 or 7 bankruptcy, was first conceived in 1997 and muddled around congress until 2004. Then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa submitted it in its current form, with strong support from Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay from Texas. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on April 20, 2005.

Where I live, the cable company has to pull the line to every customer, regardless of burial requirements. Cable companies don't WANT to bury but that is the compromise they made when they got the franchise, making them the only game in town. Put in a complaint with the franchise authority, let them tell you what the facts are.

Franchises such as cable providers are required to pull lines to all people is a territory. In exchange for being the only cable company, the cable company is typically required to provide services to everyone regardless of the cost. Google to find out the complaint department for your state franchise authority and place a complaint. I did this is the past and was quickly provided with cable access, even though they had to pull additional lines to reach me.

You do realise that Google has been using its Motorola patent portfolio to sue the exact same companies that are suing it, right?
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/googles-motorola-files-new-german.html?m=1

Google can't claim to be the good guys here.

"and threatened to file criminal charges — unless they settled the civil case immediately"

Threatening criminal charges to gain the upper hand in a civil case is against the rules of ethics for attorneys. Every state has its own flavor of rules but they are derived from the ABA model rules.

Mr. O'Connor should immediately file a complaint with the (every) state bar in which this attorney is licensed.

If the only thing you have received as a class action settlement is coupons, you have never been involved in a class action for grown ups.

You clearly do not understand how class actions work. 1000 people harmed for $100 is not worth litigating individually. Lump that together into a $100,000 suit and it is worth the time to do it. Plus most class actions are contingency lawyers get like 30%, if the plaintiffs lose they don't have to pay the attorneys.

toss some scraps $70 is better than $0.