That would mean the school would have to notify EVERY attendee with a camera that they are not allowed to sell photos due to an exclusivity contract.

Mere notification does not suffice. Each one attending would have to agree to a contract restricting the usage of photos they take as a condition required to enter the property.

If the event is being held on school grounds, which is public property, then the administrators might not have the right to even condition entry to surrendering such publication rights.

I wouldn't be surprised if a local professional photographer was already given an exclusive contract to sell photos.

An agreement with a photographer does not bind third parties. Unless you required third parties entering the property to assent to an explicit agreement not to photograph, or an agreement restricting the usage of photographs taken, then they can use the photos they took and own rights to in any lawful manner once they leave.

I doubt that vendors can just attend an event and sell something like hot dogs for instance without some kind of agreement.

In most places, it is probably not lawful as a business/food vendor to go onto someone else's property without permission and conduct sales on-site; you can lose your license that way, also.

On the other hand, there is no restriction on taking pictures anywhere you are lawfully present. Although, in some municipalities, taking pictures of certain public objects (Such as the Hollywood sign in California) for a commercial purpose requires a permit issued by the local authority, but that is a matter of special local law used to help fund the maintenance of those public works.

The real story is that this guy was selling the photos. And he was using school provided equipment. And he wasn't paying taxes.

Selling the photos online isn't a crime. The conditions he was allowed to use the school equipment under allowed him to retain his copyrights, and he didn't sign an agreement promising not to sell photos for money.

Most likely, no taxes are due; he obviously hasn't been running this for years, probably less than 6 months. In order for taxes to be due and unpaid, he would have to be successful in his sales and profit from them, AND have sufficient profit to require filing a return, AND fail to file the required returns for state and federal.

The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school.

Wrong. The law does not say that, and the conditions the student was allowed to use the camera under did not include an assignment of copyright ownership.

Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble.

Only if you're a player or party to an agreement that prohibits tweeting the score.

They only own copyright to the media they produce.

Unless the mark is "famous". Then a separate cause of action called "trademark dilution" comes into play.

Except the use of a mark to refer to a product for the purpose of criticism which is outside of normal trade falls under fair use and cannot be dilution.

Brilliant! Lets turn the entire country into Camden NJ. Not to beat a great quote to death [...]

Sorry, but you've misused the quote. I support liberty as much as the next guy.

Privacy when you are on the public roads is not liberty.

Your choice whether or not the equipment you paid for sends video to authorities without your permission is liberty, and it's up for you to choose a product that meets your needs or find a way to disable functionality you don't want.

My argument is people of their own free will will be happy to share their video feed with the government, without any encroachment on their liberty. Especially when the number of LEOs on the streets is reduced, AND a special reward is offered for autonomous vehicle owners catching corroborated crimes on video ---- people will be rushing to share their feed with the government, when a reportable/rewardable event occurs, with absolutely no loss of liberty necessary for that to come about.

OK... fair enough then. Don't charge for additional weight on a linear-graduated scale. Instead charge for additional weight on a quadratic scale, where an increase in the weight by a factor of N is an increase in the factor of tax charged by N^4.

This will tend to encourage shipment using multiple lighter vehicles instead of one super-heavy vehicle.

located close enough to a rail line to cost effectively build a spur is negligible.

There is some tax rate at which it would become cost effective to do so.

Granted, they might instead choose to instead spend a smaller amount of money lobbying in advance for a tax break, and politicians would likely be persuaded by their constituents who don't like paying $100 US for a gallon of milk or $150 for a dozen of eggs.

So while they may do it in order to avoid taxes the downside is the odometer will show lower mileage at sale time than the car actually has.

A few things come to mind immediately:

• At least one secondary 'hidden' odometer elsewhere in the vehicle
• Annual safety inspections of the vehicle and all security devices
• Record taken of the exact number of files from all visible and hidden odometer measuring devices, with specific notations about which odometer ID has which reading..
• Any disagreement in counter values noted in the record.
• Serial numbered tamper-resistant "Inspection seals", similar to those one-time-use electric meter padlocks and ring seals.
• If missing, or a seal was never applied, new seals will be applied, and that fact will be noted in the record.
• Seal number in a database and verified by the annual inspector that all seals are intact, and reads off and records the security code on all seals
• New seals only available from state-authorized inspectors performing before and after inspection on the old console and the new console, to verify the number of miles match.

Then, upon successive annual inspection, if there is a failure to undergo the annual inspection Or multiple seals are missing.... there will be a $1000 fine. If seals are missing, and odometers are in disagreement, then potential jail time also.

Maybe we should just nix the idea that road infrastructure needs to be paid for with gas or vehicle taxes

Pretty soon we're supposed to have flying cars, AND robots that can help maintain the roads by taking over road construction work, so the idea of needing to maintain road infrastructure ought to get a lot less expensive than it is today, in fairly short order.

. My local grocery store does not have a rail spur serving it....

The economics of whether or not it would make sense for your local grocery to build such a rail spur are dependent on the costs of trucking VS hauling by rail!

If they had to pay appropriate tax on rail use instead of externalizing hauling costs onto taxpaying motorists maintaining the roads, then they might build the rail spur.

A fully loaded 18-wheeler causes 10000 times as much damage as a typical car

If the 18-wheeler is loaded up so that it weighs 10000 times as much as a typical car, then their tax should be 10000 as much per mile driven, while the car's per-mile tax should be 1/10000 of the 18 wheeler's tax.

This means that in addition to a GPS, there needs to be weight-measurement equipment, and vehicles capable of carrying more weight than a certain threshold need to be required to visit at least 1 public weight station after fully loaded and sealed after any use of public roads, before any unloading is permitted.

Why not just tolls? That's a per-mileage solution that doesn't penalize hybrid and electric owners.

Yes, they still do... we are still subsidizing heavy vehicles that do more damage to roads.

The fee should be a WEIGHT-MILE fee instead of a Per Mile Travelled fee.

If you're riding a bicycle, motorcycle, or one of those lightweight one person "Smart Car"s, the cost per mile in tax should be negligible. If you're driving a Semi Truck fully loaded down the street, the cost per mile should be huge.

Minimum wage coupled with rent control might be workable if food and transportation costs are kept marginal.

I would prefer a "free market" solution. Require landlords to offer tenants an annual agreement valid for a minimum of 5 years that promises at least that number of years of lease extension at substantially the same terms and specifies the maximum rate increase over the next 5 years out and extendable every year.

The level of the rate increase is completely up to the landlord, their choice. HOWEVER, any rate increase specified by the agreement over the next 5 years will be presumed to be guaranteed income, which tax must be prepaid for, and only 80% of the tax amount will be eligible to be refunded under any circumstances whatsoever, including deductible expenses or if the tenant cancels their lease before that income is realized, and failing at the end of the year to add another year indicating intent to cancel the lease, will be valid, but a $1000 administrative fee must be paid to the government in order to do so, to help cover social programs, unless the tenant themself declared an intent to cancel the lease using a specific notarized form.