Well, all the people who published works before 1710 had no copyrights. All the people who published after that, but not in England had no copyrights until various countries slowly adopted copyright (the US picked it up in 1790, the French after that, and most of Europe in the 19th century -- and they only exported it to the rest of the world by means of colonialism, not on its own actual merits).

Plus there were various limits, e.g. the US only granted copyrights to Americans until almost the end of the 19th century; British authors had no option to get an American copyright at all... unless they became American citizens.

More recently, various classes of work were ineligible. For example, architectural works (in practice, buildings) were uncopyrightable in the US until 1990. Were no buildings designed and built in this country until architects were given copyrights?

What I think you're missing here is that there are a plethora of incentives for an author to create and publish a work. Money gained by exploiting a copyright on the work is but one of those incentives, and often is not the most important one, and also often is not an essential one.

I certainly agree that it can be useful, but that doesn't mean that we ought to go hog wild with it; as with many other things, a little might be beneficial, but too much can be harmful.

The point is to grant authors copyrights as an additional incentive in order to entice them into creating and publishing works which they would not have created and published, but for copyright. If they would've done it anyway, the copyright is superfluous, and granting it would be wasteful. If they require more copyright than is healthy for society, all things considered, we're literally better off not granting it even though it means we'll be bereft of the work in question.

It's not intended to give authors control over works for their own sake. That's just the means by which it functions. It's intended to produce a public benefit. And while the public does benefit from having works created and published, it also benefits from not having anyone controlling works.

Well, that's how it operated in the US from 1790 through to the end of 1977. Turns out that relatively few published works were copyrighted. Further, since there was a renewal term (that is, the copyright would be good for an additional number of years if you re-upped in a timely fashion) we also know that most authors of copyrighted works didn't bother to get a renewal, and let their works enter the public domain sooner than they had to.

It worked fine. We got great literature and the golden age of Hollywood on both film and tv, as well as tons of great music.

And frankly, a system of strict formalities to get copyrights is a more important thing to change in the law than shortening the term length.

Why should the rest of us aid them in doing so? E.g. by conferring upon them some sort of legal rights that pertain to how the work is used by others.

While I think it could potentially be beneficial for the public to grant rights to authors, it's surely not always beneficial under every circumstance, and every permutation of works and rights.

And if the author doesn't like the terms under which the public might deign to give them rights, they're free to not create the work.

The rehire question is not neccesarily a work around in some areas. The laws would treat it the same as blackballing someone. Its also likely to not work well with large companies and large HR departments. You are likely only going to get some policy of not rehiring people within a certain timeframe.

Of course all this is sort of negated if you were fired. Its obvious they do not want you working there if they fire you. The real problem is that a lot of people work in a lot of different places. These people become management and "shop talk" at various hangouts where old friends who happen to be your new prospective employer also hang out. This is more of a problrm in smaller locations but still an issue.

There is no law barring employment for felons â" on the contrary, the state goes out of its way to encourage employers to hire them, to reduce recidivism.

...but they do a rather bad job of it, as a great many of your larger employers have a zero-tolerance policy.

To be born and raised in the USA â" the country, to which millions of people dream of migrating (legally and otherwise) â" and waste your youthful years on crime?

The advice the OP is asking for applies to other folks as well. One of my friends has a felony record for running web hosting for a brothel a friend of his owned, and otherwise offering services and support to a business which was to the best of his knowledge strictly offering services between consenting adults... and not turning her in when he changed his mind about being willing to continue to provide that support. That folks who don't follow a libertarian philosophy could see that as a lapse of ethics is certainly granted -- but a lapse that should mean that 4/5ths of employment prospects are permanently off the table? That's harsh.

That said -- he's working today, for an employer well aware of the entirety of his background (including his meticulous attention to detail and corner cases in software design and development). So, yes -- fewer options, but some do still exist.

They can't make you sign it, all they can do is fire you if you don't. But since it's a "severance agreement," it probably includes severance pay and other consideration for the outgoing employee - otherwise there's no reason to sign it.

You cannot be charged with trespassing or any extent of it if someone who has charge of the property invites you on to it. You will have to show the person entered the premises by force, stealth, or deception which negates going to a friends house and getting busted by their parents for raiding the liquor cabinet.

Also, you will not be able to show any cases in which that has actually happened and a kid or anyone has been charged with a felony, convicted and now suffers from it when he was invited onto the property. If you broke into someone's house, then I would definitely say felony applies.

I'm not saying the OP is an angel, but there's no need to assume violence.

I never said violence has to be present. I said violence for lesser crimes than a first and second degree felony. Theft over a certain amount is a felony of the second degree and over a larger amount is a first degree felony offense. Stealing a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer. it is a first degree felony. As you pointed out, burglary which doesn't have to involve violence is a second degree felony. So there are things that are not violent that can make a person non eligible to have a record expunged that do not involve the convolution of laws and situations in order to make them fit.

I'm thinking you are correct. Good catch.

That won't work.. I just tried it and got a message about a problem with my network. I doubt that is what a network hardware vendor is trying to accomplish.

The objective of the copying and likely the patent infringement is so there would be no learning cure for their products. It would end up being a cheaper clone of Cisco that any Cisco certified admin would be comfortable on.

In short, they didn't really care about getting kicked out of school. They only wanted invited into the computer labs. Once in, it is easier to stay in.

In Ohio, criminal records can be expunged except for first and second degree felonies or crimes considered violent- after they are settled and punishment and fines have been paid. There is a process that is sort of like asking for parole but ends up in court with a judge making the final decision.

He said he couldn't get the felonies expunged because he is in Ohio. This means it was either violent, or a serious enough felony that it was a first or second degree felony as defined by the state. I concur, it was not a crime he woke up one day not realizing he was committing or thought was a minor misdemeanor and got roped into a felony.

What is it with the ignorant American thinking that "less power means a lower quality of life"?

Nobody ever said that- that I am aware of. I most certainly did not. If you think I did, you might want to try a different translation service or something. All I said was do what you want to do, and let everyone else do what they want to do. It's a simple premise of freedom.

I've just changed a 35W halogen GU10 spot bulb in my bathroom for a 3W LED bulb. It requires 11.667 times less energy and yet gives me more light and less waste heat, which is not wanted in the summer.

Good for you. But I don't know what your point is other than you think you are super smart or something and want everyone else to know too? I will change out my bulbs when they blow and need changing.

My main computer for web browsing and document writing is a low-power computer which has a low-end Intel CPU with a built-in GPU and a 2.5" hard drive that runs on a 80W power supply. You don't need a power-hungry quad-core clocked at 4GHz with a 500W graphics card for day-to-day tasks.

You are correct, "you" do not need something. What I need is up to my needs and desires not yours. You are not the boss of anyone that I know of. But looking at your wording, it appears that you have more than one computer depending on your needs (read "main"). Is that not also wasteful or is the way you convoluted things the only proper way to do it?

Being energy efficient doesn't mean living like a fucking homeless person, it means being smarter about your energy consumption. But most Americans have been brainwashed by their own power companies so that they'll keep spending nearly 10 times more than everyone else on the planet.

Again, I do not know who ever said being energy efficient is living like a fucking homeless person. Do you often set up straw men arguments in order to shoot them down?

Most Americans are busy doing something else to care about the shit that seems to upset you. Most of them are the complete opposite of what you pretend they ware but I guess you need the straw man to burn along side the streets because you turned the power off to the street lamps or something. I dunno, but you set a lot of them up for no good reason other than making your point sound relevant.

Like I said, do what you want to do, just do not force others to do the same. If they want to do it, they will, if they do not, they will not. Its not yours so don't until it is, don't worry about it.

And I will false premise your false premise. External costs are realized by cheaper prices to the consumer which is a shortcut to you paying for them anyways if the costs of every single externality was actually built into the cost of everything. Unthinkers like you likely assume that these external costs would come out of the profit those greedy share holders make like the pension funds and crap which is wrong. Those costs would be folded into the costs of products which you would end up paying anyways. And no, someone who figures out how to minimize those costs will not sell cheaper because an arbitrary market value has already been set based around competition who doesn't have that advantage so it will just be profit for the owners and share holders.

If you want to live that way, then do it. But don't tell others they have to live that way. It's not to anyone's detriment other than the person spending. And it doesn't matter if someone else wastes something that isn't yours so let it go already.

I don't think that was a statement about wanting to see hackers caught. It was a statement that now that something big and powerful who finally has the influence that everybody else seems to lack is hurt, we might see the real abilities of some agencies.

Its as if sarcasm was being deployed to suggest that they have not been trying when the rest of us peons suffer the fate of hackers.