Wickard v. Filburn is the landmark case here. A farmer growing wheat on his own land, to feed to animals on his own land, all in the same state, is considered interstate commerce. The supreme court decided that the test is not about whether it is really interstate commerce, but if the activity exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
Yet the ACA (Obamacare) was held constitutional due to the Commerce Clause.
Sure, if the ACA would regulate non-economic aspects of ER visits, those parts would have been likely struck down. (Unless otherwise authorized by the Constitution.)
Why should Google be able to profit off of others content without compensating them? Compulsory licenses are standard in the music industry, and in theory the same could work well for journalism. But the devil is in the details.
By that logic, should the phonebook have to pay people to include them? Should the travel pamphlet pay the restaurants it sends people to? Using snippets of the content to send people to the source is essential for online dialogue, not just for Google. Should we all have to pay for referring to an article in a forum?
Mark my words: if this were enforced, people and most companies would simply stop linking these sites. What I think will happen instead is that many websites would not want this kind of situation, so we will add a new clause to the robots.txt permitting linking and small snippets, and most websites would enable it rather than lose the link and search traffic. Then we'd be back where we started.
By the way, what happens when an European newspaper is hosted in US? What laws apply?
If a website doesn't want its content to be summarized by Google couldn't they just block it in their robots.txt? From what I've seen that results in Google listing the page's title but with no description.
Maybe search engines could adopt some sort of standard that would allow pages to provide their desired description using meta tags if they don't want an automated summary. I could see a problem with pages using dishonest summaries, but perhaps that could be addressed by penalizing the page rank if the provided summary is too different than the summary that Google would have generated.
As do the pages. All this has been tested before in Germany with the Leistungsschutzrecht. Even before it was struck down by the courts it was more or less not active anymore. Google just stopped sending traffic to the pages of the German publishers. It took only a few days until Axel Springer & Co. came crawling back and made a deal with Google that they are allowed to link without compensation.
There are fundamental physical limits at play. Smaller sensors, with smaller pixel size are diffraction limited more quickly. This new sensor has a pixel pitch about one eighth of what a modern APS-C DSLR has. That sensor would be diffraction limited at around f1.4. Most camera systems are more limited by lens resolution than diffraction. Fast lenses like those found on smart phones often have issues with optical aberrations. The lens quality issue is both a financial and technological one. It is possible to create a lens that is diffraction limited, but even for a small sensor it is very expensive in practice.
The difficulty is actually more with maxing it flat, so the phone can be thin. If you have length to spare and only a chip to record, you can get awesome f/2 optics (diffraction limited) with only a Schmidt corrector and otherwise two spherical surfaces and 3 flat ones (not counting the flat front outside facing of the Schmidt plate) with a field-flattened Schmidt camera. The only strong downside apart from the limit on FOV at around 4 degrees for this simple design (slight better designs should allow for up to about 30 degrees) is that it's twice as long as the focal length. It should still allow ultra-tele shots by resting the tube on the shoulder, without anything to actively compensate rotation shake.
Normally Getty and other stock image sites require a photo release or other relevant releases before selling images for commercial use. Other images will be for editorial use only, or more commonly they will not accept them on the site at all.
Getty made a mistake, and notified USPS a few years before the lawsuit. This was four months after the image was licensed. USPS continued to use the image from 2011 through 2014 knowing that there was no property release and that one was needed.
What is interesting about this case is the artist was not aware of the infringement, did not register the copyright and did not file suit until 2013, and the court is still considering a royalty for unused stamps from before the copyright registration. The court case is far from over though, given the size of the settlement it will be appealed.
In the US buildings are covered under freedom of panorama and photographs of buildings taken from public areas are not copyright infringement. Sculptures are not covered under freedom of panorama in the US, and generally photographs of sculptures or other works of art are derivative works.
Second there is a major distinction between commercial use and fine art. Selling an image on a stock photo site to be used in an advertisement requires a release from any models, or from the sculptures copyright owner in this case. If they were selling a limited number of fine art prints they would not need a release.
Not at all. Neither of these account for how long you've held something, which is what implicates inflation.
For example, Person A buys stock in Company A and holds it for just over 1 year. Person A's gain on this stock is $1,000.
Person B has held stock in Company B for the last 50 years. He sells at exactly the same time as Person A and has the same $1,000 taxable gain.
If we accounted for inflation, Person B would pay much less tax than Person A, because Person B's gain is mostly (if not completely) inflation. Person A's gain, on the other hand, is mostly real gain, not inflation.
The standard deduction essentially establishes a 0% rate on a "minimum $ necessary to live" salary. Marginal tax brackets establish a progressive tax system which is consistent with diminishing marginal utility of money.
The problem that valuearb refers to is completely different. Because of inflation I could buy an asset in 1 year, sell it 5 years later and show a nominal gain (sale price > purchase price) but have actually made any real money. By most standards it would be unfair to tax me on this sale.
It is possible to get paid above the union negotiated rate, called above scale, or to start out at a higher than entry level pay step. It depends on the specific circumstances and collective bargaining agreement.
Is there some kind of asymmetry that prevents this logic from being applied with "older" replaced by other inherent physical attributes like race, or do you think that wouldn't be discrimination either?
Maybe the fact that everyone becomes old, whereas with other protected classes, everyone does not eventually gain membership into that class. So society as a whole is more sympathetic to discrimination that favors the older maybe because we can see ourselves in their shoes.
> "They posted my entire medical record, including notes about my mental health, my bills, my insurance info, my driver’s license, birth date and home address,"
We are hearing one side of the story here. HIPAA violations have teeth -- potentially 10 years imprisonment for intentional leaks for personal gain -- so a vindictive public action is highly unlikely, and certainly some lawyers would take the case on spec. Especially if personal information like driver's license info and home address were leaked.
What likely happened is this quip triggered the mess:
> “I suspect that this doctor gives unnecessary procedure [sic] to a lot of people and then charges the insurance sky high prices and no one knows the difference.
Levine is accusing Song of health care and medical insurance fraud. While there's some ambiguity regarding "unnecessary procedures", insurance fraud is a crime and arguably Levine is accusing Song of criminal behavior
Another user, Siphor, went through the documents in a response on another thread [0]. I think the second paragraph adds some important context, especially in regards to the accusations of Mr. Song committing insurance fraud.
>The most damning thing in there was that the Doctor tested for HHV-6 (something 100% of humans have) and then charged for it and claimed it was HHV-2 (genital herpes). Theres apparently a lab technician available to testify that the Doctor commonly tests for HHV-6. Guy seems sleazy.
That's not entirely correct. There are 2 different forms of HHV6. HHV6B is present in almost 100% of the population[1] (but not quite 100%). HHV6A is less frequent in Japan, North America, and Europe. It can also cause problems for infants when they first acquire it. From the same link:
>HHV-6 primary infections account for up to 20% of infant emergency room visits for fever in the United States
The test can be used to assess viral load, which may indicate other issues, I'm told. (I'm not a doctor, though.) If you have a very high viral load of HHV6, it may indicate something else is going on. However, that doesn't mean it was necessary in this patient's case. But the test exists for legitimate reasons.
