|
baquerd posted:Qapla'? Discendo Vox posted:I'd rule that Paramount is in the right based on the sourcing of that article alone. While I would normally agree with that statement, I don't think the argument for a constructed language as a copyrighted work is a particularly good one. A dictionary or grammar book, yes, but not the language itself.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Kalman posted:While I would normally agree with that statement, I don't think the argument for a constructed language as a copyrighted work is a particularly good one. A dictionary or grammar book, yes, but not the language itself. Yeah, my flippancy aside (did you see the root on the article was TorrentFreak?!), the Klingon argument's the weakest part of Paramount's case- which is why all of these anti-IP sites are focusing on it. The rest of the case(the fan-film maker defendants made open use of basically everything in Star Trek) is pretty obviously Paramount's to win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
ulmont posted:There's a good argument that a language is, at its core, either an "idea or a system" (as defendants argue, by analogy to the bookkeeping system of Baker v. Selden). The language--or rather the part that aren't ad-hoc fan-made pseudo-canon--was explicitly created for continuity, so poo poo klingon characters said would be consistent. Conveying information is ancillary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
It's actually much simpler than that. You can't copyright a language because it must be fixed in a tangible medium. A language is just a series of rules, that cannot be copyrighted. Particular lines from a book or TV show would be copyrightable but not the language itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Bobatron posted:It's actually much simpler than that. You can't copyright a language because it must be fixed in a tangible medium. A language is just a series of rules, that cannot be copyrighted. Particular lines from a book or TV show would be copyrightable but not the language itself. Further to that I can't think of any instrument national or international that would allow for this to be enforced as an intellectual property. It's kind of Sui generis concept, and I have a strong feeling courts would recognize that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
Would appreciate some advice on this as this has been something at the back of my mind for the past year and a half. If this needs to be in another thread (like the career mega thread) would appreciate being pointed there instead but here it goes. Is it legal for a job to require getting IT certifications to maintain a job position if the study time is to be done outside of business hours, unpaid but can result in termination if you fail to get a certification? I saw some stuff under 29 CFR 785.28 sections but that reports to "training" and certifications are a grey area that is not explicitly covered that I saw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Malek posted:Would appreciate some advice on this as this has been something at the back of my mind for the past year and a half. If this needs to be in another thread (like the career mega thread) would appreciate being pointed there instead but here it goes. The first google hit on your question indicates 'probably legal' under federal law. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=Is+it+legal+for+a+job+to+require+getting+IT+certifications+to+maintain+a+job+position+
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Malek posted:Would appreciate some advice on this as this has been something at the back of my mind for the past year and a half. If this needs to be in another thread (like the career mega thread) would appreciate being pointed there instead but here it goes. IANAL but as I understand, IT type positions are almost always overtime exempt. Given that fact, whether the employer tells you to do it outside of 9-5 may not matter, they aren't denying it is involuntary and they can state "sure it counts as working hours, but you don't get paid additionally for hours over 40." If you're salaried and OT exempt then telling you to get it done outside of your 9-5 isn't likely violating anything. As far as termination, you can be fired for something like that. The U.S. laws are generally that unless you are a protected class (fired for sex, sexual preference, race, religion, age, medical condition and some others) then you can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all. If your aren't salaried or non-exempt, then your employer might have an issue, but it still won't prevent them from firing you. It just means that you'd likely have a case in civil court, and they could face govt. regulatory/disciplinary fines etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:IANAL but as I understand, IT type positions are almost always overtime exempt. Given that fact, whether the employer tells you to do it outside of 9-5 may not matter, they aren't denying it is involuntary and they can state "sure it counts as working hours, but you don't get paid additionally for hours over 40." If you're salaried and OT exempt then telling you to get it done outside of your 9-5 isn't likely violating anything. As far as termination, you can be fired for something like that. The U.S. laws are generally that unless you are a protected class (fired for sex, sexual preference, race, religion, age, medical condition and some others) then you can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all. If your aren't salaried or non-exempt, then your employer might have an issue, but it still won't prevent them from firing you. It just means that you'd likely have a case in civil court, and they could face govt. regulatory/disciplinary fines etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:This is not true outside of dev/management http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/fs17e_computer.htm I'd wager almost every IT job is categorized under this. I just got a promotion from a phone support field (non-exempt) to a position where I'll be doing support for some customer facing systems and some employee systems, which is basically an IT position. My title is Network and Systems Analyst. I was curious exactly what the DoL meant by quote:The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications so I googled it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_analysis quote:Information technology IT work, at least part of it, falls solidy under that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Malek posted:Is it legal for a job to require getting IT certifications to maintain a job position if the study time is to be done outside of business hours, unpaid but can result in termination if you fail to get a certification? I saw some stuff under 29 CFR 785.28 sections but that reports to "training" and certifications are a grey area that is not explicitly covered that I saw. If you're really unhappy, get the cert, don't fail, and use it to find a better-paying job with a new employer. It's the IT way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The first google hit on your question indicates 'probably legal' under federal law. Thanks, I somehow missed this link, everything I got was how to get certified for a law practice which was very far away from the question I asked. fordan posted:If you're really unhappy, get the cert, don't fail, and use it to find a better-paying job with a new employer. It's the IT way. I'm not so much as unhappy as genuinely curious about this. And I'm hourly with a scheduled set shift with the overtime rule for "being with a customer that started from within the shift." (EDIT) Also, given those definitions, I guess "Support" doesn't fall under "IT". (The quotes for emphasis, not sarcasm. Seriously, am appreciating the feedback.) (EDIT 2) Also Support does fall under that per the definition of System Analyst in, really, last sentence only. But eh... Mr. Wookums posted:This is not true outside of dev/management Accurate for support. Granted they also have us put "engineer" as part of our job title. Wonder how that ties in. Malek fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
i'm currently in an administrative role and non-exempt. Support/Janators/NOC jobs would also fall under that umbrella. My previous company was sued and lost because they tried to label the support staff as non-exempt. An analyst as was quoted generally works with developers, vendors, occasionally users and management in the process of upgrading or designing systems and is not user facing so they're exempt. Malek posted:And I'm hourly with a scheduled set shift with the overtime rule for "being with a customer that started from within the shift." /e- For some reason I though this was the corporate thread... IANAL for disclosure Submarine Sandpaper fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:IANAL but as I understand, IT type positions are almost always overtime exempt. I'm legally exempt and have been able to tell people to go pound sand for trying that poo poo without any trouble for years now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
I'm in Ontario Canada. I've separated with agreement two children shared and this is regarding special expenses (70/30), my ex basically picks and chooses special expenses she wishes to contribute to. For example she doesn't work summers and arbitrarily wants to remove my son from daycare. Of course I still need the daycare because I work and now have to pay daycare for my older son. Does she still need to contribute? There is very little information online about this situation and figured I'd ask here before spending 400 on a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Spend $400 on a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
I plan to, but as a person with limited funds I'm just looking for a reality check. As in, "No she can't pick and choose the defined special expenses, but it's not worth persuing it until it adds up" or "Yeah, she can totally do whatever she wants with no repercussions".
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
I think what blarzgh meant to say is "a lawyer can answer this very particular and possibly technically complicated question far better than an internet forum."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I think what blarzgh meant to say is "a lawyer can answer this very particular and possibly technically complicated question far better than an internet forum." Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:i'm currently in an administrative role and non-exempt. Support/Janators/NOC jobs would also fall under that umbrella. My previous company was sued and lost because they tried to label the support staff as non-exempt. Just found this: https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/us-dol-further-defines-what-constitutes-compensable-training-time
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
I'm about to pick up the legal expenses for someone on the receiving end of a workplace-related situation at a federal agency in a flyover state -- basically paying a lawyer to prod a bureaucracy into action. Mentally I figured this is going to cost me a couple grand, maybe low five figures. Given the limited information I've provided, does this cost sound at all in line with reality?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I'm about to pick up the legal expenses for someone on the receiving end of a workplace-related situation at a federal agency in a flyover state -- basically paying a lawyer to prod a bureaucracy into action. Mentally I figured this is going to cost me a couple grand, maybe low five figures. Given the limited information I've provided, does this cost sound at all in line with reality? For a non-lawsuit situation, where he's just communicating with the EEOC(or whoever)? I would think $5,000.00 is the high side, unless you're paying BigLaw prices. If there ends up being an OALJ hearing, but even then I would think $5K would get you through that. Here in Texas (lower stakes, simpler facts probably), I took a termination issue to the OALJ trying to establish cause for termination on behalf of the employer. I had to meet with several members of the staff, review a handful of emails and files and prep my teleconference witness, then actually do the hearing. We got to out of there for less than $3,000. Edit: Be advised; I know nothing of your facts or claims, so this is the absolute roughest idea of an estimate possible. The best way to get a better estimate is to set up a consult with another local lawyer in town, and discuss costs with them. It would be kind of lovely to do that, hiding the fact that you were never going to retain them, so be up front about it. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Apr 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I'm about to pick up the legal expenses for someone on the receiving end of a workplace-related situation at a federal agency in a flyover state -- basically paying a lawyer to prod a bureaucracy into action. Mentally I figured this is going to cost me a couple grand, maybe low five figures. Given the limited information I've provided, does this cost sound at all in line with reality? It's about right, but make sure you have an exit strategy. That first chunk of cash might reveal that the other side wants to fight, that the EEOC lawyer is a dick, that your "someone" is unreasonable/lying, etc. Any of these things can rapidly push legal bills into the mid 5 figures with more bills on the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
If I request an auto insurance quote online and forget to disclose an at-fault accident I was in, would that negatively impact my credit score? The company got back to me with a premium that was $250 higher than my initial online quote because I completely forgot to tell them I hit a fence a couple years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:It's about right, but make sure you have an exit strategy. That first chunk of cash might reveal that the other side wants to fight, that the EEOC lawyer is a dick, that your "someone" is unreasonable/lying, etc. Any of these things can rapidly push legal bills into the mid 5 figures with more bills on the way. listen to this guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:For a non-lawsuit situation, where he's just communicating with the EEOC(or whoever)? I would think $5,000.00 is the high side, unless you're paying BigLaw prices. If there ends up being an OALJ hearing, but even then I would think $5K would get you through that. patentmagus posted:It's about right, but make sure you have an exit strategy. That first chunk of cash might reveal that the other side wants to fight, that the EEOC lawyer is a dick, that your "someone" is unreasonable/lying, etc. Any of these things can rapidly push legal bills into the mid 5 figures with more bills on the way. This is great, thanks. I have a conference call coming up to discuss. My plan is to make it clear that there is 1) a short-term objective and 2) a long-term goal. If I can achieve them both, great. Otherwise, triaging the immediate situation is my priority. With that in mind, I intend to try to get a sense of the number of hours I'm looking at and set an upper bound if it sounds like we're even close to that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Are there any English solicitors here? I'm in Canada and I need some suggestions on how to research things relating to my father's death (2006, London). First of all, I'm trying to figure out what happened to his ashes. I managed to find out which crematorium and speak to someone there; they told me the ashes were given to [estate executor] and [funeral director]. I called the funeral home and they confirmed that they'd handled his funeral, but that they didn't have the ashes and couldn't give me the name of their client. (Possibly the same person as the "executor" the crematorium named, but I'm not sure.) Where can I go from here? I'm trying to get records from the coroner's office, but no response yet. Secondly, what happens to an estate if there was no will or probate order and it isn't on the unclaimed estates list? He was not married, I am (AFAIK) his only child, and my aunt (his sister) doesn't know anything about it either. (Also it seems odd that the crematorium had an "executor" listed, but there was no grant of probate on file.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Carbon Thief posted:Are there any English solicitors here? I'm in Canada and I need some suggestions on how to research things relating to my father's death (2006, London). Assuming your dad got a public health funeral then his ashes would have been scattered at the crematorium Gardens of Remembrance. If that happened then the Public Authority would have recouped the cost from his estate. It's entirely possible that the estate wasn't enough to cover this and is entirely gone. For benefit of others, limitation on challenging a will in the UK is 12 years. Good luck finding out anything substantive after a decade though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's entirely possible that the estate wasn't enough to cover this and is entirely gone. This is what I figure is most likely. Out of curiosity, what happens to not-so-valuable parts of an estate? (Furniture, books, clothing) Are they just thrown out? Public auction? I would've liked to have some of his books/photos/etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
In the US its either donated, auctioned, or thrown away. Big reason why you can get so many books for a penny + 3.99 shipping on Amazon. Libraries often get new copies free whenever a new book gets published or are full so they only take the cream. And people specializing in estate sales like these snap em up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Yeah nobody put your dad's stuff into storage forever on the hope that someone might one day turn up for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Suppose a person owns some land/property outright and wants to "walk away" from the land without liability for it or what may happen on it. Specifically, that person does not want to sell the land to a third party, but simply wants to walk away and let the land go to its natural state. Suppose this is in the US, but any or no particular state need apply as this is an actual hypothetical. Is this possible? What happens to the land?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Default on your property taxes and it'll be seized, but that doesn't absolve you of liability up to that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
What on earth is "natural state"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What on earth is "natural state"? Most likely something that any jurisdiction that enforces the IPMC or similar would have issue with. Depending on where you are and whether there are any buildings or attractive nuisances present simply abandoning a property could be a complete poo poo show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Presuming the property isn't actively accruing liabilities but will never be sellable, it can probably be donated to the local government body.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Post on Craigslist that you're returning the land to its natural state and give the first person who claims it a quitclaim deed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Suppose a person owns some land/property outright and wants to "walk away" from the land without liability for it or what may happen on it. Specifically, that person does not want to sell the land to a third party, but simply wants to walk away and let the land go to its natural state. Suppose this is in the US, but any or no particular state need apply as this is an actual hypothetical. As others have answered it'd be seized for taxes and resold but the landholder who stopped paying his taxes would still be liable for them. The much better solution is to try to find anyone to take it over, sell it for $1 make them pay for a lawyer to do the paperwork to transfer it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What on earth is "natural state"? Whatever the state of land that hasn't been claimed by an individual is - presumably owned by state or national government? jassi007 posted:As others have answered it'd be seized for taxes and resold but the landholder who stopped paying his taxes would still be liable for them. The much better solution is to try to find anyone to take it over, sell it for $1 make them pay for a lawyer to do the paperwork to transfer it. There's no way to quit claim on it entirely? Owning land that's not for direct use or resale is literally a burden that cannot be discharged?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
joat mon posted:Post on Craigslist that you're returning the land to its natural state and give the first person who claims it a quitclaim deed. No individuals allowed, suppose that someone's gone hippy crazy and doesn't believe in individual ownership of land.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 03:37
|
|