[fg_admin]

SOURCE:  https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3534j/libraries-and-archivists-are-scanning-and-uploading-books-that-are-secretly-in-the-public-domain

____________

Libraries and Archivists Are Scanning and Uploading Books That Are Secretly in the Public Domain

http://www.vice.com

3 mins read

Image: Bibica via Getty Images

A coalition of archivists, activists, and libraries are working overtime to make it easier to identify the many books that are secretly in the public domain, digitize them, and make them freely available online to everyone. The people behind the effort are now hoping to upload these books to the Internet Archive, one of the largest digital archives on the internet.

As it currently stands, all books published in the U.S. before 1924 are in the public domain, meaning they’re publicly owned and can be freely used and copied. Books published in 1964 and after are still in copyright, and by law will be for 95 years from their publication date.

But a copyright loophole means that up to 75 percent of books published between 1923 to 1964 are secretly in the public domain, meaning they are free to read and copy. The problem is determining which books these are, due to archaic copyright registration systems and convoluted and shifting copyright law.

As such, a coalition of libraries, volunteers, and archivists have been working overtime to identify which titles are in the public domain, digitize them, then upload them to the internet. At the heart of the effort has been the New York Public Library, which recently documented why the entire process is important, but a bit of a pain.

Back in the 1970s, the Library of Congress operated a Catalog of Copyright Entries (CCE) indicating which books had renewed copyright. Digital copies of these notices can be found in the Internet Archive and at over at Stanford University.

Historically, it’s been fairly easy to tell whether a book published between 1923 and 1964 had its copyright renewed, because the renewal records were already digitized. But proving that a book hadn’t had its copyright renewed has historically been more difficult, New York Public Library Senior Product Manager Sean Redmond said.

“Part of the difficulty is that you’re proving a negative—that it’s copyright wasn’t renewed—so you’re looking for the lack of a record,” Redmond told Motherboard. “There was no way to make lists of public domain candidates.”

So as part of a massive undertaking, the NYPL recently converted many of these records to XML format, making it significantly easier to automate the process of determining which books might be candidates for being added to the public domain, the first step in ultimately making sure they’re freely available online.

“It’s like a shoe store going from estimating shoe sales from returns and exchanges only, to having the actual sales receipts,” Redmond said. “The public domain exists, it’s just been hard to see and this project is about shining a light on it.”

Leonard Richardson, a software developer and science fiction author whose Python matching scripts are helping expedite the process, tells Motherboard that the hard work is only just beginning.

“It’s now easy to make a list of books whose registration wasn’t renewed, but that list just makes a big to-do list for someone else,” Richardson said. “The next bit is going to be slow. For any given book, we need to convince someone who has a scan of the book that they’re allowed to make it public.”

Richardson notes that much of that heavy lifting is being done by volunteers at organizations like Project Gutenberg, a nonprofit effort to digitize and archive cultural works. These volunteers are tasked with locating a copy of the book in question, scanning it, proofing it, then putting out HTML and plain-text editions.

Gutenberg has been engaged in this process for years, though it tends to work on one book at a time. Other organizations, like the Hathi Trust Research Center, didn’t bother, because there was no way of uploading public domain works at any real scale until folks like Richardson and Redmond began streamlining and automating the process accurately.

“We need to convince Hathi and the Internet Archive that this is worth their time—that if we give them a list of 10,000 books, they won’t find 1,000 errors during the verification process,” Richardson said.

For the volunteers working on this project, the biggest development in recent weeks has been the announcement that Jason Scott of the Internet Archive will also be lending a hand in getting these public domain works online. Scott recently put out a call for volunteers on Twitter. Libraries around the country are scanning these books and uploading them to the archive.

Richardson says he’s written a matching script to point out which books in the Internet Archive collection seem like they weren’t renewed, but added that actually clearing them is also going to take significant, manual work. But it’s work, he says, that will have a much broader and lasting impact than just making millions of historical works available online for free.

“The public domain is incredibly important to the preservation of culture and to the creation of new culture,” he said.

Good Monday. I'm helping with a very boring, VERY BORING (did I mention boring) plan to use @leonardr's work at the NYPL to determine which books are actually in the public domain to either surface them on @internetarchive or help make a hitlist.

— Jason Scott (@textfiles) August 19, 2019

[fg_admin]

See also:
https://nikeinsights.famguardian.org/forums/topic/doublespeak-the-skill-of-deceit/

[fg_admin]

SOURCE: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-called-court-packing-a-bonehead-idea-during-1983-hearing

____________

Biden called court packing a ‘bonehead idea’ during 1983 hearing

http://www.foxnews.com

1 min read

2020 Democrats float the idea of expanding the Supreme Court

The Constitution does not establish a set number of justices — that’s up to Congress; Shannon Bream, Fox News chief legal correspondent and anchor of ‘Fox News @ Night,’ examines an issue that has lingered on the political rim for decades before suddenly becoming a hot campaign topic.

Former vice president Joe Biden slammed the “bonehead idea” of packing the Supreme Court during a 1983 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, saying the last attempt put into question the independence of the Court for a decade.

The remark didn’t come during a hearing for a judge, but rather during debate over whether to allow President Ronald Reagan to replace members of the Commission on Civil Rights. Biden opposed the nominated commissioners not because he viewed them as unqualified, but because he thought Reagan’s takeover of the commission would damage its legitimacy.

He compared it to Roosevelt’s court-packing push, which he called a “terrible, terrible mistake.”

“President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the Court,” Biden said during the hearing. “It was totally within his right to do that—he violated no law, he was legalistically absolutely correct.”

“But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make, and it put in question, for an entire decade, the independence of the most significant body—including the Congress in my view—the most significant body in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.”

[fg_admin]

SOURCE: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/13-states-file-lawsuit-over-trump-public-charge-rule/ar-AAFOkAw?ocid=spartanntp

_______________________

13 states file lawsuit over Trump ‘public charge’ rule

http://www.msn.com

2 mins read

Thirteen states led by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson (D) filed a lawsuit Wednesday over the Trump administration’s new “public charge” rule.

© The Hill 13 states file lawsuit over Trump ‘public charge’ rule The states are suing the Department of Homeland Security over the new rule that expands the government’s ability to deny entry or green cards for legal immigrants based on their use of public services like food stamps and Medicaid. The rule, announced Monday, is set to go into effect on Oct. 15.

Wednesday’s lawsuit, co-led by Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, is the first to be filed by states against the rule and the second overall challenge since the government rolled out the rule. The other attorneys general filing suit include those from Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and Rhode Island.

Representatives for Santa Clara County and San Francisco filed a suit on Tuesday seeking a temporary injunction in the District Court for the Northern District of California.

Ferguson said the rule is unlawful as it changes the “longstanding meaning” of the term “public charge,” arguing that it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.

“The rule is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion because-among other reasons-it reverses a decades-old, consistent policy without reasoned analysis,” Ferguson wrote in the 169-page complaint.

The lawsuit also has the support of Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat hoping to take on Trump for the presidency in 2020.

“Washington will always be a state that stands with immigrants and no action by the Trump administration, either through deeds or words, can change that,” Inslee said in a release announcing the lawsuit.

“I fully support this action by the Attorney General to stand against the devastating impacts of this xenophobic policy.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) said Monday that her office would sue over the rule.

“The Trump Administration’s message is clear: if you’re wealthy you’re welcome, if you’re poor, you’re not,” Ferguson said in a statement.

“It forces families into an impossible choice – to sacrifice their dream of becoming Americans in order to provide health care, food or a roof over their children’s heads, or let their families go without in order to remain in the country. This rule is un-American, anti-immigrant and unlawful. I intend to stop it.”

The law was previewed in September and received more than 200,000 public comments online, many which were critical.

Ferguson, Inslee and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan sent a letter criticizing the then-proposed rule in December 2018.

The Trump administration has defended the rule change as a way to promote “the ideals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.” Trump has sought several means of curtailing illegal and legal immigration during his presidency – the majority of those efforts have been met with legal challenges.

[fg_admin]

See the lead post.  It has links to all known rebuttals to the original document.

We also searched for that document on their site in the search engine, and it doesn’t appear.  So they are hiding it, probably because its so obviously WRONG, misleading, and possibly even fraudulent.

[fg_admin]

This is covered in:

Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 6.2
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

The above is mandatory reading for all users of this website.  You may also download it on the opening page of the site under “START HERE” in big letters:

http://sedm.org

[fg_admin]

We don’t know.  But see:

https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ray-reynolds-and-associates/huntinton-beach-california-92647/ray-reynolds-associates-dana-ray-reynolds-ray-reynolds-huntinton-beach-california-587598

[fg_admin]

Dear sir,

We don’t advise or assist in the preparation of tax returns, and form 709 is such a tax return.  That form is only for statutory “taxpayers”, who can’t use our materials or services.   The only people who can use this site are nontaxpayers.

This is covered in our Disclaimer:

https://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htm

[fg_admin]

Russia demands access to VPN providers’ servers

10 VPN service providers have been ordered to link their servers in Russia to the state censorship agency by April 26

SOURCE: https://www.networkworld.com/article/3385050/russia-demands-access-to-vpn-providers-servers.html

[fg_admin]

Thanks for that helpful feedback.

The link to the new source you identified for the Statutes At Large has been added to:

Precedence of Law
Legal Research Sources

Glad you are blessed by our site.

[fg_admin]

Those articles that you linked to come from:

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/

They are over 10 years old and a product of patriot mythology.  They were the starting point for our study on the Fourteenth Amendment, but they aren’t consistent with what we currently believe in regards to the Fourteenth Amendment.  They probably deserve to be edited to reflect new knowledge, but then we would be censoring the original source, which we also don’t like doing.  Hence, they stand.  Perhaps we could add an editor’s not about the inconsistencies we no longer agree with.

If you could itemize the things that are inconsistent with SEDM, we will add an editor’s note pointing out that we disagree with these things.  We take the SEDM position entirely on this site and it supercedes anything else found on this site.

Your comments are only useful if they itemize the errors and inconsistencies and point out what they SHOULD be instead.

Nevertheless, thanks for helping us improve the content of this site by eliminating any inconsistencies.

 

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL:  See also the following.  This guy points to our article on the Effect of Brushaber:

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/CourtCases/BrushaberVUnionPacRR240US1.htm

_____________________

Citizen of New York described as Nonresident Alien

https://www.educatedinlaw.org/2018/12/citizen-of-new-york-described-as-nonresident-alien/

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL:  See also the following on birth certificates.  We don’t like this presentation because he provides no evidence to base any of his beliefs on and would be laughed out of court if he tried to prove his beliefs with evidence.

The entire presentation is nothing but a big presumption, which makes him just as frivolous as most of the government.

___________________

BIRTHING-CERTIFICATES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F7IjcOlIew

[fg_admin]

For further detail on this subject, see:

1.  Citizenship Status v. Tax Status
   https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm
2.  Why the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT a Threat to Your Freedom, Form #08.015, pp. 40-46
3.  Tucker Carlson Tonight 20181030 Birthright Citizenship Debate, SEDM Exhibit #01.019 (OFFSITE LINK) -Fox News
4.  The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship, SEDM Exhibit #01.020 (OFFSITE LINK) -Stefan Molyneux
5.  The Case Against Birthright Citizenship, SEDM Exhibit #01.021 (OFFSITE LINK) -Heritage Foundation
6.  Does the Fourteenth Amendment Require Birthright Citizenship? (OFFSITE LINK) -Heritage Foundation
7. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Citizenship, Heritage Foundation
8. Family Guardian Forum 6.1.1: Meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment
9.  Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Sections  4.9.2 and 5.4.8.11.8
10.  Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Form #08.004, Section 4.2.5
11.  Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001, Section 13.11.8
12.  Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006, Section 2.3
13.  Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002, Section 11.8
14.  Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 7.2.5
15.  Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 12.3.5
16.  Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046, Section 8.6.5

[fg_admin]

WHY THE INTERPRETATION IS FALSE IR AT LEAST MISLEADING:

1.  The above definition is inconsistent with the current interpretation of modern leftists and liberals of of the word “democracy”
2. The words “privilege” and “right” are NOT synonymous.  The INTERPRETATION is incorrect because it assumes that they are the same.
3. Correctly read, democracy is the PRIVILEGE of a man to combine his exertions with his fellow creatures.  The reason it is a PRIVILEGE rather than a RIGHT is because a PRIVILEGE can never be superior to a RIGHT of ONE MAN to be let alone by any combination of other men combining their exertions over his fellow man.
4. The COLLECTIVE which is created by democratic associative PRIVILEGE does NOT trump an INDIVIDUAL right.
5. The PURPOSE of distinguishing it as a PRIVILEGE is to ensure that its exercise is regulated by the government it implements so as to be consistent with the constitutional prohibitions against the impairment of individual rights.
6. The phrase “No legislator can attack it without impairing the foundations of society.” therefore appears to be almost as inalienable as the right as personal liberty.  The fact that no legislation can attack a party, but that group cannot abuse its privilege to attack individual rights.
7. This defines the limitations upon legislation.  Regulation is a protection of those who DO NOT participate.  Those who participate have consented and therefore cannot claim an injury.
8. Legislator has a right to regulate in a positive way rather than a prohibitive way.  Seat belts and traffic signs and following them is positive.  It only becomes penalizing when someone is injured.
9. Common law applies to everyone.  Administrative law or statutes only applies to those who consensually participate.
10. An attack is a prohibition not a positive command.
11. A right is exercised always by an individual.  A privilege is when the right of association of another is voluntarily aligned with yours.  It says “combining his exertions of those with his fellow creatures”.  That act has to be voluntary, and therefore it is NOT a right, but an act of contract and consent and privilege.
12. The creator of a privilege is the only one who can regulate it.
13. The ONLY real “RIGHT” you have is to act for yourself.  When you exercise privileges, then and only then can the privilege be taken away.
14. Dating is a natural privilege.
15. “Attack” is an initiation of force of violence.  Regulate is not an attack.  A legislator can only regulate a privilege and retaliate against infringement or trespass on the privilege.  They cannot attack someone for not exercising a privilege.  They can only regulate the EXERCISE of those consensually engaging in the privilege.