Library of Congress Threatens Washington Watch Wiki 125
BackRow writes "Washington Watch, a site devoted to tracking the cost of federal legislation, has raised the hackles of the Library of Congress with a new wiki that makes an unfavorable comparison to the LOC's THOMAS legislative search engine. After Jim Harper, Washington Watch's creator and the director of information policy at the Cato Institute, announced the wiki, he received a nastygram from the LOC." Quoting: "After the announcement, he was contacted by Matt Raymond, the Director of Communications at the Library (and the author of the Library of Congress' blog). Raymond said that he possessed 'statutory and regulatory authority governing unauthorized use of the Library's name and logo and those of Library subunits and programs,' and he asked that Harper stop using the names 'Library of Congress' and 'THOMAS' in his marketing materials."
Obvious Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That would make a great T-shirt! (tm)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"I contacted Raymond about the issue, and he tells Ars that he was acting under Library of Congress Regulation 112, which says that "the use of the Library's name, explicitly or implicitly to endorse a product or service, or materials in any publication is prohibited, except as provided for in this Regulation." For Raymond, the issue here is that Harper was critical of the Library's own work in a way which endorsed his own; as Raymond puts it, "the use of THOMAS in the Washington Watch pr
Re: (Score:1)
In my opinion... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Finally it makes sense...
Cato Institute? Eh, whatever. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not if you believe that rights only belong to people who happen to agree with you.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
He didn't say you had to leave. But he's got just as much right to fight your wrongheaded bullshit as you have to spew it.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You have the right to try. You may or may not succeed.
"Love it or leave it" is just more facist crap. Stop trying to strip me of my constitutional rights.
I didn't realize I was doing that. I didn't write this
Love it or leave it. (Score:2, Offtopic)
2. He may not be free to leave it. Some countries do not allow you to leave without authorization, and most do not let you enter and settle down without authorization.
3. Leaving nation by nation for the corporatocracy to overrun will result in a domino effect. "When they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me..." and all that stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
If you leave all of the nations that have problems you can't fix, you will very quickly get tired of swimming.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?
Of course. Why else did you bring that Cato report to the restroom if you weren't going to take a nice dump and wipe your ass with it?
Cato Publications (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously, you're not going to agree with everything we publish, but you'd be hard-pressed to find another think tank that's done as much work on the issues near and dear to the hearts of Slashdotters.
Re: (Score:2)
Well we don't want the government silencing someone even if we don't agree with them.
That said, the implementation of this website is deeply flawed and simply dishonest.
They estimate the cost of spending to the "average family" or "family of 3" basically working from the premise that a flat (non-progressive) tax is the only legitimate tax. Not only do they not argue for this assumpti
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
If Nothing Else, Princpled. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You can accuse Cato of a lot of things... lacking principles and being anyone's lap dog is roughly the last.
Being principled means two things - being consistent in the causes you advocate for and being consistent in the causes you do not advocate. Cato is pretty consistent in the first case, but the causes they choose to advocate for seem to be driven by their sponsors, perhaps leaving behind other causes that are not so beneficial for their sponsors, but may be more idealogically important to their principles.
Sure, the line has to be drawn somewhere, resources are not infinite. But that doesn't mean the line
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So when I find some organization that believes in much of the same stuff I do and I then donate or do
Re: (Score:2)
It does when your funding is directed at a specific project in that organization. It means you expect the results of that specific project to be particularlly beneficial to you specifically. Especially if that specific project would not have been undertaken without your funding.
Whenever I see someone discount so
Re: (Score:2)
So all these studies supported by democrats and such claiming global warming and such re fake then. Of course Koyoto had been hijacked by a bunch of rejected policies that the liberals supported. Thanks for giving us the go ahead s
Re: (Score:2)
And no, That wasn't a strawman. It is a direct transliteration of your statement. I did what you said was entirely appropriate.
Lol, if you say so. Personally I can't figure out what fuck all yer democratic paranoia fantasies have to do with LOC and THOMAS.
I can check the facts and truth about what is being said to verify the accuracy of any statements regardless of who is funding who.
Yeah, good luck with that. Let me know as soon as you get a hold of the raw data behind one of these 'studies.'
Re: (Score:2)
I know it is hard to follow the progression of a conversation. all you have to do is hit the parent button a few times.
The story submission and the article pointed to a guy who was the creator of this wikki that the library of congress is having an issue with is also the Director of information policy at the Cato Institute. Someone posted about not giving a shit after that. Another person said he t
Re: (Score:2)
Then you enter with the with a challenge on Cato's integrity because they received funding from groups you don't agree with.
I think you need to hit the parent button a few times yourself. Either that or work on your reading comp. Name one group I mentioned as providing funding to Cato that I disagree with, or even agree with for that matter.
The raw data will be used in other studies. It isn't like they are creating a set of numbers specifically for the purpose of making something up. Unless it is an opinion or conclusion in the study, everything should be verifiable in other places.
You make me laugh. Really. Obviously you have never tried to run down the raw data from a cato report or any other "think tank" - you'll be lucky if you can even get complete citations for the data, much less access to it.
I think maybe your picking the option of ignoring things because of the funder so you can be intellectually lazy.
You keep repeating that strawman, do you love it so much you too
Re: (Score:2)
So the stickling point is that you didn't name a group funding Cato that you disagree with. It is clear you made the inference that disregarding something because of the people who funded it is appropriate, I cannot fathom why you would disregard that source if you didn't agree with it. Pl
Re: (Score:2)
It is clear you made the inference that disregarding something because of the people who funded it is appropriate,
Damn! How MANY times do I have tell you to fucking QUIT IT with that strawman? I NEVER said that, it's only your single-minded desire to joust with windmills. What I said over and over again in many different forms is it is apropriate to question the vermisilitude of a report based on its funding.
You seem to be lacking skill on some area.
I'm not sure exactly were but the data can be found.
Bada Bing! Bada Bum!
You keep right on talking out of your ass there. When you ARE sure where the data can be found, then you get back to me. Otherwise, STFU already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever. (Score:5, Informative)
It would be worth a lot more if you cited some examples and/or sources. I know very little about Cato, so I have no reason to give their studies more or less weight than others. But your post, which is currently modded 5 Insightful, gives me no information on why I should distrust their information.
Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also interesting that you don't cite any "false information." Are we supposed to just take your word for it that a lot of what we put out is false?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For those who need help following the conversation.
"because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders."
= Because some of there sources are tainted they have lost credibility.
"know which industry sources funded my"
Here is some non tainted information so not everything is tainted so you're wrong. (with an implicit argument that the parent said everything
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, while 2% of Cato's funding is directly from corporate sources 83% of their income is from "Individuals" who may or may not have close ties to industry. Now, I don't know how closely associated what Cato's publishes with how it's funded but there seems to be a significant "Conservative" bias.
As I am at work I don't really have time to go into a lot of details but I will use a sp
Re: (Score:2)
Well sure. Most non-profits are supported by relatively rich people, and most rich people got that way from industry. So in some sense, every non-profit has "industry ties." I can tell you that no one at Cato has
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, HSA's are socialized medicine.
With HSA's someone making 100k/year could spend 1k
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't really want to get into an argument over health care, which I don't know very much about. It sounds to me like you have some policy disagreements with our health care scholars. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Cato is staffed and funded by libertarians, so I guess it's true that we're "biased" in a libertarian direction. But that's rather different from saying that we "have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders," which was the comment I was originally responding to.
There is nothing about libertarian ideas that prevents th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really want to get into an argument over health care, which I don't know very much about. It sounds to me like you have some policy disagreements with our health care scholars. That's rather different from them telling "bold faced lies."
Retric made the mistake of spurious elaboration. He should have left his response at, "At the end of the year with HSA's the government will give that person ~300$." That's not a policy disagreement, that's a clearcut point that HSA's are socialized when the Cato report takes it as a given that they are not.
It would be interesting to find out where the money came from for the specific work that produced those findings wrt HSAs. Did it come out of a general fund, or did it only nominally come from a gene
Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironic, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now talking about the repository of information for the United States is forbidden?!?!!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ironic, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
"WashingtonWatch.com provides a more user-friendly and interactive way for the public to learn about legislation than the Library of Congress' THOMAS site. It's all about government transparency."
Sorry, but its still legal to say that Nike provides a better running experience than Reebok (assuming its true).
The Library has no trademark ground to stand on, BUT they have extra Federal Statute protecting their name. When did it stop becoming a government "of the people"??
Re: (Score:2)
About 1779?
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere between career politicians and the two-party system.
Re: (Score:2)
The WashingtonWatch site does not purport to be "official". It refers to the Library of Congress site only by way of comparison. Here's a hint: when you compare A with B, that implies that A and B are different. Such comparison is not a "use of the trademark for endorsement". They don't even need a court ruling on this. This is well settled law. So long as there are no false claims of fact, Toyota is free to advertise that their vehicles are better than Ford's. Mentioning the competitor's trademark in this
Re: (Score:2)
Matt Raymond, the LOC Communications Director who made the complaint, is not a lawyer and therefore probably has no understanding of trademark law. According tot the bio [loc.gov] on his blog, he has a background in journalism, with most of his career in "communication"/public relations.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't find it at all ironic that a government institution is striving to control any possible information that it can about itself. Especially that it will threaten the use of force in order to do so.
The LOC is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
If he had said, "The LOC, and their THOMAS service, fully back the use of Washington Watch." that is misuse of trademark in the context of an endorsement.
To say a service is like another service only better, fully protected.
IANAL/JM2c.
Re: (Score:2)
"Trademark dilution" lets owner of a "famous" mark stop any use that blurs or tarnishes its distinctiveness -- even if there is no chance that consumers will be confused. Because the concept of dilution has such potentially broad reach, there are specific defenses in the federal Lanham Act that are applicable to claims of dilution. "All forms of news reporting and news commentary" are exempted, as are comparative advertising, and "noncommercial use".
Re: (Score:1)
the more you know?
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, although I think the Lanham Act would still let you get away with it in the context of comparative advertising; even if you can't, it's not germane to this conflict anyway -- Cato wasn't using the LoC logo or emblem, they were just using the names in otherwise-generic text.
I think this guy at the LoC is in over his head; he should have called Legal before he hauled off and started sending out nast
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Er, just exactly how does this image conflict with reality?
Re: (Score:1)
Not unless the LOC can provide evidence of a long history of concerted protection of said 'trademark.' IOW an entity can't just up and say 'it's now a registered trademark' if they haven't protected it in the past.
LOC Needs Thicker Skin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
You need to learn to read English. (Score:2)
What's the real reason for the nastygram? (Score:5, Interesting)
I want a letter! (Score:1)
...waits for his letter.....
On a more serious note, I don't think marketing materials are covered under fair use, are they?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case I think you're right about the way he used it but I don't think it's a blanket law that allows the use of govt resour
Re: (Score:2)
'I contacted Raymond about the issue, and he tells Ars that he was acting under Library of Congress Regulation 112, which says that "the use of the Library's name, explicitly or implicitly to endorse a product or service, or materials in any publication is prohibited, except as provided for in this Regulation."'
Reading the rest of the article explains that this guy is claiming that a comparison WAS an endorsement. This regulation is intended to assure that nobody can fraudulently claim the LOC endo
What's in a name... (Score:2)
I pay may taxes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Where do you think you are, Soviet Russia?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
conception of an MTA map and you would be well within your rights. Now, whether or
not state and municipal agencies *ought* to restrict access and reuse of goods
produced in the public interest is another matter.
Re: (Score:1)
you misunderstand (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe you have that backwards unfortunately. Anything that can be construed as a financial instrument is subject to seizure under the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The laws are already there on the books to take all your stuff, as was done with gold in 1933.
Or in slash-speak: a beowulf cluster of laws own all
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
False. On a scale of 1 to 10, what is not my middle name.
Re: (Score:1)
You pick the time.
It's hell... (Score:4, Insightful)
And so much easier to send a C&D than to actually compete.
Remember The Onion Presedintial Seal Fiasco (Score:2)
LOC maybe, THOMAS, no (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This regulation may restrict the use of the term "Library of Commerce", but it doesn't appear to limit the use of such terms as "THOMAS".
Agreed. For the record, it appears that LOC regulation 11 is codified as 36CFR701.35, and appears to be receivable via this URI: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20061 500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/julqtr/36cfr70 1.5.htm [akamaitech.net]
Your humble servant... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The LOC statute is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is plainly about freedom of political speech, a right enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Harper's use of the site, even his comparison of his search engine against THOMAS, is aimed at promoting his personal political agenda, both for his site and including his comparison.
Congress did not repeal the First Amendment.
For once, somebody has a beef with some meat on it. This is where you hire the attorney to reply with a nastygram.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Excuse me?! This is the Cato Institute we're talking about. You know, the think tank for hire, that will act as an 'indepedent source' to criticise any regulation you want as long as you pay enough.
This is bloody well a commercial outfit drumming up publicity to get more customers, and the teenage libertarians on Slashdot are falling for it in droves.
Sheesh.
Mart
Exclusive Owernship? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
in jest (Score:2)
What's next ? Furlongs and gallons ?
which wiki engine? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us - how do YOU account for the costs of government then??
Re: (Score:2)
"Ad hominems" are (as the name implies) about attacking people, not issues or movements. I'm criticizing a movement, libertarianism, as being prone to populist rhetoric and oversimplification.
Tell us - how do YOU account for the costs of government then??
Carefully, on a case-by-case basis, and without trying to reduce cost/benefit analyses to simple arithmetic exercises.
Re: (Score:2)
"Carefully". That's helpful. And when there is no information available online for the general public to get any kind of information about the costs of particular legislation, and an organization comes along to help provide those costs in an easy to use, transparent manner, that is somehow "oversimplification" in your eyes? Also helpful.
Case-by-base is a ridiculous answer given the sheer volume of legislation that comes along. There is no way a single person can possibly judge costs for every pie
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of organizations that provide this information, organizations with a long track record of neutrality and non-partisanship. Furthermore, the data itself is freely available from the government.
You're attempting to dismiss the entire exercise based on the political philosophy of those putting it out there.
Of course, I do. People presenting informat