Monday, February 1, 2010 3:15 pm | By Caitlin Blaney
Q: What is one thing both American and Australian farmers can agree on?
A: Strong property rights
In Salt Lake City, Utah, the Farm Bureau has dug its heels in to prevent the state judicial system from trampling all over their property rights. In the 2008 case Conatser v. Johnson, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that citizens engaging in recreational activities could enter a river or stream at a public access point and freely follow that stream through private property with no penalty.
In the 2009 legislative session, Rep. Ben Ferry introduced legislature which would more clearly define which rivers and streams were available to the public. His bill got shut down. Now, in 2010, State Rep. Lorie Fowlke introduced a bill which would further trample on the rights of private property owners through whose property these “recreational rivers” flow. Advocates of the bill call it a good “compromise”, but the Farm Bureau remains in firm opposition. Farm Bureau CEO Randy Parker insists that the 2008 Supreme Court ruling directly violates the constitutional clause which states, “Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation”. He argues that Utah already has many public access points for recreational use, and that private property owners should not have their land legislated out of their hands.
Click "Read More" to find out what's happening in the Eastern Hemisphere
Survey Says: Legal Downloading Not So Bad
Friday, January 29, 2010 2:51 pm | By Caitlin Blaney
The days of Limewire are coming to a close. The people have spoken – and they say that downloading music legally is not as bad as it used to be. A recent poll released by market research firm Synovate surveyed over 8,000 people in 13 countries about their media downloading habits. The results? Accessing media has changed dramatically in the past few years.
Streaming music is cited as one of the most popular methods of accessing music legally, with nearly 2/3 of Koreans opting to stream rather than download. Other trends include downloading music from websites that run advertisements (nearly 44% of respondents say they would tolerate ads if it meant they could download music for free) and “renting” music by paying a monthly fee to access unlimited amounts of music and other creative media.
Many attribute the rise of legal media download to the stigma that has been attached to illegal downloading. Others claim that the music industry has come a long way in making legal downloading more convenient for everyone. Robert Alleyne, Research Manager for Synovate in the UK said, "For a long time downloading illegally was easier and faster than downloading legally but not anymore. And consumers have taken to these new legal services.” The technology and creative media blog Arts and Labs offers commentary on the survey, saying “A strong digital economy will require functioning markets, and the shift towards legal delivery mechanisms like streaming services represents a positive step in the right direction.”
Aside from not breaking the law, legal downloads also create jobs. As has been cited many a time on this website, “Intellectual property-related industries employ over 18 million Americans. If these protections are discarded, many of these workers are likely to lose their jobs as an effect of lost revenue in the industry.” The recent trends in legal downloading point toward greater respect for intellectual property rights in America and around the world, and that certainly benefits everyone.
(H/T Arts and Labs: http://blog.artsandlabs.com/)
New York City Government "Forcefully Encourages" Residents to Relinquish Private Property
Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:29 pm | By Caitlin Blaney
The issue of who may own private property in New York City has surfaced twice in two separate court hearings in the past month. But what is even more frightful is that the two courts cannot reach the same verdict.
First, a little history lesson. Upon the establishment of this great nation, the Founding Fathers spoke specifically to the government ownership of private property. The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states clearly, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Essentially, the government may only seize private property to build things for public use, ie: bridges, roads, and public parks. In the Supreme Court Case Berman v. Parker (1954), the courts approved of the government’s use of eminent domain to seize areas of “blight” and essentially gentrify cities for the “public good”.
Back to present-day problems.
