Library of Congress Threatens Washington Watch Wiki

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

[Qzukk]

Call it the Library of Progress, and refer to JEFFERSON.

Re:

[Lithdren]

Library of !=(Pro) + gress

That would make a great T-shirt! (tm)

Re:

[philpalm]

Quote from article:
"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:

[metrometro]

Now if Washington Watch is a non-profit organization then I guess there would be no marketing scheme....

Not quite. Nonprofit is just a tax status - they play by the same rules as business on just about everything else.

In my opinion...

[It doesn't come easy]

Whoever originally coined the word Con-gress ... should be modded the most insightful and prescient individual in history.

Re:

[zippthorne]

i of them.

Re:

[fractoid]

e^(-pi * LibrariesOfCongress) + 1 = 0
Finally it makes sense...

Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[metrometro]

"Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?

Re:

[qbzzt]

"Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?

Not if you believe that rights only belong to people who happen to agree with you.

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

A "free market in the field of government" rarely lasts, and only once that I can think of(maybe twice) has it lead to the second government not being a thousand times worse than the previous.

Re:

[qbzzt]

"A free market in the field of government" means that if a government is bad you have the option to abandon it, and the country it runs, and find a better place to live.

Re:

[FishWithAHammer]

It's my country. *I have a right to change it.* "Love it or leave it" is just more facist crap. Stop trying to strip me of my constitutional rights.

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:

[qbzzt]

It's my country. *I have a right to change it.*

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 .sig as a reply to you. I wrote it in 1998, as I was leaving Israel to build my life in the US. I hated conscription (I consider it a form of slavery), so I moved to a country where the government isn't as likely to vote my children into uniforms. Since th

Love it or leave it.

[hotsauce]

1. "Love it or leave it" nowhere suggests he should try to change it before giving up. You're missing an important step.

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:

[zCyl]

I wrote it as a way to tell people that if they don't like something their government does, and they don't think they have a snowball's chance in hell of changing it, they can still make a difference in their lives by finding a better package deal from another government.

If you leave all of the nations that have problems you can't fix, you will very quickly get tired of swimming.

Re:

[lessthan]

No, not swimming! Look up! Thousands of worlds await our mistakes. LOL

Re:

[binarybits]

If you check out Cato's 2005 annual report, you'll find [cato.org] that Cato only received about 2 percent of their budget. We don't have a legion of lawyers, corporate-funded or otherwise.

Re:

[Mr. Underbridge]

"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

[binarybits]

I'm a longtime Slashdot reader and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. I'm not sure why you're so hostile to the Cato Institute, but you might want to check out a few of our recent publications:

• Circumventing Competition: The Perverse Consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [cato.org] (By me, criticizing the DMCA)
  
• Effective Counterterrorism and the Limited Role of Predictive Data Mining [cato.org] (By Harper, criticizing the NSA wiretapping program))
  
• The REAL ID Act: Ill-Considered [cato.org] (By Harper, testimony before the Utah legislature against a de facto national ID)
  
• Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush [cato.org] (By my colleagues Gene Healy and Tim Lynch, criticizing the Bush administration's attacks on civil liberties)
  
• "Supreme Court Ruling Could Save Vonage" [cato.org] (By me, criticizing software patents)
  
• "Broadcast Flag Burning" [cato.org] (By me, criticizing the broadcast flag)
  

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:

[dircha]

""Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?"

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:

[metrometro]

Chew on the government, fine. But when they spend decades cranking out coal-funded "science" written by PR flacks, it's more like dingo-ate-my-baby than a watchdog.

If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[Shihar]

You can accuse Cato of a lot of things... lacking principles and being anyone's lap dog is roughly the last. Brooking's, American Heritage, and lots of other think tanks can be 'flexible' in what they advocate based upon the party flavor of the month. Cato is unbending, rock solid, and deeply principled. Now, you can argue that their principles are abhorrent, but anyone who knows anything about Cato can not say that their principles are bent by who gives them money. They are Libertarians who are as happy to criticize business, Democrats, Republics, and anyone else who violates their principles (and all three do, regularly).

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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:

[sumdumass]

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.

So when I find some organization that believes in much of the same stuff I do and I then donate or do

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So when I find some organization that believes in much of the same stuff I do and I then donate or do something to support that organization, It makes anything they do suspect because of my funding?

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:

[sumdumass]

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.

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:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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:

[sumdumass]

Personally I can't figure out what fuck all yer democratic paranoia fantasies have to do with LOC and THOMAS.

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:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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:

[sumdumass]

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.

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:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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:

[cultrhetor]

"I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." - Nietzsche, Götzen-Dämmerung (1889)

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[metrometro]

Oh boy. For what it's worth, I work for a D.C. government watchdog and am very familiar with Cato. I read their books, I go to their events. Their office is sweet - lots of windows, big atrium. Bottom line is their science positions are intellectually dishonest at a comprehensive level, and that keeps them well funded by industry. So yeah, I distrust the information they put out, because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[tourvil]

Oh boy. For what it's worth, I work for a D.C. government watchdog and am very familiar with Cato. I read their books, I go to their events. Their office is sweet - lots of windows, big atrium. Bottom line is their science positions are intellectually dishonest at a comprehensive level, and that keeps them well funded by industry. So yeah, I distrust the information they put out, because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders.

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.

[binarybits]

I would be curious to know which industry sources funded my paper criticizing the DMCA. [cato.org] Or for that matter, their recent papers criticizing the Bush administration's civil liberties record [cato.org] and the NSA's wiretapping program. [cato.org]

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:

[Azghoul]

Nice reply. Keep up the good work.

Re:

[Retric]

Considering your response is a straw man argument, I think I will go with the parent post.

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:

[binarybits]

The problem is that metrometro didn't point to any specific examples of "false information," so there's not much I can do to respond to such a vague accusation. Instead, I thought I'd highlight our recent work on issues of particular interest to Slashdot readers in order to give readers some context. I'm not going to claim everything we publish is high quality (we publish about a dozen books, 50 papers, and hundreds of articles every year), but in my experience, the vast majority of what we publish is of hi

Re:

[Retric]

Thank you, for the surprisingly calm and well reasoned response to what may have been an overly dramatic and scathing post.

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:

[binarybits]

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.

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:

[Retric]

Many non-profits are supported by relatively rich people. However, many are government supported, others operate as a normal business which send their profit to charitable causes so I think Most is a little over the top. Anyway, Cato has some independence from any specific donor but they do have a clear bias which does reduce their credibility. (Call it libertarian or conservative significant bias is still a problem.)

Anyway, HSA's are socialized medicine.
With HSA's someone making 100k/year could spend 1k

Re:

[binarybits]

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.

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:

[Retric]

I was giving a specific example where Cato was not speaking the truth. Perhaps they are acting out of incompetence instead of malice.

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:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

[WilliamSChips]

It's called a track record. Ignoring it is called insanity.

Ironic, no?

[JohnnyBGod]

Does anyone else find it ironic that a library, of all organizations, is (supposedly) exercising its IP rights?

Re:

[Romancer]

Especially the library of congress!!

Now talking about the repository of information for the United States is forbidden?!?!!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

No. A supportable reason for the existence of trademarks is to let consumers know the true source of a good. In this case, the good is information. Cato should not be trying to mislead the public about what search engine they are using by misappropriating the IP of the United States Library of Congress. Yes, the THOMAS legislative search engine sucks (or it did last time I used it). But that does not mean some private company should be able to come along and mislead the public into thinking their searc

Re:Ironic, no?

[MindStalker]

The offending bit was.
"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:

[geobeck]

When did it stop becoming a government "of the people"??

About 1779?

Re:

[profplump]

Actually it's legal to say it period, because it's completely subjective unless you provide an objective definition for "running experience".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[*weasel]

When did it stop becoming a government "of the people"??

Somewhere between career politicians and the two-party system.

Re:

[belmolis]

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:

[belmolis]

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:

[darjen]

Does anyone else find it ironic that a library, of all organizations, is (supposedly) exercising its IP rights?

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

[HaeMaker]

The LOC is wrong. Making a comparative in an endorsement is protected speech, and goes beyond trademark protection.

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:

[fatduck]

Mod parent up. This isn't about stealing copyrighted material as all the other knee-jerk responses would have you believe - it's about using a trademark in an advertisement. Owning a trademark doesn't mean you control every utterance of a word.

"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:

[LordMyren]

any use of a LOC logotype or emblem however would not be protected, as they can qualify as trademarks.

the more you know?

Re:

[Kadin2048]

any use of a LOC logotype or emblem however would not be protected, as they can qualify as trademarks.

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:

[Brickwall]

since it just fits into their image of the USG as a bunch of corrupt, wasteful, generally inept bureaucrats.

Er, just exactly how does this image conflict with reality?

Re:

[that this is not und]

any use of a LOC logotype or emblem however would not be protected, as they can qualify as trademarks.

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

[WrongSizeGlass]

"the use of THOMAS in the Washington Watch press release in a negative way is clearly used in the context of endorsement, rather than general criticism."

Used in a negative way is an endorsement? Maybe Raymond should read a few of those books in his library.

Re:

[Apraxhren]

Apparently reading does not mean comprehension so I can't suggest the same to you. The endorsement is not of THOMAS, but of Washington Watch. In that endorsement THOMAS is used in a negative way, but this should all be clear as the part of the sentence you left off says:

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, ...[your quote]

sigh

You need to learn to read English.

[wiredog]

Endorsement of Washington Watch, not the LOC.

What's the real reason for the nastygram?

[panaceaa]

Did Matt Raymond sent the nastygram to Washington Watch because the Library of Congress is part of the legislative branch, and Washington Watch can be perceived as critical of the corruption in Congress? Or did someone on the THOMAS team get personally insulted that someone could develop a better system than theirs, and push to punish the creator of the superior system out of jealousy? The latter seems a bit extreme, which leads me to believe Congressmen are scared of people knowing how much the government is actually spending on pork projects that they're even willing to have the Library of Congress send threatening letters to people who share the Library's vision for open information.

I want a letter!

[wizzard2k]

Marketing Materials:

• Library of Congress
• THOMAS

...waits for his letter.....

On a more serious note, I don't think marketing materials are covered under fair use, are they?

Re:

[Romancer]

You can say any comparison you want in your marketing materials, just so long as you have the fine print at the bottom saying that their logis if used are the property of their respective owners.

Re:

[shaitand]

The library of congress is not a private organization. Anything it owns is public property, including its logo. I'm pretty sure it will be discovered that the only time this guy really has the right to stop a citizen is if that citizen is using the name and/or logo in a fraudulent manner. For instance, a false claim that the LOC endorses his product.

Re:

[Romancer]

I'm not sure it works that way. Just because something is not a private organization, doesn't mean that it has no rights to restrict its brand or logo. Public property is sticky that way. Like the ways public land is used is restricted by the operators and can have restrictions like "no motorbikes" and "no 2 stroke engines in watercraft" The use of the public property is limited.

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:

[shaitand]

From TFA,

'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...

[Opportunist]

Why fight it? Rename it "nook of crooks" and still everyone's gonna know what's meant.

I pay may taxes.

[EaglemanBSA]

How soon before we're not allowed to make derogatory remarks about Congress itself, or the president? I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People, but apparently I'm wrong.

Re:

[adona1]

I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People

Where do you think you are, Soviet Russia? :)

Re:

[kimvette]

In Soviet Russia, politburo owns you?

Re:

[YodaYid]

I felt the same way when New York's MTA copyrighted the subway map [isubwaymaps.com] (Here's Jeff Jarvis [buzzmachine.com] on the issue).

Re:

[belg4mit]

Trademark and copyright are hardly the same thing. You could go and make your own
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:

[YodaYid]

I was referring to the *ought* part ;-) Governments ought not be allowed to put any intellectual property restrictions (trademarks, copyright, etc) on publicly-funded work. The only valid restrictions would be fraud-related (e.g. putting up a website that pretends to be the LOC, printing counterfeit money, or impersonating a police officer).

you misunderstand

[commodoresloat]

as long as your right to criticize the King of Thailand is unfettered, you live in a free country.

Re:

[exi1ed0ne]

I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People, but apparently I'm wrong.

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:

[PsychoSlashDot]

Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?

False. On a scale of 1 to 10, what is not my middle name.

Re:

[heinousjay]

I extended a similar offer once before: you are welcome to come to Lafayette Park next to the White House to watch me scream out that Bush is an asshole and he should be impeached.

You pick the time.

It's hell...

[Black Parrot]

...having to compete.

And so much easier to send a C&D than to actually compete.

Remember The Onion Presedintial Seal Fiasco

[N8F8]

Nothing new here folks, remeber the same sort of thing with The Onion [google.com] using the Presidential Seal?

LOC maybe, THOMAS, no

[whoever57]

The PR flak at the LOC quoted:

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."

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".

Re:

[philpalm]

So Will LOC go after Thomas the train engine too?

Re:

[Ajehals]

Tank Engine, its Thomas the Tank Engine. Oh and I wish that they would change the song back to the original one, the new one drives me nuts...

Re:

[Tacvek]

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...

[flyingfsck]

Is there anyone here that knows when Civil Servants stopped signing their letters that way?

Re:

[mmdog]

Just guessing here, but I'd say it has something to do with people not understanding what the word "servant" means. Unfortunately most government employees treat their job as an entitlement, as opposed to an opportunity to 'serve' their country.

The LOC statute is irrelevant.

[AllParadox]

This is not a situation where some commercial outfit is making money off of using the name of the Library of Congress. If I see some commercial business doing that, I will turn them in myself.

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:

[mvdwege]

This is not a situation where some commercial outfit is making money off of using the name of the Library of Congress.

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?

[LifesABeach]

The last time I checked, the LOC was a government funded operation. Maybe the Matt-ster should look at that generous paycheck he gets from the sweat off of MY hard working brow. But then again, there is that pesky law called the, "First Amendment." But what I think is most significant is the part where a government official has all the time in the world to bring down the full force of the government against a citizen that questions the governments authority; That is something worth investigating.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

in jest

[witte]

>... asked that Harper stop using the names 'Library of Congress' ...
What's next ? Furlongs and gallons ?

which wiki engine?

[m0!]

Does anyone happen to know which wiki engine this is using?

Re:

[rlp]

Sorry, very OT - meant to post under the 'IBM layoff' rumor.

Re:

[Azghoul]

This isn't insightful, it's a poor attempt at flinging an ad hominem attack at libertarians.

Tell us - how do YOU account for the costs of government then??

Re:

[nanosquid]

This isn't insightful, it's a poor attempt at flinging an ad hominem attack at libertarians.

"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:

[Azghoul]

*snort.

"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:

[nanosquid]

And when there is no information available online for the general public to get any kind of information about the costs of particular legislation

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