Re: [zen@freedbms.net: Veracrypt license - how to change it]
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 09:54:05PM +0200, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Il 07/08/19 14:29, Zenaan Harkness ha scritto:
>
> > Corporations use tacit consent regularly too - Uber gets going in a
> > new city, and they assume the right to operate in the face of the
> > existing laws about Taxi cabs etc, and build they user base quickly
> > enough that by the time any court case gets going, they can have
> > financial, legal and government clout to get the laws changed - but
> > until that change happens, they operate under TACIT CONSENT - tacit
> > consent of the people, and tacit consent of the government.
>
> There is no law saying that you cannot operate cabs.
Pure hogwash. And a negative averment seeking "tacit support by non
response" to boot - devious I tell ya, devious! :)
The things people believe, hey?
Since you asserted some nonsense, here's some facts in response:
Melbourne levels playing field for Uber, taxis, limos
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/12/melbourne-levels-playing-field-uber-taxis-limos/75582478/
Published 4:40 p.m. ET Nov. 12, 2015
MELBOURNE — Rather than changing with the times, Melbourne's
licensed taxi, limousine and shuttle companies are relying on
government to keep regulatory barriers high and protect their
businesses from app-based competitors like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar,
City Hall officials believe.
That will change: Tuesday night, the Melbourne City Council decided
to deregulate the vehicle-per-hire industry in the city and "level
the playing field."
... City Council postponed discussion on the topic in August.
That's when representatives of some of Melbourne’s 43 licensed
taxi, limousine and shuttle companies — plus the Florida Taxicab
Association and National Limousine Association — lobbied for
continued regulations.
...
and see:
Facing Uber, Melbourne cab companies support regulations
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/08/13/facing-uber-melbourne-cab-companies-support-regulations/31655513/
MELBOURNE – City leaders have hit the brake pedal on a proposal to
deregulate Melbourne’s 43 licensed taxi, limousine and shuttle
companies.
Tuesday, an array of Space Coast cab and limo company owners
surprised Melbourne City Council members by asking to continue
following City Hall rules.
App-based competitors like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar are exempt from
city code. But Louie Minardi, president of the Florida Taxicab
Association, and David Shaw, the National Limousine Association’s
Southeast region director, said their industry should continue
having insurance-coverage requirements, vehicle inspections, drug
testing and criminal background checks for drivers.
“Even the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has issued
warnings about the ride-sharing,” Minardi told council members.
“Ride-sharing is where the taxis and limos were years ago. That’s
why we have regulation — because we had the same problems. You
don’t know who’s driving the car.
...
and, for the legal punch line, how Uber created their legal
entitlement by effectively saying "f u" to Melbourne's Taxi
regulations:
Citing Uber, Melbourne may drop taxi permits
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/08/02/melbourne-may-drop-taxi-permits-citing-uber-competition/31042705/
Citing competition from Uber and up-and-coming ride-sharing
services, Melbourne officials may deregulate taxi, shuttle and
limousine companies to level the competitive playing field.
Forty-three such companies are licensed to operate in Melbourne,
employing 457 permitted drivers and using 131 decal-equipped
vehicles. Per city code, these companies must pay a one-time $50
application, pay $10 decal fees per vehicle, and pay a $15
application fee and $24 background-check fee for each prospective
driver.
Plus, each regulated business must carry liability insurance
covering at least $300,000 for injury and death claims per
accident.
In contrast, no app-based newcomers like Uber, Lyft or Sidecar have
gone through the city's application process, City Clerk Cathy Wysor
and Police Chief Steve Mimbs — who support taxi deregulation —
wrote in a joint memo.
...
and if you still don't believe there are laws over taxi cabs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_Australia
Taxis in Australia are highly regulated by each Australian state
and territory,[1] with each state and territory having its own
history and structure. In December 2014, there were 21,344 taxis in
Australia.[2] Taxis in Australia are required to be licensed and
are typically required to operate and charge on a fitted taximeter.
Taxi fare rates are set by state or territory governments. A
vehicle without a meter is generally not considered to be a taxi,
and may be described, for example, as a hire car, limousine,
carpool, etc. Most taxis today are fuelled by liquid petroleum gas.
Cabcharge Australia owns and operates the Cabcharge payment system,
which claims to cover about 97% of taxis in Australia, and operates
one of Australia's largest taxi networks.[3]
...
> Actually, there is
> something like this somewhere, and in those places Uber cannot operate.
> But this has nothing to do with our case, because in fact there is a law
> saying that you cannot modify or redistributed other people's
> copyrighted code unless you have explicit permission.
>
> > Just because we are normally not taught about tacit consent, does not
> > mean that tacit consent does not exist, or is not used on a daily
> > basis all over the planet.
>
> Yes, but for other things.
>
> HTH, Giovanni.
Well, you provided a classic negative averment - another legal
technique - when you said:
"There is no law saying that you cannot operate cabs."
and then waited to see whether I would fail to respond, in which case
it would "be taken" that I had tacitly consented to your rubbish.
Now you are in a position where you can accept this, or change the
playing field by saying something like "oh I didn't say there were no
laws in relation to driving cars for payment, of course there are
regulations which normal car drivers don't have to obey",
and then I would say "now you're dodging, and besides, Uber didn't
break any law, they simply did not obey the city regulations, which
are sort of laws but sort of not,"
and I would say "come on, you're splitting hairs - you made it sound
like Uber was not creating a legal entitlement to do what they did,
by simply doing it and ignoring the currently legal regulatory
regime,"
and who knows, may be someone somewhere will realise that yes, there
are laws around taxi cabs, limousines etc, and yes, Uber bloody well
ignored them and DID in fact create their own legal entitlement by
doing so (by tacit consent and force of numbers of drivers which they
built up quickly enough to have a real "political conversation" in
each jurisdiction they began operating in without having to face
costly (financially crippling) court cases before they were ready.
Anyway, folks don't have to believe in tacit consent for it to be
real - ostrich syndrome is pretty big here in Australi, so those who
do ignore those techniques which are used against them are no
different to the vast majority of other humans.
Good luck,
Reply to: