text:
Britain arrests two suspects over migrant smuggling
January 03 2019 07:39 PM
International UK/Europe
Pair freed without charge in London airport drones probe
Two arrests over London airport drone chaos as flights resume
Russian whistleblower died of natural causes in UK: inquest
UK steps up no-deal Brexit plans with 3,500 soldiers on standby
UK PM May faces party no-confidence vote on Wednesday
Britain Sajid Javid Migrant Smuggling English Channel National Crime Agency
Britain's Home Secretary Sajid Javid speaks to members of the media yesterday, after meeting with UK Border Force staff on the quayside at Dover, in south-east England
dpa/London
British police have arrested two men suspected of involvement in smuggling illegal migrants across the English Channel from France, the National Crime Agency (NCA) said.
A 33-year-old Iranian national and a 24-year-old British man were arrested in Manchester late Wednesday "on suspicion of arranging the illegal movement of migrants across the English Channel into the UK," the NCA said in a statement.
The arrests came as Home Secretary Sajid Javid faced criticism for questioning if those attempting to illegally cross the channel are "genuine" refugees.
Speaking on a visit to the port city of Dover he said: "A question has to be asked: if you are a genuine asylum seeker, why have you not sought asylum in the first safe country you arrived in?"
The home secretary also suggested that those intercepted by British authorities might have asylum requests denied to deter others.
"If you somehow do make it to the UK, we will do everything we can to make sure you are ultimately not successful because we need to break the link," he said.
Samayya Afzal, community engagement manager for the Muslim Council of Britain, was among those who criticized Javid for questioning the motives of asylum seekers.
"Why is compassion so scarce in the UK's political leadership?" Afzal tweeted.
"And this guy is apparently the favourite to replace [Prime Minister] Theresa May," she added.
Earlier this week, Javid called a recent spike in the number of migrants illegally crossing the channel from France a "major incident" and requested the deployment of naval vessels in the
Channel.
The government said 539 migrants attempted to travel to Britain on small boats in 2018, 80 per cent of them in the last three months of the year.
Many of the recent migrants said they had travelled from Iran, which Chris Hogben, head of Britain's organized immigration crime task force, said was "really significant."
Hogben told the Financial Times that illegal migration from Iran was complicated by Britain's policy of not returning migrants to the country because of its poor human rights record.
"They don't have to be smuggled covertly into the UK," he said of the Iranian migrants.
"All they need to do is get into British waters and call for British law enforcement's help... because we're not going to send them back," Hogben said.
Norway coalition breaks up over terror suspect
Pension protesters try to spoil Macron's party in Versailles
Harry voices 'great sadness' at royal split
Putin sends amendments to parliament to change president term limits
Bulgaria's government faces no-confidence vote over water crisis
Prince Harry seeks "more peaceful life" as reluctantly ends royal role
Harry and Meghan begin life as 'ordinary' people
Paris transport set to return to normal as union suspends strike
Ashghal plants trees at Al Khor Road development project
Amir, Italian president discuss mutual ties


An application about Unilever cosmetics, directing you to use the products that suit you best.
It has an augmented reality feature where users can take a picture of a product and if it's the original product it'll give you all the information about it.
On the other hand it features a very exciting game where users can gain points and redeem them later on.


text:
12 GW 'new solar' proposal: Industry reaction
"While there are ample solar PV module manufacturers in India to meet the government demands, the proposal would provide impetus to existing and new players to venture into cell production"—according to Sunil Rathi, director, Waaree Energies.
February 8, 2019 Uma Gupta
Orb Energy's solar PV manufacturing plant in Bangalore, India.
Image: Orb Energy
The Indian solar manufacturing industry is elated with the inclination of The Indian Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) towards boosting domestic module and cell manufacturing in the country, by allocating 12 GW of PV projects exclusively to domestic players.
Talking about the overall impact, Sunil Rathi, director, Waaree Energies said: "The move is expected to have a dampening short-term and a positive long-term impact on the industry."
"While on the face of it, the proposal is set to provide relief to domestic solar manufacturers for the next four years, even with immediate implementation, the on-ground reality indicates a gestation period of at least a year till this proposal actually yields operational benefits. The move fails to provide the much needed immediate support to the sector, due to which mid-scale players may not be able to sustain the pressures for the next year."
On the up side, "this proposal is bound to attract foreign investment in the long run. We foresee players from China and Malaysia setting up manufacturing hubs in India, thus furthering the 'Make in India' initiative," he added.
"Moreover, while there are ample module manufacturers in the country to meet the government demands, the proposal would provide impetus to existing and new players to venture into cell production, thus creating job opportunities and enhancing the GDP contribution in the long run," Rathi said.
Waaree Energies has solar PV module manufacturing capacity of 1.5 GW at its plants in Surat and Vapi in Gujarat.
The CCEA has approved a proposal for state-run generators to set up 12 GW of solar projects using domestically-made equipment over the next four years.
Under the second phase of the Central Public Sector Undertaking Scheme—overseen by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy—the government will provide viability gap funding support of Rs8,580 crore ($1.2 billion) through central and state entities for the projects, which would be expected to generate investment of Rs48,000 crore and support Indian manufacturing plants, the CCEA said.
"The scheme will mandate use of both solar photovoltaic cells and modules manufactured domestically, as per specifications and testing requirements fixed by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy," a CCEA statement added.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The Orlando Boat Show takes place on March 2, 3, and 4th, 2018 at the Orange County Convention Center.
This year there will be over 60 vendors including boating supplies, accessories, and yes, boats.
Some of the boats on display will include bowriders, pontoon boats, ski boats, cruisers, fishing boats, bass boats, and deck boats.
Event goers may also find dozens of marine electronics, and other marine accessories.
In addition, if you are looking for a custom boat mattress at an affordable price, contact us at Schrader Mattress today!


CUSTOM ASPDNSF integration with Mailchimp / Infusionsoft /Constant Contact or any other Emailing platform at different levels as explained below in description.
Discuss your Unique Requirements. Our services are more of a custom nature than a bundled product. We shall be pleased to help you do your setups as per your distinct demands, that too at the cost of getting a pre-built extension only.
Newsletter Subscription with a textbox and submit button.
Ajax Based Confirmation pop up.
Optional confirmation from customer before adding him to email list.
Ordered Customers: Customers who are placing Orders on site will be saved into "Ordered Customer" list. You can target them separately for marketing. We will save Customer Email, Order total, SKU's, Country or any other desired information into the list.
Registered Customer: Customers who got registered but did not place an order will be saved into 'Registered Customer' list. You can target them with an offer.
Further, at an extra cost, a custom module can also be created on request e.g. for sending a unique Coupon code to each customer.


BookToday has a wide range of accommodation close to the Gold Coast Half Ironman Triathlon. The Gold Coast Half Ironman held on 3rd October 2010 is one of the six races in the Australian Half Ironman Triathlon Series.
The Gold Coast Half Ironman is one of the six races in the Australian Half Ironman Triathlon Series. The race is Queenslands largest validation event for the 2011 Ironman Australia series.
The event returns for its 3rd year to the stunning Calypso Bay and again athletes will complete a course that includes a one lap swim, three lap cycle and three lap run.


DEDRYCK Boyata aims to graduate from the Premier League's finest finishing school with flying colours.
Manchester City's 20-year-old defender sealed a season-long loan at Wanderers yesterday, going straight into the squad to face Liverpool at Anfield this evening.
Daniel Sturridge and Jack Wilshere have already shown what benefits a spell under Owen Coyle's tutelage can have for a player's career, and that is exactly whose path the Belgium international intends to follow as he became the club's sixth signing of the transfer window.
"I'm really looking forward to working with the manager," he said. "I have seen how he got the best out of young players like Jack Wilshere and Daniel Sturridge.
Boyata could make his debut against the Reds should Gretar Steinsson fail to recover in time from a badly bruised foot.
But there was no sign yesterday that Boyata's City team-mate Shaun Wright-Phillips had made up his mind after extensive negotiations with Bolton, QPR and Stoke City.
Boyata made his senior international debut for Belgium against Austria last year and chose Bolton ahead of the likes of Everton, Blackburn Rovers and West Brom.
Coyle was happy to land his man after biding his time over the summer.
"I am delighted that we have completed the loan deal for Dedryck, because there was interest from a number of other clubs in taking him on loan.
"To bring in a player of Dedryck's age and quality is something, as we have shown before, that we like to do.
Standing at 6ft 2in tall, Boyata has made 22 appearances for Manchester City, four of which came in the Blues' successful FA Cup run last season.
He also played the full 90 minutes for Roberto Mancini's team in the final fixture of the 2010/11 Premier League season at the Reebok Stadium last May.
Boyata moved to English football in 2007 from hometown club FC Brussels, where his talent and performances in the club's youth setup caught the attention of Manchester City scouts.
He won the FA Youth Cup the following year as City beat Chelsea in the final over two legs, before enhancing his credentials as a regular feature in the reserve setup.
Boyata made his first team debut against Middlesbrough in a third round FA Cup tie in 2010. He has since gone on to play against the likes of Juventus, Lech Poznan and SV Salzburg in the Europa League.


Uniquely designed to resist fading, cracking, and peeling, Graber Traditions® Composite Shutters bring the classic, refined look of shutters to rooms that require a particularly durable solution. Perfect for high-humidity areas, these shutters are ideal in kitchens, laundry rooms, and bathrooms.
Graber Traditions® Wood Shutters can add warmth and beauty to your living spaces. Made from exceptional North American hardwoods, these shutters can be enhanced with a wide assortment of paints, stains, options, and upgrades.


text:
Copyright in Russia developed originally along the same lines as in Western European countries. A first copyright statute dated back to 1828, and in 1857, a general copyright term of fifty years was instituted. The copyright law of 1911 was inspired by Western laws of the continental European tradition. One noteworthy exception in Russian copyright law was the "freedom of translation"—any work could be freely translated into another language.

Under the Soviet Union, the copyright law was changed to conform more to Socialist ideology and economics. The duration of copyright was reduced, first to 25 years from the first publication of a work and then in 1928 to 15 years after the author's death, before it was increased again to 25 years  in 1973, when the USSR joined the Universal Copyright Convention. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation at first took over the last Soviet legislation from 1991, which hadn't even become effective anymore in the USSR. In 1993, a new, modernized copyright law of Russia entered in force, which was in-line with the leading international copyright treaties. As part of a project to develop a new Civil Code of Russia, the copyright law was completely rewritten and integrated into the Civil Code in 2006, with the new provisions becoming effective on January 1, 2008.

On an international level, the Soviets pursued until the late 1960s an isolationist policy. While the Tsars had concluded several short-lived bilateral copyright treaties with Western nations, the Soviet Union had no external copyright relations at all until 1967, when it concluded a first bilateral treaty with Hungary. A major change occurred in 1973, when the USSR joined the Universal Copyright Convention. Subsequently, more bilateral treaties were concluded, amongst them two with Western countries (Austria and Sweden). After its foundation as an independent successor state of the USSR, the Russian Federation joined the Berne Convention in 1995. The negotiations about the adherence of Russia to the World Trade Organization (WTO) led to several amendments of the Russian copyright law in order to meet the adherence requirements.

History of domestic copyright legislation

The origins of copyright

Copyright—the idea that an author of a work has rights on the uses and the reproduction of the work—originated in the field of literature. With the inventions of the printing press and of movable type, copies of literary works could be made quicker and cheaper than before, and the works could be disseminated more widely. But the unrestricted rivalry amongst print shops led quickly to the dissemination of competing and unauthorized editions of various works, which diminished prospects of any payment, or even entailed loss, for the authors, editors, and printers of the original issue, and thus discouraged further undertaking. European rulers also quickly realized that the granting of legal monopolies on wide distribution of printed works could be employed for political purposes—not only by themselves, but also by their opponents. The printing business was soon regulated through printing prerogatives granted by the rulers to print shops, authorizing them to print certain works and giving them a monopoly on these works. Such monopolies not only served as a market regulator but also as a censorship device, as they could be revoked if the printed works were not to the liking of the ruler.

The development of copyright in Russia followed the same lines as in Western Europe, only about a century later. The first printing press was installed in Moscow in the late 1550s with the support of Tsar Ivan IV; the first dated book was printed there in 1564. Printing was strictly controlled by the Tsars and remained reserved mostly for religious works. Tsar Peter the Great was the first to grant printing privileges for printing secular works in Russian to a few select printers, both from Russia and from abroad. Under Peter's reign, the print production in Russia rose tremendously, but except for the printers of the Eastern Orthodox Church, most print shops remained state owned. The first printing privilege granted to a private (and non-Russian) printer for the printing of literature in foreign languages was granted by Catherine II of Russia in 1771 to a printer in St. Petersburg. At the same time, a decree also installed censorship measures for the control of foreign-language works. The first private press with the right to print in Russian was founded in 1776, and in 1783, Russian printed works were also subjected to censorship. The events of the French revolution led Catherine to have most private print shops closed down again; and her successor Paul I prohibited in 1808 the importation of foreign books again.

Copyright in Tsarist Russia

The printing prerogatives granted until then were rights accorded to the printers, not to the authors of a work. The first copyright provisions in a modern sense as rights an author has over uses of his work appeared in the reign of Alexander I, when he issued on April 22, 1828 a "Statute on censorship" (; ) that contained five articles on copyright. This law granted authors or translators the exclusive rights to reproduce, publish, and distribute their works, and recognized their right to be paid for uses or reproductions of their works. Copyright was automatic and was vested in the author or translator upon the creation of the work and without any need for a registration. The law defined a copyright term of the lifetime of the author plus 25 years (25 years p.m.a.—). It also defined a "freedom of translation": any work was free to be translated without the consent of its author, and the translator got a new copyright on the translation. Copyright was extinguished if the work didn't meet the censorship regulations (i.e., was censored).

On February 4, 1830, a decree modified these provisions slightly. It defined that the copyright term was extended by additional ten years to 35 years p.m.a. if a work was republished in the last five years of the original 25-year term. In 1845, the Council of State extended copyright to cover also music, and in 1846, works of the visual arts became subject to copyright. Two major changes occurred in 1857. Upon a request by the widow of Aleksandr Pushkin, the Council of State extended the copyright term from 25 to 50 years p.m.a. The same year, it also extended copyright to cover works of foreign authors that were first published on the territory of Russia.

An imperial decree in 1897 tasked a commission to revise the copyright law. After nine years of work, a draft that was based on the German copyright law of 1901 was presented to the Duma in 1906. After lengthy proceedings, the new law was passed in 1909 and finally approved by Tsar Nicholas II on March 20, 1911. For the first time, copyright was expressed truly independently from censorship regulations. Censorship was not linked anymore in any way to the existence or the exercise of copyrights on a work.

The 1911 copyright contained 75 articles in seven chapters. It granted copyright to works of Russian subjects and to works by foreigners that were first published on Russian territory. Unpublished foreign works were also copyrighted. Foreign works first published abroad could be freely translated and then published, but publishing such a foreign work in the original language or performing music composed by foreigners abroad was only allowed with the consent of the foreign copyright holder.

Copyright covered literary, musical, dramatic, artistic, and photographic works. The new law recognized the moral rights of paternity (attribution right) and integrity of the work. Authors were granted the exclusive rights to reproduce, publish, and distribute a work, to perform dramatic and musical works in public, to record a musical work, and to produce a novel from a dramatic work or vice versa. These rights were automatic, came into existence upon the creation of the work, and were not subject to any formalities requirements.

Copyright in the Soviet Union

After the October Revolution, the Tsarist copyright law from 1911 remained initially in force, although it was partly invalidated by numerous decrees. The copyright term was reduced from 50 years p.m.a. to the lifetime of an author. Many works were nationalized, first only works of deceased authors, but later also works of still living authors. The nationalizations of the publishing houses restricted the possibilities of authors to publish their works, effectively restricting their exclusive rights.

On January 30, 1925, the Central Executive Committee passed a new copyright law. These "Fundamentals of Copyright Law" were replaced already three years later, on May 16, 1928, by a second version that then remained in effect essentially unchanged for thirty years. In 1961, the copyright law was incorporated into the Civil Law. On December 8, 1961, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR passed the Fundamentals of Civil Legislation, which entered in force on May 1, 1962. Chapter IV of these Fundamentals contained the eleven articles that constituted the copyright law.

In the Soviet legislation, these union-wide Fundamentals (; ) were only a binding framework; the individual republics of the Soviet Union then had to implement the provisions of the Fundamentals in their own republic laws. Although these different versions of the law differed in some details, the basic characteristics of Soviet copyright remained more or less constant throughout these revisions, and also across the various republics' laws. Copyright was granted on the creative works of Soviet citizens, whether published or unpublished. Foreign works were copyrighted only if they were first published in the USSR or, if unpublished, existed in objective form on the territory of the USSR. Copyright was automatic and came into existence upon the creation of the work; no formalities were required (with the exception of photographs, which were only copyrighted if they bore the name of the studio or the photographer, the address, and the year).

Authors were granted the personal rights to attribution and to the integrity of the work; these rights were perpetual and linked to the author (they could not be inherited); they were enforced after the author's death by the VUOAP (see below). Furthermore, the law recognized the rights of an author to reproduce, publish, and disseminate a work, and to be remunerated for uses of his work. Until 1961, these rights were nominally "exclusive" rights of the author, but the common view of Soviet legal theorists and the actual practices had always maintained that an author actually did not enjoy exclusive publishing rights on his works and could not publish his works himself, but was only entitled to receive remuneration if the official bodies approved the publication of a work. Consequently, the 1961 Fundamentals did no longer call these rights "exclusive".

The general copyright term changed with each revision of the law. The 1925 Fundamentals had defined that copyrights subsisted for 25 years since the first publication of a work. In 1928, this was changed to the lifetime of the author plus 15 years (15 years p.m.a.). The 1961 Fundamentals reduced this to the lifetime of the author, but allowed individual republics to devise their own rules. The Fundamentals also made mention of the inheritance of copyrights. The Russian SFSR defined in its chapter IV of the 1964 RSFSR Civil Code a copyright term of 15 years p.m.a.

The copyrights of an author were limited by a broad array of uses allowed without the author's consent that were defined not to be copyright infringements. The law provided for "free uses" and also for compulsory licenses. Free uses of a work allowed anyone to use a published, copyrighted work without the original author's consent and without the payment of royalties, while compulsory licenses were those cases where the use was also allowed without the author's consent, but only if royalties were paid. Both the free uses and the compulsory licenses were subject only to the proper attribution of the author. The state also reserved the right to execute a compulsory purchase of the copyrights on a work. This provision was rarely applied, usually to prevent an "excessive unearned income" of the heirs of the author of a successful work.

Amongst the free uses, Soviet copyright continued to grant the freedom of translation. Any work could be translated without the author's consent, and the translator was granted a separate and independent copyright on the translation. With the entry in force of the 1961 Fundamentals, translators were required to maintain the meaning and the integrity of the original work.

Copyrights were non-transferable under Soviet law. Authors could only grant a publisher a time-limited right to use a work through mandatory author's contracts defined by the state. These contracts were limited to at most five years, the intended use of the work had to be clearly spelled out, and if the publisher accepted the delivered work, he was obliged to actually publish it within at most two years. The contract also specified the remuneration the author was entitled to. The allowed range of the amount of royalties was prescribed in governmental remuneration schedules. Individual republics of the USSR were free to devise their own rules for standard publication contracts and royalty tariffs. A union-wide collecting society called the "All-Union Administration for the Protection of Copyrights" (VUOAP – ; ) was founded in the 1930s to centralize all collection and payments of royalties.

The exercise of copyright in the Soviet Union was subject to the rules of censorship and the literary controls, the press legislation, the laws on printing, publishing, and selling, and Party directives. In general, only authors of "socially useful" works were granted full copyrights; on "useless works" such as Church hymns no economic rights could be enforced; and authors of undesirable works faced administrative, or social, or even penal sanctions. As a way to bypass this governmental control for literary works samizdat developed: the non-commercial dissemination of works in chain-letter fashion through carbon-copies produced by readers on their typewriters. Many samizdat works were considered to be "anti-Soviet agitation" by the authorities and the authors were prosecuted under article 58(10) (later articles 70 and 190(1)) of the RSFSR Criminal Code or corresponding provisions of the other republics' penal laws.

In 1973, the USSR joined the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC), ending its self-imposed isolation (but also its independence) in copyright matters. The treaty entered in force with respect the USSR on May 27, 1973. Foreign works published after that date outside of the USSR became copyrighted in the Soviet Union if the author was a national of any other signatory country of the UCC or if the work was first published in any other UCC country, and vice versa: Soviet works published after this date became copyrighted in other UCC countries. The Soviet Union had to adapt its copyright laws to meet the requirements of the UCC. It did so by increasing the copyright term to 25 years p.m.a. and by abolishing the freedom of translation: translations henceforth were subject to the consent of the author of the original work. In exchange, two new free uses were included in the law in 1973, one of which was a very broad free use permission allowing newspapers to reproduce any published report or scientific, artistic, literary, or oral work; either in the original or as a translation.

The VUOAP was replaced by a new agency, the "All-Union Agency on Copyrights" (VAAP – ; ). The VAAP took over the VUOAP's function as a collecting society, but additionally held the state monopoly on foreign trade in copyrights. All licensing contracts with foreign publishers had to be concluded through VAAP; authors and Soviet publishers were forbidden to negotiate directly with foreign publishers.

The monopoly of the VAAP was abolished in 1989. Also during Perestroika, a work group was formed with the task to adapt the Soviet copyright law to a market economy. These efforts culminated in the passing of a profoundly revised copyright law on March 31, 1991. This new law was a radical break with the previous Socialist practice. Author's rights were exclusive again, the copyright term was increased to 50 years p.m.a., neighbouring rights were introduced for the first time in Soviet legislation, and the free uses were reduced considerably and defined much narrower. Compulsory licenses were abolished altogether. The initial copyright owner in a work in all cases was the natural person who created the work; the copyright of legal entities no longer existed. The provisions of the 1991 Fundamentals, which were scheduled to enter in force on January 1, 1992, never became effective in the Soviet Union, as the USSR was dissolved before that date.

Copyright in the Russian Federation

In Russia, the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation passed a decree that made the USSR 1991 Fundamentals effective in Russia from August 3, 1992 on, insofar as these Fundamentals contradicted neither the Constitution of the Russian Federation nor other legislative acts of Russia passed after June 12, 1990. Section IV of the 1991 Fundamentals was in effect for exactly one year until the new Copyright law of the Russian Federation entered in force on August 3, 1993.

The Copyright Law of 1993

The copyright law of 1993 was inspired by WIPO model laws and in some of its provisions heavily drew upon the formulations of the Conventions of Berne and Rome. The main innovations were much more detailed regulations on neighbouring rights, the adaptation of the law to new technologies, an expansion of contractual freedom, and provisions on collecting societies.

Like its predecessors, the new law granted copyrights on creative works that existed in some objective form. This objective form needed not be tangible, any form by which the work could be perceived by others sufficed, including an oral form. Mere ideas that had not been externalized were excluded from copyright, as were simple facts and instructions and such. Also excluded from copyright were official documents, state symbols (including money), and folklore; this also covered the symbols of local or municipal authorities. Computer programs were copyrighted as literary works, databases as collective works.

Copyrights were not subject to any formalities and arose upon the creation of a work. The rights were always vested in the natural person who had created the work; legal entities could no longer be original copyright owners. As before, the law covered all works first published on the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as unpublished works that existed there in an objective form, regardless of the nationality of the author. Works of Russian citizens, whether published or unpublished, were also covered. On other works first published in a foreign country, or, if unpublished, existed in objective form only abroad, the law specified they were subject to copyright in Russia according to the provisions of the international treaties the Russian Federation was a member of. If a work was published within thirty days in a foreign country and in Russia, it was considered to have been first published in Russia. (Article 5 of the law, which laid down these definitions, was modified in 2004 by law no. 72-FL.)

Following the continental European tradition of author's rights, the law recognized moral and economic (patrimonial) rights. A special right of the author to remuneration was no longer mentioned: it was not needed anymore since the author's rights were exclusive and authors could freely negotiate contracts. On contracts, the law provided that only the rights explicitly mentioned in a contract were transferred, and that the new rights holder could sub-license these rights to a third party only if the contract explicitly provided for this. Furthermore, contracts were not allowed to cover the future works of an author.

The neighbouring rights, introduced for the first time in the 1991 Fundamentals, were much expanded and clarified in the 1993 copyright law. The law covered performances, phonograms, and broadcasts (including cable broadcasts). Visual fixations (videograms) were not covered. Neighbouring rights were, like the copyrights, automatic and not subject to formalities except the observance of any rights of the authors (or performers) of the works performed, recorded, or broadcast. Performers were granted the moral rights to attribution and to the integrity of the work. The exclusive economic rights comprised the rights to (re-)perform a performance, including a right to be remunerated for any reuses of a performance, and the rights to reproduction, recording, distribution, broadcasts, and rebroadcasts of a performance, a phonogram, or a broadcast. Phonogram producers were even granted an exclusive right to adaptations of their recordings, a provision that goes even beyond the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The 1993 law covered phonograms first published in Russia or created by a Russian person or company, broadcasts of broadcasting organizations having their legal residence in Russia, and performances of Russian artists, as wells as performances first performed in Russia, and also performances recorded or broadcast in Russia, if the record or broadcast was covered by the law.

The law specified a copyright term of fifty years, applicable to all kinds of works. Works of known authors were copyrighted until 50 years after the author's death (50 years p.m.a.). Anonymous or pseudonymous works were copyrighted until fifty years after the first publication, unless the identity of the author became known during that time and the term of 50 years p.m.a. thus applied. For works with several authors, the copyright term was calculated from the death of the longest-living of the co-authors. For authors who had worked during or fought in the Great Patriotic War, the duration of copyrights was extended by four years. For posthumously published works, copyrights were defined to last until fifty years after the publication, and for posthumously rehabilitated authors, the fifty-year term began running at the date of the rehabilitation. All terms were to be calculated from January 1 following the date the fact occurred that caused the term to begin running. The moral rights to authorship, name, and integrity of the work were defined to be perpetual.

Concerning the neighbouring rights, the term of protection was fifty years since the original performance or broadcast. For phonograms, the term was fifty years since the first publication, or fifty years since the fixation of the phonogram if not published within that time. Similar rules as for copyright concerning posthumously published works or authors who had lived during the Great Patriotic War or who were posthumously rehabilitated existed also for the neighbouring rights.

The 1993 copyright law contained a list of allowed free uses of copyrighted works, similar to may other countries' laws. Free uses only related to limitations on the patrimonial rights of an author on a work; his moral rights remained untouched. Any free use was subject to the condition that it did not impede an author's legitimate rights and did not harm the normal exploitation of a work. The free uses contained provisions on reproductions made purely for personal uses and on archival copies (backups), as well as quotation rights, and provisions on news reporting (including a provision allowing the reproduction of previously published news reports in other newspapers or broadcasts.)

Implementation Act for the Copyright Law of 1993

The implementation act for the new copyright law, law no. 5352-1 of July 9, 1993, stated that the copyright provisions from the 1991 Fundamentals were invalidated. It also stated that the new copyright law applied to all works on which the 50-year term for copyrights and neighbouring rights had not yet elapsed in 1993. Subsequently, a discussion amongst copyright specialists erupted about whether this made the law applied retroactively, restoring copyrights on works on which the shorter copyright terms from the Soviet-era had already expired or which had not been copyrighted at all under Soviet law. The question was resolved definitively only in 2006, when the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed the retroactivity of the 1993 law, explaining that it placed even works under copyright again if their old, Soviet 25-year term had already expired. For the neighbouring rights, which hadn't existed in Soviet times, the law granted those rights retroactively. The 1993 copyright law thus rendered the old Soviet legislation largely obsolete in Russia; it remained applicable only to copyright violations that had occurred before August 3, 1993.

Amendments of the 1993 law
On July 19, 1995, Federal Law 110-FL changed the copyright law, strengthening the measures for protecting copyrights against infringements. Law 110-FL also made corresponding amendments in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and in related laws. Three years later, a governmental decree clarified that for Soviet films, the director and other persons identified by the 1993 law as authors were indeed to be considered the authors and entitled to royalties for uses of these films, and not, as had been the case under the old Soviet law, the film studios.

On August 8, 2004, the copyright law of Russia was amended by federal law no. 72-FL, by which the general copyright term was extended from 50 to 70 years. This term extension applied only to works that were still copyrighted in Russia in 2004. The same law also modified the provisions on the copyright of foreign works. (See "Berne Convention" below.) It added an article 5(4) to the law that defined that a foreign work was eligible to copyright in Russia if its copyright had not expired in the source country and it had not fallen into the public domain in Russia through the expiry of its copyright term. Other provisions of law 72-FL amended the 1993 copyright law of Russia in several areas, especially concerning neighbouring rights, to make the legislation compliant with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

Part IV of the Russian Civil Code
Since its foundation as an independent successor state of the former Soviet Union, the Russian Federation had been engaged in a large legislative project of developing a new Civil Code, which was also to encompass the intellectual property laws. Several drafts for new chapters on intellectual property rights including copyrights were prepared, but the matter proved so difficult that this legislation was postponed several times. The draft of the new intellectual property legislation was heavily criticized for being too unclear and for conflicting with Russia's international obligations, and also for introducing several untested novelties. Finally, the new intellectual property laws were included in part IV of the Russian Civil Code as articles 1225 to 1551. Part IV was signed into law as Federal Law no. 230-FL by Vladimir Putin on December 18, 2006. The implementation act (Federal Law no. 231-FL) was signed on the same day; it declared part IV of the Civil Code to enter in force on January 1, 2008 with the effect of invalidating and replacing all previous intellectual property legislation.

Part IV of the Civil Code was a comprehensive intellectual property legislation. It contained the copyright law proper in chapters 70 (authors' rights) and 71 (neighbouring rights); chapter 69 contained general provisions also applicable to copyright. Other chapters dealt with patent law (chapter 72), the protection of breeders' rights (ch. 73), of integrated circuits (mask works; ch. 74), of trade secrets (know-how; ch. 75), and also of trade marks, brands, and geographical indications (ch. 76). Chapter 77 detailed rules for technological applications, in particular those developed on a federal budget. Among the novelties introduced by this new legislation in the area of copyrights were a publication right (a copyright granted to the publisher of a previously unpublished, no longer copyrighted work; with a period of 25 years from the publication), and the definition of two kinds of contracts: one for copyright transfers, and licenses for granting usage rights. The new law was given retroactive effect by the implementation act, which also specified that the 70-year copyright term was applicable to all works on which the 50-year copyright had not expired yet on January 1, 1993, instead of on January 1, 2004, as had been the case until then.

Russia had committed in a trade agreement with the U.S. in November 2006 to ensure that new legislation, including part IV of the Civil Code, would be fully TRIPS compliant, even if such legislation was passed before an eventual accession of Russia to the WTO.

International copyright relations
International copyright treaties

International copyright is based on national treatment: signatory countries of a treaty are obliged to grant copyright on foreign works according to their own national laws. In the field of "classic" copyright (or author's rights), three main treaties exist:
The Berne Convention (BC) dates to 1886 and was amended several times. It defined the minimal rights of those who produced creative scientific, literary, and artistic works, prescribing a general minimum duration of copyright of 50 years p.m.a.
The Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) was adopted in 1952 (and revised in 1971) as a less stringent alternative to the BC for countries who considered the BC too demanding. If a country signed both the UCC and the BC, the BC had precedence in dealings with other BC countries.
The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) of 1996 became effective in 2002. It was an extension of the BC covering computer programs and databases.
In the field of neighbouring rights, two important treaties are:
The Rome Convention of 1961 was the equivalent to the BC for performers, phonogram producers, and broadcasting institutions.
The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) of 1996 entered in force in 2002. It was an update on the Rome Convention.

Additionally, the TRIPS agreement from 1994 defined minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property rights for WTO member countries.

Tsarist Russia and the USSR had a history of near-isolation concerning international copyright relations. Under the Tsars, only a few bilateral copyright treaties with other nations were concluded; these treaties moreover were weak and of short duration. Under Western pressure, Russia planned to join the Berne Convention in the early 20th century, but that was, according to Stoyanovitch, prevented by the outbreak of World War I. The treaties from Tsarist times had all run out by end of the war.

International copyright relations of the USSR

After the October Revolution, the Soviet Union had no international copyright relations until 1967, when a first treaty with Hungary was concluded. A second treaty with Bulgaria followed 1971. In 1973, the USSR then joined the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC), establishing copyright relations with Western countries. With the accession of the Soviet Union to the UCC, Soviet works published on or after May 27, 1973 became eligible to copyright in all other signatory countries of the UCC. Conversely, foreign works became copyrighted in the Soviet Union by virtue of the UCC if they were published on or after May 27, 1973 and the publication occurred in a UCC country or the author was a citizen of a UCC country.

More bilateral treaties followed, with the German Democratic Republic (effective November 21, 1973), with Poland (October 4, 1974), and with Czechoslovakia (March 18, 1975). The 1967 treaty with Hungary had already been prolonged in 1971 and was again renewed in 1977, the treaty with Bulgaria was renewed in 1975. In 1981, the first bilateral treaty with a Western country was signed: the copyright treaty with Austria entered in force on December 16, 1981. On May 30, 1985, a treaty with Cuba followed, and in 1986 the second treaty with a Western country was concluded with Sweden. All these post-UCC treaties went beyond the provisions of the UCC because they were applied retroactively and explicitly applied also to works published before the USSR had joined the UCC and that were still copyrighted in their source country in 1973. (The treaty with Austria was amended to cover such pre-1973 works in 1989.) On April 19, 1989, another copyright treaty with Madagascar was concluded. The treaty with the German Democratic Republic was rescinded by the USSR on June 2, 1991, following confusions about its continued applicability after the German reunification.

On October 20, 1988, the USSR acceded to the Brussels Convention about measures against the unauthorized (re-)distribution of satellite transmissions. The treaty became effective for Russia from January 20, 1989 on.

International copyright relations of Russia

When the Soviet Union was dissolved, Russia as the largest successor state adopted all international obligations of the former USSR, including its membership to the UCC. Consequently, Russia was henceforth considered a member of the UCC (in the 1952 Geneva text) since the date of the adherence of the USSR to that treaty, i.e., since May 27, 1973. The membership of the USSR in the Brussels Convention was equally continued by the Russian Federation as from December 25, 1991.

On June 25, 1993, Russia and Armenia signed a treaty on the mutual protection of copyrights. To clarify the copyright situation amongst the states that had made up the former Soviet Union, the CIS nations agreed on a cooperation agreement in the field of copyrights on September 24, 1993. This "Moscow agreement" declared that all signatory countries considered themselves bound by the UCC as of the date the USSR had joined and would confirm this state with the UNESCO, which administered the UCC. The treaty also defined that the treaty states would apply the UCC amongst themselves, also for works published before May 27, 1973 if those works had been copyrighted before this date according to the national laws of the successor states. The intent of the Moscow agreement was to avoid that older Soviet works became copyrighted in only some of the successor states, but would become part of the public domain in some of the others. The 1993 Moscow agreement entered in force in Russia on May 6, 1995.

Also in 1993, Russia and Switzerland concluded a trade agreement in which they granted each other most-favoured-nation status concerning intellectual property rights. This treaty entered in force on July 1, 1995. A comprehensive trade treaty with the European Union that was signed on June 24, 1994, contained similar provisions regarding intellectual property. The intellectual property part of that treaty entered in force on February 1, 1996.

On November 3, 1994, the Russian government announced that the country would join three international treaties in the field of copyrights: the 1971 Paris version of the UCC including its annexes, the Geneva Phonograms Convention on unauthorized duplication and parallel import of phonograms, and the Berne Convention. The accession documents to all three treaties were deposited on December 9, 1994. The UCC (Paris 1971 version) became effective for Russia on March 9, 1995. The Geneva Convention entered in force with respect to Russia on March 13, 1995 and was not retroactive: it covered only phonograms recorded after that date.

Berne Convention
The Berne Convention also became effective for Russia on March 13, 1995. Russian or Soviet works that were copyrighted on that date became copyrighted in all other Berne Countries on that date.

In its declaration of accession, Russia made a reservation regarding article 18 of the Berne Convention, stating that the treaty "shall not extend to the works which, at the date of entry into force of the said Convention in respect of the Russian Federation, are already in the public domain in its territory." This statement effectively denied the retroactivity of the Berne Convention for foreign works within Russia. This was of some importance because of the issue of foreign works published before May 27, 1973, when the USSR had joined the UCC. Such works had never been eligible to copyright in the Soviet Union or in Russia. Under §18(2) of the Berne Convention, they should have become copyrighted in 1995 because that article only exempted works that once were copyrighted, but on which that copyright already had expired, which didn't apply to pre-1973 foreign works in Russia. The reservation made by Russia used a slightly different phrasing, just stating that works that were in the public domain in Russia in 1995 would not be reprotected. As pre-1973 foreign works were not copyrighted at all and thus in the public domain in Russia in 1995, such foreign works remained in the public domain in Russia.

Russian scholars have disputed this retroactivity issue at length. Gavrilov, for instance, who had argued for the Russian reservation to the Berne Convention, kept defending it, while others disagreed. Maggs and Sergeyev, for instance, pointed out in 2000 that the reservation was inadmissible under article 30(1) of the Berne Convention; Podshibikhin and Leontiev agreed in 2002.  The modification of the copyright law through law 72-FL in 2004 refuelled the discussion, because this law added a new paragraph 4 to article 5 of the 1993 copyright law which clearly stated under which conditions foreign works were copyrighted in Russia, using a wording that corresponded in essence to articles 18(1) and 18(2) of the Berne Convention. Although law 72-FL indeed was intended to rescind the non-retroactivity reservation, thereby restoring copyrights on pre-1973 foreign works, the common practice in Russia continued treating pre-1973 foreign works as uncopyrighted.

In 2012 Russia withdrew reservation in its declaration of accession, which was main argument in position of supporters of uncopyrightibility of pre-1973 foreign works.

Other treaties
In 2003, Russia also joined the Rome Convention, the analogue of the Berne Convention for neighbouring rights. The adherence of Russia to the Rome Convention became effective on May 26, 2003. The Rome convention covered performances, phonograms, and broadcasts. The Rome Convention is non-retroactive and applies only to phonograms created after and to performances or broadcasts that occurred after a country jointed the convention (article 20).

After part IV of the Civil Code had entered in force on January 1, 2008, the Russian Federation also acceded on November 5, 2008 to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (entry in force of both accessions on February 5, 2009). On August 22, 2012, the Russian Federation also became a member of the World Trade Organization.

Copyright on foreign works in the USSR and in Russia

Prior to the accession of the Soviet Union to the UCC, only works by foreign authors that were first published in the USSR and unpublished works of foreign authors that existed in an objective form on the territory of the USSR were eligible to copyright. When the USSR joined the UCC in 1973 and the treaty entered in force with respect to the USSR on May 27, 1973, foreign works first published on or after that date outside of the USSR became copyrighted in the Soviet Union if
the author was a national of any other signatory country of the UCC, irrespective of where this publication occurred, or if
the work was first published in any other UCC country, regardless of the nationality of the author.

In addition to the UCC, the bilateral treaties the USSR concluded with several countries, amongst them also two Western countries, made works of nationals of these countries eligible for copyright in the Soviet Union, even works published before May 27, 1973. In the case of Austria, Poland, and Sweden, this even applied to any work first published there, irrespective of the nationality of the author.

Since its accession to the Berne Convention in 1995, the following foreign works were copyrighted in Russia:
 Soviet works published in the Russian SFSR, as well as works of authors who became citizens of the Russian federation after the demise of the USSR became subject to the copyright law of the Russian Federation of 1993 (and its amendments) due to the strict territoriality of copyright law.
Soviet works that were first published in one of the other fourteen republics of the USSR and created by authors who did not become nationals of the Russian Federation were subject to the Russian copyright law per the Moscow agreement.
 Works by nationals of countries that adhered to the Berne Convention, but not to the UCC, or works published in such a country, became eligible to copyright in Russia if they were published on or after March 13, 1995, the date the Berne Convention became effective with respect to Russia.
 Works of nationals of UCC countries, or works first published in such a country (regardless of the author's nationality), were subject to copyright in Russia if the works were first published on or after May 27, 1973. Because of the Russian reservation concerning the retroactivity of the Berne Convention, this applied whether or not the UCC country had also signed the Berne Convention.
 Pre-1973 works of nationals of one of the countries the USSR or Russia concluded bilateral treaties with were subject to copyright in Russia insofar as these treaties remained effective. This concerned works of nationals of Austria, Armenia, Bulgaria, Cuba, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Madagascar, Poland, Slovakia, and Sweden, regardless of the place of first publication. It also applied generally to works first published in Austria, Poland, or Sweden, regardless of the author's nationality, as the bilateral treaties with these states explicitly stated so.

Since the entry in force of federal law 72-FL of August 8, 2004, pre-1973 works subject to the Berne Convention are copyrighted in Russia if they were copyrighted in the source country in 1995. Russia implements the rule of the shorter term: the copyright term in Russia runs to the shorter of the term in the source country and the term granted by Russian law. The amendments made by law 72-FL were also taken over by the new copyright law in Part IV of the Civil Code.

Copyright on Soviet and Russian works in other countries

Even before the accession of the Soviet Union to the UCC in 1973, some Soviet works were copyrighted in some other countries. One well-known case concerned the actions of the four Soviet composers Shostakovich, Khachaturian, Prokofiev, and Myaskovsky against the movie company 20th Century Fox. While the U.S. courts dismissed their case in Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox, the French Court of Cassation in 1959 ruled that works of foreign authors were entitled to copyright in France, and that the works of these four Soviet composers were thus copyrighted in France. It found their moral rights violated and ordered the film to be confiscated.

Another way by which Soviet works could become copyrighted outside of the Soviet Union was the smuggling of manuscripts out of the USSR to have the work first published abroad. This practice, known as tamizdat in the Soviet Union, could result in serious repercussions for the authors in the USSR, but was still employed as one of the few ways the governmental censorship could be bypassed. As a side effect, tamizdat works were granted copyright in the foreign country of first publication. If that country was a signatory of the UCC or the Berne Convention, the work was also granted copyright in all other signatories of these treaties, because they both extended copyright to works of citizens of non-member states, if these works were first published in a member state. A very famous case of a tamizdat publication was Boris Pasternak's novel Doctor Zhivago, which, after it had been refused by Soviet publishers, was first published in an Italian translation in Italy in 1957. Because Italy was a member of both the UCC and the Berne Convention, the work was entitled to full copyright in all other member states of these two conventions.

Early Soviet authors sometimes benefited from international copyright on their works just naturally. Maxim Gorky and Sergei Prokofiev, for instance, both had lived for some time abroad and published works in other countries that were members of the Berne Convention. These works of theirs were copyrighted in all other signatory countries of the Berne Convention. After the case of Doctor Zhivago, Soviet publishers became more aware of this possibility to have Soviet works covered by the Berne Convention. Soviet state organizations began to arrange for (simultaneous) first publication of some Soviet works in a country of the Berne Convention. For instance, Mikhail Sholokov's novel They Fought for Their Country was officially first published in Italy.

When the Soviet Union joined to the UCC, all Soviet works published on or after May 27, 1973 became eligible to copyright in all other signatory countries of the UCC. This state persisted until the dissolution of the USSR. When the USSR disintegrated, so did its copyright law. The split into fifteen independent states translated into a split into fifteen independent copyright laws, each with its own jurisdiction defined by the territory of the new successor state of the Soviet Union. Through the Moscow agreement, Soviet works first published in the RSFSR, which were thus subject to the Russian law, became eligible for copyright is all other CIS nations, even if they had been published before 1973.

With the accession of Russia to the Berne Convention, Soviet and Russian works that were copyrighted in Russia in 1995 became copyrighted outside of Russia. By virtue of the retroactivity of the Russian copyright law of 1993, this also included many pre-1973 Soviet works. In the United States, these works became copyrighted on January 1, 1996, the effective date of the U.S. Uruguay Round Agreements Act, if they were still copyrighted in Russia on that date. In the countries that had bilateral treaties with the USSR, pre-1973 Soviet works (from any of the fifteen SSRs) were copyrighted even before.

Notes

References

Main sources:

Elst, M.: Copyright, Freedom of Speech, and Cultural Policy in the Russian Federation, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, 2005; .
Levitsky, S. L.: Introduction to Soviet Copyright Law, vol. 8 of Law in Eastern Europe; A.W. Sythoff, Leiden 1964. No ISBN. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 58-33118.
Newcity, M. A.: Copyright Law in the Soviet Union, Praeger Publishers, New York 1978. .

Other sources:

Boikova, O.: MinervaPlus WP4 Interim Draft Report 4.1 "Inspection of the European legislation regarding Intellectual Property Rights" – Russian Federation. Also available as a Microsoft Word document. URLs last accessed 2007-01-23.
Budylin, S.; Osipova, Y.: Is allofmp3 legal? Non-contractual licensing under Russian Copyright Law, pp. 1–17 in Journal of High Technology Law 7(1), 2007. ISSN 1536-7983. URL last accessed 2007-01-25.
CIPR: Russia Proposes New Civil Code, March 2006. URL last accessed 2007-01-25.
Dittrich, R.: Österreichisches und Internationales Urheberrecht, Manz'sche Verlags- u. Universitätsbuchhandlung, Wener 1988;
Ecomash: The President has assigned forth part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, December 21, 2006. URL last accessed 2007-01-25.
Femida Audit: Daily Monitoring of the Legislation, December 2006. URL last accessed 2007-01-25.
Gavrilov, E. P. (1999): , undated (ca. 1999/2000) online version of his paragraph-by-paragraph commentary on the Russian copyright law of 1993. URL last accessed 2007-01-27.
Gigante, A.: Ice Patch on the Information Superhighway: Foreign Liability for Domestically Created Content, pp. 523 –562 in Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 1996. URL last accessed 2007-01-27.
Lewinski, S. von: The Role and Future of the Universal Copyright Convention, UNESCO Copyright Bulletin Oct. – Dec. 2006; ISSN 1817-4167. URL last accessed 2007-01-25.
Loeber, D.A.: Urheberrecht in der Sowjetunion: Einführung und Quellen, 2nd ed.; Alfred Metzner Verlang, Frankfurt am Main 1981. No ISBN. In German.
Lyapin, A.; Paliashvili, I.: Study of Retroactivity in Copyright and Neighboring Rights Protection an Russia (Microsoft Word document, 90kB), April 11, 2001. URL last accessed 2007-01-23.
Maggs, P. B.; Sergeyev, P. A.:  ("Intellectual Property"); 2000; 400 pp. . In Russian. Available on-line; URL last accessed 2007-01-23.
Patry, W. F.: Copyright Law and Practice, Chapter 1: Introduction. Bna Books, . URL last accessed 2007-02-12.
Pilch, J. T. (2003): Understanding Copyright Law for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Materials, in Slavic and East European Information Resources (SEEIR) 4(1), pp. 75 – 101; Haworth Information Press 2003. ISSN 1522-8886.
Pilch, J. T. (2004): Current Copyright Legislation of the CIS Nations and its Relevance for U.S. Library Collections: The Laws of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova, in Slavic and East European Information Resources (SEEIR) 5(1/2), pp. 81 – 122; Haworth Information Press 2004. ISSN 1522-8886.
Podshibikhin, L. I.; Leontiev, K. B.:  ("The implementation of the Berne Convention in the Russian Federation"); April 25, 2002. An archived version also exists. In Russian. URLs last accessed 2007-01-25.
Russian Association of Book Publishers: . In Russian. URL last accessed 2007-01-23.
Savelyeva, I. V.: The Russian Federation, pp. 25–60 in Stewart, S. M. (ed.): International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, Butterworths, London, 1993. .
U.S. Copyright Office: Circular 38a: International Copyright Relations of the United States. URL last accessed 2007-01-26.
U.S. Trade Representative, Factsheet on U.S. – Russia WTO Bilateral Market Access Agreement, November 10, 2006. URL last accessed 2007-01-26.
WIPO: Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works...as revised in Paris 1971 and amended in 1979. URL last accessed 2007-01-23.
WIPO: Berne Notification 162: Accession by the Russian Federation, December 13, 1994. URL last accessed 2007-01-23.
WTO, Working Party on the Accession of the Russian Federation: Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Russian Federation to the World Trade Organization, document WT/ACC/RUS/70/WT/MIN(11)/2, November 17, 2011. Microsoft Word document, 5.3MB. URL last accessed 2012-10-24.

Laws:

Russian Federation, Decree No 1224, November 3, 1994: , in Russian. Governmental decree about the accession of Russia to three international copyright treaties. Includes the Russian reservation concerning the Berne Convention. URL last accessed 2007-01-23.
Russian Federation, Decree No 1281, December 11, 2012: , in Russian. Governmental decree about the withdrawal of reservation concerning the Berne Convention. URL last accessed 2013-08-20.
Russian Federation: Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, English translation of federal law no. 5351-1, of 1993 (with amendments up to 2004). URL last accessed 2007-01-23. The original Russian text is also available on-line (accessed last on 2007-07-06).
Russian Federation: , Federal decree no. 5352-1 of July 9, 1993: Implementation Act for the above law no. 5351-1. In Russian. URL last accessed 2007-01-23.
Russian Federation, law 72- of 2004: , Federal law no. 72-FL of July 20, 2004 on amendments to the copyright law, signed by Vladimir Putin, published on July 28, 2004. Entry in force on August 8, 2004; some provisions became effective only on September 1, 2006. In Russian. A German translation is also available online. In English, there's a version of the whole 1993 copyright law, as amended in 1995 and 2004, with the changes introduced by 72-FL in boldface. "72-FL" ("FL" stands for "federal law") is sometimes also given in transliterated form "72-FZ" for .) URLs last accessed 2007-01-23.
Russian Federation, Federal Law no. 230- of 2006: . Law 230-FL: Part IV of the new Civil Code of the Russian Federation, from December 18, 2006. In Russian. URL last accessed 2007-01-29.
Russian Federation, Federal law no. 231- of 2006: . Law 231-FL of December 18, 2006: implementation act for part IV of the Civil Code. In Russian. URL last accessed 2007-01-29.
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation: , Plenum decision no. 15 of June 19, 2006 on some questions of application of the Copyright law. In Russian. URL last accessed 2007-01-09.

External links
English translation of Chapter IV of the 1961 Fundamentals, taken from Levitsky's book
Chapter IV of the 1964 Civil Code of the RSFSR, in a post-1973 edition (with the 25 years p.m.a. term); in Russian
Chapter IV of the 1991 Fundamentals, in Russian
English translation of the Russian Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights of 1993, with amendments up to 2004
Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006, in Russian
ROSPATENT – Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents, and Trademarks
CIPR – Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights
http://www.copyright.ru/

Russian intellectual property law
Russia

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Legislation banning top state officials from lobbying state government for a year after leaving their jobs was introduced Wednesday in the state House of Representatives.
The proposal – which we wrote about last week – would apply the one-year "cooling off period" to state legislators, statewide elected officials, the directors and senior staff of major state agencies and top legislative aides.
The directors and senior staff of smaller state agencies would face a lesser restriction: they'd be banned for a year from lobbying their former agency, but could immediately lobby other parts of state government.
House Bill 1136 is sponsored by Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle, and Rep. Sam Hunt, D-Olympia at the request of state Attorney General Bob Ferguson.
The proposal is an effort to resolve the "revolving door" perception that government officials are trading on their taxpayer financed knowledge and connections to land lucrative lobbying gigs.
A hearing on the bill has not yet been set.


text:
Spectral signature is the variation of reflectance or emittance of a material with respect to wavelengths (i.e., reflectance/emittance as a function of wavelength).  The spectral signature of stars indicates the composition of the stellar atmosphere. The spectral signature of an object is a function of the incidental EM wavelength and material interaction with that section of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The measurements can be made with various instruments, including a task specific spectrometer, although the most common method is separation of the red, green, blue and near infrared portion of the EM spectrum as acquired by digital cameras.  Calibrating spectral signatures under specific illumination are collected in order to apply a correction to airborne or satellite imagery digital images.

The user of one kind of spectroscope looks through it at a tube of ionized gas. The user sees specific lines of colour falling on a graduated scale. Each substance will have its own unique pattern of spectral lines.

Most remote sensing applications process digital images to extract spectral signatures at each pixel and use them to divide the image in groups of similar pixels (segmentation) using different approaches. As a last step, they assign a class to each group (classification) by comparing with known spectral signatures. Depending on pixel resolution, a pixel can represent many spectral signature "mixed" together - that is why much remote sensing analysis is done to "unmix mixtures". Ultimately correct matching of spectral signature recorded by image pixel with spectral signature of existing elements leads to accurate classification in remote sensing.

See also
 Hyperspectral imaging
 Multispectral image

References

Spectroscopy


In recent years, lenders have begun offering online loans with faster approval and decision processes compared to traditional storefront lenders and banks. These quick loans have become a useful source of funds for South African borrowers who require money immediately. Unfortunately, many borrowers in their haste to get cash, do not to fully review the options available to them. Reading through each lender's terms and conditions can be a cumbersome task, but without understanding the loan offer in detail, you may be hit with higher than expected repayment costs.
Luckily, Friendly Finance is here to help. We have carefully reviewed the loan products from a wide range of credible online lenders and presented the relevant information on each product in an easy to read format. What's more, we compare the lenders next to one another, so you can make a quick decision on the best quick loan for you.
Applying for a loan can be scary when it is your first time. To help, we have outlined below what to expect when applying and provided a few definitions of key terms to get you started.
This is required by the lender to make an accurate affordability decision on whether to approve you for a loan. The information is stored securely and not passed onto third party companies without your consent. The application should take around 10 minutes to complete.
Once you have submitted your loan application the lender will review the information. The time to receive a decision will vary between lenders. Some will provide an instant decision, others may need to call you to discuss the application in more detail. You should receive correspondence from the lender informing you of the next steps.
If you are approved for a loan, make sure you are happy with the loan terms within the agreement before signing. Once you have signed for the loan you are committed to the repayments, so take this time to ensure you're happy with the offer. The lender will transfer the funds to your bank account when the loan agreement has been signed. The time to receive your quick loan will depend on the lender and your banking institution. In some cases, you may receive the money the same day.
The repayment of your loan will be simple. Most quick loan providers will set up a direct debit to automatically make the repayment from your bank account on the agreed date, so all you will need to do is make sure there are enough funds in your account. Repaying your loan on time will help you avoid extra fees and may improve your chances of being approved for higher loan amounts next time.
Loan Term – the length of time to repay the loan. For example, a 6-week loan term means you have 6 weeks in total to repay the loan.
Initiation Fee – a fee charged by the lender to set up your loan account. This will be added to the total cost of borrowing.
Interest Rate – this is a cost of borrowing that is typically represented as a percentage of the loan amount.
If you need money now, you probably don't want to wait any longer than necessary to take out your loan. Here at Friendly Finance, you can get started toward finding your perfect loan right away. Gather your information, and start looking for loans now so that you can get the money that you need as soon as possible.


text:
International | Sci-Tech
25 Dec 43rd successive Cabhair Swim, Christmas Day , 2019...
1,000 years of climate data confirms Australia's warming 20:17 May 20 41 comments
Internet Freedom Fighters Build a Shadow Web 17:44 Feb 25 5 comments
Apache helicopters for Libya 14:03 May 27 9 comments
The dangers of EM radiation from cell towers is finally getting to the guinea pigs 01:00 Apr 17 9 comments
Over 300 gold deposits within Ireland! 09:38 May 28 8 comments
Dublin Opinion
Life should be full of strangeness, like a rich painting
Some Thoughts on the Brexit Joint Report 11:50 Sat Dec 09, 2017
IRISH COMMONWEALTH: TRADE UNIONS AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE 21ST CENTURY 14:06 Sat Nov 18, 2017
Notes for a Book on Money and the Irish State - The Marshall Aid Program 15:10 Sat Apr 02, 2016
The Financial Crisis:What Have We Learnt? 19:58 Sat Aug 29, 2015
Money in 35,000 Words or Less 21:34 Sat Aug 22, 2015
Dublin Opinion >>
Mobile Phone Cancer Link Looking Less And Less Likely
international | sci-tech | other press Sunday July 03, 2011 20:22 by Wringer
Get the full story at the url. Maybe mobiles are safe after all.
Evidence from a growing number of studies does not support the theory that cellphones raise the risk of brain cancer, an independent international panel of experts has found after carrying out a thorough analysis of all published research.
The analysis was carried out by the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology.
Their findings and conclusions can be found in the latest issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.
Professor Anthony Swerdlow, from The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), and team concluded:
"Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumours in adults."
This latest study follows another one coordinated by the IARC (International Agency for Cancer Research), the 13-country Interphone Study.
Professor Swerdlow and team evaluated the Interphone Study carefully and described it as impressively large and comprehensive, but with several methodological flaws. They found no compelling evidence of a link between mobile phones and the location of tumors relative to their use.
According to national statistics and studies from several countries, the authors stress, there is no evidence of an increase in brain tumor rates up to 20 years after mobile phones were first used, and 10 years after they became commonly used.
Related Link: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/230297.php


Build e2fsprogs-1.41.9 fail sometimes because of compiling order. Build with NON_SMP_BUILD should be OK.
This still happens with e2fsprogs-1.41.12.
do you have an updated build log ? i cant get it to fail on my 4-core machine.
ive run it in a loop for a little bit.


Attach the inner tube to a bike pump.
Pump up the tire until it's full of air.
Listen for the hiss of air escaping from the tube. Bring it close to your ear to help.
Using a bowl of water, run the air-filled tube through the water. Look for a stream of bubbles emanating from the tube. That's where your hole is.
Cover the hole with a finger, detach the pump, and let all the air out of the tube by pressing down on the valve stem.
With your sandpaper, lightly sand an area around the leak larger than your patch.
Wipe clean with your hand or optional towel.
Cover the sanded area with glue.
Let glue dry for 5 minutes.
Separate the patch from its backing and place directly onto the tube, pressing it firmly into the glue.
A good rule of thumb is to replace a tube after you've patched it three times.
Remove any cellophane cover over the patch and you're ready to go.
Bike patches are typically more durable than the tube itself.
Small in size and portable.
A must-have for your riding.
This book helps the interested cyclist select the best components and gives technical insights into the way they work. Essential background information for anyone interested in the technical aspects of the modern bike and its development throughout history. Illustrated with over 900 line drawings and photographs with clear explanatory captions.


text:
Enter ZIP Code: ZIP:
#Wendy
Be a Part of the Show
Rolando Beramendi's "Autentico" Recipes
Play / Pause Mute
Direct link: Embed code:
Next video playing in s Cancel
Soffritto
Italian soffritto—similar to French mirepoix or Spanish sofrito—is a classic, simple mix of sautéed aromatic vegetables that jump-starts a slew of recipes from soups and stews to pasta sauces and Tuscan Ragù, My Way (page 63). Derived from the verb soffriggere, which means "to fry" in Italian, soffritto starts as a raw mixture of onions, carrots, and celery called battuto (from the verb battere), which means "to chop"). Low heat, unhurried cooking, and regular stirring turns a battuto into a soffritto in 35 to 40 minutes. The longer and slower the vegetables are cooked, the darker, nuttier, and softer they become, and thus the more complex the flavors in the final dish.
The key to soffritto is cutting the vegetables into the same size (use a knife rather than a food processor) to ensure even cooking. This recipe yields about three cups, but is easy to scale up (just use equal parts onion, celery, and carrots). I often double or triple the amount and store the cooked soffritto in the freezer.
And one last thing: Tuscan cooks prefer to use the inner, lighter-in-color stalks from a bunch of celery for their subtler flavor. The outer green ones have a stronger celery flavor and can overpower the other vegetables. Use whichever is most to your liking!
2 cups (500 ml | 440 g) mild extra-virgin olive oil
2 cups (275 g) very finely diced white onions (about 1 large onion)
2 cups (275 g) very finely diced carrots (about 4 medium carrots)
2 cups (275 g) very finely diced celery (about 8 medium stalks— preferably the lighter, inner stalks)
1 garlic clove, finely chopped
q.b. coarse sea salt and crushed Tellicherry black peppercorns
• Put the olive oil, onions, carrots, celery, and garlic in a large skillet and stir to coat evenly with the oil. Place over high heat until the oil is hot and the vegetables start to fry, about 5 minutes. Reduce the heat to medium and cook, stirring occasionally, until the onions are a deep golden brown, the celery has turned from white to a pale gold, and the vegetables are very tender, 45 minutes to 1 hour. Season with salt and pepper. Use immediately or set aside to cool, then store in an airtight container in the refrigerator for up to 1 week.
Tomato Sauce (SALSA DI POMODORO)
A simple homemade tomato sauce forms the heart of many Italian pasta, braises, soups, and other dishes. Instead of using canned tomatoes, I use passata di pomodoro, a puréed raw tomato sauce that has been strained of seeds and skins, for a sauce that is smooth, rich, and flavorful. Popular throughout Europe, passata is quickly gaining a following in North America—find it in specialty food shops in tall glass jars next to the tomatoes. If you cannot find it in your store, run pure canned tomatoes through a sieve or a food mill and discard the solids.
Contrary to popular belief, if you use quality ingredients, tomato sauce doesn't need to take all day to cook. My family recipe takes under 30 minutes from start to finish. Cut the recipe in half or refrigerate or freeze leftovers.
¼ cup (60 ml | 57 g) medium extra- virgin olive oil
2 large white onions, finely chopped (about 2½ cups)
2 cups (475 ml | 454 g) passata di Pomodoro
6 sprigs basil
• In a large saucepan, combine the olive oil and onions and sauté over medium heat until the onions are transparent, 12 to 15 minutes. Add the passata and basil and bring to a simmer. Cook until the sauce has reduced by one-third, 15 to 20 minutes. Remove and discard the basil sprigs and season with salt and pepper. Use immediately or reheat before serving. Salsa di Pomodoro will keep in an airtight container in the refrigerator for up to 5 days.
Arugula and Herb Pesto (PESTO DI ERBE)
MAKES 2½ CUPS
3 cups (100 g) arugula
1 cup (30 g) fresh basil and/or parsley leaves
1 cup (30 g) green garlic or ramps tops
q.b. fine sea salt
1¼ cups (300 ml | 275 g) mild extra-virgin olive oil, plus more to finish
• In a large mortar, start smashing the arugula, basil, and green garlic with the pestle one handful at a time (if it becomes too dry, add a little extra-virgin olive oil) until a very thick paste forms. Season with salt. Add the olive oil slowly, drop by drop, crushing constantly until combined and the pesto is creamy and thick.
• Transfer the pesto to a jar and cover with the remaining olive oil. If it's not sufficient, top off with more olive oil until the pesto is covered under the oil. Store in the refrigerator for up to 2 weeks.
"Autentico" is available October 24th.
Copyright © 2017 by Rolando Beramendi and reprinted by permission of St. Martin's Griffin.
Co-Hosts, How Well Do You Know Our Wendy?
Happy 55th Birthday Wendy!
8 Hot Summer Swimsuits You're Going to See All Over Instagram
Blac Chyna & Tokyo Toni Feud
Should Jennifer Lopez Perform at the Super Bowl?
Don't Tell Cardi B How to Dress
Kenya Moore Returns to RHOA
Lil' Kim is Furious
© 2019 Talk WW Production Inc.
Subscribe and become a Wendy Insider
We use cookies to improve your experience with our website. By browsing our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies. For more information about how we use cookies, please review our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.


Today I took the step to kill the tweets that get kicked out by SumAll around my twitter (and other) statistics. Originally I set this up with the view that it might be a neat little way of showing that there was some interest in what I was doing … but in truth what those tweets did was something far, FAR more embarrassing.
The thing is, those tweets really come across more like a whiny, high-pitched and hormone-charged teenager crying for attention rather than any reflection of popularity. I'm really not blaming SumAll for this, that service is great and provides some very helpful statistics to me, but the idea of sharing that information… and, worse, pushing it out to my followers as if that would give them a sense of 'look how cool we are to be part of the vaguely popular following…' just left me, and many of my followers, cold.
And so it was with no small relish that I enacted a simple log-in to SumAll and a change of my twitter preferences in order to kill off these ridiculous tweets for good. My apologies to those that got annoyed with those tweets, and many thanks to @marienborg for having the courage and sceptical sense to ask the important question "do you get any value from these tweets?…"; the answer was no, quite the opposite!
Sorry these tweets weren't for you. I hope you'll keep using SumAll for the aspects you find useful.


Fine sounding Martin Medalist from the sixties. Just completely overhauled and technically in a superb condition.
This is a Martin Handcraft Standard. Not many of these are built. It is a kind of hybrid: body of the Handcraft series, keywork of the simpeler Indiana series. Soundwise it is a real topclass Martin.


text:
Vitter's Reprieve?
By Emily Heil and Anna Palmer
Posted April 8, 2008 at 6:52pm
Sen. David Vitter may be on the "D.C. Madam's" witness list, but the Louisiana Republican may be able to breathe a sigh of relief.
While there was nary an official mention of Vitter during the second day of the trial, accused madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey showed her hand to an acquaintance during a break in the morning's testimony, according to an HOH tipster who overheard her talking.
[IMGCAP(1)]Palfrey told an unidentified gentleman sitting in the back row of the D.C. federal courtroom that she thought the trial was going "well" and that she had confidence in her latest attorney, Preston Burton. When the man asked Palfrey the million-dollar question — whether the Senator from Louisiana, allegedly a client of Palfrey's, was going to be called to the witness stand — she responded that she didn't think it was likely and that she was hoping the judge would throw the case out after the prosecution finished its case.
The trial so far has largely focused on the seamy details of Palfrey's Washington escorts, who, according to testimony, were paid $250 for a 90-minute client visit.
No word from Vitter on whether he's thanking his lucky stars that he may be able to avoid the hot seat. The junior Senator has stayed mum on the topic, except for an unsuccessful plea from his attorney last week to quash the defense's subpoena.
Fightin' Words. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) may be trying to show his softer side to voters, but now it's his campaign that's throwing punches — at an author who claims McCain got in a fistfight with Arizona Republican Rep. Rick Renzi back in 2006. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers refuted the story in Cliff Schecter's new book, "The Real McCain," that fisticuffs broke out after McCain repeatedly referred to both Renzi and Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) as "boy" in a meeting.
The story is "tabloid trash," Rogers tells HOH. Renzi did not return HOH's calls.
"I've known John McCain for over 20 years, and certainly during that time there have been a few spirited disagreements, but never has he called or referred to me as 'boy,' nor have I ever seen him 'punch' or attempt to punch anyone," Franks told HOH.
Still, Schecter stands by his book, which details the Renzi run-in as well as some of McCain's other not-so-friendly moments. Schecter, a former Washington consultant, says he collected much of the dish found in the book in McCain's home state.
"I found the most interesting information from Arizona because people know the truth about him there and a lot about him that has never been reported nationally is known there," said Schecter, who traveled to Arizona last June to do research for the book.
Schecter is a former McCain supporter (he gave McCain $20 in 2000 for his presidential bid), but he says he leans Democratic in his political views and that he changed his mind about McCain after the 2000 election.
And although the McCain camp is flatly denying the flap, it seems Renzi is no stranger to flaring tempers. In 2005, HOH reported on an altercation between Renzi and fellow GOP Rep. Mark Kirk (Ill.) after he and some other Members did some polling on embryonic stem-cell research in his district without telling Renzi. The pair clashed on the House floor, but Renzi's temper was assuaged after an intervention by then-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.).
Another Day, Another Blog. Sure, everyone knows that the typical Hill staffer of lore is a badge-wearing, intern-ogling climber with a miserable bank account and a grinding Bud Light-induced hangover. Celebrating that stereotypical underling is a new blog, Stuff Hill People Like, a snarky takeoff of the popular blog Stuff White People Like, which generally pokes fun at the mores of upper-middle-class yuppiedom.
The Hill-centric blog, stuffhillpeoplelike.blogspot.com, is the brainchild of four former and current staffers who won't reveal their identities, one of the writers tells HOH. They hatched the idea after an all-day drinking binge on St. Patrick's Day, the writer says, but progress was delayed because they were too drunk to remember the password for the blog.
The blog mirrors the format of Stuff White People Like in that it keeps a numeric tally of things central to the life of a Hill staffer. So far that list includes business cards, interns, the defunct series "The West Wing," Google's online chat feature, recess and their parents' money. The writers self-deprecatingly lump themselves in with the very folks they mock, they say, so it's all in good fun. And they tell HOH they're surprised at the number of hits they've gotten (1,000 in the previous 24 hours) from places as far-flung as Chile and Malaysia.
And if there's one more item HOH might humbly add to the list of things Hill people like, it's another goofy blog to distract them.
Trail Takes Hill Detour. They've got the whole baby-kissing, waving-to-huge-cheering-crowds thing down pat, but now the three presidential hopefuls have returned to the Senate for decidedly less glamorous work.
Still, it seems, old habits die hard.
A group of tourists broke into applause and cheers when they spotted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the basement of the Capitol, a witness tells HOH. The candidate amiably shook hands with his apparent supporters. And Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), too, got some points and stares from visitors to the Capitol, a tipster tells us.
Erin P. Billings contributed to this report.
Submit your hot tips, juicy gossip or comments here.


text:
package org.apache.wicket.examples.repeater;

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;

import org.apache.wicket.extensions.ajax.markup.html.repeater.data.table.AjaxFallbackDefaultDataTable;
import org.apache.wicket.extensions.markup.html.repeater.data.grid.ICellPopulator;
import org.apache.wicket.extensions.markup.html.repeater.data.table.AbstractColumn;
import org.apache.wicket.extensions.markup.html.repeater.data.table.IColumn;
import org.apache.wicket.extensions.markup.html.repeater.data.table.PropertyColumn;
import org.apache.wicket.markup.repeater.Item;
import org.apache.wicket.model.IModel;
import org.apache.wicket.model.Model;

/**
 * @author Martijn Dashorst
 */
public class AjaxDataTablePage extends BasePage
{
	/**
	 * Constructor.
	 */
	public AjaxDataTablePage()
	{
		List<IColumn<Contact, String>> columns = new ArrayList<>();

		columns.add(new AbstractColumn<Contact, String>(Model.of("Actions"))
		{
			@Override
			public void populateItem(Item<ICellPopulator<Contact>> cellItem, String componentId,
				IModel<Contact> model)
			{
				cellItem.add(new ActionPanel(componentId, model));
			}
		});

		columns.add(new PropertyColumn<>(Model.of("ID"), "id"));
		columns.add(new PropertyColumn<>(Model.of("First Name"), "firstName",
			"firstName"));
		columns.add(new PropertyColumn<>(Model.of("Last Name"), "lastName",
			"lastName"));
		columns.add(new PropertyColumn<>(Model.of("Home Phone"), "homePhone"));
		columns.add(new PropertyColumn<>(Model.of("Cell Phone"), "cellPhone"));

		add(new AjaxFallbackDefaultDataTable<>("table", columns,
			new SortableContactDataProvider(), 8));
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
← Lessons From The Village
The Life of George Washington →
The duty of a wise people
George Washington captured my imagination and heart as a child, with his humility, his love for the land, his willingness to take on public duties when all he truly wanted to do was return to his farming at his home, Mount Vernon. In the darkest days of the Revolutionary War, his army in rags and struggling to survive a cold winter encamped at Valley Forge, PA from December 1778 to June 1779, General Washington, didn't toss up his hands and say, "they don't pay me enough to put up with this misery!" He didn't pack up his gear and head south for the winter. He suffered right beside his troops and spent many hours writing letters (excellent site here), often pleading for funds to arm, feed and clothe his ragtag army. In those dark days, he still took the time to handle mundane and routine personal business matters, keep in touch with his wife and family, while dealing with some of the toughest challenges of leadership. He tackled starting an army from scratch, with no experts and limited military experience, he forged ahead, always placing the highest importance on principles over expediency. He paid attention to not only the big problems, but he made time to deal with the little problems too. George Washington didn't wait for someone else to solve his problems.
He had learned early in life to think for himself. He didn't have a fancy education or access to as many books as most ordinary public schools contain today. What he did have was character honed by the strength of his convictions. Early in life he copied out by hand (no cut and paste option back then) "rules" to live by that had been used by Jesuit tutors for generations, as Richard Brookhiser explains in his book, "Rules of Civility: The 110 Precepts That Guided Our First President in War and Peace" (here). What is so lacking today is what George Washington used to guide his life- a belief in ideals. There's a quote that I had taped up from the time I was a teenager that helped guide me and to this day challenges me to never lose sight of the values I believe in, "Ideals are like stars; you will not succeed in touching them with your hands. but like the seafaring man on the deserts of waters; you choose them as your guides, and following them you will reach your destiny." – Carl Schurz. George Washington helped me build my character, by setting an example worth following. Some Jesuit teachings helped him find his. Our children need to be taught to find some worthy ideals to emulate. George Washington believed so much in our American future that when he finally did return home, he changed the orientation of his home from east to west, believing America's future lay, not in it's English past, but in the uncharted America that lay westward. He inspired a fledgling nation then and he still inspires many of us today.
George Washington was so revered by the American people that, had he chosen to grasp those reins of power, he could easily have become America's first "king". He reluctantly took on the first executive task to try and unite a new nation, serving two terms and then peacefully handing over power to another President, with very different political views and the leader of a rival political party. Washington never joined a party, but his views aligned with the Federalist Party. In his farewell address (full text here), he warned of the dangers of factions and partisan politics. The entire speech runs well over 7,000 words and offers up memorable quotes on a wide range of issues vital to a free people committed to popular government and preserving our Republic. Every American should take the time to read this speech sometime. Here are a few paragraphs on the danger of factions and political parties:
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."
We should listen to his wise counsel whispering to us on the winds of time.
Filed under American Character, American History, Food for Thought, Politics
7 responses to "The duty of a wise people"
Pingback: Aquamarine vs. turquoise | libertybelle diaries
Pingback: "He never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right" | libertybelle diaries
Pingback: Aquamarine vs. turquoise [repost from May 2015] | libertybelle diaries
Pingback: Another afternoon in the doctor's waiting room | libertybelle diaries
Pingback: "He never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right" ( a repost from August 2015) | libertybelle diaries
Pingback: About diversity | libertybelle diaries
Pingback: Aquamarine vs. turquoise ( a 2015 blog post) | libertybelle diaries