Pirates! (Arg...)
Joshua Hesse
internet/music "piracy" it seems that most people have forgotten
what real piracy is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12750-2001Jun17.html
>Not since the 17th and 18th centuries, when cutlass-wielding buccaneers
>like Captain Kidd and Henry Morgan terrorized the Caribbean, has piracy on
>the world's oceans been as rampant as it is now.
*Wonders when the pirates will start wielding cutlasses again.*
Oh, and for the gun control threads:
>The [Indonesian] government also has forbidden freighter crews to carry arms.
-Josh
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
UNL Anime Club: http://www.unl.edu/otaku
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
# 531-byte qrpff-fast, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz <sipb-i...@mit.edu>
# MPEG 2 PS VOB file on stdin -> descrambled output on stdout
# arguments: title key bytes in least to most-significant order
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$t=255;@t=map{$_%16or$t^=$c^=(
$m=(11,10,116,100,11,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])&110;$t^=(72,@z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16
-2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12:0,@z)[$_%8]}(16..271);if((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h
=5;$_=unxb24,join"",@b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$
d=unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256|(ord$b[4])<<9|ord$b[3];$d=$d>>8^($f=$t&($d>>12^$d>>4^
$d^$d/8))<<17,$e=$e>>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q*8^$q<<6))<<9,$_=$t[$_]^
(($h>>=8)+=$f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]}print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/pack+/g;eval
Harry Payne
<0009...@bigred.unl.edu> writes
>This is kind of interesting. With all of the talk about
>internet/music "piracy" it seems that most people have forgotten
>what real piracy is.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12750-2001Jun17.html
Yup. Those darn Napsterers forced the entire RIAA at harteebeeste-point
into a small boat, and forced them to walk the plank in shark-infested
waters....
IMNSHO, "software piracy" does more to lessen the idea of what real
piracy is than make bit-theft sound really bad.
In a similar vein, we now have script kiddies being disguised as "cyber-
terrorists", which may do wonders for their egos, but lessens what the
word "terrorist" should actually call up in our minds.
--
Harry
"She saved the world. A lot."
Charlie Stross
as <Ha...@menageri.org.uk> declared:
>In article <9gqfrm$3lg$1...@unlnews.unl.edu>, Joshua Hesse
><0009...@bigred.unl.edu> writes
>>This is kind of interesting. With all of the talk about
>>internet/music "piracy" it seems that most people have forgotten
>>what real piracy is.
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12750-2001Jun17.html
>
>Yup. Those darn Napsterers forced the entire RIAA at harteebeeste-point
>into a small boat, and forced them to walk the plank in shark-infested
>waters....
>
>IMNSHO, "software piracy" does more to lessen the idea of what real
>piracy is than make bit-theft sound really bad.
The apropriate term for it -- one that has an exact legal equivalent
to the same practice in respect of physical goods -- is "shoplifting".
<FlameBait type="Microsoft">
And while we're about it, I think the commercial retail software
industry could do with a facelift. How about calling them "license
extortionists"?
</FlameBait>
>In a similar vein, we now have script kiddies being disguised as "cyber-
>terrorists", which may do wonders for their egos, but lessens what the
>word "terrorist" should actually call up in our minds.
Indeed.
-- Charlie
"Now let us retract the foreskin of misconception and apply
the wire brush of enlightenment"
-- Geoff Miller
O Deus
>IMNSHO, "software piracy" does more to lessen the idea of what real
>piracy is than make bit-theft sound really bad.
Well corporations need nasty names for groups of people that get in the way
of their doing buisness. Pirates was a neat idea except for the fact that
real pirates had a neat romantic image to it.
>In a similar vein, we now have script kiddies being disguised as "cyber-
>terrorists", which may do wonders for their egos, but lessens what the
>word "terrorist" should actually call up in our minds.
Well when the media gets to set the tone and make the story, they need to
understand a denial of service attack somehow, and since they can't, calling
it terrorism makes it comprehensible to them and their audience of nitwits
O Deus
theft?
Nate
Edel wrote in message ...
>Charlie Stross <cha...@nospam.antipope.org> wrote:
>> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>> as <Ha...@menageri.org.uk> declared:
>>>IMNSHO, "software piracy" does more to lessen the idea of what real
>>>piracy is than make bit-theft sound really bad.
>>
>> The apropriate term for it -- one that has an exact legal equivalent
>> to the same practice in respect of physical goods -- is "shoplifting".
>
>*rofl* By no means. When and if one can copy a physical object while
>leaving the original intact, then there will be a comparable thing to
>copyright violation one can do with tangible property. And even then it
>won't be shoplifting, since you still aren't depriving anyone of tangible
>property by copying it.
>
>Copyright law is an important thing, but to claim that copyright violation
>is the same thing as physical theft ignores fundamental and necessary
>differences between rights held on copyrightable works ("intellectual
>property" to use a term I dislike) and tangible property.
>
>--
>Nate Edel "With all the wit and wisdom that exists in the
>nate AT keir.ml.org world, it is pointless to try to select a few
> choice quotes." - David Shapiro (HCHS '93)
Jordin Kare
<na...@keir.ml.SPAMBLOCK.org> wrote:
> Charlie Stross <cha...@nospam.antipope.org> wrote:
> > Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> > as <Ha...@menageri.org.uk> declared:
> >>IMNSHO, "software piracy" does more to lessen the idea of what real
> >>piracy is than make bit-theft sound really bad.
> >
> > The apropriate term for it -- one that has an exact legal equivalent
> > to the same practice in respect of physical goods -- is "shoplifting".
>
> *rofl* By no means. When and if one can copy a physical object while
> leaving the original intact, then there will be a comparable thing to
> copyright violation one can do with tangible property. And even then it
> won't be shoplifting, since you still aren't depriving anyone of tangible
> property by copying it.
Seems to me that shoplifting isn't a perfect parallel, but it's a very
good one. In most theft, you're depriving the victim of a unique object
-- their personal <whatever> which they then lose the use of, or need to
make special effort (as well as spend money) to replace.
In shoplifting, you're (usually) taking one of many identical items that
are not being used and would otherwise be sold and replaced anyway. So
you're taking two things from the store's owner: the value of the item
(what it cost the store to get it, frequently half or less of its retail
price) and the opportunity to make a sale to you and thus collect a profit
on the item. In personal-scale software piracy, you're taking the second
item, but not the first, because the intrinsic value of a batch of bits is
zero.
"Piracy" is more reasonably applied to the bulk duplication and sale of
counterfeit software -- which is distantly parallel to stealing an entire
cargo of <whatever> and thereby depriving the owner not only of its (often
low) cost at the point of origin but of the profit he or she might have
made selling it. But the parallel is lousy, since sea pirates rarely
showed up at the plundered ship's destination and offered the stolen items
for sale, undercutting the ability of the original owner to sell similar
items even if he or she gets another shipment.
In fact, we already had a perfectly good term for the crime committed in
bulk duplication and sale of counterfeit software: "counterfeiting."
Jordin Kare
Jeanne A. E. DeVoto
<jt-antispam-kare...@slip-32-100-71-107.ca.us.prserv.net>,
Jordin Kare <jt-antis...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>In article <AabY6.18008$Az2....@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>, Nate Edel
><na...@keir.ml.SPAMBLOCK.org> wrote:
>> Charlie Stross <cha...@nospam.antipope.org> wrote:
>> > Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>> > as <Ha...@menageri.org.uk> declared:
>> >>IMNSHO, "software piracy" does more to lessen the idea of what real
>> >>piracy is than make bit-theft sound really bad.
>> >
>> > The apropriate term for it -- one that has an exact legal equivalent
>> > to the same practice in respect of physical goods -- is "shoplifting".
>>
>> *rofl* By no means. When and if one can copy a physical object while
>> leaving the original intact, then there will be a comparable thing to
>> copyright violation one can do with tangible property. And even then it
>> won't be shoplifting, since you still aren't depriving anyone of tangible
>> property by copying it.
>
>Seems to me that shoplifting isn't a perfect parallel, but it's a very
>good one. In most theft, you're depriving the victim of a unique object
>-- their personal <whatever> which they then lose the use of, or need to
>make special effort (as well as spend money) to replace.
Trespassing strikes me as a better analogy, if we're going to venture
into analogy (always a tricky thing). Trespassers, like copyright
infringers, use someone else's property without permission or
authorization, but don't take the use of that property from the owner.
As in copyright infringement, here is a real (and economically
quantifiable) sense in which the owner has at least potentially lost
something, and also an equally real sense in which the owner has lost
nothing.
--
Morning people may be respected, but night people are feared.
Michael J. Lowrey
> Trespassing strikes me as a better analogy, if we're going to venture
> into analogy (always a tricky thing). Trespassers, like copyright
> infringers, use someone else's property without permission or
> authorization, but don't take the use of that property from the owner.
>
> As in copyright infringement, here is a real (and economically
> quantifiable) sense in which the owner has at least potentially lost
> something, and also an equally real sense in which the owner has lost
> nothing.
If the land being trespassed on is the land you live on,
trespassers do "take the use of that property" from you.
Your space is being invaded, and you no longer have the
ability to enjoy that which is yours. It's only one step up
from breaking and entering; you lose your privacy and your
peace of mind. [Not that this justifies trying to block
rights-of-way or deny public access to public waters, of
course.]
This is a particular problem if you live in an area which
other people consider prime hunting land. I am reminded of
the lady in Maine[?] who posted her land "NO HUNTING" and
was shot, supposedly by a stray bullet. No one was ever
charged.
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
used to live WAY BACK in the country
Jeanne A. E. DeVoto
<oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
>"Jeanne A. E. DeVoto" wrote:
>> Trespassing strikes me as a better analogy, if we're going to venture
>> into analogy (always a tricky thing). Trespassers, like copyright
>> infringers, use someone else's property without permission or
>> authorization, but don't take the use of that property from the owner.
>
>trespassers do "take the use of that property" from you.
>Your space is being invaded
Yes, some kinds of trespass are more of a pain than others, but is this
relevant to the copyright infringement analogy in some way?
Lucy Kemnitzer
I cannot remember ever having disagreed with you before about the
substance of a post. So I think I must be misunderstanding what
you're saying about trespassing here -- or maybe because we come
from places with different sorts of land ownership we see it
differently.
I'm with Woody Guthrie and Ewan MacColl on the subject of
trespassing. Also, my one and only arrest ever was for
trespassing. On a missile base.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Kristopher
My parents own a large chunk of land, which is mainly
marshland, with woods and some fallow field. Every year,
at least one idiot will be caught on trespassing and
hunting on that land, despite the obvious and plain signs
indicating that they should go away, and the difficulty
of getting to most of that land. People have died in the
far half of the marshland (that they don't own), in the
muck and sinkholes, despite warning signs.
These idiots come down from the city, get drunk, and go
hunting on the neighboring state land. The border is
clearly marked, but that never seems to stop them from
crossing into the private land surrounding. Bullets
have been found lodged in the trees in my parents back
yard.
At my current residence (for the next week) the kids
from the apartment complex over the ridge seem to
think that the back yard and driveway are some kind
of public path to reach the gas station around the
corner, or their friends houses down the street. This
is despite fences put up by the apartment owner, and
by the owner of my house. I've come up the driveway
in my car and found them smoking (pot, I assume)
behind the garrage. Do they take off running? No,
they give me these dirty looks and saunter off.
Trespassing is nothing but a basic lack of respect for
the property, privacy, and sanctity of other people.
Kristopher
--
"And I watched as you turned away
You don't remember, but I do
You never even tried"
- Fuel, "Hemorrage"
Doug Wickstrom
<3b32891c...@cnews.newsguy.com>
rit...@cruzio.com (Lucy Kemnitzer) excited the ether to say:
>I'm with Woody Guthrie and Ewan MacColl on the subject of
>trespassing. Also, my one and only arrest ever was for
>trespassing. On a missile base.
You did notice the signs, right? "Use of deadly force
authorized."
--
Doug Wickstrom
"I don't want to go to any newsgroups where most posters are Japanese
and the unconscious remains the unconscious." --Hisashi Fukui
mike weber
>So you mean that when Ace printed up illegal editions of Tolkein, it wasn't
>theft?
>
Against my better judgement -- it wasn't even illegal.
--
"He had long ago come to the conclusion that there
were no 'things Man was Not Meant To Know'. He was willing
to believe that there were things Man was Too Dumb To
Figure Out." - Mike Kurland
<mike weber> <kras...@mindspring.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Jo Walton
eosl...@net-link.net "Kristopher" writes:
> Trespassing is nothing but a basic lack of respect for
> the property, privacy, and sanctity of other people.
It was mass trespass that got us National Parks.
I like the Scottish and Norwegian system where there is a distinction
between wilderness and garden/farmland, and wilderness is open to walk
across at your own risk, as long as you do no damage.
--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
Locus Recommended First Novel: *THE KING'S PEACE* out now from Tor.
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
James Nicoll
I grew up on a farm.
The possible problems with trespassers include:
Hunting, where the target is not a deer or where the pathways
of the bullets are improperly directed (And I wish this latter problem
ended at the edge of property but you can get taken out by some idiot
three farms over). There are possible conservation issues here, where
even if the land owner doesn't want the deer killed, they end up dead
anyway. Most annoying if the hunter is some weekender who won't even eat
the meat.
Damage to crops as they cut through fields. Fruit getting nicked.
Damage to animals like cattle if they get spooked.
Liability if the farm dogs or other animals savage the trespassers.
After all, cattle only run away _sometimes_ and pigs can be very cranky.
The farmer could be out money, and the animals might have to be destroyed.
I suppose fishermen could be annoying too but given what was upstream
of us, I can't see people who ate out of our creek coming back for seconds.
James Nicoll
--
The Canadians were a hospitable and tolerant desert people,
living on the edge of a wilderness of snow and permafrost. Winnipeg,
Regina and Saskatoon were cities of the northern desert, Samarkands
of ice. J.G. Ballard
Kristopher
>
> "Kristopher" writes:
>
>> Trespassing is nothing but a basic lack of respect for
>> the property, privacy, and sanctity of other people.
>
> It was mass trespass that got us National Parks.
>
> I like the Scottish and Norwegian system where there is
> a distinction between wilderness and garden/farmland,
> and wilderness is open to walk across at your own risk,
> as long as you do no damage.
Which "us?"
David Dyer-Bennet
> My parents own a large chunk of land, which is mainly
> marshland, with woods and some fallow field. Every year,
> at least one idiot will be caught on trespassing and
> hunting on that land, despite the obvious and plain signs
> indicating that they should go away, and the difficulty
> of getting to most of that land. People have died in the
> far half of the marshland (that they don't own), in the
> muck and sinkholes, despite warning signs.
>
> These idiots come down from the city, get drunk, and go
> hunting on the neighboring state land. The border is
> clearly marked, but that never seems to stop them from
> crossing into the private land surrounding. Bullets
> have been found lodged in the trees in my parents back
> yard.
In fact, despite the apparent political orthodoxy that guns for
hunting are respectable and guns for defence aren't, it's my
impression that it's hunters who provide the majority of the "idiot
gun owner" stories.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / dd...@dd-b.net
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Alison Hopkins
Kristopher wrote in message <3b336448$0$88179$bbae...@news.net-link.net>...
>Jo Walton wrote:
>>
>> "Kristopher" writes:
>>
>>> Trespassing is nothing but a basic lack of respect for
>>> the property, privacy, and sanctity of other people.
>>
>> It was mass trespass that got us National Parks.
>>
>> I like the Scottish and Norwegian system where there is
>> a distinction between wilderness and garden/farmland,
>> and wilderness is open to walk across at your own risk,
>> as long as you do no damage.
>
>Which "us?"
>
Great Britain. I need to google, but there were mass trespasses by walkers
in the 1930's, iirc.
Ali
Lucy Kemnitzer
Thus Ewan MacColl's very first topical song:
I've been over Snowdon, I've slept upon Crowdon
I've camped by the Waynestones as well
I've sunbathed on Kinder, been burned to a cinder
And many more things I can tell
My rucksack has oft been me pillow
The heather has oft been me bed
And sooner than part from the mountains
I think I would rather be dead
Ch: I'm a rambler, I'm a rambler from Manchester way
I get all me pleasure the hard moorland way
I may be a wageslave on Monday
But I am a free man on Sunday
The day was just ending and I was descending
Down Grinesbrook just by Upperthong
When a voice cried "Hey you" in the way keepers do
He'd the worst face that ever I saw
The things that he said were unpleasant
In the teeth of his fury I said
"Sooner than part from the mountains
I think I would rather be dead"
He called me a louse and said "Think of the grouse"
Well i thought, but I still couldn't see
Why all Kinder Scout and the moors roundabout
Couldn't take both the poor grouse and me
He said "All this land is my master's"
At that I stood shaking my head
No man has the right to own mountains
Any more than the deep ocean bed
I once loved a maid, a spot welder by trade
She was fair as the Rowan in bloom
And the bloom of her eye matched the blue Moorland sky
I wooed her from April to June
On the day that we should have been married
I went for a ramble instead
For sooner than part from the mountains
I think I would rather be dead
So I'll walk where I will over mountain and hill
And I'll lie where the bracken is deep
I belong to the mountains, the clear running fountains
Where the grey rocks lie ragged and steep
I've seen the white hare in the gullys
And the curlew fly high overhead
And sooner than part from the mountains
I think I would rather be dead.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Kristopher <eosl...@net-link.net> writes:
>
>> My parents own a large chunk of land, which is mainly
>> marshland, with woods and some fallow field. Every year,
>> at least one idiot will be caught on trespassing and
>> hunting on that land, despite the obvious and plain signs
>> indicating that they should go away, and the difficulty
>> of getting to most of that land. People have died in the
>> far half of the marshland (that they don't own), in the
>> muck and sinkholes, despite warning signs.
>>
>> These idiots come down from the city, get drunk, and go
>> hunting on the neighboring state land. The border is
>> clearly marked, but that never seems to stop them from
>> crossing into the private land surrounding. Bullets
>> have been found lodged in the trees in my parents back
>> yard.
>
>In fact, despite the apparent political orthodoxy that guns for
>hunting are respectable and guns for defence aren't, it's my
>impression that it's hunters who provide the majority of the "idiot
>gun owner" stories.
Around here, an awful lot of them fall out of trees and shoot
themselves.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Lucy Kemnitzer
<eosl...@net-link.net> wrote:
>My parents own a large chunk of land, which is mainly
>marshland, with woods and some fallow field. Every year,
>at least one idiot will be caught on trespassing and
>hunting on that land, despite the obvious and plain signs
>indicating that they should go away, and the difficulty
>of getting to most of that land. People have died in the
>far half of the marshland (that they don't own), in the
>muck and sinkholes, despite warning signs.
>
>These idiots come down from the city, get drunk, and go
>hunting on the neighboring state land. The border is
>clearly marked, but that never seems to stop them from
>crossing into the private land surrounding. Bullets
>have been found lodged in the trees in my parents back
>yard.
Of course this is terrible behavior. But let's remember which of
us is the authoritarian here (me, in case we're losing track: the
stupid test lost track, so why shouldn't the rest of us?). I do
think that people ought to be held responsible for treating the
land right.
When I brought this up, I was thinking that maybe my attitude
about trespassing comes from the fact that I'm a Westerner, where
we have vast tracts of wilderness fenced off with barbed wire for
no discernible reason. We also have vast tracts of wilderness
land which is called public land but which is tied up in
heavily-subsidized private use. That latter sort of land can also
be posted against trespass, even though it belongs, theoretically
to all of us.
In California law, by the way, as my brother discovered, if a
stream is navigable, it isn't trespass to travel in its bed.
Since most of our streams are not navigable most of the year, it's
a pretty specialized law.
Anyway, the point I meant to make (I'm a little ditzy this
afternoon from spending all week teaching essay structure and
organization -- so naturally I can't practice what I've been
preaching!) is that not agreeing with Mike Lowery that trespass is
a crime against a person is not the same as saying that anybody
ought to be able to do anything on any land.
>
>At my current residence (for the next week) the kids
>from the apartment complex over the ridge seem to
>think that the back yard and driveway are some kind
>of public path to reach the gas station around the
>corner, or their friends houses down the street. This
>is despite fences put up by the apartment owner, and
>by the owner of my house. I've come up the driveway
>in my car and found them smoking (pot, I assume)
>behind the garrage. Do they take off running? No,
>they give me these dirty looks and saunter off.
The driveway may in fact be an established right of way if people
have been using it to get around for a long time. I know of cases
where people or institutions have been required to but gates in
fences because of this. A church, actually, is one that I
remember: people had been using its parking lot as a short cut to
the bus stop and the county made them put a breach in their new
fence.
>
>Trespassing is nothing but a basic lack of respect for
>the property, privacy, and sanctity of other people.
I would agree if you had said "this behavior is . . ." at the end
of the first two pargraphs describing the people who do bad things
on your parents' land. I don't agree when you extend it to the
general concept "trespassing."
Theoretically, I trespass several times each winter when I go
mushroom hunting. But I treat the land with great respect, and
the people whose houses I pass as well.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Mark Atwood
>
> In fact, despite the apparent political orthodoxy that guns for
> hunting are respectable and guns for defence aren't, it's my
> impression that it's hunters who provide the majority of the "idiot
> gun owner" stories.
Handling may be part of it.
Handgun owners, when they are in immediate possession their weapon,
99.98% of the time they have their hands off of it while it is safe
and safely covered in a concealed. Of the remaining 0.02%, 99.98% of
the time, its either disassembled for cleaning or it's at the
range. When it's at the range, it and it's siblings are the center of
attention, usually with a rangemaster supervising.
When hunting, OTOH, a rifle (loaded with scary powerful rounds) is
usually slung across your back, and/or otherwise tends to be "out and
accessable", while you are moving across roughish terrain, and/or
hanging out with and "recreating" with your friends.
The fact that at many hunting camps (never one that I was in), a major
part of the activities involve beer. Whereas all of the active CCWers
I know, are all rather conciencious of "booze and bullets are bad", to
the point of using the "pilot's standard". (Not to mention the fact
that it's illegal to carry in a place has is "noone under 21, we have
a liquor license".
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Kristopher
>
> Kristopher <eosl...@net-link.net> wrote:
>
>> My parents own a large chunk of land, which is mainly
>> marshland, with woods and some fallow field. Every year,
>> at least one idiot will be caught on trespassing and
>> hunting on that land, despite the obvious and plain signs
>> indicating that they should go away, and the difficulty
>> of getting to most of that land. People have died in the
>> far half of the marshland (that they don't own), in the
>> muck and sinkholes, despite warning signs.
>>
>> These idiots come down from the city, get drunk, and go
>> hunting on the neighboring state land. The border is
>> clearly marked, but that never seems to stop them from
>> crossing into the private land surrounding. Bullets
>> have been found lodged in the trees in my parents back
>> yard.
>
> Of course this is terrible behavior. But let's remember
> which of us is the authoritarian here (me, in case we're
> losing track: the stupid test lost track, so why shouldn't
> the rest of us?). I do think that people ought to be held
> responsible for treating the land right.
Agreed.
> When I brought this up, I was thinking that maybe my attitude
> about trespassing comes from the fact that I'm a Westerner,
> where we have vast tracts of wilderness fenced off with barbed
> wire for no discernible reason. We also have vast tracts of
> wilderness land which is called public land but which is tied
> up in heavily-subsidized private use. That latter sort of
> land can also be posted against trespass, even though it
> belongs, theoretically to all of us.
Personally, I object to the subsidized private use of public
land. Make them rent it, make them buy anything they take
out or off of it, make them put it back the way they found it.
> In California law, by the way, as my brother discovered, if
> a stream is navigable, it isn't trespass to travel in its
> bed. Since most of our streams are not navigable most of the
> year, it's a pretty specialized law.
>
> Anyway, the point I meant to make (I'm a little ditzy this
> afternoon from spending all week teaching essay structure
> and organization -- so naturally I can't practice what I've
> been preaching!) is that not agreeing with Mike Lowery that
> trespass is a crime against a person is not the same as
> saying that anybody ought to be able to do anything on any
> land.
IMO, it can be a crime against a person. I don't consider
taking a hike through the back 40,000 that a corp happens to
own a crime against a person. I do consider using someone's
lawn as a sidewalk, or hunting on someone else's private land,
to be crimes against people.
>> At my current residence (for the next week) the kids from
>> the apartment complex over the ridge seem to think that the
>> back yard and driveway are some kind of public path to reach
>> the gas station around the corner, or their friends houses
>> down the street. This is despite fences put up by the
>> apartment owner, and by the owner of my house. I've come up
>> the driveway in my car and found them smoking (pot, I assume)
>> behind the garrage. Do they take off running? No, they give
>> me these dirty looks and saunter off.
>
> The driveway may in fact be an established right of way if
> people have been using it to get around for a long time.
Not likely, given the local geography.
> I know of cases where people or institutions have been required
> to but gates in fences because of this. A church, actually, is
> one that I remember: people had been using its parking lot as a
> short cut to the bus stop and the county made them put a breach
> in their new fence.
I don't think that's the case in Michigan. I certainly hope not.
>> Trespassing is nothing but a basic lack of respect for
>> the property, privacy, and sanctity of other people.
>
> I would agree if you had said "this behavior is . . ." at the
> end of the first two pargraphs describing the people who do bad
> things on your parents' land. I don't agree when you extend it
> to the general concept "trespassing."
>
> Theoretically, I trespass several times each winter when I go
> mushroom hunting. But I treat the land with great respect,
> and the people whose houses I pass as well.
Are you there against their wishes? You don't sound like
you are, in which case it isn't, IMO, trespassing.
Doug Wickstrom
<gkn7jt8gi7s4eu3lk...@4ax.com>
Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> excited the ether to say:
I thought only Vermont had a fish-shooting season?
--
Doug Wickstrom
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." --Mohandas K. Gandhi
David Dyer-Bennet
Evolution in action. I've never hunted, and *I* know that you should
secure your gun (preferably comletely unload it) when doing any sort
of climbing with it. Ideally, unload it *and* leave it on the ground
tied to a rope, and haul it up when you're safely up.
Jo Walton
rit...@cruzio.com "Lucy Kemnitzer" writes:
> Thus Ewan MacColl's very first topical song:
This has become a folksong. I can tell, because I heard this from my
ex-husband Ken, who learned it from the people he used to go rambling
with, and the version I learned has several minor folk-process variations
from the version you posted. This is really cool. And it's a terrific
song with a really catchy tune.
> No man has the right to own mountains
> Any more than the deep ocean bed
Including the Duke of Westminster.
Andy Leighton
>>Jo Walton wrote:
>>>
>>> It was mass trespass that got us National Parks.
>>
>>
>
>Great Britain. I need to google, but there were mass trespasses by walkers
>in the 1930's, iirc.
Yep, that's right. There was a mass trespass up onto Kinder Scout starting
from Hayfield. Today there is a plaque commemorating the fact at one of the
car parks in Hayfield.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.dircon.co.uk
"... January is your third most common month for madness" - _Sarah Canary_
Marilee J. Layman
Um? People in MN don't hunt deer from trees & stands?
Andrew Stephenson
J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk "Jo Walton" writes:
> In article <3b33d231...@cnews.newsguy.com>
> rit...@cruzio.com "Lucy Kemnitzer" writes:
>
> > Thus Ewan MacColl's very first topical song:
>
> This has become a folksong. I can tell, because I heard this from my
> ex-husband Ken, who learned it from the people he used to go rambling
> with, and the version I learned has several minor folk-process variations
> from the version you posted. This is really cool. And it's a terrific
> song with a really catchy tune.
>
> [...]
Apparently, while writing for a now-famous series of BBC radio
documentaries, MacColl studied *.uk travelling folk (Romanies
&c) and wrote original songs to suit the documentary in question.
Travellers were later reported as claiming some songs were from
their tradition -- innocent confusion, not an attempt to denounce
him for plagiarism. He had a knack of getting into the skin of
his subjects.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Kristopher
>
> Doug Wickstrom <nims...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>> Marilee J. Layman excited the ether to say:
>>
>>> Around here, an awful lot of them fall out of trees
>>> and shoot themselves.
>>
>> I thought only Vermont had a fish-shooting season?
>
> Um? People in MN don't hunt deer from trees & stands?
Not sure about MN, but firearm hunting from a tree stand
is illegal in MI, or at least it was last I checked.
Doug Wickstrom
<3b353e2e$0$62152$bbae...@news.net-link.net>
Kristopher <eosl...@net-link.net> excited the ether to say:
>"Marilee J. Layman" wrote:
>>
>> Doug Wickstrom <nims...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Marilee J. Layman excited the ether to say:
>>>
>>>> Around here, an awful lot of them fall out of trees
>>>> and shoot themselves.
>>>
>>> I thought only Vermont had a fish-shooting season?
>>
>> Um? People in MN don't hunt deer from trees & stands?
>
>Not sure about MN, but firearm hunting from a tree stand
>is illegal in MI, or at least it was last I checked.
It is unlawful in Michigan, lawful, but not especially effective,
in Minnesota. I was referring, though, to the fishermen who fall
out of trees in Vermont and shoot themselves.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"A man is as old as the women he feels." --Groucho Marx
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>"Marilee J. Layman" wrote:
>>
>> Doug Wickstrom <nims...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Marilee J. Layman excited the ether to say:
>>>
>>>> Around here, an awful lot of them fall out of trees
>>>> and shoot themselves.
>>>
>>> I thought only Vermont had a fish-shooting season?
>>
>> Um? People in MN don't hunt deer from trees & stands?
>
>Not sure about MN, but firearm hunting from a tree stand
>is illegal in MI, or at least it was last I checked.
Not here, it's perfectly legal.
O Deus
>On 21 Jun 2001 03:37:09 GMT, "O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> typed
>
>>So you mean that when Ace printed up illegal editions of Tolkein, it
wasn't
>>theft?
>>
>Against my better judgement -- it wasn't even illegal.
I know it wasn't illegal, the use of 'theft' here is in a moral framework
rather than a legal one.
Lucy Kemnitzer
When I first read this, I thought *.uk travelling folk was a
newsgroup and I was going to protest that the BBC radio
documentaries were a long time before that (there are a lot of
them, and I only currently own "Singing the Fishing" in a playable
form, and I want them all! all!).
Lucy Kemnitzer
mike weber
<nims...@uswest.net> typed
>On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 21:03:28 -0400, in message
><3b353e2e$0$62152$bbae...@news.net-link.net>
> Kristopher <eosl...@net-link.net> excited the ether to say:
>>Not sure about MN, but firearm hunting from a tree stand
>>is illegal in MI, or at least it was last I checked.
>
>It is unlawful in Michigan, lawful, but not especially effective,
>in Minnesota. I was referring, though, to the fishermen who fall
>out of trees in Vermont and shoot themselves.
>
A lot of the hunting types i've known around here (Georgia, just in
case anyone's forgotten) talk like it's the Favoured Method in this
part of the country; i remember one guy i used to work with who left
both legs above the knee in Viet Nam who usd to talk about how he was
going der hunting using a tree stand every season.
((BTW -- we had two deer wandering our "back yard" about ten feet from
the back door at about 9AM a couple of days ago -- looked like a doe
and her nearly-grown offspring... I shot some pics, haven't had them
developed yet. As i was guessing at the light, they might not come
out. We'll see.))
Andrew Stephenson
rit...@cruzio.com "Lucy Kemnitzer" writes:
"*.uk travelling folk" could make a fine name for a group, too.
BTW, if seeking the Radio Ballads, try (one line):
http://topicrecords.co.uk/topic_records_tscd801-808_
the_radio-ballads.html
--
Andrew Stephenson
Lucy Kemnitzer
Stephenson) wrote:
Oh yes, I know how to get them, though the easiest way is to wait
for my father to buy them in quantity: he can be relied on to do
it, sooner or later.
Although there are so many I suppose it is my bounden duty to buy
some of them for him.
I imprinted on Ewan MacColl's voice as a small child: I always
moved in circles where nobody else had ever heard of him: it's so
sweet to be here sometimes, you know?
Lucy Kemnitzer
Bernard Peek
<jdni...@panix.com> writes
>
> Damage to crops as they cut through fields. Fruit getting nicked.
>
> Damage to animals like cattle if they get spooked.
>
> Liability if the farm dogs or other animals savage the trespassers.
>After all, cattle only run away _sometimes_ and pigs can be very cranky.
>The farmer could be out money, and the animals might have to be destroyed.
I was out walking yesterday and we took a wrong turning and cut through
into a farm. The farmer stopped us and complained about people tramping
through his home.
The reason we took the wrong turning was that the footpath sign had been
moved, and the real footpath had become overgrown.
The farmer's main worry seemed to be for his dogs. If his dog had bitten
a stray rambler it might have to be destroyed, he knew of a case where
that had happened.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
b...@shrdlu.co.uk
In search of cognoscenti
Andrew Stephenson
rit...@cruzio.com "Lucy Kemnitzer" writes:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 01 23:58:21 GMT, am...@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew
> Stephenson) wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > BTW, if seeking the Radio Ballads, try (one line):
> > http://topicrecords.co.uk/topic_records_tscd801-808_
> > the_radio-ballads.html
>
> Oh yes, I know how to get them, though the easiest way is to wait
> for my father to buy them in quantity: he can be relied on to do
> it, sooner or later.
>
> Although there are so many I suppose it is my bounden duty to buy
> some of them for him.
Oh, all right. I, too, have a long-term wish to acquire copies.
The impetus of looking out a source for you had the happy side-
effect of locating one for me, too. I see a phone number on the
page URL-ed above; this could lead to an Actual Source. *whee*
> I imprinted on Ewan MacColl's voice as a small child: I always
> moved in circles where nobody else had ever heard of him: it's so
> sweet to be here sometimes, you know?
Sweet and fattening. Have you seen the calories in some of these
cookery threads? The food itself must be even richer.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Alison Hopkins
Bernard Peek wrote in message ...
>In message <9gvimd$hfr$1...@panix3.panix.com>, James Nicoll
><jdni...@panix.com> writes
>
>
>>
>> Damage to crops as they cut through fields. Fruit getting nicked.
>>
>> Damage to animals like cattle if they get spooked.
>>
>> Liability if the farm dogs or other animals savage the trespassers.
>>After all, cattle only run away _sometimes_ and pigs can be very cranky.
>>The farmer could be out money, and the animals might have to be destroyed.
>
>I was out walking yesterday and we took a wrong turning and cut through
>into a farm. The farmer stopped us and complained about people tramping
>through his home.
>
>The reason we took the wrong turning was that the footpath sign had been
>moved, and the real footpath had become overgrown.
There's laws about that aren't there? That you have to keep the path clear?
Ali
Doug Wickstrom
<3b377bb8$0$15025$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>
"Alison Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com> excited the ether to say:
_Who_ has to keep the path clear?
--
Doug Wickstrom
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue.
Fleas are interested in dogs." --P.J. O'Rourke
David Hansen
>
> I would agree if you had said "this behavior is . . ." at the end
> of the first two pargraphs describing the people who do bad things
> on your parents' land. I don't agree when you extend it to the
> general concept "trespassing."
>
> Theoretically, I trespass several times each winter when I go
> mushroom hunting. But I treat the land with great respect, and
> the people whose houses I pass as well.
My parents have some land in NH, they were once planning on building there,
but it never happened. For several years, we let some amateur geologists
scale the cliff, looking at the granite (although what made _our_ granite
interesting I never did figure out). But a few cans and litter made us go
down, post the area, and ask the local sheriff to put us on his "will
prosecute" list.
One gentleman called us up, and arranged a special "permit" to carry to
continue his explorations. After a few [impolite term deleted] were routed,
we've not had much trouble since.
So, if I knew you were there, and what you were doing, I'd probably not
object. But even if _you_ don't leave a mess behind, I can't make a
retroactive exception. Always ask first.
--
-Dave /;^{D>
(Warning: Reply-to address has been changed - Death To Spam!)
PC Help needs Our HELP!! Lockdown 2000 scam^H^H^H^H Law Suit
http://www.pchelpers.org/ http://www.pc-help.org
David G. Bell
<3b377bb8$0$15025$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>
fn...@dial.pipex.com "Alison Hopkins" wrote:
Yes, there are, and both moving the sign and not keeping the path
passable are illegal. If it's just been allowed to get overgrown, it's
not a big deal.
But be careful about maps. The OS maps don't always agree with the
Definitive Maps, and some of the Definitive Maps have been very badly
marked up, Lines drawn with blunt pencils, and such.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
If I were to go back to my schooldays, knowing what I know now, I would
pack cheese sandwiches for lunch.
Alison Hopkins
Doug Wickstrom wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:31:57 +0100, in message
><3b377bb8$0$15025$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>
> "Alison Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com> excited the ether to say:
>
>>
>>Bernard Peek wrote in message ...
>>>In message <9gvimd$hfr$1...@panix3.panix.com>, James Nicoll
>>><jdni...@panix.com> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Damage to crops as they cut through fields. Fruit getting nicked.
>>>>
>>>> Damage to animals like cattle if they get spooked.
>>>>
>>>> Liability if the farm dogs or other animals savage the
trespassers.
>>>>After all, cattle only run away _sometimes_ and pigs can be very cranky.
>>>>The farmer could be out money, and the animals might have to be
destroyed.
>>>
>>>I was out walking yesterday and we took a wrong turning and cut through
>>>into a farm. The farmer stopped us and complained about people tramping
>>>through his home.
>>>
>>>The reason we took the wrong turning was that the footpath sign had been
>>>moved, and the real footpath had become overgrown.
>>
>>There's laws about that aren't there? That you have to keep the path
clear?
>
>_Who_ has to keep the path clear?
>
Landowner if they are statutory paths, by law, in the UK.
Ali
Alison Hopkins
"David G. Bell" wrote in message
<20010625.18...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>...
Thought that was the case, I've heard some of the rambling type programmes
on Radio 4.
>
>But be careful about maps. The OS maps don't always agree with the
>Definitive Maps, and some of the Definitive Maps have been very badly
>marked up, Lines drawn with blunt pencils, and such.
>
Who did the Definitive Maps?
Ali
David G. Bell
<3b379af3$0$15028$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>
fn...@dial.pipex.com "Alison Hopkins" wrote:
> "David G. Bell" wrote in message
> <20010625.18...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >But be careful about maps. The OS maps don't always agree with the
> >Definitive Maps, and some of the Definitive Maps have been very badly
> >marked up, Lines drawn with blunt pencils, and such.
> >
>
> Who did the Definitive Maps?
The local councils. Some of them have lost the original and true
Definitive Maps for their area.
Cally Soukup
> On Monday, in article
> <3b377bb8$0$15025$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>
> fn...@dial.pipex.com "Alison Hopkins" wrote:
>> There's laws about that aren't there? That you have to keep the path clear?
> Yes, there are, and both moving the sign and not keeping the path
> passable are illegal. If it's just been allowed to get overgrown, it's
> not a big deal.
> But be careful about maps. The OS maps don't always agree with the
> Definitive Maps, and some of the Definitive Maps have been very badly
> marked up, Lines drawn with blunt pencils, and such.
Oh, yes. Back in 1991, when Beth Friedman and I walked a bit of the
Wye Valley Walk, we kept getting lost, because the path would branch,
and there'd be no sign. The walking path people don't seem to believe
in "reassurance signs" to let you know that yes, you're still on the
right path. They only seem to believe in signs on every other stile.
(In my extremely limited experience, of course.)
We ended up, by accident, on the Offa's Dike Path after Tinturn Abbey.
(At least, I think it was by accident. I don't remember deciding to
change paths.) And we lost the path entirely on the way to Rye, and
found ourselves at the top of a hill with five roads decending, and no
obvious direction to take. Thank goodness for the friendly JBC
operator, who came chugging up the hill just then and pointed out Rye
for us on the horizon, and gave us directions to a small footpath that
led there.
I know the footpath people are mostly (entirely?) volunteers, but I do
wish they'd put up better signs!
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Bernard Peek
Hopkins <fn...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>>
>>The reason we took the wrong turning was that the footpath sign had been
>>moved, and the real footpath had become overgrown.
>
>There's laws about that aren't there? That you have to keep the path clear?
I believe so. They don't seem to be enforced though.
Ulrika O'Brien
> In article <3b32c1ec$0$62149$bbae...@news.net-link.net>
> eosl...@net-link.net "Kristopher" writes:
>
> > Trespassing is nothing but a basic lack of respect for
> > the property, privacy, and sanctity of other people.
>
> It was mass trespass that got us National Parks.
>
> between wilderness and garden/farmland, and wilderness is open to walk
> across at your own risk, as long as you do no damage.
Hmm. I don't know what the Norwegian laws are, but I wonder if
you're confusing them with the Swedish ones. I'm pretty sure that the
right of public access is much broader in Sweden than in Norway --
this is why there is grumbling in Sweden around cloudberry season when
the Norwegians come over the border and pick "our" cloudberries,
because
in Sweden, they can.
Property and trespass law appears to be one of the ways in which I am
a bone-deep collectivist from my years in Sweden. I think that public
access to be able to hike, camp one night, pick berries, flowers, and
mushrooms, and to fish, on privately owned unimproved land is only
reasonable
and right, and certainly far more so than fencing off endless tracts
of
wild land. The reason it works in Sweden, though, is that there are a
whole raft of responsibilities that go with the right of free access,
and
these are pretty well observed. You must not litter, pick nuts, take
live bark or living wood, steal or damage crops, camp in plowed
fields, come within a fairly large perimeter of a private dwelling,
pick protected species, damage timber, etc. While I do find myself
clucking
over the occasional trash left by teen-agers drinking and sniffing
glue
(sigh), I have to say that Swedes are *vastly* tidier about littering
than Americans are, IME.
(And have a better appreciation of forest than the Brits: the Lonely
Planet
Guide to Sweden (written by an Edinburgher) lists forest as one of the
10 Worst features of Sweden. As I read it, I flashed back on a
conversation
in Leeds with Jim Trash in which he, in all seriousness, complained
that
you couldn't properly see the Black Forest because the trees kept
blocking
the views. [I seriously tried to make out that this had to be some
sort
of irony but couldn't make it go.])
Which is to say, I guess, that while I wish that some equivalent to
the Swedish right of public access existed in the U.S. I feel certain
that a whole lot of re-enculturation would have to come first or
alongside
of that right to make it work. Swedes are amazingly ruly -- some
might
even say hidebound -- people, and there are only some 8 million or so
of them in a country the size of California. Americans, by contrast,
are decidedly more numerous and unruly, and far less culturally
homogenous.
--Ulrika
Keith F. Lynch
> I don't consider taking a hike through the back 40,000 that a corp
> happens to own a crime against a person. I do consider using
> someone's lawn as a sidewalk, or hunting on someone else's private
> land, to be crimes against people.
I agree about hunting, but there is often no alternative to using
someone's lawn as a sidewalk, if there is no real sidewalk, no road
shoulder, traffic is heavy, and no alternative route that isn't miles
longer. That's often the case near where I live in Virginia.
Similarly when it's necessary to cut through the edge of someone's
yard to get between two nearby roads that end in cul-de-sacs, if the
alternative is walking several miles to end up a few yards from one's
starting point.
Of course I don't go hunting, loiter, peep, or destroy property, and
I stay as close to the edge of the property as possible.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.
Keith F. Lynch
> It's only one step up from breaking and entering; you lose your
> privacy and your peace of mind. [Not that this justifies trying
> to block rights-of-way or deny public access to public waters,
> of course.]
But what is a right-of-way? If a pedestrian has the choice of walking
in a road, blocking traffic, annoying motorists, and risking his life,
or of walking along the edge of adjacent front yards, which should he do?
(I'm assuming there are no sidwalks, road shoulders, or reasonable
alternative routes. As is often the case.)
David Dyer-Bennet
> Michael J. Lowrey <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
> > It's only one step up from breaking and entering; you lose your
> > privacy and your peace of mind. [Not that this justifies trying
> > to block rights-of-way or deny public access to public waters,
> > of course.]
>
> But what is a right-of-way? If a pedestrian has the choice of walking
> in a road, blocking traffic, annoying motorists, and risking his life,
> or of walking along the edge of adjacent front yards, which should he do?
>
> (I'm assuming there are no sidwalks, road shoulders, or reasonable
> alternative routes. As is often the case.)
I'd guess that, in many jurisdictions, some part of the property close
to the road isn't actually owned by the person who owns the rest of
the lot, any more than the sidewalk is in areas with sidewalks. So
you're not even trespassing walking along that area; in many
jurisdictions anyway.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / dd...@dd-b.net
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Mark Atwood
>
> in a road, blocking traffic, annoying motorists, and risking his life,
> or of walking along the edge of adjacent front yards, which should he do?
>
> (I'm assuming there are no sidwalks, road shoulders, or reasonable
> alternative routes. As is often the case.)
Asking what as pedestrian should do when there is no legal place for
him to walk, has the same answer one should give the driver of a car
when there is no road.
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Keith F. Lynch
> But what is a right-of-way? If a pedestrian has the choice of walking
> in a road, blocking traffic, annoying motorists, and risking his life,
> or of walking along the edge of adjacent front yards, which should he do?
> (I'm assuming there are no sidwalks, road shoulders, or reasonable
> alternative routes. As is often the case.)
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Asking what as pedestrian should do when there is no legal place for
> him to walk, has the same answer one should give the driver of a car
> when there is no road.
If there is no public road, there is no right-of-way, and neither
motorists, cyclists, or pedestrians should be traveling without the
permission of the land owner.
If there IS a public road, there IS a right-of-way. For motorists,
cyclists, and pedestrians.
For personal safety, and out of courtesy to motorists and cyclists, I
usually do not walk in the middle of the road. But I have a perfect
right to, if there is no shoulder and no sidewalks.
I believe it to be both safer and more courteous to walk through
adjacent front yards instead.
Lucy Kemnitzer
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> But what is a right-of-way? If a pedestrian has the choice of walking
>> in a road, blocking traffic, annoying motorists, and risking his life,
>> or of walking along the edge of adjacent front yards, which should he do?
>> (I'm assuming there are no sidwalks, road shoulders, or reasonable
>> alternative routes. As is often the case.)
>
>Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Asking what as pedestrian should do when there is no legal place for
>> him to walk, has the same answer one should give the driver of a car
>> when there is no road.
>
>If there is no public road, there is no right-of-way, and neither
>motorists, cyclists, or pedestrians should be traveling without the
>permission of the land owner.
I do not believe this is true, in my state, for pedestrians.
The reason I do not believe this is true is because of right of
way cases that took place here in my town and were resolved in the
favor of the pedestrians.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Mark Atwood
>
> usually do not walk in the middle of the road. But I have a perfect
> right to, if there is no shoulder and no sidewalks.
>
> I believe it to be both safer and more courteous to walk through
> adjacent front yards instead.
You do not have right of way over those front yards.
And there has been enough damage done directly to the fruits of peoples
labors, not in the abstract, but before my own eyes, due to this kind
of "courtesy", that I am rather unyielding on this subject.
David G. Bell
dd...@dd-b.net "David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> > Michael J. Lowrey <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
> > > It's only one step up from breaking and entering; you lose your
> > > privacy and your peace of mind. [Not that this justifies trying
> > > to block rights-of-way or deny public access to public waters,
> > > of course.]
> >
> > But what is a right-of-way? If a pedestrian has the choice of walking
> > in a road, blocking traffic, annoying motorists, and risking his life,
> > or of walking along the edge of adjacent front yards, which should he do?
> >
> > (I'm assuming there are no sidwalks, road shoulders, or reasonable
> > alternative routes. As is often the case.)
>
> I'd guess that, in many jurisdictions, some part of the property close
> to the road isn't actually owned by the person who owns the rest of
> the lot, any more than the sidewalk is in areas with sidewalks. So
> you're not even trespassing walking along that area; in many
> jurisdictions anyway.
My father tells me that property boundaries in England sometimes are
marked on old maps as running to the middle of the highway.
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> Michael J. Lowrey <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
> > It's only one step up from breaking and entering; you lose your
> > privacy and your peace of mind. [Not that this justifies trying
> > to block rights-of-way or deny public access to public waters,
> > of course.]
>
> But what is a right-of-way? If a pedestrian has the choice of walking
> in a road, blocking traffic, annoying motorists, and risking his life,
> or of walking along the edge of adjacent front yards, which should he do?
>
> (I'm assuming there are no sidwalks, road shoulders, or reasonable
> alternative routes. As is often the case.)
It is my understanding that "the edge of adjacent front
yards" IS a right-of-way, throughout the United States.
Indeed, until I was in my teens, I thought that was what the
term meant.
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
Inali
IANAL
Cally Soukup
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>
>> But what is a right-of-way? If a pedestrian has the choice of walking
>> in a road, blocking traffic, annoying motorists, and risking his life,
>> or of walking along the edge of adjacent front yards, which should he do?
>>
>> (I'm assuming there are no sidwalks, road shoulders, or reasonable
>> alternative routes. As is often the case.)
> Asking what as pedestrian should do when there is no legal place for
> him to walk, has the same answer one should give the driver of a car
> when there is no road.
In the parts of the U.S. that I'm familiar with, very very few roads
take up all their right-of-way. So walking on the grass next to the
road, while it appears to be in private property, is actually on the
right-of-way, and not trespassing.
Irv Koch
> It is my understanding that "the edge of adjacent front
> yards" IS a right-of-way, throughout the United States.
> Indeed, until I was in my teens, I thought that was what the
> term meant.
Usually. If there's no sidewalk. The "right of way" may be either an
outright public owned part of the land or an "easement." In the later
case, the owner, can, usually, for example, plant small bushes or the
like.
The key point is that the "right of way" SHOULD be clearly indicated on
public records, and USUALLY extends some distance from the center of the
road, beyond the paved portion. The government may, for instance, have
the right, without additional ado, to pave over most of your lawn.
Pedestrians probably have the right to walk in that portion.
On the other hand, if the government has used its entire right of way to
build a sidewalk, right up to the edge of buildings fronting on the
street, that's another story.
BUT, you can't count on sidewalk being publicly owned, either. In
"downtown" areas, it may actually belong to the owner of the building it
fronts, who put it there as a convenience to customers. In theory,
maybe, the owner could extend their building outwards to cover it.
In practice, there is no such thing as private property. It's whatever
the local authorities, be it a judge or otherwise, at their whim, feel
like enforcing/taking. That in turn depends on the results of
innumerable other debates in this forumn.
I am only talking about "right of way" for what most people think of as
streets, and in the USA. The situation may be different elsewhere.
This sort of thing contributes to piracy as otherwise law abiding
persons dispair and simply take what they can. Arrrrrgggghrrrr, indeed.
Kristopher
>
> Kristopher <eosl...@net-link.net> wrote:
>> I don't consider taking a hike through the back 40,000 that
>> a corp happens to own a crime against a person. I do
>> consider using someone's lawn as a sidewalk, or hunting on
>> someone else's private land, to be crimes against people.
>
> I agree about hunting, but there is often no alternative to
> using someone's lawn as a sidewalk, if there is no real
> sidewalk, no road shoulder, traffic is heavy, and no
> alternative route that isn't miles longer. That's often the
> case near where I live in Virginia.
>
> Similarly when it's necessary to cut through the edge of
> someone's yard to get between two nearby roads that end
> in cul-de-sacs, if the alternative is walking several miles
> to end up a few yards from one's starting point.
>
> Of course I don't go hunting, loiter, peep, or destroy
> property, and I stay as close to the edge of the property
> as possible.
On one hand, I see a lot of places that obviously need sidewalk,
and don't have it. On the other hand, there's something in the
back of my brain that twitches uncomfortably at the very idea
that landowners aren't allowed to fence their front yard in all
the way to the curb.
In the case of my present (until this weekend, damnit) residence,
the geography makes it a rather non-obvious shortcut. The back
edge is about 40 feet up from the front edge, at an 15 degree
slope, I'd guess. There are high fences on the back edges of
many of the properties behind it, and hegdgerows as well.
Kristopher
--
"And I watched as you turned away
You don't remember, but I do
You never even tried"
- Fuel, "Hemorrage"
Michael J. Lowrey
> On one hand, I see a lot of places that obviously need sidewalk,
> and don't have it. On the other hand, there's something in the
> back of my brain that twitches uncomfortably at the very idea
> that landowners aren't allowed to fence their front yard in all
> the way to the curb.
But it isn't really "their land" for all purposes, all the
way to the curb. Other people have always had the "right of
way," the right to walk along the edge of the roadside
without having to walk _in_ the road. IANAL, but there are
entire books on this topic (which goes deeply into medieval
common law).
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
wayfaring stranger
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >
> > For personal safety, and out of courtesy to motorists and cyclists, I
> > usually do not walk in the middle of the road. But I have a perfect
> > right to, if there is no shoulder and no sidewalks.
> >
> > I believe it to be both safer and more courteous to walk through
> > adjacent front yards instead.
>
> You do not have right of way over those front yards.
That depends on jurisdiction.
For example, where my father lives, there are no sidewalks. However,
the strip of land approximately. . . I'd say fifteen feet wide from the
road into the property is not part of his property. It is owned by the
/county/ (on the offchance they decide they want a sidewalk there, I
suppose); it is merely his responsibility for maintenance. At the
moment, it's mostly drainage ditch. If someone walks along the margins
of the ditch, it's not my father's land to boot them off of, even if he
were so inclined.
Easements also exist, in other places. I believe it's quite common for
the county to own the strip of land near the road or an easement upon
same; it gives them someplace to put the pipes, wires, and sidewalks
without having to knock on doors and ask for permission to dig up
people's front yards. If the public can't walk on publically accessible
publically-owned land, I'm deeply confused.
- Darkhawk, who ought to look up local ordinances
on sidewalk shovelling, sometime
--
Heather Anne Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
What's it take to see? What's it take to believe right from wrong?
- Boston, "Walk On"
David Dyer-Bennet
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >
> > But what is a right-of-way? If a pedestrian has the choice of walking
> > in a road, blocking traffic, annoying motorists, and risking his life,
> > or of walking along the edge of adjacent front yards, which should he do?
> >
> > (I'm assuming there are no sidwalks, road shoulders, or reasonable
> > alternative routes. As is often the case.)
>
> Asking what as pedestrian should do when there is no legal place for
> him to walk, has the same answer one should give the driver of a car
> when there is no road.
I mostly agree; except for one situation: If there's a road going
there, I think there really ought to be a way to walk there too.
Kristopher
It might not surprise you that I don't care that much about
1000-year-old traditions. As far as I'm concerned, land
ownership isn't any different from any other kind of ownership.
Anything that infringes on that has to be looked at long and
hard. The exception with the easiest case to make is
environmental.
Kristopher
>
> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>>
>>> For personal safety, and out of courtesy to motorists and
>>> cyclists, I usually do not walk in the middle of the road.
>>> But I have a perfect right to, if there is no shoulder and
>>> no sidewalks.
>>>
>>> I believe it to be both safer and more courteous to walk
>>> through adjacent front yards instead.
>>
>> You do not have right of way over those front yards.
>
> That depends on jurisdiction.
>
> For example, where my father lives, there are no sidewalks.
> However, the strip of land approximately. . . I'd say fifteen
> feet wide from the road into the property is not part of his
> property. It is owned by the /county/ (on the offchance they
> decide they want a sidewalk there, I suppose); it is merely his
> responsibility for maintenance.
Full stop. This is the part that really gets me. If the local
government owns that strip along the road, then the owner of the
land beyond should have NO responsibility what so ever to
maintain it. If the local government does not own that strip,
then they should have no ability to force the landowner to
perform maintenence or build/maintain a sidewalk.
Kristopher
Matthew Austern
> BUT, you can't count on sidewalk being publicly owned, either. In
> "downtown" areas, it may actually belong to the owner of the building it
> fronts, who put it there as a convenience to customers. In theory,
> maybe, the owner could extend their building outwards to cover it.
I believe that what's actually most common is a third case: the
building owner owns the sidewalk, but does not have the right to block
access to the sidewalk. I believe, for example, that that's the case
with the sidewalk in front of my house. Janet and I and the bank own
it, but we are legally required to maintain it for pedestrians.
Just goes to show that land ownership is a pretty complicated thing.
mike weber
typed
>Kristopher <eosl...@net-link.net> wrote:
>> I don't consider taking a hike through the back 40,000 that a corp
>> happens to own a crime against a person. I do consider using
>> someone's lawn as a sidewalk, or hunting on someone else's private
>> land, to be crimes against people.
>
>I agree about hunting, but there is often no alternative to using
>someone's lawn as a sidewalk, if there is no real sidewalk, no road
>shoulder, traffic is heavy, and no alternative route that isn't miles
>longer. That's often the case near where I live in Virginia.
>
The road is wider than the road -- the right-of-way that is reserved
to the state or municipality in building the road includes some
distance beyond the edge of the actual roadway, even if lawns come
right to the edge of the paving.
--
"He had long ago come to the conclusion that there
were no 'things Man was Not Meant To Know'. He was willing
to believe that there were things Man was Too Dumb To
Figure Out." - Mike Kurland
<mike weber> <kras...@mindspring.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Kate Schaefer
news:dilbsn9...@isolde.research.att.com...
The city of Seattle owns the sidewalk in front of my house and the
planting area between the sidewalk and the street, but I am required to
maintain them both safely. I may exercise a great deal of discretion in
how I maintain the planting area.
Michael J. Lowrey
> "Michael J. Lowrey" wrote:
> > Kristopher wrote:
> >> On one hand, I see a lot of places that obviously need sidewalk,
> >> and don't have it. On the other hand, there's something in the
> >> back of my brain that twitches uncomfortably at the very idea
> >> that landowners aren't allowed to fence their front yard in all
> >> the way to the curb.
> >
> > But it isn't really "their land" for all purposes, all the
> > way to the curb. Other people have always had the "right of
> > way," the right to walk along the edge of the roadside
> > without having to walk _in_ the road. IANAL, but there are
> > entire books on this topic (which goes deeply into medieval
> > common law).
>
> It might not surprise you that I don't care that much about
> 1000-year-old traditions. As far as I'm concerned, land
> ownership isn't any different from any other kind of ownership.
> Anything that infringes on that has to be looked at long and
> hard. The exception with the easiest case to make is
> environmental.
This is a restriction on land ownership, which is by its
very nature EXTREMELY different from ownership of "personal
property" (as the law defines it) and always has been. I
think of rights-of-way as being environmental in nature, in
that they acknowledge that no parcel of land exists in
splendid isolation from any other.
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
first landowner in his family in 3 generations
(1/2 of a 60' by 100' lot)
Michael J. Lowrey
It may squick your postmodern sensibilities, Kristopher, but
as long as human beings have had the concept of land
ownership, landowners have been subject to certain
expectations as to maintenance of the interface region
between their parcels and the rest of the human race. This
is not likely to change soon.
It is also possible that the strip along the road belongs to
the property owner, but that the county has an easement in
that region for the purposes of building sidewalks, widening
the road, etc.
SUDDEN ERUPTION OF REAL LIFE:
Ironically, as I was typing this on my break, Cicatrice
called to mention that our next-door neighbors were in our
(fenced-off) side yard! They (or workmen in their employ)
are there, it turns out, in order to dig along the
foundations of _their_ house, to improve drainage. There
are only about 2 meters, if that much, between our two
houses, and they cannot work on their own home without
"trespassing" on our side. We are mellow about this, but do
wish they'd called beforehand to tell what they were up to!
Michael J. Lowrey
> > rights-of-way as being environmental in nature, in that they acknowledge
> > that no parcel of land exists in splendid isolation from any other.
>
> a heck of an insulator...
Only as long as you stay in a stable orbit. If you
knock/take your asteroid out of orbit, then everybody in
your flight path will have something to say on the subject!
We'll probably have to develop a whole new slew of
laws/customs, more closely modeled on naval usage than real
estate law.
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
contemplating the possibilities
Kristopher
This is similar to what I said in resonse to Heather, but I
think that one of the guiding principles of any social
structure should be, "you can't have it both ways." If the
community wants sidewalk, then it should own it, and have to
maintain it. If the community wants the individuals to own
that strip of land, then it should not be able to require
them to maintain a sidewalk. "We own, you maintain," or
"you own, we force you to maintain," violate the above
principle.
Michael J. Lowrey
> This is similar to what I said in resonse to Heather, but I
> think that one of the guiding principles of any social
> structure should be, "you can't have it both ways." If the
> community wants sidewalk, then it should own it, and have to
> maintain it. If the community wants the individuals to own
> that strip of land, then it should not be able to require
> them to maintain a sidewalk. "We own, you maintain," or
> "you own, we force you to maintain," violate the above
> principle.
Like property taxes, it's part of the price you pay for land
ownership. I just finished paying the cost of installing
new sidewalk in front of our house a couple of years ago.
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
landowner
Dorothy J Heydt
Michael J. Lowrey <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
>
>We'll probably have to develop a whole new slew of
>laws/customs, more closely modeled on naval usage than real
>estate law.
Poul Anderson's _The Makeshift Spacecraft_ (original title, _A
Bicycle Built for Brew) has a whole bunch of little independent
settlements in the Belt having boundaries, and treaties, that are
only valid when the worlds in question happen to be near each
other.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
David Hansen
> > Asking what as pedestrian should do when there is no legal place for
> > him to walk, has the same answer one should give the driver of a car
> > when there is no road.
>
> If there is no public road, there is no right-of-way, and neither
> motorists, cyclists, or pedestrians should be traveling without the
> permission of the land owner.
>
> If there IS a public road, there IS a right-of-way. For motorists,
> cyclists, and pedestrians.
In most parts of America, a normal, 2 lane road has a right-of-way that is
50' wide. The pavement is usually 12' per lane, add in a 6' shoulder, and
you STILL have 7' of public right-of-way, even if this means I'm on "your"
grass.
I've done property surveys where the adjacent owners called the cops on us
for "trespassing" - they were NOT amused at her reaction. In fact, certain
parts of NY had a law that, as we were _determining_ the property lines, we
_could_ go on your private property to verify the deed callouts (!)
--
-Dave /;^{D>
(Warning: Reply-to address has been changed - Death To Spam!)
PC Help needs Our HELP!! Lockdown 2000 scam^H^H^H^H Law Suit
http://www.pchelpers.org/ http://www.pc-help.org
David Hansen
> "Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)" wrote:
> > For example, where my father lives, there are no sidewalks.
> > However, the strip of land approximately. . . I'd say fifteen
> > feet wide from the road into the property is not part of his
> > property. It is owned by the /county/ (on the offchance they
> > decide they want a sidewalk there, I suppose); it is merely his
> > responsibility for maintenance.
>
> Full stop. This is the part that really gets me. If the local
> government owns that strip along the road, then the owner of the
> land beyond should have NO responsibility what so ever to
> maintain it. If the local government does not own that strip,
> then they should have no ability to force the landowner to
> perform maintenence or build/maintain a sidewalk.
In my experience, the government can't make you build the sidewalk, and, if
its in the right-of-way, they can't make you repair it either. However, you
_may_ be responsible for clearing the snow off it (in areas that HAVE snow)
or, at the very least, you are _forbidden_ to clear your driveway by
covering that area.
David Hansen
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >
> > For personal safety, and out of courtesy to motorists and cyclists, I
> > usually do not walk in the middle of the road. But I have a perfect
> > right to, if there is no shoulder and no sidewalks.
> > I believe it to be both safer and more courteous to walk through
> > adjacent front yards instead.
>
> You do not have right of way over those front yards.
>
That depends on the situation. In most cases, the property line is a good
6-10 feet past the edge of the pavement. See my previous post.
Marilee J. Layman
Yes, I stopped by City Hall yesterday to look at the plats for our
development. We were told by the developer that part of his proffer
to the city was the wooded strip surrounding Old Winter's Branch North
(a creek) at the south of our property. This hasn't been a problem in
the past -- it's completely wild and we see regular woods critters
there. Now, we have some people who take our picnic tables down there
and are setting up camp -- living there. We were telling the police
it was city property, they were telling us it was ours, and so they
couldn't come on the property to do anything unless the board gave
them permission every time.
So I looked at the plats and the original development layout and it
turns out we *do* own half of that. From the center of the branch
towards us is ours, from the center of the branch towards the
development behind ours is theirs.
What the city has is a utilities easement over that property. It's a
major storm overflow area and we do see city workers doing stuff back
there now and then (which made us think what the developer told us was
right).
So the board is going to write a letter to the police chief giving
them permission to come on the property whenever any resident calls
and complains about "vagrants." I'm of two minds about moving the
homeless on in general, but the area they're using is not big enough
for them to keep from ruining it.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Matthew Austern
> >> I believe that what's actually most common is a third case:
> >> the building owner owns the sidewalk, but does not have the
> >> right to block access to the sidewalk. I believe, for
> >> example, that that's the case with the sidewalk in front of
> >> my house. Janet and I and the bank own it, but we are
> >> legally required to maintain it for pedestrians.
> >>
> >> Just goes to show that land ownership is a pretty
> >> complicated thing.
> >
> > The city of Seattle owns the sidewalk in front of my house
> > and the planting area between the sidewalk and the street,
> > but I am required to maintain them both safely. I may
> > exercise a great deal of discretion in how I maintain the
> > planting area.
>
> This is similar to what I said in resonse to Heather, but I
> think that one of the guiding principles of any social
> structure should be, "you can't have it both ways." If the
> community wants sidewalk, then it should own it, and have to
> maintain it. If the community wants the individuals to own
> that strip of land, then it should not be able to require
> them to maintain a sidewalk. "We own, you maintain," or
> "you own, we force you to maintain," violate the above
> principle.
Which might suggest that the principle is wrong. I don't know
of any legal system in which land ownership is that simple.
I don't see any reason that it should be. You can, and many
people do, own land without owning the stuff that's in the
ground underneath the land. (This is the norm in western
Pennsylvania.) You can own a house without owning the land
it's on. (This is the norm in parts of Hawaii.) You can own
land without owning the airspace above it. (This is the norm
everywhere, as far as I know.) It doesn't seem any weirder to
say that you can own land without owning the right to prevent
people from walking over a certain piece of it.
If it makes you happier, we could just say that land is not
"property", and is not "owned", in the same sense that coffee
mugs and fountain pens and ham sandwiches are. Land and coffee
mugs are different enough so that it's somewhat misleading
to use the same word, "property", for both. It's OK only if you
always remember to keep in mind that you're using the word in
two very different senses.
I feel the same way about the phrase "intellectual property",
only more so.
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>Kate Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> "Matthew Austern" <aus...@research.att.com> wrote:
>think that one of the guiding principles of any social
>structure should be, "you can't have it both ways." If the
>community wants sidewalk, then it should own it, and have to
>maintain it. If the community wants the individuals to own
>that strip of land, then it should not be able to require
>them to maintain a sidewalk. "We own, you maintain," or
>"you own, we force you to maintain," violate the above
>principle.
>
How do you feel about ordinances saying "you own your car, but we will
penalize you if you don't maintain the turn signals and headlights?"
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210
===============================================================================
Kristopher
I do.
> You can, and many people do, own land without owning the
> stuff that's in the ground underneath the land. (This is
> the norm in western Pennsylvania.)
AFAIK, you *do* own down quite some distance in Michigan.
> You can own a house without owning the land it's on. (This
> is the norm in parts of Hawaii.)
I can see where that could happen, but I don't think it's
the normal arrangement most places, just because of the
complications involved.
> You can own land without owning the airspace above it.
> (This is the norm everywhere, as far as I know.) It doesn't
> seem any weirder to say that you can own land without owning
> the right to prevent people from walking over a certain piece
> of it.
>
> If it makes you happier, we could just say that land is not
> "property", and is not "owned", in the same sense that
> coffee mugs and fountain pens and ham sandwiches are. Land
> and coffee mugs are different enough so that it's somewhat
> misleading to use the same word, "property", for both. It's
> OK only if you always remember to keep in mind that you're
> using the word in two very different senses.
I'm not using the word in two different senses.
> I feel the same way about the phrase "intellectual property",
> only more so.
Land physically exists. Ideas don't.
Ulrika O'Brien
> On 27 Jun 2001 00:01:52 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >If there is no public road, there is no right-of-way, and neither
> >motorists, cyclists, or pedestrians should be traveling without the
> >permission of the land owner.
>
>
> The reason I do not believe this is true is because of right of
> way cases that took place here in my town and were resolved in the
> favor of the pedestrians.
No, it's certainly not true in California. In remote areas especially,
property will frequently have a legally defined swath through it, which may or
may not contain any road, public or private, which is labeled as an easement.
Anyone who has legitimate access to property beyond the property with
said easement may use it to gain that access, with or without checking
with the landowner first. My parents have 17 acres in the Sierras that
have such a legal easement, and their property is about three back from
the main road -- all the properties between them and the road also
have easements, it's just that a gravel road happens to run down the
easement line up to, but not through, my folks' place.
It gets to be irksome when one needs to distinguish between legitimate
access and joyriding offroaders.
Offroading, interestingly, does not trip my collectivist sense of property
and access. Possibly because it isn't a very collectivist sort of thing
to do in the first place. Leaving damage behind is not in the spirit of
the Swedish Allemansrätt.
Ulrika
Lucy Kemnitzer
<dha...@NoSpamtransmetrics.com> wrote:
>I've done property surveys where the adjacent owners called the cops on us
>for "trespassing" - they were NOT amused at her reaction. In fact, certain
>parts of NY had a law that, as we were _determining_ the property lines, we
>_could_ go on your private property to verify the deed callouts (!)
>
>--
I thought that was always the law. Certainly I've never had a
surveyor beg for my permission: they just ask for courtesy's sake,
so I won't be startled.
And, you know, whenever anything really important happens,
property rights are quite likely to be dropped to a low priority.
Nobody asked for permission to inspect my house after the
earthquake: hell, they told _me_ I couldn't stay there. And they
manhandled my property in the process, severing my power lines
with a clippers, and slapping yellow tape all over the place, and
signs and stuff. Not my say-so.
And, considering how it is after earthquakes and the likes in
countries with less bureaucracy, I'm really glad they were there
and empowered to do it, even though it made me cry at the time.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Cally Soukup
> In most parts of America, a normal, 2 lane road has a right-of-way that is
> 50' wide. The pavement is usually 12' per lane, add in a 6' shoulder, and
> you STILL have 7' of public right-of-way, even if this means I'm on "your"
> grass.
> I've done property surveys where the adjacent owners called the cops on us
> for "trespassing" - they were NOT amused at her reaction. In fact, certain
> parts of NY had a law that, as we were _determining_ the property lines, we
> _could_ go on your private property to verify the deed callouts (!)
The same law applies in Illinois, or so a land surveyor I once worked
with told me. As long as we were working with, or under the direction
of, a Registered Land Surveyor, we had the right to trespass in order
to determine boundaries. He had a card in his wallet with the
applicable state code on it.
Around here, a two lane road may have a right of way of 50, 60, or,
most commonly, 66 feet (one chain). Larger roads often have rights of
way of 100 feet or more. 66 foot wide rights of way were included on
all section boundaries when the land west of the Ohio was first
surveyed. (A section is supposed to be one square mile. This varies a
bit with the curvature of the earth, and the fallability of human
surveyors.)
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Geri Sullivan
>
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >
> > in a road, blocking traffic, annoying motorists, and risking his life,
> > or of walking along the edge of adjacent front yards, which should he do?
> >
> > (I'm assuming there are no sidwalks, road shoulders, or reasonable
> > alternative routes. As is often the case.)
>
> to the road isn't actually owned by the person who owns the rest of
> the lot, any more than the sidewalk is in areas with sidewalks. So
> you're not even trespassing walking along that area; in many
> jurisdictions anyway.
This is true of my family home, which we moved into in 1957. There's no
sidewalk on that side of that block of Grand Blvd, but the township (now
part of the city of Battle Creek) retained ownership of the space that
would be needed for a sidewalk (and the treelawn, too).
This came in handy a couple of years ago when the huge basswood tree in
the front yard died. As my dad thought, the tree was on the city's side
of the yard, so the city got to pay for its removal.
The front yard sure looks weird (and open) without it.
Geri
--
Geri Sullivan g...@toad-hall.com
Ulrika O'Brien
eosl...@net-link.net says...
I think you're assuming that only one canonical kind of definition
of ownership, or property, is possible, and the one you have. I
think this is probably a mistake. Having a different conception of
what constitutes property than the one you have is not, I think,
necessarilty the same as "having it both ways."
I know that the good Randroid conception of property is absolute and
confers all rights, but I see nothing inherently contradictory in
positing rules of property or ownership in which the rights that
attend thereto are not absolute or all encompassing. Certainly
ownership that entails partial rights, or additional
responsibilities, seems to be in fact how property works in the
society I live in. "Air rights" "voting rights" and all sorts of
other things can fail to be transfered with the sale of property,
for instance. Would you say to someone who sells a Worldcon
membership for a Worldcon they can't attend, but doesn't include
voting rights that they "can't have it both ways"?
--
"My favourite thing about deadlines is the lovely whooshing
noise they make as they go by." --Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
Ulrika O'Brien
win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU says...
Or, "you own your mailbox, but only agents of the USPS may place
anything in it"?
Mary Kay Kare
<DKHa...@NoSpamjps.net> wrote:
> "Kristopher" <eosl...@net-link.net> wrote
> > "Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)" wrote:
> > > For example, where my father lives, there are no sidewalks.
> > > However, the strip of land approximately. . . I'd say fifteen
> > > feet wide from the road into the property is not part of his
> > > property. It is owned by the /county/ (on the offchance they
> > > decide they want a sidewalk there, I suppose); it is merely his
> > > responsibility for maintenance.
> >
> > Full stop. This is the part that really gets me. If the local
> > government owns that strip along the road, then the owner of the
> > land beyond should have NO responsibility what so ever to
> > maintain it. If the local government does not own that strip,
> > then they should have no ability to force the landowner to
> > perform maintenence or build/maintain a sidewalk.
>
> In my experience, the government can't make you build the sidewalk, and, if
> its in the right-of-way, they can't make you repair it either. However, you
> _may_ be responsible for clearing the snow off it (in areas that HAVE snow)
> or, at the very least, you are _forbidden_ to clear your driveway by
> covering that area.
>
Yeah. It's called cooperation, consideration for other people in your
community. The very stuff of which civilization is made. I get the
impression some folks want to wall off their property, put up guard towers
with dogs and machine guns and never interact with the rest of the
community at all. Cooperation, sharing, consideration for the common
good. These are all things which help make everyone's life more
pleasant. I'm tired of the ,"I've got mine Jack and I ain't sharing. Not
even to let you walk across *my* lawn."
MKK
--
Remember, ka...@sirius.com has been changed to mar...@kare.ws
Kristopher
>
> win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU says...
Considering the safety factors, this kinda falls under the same
exemption that environmental regulations fall under with land.
> Or, "you own your mailbox, but only agents of the USPS may
> place anything in it"?
Really iffy.
Dave Weingart
>impression some folks want to wall off their property, put up guard towers
>with dogs and machine guns and never interact with the rest of the
I'm curious how they're going to buy dog food and bullets (to say
ntohgin of the contrators to build the stuff)
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK "They reached for tomorrow, but tomorrow's
mailto:phyd...@liii.com more of the same. They reached for
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux tomorrow, but tomorrow never came."
ICQ 57055207 -- Berlin, "Masquerade"
Keith F. Lynch
Nate Edel wrote:
> Well, when and if we can colonize the asteroids that will change.
Michael J. Lowrey <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
> Only as long as you stay in a stable orbit. If you knock/take your
> asteroid out of orbit, then everybody in your flight path will have
> something to say on the subject!
I don't think it's worth worrying about. There are trillions of
asteroids, and NONE of them are in a "stable orbit". But you're no
more likely to be hit by an asteroid in the asteroid belt than you
are here on earth. Space is big. Really really big. Unless you
deliberately aim at something, you're not likely to hit anything for
billions of years.
I was amused by James White's novel _Deadly Litter_, in which
littering in space is a serious crime, since at a few tens of miles
per second relative velocity, even a stray coffee ground can ruin
your whole day.
It's easy to show that if every person on earth spent their whole life
flitting about the solar system at random, constantly tossing coffee
grounds overboard, that chances are less than one in a million that
even one spacecraft will collide with even one coffee ground in any
given century.
Since in that novel, spacecraft velocities typically exceeded solar
system escape velocity, the litter would not accumulate over the ages.
It would accumulate in the galaxy as a whole, but the chances of an
accidental collision between artificial objects in interstellar space
are so close to zero, I refuse to believe it ever has or ever will
happen, anywhere, anytime, in the history and future of the entire
universe.
Another James White novel *does* depict a chance meeting in
interstellar space. That man had no sense of scale whatsoever.
Space isn't just like the Atlantic only drier.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.
Keith F. Lynch
> How do you feel about ordinances saying "you own your car, but
> we will penalize you if you don't maintain the turn signals and
> headlights?"
Are you sure those ordinances don't apply only to cars being operated
on public roads?
You own your body, and you own your clothes, and you'd better be
wearing some of them if you're walking on the public road. What you
do with your body, clothes, and car in private on your own property
is your own business.
Keith F. Lynch
> As far as I'm concerned, land ownership isn't any different from any
> other kind of ownership. Anything that infringes on that has to be
> looked at long and hard. The exception with the easiest case to
> make is environmental.
Environmental? Does that mean animals have the right to cross your
land, but people don't? How did animals get more rights than people?
Maybe pedestrians should get themselves declared an endangered
species...
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
I haven't yet come across a non-destructive version of offroading.
Mountain bikers have come up with a non-destructive way to do
their sport: motocross riders have contained their sport: but I
think maybe the reason offroaders have not is because they can't.
In the case of property way out there, isn't the easement also
part of the fire protection system?
Or is that entirely separate -- I know there are fire roads too.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Lucy Kemnitzer
<eosl...@net-link.net> wrote:
>
>Land physically exists. Ideas don't.
>
But, and I do wish Graydon were here because he expresses this
line of thought better, maybe land isn't a sensible thing to think
of as an ownable commodity. Other things we buy and sell and own
privately or corporately are things that are made by people. But
the land is a thing of itself, which we do not make, and which has
a life cycle of its own -- which we can interfere with, yes, but
still -- and it's all contiguous: when you set out to rigorously
define a unit of land it slips around at you and becomes something
different, because it's not neatly divisible.
When we talk about owning land, we're not really talking about
possession the way that we can possess a book or a refrigerator:
we're talking about controlling rights to it. And in legal
reality, it turns out that when you own land, no matter what
system you own it in, there are limits to what rights you control.
You do not possess, for example, the right to destroy your land,
as you possess the right to burn an item of your clothing. In no
half-way functioning system do you have the right to poison the
land you own, or to burn it utterly, or explode it all up (you may
have the right to controlled burns -- in California at least
that's a highly regulated activity, though -- or to set explosives
of a certain size). You don't have the right to divert water so
that it no longer flows through your land (you may be able to
acquire permission, but you can't just up and do it).
So when some of us question the concept of land ownership, we're
only taking questions that already exist a little further.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Keith F. Lynch
> On one hand, I see a lot of places that obviously need sidewalk,
> and don't have it. On the other hand, there's something in the
> back of my brain that twitches uncomfortably at the very idea
> that landowners aren't allowed to fence their front yard in all
> the way to the curb.
Some do. Or plant impassable thorn bushes.
I often see such fences or bushes have been cut through. Then I see
they've been repaired. Then I see they've been cut through again...
This is on roads with heavy traffic and no sidewalks or shoulders.
Keith F. Lynch
> usually do not walk in the middle of the road. But I have a perfect
> right to, if there is no shoulder and no sidewalks.
> I believe it to be both safer and more courteous to walk through
> adjacent front yards instead.
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> You do not have right of way over those front yards.
> And there has been enough damage done directly to the fruits of peoples
> labors, not in the abstract, but before my own eyes, due to this kind
> of "courtesy", that I am rather unyielding on this subject.
Do you drive a car? If so, I'll try to make sure it's your car which
I walk in front in the middle of the road at three miles per hour for
several miles during rush hour.
Sorry, I can't step aside to let you pass. Stepping to the left would
get me run over by oncoming traffic. Stepping to the right would be
trespassing. I wouldn't want to damage someone's yard by momentarily
stepping on the edge of it.
Mark Atwood
>
> land, but people don't? How did animals get more rights than people?
People SHOULD have the brains to preplan their route.
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Mark Atwood
>
> I walk in front in the middle of the road at three miles per hour for
> several miles during rush hour.
An activity that *will* get you arrested.