ayers@convex.UUCP (09/27/84)
/* Written 12:25 am Sep 25, 1984 by decwrl!falcone in convex:net.general */ /* ---------- "new twist on computer "crime" and la" ---------- */ > ...In particular, they passed a resolution > favoring the passage of a law regulating computer work at home similar to > the law used against the New England knitters... This is true, and something to watch out for. The law governs "piece" work done at home for other companies. If you watched "60 Min's" last week, you saw the main backer of the bill state that he wanted it to cover any work done at home on computers by employees of a company. So if you took your work home with you and worked on it at home, you could be in serious trouble. > ...Of course, it is unclear > what the extent of such a law would be, but it would definitely effect all > those solitary hackers putting out nifty utilities for PC's as a profitable > hobby... This is NOT true, as it is presently proposed. The law only covers work done by employees (or contract labor) for other companies (see above), not for yourself. HOWEVER, it is important to note that the final draft could always change. (It usually does.) > ...someone could be prosecuted > for programming at home just like the knitters in New England. This IS true, providing that the "someone" worked either directly or on contract with a company and did the work at home. This whole thing is serious business for all of us in the industry, and should be watched (write your congressperson, etc.). One thing we don't need is to start alienating people by being caught spreading half-truths about the law(s). History shows that to be a losing tactic. blues, II (IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!!)
mwm@ea.UUCP (09/27/84)
/***** ea:net.general / decwrl!falcone / 12:25 am Sep 25, 1984 */ Quite a while ago, some of the local telephone companies were proposing changes to the tariffs which would consider any line used for data transmission (modems) a BUSINESS line and therefore subject to the business rate schedule. For most of us, this would result in rather stiff rate increases. After an initial flurry of messages on the net about this, I haven't heard a thing. Anyone following this? Joe Falcone /* ---------- */ Much of that came from cases here in Oklahoma. A BBS had his phone rate tripled, with no additional service, because the existing laws made any store&forward device some sort of "information terminal." After hassling the guy (Robert Braver, by name. His BBS is the USEMC, phone number 405/360-3020), the phone company backed off. Something to do with the new tariff associated with the divestiture on Jan. 1, 1984. Currently, Southwestern Bell in Oklahoma will charge you a high rate if you hook up a modem and plan on both incoming and outgoing calls through the computer. If you are going to do just one or the other, they only charge you the standard residential rate. My understanding was that Oklahoma was a test case for Southwestern Bell, and they were going to extend the high charge practice to other states if it worked. Since they aren't charging all modem users a high rate ($54/mo, as opposed to $10/mo), I suspect that they've given up. <mike
russell@cmcl2.UUCP (09/28/84)
This subject is the cover story in the October 1984, Volume 16, #5 issue of REASON Free Minds and Free Markets The cover has a women sitting at the keyboard of what looks like a Kaypro-10 in her living room. She has a very suprised look on her face. The caption is: ELECTRONIC SWEATSHOP? The Strange Opposition to Telecommuting The title of the article is: Telecommuting: Will the Plug be Pulled? This article is must reading for any us who make ANY income from working at home (with or without a terminal/computer). The knitters in Vermont are well covered and there are serveral good pointers to companies who have been in the fore front of "home-work".