remote-controlled helicopter has maneuvered just above
the blowhole mist of a blue whale in the Gulf of California
Credit: Zoological Society of London
Canada did not really outlaw carpooling. The article can be a little misleading.
The company got fined based on a suit brought by the bus companies. Contrary to what the article says, PickupPal was charging commission from the drivers for these rides. They got sued and lost(rightfully so) due to a 1978 (when nobody knew what carpooling was) law that determines what constitutes commercial operations.
It has also been brought to my attention that apparently the legislators are pissed and that preventing carpooling was not what the law intended, and therefore wish to change the legislation to bring it more in line with the times.
To me, that makes 2 rights: properly applying the law as it currently exists, and modifying the law to make it more current.
Thanks for posting the clarifications chriggy; although, I can’t find where Pickup Pal was charging a fee. Instead, it sounds like drivers were charging fees to passengers. The ruling allows Pickup Pal to continue operating, but passengers are not allowed to pay drivers more than once a week for rides. This sounds like the RIAA suing Napster for bootlegging, when it’s the users doing the bootlegging. Pickup Pal is simply offering a medium for people to charge for rides.
If I’m missing something here, please let me know, but my current understanding of this lawsuit means that a University could be sued for setting up a “Rides Board” because someone could post a flier charging for rides.
Either way, I agree with you that it’s a good thing they are going to modify the law.
Okay. That does give me a better perspective on the case. If Pickup Pal was taking a cut, then that was definitely in violation of the law. Thanks for helping to clarify the issue.
And, C’mon, USA; we’re falling behind on the whole stem cell thing. Way to go. Other countries are growing body parts while we wrestle with nonexistent ethical dilemmas.
Canada did not really outlaw carpooling. The article can be a little misleading.
The company got fined based on a suit brought by the bus companies. Contrary to what the article says, PickupPal was charging commission from the drivers for these rides. They got sued and lost(rightfully so) due to a 1978 (when nobody knew what carpooling was) law that determines what constitutes commercial operations.
It has also been brought to my attention that apparently the legislators are pissed and that preventing carpooling was not what the law intended, and therefore wish to change the legislation to bring it more in line with the times.
To me, that makes 2 rights: properly applying the law as it currently exists, and modifying the law to make it more current.
Comment by chriggy — November 17, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
FYI, PickupPal still operates, but no longer charges a fee.
Comment by chriggy — November 17, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Thanks for posting the clarifications chriggy; although, I can’t find where Pickup Pal was charging a fee. Instead, it sounds like drivers were charging fees to passengers. The ruling allows Pickup Pal to continue operating, but passengers are not allowed to pay drivers more than once a week for rides. This sounds like the RIAA suing Napster for bootlegging, when it’s the users doing the bootlegging. Pickup Pal is simply offering a medium for people to charge for rides.
If I’m missing something here, please let me know, but my current understanding of this lawsuit means that a University could be sued for setting up a “Rides Board” because someone could post a flier charging for rides.
Either way, I agree with you that it’s a good thing they are going to modify the law.
Comment by ideonexus — November 23, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
It’s in the official rulings pdf. PickupPal doesn’t deny it either.
The link to the pdf is here http://www.pickuppal.com/save/blog/res/doc_092914.pdf and the link to pickuppal’s stance is here: http://blog.pickuppal.com/2008/06/26/free-pickuppal/
Comment by chriggy — November 24, 2008 @ 1:18 am
Sorry about the mangled comment, but it seems that stuff with links doesn’t make it past the spam filter without having to be tricky about it.
They charged 7% commission based on the negotiated driver fee, but changed their policy between the time of the suit anf the time of the ruling.
Comment by chriggy — November 24, 2008 @ 1:22 am
Okay. That does give me a better perspective on the case. If Pickup Pal was taking a cut, then that was definitely in violation of the law. Thanks for helping to clarify the issue.
Comment by ideonexus — November 24, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
I wish somebody cared enough about MY species to collect MY snot via helicopter.
…or maybe they already have!
Comment by Dave — November 25, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
And, C’mon, USA; we’re falling behind on the whole stem cell thing. Way to go. Other countries are growing body parts while we wrestle with nonexistent ethical dilemmas.
Comment by Dave — November 25, 2008 @ 5:54 pm