Not only that, the article being from American media, even with the footnote, the commenters, miss the whole point about copyright being exclusively American concept and we don’t have this in EU. We have IP and authorship rights that work differently. See last part for explanation: https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/15/french-judge-rules-gpl-lice...
I suspect that the legal differences are less than claimed.
The first test of an open source license in court was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer. It was initially lost on a somewhat similar argument. Namely that it was a contract, not a copyright license, and then was an unenforceable contract and therefore invalid. This decision was reversed on appeal.
I have no particular reason to believe that the first French judge to rule on an open source license did a better job than the first US judge to do the same. Both ruled against the license.
For instance, in Poland (which is in Europe) you have all rights to create copies of software, music, movies, for your personal use after paying for the original copy. You cannot do this under copyright which strictly forbids you from creating copies of the original media. Copy-right, as a right to create copies.
In this meaning, copyright is not the same as authorship rights, which is a basis of intellectual property protection in Europe.
Similarly for software patents, they do not work in EU.
It's badly expressed (and not exactly relevant to the train lockout issue), but no, Copyright as in the american sense does not exist in Poland, and similarly in many other European countries.
That's why we have the relevant legal act discuss separate aspects of "moral" and "financial" "Author's rights" to a creation, instead of just singular "copyright", and why American-style "public domain" does not exist in Polish legal system, or that of many other EU countries (US' style public-domain involves effectively losing all rights to the creation, including moral ones, whereas those are non-dismissible, non-transferable and permament in Polish law).
The exact way things differ would probably require a philosopher and a lawyer to discuss differences of.
They also failed to grasp that outside temperature might not be the only factor affecting power consumed for heating, assuming we want to keep constant inside temperature. The most obvious is sunlight - when it's 0C outside, my home requires much less energy when the sun is shining through the windows and on the roof.
Why would it be tax free? Until the position is closed out it'd be an unrealized gain but there's nothing special about shorting. Gains are not taxed until they're actually realized by closing out the position.
Maybe I misremembered something and cannot find a source now, but I think there was some way to avoid paying tax on short sales when company goes bankrupt and gets delisted.
EDIT: See sibling comment.
EDIT 2: Am I reading this right? almost 1,800,000 shares failed to deliver just in one day of Sep 22nd? [0]
If the company actually goes bankrupt and their stock is delisted from exchanges, covering your position becomes much harder since liquidity is greatly reduced.
I think the ideal scenario for a short seller is if the stock loses 99%, stays listed, they cover, then it gets delisted.
You have that wrong; bankruptcy is the ideal scenario for somebody with a short position. The brokerage writes it off. The shares are worthless, so why go after somebody for owing you $0?
No-one's going to go after you. The problem is that you have to keep paying the fee to borrow shares, and you can never repay that loan because there are no shares available anywhere.
> He shorted some stocks that he thought were frauds, and the SEC agreed that they were frauds and halted them, and then ... things got worse for him. The shares were worthless, but they didn't trade at zero or $0.01 or whatever: They didn't trade at all, so he couldn't buy them back to deliver to his stock lenders.
Usually short sellers do manage to cover at some point before the stock completely stops trading though.
I'm not sure I understand - to sell short you already need to borrow securities, can you actually take loans against a short position that becomes worth something? That's interesting.
You can Fail-to-deliver and never locate the stock that you are supposed to borrow. Or you can short ETF with this specific company in basket while going long on anything else in this ETF.
Everything you own, even your own debt, can be used as a collateral by creating and selling swaps.
I work in markets. No, you cannot just fail to deliver. I'm also not sure how the ETF thing would work. If it's 1% of the ETF you're going to hedge out the position using a giant notional. It doesn't work.
Official SEC document regarding regulation SHO describes both illegal and legal cases when you can "just" fail to deliver [0]. Market makers which also happen to have hedge-fund branches are having the most flexibility in this.
Not that I'm saying Apollo's strategy was to pump, dump, short and then crash the company, but if you could generate the trading volume to support the play, you could make money at every point in that trade.
I have 2 gift cards and one additional "LunchPass" card issued this year in Poland, all three are magstrip only.
The magstrip readers are not removed from the terminals, even the newest smartphone-like have them, you just don't know where to look. Of course, sometimes cashiers are surprised that my card is magstrip-only and they are double-surprised when I show them where is the magstrip reader on the terminal they use :)
