Former Copyright Boss: New Technology Should Be Presumed Illegal Until Congress Says Otherwise
from the wtf dept
One of the reasons why we live in such an innovative society is that we've (for the most part) enabled a permissionless innovation society -- one in which innovators no longer have to go through gatekeepers in order to bring innovation to market. This is a hugely valuable thing, and it's why we get concerned about laws that further extend permission culture. However, according to the former Register of Copyrights, Ralph Oman, under copyright law, any new technology should have to apply to Congress for approval and a review to make sure they don't upset the apple cart of copyright, before they're allowed to exist. I'm not joking. Mr. Oman, who was the Register of Copyright from 1985 to 1993 and was heavily involved in a variety of copyright issues, has filed an amicus brief in the Aereo case (pdf).As you hopefully recall, Aereo is the online TV service, backed by Barry Diller, that sets you up with your very own physical TV antenna on a rooftop in Brooklyn, connected to a device that will then stream to you online what that antenna picks up. This ridiculously convoluted setup is an attempt to route around the ridiculous setup of today's copyright law -- something that Oman was intimately involved in creating with the 1976 Copyright Act. The TV networks sued Aereo, but were unable to get an injunction blocking the service. Oman's amicus brief seeks to have that ruling overturned, and argues that an injunction is proper.
But he goes much further than that in his argument, even to the point of claiming that with the 1976 Copyright Act, Congress specifically intended new technologies to first apply to Congress for permission, before releasing new products on the market that might upset existing business models:
Whenever possible, when the law is ambiguous or silent on the issue at bar, the courts should let those who want to market new technologies carry the burden of persuasion that a new exception to the broad rights enacted by Congress should be established. That is especially so if that technology poses grave dangers to the exclusive rights that Congress has given copyright owners. Commercial exploiters of new technologies should be required to convince Congress to sanction a new delivery system and/or exempt it from copyright liability. That is what Congress intended.This is, to put it mildly, crazy talk. He is arguing that anything even remotely disruptive and innovative, must first go through the ridiculous process of convincing Congress that it should be allowed, rather than relying on what the law says and letting the courts sort out any issues. In other words, in cases of disruptive innovation, assume that new technologies are illegal until proven otherwise. That's a recipe for killing innovation.
Under those rules, it's unlikely that we would have radio, cable TV, VCRs, DVRs, mp3 players, YouTube and much, much more. That's not how innovation or the law works. You don't assume everything innovative is illegal just because it upsets some obsolete business models. But that appears to be how Oman thinks the world should act. Stunningly, he even seems to admit that he'd be fine with none of the above being able to come to market without Congressional approval, because he approvingly cites the dissent in the Betamax case (which made clear that the VCR was legal), which argues that the VCR should only be deemed legal with an act of Congress to modify the Copyright Act. You would think that the success of the VCR in revitalizing the movie industry would show just how ridiculous that is... but in Oman's copyright-centric world, the rules are "first, do not allow any innovation that upsets my friends."
Elsewhere, he argues -- quite correctly -- that Aereo's design was clearly done with the help of lawyers to stay on the legal side of the line, but he gets the exact wrong lesson out of that:
The Aereo system was not designed for the purpose of speed, convenience and efficiency. With its thousands of dime-sized antennae and its electronic loop-the-loops, it appears to have been designed by a copyright lawyer peering over the shoulder of an engineer to exploit what appeared to Aereo to be a loophole in the law and shoehorn the Aereo business model into the Cablevision decision.In other words, he's admitting that the system was designed carefully to remain on the right side of the law... but he's somehow upset that this is possible. In his incredible worldview, you should not be able to design around the contours and exceptions to copyright law -- because anything that upsets Hollywood is, by default, illegal.
Perhaps we've learned who put the clause in the '76 Act that explicitly says that the law should be used to stop disruptive innovation if it gets in the way of the status quo.
Either way, he goes on at length, claiming that his efforts in helping to put together the '76 Act and his other work on copyright were continually focused on benefiting the copyright holder. He never mentions that this is not the purpose of copyright law. It is the means. But the intent is to benefit the public. Oman does not ever seem to take that into consideration.
Indisputably, Congress drafted the Copyright Act to prevent the creative efforts of authors from being usurped by new technologies. That core principle is at the heart of the Copyright Act. Congressional intent would be undercut by any decision that would sanction the use of technologies which could be used indirectly to undermine its goals. Congress enacted a forward-looking statute that would protect those who create precisely so they have incentives to create.Actually, that's quite disputable. The Copyright Act can only be designed to benefit the public. The means of doing so is by creating the ability of copyright holders to exclude, but that is hardly the only incentive to create. Allowing new technologies that disrupt old business models does not necessarily remove the incentive to create. Instead, as we've shown over and over again, the incentive to create appears to have increased greatly, even as respect for copyright has weakened tremendously over the past decade. So I fail to see how Congress' "intent" could possibly be undermined by new disruptive technologies coming along -- without permission -- and creating new and expansive markets that both help the public and provide new opportunities for content creators.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, disruptive innovation, innovation, performance, ralph oman
Companies: aereo
Reader Comments
The First Word
“We're sorry Edison, your light bulb will be disastrous for the candle industry.
We're sorry Gutenberg, your printing press will be disastrous to the scribing industry.
We're sorry modern science, your thinking will be disastrous to the alchemy industry. =P
(I know the Ford didn't make the first automobile nor Edison the first lightbulb. They are just who most people think of when mentioning that invention) =P
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Keep it up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Blow is consumed off a hooker's asscrack. The cleavage is used for tequila shots. Please keep this in mind for future reference. I'd hate for you to find yourself at a Congressman's fundraiser and not be aware of proper hooker etiquette. :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Cant Wait . . .
We're almost there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Cant Wait . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious!
The reason not everyone can afford a top-end tablet today is because of your great^20 grandpappy's clay tablet. How are we EVER going to get the new new new new new thing, if people oh ever keep making new things??
That's why IP is so important. The only way to promote the progress is to sit on the progress like a mean angry fat kid with daddy issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then, some pesky broad named "Queen Anne" decided to continue the tradition by listening to the same bogus stats as given her by the publishing industry of the era and thus, we've evolution in progress.
It's amazing, too, this idiot's remarks about innovation while his industry gets the laws passed to make everything illegal anyway.
If not illegal, definitely primer to allow trolls to feed like queens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Following the law is immoral
Following the law is wrong, so we should pass a new law that requires lawful people to not do wrong by obeying the law.
Also, the purpose of amicus briefs is to make recommendations to Congress.
I am in favor of al of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright, by design, benefits authors because that in turn benefits the public. I know that you think because it's the means it can be ignored, but that makes no sense. The means are an integral part of accomplishing the ends.
The Copyright Act can only be designed to benefit the public.
Nope. The Copyright Act is designed to benefit authors first because that in turn benefits the public. Pretending like it's not at all about benefiting authors makes zero sense. It's exactly about benefiting authors so that the public may also benefit.
Instead, as we've shown over and over again, the incentive to create appears to have increased greatly, even as respect for copyright has weakened tremendously over the past decade.
And yet you can't even find more than a couple authors to participate in your book club that do not rely on the copyright business model. You *want* to declare copyright dead, but you are FAR from proving that your alternative models are superior. Why don't you actually compete with copyright and win on a substantial scale before you declare "free" the winner? Copyright is winning by a mile. Your own book club is evidence of that.
So I fail to see how Congress' "intent" could possibly be undermined by new disruptive technologies coming along -- without permission -- and creating new and expansive markets that both help the public and provide new opportunities for content creators.
If your tech buddies are violating the rights of authors, then they are undermining Congress's undeniable intent to give authors exclusive rights. I know you're super-anxious to write out the parts where authors get exclusive rights, but the fact is that your alternative models have not proven themselves. Again, you can't even find more than a couple authors who subscribe to your alternative views to be featured in your book club. That says it all. Those authors for the most part rely on copyright, not on "free." Copyright is not about forcing authors to take the "opportunities" offered by your tech buddies. It's about giving authors the choice of how and where to distribute their works. Your buddies are turning that on its head. Calling it "innovation" is clever, but it's deceptive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, color me surprised!
Finest trolling I've seen in a very long time!
I never thought I'd hear you admit the truth. I am very impressed!
Yes, you are exactly correct, copyright has always been about enriching the "authors" (as you put it, a graceful euphemism, btw) at the expense of the public.
Glad to see that you're finally beginning to think upon the truth of the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, color me surprised!
A side note, before the USA introduced copyright protection for foreign works, British authors made as much or more from their American publishers who could just cop[y the British book. Paying the Authors allowed them to print before the British publication, and therefore any American rivals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, color me surprised!
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, color me surprised!
Might not be too-far off the mark, since you've obviously never read The Statute of Anne.
The first every copyright legislation was indeed granting a monopoly, but for a very limited time. It formed a pact between authors, publishers, and the public. At the end of the terms then granted as exclusive copyright, the public could do what they wished with the author's work.
The upshot of books rapidly entering the public domain was The Enlightenment. Idiots like Oman are the heralds and champions of a new Dark Ages where knowledge is the exclusive purview of the modern-day equivalent of monasteries copying with quill and ink.
"Your now, to own forever ...,/b>" Yeah, right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, color me surprised!
It was designed to fix the chaos that the removal of that monopoly created, and it most certainly *did* make a real difference to the authors. Without a central authority to control publication, publishers started publishing whatever they felt like without any regards to the authors' wishes, or even to paying them for their work. The Statute of Anne, the original copyright act, was created to put a stop to that, to require publishers to get contractual permission from the authors before they published it.
Yeah, that's right. Copyright was originally designed to prevent publishers from exploiting people. Today it's been twisted and perverted to the point that its principal use is to *facilitate* the exploitation of people by publishers, but historically (up until about 1970) that was not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, color me surprised!
In either case you're wrong, or perhaps you have another view. Please feel free to clarify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If only it really was for the benefit of the authors but mostly for that of the publishing industries who somehow managed to jack most of it from the authors and are those this whole circus is really meant to "protect".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Under the congress approval system, it would end up more expensive to get approval than it would to develope new technologies. In turn, this will delay new technologies from coming out to a point where the new technogy would become obsolete by the time of approval.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And at what point do you, Average_Joe, say that the "benefits to authors" is too much for society to pay? I say its too much when my natural born right to copy is taken away, when new technologies and business models are being threatened with being sued out of existence, when you have to ask permission to do anything at all.
"If your tech buddies are violating the rights of authors"
That's the problem. In order for innovation to occur, it will inevitably run afoul of copyright law at some point. Even if the engineers have every intent to stay within the law, copyright law is so badly written and does not work with reality, that the engineers will have to violate it in order to create the next big thing, the next great invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
what you are describing is a kind of corollary to the innovator's dilemma, known to some as the pirate's dilemma. new technologies are illegal until the copyright powers that be cut some sort of blanket licensing deal. the phonograph was a violation of copyright until a licensing deal created a new industry. radio, cable TV, and the VCR all did too, until licensing deals created their respective industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correct and so very wrong
Ding ding ding. That is correct. However, that design was corrupted by extending the term of copyright past the lifespan of generations of humans. Currently copyright benefits authors and it remains to be seen if it will at some point in the distant future, benefit the public. The internet will, in all probability, render copyright in its current form, obsolete within the next decade or two.
"Those authors for the most part rely on copyright, not on 'free.'"
Relying on revenue is a far cry from relying on copyright. Yes, authors do rely on revenue and yes, they can incorporate 'free' into their business model, but just because someone collects a fee for their work does not mean they rely on copyright. Instead they rely on paying fans. No amount of copyright laws can make someone buy something they don't want to buy. If authors relied on copyright, most would starve since it's so easy to find free versions of their work online now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correct and so very wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correct and so very wrong
I fixed that. Obviously copyright past the lifespan of the author benefits its remains..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What happens when there are better means?
If the ends are to distribute books, you don't keep building monastaries and staffing them full of monks to make copies after the printing press comes around.
When the means you use to accomplish the ends no longer makes sense, it's time to scrap that means and find a new one. No matter how many monk protection acts you pass, no matter how often you villify Gutenberg, you can't stop progress. Climb aboard or get run over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the regimes built on the inefficiencies of the old means will do all that they can to prop up the status quo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don''t know what "violating" means.
You don't know what "exclusive" means, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If Congress's intent was undeniable, you would not have felt compelled to insist that it was.
Good rule of thumb - any time a writer says "undeniably," "clearly" or "Obviously" it is because they are trying to push an argument they know is weak. Their insecurity causes them to add a redundant "really really" adverb or adjective to the sentence.
in this case, Congress's intent was to give authors some limited rights. We as a nation will decide what those rights will be in every new instance, and that decision will not be dictated to us. Please keep having a problem with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
Look on YouTube for this:
Gaiman on Copyright Piracy and the Web
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To promote the progress of science and useful arts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We're sorry Edison, your light bulb will be disastrous for the candle industry.
We're sorry Gutenberg, your printing press will be disastrous to the scribing industry.
We're sorry modern science, your thinking will be disastrous to the alchemy industry. =P
(I know the Ford didn't make the first automobile nor Edison the first lightbulb. They are just who most people think of when mentioning that invention) =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is really messed up. On the level of thinking India is part of South America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to be better to ask forgiveness than permission... Just do it without permission, then someone has to actually be able to shut you down by proving you infringed. That's a hell of a lot easier than getting Congress to agree on anything... that takes, an act of Congress?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anthem, by Ayn Rand, 1937
"This would wreck the Plans of the World Council," said Unaminity 2-9913, "and without the Plans of the World Council the sun cannot rise. It took fifty years to secure the approval of all the Councils for the Candle, and to decide upon the number needed, and to re-fit the Plans so as to make candles instead of torches.... We cannot alter the Plans again so soon."
- Anthem, 1937, Ayn Rand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish it would end like other internet fads, but I suspect it will not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The envelope please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great ideas to do great damage on USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I understand the obligation of lawyers to assert the most preposterous ideas of their masters, with the only metric of success being how many people the lawyer can convince that the sky is, indeed, purple. But there must be a special sense of cynical obtuseness that copyright lawyers have to attain in order to say copyright promotes progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What will it be tomorrow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Apple probable has 500 patents on various aspects of the iPhone 5."
Unfortunately, those two statements in no way conflict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like a sure-fire way....
Much as the current administration would like to think that USA law = world law, it currently doesn't and this is a sure-fire way to ensure it remains that way. It would be just too good an advantage for other countries to give up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are the media cabals of benefit to society?
To be granted or renewed, a company had to prove that it was of benefit to society at large.
Yes, you read that right, they had to prove they were of benefit to society at large - not just the owners or they would be dissolved. Operators were also held personally liable for the actions of the companies (passive 3rd party investors were not).
It is screamingly obvious that the media cabal and the banking cabal are not of benefit to society at large and should be dissolved. Banks could be replaced by credit unions and the media cabal could be replaced by direct voluntary payment to authors. In an age of electronic distribution there is no need for stocking, distribution or advertizing and the corruption that it brings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait... WHAT ?!?
IF, and this is a big if, that were true ... then:
IBM, Apple, iNTEL, AMD, nVidia, ATI, Yahoo!, Google, and on and on and on
WOULD NOT EXIST!
period!
end of discussion.
It is the nature of innovation to disrupt so-called "status-quo" so as to improve and move society forward.
It's how we learn, adapt, and grow, both personally and as a society. It's something to build on, and opens up new doors and ideas for further improvement and pursuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U.S.A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent Mwahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wise quote
Why are we even quoting him? What he says hardly matters in light of the last 10 years innovation with respect to the Internet. So give the guy a break and do what matters. It's how the courts rule that will be the deciding factor. Not what Oman thinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wise quote
Why are we even quoting him? What he says hardly matters in light of the last 10 years innovation with respect to the Internet. So give the guy a break and do what matters. It's how the courts rule that will be the deciding factor. Not what Oman thinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't you please think of the children?
Please save us from our failing business model.
Love, RIAA-MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're sorry Craig, your site...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Mr. Orman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A slight dorrection...
...They are just who most AMERICANS think of when mentioning that invention...
There, fixed that for you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A slight dorrection...
When you think of 'person who invented cars', most American history textbooks have Ford as the person who did that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The house I grew up in was built with carriage money made between 1870 and 1910. The house across the street, car money. The estate down the street, now a huge walled park: car money.
This in New Haven, where we don't imagine cars being made. They weren't for long. (Like movies weren't made for long in Ithaca.)
Or visit Bethlehem, PA. A vast place with huge empty steel mills. Inspires awe, but also a sadness. The town is hollow. What is missing is a great MUSEUM there. If it's senseless to mandate the continuation of industry, it would make sense to crowdsource a proper musuem.
At the moment it is lacking. Who builds monuments to an ebbing tide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately reality...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't about restricting technology. It's about protecting people like me.
Scrolling up a bit in the friend of the court brief that TechDirt cites, "The tension between technology and copyright law in general is not new. It has been with us since the beginnings of copyright law and the widespread use of the printing press. Congress, when it enacted the present Copyright Act, both addressed existing conflicts and anticipated future technological developments. It took pains to ensure that the statute was technology neutral and emphasized that the broad rights it intended authors to enjoy should not be circumvented and infringed by new technologies."
This is exactly right. I, as an intellectual property owner, should not have to chase down and prove in court that I am entitled to be paid for the work I do each time so-and-so comes up with a new way to distribute my intellectual property. They may have full rights to their new technology, but they don't have the right to use that new technology to sell someone else's property.
TechDirt quoted the Amicus breif out of context. If you expand the quote by one leading sentence you learn the true intent and meaning of his assertion:
"The courts should not saddle the copyright owner with having to convince Congress to act to prohibit unauthorized Internet retransmissions. Whenever possible, when the law is ambiguous or silent on the issue at bar, the courts should let those who want to market new technologies carry the burden of persuasion that a new exception to the broad rights enacted by Congress should be established. That is especially so if that technology poses grave dangers to the exclusive rights that Congress has given copyright owners. Commercial exploiters of new technologies should be required to convince Congress to sanction a new delivery system and/or exempt it from copyright liability. That is what Congress intended."
In other words, he's not saying that Congress should have the right to approve new inventions, but that a Copyright owner's rights don't end each time someone invents something new. He's saying that the law should err in favor of the copyright owner unless Congress says otherwise.
"In this case, the Court should “do as little damage as possible to traditional copyright principles” by finding in favor of the authors and enjoining the infringing activity. Congress can intervene to clarify the law if it chooses."
Is this a "Permission Culture?" Well, frankly, when it comes to someone else's property, yes, you have to ask permission to borrow my car, and you have to ask permission to distribute the fruits of my digital labors.
Does this inhibit creativity? No. It protects it.
How about some examples of how this dos not inhibit creativity and invention? Apple created the iPod and iTunes, which were technical innovations that both introduced a new technology (indeed, a new cultural icon) *and* a way to reward music artists for their work. Ditto Kindle and Nook. Ditto the DVD player and Hulu.
The difference between these inventions and Aero TV is they invented/created the whole deal, a cool invention *and* a way to use those inventions without stealing from others. Aero, on the other hand, is a half-baked innovation that depends on stealing *from the exact same content creators that the iPod, Kindle, Nook, DVD player, and Hulu provide a means to compensate* in order to make a buck.
I know the entertainment sector has lobbied Congress to do some annoying things. I think they were wrong to extend the lifetime of copyright protections for things like movies and other group works well beyond the lifetime of their original creators, a move that protects corporate profits but does nothing for the actual content creators or the public's interest.
This issue is bigger than that. It's about protecting people like me, the little guys who earn a living from the articles, computer programs, videos, and other content and products they create.
TechDirt should amend this article to tell the whole story instead of cherry-picking facts and quoting out of context to create drama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't about restricting technology. It's about protecting people like me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't about restricting technology. It's about protecting people like me.
I'm not sure how you don't see that this approach is de facto requiring Congressional approval of all new technologies. If the law defaults to protecting copyright holders from invention, then lawmakers must overturn it in cases where they deem an invention to be okay.
But then again, you've also managed to conflate physical and digital goods (and copyright infringement with theft, separately), falsely attribute the invention of the MP3 player and digital music distribution to Apple, and fail to spell Aereo correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't about restricting technology. It's about protecting people like me.
Because the 1976 copyright law is about protecting the intellectual property rights' (copyright's) owner, not about limiting technology.
Placed in a different context, let's say I invent a robot that can select and bag ripe apples from a grocery. Does my invention of this robot give me the right to roll it into the grocer, pull out sackfulls of their best apples, leave without paying, then take them out to the parking lot and sell them? If I followed your argument, under current laws about theft I'd have to get legal approval to build my robot because it could steal apples, when all the law actually says is that I can't steal the apples.
Oh, and thank you for pointing out the spelling error for Aereo. Clearly the meaning behind what I said was not lost, as you were able to recognize exactly what I was talking about.
I'm am equally impressed by your ability to create fiction, deciding that I attributed the invention of the MP3 player and digital music distribution to Apple, which is not what I said. Perhaps that's where you and I differ: I think the words on the page have distinct and clear meaning, where you opt to read in whole concepts that don't appear on the page or screen.
Next I suppose you'll decide to convict people for murder for simply wishing someone would drop dead. No need to, you know, actually commit the crime.
Then, I suppose I can expect no less from someone who disambiguates the concept of copyright ownership for a physical thing, like a book, from the exact same thing when it is in digital form. Has it occurred to you that modern books begin their lives as digital media, which is then licensed to a publisher for production in book form?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't about restricting technology. It's about protecting people like me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't about restricting technology. It's about protecting people like me.
Yup. No mention of inventing the MP3. The MPEG-2 and MPEG-3 formats where invented at Cornell and Columbia Universities, respectively. No mention of inventing a store, either.
Apple did, on the other hand, earn several patents (the gold standard for determining who invented something) for the iPod menu system and scroll wheel, and for their iTunes store user interface. It was these inventions that made the iPod a success.
You're still reading meaning into what I said that just isn't there. Jack and Jill did not go up the hill to fetch a pail of vodka, I never said Apple invented the MP3 or digital music distribution, and no one is arguing in court that Congress has to approve new technologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we want to survive into the future then we must face an unlimited number of both known and unknown problems. The solutions can only come if we encourage a continual stream of innovations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they want to use the legal system this way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
14 years copyright
.
I would not be surprised to learn that Hollywood and the RIAA were responsible for the changes.
.
Patents were originally 17 years and are now 20?
.
Why the disparity? - Copyright is all about content vs. invention of new technology for patents.
.
The solution is obvious - make patents enforceable for the life of the inventor plus 75 years, and watch the RIAA squeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Here Than Meets the Eye
What bothers me is that Mr. Oman is no slouch. His resume is impressive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Oman he should (and does) know better.
There's more here than meets the eye. It is unlikely that he put in a 28 page amicus brief, spent mucho time, and paid for the appellate printing on his own. He [improperly] uses the prestige of his former position with the Copyright Office on the cover page of the brief itself by announcing that he was the former Register of Copyrights of the United States." Methinks he and/or his law firm was hired by one of the big boys who stands to really gain by a reversal in this case. Yet he submits the brief in his name only, leaving out the real party in interest. If you want to know who's really behind this amicus brief, follow the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]