Ima Fish's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the too-much-ownership-culture dept
Hello fellow Techdirtheads. I'm Ima Fish and am an attorney with a concentration in IP law. But unlike most lawyers who study IP law, I want to drastically curtail how it presently operates. So when I talk about my "favorite" posts, I'm being satirical, of course.As anyone who reads this site knows, ownership culture has gone way past mere copyright, patents, and trademarks. The pervasiveness of ownership culture can be seen in my favorite post of the week, Timothy's post concerning Shawn Cheek, who believes he has a monopoly on writing letters on the keys of a keyboard to better teach students. Unfortunately, despite having no such copyright or patent, Mr. Cheek has had videos removed from YouTube. That's very troubling.
Another troubling post is Mike's from Tuesday and involves the patenting of vegetables in Europe. The mere idea of giving out monopolies over nature should send a shiver down everyone's spine. Especially when, as the movie Jurassic Park taught us, nature finds a way. This can be seen in a related story, wherein experimental GMO wheat from Monsanto, never cleared for release, was found growing "naturally" by a farmer in Oregon. Will Monsanto go after the farmer who found it for violating their patents? If he had tried to harvest it rather than destroy it, Monsanto might have had a chance based upon the US Supreme Court decision in Bowman v Monsanto. Will farmers in Europe eventually face the same legal threat, merely because nature followed its course?
Simply put, patenting acts of nature actually make acts of nature illegal. Do you feel that shiver now?
One of my other favorite themes at Techdirt is the fact that the copyright industry does not operate in a free market. This can be seen in three posts this week. First, the news that police in the UK are allowing employees of the entertainment industry to arrest and interrogate alleged infringers. While it makes no sense to us, it does from the perspective of the copyright industry when you realize the industry does not actually have customers. It has government granted tolls people are obligated to pay under force of law. So it makes sense for the music and movie industries to hire a bunch of former police and prosecutors to ensure every dime is collected. But the fact politicians are allowing it is very troubling.
The next such posts are the RIAA's outrageous claim that it has never stifled innovation and the depressing news concerning the aftermath of allowing the copyright industry to control innovation.
While stopping the progress of technology may seem outrageous to us, it makes sense for the copyright industry. Because the copyright industry has no actual customers, it has no clue how to compete. So whenever a new technology is released, rather than rolling up their collective sleeves and coming up with better product, the copyright industry sues, e.g., the player piano, the radio, cable TV, DVRs, etc. And as long as the copyright industry's business is collecting tolls rather selling a product or service to customers, these attacks against technology will continue.
Another favorite theme of mine here is the copyright industry's desire to eliminate the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. The DMCA was enacted when I was in law school, and it was hotly debated among students and professors. The only commonality of thought we all had was that if the law was passed, it absolutely needed safe harbors. Even the copyright maximalists in the debate conceded that. It was clear to everyone that without safe harbors, the internet would be destroyed. But as Mike posted Wednesday, the RIAA is back at it again.
People tend to ask, "Why should internet providers act as the copyright industry's police force?" But in my opinion, that's not what this is really about. The RIAA and the MPAA do not really care about stopping piracy. Seriously. All they actually want is a new revenue stream. Forcing Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook and others to pay is what the copyright industry considers a new business model.
This would basically be licensing. Let's look back to when copyright first started covering performances. Back then, the music industry could have sued individual bands or audience members. Instead they sold licenses to bar, club, and theater owners. And by "sold" I mean owners were forced to pay for licenses.
The same will happen once Google and the rest start paying. For example, the music industry won't have to concern itself much with selling CDs or advertising. It'll just sit back and collect its tolls from large internet service providers, increasing those tolls every few years, of course.
My last favorite post involves the destruction of the right of first sale in relation to the console gaming industry. As posted by Timothy on Wednesday, it is hoped that Sony learns from the backlash and supports used games in the upcoming PS4.
In my opinion, don't hold your breath. Sony is the same company that took away the "other" OS option in the PS3, installed root kids on PCs via music CDs, and came up with the most convoluted anti-consumer way to sell digital music ever conceived. If Sony is our only hope to save first sale rights, we're screwed.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well put!
Sony? Won't buy from them, but I will steal from them... They deserve nothing less! And yes, I have, in the past (and still) owned Sony TV's, cassette and tape recorders, mini-disc recorders/players, CD/DVD players, and laptop computers. Wonder how much Sony cruft I've purchased since the CD root-kit fiasco? Try $0.00, zip, zero, nothing. When will I purchase more Sony cruft? When they publicly apologize for the CD root-kit fiasco, and pay everyone who was harmed by it at least $1000 USD... Yeah, and the universe will likely undergo heat death first...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well put!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirtheads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patenting naturally occuring things, like genes is problematic since you can end up with inadvertant infringement from passivity which goes fundamentally against the thought behind current consumer protection laws.
The problem is exacerbated by the self-replication which makes for an erosion of the right to sell what you own and specifically some extremely problematic jurisprudence on "selective breeding" which is a technique older than the bible!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of particular concern to me is the seemingly constant assertions of IP ownership over things the content owners (or their representatives) should know they have little or no stake in. There seem to be no penalties for sending Cease & Desist letters, taking down content via automated systems, or scatter-shotting legal nastygrams in general. The burden falls on the accused to prove fair use or that no infringement ever took place - the costs of which can be devastating to an individual, prohibitive to a small company, and inconvenient to a corporation. The accusers can do this with absolutely no fear of repercussions.
Does there exist - anywhere in the world - a system in place where these claims can be heard be an administrative magistrate, who can at the very least issue a (non-binding or not) declaration as to the validity of the claims? It would be a good first step - the fact that you either have to go Full Legal or Go Home upon receipt of just an assertion is one of the most egregious aspects of current IP law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,
You guys repeat same assertions over and over. That's why my taglines are really all that's necessary to refute.
Every "new business model" here requires first getting valuable products -- for example, headlines to skim -- for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,
Statements like this are why nobody takes you seriously, either as a legitimate commentator or as a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,
What are you, insane? Those sites pay TONNES of money. They employ huge staffs and operate multiple massive server farms -- they have to pay costs of millions or tens of millions of dollars in order to offer these free services.
And, if they add nothing, why do billions of people use them, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Stated
Really, could not have summed that up any better. Well played sir.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another dick head lawyer who does not know what the hell he is talking about, and at the same time makes his living from the IP and laws that govern us.
What progress of technology is stopped by copyright again ?? some examples please..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
got many root kids do you, Mr fish ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh ok, so you have shown us that you don't understand what copyright is, OR what a free market is.. no wonder you are one of those 'lawyers' who don't have the balls to put your name on what you say.. embarrassed I guess.
as a 'lawyer' don't you make your living from the product of your intellect? you know the property of your intellect is how you do your 'work', or are you the 'other' kind of lawyer ?
Are you Lionel Hutz ? aka Miguel Sanchez aka Nguyen Van Phuoc ?
Did you graduate from the Prinston School of Law ?
Is the name of you company "I cant believe it's a law firm"
or is it called "Dewey, Cheatem and howe"
(Do we cheat them?, and how!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Learn to spell "Princeton", dumbass. Or do your solar panel clients not require you to spell their names right? Or are all your clients solar panels?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Explaining a joke is like debating a troll. Nobody's that interested and the troll looks stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Stupid troll can't even explain jokes that require no explanation properly. In other words, stupid troll is stupid....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Consumers will never learn. And corporations have already learned *that*:
Verizon recently raised their rates in a very underhanded way. All the Internet was in an uproar. Of those who complained the loudest, how many actually dropped Verizon?
Companies do what makes sense monetarily. As Monsanto says "We're in business to make money. It's the FDA's responsibility to keep the public safe." (Nevermind the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto....)
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No your not. Just don't fucking partake of the experience, you freeloading sack of shit. No one has a gun at your head. You don't want to pay? Fine. Just don't take what doesn't belong to you. Problem solved. You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Any big label music, I avoid, neither pirating, buying, or even caring about.
Any ebooks put out by major publishers(With the notable exception of Baen) are likely to be stuffed to the gills with DRM, and just as expensive as the physical copies, so I avoid them completely, or buy dead-tree versions maybe once every couple of months(due to the hassle of having to drive a good distance to get to a book store).
Any movies, I wait until it hits redbox or a similar service, and even then I rarely watch any, as the good ones are few and far in-between.
I don't care for the drek that's modern tv(yet another 'reality' show, oh joy /s), so I don't have a cable subscription or even watch tv in general.
Now, that said, I do...
Pay for music made by independent musicians on sites such as bandcamp, where it's easy to try, and easy(and cheap) to buy.
Pay for plenty of ebooks from sites such as smashwords, where there is not only no DRM, but I can read a sampling of a book before deciding if I want to pick it up.
Pay for book versions of the webcomics I follow(much better than tv: no commercials, better quality, and much more variety), to support the artists.
Now then, you may notice that the first group, the ones you are 'defending', gets zero of my money, and an equal amount of my attention or interest, while the second group gets as much money as I can throw at them.
Take a wild guess as to which group is likely to be around and thriving come a decade or two, and which group will only still be around if they can buy enough laws to make it illegal not to pay them, whether you are interested in their product or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"installed root kids on PCs via music CDs"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.
During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.
Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.
During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.
Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.
A midshipman is a naval officer in training or a commissioned officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Kenya. The rank was also used, prior to 1968, by the Royal Canadian Navy, but upon the creation of the Canadian Forces the rank of midshipman was replaced with the rank of naval cadet.
In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.
During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.
Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.
During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.
Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.
A midshipman is a naval officer in training or a commissioned officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Kenya. The rank was also used, prior to 1968, by the Royal Canadian Navy, but upon the creation of the Canadian Forces the rank of midshipman was replaced with the rank of naval cadet.
In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.
During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.
Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.
A midshipman is a naval officer in training or a commissioned officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Kenya. The rank was also used, prior to 1968, by the Royal Canadian Navy, but upon the creation of the Canadian Forces the rank of midshipman was replaced with the rank of naval cadet.
In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.
During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.
Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.
A midshipman is a naval officer in training or a commissioned officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Kenya. The rank was also used, prior to 1968, by the Royal Canadian Navy, but upon the creation of the Canadian Forces the rank of midshipman was replaced with the rank of naval cadet.
In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.
During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.
Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.
During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.
Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]