Or they're feuding with their label. It happens, previous case in point, Prince. He changed his name to a non-typographical symbol to irritate his label.
Maybe Metallica is trying to irritate their label, or protest some horrible contract or something by touring (where they keep the money) rather than doing a studio record (where the label keeps much of the money.
Hasn't innovation in pharmaceuticals already come to a crawl, or even stopped? I think all of the new anti-inflammatory drugs have been taken off the market, or cancelled.
I seem to recall, but can't find, an article about how there's nothing in the pipeline from major pharmaceutical companies. That is, with extended rights to the drugs they've got, they quite investing in new drugs.
Palantir is an object lesson in the evils of secrecy. They got involved with government agencies that cloak themselves in secrecy, justified or not. I think the involvement put Palantir on a slippery slope when it comes to the ethics of their actions. They were clearly willing to do more under the cover of secrecy than they would do without the secrecy.
Secrecy, especially the compartmentalized-knowledge, institutionalized variety favored by the US Government almost inevitably leads to abuses we all later regret.
And just to do a bit of lightening rod action, "palantir" is a word from J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" books. Essentially, it's a crystal ball. In the Lord of the Rings, people used them for remote viewing and communications. The idea of a crystal ball is clearly public domain, but is the word "palantir" itself? Perhaps "Palantir Technologies" is a copyright infringer, a.k.a. "pirate". In which case, it would be no surprise that they'd do regrettably unethical things.
Multiple simultaneous inventions seems to me the rock upon which the moral basis of "intellectual property" founders.
Multiple invention exposes two problems with the idea of "intellectual property".
1. The immorality of giving a single entity control over a single idea. If IP is "property" then anybody who independently invents some concept or idea should on a moral basis be given a share of the benefits of that property. "Filing first" or "inventing first" as a rule for awarding a patent to a single person is just immoral in that light.
2. It undermines the "concept as property" idea based on the exceptionalism of invention. If more than one person can come up with a concept or an idea, the act of invention isn't all that super-duper special, and doesn't really need all the legal protection proposed for it.
Personally, I agree with your old saying, for sufficiently large values of "necessity". But others think otherwise:
‘"Necessity is the mother of invention" is a silly proverb. "Necessity is the mother of futile dodges" is much closer to the truth. The basis of growth of modern invention is science, and science is almost wholly the outgrowth of pleasurable intellectual curiosity.’
— Alfred North Whitehead
It's an argument from authority, of course, and therefore HIGHLY suspect, but it rings true in at least some circumstances.
No, not a judge. The Trolls don't want you to have a trial, they want you to consult an attorney to decide if something is legal or illegal. Especially on copyright issue. Ask an attorney.
The single time I was called to jury duty and got selected for a jury, the District Attorney did exactly what you said you like to see. There was some puffery about laws, but the evidence wasn't there to support the charge. The DA basically asked us to vote our conscience.
Oh, yeah, and calling someone a "fucking idiot" (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homeland-security-seizes-spanish-domain-name- that-had-already-been-declared-legal.shtml#c1967) doesn't count as abuse either, especially when it comes from someone "average".
Consider the source: biased always towards authority and power, might makes right, any power is OK for authority to exercize as long as its used thoughtfully.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's different than focusing on the messenger. You're saying that it's not the message that matters, but the "convoluted actions" of the messenger.
I really hate to argue, but that looks like verbal sleight of hand.
Oh, please. The ol' "Copyright overrides freedom of speech" argument is bizarre even by shill standards.
That's a pretty extraordinary claim. How about providing some links to famous expositions on this doctrine. Surely Thurgood Marshall, or Byron White or even Scalia or Rehnquist wrote something about how the minor privilege of freedom of speech must not get in the way of natural right of owning ideas and concepts.
Yes, in his stirring December 7, 1941 radio address, FDR exhorted the US population to take up arms against the Japanese to defend ownership of ideas and concepts. Freedom of speech?!? Bah, humbug, we have ownership of ideas!
The law enforcment officer's job *is* to answer questions: "is so-and-so breaking a law?", "which law is so-and-so breaking?", "do I have enough sound reasons to file for a warrant?", "am I upholding the constitution as my oath requires?"
"I'm just doing my job" is a very slight re-phrasing of "I was only following orders." The Greatest Generation provided us with an answer if that is a defense, and the answer is "No".
Although I'm with you about the grandstanding politicians, it's not The Public's job to support unconstitutional or illegal actions.
And yes, I've watched the show a few times. Enough to know that they're making it up as they go along. Nobody on earth is as expert as that curly-haired dweed is. Pick any three shows, and nobody is as expert in those 3 fields as he is, much less all of them.
> The First Amendment didn't even arrive until a few years later, so no, it doesn't trump Copyright Law.
You must be kidding. Seriously, how can anyone say that? Freedom of speech is *vastly* more important, morally, philosophically and constituionally than copyright.
So: citations, please, and plenty of them, from the best sources. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Judge Learned Hand, Joe Dimaggio, anybody. But a lot of them. Really magnificent far-reaching claims demand a whole lot of proof.
You should preface your remarks with "I am not a web developer, but..." just like the folks who put "I am not a copyright lawyer, but.." do. It's just good manners on your part, as you are very obviously ignorant and uneducated and possibly ill-informed about how "embedding" works.
Here's a tip: an "embedded" stream comes from the same source as an "unembedded" stream. "Embedding" a video only makes it appear to you, the ill-informed Internet Explorer user, that the video comes from the same source as the web page it appears on.
The only connection between the web page it appears on, and the stream of video is a small chunk of text in HTML format that makes your computer go to the video site and download it.
If the video stream infringes, it's the video site, not the embedding site that infringes. Saying anything else is illogical and demonstrably wrong. Repeating anything else after having had it explained to you makes you a liar. Don't become a liar, please, I beg you!
Possibly. TAM and average_joe have an above-average command of English, and they both tend toward "might makes right" in every issue. They both seem to automatically assume that "a lawyer" can decide some act's legality. They both assume that the whole of morality is contained within the law. They both have a "my way or the highway" absolutism about what they argue.
TAM tended more to deliberate provocation than average joe. Average joe actually does seem to want to make a cogent argument, while TAM just wanted to muck up the conversation.
Average joe actually quotes bits of comments he responds to, TAM only quoted words or phrases, or even just paraphrased what he/she/it/them responded to.
Overall, my take is that they're different authors, although they may have the same paymaster(s).
On the post: How Neil Gaiman Went From Fearing 'Piracy' To Believing It's 'An Incredibly Good Thing'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe Metallica is trying to irritate their label, or protest some horrible contract or something by touring (where they keep the money) rather than doing a studio record (where the label keeps much of the money.
On the post: Why Is President Obama Setting Up IP Enforcement Committees Rather Than IP Effectiveness Committees?
Re: Innovation will soon come to a crawl
I seem to recall, but can't find, an article about how there's nothing in the pipeline from major pharmaceutical companies. That is, with extended rights to the drugs they've got, they quite investing in new drugs.
On the post: Firm Involved In Planning Attack On Journalist Glenn Greenwald To Hurt Wikileaks Apologizes; Cuts Ties With HBGary Federal
Re: Good choice of company name
On the post: Firm Involved In Planning Attack On Journalist Glenn Greenwald To Hurt Wikileaks Apologizes; Cuts Ties With HBGary Federal
An object lesson in the evils of secrecy
Palantir is an object lesson in the evils of secrecy. They got involved with government agencies that cloak themselves in secrecy, justified or not. I think the involvement put Palantir on a slippery slope when it comes to the ethics of their actions. They were clearly willing to do more under the cover of secrecy than they would do without the secrecy.
Secrecy, especially the compartmentalized-knowledge, institutionalized variety favored by the US Government almost inevitably leads to abuses we all later regret.
And just to do a bit of lightening rod action, "palantir" is a word from J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" books. Essentially, it's a crystal ball. In the Lord of the Rings, people used them for remote viewing and communications. The idea of a crystal ball is clearly public domain, but is the word "palantir" itself? Perhaps "Palantir Technologies" is a copyright infringer, a.k.a. "pirate". In which case, it would be no surprise that they'd do regrettably unethical things.
On the post: Firm Involved In Planning Attack On Journalist Glenn Greenwald To Hurt Wikileaks Apologizes; Cuts Ties With HBGary Federal
An object lesson in the evils of secrecy
On the post: When Consumers Innovate To Solve Their Own Needs, Do Patents Just Get In The Way?
Re: Life is difficult
Multiple invention exposes two problems with the idea of "intellectual property".
1. The immorality of giving a single entity control over a single idea. If IP is "property" then anybody who independently invents some concept or idea should on a moral basis be given a share of the benefits of that property. "Filing first" or "inventing first" as a rule for awarding a patent to a single person is just immoral in that light.
2. It undermines the "concept as property" idea based on the exceptionalism of invention. If more than one person can come up with a concept or an idea, the act of invention isn't all that super-duper special, and doesn't really need all the legal protection proposed for it.
On the post: When Consumers Innovate To Solve Their Own Needs, Do Patents Just Get In The Way?
Re: Old Saying
‘"Necessity is the mother of invention" is a silly proverb. "Necessity is the mother of futile dodges" is much closer to the truth. The basis of growth of modern invention is science, and science is almost wholly the outgrowth of pleasurable intellectual curiosity.’
— Alfred North Whitehead
It's an argument from authority, of course, and therefore HIGHLY suspect, but it rings true in at least some circumstances.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I bet it happens all the time.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Consider the source: biased always towards authority and power, might makes right, any power is OK for authority to exercize as long as its used thoughtfully.
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re: Re: Re: Sad to see
I really hate to argue, but that looks like verbal sleight of hand.
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question @ Joe
That's a pretty extraordinary claim. How about providing some links to famous expositions on this doctrine. Surely Thurgood Marshall, or Byron White or even Scalia or Rehnquist wrote something about how the minor privilege of freedom of speech must not get in the way of natural right of owning ideas and concepts.
Yes, in his stirring December 7, 1941 radio address, FDR exhorted the US population to take up arms against the Japanese to defend ownership of ideas and concepts. Freedom of speech?!? Bah, humbug, we have ownership of ideas!
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: That's why I've been recommending
The laws aren't too clear, particularly in the case of copyright. Even experts in copyright law say this.
This doesn't even begin to tap into the general vaugueness of a lot of laws these days. It's hard to be a law abiding citizen.
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two things ....
http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=tam
Looks like he/she/it/them last posted in February of 2010.
TAM is widely believe to have just abandonded that "profile" and now just posts anonymously. I personally believe this is true, too.
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Hey, Anonymous...
"I'm just doing my job" is a very slight re-phrasing of "I was only following orders." The Greatest Generation provided us with an answer if that is a defense, and the answer is "No".
Although I'm with you about the grandstanding politicians, it's not The Public's job to support unconstitutional or illegal actions.
On the post: Reverse Engineering Lottery Scratch Tickets For Profit (But Not Fame)
Re: Nice twist ;0
And yes, I've watched the show a few times. Enough to know that they're making it up as they go along. Nobody on earth is as expert as that curly-haired dweed is. Pick any three shows, and nobody is as expert in those 3 fields as he is, much less all of them.
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
You must be kidding. Seriously, how can anyone say that? Freedom of speech is *vastly* more important, morally, philosophically and constituionally than copyright.
So: citations, please, and plenty of them, from the best sources. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Judge Learned Hand, Joe Dimaggio, anybody. But a lot of them. Really magnificent far-reaching claims demand a whole lot of proof.
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
Here's a tip: an "embedded" stream comes from the same source as an "unembedded" stream. "Embedding" a video only makes it appear to you, the ill-informed Internet Explorer user, that the video comes from the same source as the web page it appears on.
The only connection between the web page it appears on, and the stream of video is a small chunk of text in HTML format that makes your computer go to the video site and download it.
If the video stream infringes, it's the video site, not the embedding site that infringes. Saying anything else is illogical and demonstrably wrong. Repeating anything else after having had it explained to you makes you a liar. Don't become a liar, please, I beg you!
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
First, lawyers don't decide, a court decides.
Second, the Napster, Grokster, Limewire and Isonhunt decisions were deeply flawed.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re:
TAM tended more to deliberate provocation than average joe. Average joe actually does seem to want to make a cogent argument, while TAM just wanted to muck up the conversation.
Average joe actually quotes bits of comments he responds to, TAM only quoted words or phrases, or even just paraphrased what he/she/it/them responded to.
Overall, my take is that they're different authors, although they may have the same paymaster(s).
Next >>