"this just shows that there is an extremely self-centered and oblivious (largely) youth element that for a brief moment in time is jazzed up about this metaphysically unimportant topic"
I will try and provide an alternative perspective on why this *is* an important topic.
The metaphysical issue at stake is whether or not a single person can legitimately lay claim to ownership of an idea. Whether that idea is a song, or the concept of a four wheeled vehicle driven by an internal combustion engine, all of society is hurt if one person is allowed to make an exclusive claim on the concept.
Monopoly rights encourage laziness, stagnation, and insensitivity to consumer needs and wants. This is why competition is such a highly valued concept in so much of the world. It makes no sense that competition be restricted in certain industries and not in others. It makes no sense that a television show has to pay performance rights for the songs that are played during the show, but no royalty to the designers of the clothes that are worn.
There is no substantive difference between the effort required to write a song and that required to design a lovely dress.
Since 2004 I have worked for and with post-bubble early-stage tech companies and their investors. The chilling effects of IP maximalists on innovation and entrepreneurship is tangible.
It is practically impossible for a startup to obtain funding these days without a patent or at the very least a patent application. This has two effects: a) suppressing good business ideas that because they are un-patentable will stimulate competition and be good for the economy, and b) the filing of bogus or marginally valid patent applications that once granted suppress competition which would be good for the economy.
Although it is clearly a matter of opinion, some of us feel that the metaphysical question of idea ownership is one of the most critical questions of this coming century.
I would suggest that the US government agrees since it classified the IP treaty that it is working on as a state secret. It is very likely that highly placed officials in the US government feel that IP "ownership" is one of the last industries in which the US has a fighting chance of maintaining hegemony. It is possible that "IP" is the new "oil" in the eyes of the D.C. think tanks, and is perceived as key to national security as oil was in the last century. Certainly US government behavior seems to support this, and definitely does not contradict this.
"As soon as the "pirate party" came into being, it pretty much removed the chance of getting anyone totally unbiased in the discussion, because politically you have to be for or against them as a result"
The article had as a subject the bias of judges handling the Pirate Bay case.
You made a clear statement that "pretty much" all judges...
("anyone" in this case being equivalent to "any judge" because the article was not discussing the bias of anyone but judges, so your statement either a) applied to judges specifically or b)was irrelevant to the article upon which you were commenting. You tell me which.)
...in Sweden would be biased *because* they would have to be politically for or against the Pirate Party.
I maintain that it should be quite possible to find a judge in Sweden who is neither for nor against the Pirate Party.
For one thing, the existence of a political party does not guarantee that one is for or against it. One could quite well be indifferent to it.
For another thing, to the extent that I know the Swedes, they are like Goldilocks: they very much prefer "just right" to either too big or too small. In fact there is a special word in Swedish for it: Lagom.
Your revised statement introduced the totally new concept that in fact it might be possible to find an unbiased judge and that in testing for bias one should search for pro and con both. Nice idea, but not what you said at the outset.
"No,not at all. I am only saying that if we are going to use some sort of association litimus test for "can't be the judge because he is pro-copyright", then there should be some sort of limitus test to the other end."
That might be what you are saying *now*, but that is not at all what you said at the outset. You write well and seem to be literate, so I am forced to conclude that your revisionist history (regarding your own comments) is more likely the result of intellectual dishonesty than it is a failure to express yourself clearly.
I applaud your brief, if dishonest, attempt to de-polarize, but I see just two comments below that you revert to type quickly enough.
Dude, there are at least seven other political parties in Sweden, so no, one does not have to be for the Pirate Party or agin' 'em.
One could be for Kristdemokraterna or Folkpartiet Liberalerna and have no particular bias or prejudgment about the Pirate Party.
Lastly, it is my opinion after having worked in Sweden, and with numerous Swedes, that they are not really very much into polarization like Americans are. So again it is not likely that the entire country of Sweden is either for or against the Pirate Party. Much of the country is probably observing with interest, and waiting for a consensus to emerge (that is more Swede-like IMO).
Bully for them, but I hold faint hope for spreading the word.
I seem to remember that they have one of the most eminently rational balances between regulation and deregulation of telecoms (I could be wrong, it is an old memory) that no one else adopted.
was that in about 1996 the patent office was begging and beseeching for more (and qualified) staff to deal with the onslaught of software patents. When they were denied, they seemed (to me) to adopt the attitude of "what the hell - we'll approve 'em all. Let God sort em out."
I guess you are really reluctant to answer a simple question. Why? Why not just answer my question?
As you point out: rights and who has them are at the center of the post and of your comments. It seems to me entirely reasonable to ask for your working definition of rights.
It seems very disingenuous and strange that you would avoid answering.
You are making assertions about rights under Title 17. It is entirely pertinent to ask for the definition of rights that you are using.
I am wondering if you believe that the only rights that exist are when the word "Rights" appears in a legal statute.
I am interested in discussing your assertion that "No rights are conferred to anyone else" but I am sure that the discussion will be more productive if we can arrive at an agreement on the definition of rights.
But what about those of us who enjoy WH? Personally I delight in people who are so easy to set off.
FWIW, I would not call WH a troll. Truth is: *I* was trolling *him* with my comment (fairly successfully too I might add).
Trolling implies a certain capacity for irony, a self-awareness that one is posting an inflammatory comment for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of someone, preferably from just one or two people who are so wrapped up in their neuroses that they fail to pick up on what is obvious to everyone else: that the troll is a joke. For example see Boursy and the "Usenet Global Killfile".
I am under the impression that WH takes his or her self quite seriously, that would disqualify him/her as an accomplished troll in my books.
Since you seem to be a strong copyright proponent... I wonder if you have procured Bill Cosby's permission to use the name of one of his very recognizable characters as your Account name on Techdirt?
In essence, the court decided that use of recognizable phrases or recognizable characters like E.T., is not only a likely infringment on copyright, but violates several other intellectual property protections as well under trademark law, commercial misappropriation,and so on.
(commentary excerpted from Google Ansers, user pafalafa-ga)
Google is in the final analysis a parasite
that creates nothing, merely offering little
aggregation, lists and the ordering of information
generated by people who have invested their
capital, skill and time
demonstrates (IMO) either incredible ignorance of, or incredible contempt for,investment of capital and time of the reader. It seems that Mr. Porter would have me waste my money (on bandwidth) and time (which I value highly) slogging through petabytes of content with no filtering or aggregating tool whatsoever.
Google saves me a lot of time when I am seeking information. By calling Google a parasite I understand him to claiming they provide no value. Therefore my time savings has no value. Therefore my time has no value.
I am insulted by the implication that my time is worth nothing. I do not patronize merchants who do not respect me.
What newspapers are going through (and not dealing with very well) is something that affects every industry: the raising of the bar on competitive features.
Today's competitive feature is tomorrow's common infrastructure or commodity.
Once upon a time, having a Moscow bureau would actually have helped a paper sell more copies. Today, not so much.
When I first got into the ISP business, one of our competitive differences with which we won new business was email accounts for subscribers. How reliable our server was, aliases, forwarding, how much storage space we gave them, etc.
Now of course nothing could be less important, email has been commoditized to the point of being free with unlimited storage. The competitive difference for an ISP today would be bandwidth caps, burstable rates, etc.
Every business I have ever seen goes through this cycle, some industries deal with it better than others.
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Wins
TwoOne Seat In EU ParliamentRe: Wow
I will try and provide an alternative perspective on why this *is* an important topic.
The metaphysical issue at stake is whether or not a single person can legitimately lay claim to ownership of an idea. Whether that idea is a song, or the concept of a four wheeled vehicle driven by an internal combustion engine, all of society is hurt if one person is allowed to make an exclusive claim on the concept.
Monopoly rights encourage laziness, stagnation, and insensitivity to consumer needs and wants. This is why competition is such a highly valued concept in so much of the world. It makes no sense that competition be restricted in certain industries and not in others. It makes no sense that a television show has to pay performance rights for the songs that are played during the show, but no royalty to the designers of the clothes that are worn.
There is no substantive difference between the effort required to write a song and that required to design a lovely dress.
Since 2004 I have worked for and with post-bubble early-stage tech companies and their investors. The chilling effects of IP maximalists on innovation and entrepreneurship is tangible.
It is practically impossible for a startup to obtain funding these days without a patent or at the very least a patent application. This has two effects: a) suppressing good business ideas that because they are un-patentable will stimulate competition and be good for the economy, and b) the filing of bogus or marginally valid patent applications that once granted suppress competition which would be good for the economy.
Although it is clearly a matter of opinion, some of us feel that the metaphysical question of idea ownership is one of the most critical questions of this coming century.
I would suggest that the US government agrees since it classified the IP treaty that it is working on as a state secret. It is very likely that highly placed officials in the US government feel that IP "ownership" is one of the last industries in which the US has a fighting chance of maintaining hegemony. It is possible that "IP" is the new "oil" in the eyes of the D.C. think tanks, and is perceived as key to national security as oil was in the last century. Certainly US government behavior seems to support this, and definitely does not contradict this.
On the post: Swedish Judge In Charge Of Determining Bias Of Pirate Bay Judge Removed... For Bias
Re: Re: Revisionist history
"As soon as the "pirate party" came into being, it pretty much removed the chance of getting anyone totally unbiased in the discussion, because politically you have to be for or against them as a result"
The article had as a subject the bias of judges handling the Pirate Bay case.
You made a clear statement that "pretty much" all judges...
("anyone" in this case being equivalent to "any judge" because the article was not discussing the bias of anyone but judges, so your statement either a) applied to judges specifically or b)was irrelevant to the article upon which you were commenting. You tell me which.)
...in Sweden would be biased *because* they would have to be politically for or against the Pirate Party.
I maintain that it should be quite possible to find a judge in Sweden who is neither for nor against the Pirate Party.
For one thing, the existence of a political party does not guarantee that one is for or against it. One could quite well be indifferent to it.
For another thing, to the extent that I know the Swedes, they are like Goldilocks: they very much prefer "just right" to either too big or too small. In fact there is a special word in Swedish for it: Lagom.
Your revised statement introduced the totally new concept that in fact it might be possible to find an unbiased judge and that in testing for bias one should search for pro and con both. Nice idea, but not what you said at the outset.
By the way, it is spelled "litmus".
On the post: Swedish Judge In Charge Of Determining Bias Of Pirate Bay Judge Removed... For Bias
Revisionist history
That might be what you are saying *now*, but that is not at all what you said at the outset. You write well and seem to be literate, so I am forced to conclude that your revisionist history (regarding your own comments) is more likely the result of intellectual dishonesty than it is a failure to express yourself clearly.
I applaud your brief, if dishonest, attempt to de-polarize, but I see just two comments below that you revert to type quickly enough.
On the post: Swedish Judge In Charge Of Determining Bias Of Pirate Bay Judge Removed... For Bias
Binary thinking
One could be for Kristdemokraterna or Folkpartiet Liberalerna and have no particular bias or prejudgment about the Pirate Party.
Lastly, it is my opinion after having worked in Sweden, and with numerous Swedes, that they are not really very much into polarization like Americans are. So again it is not likely that the entire country of Sweden is either for or against the Pirate Party. Much of the country is probably observing with interest, and waiting for a consensus to emerge (that is more Swede-like IMO).
On the post: Lawyers: To Save Newspapers, Let's Destroy Pretty Much Everything Else Good
Just one word...
On the post: New Zealand Officials To Scrap Copyright Law; Start From Scratch
Godzone and dissemination of innovation
I seem to remember that they have one of the most eminently rational balances between regulation and deregulation of telecoms (I could be wrong, it is an old memory) that no one else adopted.
On the post: Patent Filings Down
The way I remember it...
On the post: Copyright Doesn't Just Grant The Content Creator Rights
Re:
I am waiting to see what one of our anonymous cowards has to say about that.
On the post: Copyright Doesn't Just Grant The Content Creator Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rights
As you point out: rights and who has them are at the center of the post and of your comments. It seems to me entirely reasonable to ask for your working definition of rights.
It seems very disingenuous and strange that you would avoid answering.
On the post: Copyright Doesn't Just Grant The Content Creator Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rights
You are making assertions about rights under Title 17. It is entirely pertinent to ask for the definition of rights that you are using.
I am wondering if you believe that the only rights that exist are when the word "Rights" appears in a legal statute.
I am interested in discussing your assertion that "No rights are conferred to anyone else" but I am sure that the discussion will be more productive if we can arrive at an agreement on the definition of rights.
On the post: Copyright Doesn't Just Grant The Content Creator Rights
Re: Re: Rights
All rights, any right, not just those created under Title 17.
Only by defining what IS a right, can we understand what is NOT a right.
On the post: Copyright Doesn't Just Grant The Content Creator Rights
Rights
On the post: Copyright Doesn't Just Grant The Content Creator Rights
Re: Trolls
FWIW, I would not call WH a troll. Truth is: *I* was trolling *him* with my comment (fairly successfully too I might add).
Trolling implies a certain capacity for irony, a self-awareness that one is posting an inflammatory comment for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of someone, preferably from just one or two people who are so wrapped up in their neuroses that they fail to pick up on what is obvious to everyone else: that the troll is a joke. For example see Boursy and the "Usenet Global Killfile".
I am under the impression that WH takes his or her self quite seriously, that would disqualify him/her as an accomplished troll in my books.
On the post: Copyright Doesn't Just Grant The Content Creator Rights
Recognizable characters and phrases
I provide for your reading pleasure:
http://novalis.org/cases/ET.html
In essence, the court decided that use of recognizable phrases or recognizable characters like E.T., is not only a likely infringment on copyright, but violates several other intellectual property protections as well under trademark law, commercial misappropriation,and so on.
(commentary excerpted from Google Ansers, user pafalafa-ga)
On the post: Privacy Group Wants FTC To Shut Down Gmail... Again
Re: Re: Google shills
On the post: Don't Blame Google And Scribd For Your Own Business Model Problems
Contempt
Google is in the final analysis a parasite
that creates nothing, merely offering little
aggregation, lists and the ordering of information
generated by people who have invested their
capital, skill and time
demonstrates (IMO) either incredible ignorance of, or incredible contempt for,investment of capital and time of the reader. It seems that Mr. Porter would have me waste my money (on bandwidth) and time (which I value highly) slogging through petabytes of content with no filtering or aggregating tool whatsoever.
Google saves me a lot of time when I am seeking information. By calling Google a parasite I understand him to claiming they provide no value. Therefore my time savings has no value. Therefore my time has no value.
I am insulted by the implication that my time is worth nothing. I do not patronize merchants who do not respect me.
On the post: Privacy Group Wants FTC To Shut Down Gmail... Again
Google shills
Google officer on EPIC BOD...
EPIC boosting Gmail visibility as best they can...
Coincidence? I think not.
On the post: Reports of News's Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
Raising the bar on competitive features
Today's competitive feature is tomorrow's common infrastructure or commodity.
Once upon a time, having a Moscow bureau would actually have helped a paper sell more copies. Today, not so much.
When I first got into the ISP business, one of our competitive differences with which we won new business was email accounts for subscribers. How reliable our server was, aliases, forwarding, how much storage space we gave them, etc.
Now of course nothing could be less important, email has been commoditized to the point of being free with unlimited storage. The competitive difference for an ISP today would be bandwidth caps, burstable rates, etc.
Every business I have ever seen goes through this cycle, some industries deal with it better than others.
On the post: Your Fired Employees Are Stealing Your Data
Stealing?
If there was a confidentiality agreement, then there is breach of contract. If there was no confidentiality agreement...
There is no such thing as ownership of data.
On the post: TV Stations Say Thanks, But No Thanks To Analog Switch Delay
Re: Re: Phhttt...
Next >>