The fact that the Supremes will not enforce the Constitution and the property argument is currently on top, doesn't mean there is no deal. While the public may not be able to quote the Constitution, they do understand the deal at a subconscious level and are well aware they're being screwed. The fact that there's so much civil disobedience and contempt for copyright proves that. Maybe what's needed on the public side is less an argument about right and wrong and protecting artists' rights, and more something along the following lines:
"Copyright is a deal between creators and the public intended to benefit both. However, it has been so corrupted that no person now living will ever see recent material enter the public domain. Since the public benefit of the deal is effectively abolished, why should the public give a rat's ass about the private benefit?"
It would be especially acceptable, because it would result in the purchase of a new scanner. And let's face it, this is all about selling scanners, not security.
Some years ago I was researching my British ancestors at the Mormon Church database in Salt Lake City. I found the records quickly enough, on microfilm, but was not allowed to print copies because they were "Crown Copyright" and apparently still protected, though the original documents were well over a century old.
It shouldn't matter what individual governments want. It should be about what the PEOPLE want, and enormous numbers of Europeans (especially in Britain) are deeply pissed off that their regional governments are doing stuff that they, the people, do not want, particularly to do with internet surveillance and copyright control. The EU Parliament is held in universal contempt as a toothless bunch of do-nothing expense fiddlers, so taking action on a matter of widespread public concern can only be good for their future.
Everyone seems to assume it was masturbation, but I don't think anyone, however blue nosed, would confront the kid or the parents with a picture of that. It's much more likely the kid was seen with what appeared to be a hand-rolled cigarette, or something of that kind. That doesn't make it right, of course, but would make it easier to understand why the school thought it necessary to mention it. They didn't have to - they could have carried on spying on the kids for ever if they didn't out themselves.
... who seem to have learned this lesson. DVDs come out at about $20, after a few months they're discounted to $12, and you can often buy three or four back-catalog movies in a package for $10. These are the DVDs I buy - everything else I get from Netflix.
Yet, the soundtrack CDs of these old movies are still $15, even though the tracks may be 50 or more years old. (Does anyone actually buy soundtrack albums?)
The French have taken leave of their senses. This country, which is so proud and defensive of its language that it has a special government department to keep it pure; that persuades its vassal states (eg Quebec) to forbid the use of other languages when at all possible; this country has consigned the bulk of its literature to oblivion. Give it another ten years, maybe less, but twenty at the most, and there won't BE any books or libraries for most people. After a few more legal hiccups, everything printed will be available online, and all reading will be done online. And to find it, people will use a search engine. What's not indexed and available will be lost.
"... in just 25 years Congress has created some 1,400 criminal offenses."
Perhaps if the media would stop calling them "lawmakers", and instead call them what they are, "representatives", they wouldn't be quite so productive.
Besides, it's bad journalism. The media and press knows perfectly well that "lawmakers" are hired, not elected.
What an interesting idea! And there's no need to go far afield or far back in time for examples, because there is recent history here in the USA that perfectly illustrates the point.
Until about 1970, the USPTO would not grant a US patent on a gaming (as in gambling) device, on the grounds that such were "not useful". I'm particularly thinking of slot machines. That didn't seem to harm innovation, and in spite of the fact that slots were illegal in 49 states, by the 1930s there were more than a dozen companies in the business, all copying each others' designs and innovating furiously to get ahead. Anyone who can be bothered to research it will be amazed at the variety, beauty and technical sophistication that resulted both from competition and from attempts to get round the law. After the federal crackdown in 1951 it got even hotter, with more novel designs appearing in the 1960s than any other period.
That all changed once gaming patents started to be granted. One company in particular started ruthlessly using patents to drive its competitors out of the US market and if possible, entirely out of business. In the process, it acquired so much wealth and power that when any innovation did appear on the horizon, it could immediately take it for itself and lock it up. The result after a decade or two was a monoculture of gaming machines, differing only in the color of the glass. A glance at this company's annual report shows that even today, years after its most innovation-stifling patent expired, it still makes half its gross profit from patent licensing fees.
Of course, this couldn't have happened without assistance from the USPTO. A researcher might care to make a list of the examiners' names that appear against this company's portfolio - it's not a long list. As an example of the diligence applied to its applications, check out Patent 6280318, whereby it was granted (in 2001) exclusive rights to use a fan to cool a cabinet of electronics.
It's extremely difficult to get any kind of visa to work in the US unless you already have a job offer in the US. I need hardly point out that it's extremely difficult to get a job offer in the US unless you already have a work visa. My hat's off to anyone who starts a business here without achieving permanent status, preferably citizenship, first - there aren't many riskier investments! I wouldn't have done it. I'm an immigrant myself. I came on an L1 visa, inter-company transfer. It took me twelve years to achieve citizenship, in the middle of which I nearly got deported because when I went to renew my green card, the INS had no record of giving me one previously.
Some people don't have any problems, though. If you come from Cuba for example, and manage to set one toe on US soil, the US government assumes you're fleeing persecution and will hand you nearly instant citizenship. Sharan could have flown to Havana and taken the boat. Or, he could have become an ordained clergyman (of any religion) and picked up his green card at the front desk on the way in. Failing that, he could have said he was a newspaper proprietor and been granted citizenship by Act of Congress in 24 hours, like Rupert Murdoch. Or, he could have retained the legal firm of Holmes, Khatri and Townsend in Orlando, Fl, and had them put his application in for the visa lottery. At least one year, mid-90s, they put about 130 applications in and won all but 2 of them, the odds against which are greater than the number of protons in the universe.
On immigration generally, I find it ironic that the same group of people who bitch the most about H1B visas, on the grounds that people willing to work for less money might force wages down, also tend to be opposed to trade unions, which exist so that people willing to work for less money can't force members' wages down. Strange, that.
PT - member in good standing, United States Workers local 101
It isn't just the threat to "journalism" that's driving this debate. The history of the 20th Century is the story of journalists and publishers being roped and tied to the service of governments, political parties, and other, less visible, interests. It's only the rise of "amateur" journalists and their freedom to publish on the internet that presents any obstacle to the complete control of everything we read or see by a small handful of puppet masters. So yes, Gammon is partly right - it is the death of journalism - but only propaganda journalism as we have come to know it. It's the renaissance of true journalism, the unfettered free press that special interests have put so much effort into suppressing for the past 100 years. And since the new press is not geographically constrained or shackled by expensive presses and distribution networks, it may be a little more difficult to put the lid on it this time. I can understand why the establishment is worried.
You might well blame the studios for bringing the case, but the court made it clear where the responsibility lies. The judgment is dripping with regret.
"Whether the public interest would best be served by continuing to enjoin Real from making its products available to consumers, and protect the Studios’ rights at the expense of the consumers’ rights, to engage in legal downstream use of the Studios’ copyrighted material is an excellent question. It is also one the court does not and will not reach, because the statutory structure of the DMCA leaves no room for ambiguity. By making it a DMCA violation to distribute products that enable consumers to override copyright owner preferences against unauthorized copying, Congress determined that the public interest is best served by outlawing such products. ... the reach of the DMCA is vast and it does not allow courts the discretion to ... render a value judgment untethered from the language of the statute. In the words of Justice Cardozo, “[l]aws are not to be sacrificed by courts on the assumption that legislation is the play of whim and fancy.” People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 62 (1920). The court is bound by the DMCA provisions at issue, even if it determines the extent to which innovative technologies realize their future potential." (emphasis added)
It might feel good to rage against the movie industry, but it won't get anyone anywhere. The only way to change anything is to make Congress feel the pain.
The really odd thing is that anyone gives a damn about Real and their DRM-encumbered bloatware anyway. For about $200, anyone can get a terabyte (oops, better not name it) media drive and fill it with all the content they like using one of the many free DVD rippers available on the net. This judgment has only succeeded in protecting the studios from people who would have bought their DVDs anyway.
The DMCA has never been properly used as a penal tool. It's mostly been used as a threat, firing over the crowd's heads, so to speak, without hurting anyone. When it was properly applied in all its draconian force in the Dmitri Sklyarov case - for giving a fucking speech - Adobe couldn't back off fast enough in the face of the public outcry. It was the Federal Government that wouldn't let go and pressed the matter, probably because they wanted a judicial ruling. In the end they didn't get one, because the jury found the defendants not guilty. So that can't even be considered a proper use of the law.
No, what is needed is for someone - preferably a sympathetic defendant, but anyone will do - to be found guilty and sentenced, preferably to jail time, so the case can be appealed and a judicial ruling made on the constitutionality of the law. If it makes its way to the Supreme Court, so much the better. I'm sure the EFF and ACLU are just waiting for it to happen, and I'm equally sure that the sponsors of the law are dreading the day. So, do your duty, Prosecutor Krause. You have the proof - don't let this Crippen get away with it on some lame plea bargain. Shoulders back, chin up, don't weaken - press on to a verdict no matter what people say. Ram the reality of the DMCA into the face of every household in Middle America that owns a region-free DVD player, or any kind of open-source DVD viewing software. I can't wait to see the fallout when the implications finally sink in.
Something has gone terribly wrong in Britain in the last ten years. Someone mentioned 9/11 above - I think that's at the root of it. As Tony Blair said on October 2nd, 2001,
"The kaliedoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon, they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3750847.stm)
And boy, did he ever.
I had a black credit card 20 years ago. Apart from the embossing and the hologram, it was completely featureless on the front. The issuing bank's name and logo appeared in glowing purple when you put it under UV light.
"The big question is why a foreign national is allowed to own newspapers and television stations in the United States in volition of federal law"
Well they're not, of course, and Rupert Murdoch is no exception. He became a US citizen in order to buy a US newspaper. The only exceptional thing is that his citizenship was granted in less than 24 hours, whereas it takes about five years for anyone else.
It has nothing to do with the morality of speeding. Cops are public employees. I am a member of the public that employs them. When I employ someone, I have a right to know where they are and what they're doing at all times. This app provides (some of) that information, so it's just a management tool, like a Barracuda filter that tracks internet usage at work.
"the Guardian being an openly left-wing newspaper, which actively campaigns for its causes."
And Murdoch's media are, um, openly right-wing and actively campaign for their causes. Your point is?
They were paying for illegal content at least twenty years ago. It was common knowledge that News Group would buy embarrassing or scandalous material on any celebrity, however it was obtained. Back in the day when cell phones were analog and you could listen in to the towers with a scanner, an ex sigint guy I worked with used to keep a recorder running all day. One day he recorded one of Princess Diana's conversations with her lover, and sold it to News Group for a tidy sum. The Sun went ahead and published it. There was some critical comment, but no investigation or prosecution.
I submit that the publication is hard evidence of illegal activity. As for why there was no action taken, that's an area for speculation, at least until another newspaper manages to uncover how the decision was arrived at, and by whom. Go Guardian.
On the post: Staunch SOPA Supporter, Marsha Blackburn, Says It's Time To Scrap SOPA
Re:
"Copyright is a deal between creators and the public intended to benefit both. However, it has been so corrupted that no person now living will ever see recent material enter the public domain. Since the public benefit of the deal is effectively abolished, why should the public give a rat's ass about the private benefit?"
On the post: TSA Defending Its Groin Grabbing Or Naked Image Security Techniques
Re: Re: Acceptable risk
On the post: Crown Copyright Strikes Again: Documents Revealed Under Freedom Of Information Act Can Infringe On Copyright?
And it never expires
On the post: Overwhelming Majority Of EU Parliament Votes Against ACTA
Re: who wants what
On the post: Canadian City Asks Google To Reshoot Street View Shots To Get Rid Of Crime Scene
Cleaning up
On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition
Re: Yes, as a matter of fact
On the post: School District Says It Only Turned Spy Cameras On 42 Times; FBI Now Investigating
Re:
On the post: Econ 101: Study Shows That If Record Labels Lowered Prices On Music, They Would Sell A Lot More
Unlike the MPAA...
Yet, the soundtrack CDs of these old movies are still $15, even though the tracks may be 50 or more years old. (Does anyone actually buy soundtrack albums?)
On the post: Now France Fines Google For Scanning French Books
They must be crazy
On the post: Shouldn't Intent Be A Part Of Criminal Law?
Re: Re: #5 and #6 have it right
Perhaps if the media would stop calling them "lawmakers", and instead call them what they are, "representatives", they wouldn't be quite so productive.
Besides, it's bad journalism. The media and press knows perfectly well that "lawmakers" are hired, not elected.
On the post: Is It So Crazy For A Patent Attorney To Think Patents Harm Innovation?
Re: Gene Quinn's Challenge
Until about 1970, the USPTO would not grant a US patent on a gaming (as in gambling) device, on the grounds that such were "not useful". I'm particularly thinking of slot machines. That didn't seem to harm innovation, and in spite of the fact that slots were illegal in 49 states, by the 1930s there were more than a dozen companies in the business, all copying each others' designs and innovating furiously to get ahead. Anyone who can be bothered to research it will be amazed at the variety, beauty and technical sophistication that resulted both from competition and from attempts to get round the law. After the federal crackdown in 1951 it got even hotter, with more novel designs appearing in the 1960s than any other period.
That all changed once gaming patents started to be granted. One company in particular started ruthlessly using patents to drive its competitors out of the US market and if possible, entirely out of business. In the process, it acquired so much wealth and power that when any innovation did appear on the horizon, it could immediately take it for itself and lock it up. The result after a decade or two was a monoculture of gaming machines, differing only in the color of the glass. A glance at this company's annual report shows that even today, years after its most innovation-stifling patent expired, it still makes half its gross profit from patent licensing fees.
Of course, this couldn't have happened without assistance from the USPTO. A researcher might care to make a list of the examiners' names that appear against this company's portfolio - it's not a long list. As an example of the diligence applied to its applications, check out Patent 6280318, whereby it was granted (in 2001) exclusive rights to use a fan to cool a cabinet of electronics.
On the post: Entrepreneur Stuck In Canada Highlights The Need For A Startup Visa Now
Couple of things
Some people don't have any problems, though. If you come from Cuba for example, and manage to set one toe on US soil, the US government assumes you're fleeing persecution and will hand you nearly instant citizenship. Sharan could have flown to Havana and taken the boat. Or, he could have become an ordained clergyman (of any religion) and picked up his green card at the front desk on the way in. Failing that, he could have said he was a newspaper proprietor and been granted citizenship by Act of Congress in 24 hours, like Rupert Murdoch. Or, he could have retained the legal firm of Holmes, Khatri and Townsend in Orlando, Fl, and had them put his application in for the visa lottery. At least one year, mid-90s, they put about 130 applications in and won all but 2 of them, the odds against which are greater than the number of protons in the universe.
On immigration generally, I find it ironic that the same group of people who bitch the most about H1B visas, on the grounds that people willing to work for less money might force wages down, also tend to be opposed to trade unions, which exist so that people willing to work for less money can't force members' wages down. Strange, that.
PT - member in good standing, United States Workers local 101
On the post: Journalist: Oh No! Student Journalists Will Destroy Journalism!
It's all about control
On the post: Hollywood Kills More Innovation; Judge Overturns DVD Jukebox Ruling
"Whether the public interest would best be served by continuing to enjoin Real from making its products available to consumers, and protect the Studios’ rights at the expense of the consumers’ rights, to engage in legal downstream use of the Studios’ copyrighted material is an excellent question. It is also one the court does not and will not reach, because the statutory structure of the DMCA leaves no room for ambiguity. By making it a DMCA violation to distribute products that enable consumers to override copyright owner preferences against unauthorized copying, Congress determined that the public interest is best served by outlawing such products. ... the reach of the DMCA is vast and it does not allow courts the discretion to ... render a value judgment untethered from the language of the statute. In the words of Justice Cardozo, “[l]aws are not to be sacrificed by courts on the assumption that legislation is the play of whim and fancy.” People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 62 (1920). The court is bound by the DMCA provisions at issue, even if it determines the extent to which innovative technologies realize their future potential." (emphasis added)
It might feel good to rage against the movie industry, but it won't get anyone anywhere. The only way to change anything is to make Congress feel the pain.
The really odd thing is that anyone gives a damn about Real and their DRM-encumbered bloatware anyway. For about $200, anyone can get a terabyte (oops, better not name it) media drive and fill it with all the content they like using one of the many free DVD rippers available on the net. This judgment has only succeeded in protecting the studios from people who would have bought their DVDs anyway.
On the post: No Freedom To Tinker: Arrested For Modding Legally Purchased Game Consoles
Perhaps it's no bad thing...
No, what is needed is for someone - preferably a sympathetic defendant, but anyone will do - to be found guilty and sentenced, preferably to jail time, so the case can be appealed and a judicial ruling made on the constitutionality of the law. If it makes its way to the Supreme Court, so much the better. I'm sure the EFF and ACLU are just waiting for it to happen, and I'm equally sure that the sponsors of the law are dreading the day. So, do your duty, Prosecutor Krause. You have the proof - don't let this Crippen get away with it on some lame plea bargain. Shoulders back, chin up, don't weaken - press on to a verdict no matter what people say. Ram the reality of the DMCA into the face of every household in Middle America that owns a region-free DVD player, or any kind of open-source DVD viewing software. I can't wait to see the fallout when the implications finally sink in.
On the post: UK Wants Surveillance Cameras To Watch 20,000 Worst Families?
Re: What he said ^^^
Something has gone terribly wrong in Britain in the last ten years. Someone mentioned 9/11 above - I think that's at the root of it. As Tony Blair said on October 2nd, 2001,
"The kaliedoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon, they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3750847.stm)
And boy, did he ever.
On the post: The Fact That A Credit Card Is Patented Is A Selling Point?
Prior Art
On the post: This Is Investigative Reporting? News Corp. Allegedly Hacked Into Phones, Paid Off People To Silence Them
Re:
Well they're not, of course, and Rupert Murdoch is no exception. He became a US citizen in order to buy a US newspaper. The only exceptional thing is that his citizenship was granted in less than 24 hours, whereas it takes about five years for anyone else.
On the post: DC Police Chief Says It's 'Cowardly' To Monitor Speed Traps With Your iPhone
It's a legitimate tool
On the post: This Is Investigative Reporting? News Corp. Allegedly Hacked Into Phones, Paid Off People To Silence Them
And Murdoch's media are, um, openly right-wing and actively campaign for their causes. Your point is?
They were paying for illegal content at least twenty years ago. It was common knowledge that News Group would buy embarrassing or scandalous material on any celebrity, however it was obtained. Back in the day when cell phones were analog and you could listen in to the towers with a scanner, an ex sigint guy I worked with used to keep a recorder running all day. One day he recorded one of Princess Diana's conversations with her lover, and sold it to News Group for a tidy sum. The Sun went ahead and published it. There was some critical comment, but no investigation or prosecution.
I submit that the publication is hard evidence of illegal activity. As for why there was no action taken, that's an area for speculation, at least until another newspaper manages to uncover how the decision was arrived at, and by whom. Go Guardian.
Next >>