special-interesting (profile), 28 Mar 2013 @ 11:33pm
Re: Time for some well deserved schadenfreude
It seems there is some pent up emotions about the subject of copyright lawyers using antiquated laws updated and pushed by (desperate?) media monopolies protecting ancient business models. Sponsoring legislation making civil copyright affairs into federal crime enforcement might just cross the line into unacceptable corporate behavior. Oh, sweet irony is rare.
Possibly it's based on the innate unfairness that new computer and Internet technologies have wrought on the public at large unable to wrest the popular support such lawmaking requires. If there was any fairness to law it will not make illegal things which your children can do on their phones and still try to expand the functionality of such devices also. (not just DRM them out of existence)
Haven't heard much in mainstream media (Not a surprise its possible that even reporters don't want to follow up on porn chasing lawyers?) but it would be nice if this would become a focal point for public support of antiquated copyright laws.
What we want is for society to grow up with technology not become a breakpoint/choke-point. Rallying publicly funded political backing takes longer than Hollywood special interest action so there is a disparity of political forces. Public backlash for such abuse of power is not unprecedented.
So far all this is a... distraction! Evasions from the real issuers of cultural sharing and building a society based on such free flow of information. There are many players who want to control the flow of information and revise history itself. (Classic nationalistic behavior of winner/dominator writes history.)
If a wish was granted some path tying, the not so far fetched possibility of, Prendaa and associates to the alleged seeding of a honey pot for the entrapment of a likely very vulnerable social group. Such a link would allow for pointed questions on the stand to either get the truth (or lies) or at least elicit telltale 5th amendment pleas. Such behavior may not be unique and should be examined and if proof can be established it might prove explosive to highlighting copyright law shame.
Have not stopped reading books by no means but some time on the 2nd is definitely reserved. Will stock up on consumables if only to throw some at the screen. It should be a thrill and there are bound to be the most outrageous statements and preposterous claims ever.
Blast! Another huge essay for just a word or two originally wanted to say. No Lincoln addresses for me. (worlds, almost, shortest political speech)
special-interesting (profile), 28 Mar 2013 @ 9:02am
Its now quite funny that now google will have to pay for gossip and with such bad precedent we may have to also. It would be a watershed Internet censoring event. It would be hilarious if not for that.
I hope google is able to cut them out of the news loop and they go out of business. Since news has traditionally always been an advertisement supported business model they need the links.
Many times have I visited sites via reddit.com (which is … that' close to becoming a news generation site itself) just because of content and I hate clicking further. A site better have good content when arriving with no (obvious) pay wall or its most likely never clicked on again even if the link looks seductive. (burned once...)
I firmly believe in trying to maximize profits but it stops at the level of cultural exchange of ideas and concepts using new (definitely not unregulated) formats. (presently read that as talking about the news and sharing links or whatever clips over the 'back (gossip) fence' of news aggregation sites.)
Since copyright has not just slowed down cultural growth but practically obliterated it there is no excuse for the current terms, format restrictions (DRM) or enforcement nonsense. It helps and profits no one not even the firms holding the copyrights. 95% of copyrighted stuff just vanishes one year after publishing and the rest is held hostage to ruinous monopolistic pricing schemes that have no basis in manufactured cost.
special-interesting (profile), 28 Mar 2013 @ 8:23am
Is only the tip of the iceberg. Cell phone location data can be purchased for ~30/month in many states with nothing more than a request. Its an national problem and constitutional tragedy. Some of this can be mitigated with strict privacy regulation and more personal control of the phone OS but not all.
With some political public browbeating the location data can be forced to remain in the tower and not sent and recorded centrally. Search warrants for cell tower dumps would be required for law enforcement otherwise.
We are not talking about a most efficient system but one that meets individual privacy needs.
The situation is so weird that cell phone companies will sell/give almost anyone your location but you:
My complaint would be what laws were broken and if none... wth? What protects the citizen from the government? Will anyone get fired and lose their pension for acting in a way unbecoming of a government official or by throwing out basic constitutional rights to make an admittedly hard job easier?
Having a law enforcement job is like having a job that defends the constitution (is the badge getting congressionally tarnished lately?) and it was never an easy and especially never a safe job. Apply for a job as an office worker or ice cream truck sales job if one wants to have a safer job. Being, most likely, constitutionally lazy and sloppy is a poor operational excuse.
Time for some judicial guidelines reform. Time for some tort (sentencing reform) reform, time for some copyright term reduction, time for some copyright Fair Use as easy and normal reform, time for a lot of things.
special-interesting (profile), 28 Mar 2013 @ 12:38am
FUD has been normal operations for as long as I can remember. The entire Cold War was FUD as the Russians never at any time were a credible military threat despite all their nuclear missiles. We had them nailed and knew what they were doing at every moment with vastly superior high altitude reconnaissance (the U2, SR-71 Blackbird and eventually satellites).
Yet the Air Force constantly begged for and got more nuclear missiles plus a (really) nasty plutonium based nuclear energy program to go with it. Thorium is arguably safer and its potential breeder reactors don't produce bomb grade material. Massive overkill.
So now we have cyber threats and cyber security from cyber warfare. As if anyone had to actually use an almost meaningless movie/Hollywood (Dr Who! Yes.) term for marketing purposes. The only threat I feel is from the gullible Washington politicians able to swallow the FUD whole. Am sure the special interest money lozenge helped it go down easier.
Its not hundreds of millions its way past billions and to what effect? None. Spamhaus is arguably doing a better job than the entire US government despite the recent tassel with Cyberbunker spammers.
In no way do I think US government will be able to guard any house or corporation from china or whoever wants to attack. Happens all the time and its the best way to get security to a level that works for all. A lot of it was lax open un-updated browsers anyway.
Were the rumors true that some US gov back-doors were used? Hahaha. If so, I bet both sides actually thought they were clever. Making something secure (good) is harder than breaking it. Some 12 year olds could have done that and probably someone of equal age that pointed out the security leak. (To be thrown in jail by CFAA TOS violations of course.)
Its a shame that people like Weev (whatever anyone thinks of him) are kicked around with the CFAA and actually helping ignorance instead of working with the smarter hackers who know what they are doing.
What has the government been doing except trying to enforce the completely unenforceable copyright laws at the behest of Hollywood? Meddling is more like it. A drain on the economy and of no benefit to society at all. Please toss off the old legacy corporate monopolies and embrace technology and how it can help society grow through cultural sharing.
What cyberpublic-domain expansion plans does washington have to increase the media material for the public to build cool web aps and specialized sites? What cyber-copyright reduction plans to reduce the civil and criminal liability to the public at large of the casual Fair Use of media? (or of even just using the media itself? FCOLoud) How about a Cyber-Cultral revival plan? How about some cyber diapers to keep in all the cyber bullying?
special-interesting (profile), 27 Mar 2013 @ 3:36pm
Have been criticizing the CFAA as the open barn door policy to writing law lately. Making felonies out of everything should just stop. The public cannot afford the legal liability niether the lost economic base (having a job and spending money) or justice department incarceration costs. (its a double expense)
Having such law based on TOS or worse EULA is a nightmare of commercially derived felonies that make any telling of corporatism weak. Have mentioned my hope that judges and juries figuratively choke on such (wildly and ridiculously) loosely written law but... its a blind hope.
For any respectable senator to suggest destroying private property sounds thuggish and frankly quite embarrassing to hear of. Its already bad enough to have to scrape off the graffiti from the back garage.
As for 'probing' URL's thats done by almost every one from every country just by even looking for valid email accounts for spam not including the spy agencies and worse. The faster ATT finds out about weaknesses the better regardless of slightly questionable circumstances.
Ridiculing a company is par for the course when talking about a former Monopoly like ATT. Lets face it they did grow large enough and annoyed so many that they were broken up and even if todays corporation is not the exact same as then (some foreign ownership?) they did retain the name and all the baggage that goes with it. It would be distasteful if they demonstrated a grudge in any way.
If they perceive image problems then a different approach. Hire Weev; you don't have to like an employee or subcontractor to do successful business. (although it helps)
From outward appearances its seems that a knee jerk is the typical response to 'Weev' but so what? Putting legal muscle behind such guttural reaction is childish at best. What happened to impartiality and restraint?
special-interesting (profile), 27 Mar 2013 @ 6:06am
Been said before but this has got to be one of the worst bills written. There can be no good coming from enforcing TOS or other hardware based encryption/protection(izm). On the face of such nonsense it the fact that TOS and EULA are such an abused part of contract law as to make written law a farce. Why would congress dilute written law with contract madness?
“We vote to become irrelevant and enforce everybody else's written law instead” Would a congressperson raise their hand and vote yes to that? On tech issues congress is in way over their heads and worse the people advising them don't know scat either. (Or worse special interest groups with axes to grind.) You don't have to be a lawyer or congressperson to see this as an open barn door.
I include EULA because almost everything is becoming a computer and this will be abused just like TOS is already. Just prohibit everyday use (common already) and a firm will never pay out for warranty returns. Better yet impose fines and fees for every little infraction/mistake.
Since the CFAA was a mangled (relying on other peoples TOS/EULA legalese is like so random) act to start its unlikely that a quick fix would help. -not surprised-
Its got to be a pride thing that congress never repeals law. Nobody's perfect.
Aaron's Law makes a good focal point. No way I could understand his pain and no way to grasp the apparent effrontery of the prosecution. My support.
special-interesting (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 1:39pm
Sounds like another proposal to meet behind closed doors. Is government so broken they don't even feel embarrassed about secret meetings anymore? Blatantly suggesting that the public should have no input in such important law affecting everyday life takes gall. Its these types of political insects that make insecticide sales swell.
Of course any firm supported by a monopoly would want to expand on that. The funny thing is why they have a public voice at all? But politics listens to money these days not the public and certainly not common sense.
“Appealing to emotions may be a great way to drum up signatures for online petitions, but has no place in policy discussions” Is an attempt at marginalizing a group using demonizing (bedeviling?) terms to justify themselves self sanctimoniously. Its exactly that type of emotional appeal Mrs. Aistars blames the public for and sounds hypocritical at best. Grow up!
Copyright already has negative connotations. Bad law is destructive to value. Since most commercially made media with all the copyright laws jacketing it modify such products in the same way toxic waste would to you or your lawn why tolerate it?
Current copyright law disallows even its own use. Why would anyone pay for anything they could not legally use? Songs we cant sing or videos we cant act out skits from because of public performance laws? Get real.
Current copyright law wastes time. How many (cumulative) days total have we been forced to spend reading (or not reading!) FBI warnings in front of movies and videos? Give me my life back!
Current copyright law is destructive. How many lives have been obliterated with overly large fines/fees and or publicly shamed to death by porn chasing copyright lawyers? A waste of money and economic strength.
How much time is wasted reading 20 page EULAs the current bastardization from contract law. (a bit off topic but couldn't help the jab)
Copyright law is bad news all around. It makes life more dangerous to even own copyrighted media. It devalues the media itself. It wastes time and money. It censors media in ways so disastrous to the sharing of culture and ideas its legendary. (The 'cultural black hole' as phrased by others.) As it stands now copyright is a direct drain on the economy let alone the damage to culture through diminished public domain.
The argument that authors and publishers need more protection to make more money is flat our a lie. No new jobs will be created. No money will be made. Culture will suffer. Lives will be destroyed. The economy will shrink. All this I predict when/if copyright is expanded or removed from civil courts.
And. Now I have to wade through a mountain of FUD just to get to talk intelligently about copyright? Thanks! -sarcastic- Who stole, with ridiculous term extensions, from the public domain anyway?
Almost the entire problem with copyright is lack of public input. The selfishness of copyright knows no bounds.
“There is no viable invention without people who wanna use it and think its cool. There is no book if nobody can or wants to read. There is no author without an audience. There would be no Stradivarius without a public that did not appreciate and afford violin music.
Upon the shoulders giants we stand. (somebody said that before) Even Stradivarius. What we are saying is that we want to stand on top of the shoulders of the greats by making the scope and term limits of Copyright and Patent reasonable. (to expire well within our lifetimes) ” (from an earlier post but fits so swell here)
special-interesting (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 10:50am
Re:
“Relax and go back to sleep.” is not the lullaby I want to hear.
There is always a need to have input at every stage. Yes the public scrutiny is increasing and that is such a wonderful thing. Its a crowded hot kitchen but we'll work out the soup recipe somehow. In this case the CFAA soup stank already and the new ingredients smell worse. Best to toss it out and replace it with nothing.
Not worrying about the early details is how bad law is gestated and not caring gives birth to law that tears apart society and culture itself. The magnifying glass under full sunlight inspection is the minimum level attention when politics and special interest groups fornicate.
special-interesting (profile), 26 Mar 2013 @ 9:33am
Why do we even let these kids meet and write law anyway. Its obvious they don't know how to write competent constitutional law in the first place. This dis-functionality is the norm and it gets me every time, at press and political events, puffing up and looking like they are actually proud of what they've done/do.
Its laughable that the reforms proposed make it worse. Leave it to our congress to break something that was already badly broken. Now if the CFAA bill was abolished in its entirety that would make me proud of them for once.
Law is supposed to be clear, exact, to the point and not allowing “interpretations” or any reading other than what was (hopefully) clearly and concisely written.
special-interesting (profile), 24 Mar 2013 @ 1:25pm
Re: Re:
Tim Lee's (a good read) article “,I hope you’ll join me in eschewing the term “intellectual property.”” said he did not like the term. I had interpreted your article to say “I think it's fine to call it that.” Maybe its taken out of context or what?
In context with one of your posts may I propose the term “Intellectual Realm” to describe the vast field of both known and unexplored thinking and thought? The word “property” is still way to personally possessive for abstract things like facts/supporting-data/idea/concept/etc. and the immediate derivatives like books/journalistic-articles/science-papers/media/etc. Nobody (basic human nature) wants to let go of “property” so it may be best not to label it that from the start.
The mention of the origins of “Personal Estate” as different from “Real Estate” was enlightening and agree that the concept of personal ownership of what you carry with you was a good development.
The wiretapping case is similar to government policy that what is done electronically (analog or digital) is not covered under basic rights in the Constitution. Its possible that this was used as precedence for e-mail surveillance. (conjuncture; don't know.) I think its a judicial and congressional mistake to consider it as such.
More discussion of phraseology. Its more detailed than most would go but right on topic. A further exploration of an obscure concept. I suppose my aim is to develop some smooth pleasantly phrased term that helps greatly expand public domain allowing us feel good about it. (ievil laugh) Have used a lot of metaphors but they save pages of detail and hope they fit/work. Chipping away at the terms “copyright” and “intellectual property” is just a step in the right direction.
Much can be said about what we perceive of some unknown abstract concept we don't understand and the words published by either supporters or detractors. Both sides will typically use words and phrases that encompass both positive connotations and self justifications.
A popularized supporting (pro) sound bite (describing manipulated topic) is conceptually soothing, suggesting none of the thorny issues surrounding it, and slips down easily through the critical intellectual (for conceptually hard subjects is zero) digestive process. A detracting (con) name might want to stick in the craw of the mind and cause intellectual indigestion (hopefully, if phrased as planed) leading to regurgitating the idea entirely.
All that just to slip a cog of perception into ones core thinking process(s). Beneficially or maliciously is the real question.
In the end its the winners who decide the final terminology carving the Etymologic (study of words) furrows that guide any uneducated (about such a subject of which “copyright” and “intellectual property” are just examples) into predictable lines of thinking about that same concept. Granted some of historical phrasing is chance (where did the term “copyright” emerge from?) but even then the phrasing still affects cultural growth. (culture is how we act on our beliefs/perceptions)
In the battle to understand political and special interest machinations about Politically Correct (PC) phrasing one must know that smart people (smarter than I) have experience in such matters and tripping over such clever terminology is normal. Its normal fact that bureaucratic damage control comes up with hilarious (in perspective) PC terms and phraseology all the time. (I remember some official using the word “energetic decomposition” instead of explosive or bomb when his staff felt it would be embarrassing if the public realized such.)
special-interesting (profile), 23 Mar 2013 @ 5:04pm
Jim; Only a small detail but an feel an important one. The rest was good and interesting.
Your comment ”,whether you should call it "intellectual property" or not. I think it's fine to call it that.”
Because its normal human nature to be swayed by phraseology maybe its not a good thing that the word “property” be used. Such a possessive word implies ownership of ideas and concepts or even facts and that would be bad in any reasonable light.
An example of how carried away such a misnomer can get is the word “copyright”. The word “right” has been construed to mean ownership and personal property and even, just because the word is spelled the same, related to constitutional rights. Its just wrong to let it go without mention. In fact copyright is only a temporary monopoly granted by congress to hopefully inspire new original-works and has nothing to do with “right(s)”
The word “copy” in the digital age would make everyone a criminal if taken for granted that its a bad thing. Its beyond imagination that copying anything would be bad.
The whole battle for culture and ability to share new ideas through new formats of recorded songs, newspaper articles, TV shows, etc. is waged with such poor choice of words. It's even called propaganda by some. As such have been using the term copy-wrong lately.
My best attempt at a more proper phraseology of the term “Intellectual Property” would be to use instead “Intellectual claim” suggesting a temporary hold over the original-works creators legal domain of protection allowed under law. The word “claim” denotes temporary rental or plot not owned but used/mined for a time.
The same thing for, the often misused, word “copyright” would be rephrased to “copyclaim”. Or better yet original-works claim. Oh well. I tried.
Reactionary:
jameshogg. Wow you said so much and so much better than I could ever.
The house/treasure-find relation to property rights makes current treatment of copyright law seem ridiculous.
Who would ever purchase a book/song/video if you could never be permitted to learn/sing/act (from) it? And not just understand/sing/act it better but brilliantly better (or worse, don't make me sing it) to make profits for yourself. With public performance laws prohibiting such this is not speculation.
special-interesting (profile), 23 Mar 2013 @ 3:19pm
It's the mother load.
I might complain of the weakness of the evidence but similar analysis leading mostly to accusation by insinuation is used frequently and successfully against file sharers.
Have suggested jokingly earlier the risk of flight was minimal but these people might be way down the rabbit hole. To early and evidence light to comment further but the bread crumb trail seems significant. Cant wait to get these guys on the stand.
A great allegation that any copyright maximalist would slather over to smear some accused IP violator. No wait, that is an IP violation! Round and round.
special-interesting (profile), 23 Mar 2013 @ 2:40pm
Oh, thats right. Put it in the back room so nobody will notice. This would be the sweep it under the city carpet plan.
Mayor Bloomberg has apparently never read history and the influence of Speakeasies (hidden bars) and the increase of public usage when something becomes illegal. (Both proven facts.) Driving cultural behavior (good or unhealthy) into hidden back rooms is bad for business and tax revenue. (and healthy culture of sharing ideas and opinions out in the open)
No I don't smoke but do climb a mountain every now and then. Which is more dangerous? Law relating to culture be it healthy, unhealthy, risky, fun or dangerous is never a good thing.
I don't mind the warning label controversy. Yes there are free speech issues but tobacco industry play hard ball with consumers and all detractors so a public warning may not be a bad thing. Cigarette firms have their own problems of which I have to thank for helping coin the term 'cigarette argument'.
If I had a personal dog to kick (sic) it would be to require ALL taxes collected through tobacco sales go to medical bills and research.
I remember mentioning some rules to know you are entering an civilized democratic uncensored place/bar/store/blog/forum/pool/etc. One was to look for cuss words which is a good sign that nobody will harass you for a slip of the tongue or a expletive rant or two. Two would be to find a few lewd photos of either gender and maybe an explicit one or two also. Adding a new third one will be if the commissary displays cigarettes.
Reactionary:
Anon had a good comment about how we make such a fuss about things like cigarettes and not blow a valve over CISPA and negotiations done in secrecy. (and all the rest of the rat infested bureaucracy)
It will hopefully be soon that we all wake up from our individual dreams and realize the everyone exists together in a shared risk environment and only by accepting each other that can we get along.
What ratio are you willing to allow? Average world lock up ratio is ~2% (to total population). The US currently ~5% which is a huge drain on the economy. Allowing religious puritans to make law is expensive.
special-interesting (profile), 23 Mar 2013 @ 2:05pm
Re: Can't you see how awesome I am?
Hey. Didn't I agree with you (partially) once? I forget the post but since composing the essays on a wp have the text. It was some comment about markets are “not free” and are locked up.
“I kind of agree with OOTB in that our markets are locked up in layers (and layers and tons) and tons of regulation as it seems every industry from sugar to aircraft have their own special interest protectionist legislation. The realm of intellectual growth and advancement (and the culture of such) is tied by eternal copyright.
Yes there is still a lot of dynamism left in the markets and am grateful for that. The attitude of “it moves; tax and legislate it!” will kill off many of the good ideas in favor of the one (firm, group?) writing the text of the legislation.
Legislation by itself is not always bad but legislation written by and for a monopoly is.
These are the Dragons of our age we must slay.”
One can argue that even copyright monopoly is used to lock up the market for media.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was supposed to deal only with game rules and treatment of players, coaches and in some remote way attending fans safety. Rules and Safety. Nothing else. What they need is some good old competition.
Its another association likely hijacked by power and profits. In no way could anyone relate local broadcast rights to rules and safety. What they are doing is way beyond the original charter. So much so it may even have legal or civil court problems. They were supposed to only gently oversee (regulate is to strong) tournaments and conferences not sponsor it themselves.
It would be better if schools set up their own conferences and not participate in an association that do not benefit players, coaches fans and school itself. Associations are sometimes good and beneficial but once they get to big for themselves (or corrupted by money and power) the romance is over.
Condensing the above comments: Wtf!
Have cut the cord long ago being tired of bundling and other set top box scams. (cant even use the tuner in the TV) Have saved thousands.
special-interesting (profile), 23 Mar 2013 @ 12:46pm
About the two posts: They represent two very different viewpoints and what better way to try and sort out (a very reason for discussion) fact from opinion? My comment in the other post was to suspect any data gathered by the MPAA. What difference would a monopoly's measurement on sales or even profits be anyway? If I measured a boiling pot of water to be hot why would I be surprised?
special-interesting (profile), 23 Mar 2013 @ 11:10am
This is important.
This is a mountain that defendants should climb. However difficult. Lets see how high the (personal) climb is.
Lets take Prendaa for example (lots of the same to choose from) a porn copyright law initiative targeting a specific individual vulnerable to public exposure. Sure the law firm would deny such but the obvious profiling suspicion stands.
If the defendant just complained about the injustice of downloading this might not go well for them at all despite the fact that it might be a social and cultural injustice. (got to reduce terms of copy-wrong law as laws are supposed to support society not tear it apart) if the defendant's lawyer was tech savvy they might be able to credibly point out the hearsay nature of the evidence. (specifically that anyone can spoof an Internet address) If the defendant however pointed out the racial implications of targeting a vulnerable social group to his/her personal lawyer they might not have a viable defense but a great offense.
Its good the appellate court(s) wants to seed defensive positions with fist person witnesses (testimony). However oppressive deep pocket monopoly sponsored special-interest groups can make life hell for (almost) anyone with a voice.
But. (x10^5)
The court system is (by design) impartial. Cold. Hard and rough. ESPECIALLY for the accuser/plaintiff. Why is this seemingly horrible and terrible law proudly written in the constitution? Because it is important that the accuser must meet the demands of first person based testimony reviewed by a judge and jury.
It is classic in history that if you did not like someone you started rumors about that same individual and as lies and tall tales do it grows into a classic Salem MA. Style witch hunt and burning. No kidding. A dark side of normal human social behavior well documented in history.
For these reasons the DMCA take-down notice and other six strikes like enforcement “policies” and whatever government citizen monitoring programs that make files on everyone need to be abolished. Any other three stooges plan must also be trounced on.
Good law is understandable by the everyday citizen. Good law does does not take 5000 pages to write. Good law is universally applied and not (those dammn 5k pages) written around a specific entity or group. Good law actually tries to fit within Social and Cultural bounds set forth in the Constitution.
essay end –
About the two posts: They represent two very different viewpoints and what better way to try and sort out (a very reason for discussion) fact from opinion? My comment in the other post was to suspect any data gathered by the MPAA. What difference would a monopoly's measurement on sales or even profits be anyway? If I measured a boiling pot of water to be hot why would I be surprised?
reactionary.
“Translation: I wanted to wait until other people pointed out problems with the study so I could just copy their FUD.” And. My opinion. (lol)
All studies should get the full sunlight under the magnifying glass review. MPAA, RPX, other or even sponsored by TechDirt. Its called peer review and every scientist or otherwise must suffer the same.
Google does nobody any good with its recording of search history. NSA (protesters are terrorists these days), search warrants (your wife's lawyer looking for infidelity), advertising nonsense (no comment) and just plain voyeurism are reasons why they should be banned from any machine. Only when they begin to lose revenue for spying will they start to change. This applies to forums, BBS's, blogs, shopping sites and every potential privacy breach. What happened to respect for personal private lives?
special-interesting (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:32pm
Any firm has the choice to go out of business or not. If they can adapt to new ways and technology that's good. If a firm choose a monopolistic business model they run the risk of being dismantled or forced out of business. Too bad and no refunds. Its normal that firms loose on bad investments and go bankrupt. No examples just flat out fact.
special-interesting (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 9:35pm
The idea is not to totally remove original-works producers but to destroy a corrupt bureaucratic special-interest infested system. Both for Copyrights and Patents (dumping software patents too)
If Copyrights and Patents are issued for breathing, reading and programming which is so much more than a process or design patent would ever encompass. Term limits must also serve some cultural function of society otherwise its meaningless and benefits the public in no way at all. Only the one monopoly benefits. (the ring foundry located in the volcano for sure.)
There is no viable invention without people who wanna use it and think its cool. There is no book if nobody can or wants to read. There is no author without an audience. There would be no Stradivarius without a public that did not appreciate and afford violin music.
Upon the shoulders giants we stand. (somebody said that before) Even Stradivarius. What we are saying is that we want to stand on top of the shoulders of the greats by making the scope and term limits of Copyright and Patent reasonable. (to expire well within our lifetimes)
If an author does not want to contribute to the public domain then they should not publish. And good riddance to them. If any firm wants a perpetual monopoly then good riddance to them also.
On the post: Peter Hansmeier Denies Connection To Prenda Cases Via Document That Shows He's Connected To The Cases
Re: Time for some well deserved schadenfreude
Possibly it's based on the innate unfairness that new computer and Internet technologies have wrought on the public at large unable to wrest the popular support such lawmaking requires. If there was any fairness to law it will not make illegal things which your children can do on their phones and still try to expand the functionality of such devices also. (not just DRM them out of existence)
Haven't heard much in mainstream media (Not a surprise its possible that even reporters don't want to follow up on porn chasing lawyers?) but it would be nice if this would become a focal point for public support of antiquated copyright laws.
What we want is for society to grow up with technology not become a breakpoint/choke-point. Rallying publicly funded political backing takes longer than Hollywood special interest action so there is a disparity of political forces. Public backlash for such abuse of power is not unprecedented.
So far all this is a... distraction! Evasions from the real issuers of cultural sharing and building a society based on such free flow of information. There are many players who want to control the flow of information and revise history itself. (Classic nationalistic behavior of winner/dominator writes history.)
If a wish was granted some path tying, the not so far fetched possibility of, Prendaa and associates to the alleged seeding of a honey pot for the entrapment of a likely very vulnerable social group. Such a link would allow for pointed questions on the stand to either get the truth (or lies) or at least elicit telltale 5th amendment pleas. Such behavior may not be unique and should be examined and if proof can be established it might prove explosive to highlighting copyright law shame.
Have not stopped reading books by no means but some time on the 2nd is definitely reserved. Will stock up on consumables if only to throw some at the screen. It should be a thrill and there are bound to be the most outrageous statements and preposterous claims ever.
Blast! Another huge essay for just a word or two originally wanted to say. No Lincoln addresses for me. (worlds, almost, shortest political speech)
On the post: Is Google Regretting Paying Off Belgian And French Newspapers Yet? Other Newspapers Demand Their Cut
I hope google is able to cut them out of the news loop and they go out of business. Since news has traditionally always been an advertisement supported business model they need the links.
Many times have I visited sites via reddit.com (which is … that' close to becoming a news generation site itself) just because of content and I hate clicking further. A site better have good content when arriving with no (obvious) pay wall or its most likely never clicked on again even if the link looks seductive. (burned once...)
I firmly believe in trying to maximize profits but it stops at the level of cultural exchange of ideas and concepts using new (definitely not unregulated) formats. (presently read that as talking about the news and sharing links or whatever clips over the 'back (gossip) fence' of news aggregation sites.)
Since copyright has not just slowed down cultural growth but practically obliterated it there is no excuse for the current terms, format restrictions (DRM) or enforcement nonsense. It helps and profits no one not even the firms holding the copyrights. 95% of copyrighted stuff just vanishes one year after publishing and the rest is held hostage to ruinous monopolistic pricing schemes that have no basis in manufactured cost.
It can be argued that there are more reason to get rid of copyright altogether than not. One of my better summarization posts: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130322/23560222425/copyright-lobby-public-has-no-place-policy-di scussions.shtml#c7504 the usual wordy but self consistent culturally based argument.
On the post: DOJ Misled Judges For Years About How It Was Using Stingray Devices To Spy On People
http://www.aclu.org/maps/your-local-law-enforcement-tracking-your-cell-phones-location (a rampant problem. Its like everyone does it!)
With some political public browbeating the location data can be forced to remain in the tower and not sent and recorded centrally. Search warrants for cell tower dumps would be required for law enforcement otherwise.
We are not talking about a most efficient system but one that meets individual privacy needs.
The situation is so weird that cell phone companies will sell/give almost anyone your location but you:
http://www.propublica.org/article/cellphone-companies-will-share-your-location-data-just-not-wit h-you
My complaint would be what laws were broken and if none... wth? What protects the citizen from the government? Will anyone get fired and lose their pension for acting in a way unbecoming of a government official or by throwing out basic constitutional rights to make an admittedly hard job easier?
Having a law enforcement job is like having a job that defends the constitution (is the badge getting congressionally tarnished lately?) and it was never an easy and especially never a safe job. Apply for a job as an office worker or ice cream truck sales job if one wants to have a safer job. Being, most likely, constitutionally lazy and sloppy is a poor operational excuse.
Time for some judicial guidelines reform. Time for some tort (sentencing reform) reform, time for some copyright term reduction, time for some copyright Fair Use as easy and normal reform, time for a lot of things.
It's time.
On the post: Shockingly Unshocking: 'Cybersecurity' FUD Has Been Big Big Business For Contractors
Yet the Air Force constantly begged for and got more nuclear missiles plus a (really) nasty plutonium based nuclear energy program to go with it. Thorium is arguably safer and its potential breeder reactors don't produce bomb grade material. Massive overkill.
So now we have cyber threats and cyber security from cyber warfare. As if anyone had to actually use an almost meaningless movie/Hollywood (Dr Who! Yes.) term for marketing purposes. The only threat I feel is from the gullible Washington politicians able to swallow the FUD whole. Am sure the special interest money lozenge helped it go down easier.
Its not hundreds of millions its way past billions and to what effect? None. Spamhaus is arguably doing a better job than the entire US government despite the recent tassel with Cyberbunker spammers.
In no way do I think US government will be able to guard any house or corporation from china or whoever wants to attack. Happens all the time and its the best way to get security to a level that works for all. A lot of it was lax open un-updated browsers anyway.
Were the rumors true that some US gov back-doors were used? Hahaha. If so, I bet both sides actually thought they were clever. Making something secure (good) is harder than breaking it. Some 12 year olds could have done that and probably someone of equal age that pointed out the security leak. (To be thrown in jail by CFAA TOS violations of course.)
Its a shame that people like Weev (whatever anyone thinks of him) are kicked around with the CFAA and actually helping ignorance instead of working with the smarter hackers who know what they are doing.
What has the government been doing except trying to enforce the completely unenforceable copyright laws at the behest of Hollywood? Meddling is more like it. A drain on the economy and of no benefit to society at all. Please toss off the old legacy corporate monopolies and embrace technology and how it can help society grow through cultural sharing.
What cyberpublic-domain expansion plans does washington have to increase the media material for the public to build cool web aps and specialized sites? What cyber-copyright reduction plans to reduce the civil and criminal liability to the public at large of the casual Fair Use of media? (or of even just using the media itself? FCOLoud) How about a Cyber-Cultral revival plan? How about some cyber diapers to keep in all the cyber bullying?
-toss another 2 page rant- (no theme)
On the post: Orin Kerr And Members Of The EFF Representing AT&T Hacker 'Weev' Pro Bono During His Appeal
Having such law based on TOS or worse EULA is a nightmare of commercially derived felonies that make any telling of corporatism weak. Have mentioned my hope that judges and juries figuratively choke on such (wildly and ridiculously) loosely written law but... its a blind hope.
For any respectable senator to suggest destroying private property sounds thuggish and frankly quite embarrassing to hear of. Its already bad enough to have to scrape off the graffiti from the back garage.
As for 'probing' URL's thats done by almost every one from every country just by even looking for valid email accounts for spam not including the spy agencies and worse. The faster ATT finds out about weaknesses the better regardless of slightly questionable circumstances.
Ridiculing a company is par for the course when talking about a former Monopoly like ATT. Lets face it they did grow large enough and annoyed so many that they were broken up and even if todays corporation is not the exact same as then (some foreign ownership?) they did retain the name and all the baggage that goes with it. It would be distasteful if they demonstrated a grudge in any way.
If they perceive image problems then a different approach. Hire Weev; you don't have to like an employee or subcontractor to do successful business. (although it helps)
From outward appearances its seems that a knee jerk is the typical response to 'Weev' but so what? Putting legal muscle behind such guttural reaction is childish at best. What happened to impartiality and restraint?
On the post: Experts Scratching Their Heads At House Judiciary's Awful CFAA Reform Proposal
“We vote to become irrelevant and enforce everybody else's written law instead” Would a congressperson raise their hand and vote yes to that? On tech issues congress is in way over their heads and worse the people advising them don't know scat either. (Or worse special interest groups with axes to grind.) You don't have to be a lawyer or congressperson to see this as an open barn door.
I include EULA because almost everything is becoming a computer and this will be abused just like TOS is already. Just prohibit everyday use (common already) and a firm will never pay out for warranty returns. Better yet impose fines and fees for every little infraction/mistake.
Since the CFAA was a mangled (relying on other peoples TOS/EULA legalese is like so random) act to start its unlikely that a quick fix would help. -not surprised-
Its got to be a pride thing that congress never repeals law. Nobody's perfect.
Aaron's Law makes a good focal point. No way I could understand his pain and no way to grasp the apparent effrontery of the prosecution. My support.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Of course any firm supported by a monopoly would want to expand on that. The funny thing is why they have a public voice at all? But politics listens to money these days not the public and certainly not common sense.
“Appealing to emotions may be a great way to drum up signatures for online petitions, but has no place in policy discussions” Is an attempt at marginalizing a group using demonizing (bedeviling?) terms to justify themselves self sanctimoniously. Its exactly that type of emotional appeal Mrs. Aistars blames the public for and sounds hypocritical at best. Grow up!
Copyright already has negative connotations. Bad law is destructive to value. Since most commercially made media with all the copyright laws jacketing it modify such products in the same way toxic waste would to you or your lawn why tolerate it?
Current copyright law disallows even its own use. Why would anyone pay for anything they could not legally use? Songs we cant sing or videos we cant act out skits from because of public performance laws? Get real.
Current copyright law wastes time. How many (cumulative) days total have we been forced to spend reading (or not reading!) FBI warnings in front of movies and videos? Give me my life back!
Current copyright law is destructive. How many lives have been obliterated with overly large fines/fees and or publicly shamed to death by porn chasing copyright lawyers? A waste of money and economic strength.
How much time is wasted reading 20 page EULAs the current bastardization from contract law. (a bit off topic but couldn't help the jab)
Copyright law is bad news all around. It makes life more dangerous to even own copyrighted media. It devalues the media itself. It wastes time and money. It censors media in ways so disastrous to the sharing of culture and ideas its legendary. (The 'cultural black hole' as phrased by others.) As it stands now copyright is a direct drain on the economy let alone the damage to culture through diminished public domain.
The argument that authors and publishers need more protection to make more money is flat our a lie. No new jobs will be created. No money will be made. Culture will suffer. Lives will be destroyed. The economy will shrink. All this I predict when/if copyright is expanded or removed from civil courts.
And. Now I have to wade through a mountain of FUD just to get to talk intelligently about copyright? Thanks! -sarcastic- Who stole, with ridiculous term extensions, from the public domain anyway?
Almost the entire problem with copyright is lack of public input. The selfishness of copyright knows no bounds.
“There is no viable invention without people who wanna use it and think its cool. There is no book if nobody can or wants to read. There is no author without an audience. There would be no Stradivarius without a public that did not appreciate and afford violin music.
Upon the shoulders giants we stand. (somebody said that before) Even Stradivarius. What we are saying is that we want to stand on top of the shoulders of the greats by making the scope and term limits of Copyright and Patent reasonable. (to expire well within our lifetimes) ” (from an earlier post but fits so swell here)
On the post: Turns Out The One 'Good' Change In CFAA Reform... May Actually Be Bad Too
Re:
There is always a need to have input at every stage. Yes the public scrutiny is increasing and that is such a wonderful thing. Its a crowded hot kitchen but we'll work out the soup recipe somehow. In this case the CFAA soup stank already and the new ingredients smell worse. Best to toss it out and replace it with nothing.
Not worrying about the early details is how bad law is gestated and not caring gives birth to law that tears apart society and culture itself. The magnifying glass under full sunlight inspection is the minimum level attention when politics and special interest groups fornicate.
On the post: Turns Out The One 'Good' Change In CFAA Reform... May Actually Be Bad Too
Its laughable that the reforms proposed make it worse. Leave it to our congress to break something that was already badly broken. Now if the CFAA bill was abolished in its entirety that would make me proud of them for once.
Law is supposed to be clear, exact, to the point and not allowing “interpretations” or any reading other than what was (hopefully) clearly and concisely written.
On the post: Jim Harper's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re:
In context with one of your posts may I propose the term “Intellectual Realm” to describe the vast field of both known and unexplored thinking and thought? The word “property” is still way to personally possessive for abstract things like facts/supporting-data/idea/concept/etc. and the immediate derivatives like books/journalistic-articles/science-papers/media/etc. Nobody (basic human nature) wants to let go of “property” so it may be best not to label it that from the start.
The mention of the origins of “Personal Estate” as different from “Real Estate” was enlightening and agree that the concept of personal ownership of what you carry with you was a good development.
The wiretapping case is similar to government policy that what is done electronically (analog or digital) is not covered under basic rights in the Constitution. Its possible that this was used as precedence for e-mail surveillance. (conjuncture; don't know.) I think its a judicial and congressional mistake to consider it as such.
More discussion of phraseology. Its more detailed than most would go but right on topic. A further exploration of an obscure concept. I suppose my aim is to develop some smooth pleasantly phrased term that helps greatly expand public domain allowing us feel good about it. (ievil laugh) Have used a lot of metaphors but they save pages of detail and hope they fit/work. Chipping away at the terms “copyright” and “intellectual property” is just a step in the right direction.
Much can be said about what we perceive of some unknown abstract concept we don't understand and the words published by either supporters or detractors. Both sides will typically use words and phrases that encompass both positive connotations and self justifications.
A popularized supporting (pro) sound bite (describing manipulated topic) is conceptually soothing, suggesting none of the thorny issues surrounding it, and slips down easily through the critical intellectual (for conceptually hard subjects is zero) digestive process. A detracting (con) name might want to stick in the craw of the mind and cause intellectual indigestion (hopefully, if phrased as planed) leading to regurgitating the idea entirely.
All that just to slip a cog of perception into ones core thinking process(s). Beneficially or maliciously is the real question.
In the end its the winners who decide the final terminology carving the Etymologic (study of words) furrows that guide any uneducated (about such a subject of which “copyright” and “intellectual property” are just examples) into predictable lines of thinking about that same concept. Granted some of historical phrasing is chance (where did the term “copyright” emerge from?) but even then the phrasing still affects cultural growth. (culture is how we act on our beliefs/perceptions)
In the battle to understand political and special interest machinations about Politically Correct (PC) phrasing one must know that smart people (smarter than I) have experience in such matters and tripping over such clever terminology is normal. Its normal fact that bureaucratic damage control comes up with hilarious (in perspective) PC terms and phraseology all the time. (I remember some official using the word “energetic decomposition” instead of explosive or bomb when his staff felt it would be embarrassing if the public realized such.)
On the post: Jim Harper's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Your comment ”,whether you should call it "intellectual property" or not. I think it's fine to call it that.”
Because its normal human nature to be swayed by phraseology maybe its not a good thing that the word “property” be used. Such a possessive word implies ownership of ideas and concepts or even facts and that would be bad in any reasonable light.
An example of how carried away such a misnomer can get is the word “copyright”. The word “right” has been construed to mean ownership and personal property and even, just because the word is spelled the same, related to constitutional rights. Its just wrong to let it go without mention. In fact copyright is only a temporary monopoly granted by congress to hopefully inspire new original-works and has nothing to do with “right(s)”
The word “copy” in the digital age would make everyone a criminal if taken for granted that its a bad thing. Its beyond imagination that copying anything would be bad.
The whole battle for culture and ability to share new ideas through new formats of recorded songs, newspaper articles, TV shows, etc. is waged with such poor choice of words. It's even called propaganda by some. As such have been using the term copy-wrong lately.
My best attempt at a more proper phraseology of the term “Intellectual Property” would be to use instead “Intellectual claim” suggesting a temporary hold over the original-works creators legal domain of protection allowed under law. The word “claim” denotes temporary rental or plot not owned but used/mined for a time.
The same thing for, the often misused, word “copyright” would be rephrased to “copyclaim”. Or better yet original-works claim. Oh well. I tried.
Reactionary:
jameshogg. Wow you said so much and so much better than I could ever.
The house/treasure-find relation to property rights makes current treatment of copyright law seem ridiculous.
Who would ever purchase a book/song/video if you could never be permitted to learn/sing/act (from) it? And not just understand/sing/act it better but brilliantly better (or worse, don't make me sing it) to make profits for yourself. With public performance laws prohibiting such this is not speculation.
I like the term “intellectual servicing”
On the post: Lawyer Suggests That Prenda Law May Have Only 'Released' Movies It Sued Over As A Honeypot For Lawsuits
I might complain of the weakness of the evidence but similar analysis leading mostly to accusation by insinuation is used frequently and successfully against file sharers.
Have suggested jokingly earlier the risk of flight was minimal but these people might be way down the rabbit hole. To early and evidence light to comment further but the bread crumb trail seems significant. Cant wait to get these guys on the stand.
A great allegation that any copyright maximalist would slather over to smear some accused IP violator. No wait, that is an IP violation! Round and round.
To early for an armed SWAT raid? (just a thought)
On the post: Lawyer Suggests That Prenda Law May Have Only 'Released' Movies It Sued Over As A Honeypot For Lawsuits
Re: Maybe he used it as a filelocker!
On the post: Next From The Nanny State: Bloomberg Tries To Make You Not Think About Cigarettes
Mayor Bloomberg has apparently never read history and the influence of Speakeasies (hidden bars) and the increase of public usage when something becomes illegal. (Both proven facts.) Driving cultural behavior (good or unhealthy) into hidden back rooms is bad for business and tax revenue. (and healthy culture of sharing ideas and opinions out in the open)
No I don't smoke but do climb a mountain every now and then. Which is more dangerous? Law relating to culture be it healthy, unhealthy, risky, fun or dangerous is never a good thing.
I don't mind the warning label controversy. Yes there are free speech issues but tobacco industry play hard ball with consumers and all detractors so a public warning may not be a bad thing. Cigarette firms have their own problems of which I have to thank for helping coin the term 'cigarette argument'.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/02462421991/undisclosed-uspto-employees-writ e-report-saying-uspto-does-great-job-handling-software-smartphone-patents.shtml#c381 The cigarette argument is hilarious in a lethal kind of way. Short, sweet and deadly.
If I had a personal dog to kick (sic) it would be to require ALL taxes collected through tobacco sales go to medical bills and research.
I remember mentioning some rules to know you are entering an civilized democratic uncensored place/bar/store/blog/forum/pool/etc. One was to look for cuss words which is a good sign that nobody will harass you for a slip of the tongue or a expletive rant or two. Two would be to find a few lewd photos of either gender and maybe an explicit one or two also. Adding a new third one will be if the commissary displays cigarettes.
Reactionary:
Anon had a good comment about how we make such a fuss about things like cigarettes and not blow a valve over CISPA and negotiations done in secrecy. (and all the rest of the rat infested bureaucracy)
It will hopefully be soon that we all wake up from our individual dreams and realize the everyone exists together in a shared risk environment and only by accepting each other that can we get along.
What ratio are you willing to allow? Average world lock up ratio is ~2% (to total population). The US currently ~5% which is a huge drain on the economy. Allowing religious puritans to make law is expensive.
On the post: Next From The Nanny State: Bloomberg Tries To Make You Not Think About Cigarettes
Re: Can't you see how awesome I am?
“I kind of agree with OOTB in that our markets are locked up in layers (and layers and tons) and tons of regulation as it seems every industry from sugar to aircraft have their own special interest protectionist legislation. The realm of intellectual growth and advancement (and the culture of such) is tied by eternal copyright.
Yes there is still a lot of dynamism left in the markets and am grateful for that. The attitude of “it moves; tax and legislate it!” will kill off many of the good ideas in favor of the one (firm, group?) writing the text of the legislation.
Legislation by itself is not always bad but legislation written by and for a monopoly is.
These are the Dragons of our age we must slay.”
One can argue that even copyright monopoly is used to lock up the market for media.
On the post: NCAA Still Going Backwards On Tournament Streaming
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was supposed to deal only with game rules and treatment of players, coaches and in some remote way attending fans safety. Rules and Safety. Nothing else. What they need is some good old competition.
Its another association likely hijacked by power and profits. In no way could anyone relate local broadcast rights to rules and safety. What they are doing is way beyond the original charter. So much so it may even have legal or civil court problems. They were supposed to only gently oversee (regulate is to strong) tournaments and conferences not sponsor it themselves.
It would be better if schools set up their own conferences and not participate in an association that do not benefit players, coaches fans and school itself. Associations are sometimes good and beneficial but once they get to big for themselves (or corrupted by money and power) the romance is over.
Condensing the above comments: Wtf!
Have cut the cord long ago being tired of bundling and other set top box scams. (cant even use the tuner in the TV) Have saved thousands.
On the post: A Tale Of Two Studies: File Sharing Helps Sales!
On the post: Appeals Court Wants More Copyright Defendants To Stand Up For Their Fair Use Rights
This is a mountain that defendants should climb. However difficult. Lets see how high the (personal) climb is.
Lets take Prendaa for example (lots of the same to choose from) a porn copyright law initiative targeting a specific individual vulnerable to public exposure. Sure the law firm would deny such but the obvious profiling suspicion stands.
If the defendant just complained about the injustice of downloading this might not go well for them at all despite the fact that it might be a social and cultural injustice. (got to reduce terms of copy-wrong law as laws are supposed to support society not tear it apart) if the defendant's lawyer was tech savvy they might be able to credibly point out the hearsay nature of the evidence. (specifically that anyone can spoof an Internet address) If the defendant however pointed out the racial implications of targeting a vulnerable social group to his/her personal lawyer they might not have a viable defense but a great offense.
Its good the appellate court(s) wants to seed defensive positions with fist person witnesses (testimony). However oppressive deep pocket monopoly sponsored special-interest groups can make life hell for (almost) anyone with a voice.
But. (x10^5)
The court system is (by design) impartial. Cold. Hard and rough. ESPECIALLY for the accuser/plaintiff. Why is this seemingly horrible and terrible law proudly written in the constitution? Because it is important that the accuser must meet the demands of first person based testimony reviewed by a judge and jury.
It is classic in history that if you did not like someone you started rumors about that same individual and as lies and tall tales do it grows into a classic Salem MA. Style witch hunt and burning. No kidding. A dark side of normal human social behavior well documented in history.
For these reasons the DMCA take-down notice and other six strikes like enforcement “policies” and whatever government citizen monitoring programs that make files on everyone need to be abolished. Any other three stooges plan must also be trounced on.
Good law is understandable by the everyday citizen. Good law does does not take 5000 pages to write. Good law is universally applied and not (those dammn 5k pages) written around a specific entity or group. Good law actually tries to fit within Social and Cultural bounds set forth in the Constitution.
essay end –
About the two posts: They represent two very different viewpoints and what better way to try and sort out (a very reason for discussion) fact from opinion? My comment in the other post was to suspect any data gathered by the MPAA. What difference would a monopoly's measurement on sales or even profits be anyway? If I measured a boiling pot of water to be hot why would I be surprised?
reactionary.
“Translation: I wanted to wait until other people pointed out problems with the study so I could just copy their FUD.” And. My opinion. (lol)
All studies should get the full sunlight under the magnifying glass review. MPAA, RPX, other or even sponsored by TechDirt. Its called peer review and every scientist or otherwise must suffer the same.
Google does nobody any good with its recording of search history. NSA (protesters are terrorists these days), search warrants (your wife's lawyer looking for infidelity), advertising nonsense (no comment) and just plain voyeurism are reasons why they should be banned from any machine. Only when they begin to lose revenue for spying will they start to change. This applies to forums, BBS's, blogs, shopping sites and every potential privacy breach. What happened to respect for personal private lives?
On the post: Publishers Show Yet Again How To Make Money By Reducing The Price To Zero
On the post: California Attorney General Claims Foreign Companies Using 'Pirated' Software Represent Unfair Competition
If Copyrights and Patents are issued for breathing, reading and programming which is so much more than a process or design patent would ever encompass. Term limits must also serve some cultural function of society otherwise its meaningless and benefits the public in no way at all. Only the one monopoly benefits. (the ring foundry located in the volcano for sure.)
There is no viable invention without people who wanna use it and think its cool. There is no book if nobody can or wants to read. There is no author without an audience. There would be no Stradivarius without a public that did not appreciate and afford violin music.
Upon the shoulders giants we stand. (somebody said that before) Even Stradivarius. What we are saying is that we want to stand on top of the shoulders of the greats by making the scope and term limits of Copyright and Patent reasonable. (to expire well within our lifetimes)
If an author does not want to contribute to the public domain then they should not publish. And good riddance to them. If any firm wants a perpetual monopoly then good riddance to them also.
Next >>