"Puerto 80 is challenging the seizures before two different courts to this day. Not sure I get your point. They've got great lawyers working on the cases.
"
Ah yes. Great lawyers are at work and all's right with the world.
Of course at least half of the reason for this whole IP morass is to keep as many lawyers employed for as long as possible.
Governmental bureaucracies such as the NYPD derive their funding through the whims of politicians. These bueaucracies know it is essential to be doing what politicians consider to be *important* to ensure their department's wants and needs are covered in the budget for the next fiscal year.
So long as politi-critters want to seen as 'fighting terrorists to keep the public safe', then then law enforcement will be 'actively fighting terror' - regardless of whether there is any evidence on the street that such programs are necessary or even helpful.
Katz v. US says that the government can't tap your phone call without a warrant. It does not say what the person on the other end of that phone call is allowed to do after you talk to them. If you use the phone to discuss a crime you have committed, the other party is allowed to tell the police.
The case Judge Pauley discussed was US v. Barone, 1990. The Barone case said that if your "friend" on the other end of the phone call is willing to tell the police what you have said, then there is no difference between that and allowing the police to directly listen in as you talk to your "friend".
In this current case involving facebook, Judge Pauley is concluding that when your "friend" allows the police to see information on Facebook it is no different than if your "friend" had allowed the police to listen in on your conversation
I think he is referring to this. There is a recent book which presents plausible circumstantial evidence for OJ's odd behavior just after the killing. The reason being that OJ knew his son [from his first marriage] committed the murder.
If a MPAA rep was on the scene, that raise the question as to whether the MPAA had a legal right to be there. The MPAA obviously isn't a law enforcement agency, and presumably would not have been present in an official capacity.
This is speculative, and who knows what NZ law says, but at least under US Law, a third party accompanying law enforcement during the execution of an arrest warrant can be held liable for trespassing. (Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 [1999])
"Behind every story about government overreach is a business lobbyist whose client was caught cheating or lying about rules that they and everybody else in their industry knew about."
No. I completely disagree.
Here is a statement that is much more accurate in the majority of cases: Behind every government overreach is a business lobbyist whose client is seeking to restrain their competition
The Huffington iPad app will continue to be found in the App store with a free subscription, whereas the Daily is still trying to find a way to sell their app subscription.
It's interesting to read the comments after the HuffPo article linked to in this post. These claim that the reason the paid Daily and Huffington are failing is because of poor quality or unfocused journalism, not because they have the wrong business model. Of course some of these commentors are writing for other publications, so naturally they believe/hope their own periodical has the right magic that will sell.
I recommend readers have a look back at Mike's response to the Healy article in 2008. The article and following discussion in the comment section are excellent.
For most people who do not own a business, "property taxes" are just a real estate issue, but for those of us who own businesses, we unfortunately know better. Businesses pay annual property taxes on the hard assets possessed by the business until those assets are either disposed of, or the value is written off according to a schedule written into the tax code.
The issue of paying property taxes for intellectual "property" was discussed in the LA Times more than 4 years ago in an opinion piece by Dallas Weaver, which was a response to an earlier opinion article by Jon Healy
Mr. Weaver's observed that if it was necessary to pay property taxes for IP, then there would be incentive to release non-performing instances of IP to the public domain. This would be a very laudable outcome, although I remain quite conflicted about this because it would be acknowledging that IP is actually property in the first place. As has been discussed at great length here, intellectual property has considerable differences from all other forms of property as it consists of nothing more than a government ordained right to operate a monopoly.
On the other hand, further discussion of property taxes for IP is worthwhile because it would bring the inconsistency of IP maximallist arguments into the public focus.
A few weeks ago Seth Godin had something to say about the Olympic committees' ongoing attempts to scrub every single unlicensed use of the word Olympic from the language. He said they have "completely missed the point of what a brand is. It's not a word.
It's a set of expectations."
The USOC and the IOC apparently believe that this makes their brand more valuable, but going after knitters and gyro eateries doesn't keep people from being confused about the Olympic brand. It also doesn't bring them more money, but rather costs them money because the targets of their expensive lawyers aren't going to be able to pay to keep the word "Olympic".
What it does do is build their reputation... as bullies, and creates a general disrespect for the organizations. It should be obvious that engendering disrespect is not favorable to the long-term maintenance of their brand and its value.
Let's not overlook that this lawsuit is about Wordperfect, not NetWare.
For those who are unfamiliar, here is a little history: The lawsuit pertains to the fact that Microsoft made last second changes to Windows 95 just before its release. The consequence was a delay of months before Wordperfect was usable on Win95. Novell alleges this was an intentional strategy to dislodge Wordperfect from its perch as the number 1 selling word processor at the time. Microsoft of course claims there was no strategy involved, but rather the engineers coding Wordperfect were simply inept. In the aftermath of this disastrously slow transition of Wordperfect from DOS to Windows, Novell sold Wordperfect to Corel who has owned it ever since.
"All I can see from the article, is a company trying hard to distance itself from negative publicity. Authorizing a copyrighted work (whether that's required or not) isn't just about the copyright itself, it also gives implicit approval of the derivative work."
Absent the declaration by Disney, how many Americans would have jumped to the conclusion that Disney must have approved and collected a licensing fee for the play in a North Korean theater.
My guess -- Zero.
Having lived in Asia years ago, and having seen it first hand, I can vouch for what is reported in the above comments.
There is no doubt that factories in Asia produce more than the contracted number of goods, and then sell the surplus themselves. In this situation, the word "counterfeit" doesn't accurately describe what is happening, since the buyer isn't being mislead as to the nature of what is being purchased. The goods are not "knock-offs", but are absolutely identical to what is being sold through authorized channels.
These situations represent contract violations on the part of the manufacturer. In my opinion they should appropriately be viewed as torts to be dealt with in civil rather than criminal court. In an export/import scenario, I question why the taxpayers of either country should be paying law enforcement to sustain the parameters of a private contract.
Don't forget about the copyrighted firmware that is in just about everything that has electronic components -- not just your printer and camera, but your washer and your refrigerator, etc.
This is what happens when laws are written (intentionally?) in a vague or broad manner that invites creative lawyers to stretch them beyond their original purpose.
"...their deposits aren't a copy of something ..."
"the content of that account not generally considered to have been taken from someone else's account"
-->How ironic that you should bring up the issue of copying with respect to bank deposits!
Perhaps you have forgotten how banks work, so let me remind you.
Banks take your deposit, they log an entry into their computer that says they have your money. Then they loan it out, not just to someone else, but to more than one someone else; all the while telling you that they still have your money on hand.
With fractional reserve banking the original deposit gets multiplied many times over.
In the simplest terms, the bank copies a symbol of value (its account of your deposit), and then hands the copies to others (in the form of loans). No theft occurred, but both the loan recipient and the bank end up with value that they didn't have prior to the start of the process, meanwhile the depositor has the same or greater value.
Congratuations. You have provided another outstanding way to illustrate to people how the copying of symbolic (virtual) goods is *not* the same as stealing a physical object.
"high-profile David Boies, best known for representing the US Justice Department in the United States v. Microsoft case"
In the IT world, Boies is best known for US vs. Microsoft, but the world at large probably knows him better from another case. He was on national TV for days arguing Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court conclusion to 2000 election. Boies was Gore's lawyer.
On the post: Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course at least half of the reason for this whole IP morass is to keep as many lawyers employed for as long as possible.
On the post: NYPD Spent Years Spying On Muslims, Generated Exactly Zero Leads
Re:
So long as politi-critters want to seen as 'fighting terrorists to keep the public safe', then then law enforcement will be 'actively fighting terror' - regardless of whether there is any evidence on the street that such programs are necessary or even helpful.
On the post: Yes, Friends Can Share Your Facebook Profile With The Police
Re: broadcast to the wider world
The case Judge Pauley discussed was US v. Barone, 1990. The Barone case said that if your "friend" on the other end of the phone call is willing to tell the police what you have said, then there is no difference between that and allowing the police to directly listen in as you talk to your "friend".
In this current case involving facebook, Judge Pauley is concluding that when your "friend" allows the police to see information on Facebook it is no different than if your "friend" had allowed the police to listen in on your conversation
On the post: Video Of Dotcom Raid Revealed, As NZ Police Admit It Was 'Over The Top'
Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part
Because they own a bunch of cool Rambo shit, and what fun is having it if you never get a chance to use it?
Oh yeah, and if it wasn't really necessary, at least its 'good training' to be able to use the gear and tactics once in a while.
On the post: Video Of Dotcom Raid Revealed, As NZ Police Admit It Was 'Over The Top'
Re: Re: Re: OJ, History and news
On the post: Why Are New Zealand Prosecutors Seeking To Suppress All Images & Video Of Megaupload Raid?
Re: Re:
This is speculative, and who knows what NZ law says, but at least under US Law, a third party accompanying law enforcement during the execution of an arrest warrant can be held liable for trespassing. (Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 [1999])
On the post: Gibson Guitars CEO Calls Out The Government For 'Regulating Business Through Criminal Law' [Updated]
Re:
No. I completely disagree.
Here is a statement that is much more accurate in the majority of cases: Behind every government overreach is a business lobbyist whose client is seeking to restrain their competition
On the post: Getting More People Aware Of The Problems Of Patents & Copyright: Reducing Social Distance
Re:
Yeah, and most of them are lobbyists.
FTFY
On the post: Turns Out That The iPad Won't Magically Bring Back Scarcity For Magazines
It's interesting to read the comments after the HuffPo article linked to in this post. These claim that the reason the paid Daily and Huffington are failing is because of poor quality or unfocused journalism, not because they have the wrong business model. Of course some of these commentors are writing for other publications, so naturally they believe/hope their own periodical has the right magic that will sell.
On the post: Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK
Re: Re:
The issue of paying property taxes for intellectual "property" was discussed in the LA Times more than 4 years ago in an opinion piece by Dallas Weaver, which was a response to an earlier opinion article by Jon Healy
Mr. Weaver's observed that if it was necessary to pay property taxes for IP, then there would be incentive to release non-performing instances of IP to the public domain. This would be a very laudable outcome, although I remain quite conflicted about this because it would be acknowledging that IP is actually property in the first place. As has been discussed at great length here, intellectual property has considerable differences from all other forms of property as it consists of nothing more than a government ordained right to operate a monopoly.
On the other hand, further discussion of property taxes for IP is worthwhile because it would bring the inconsistency of IP maximallist arguments into the public focus.
On the post: Amazon Hides Classic Free Public Domain Ebooks
use Amazon Advanced Search
2) Sort Results by: Price - Low to High.
The free Kindle books come up first.
On the post: US Olympic Committee Forces 30 Year Old Philidelphia Gyro Restaraunt To Change Its Name
Re: Disgusting
It's a set of expectations."
The USOC and the IOC apparently believe that this makes their brand more valuable, but going after knitters and gyro eateries doesn't keep people from being confused about the Olympic brand. It also doesn't bring them more money, but rather costs them money because the targets of their expensive lawyers aren't going to be able to pay to keep the word "Olympic".
What it does do is build their reputation... as bullies, and creates a general disrespect for the organizations. It should be obvious that engendering disrespect is not favorable to the long-term maintenance of their brand and its value.
On the post: Novell's WordPerfect Antitrust Lawsuit Against Microsoft Over Windows 95 Dismissed (Yes, This Is A 2012 Post)
Re: I'm sure there's a reasoning here...
For those who are unfamiliar, here is a little history: The lawsuit pertains to the fact that Microsoft made last second changes to Windows 95 just before its release. The consequence was a delay of months before Wordperfect was usable on Win95. Novell alleges this was an intentional strategy to dislodge Wordperfect from its perch as the number 1 selling word processor at the time. Microsoft of course claims there was no strategy involved, but rather the engineers coding Wordperfect were simply inept. In the aftermath of this disastrously slow transition of Wordperfect from DOS to Windows, Novell sold Wordperfect to Corel who has owned it ever since.
On the post: Kim Jong Un's Mysterious Female Companion Hides The Real Issue: Piracy Of Disney Characters!
Re: Overreacting on this news
My guess -- Zero.
On the post: Who's Running A Big Counterfeit Ring For Hermes Bags? Apparently Hermes Employees
"counterfeit" goods or just unauthorized?
There is no doubt that factories in Asia produce more than the contracted number of goods, and then sell the surplus themselves. In this situation, the word "counterfeit" doesn't accurately describe what is happening, since the buyer isn't being mislead as to the nature of what is being purchased. The goods are not "knock-offs", but are absolutely identical to what is being sold through authorized channels.
These situations represent contract violations on the part of the manufacturer. In my opinion they should appropriately be viewed as torts to be dealt with in civil rather than criminal court. In an export/import scenario, I question why the taxpayers of either country should be paying law enforcement to sustain the parameters of a private contract.
On the post: Speak Out Against Copyright Holders Destroying True Property Rights
Re: Labels
This is what happens when laws are written (intentionally?) in a vague or broad manner that invites creative lawyers to stretch them beyond their original purpose.
On the post: Former Federal Judge Calls US Prosecution Of Megaupload 'Really Outrageous'
Re:
-->How ironic that you should bring up the issue of copying with respect to bank deposits!
Perhaps you have forgotten how banks work, so let me remind you.
Banks take your deposit, they log an entry into their computer that says they have your money. Then they loan it out, not just to someone else, but to more than one someone else; all the while telling you that they still have your money on hand.
With fractional reserve banking the original deposit gets multiplied many times over.
In the simplest terms, the bank copies a symbol of value (its account of your deposit), and then hands the copies to others (in the form of loans). No theft occurred, but both the loan recipient and the bank end up with value that they didn't have prior to the start of the process, meanwhile the depositor has the same or greater value.
Congratuations. You have provided another outstanding way to illustrate to people how the copying of symbolic (virtual) goods is *not* the same as stealing a physical object.
On the post: Should People Learn To Code? Yes – If They Are Judges Ruling On Cases Involving Software
Re: Boies: not Clinton but Gore's Lawyer
On the post: Should People Learn To Code? Yes – If They Are Judges Ruling On Cases Involving Software
Boies: Clinton's Lawyer
Next >>