If you're not the inventor, you have no need for redress. And if you're going around suing world plus dog for redress for something you didn't invent and don't produce you're the leech.
I have no quarrel with actual inventors seeking redress for infringement of actual inventions, but suing for infringement of naked patents with nothing to protect is crossing the line.
Better watch out. Make sure that business has standing to license whatever it is they are licensing. And even if you have a valid license that doesn't necessarily protect you from trolls. Microsoft was sued by a troll not too long ago for using a technology (I forget exactly what) for which they already had a valid license from another firm. But they got sued anyway.
As far as I'm concerned, trolling patents is nothing less than legalized extortion, and it's time Congress passed laws to shut it down.
Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate, but it seems throughout his video his complaint was other people using his comment without his permission. If this is the case, it seems to me he is within his rights to have them taken down.
Now if he is taking down other people's videos just because he doesn't like them, and they are not using any of his content. then that's a whole 'nother matter. Then he *is* violating the law.
There's only one way I can think of to stop this sort of overstepping, and that would be for everyone in this country to stop buying MPAA DVDs, stop going to the movies, and send DVD sales into the tank.
But these people's minds are so eaten up with greed, even if it did happen they'd find something else to blame it on. The RIAA has insisted on suing their customers back to the stone age, their sales have tanked, and they can't figure out why. I guess they're still blaming it all on downloading.
Does the MPAA consider the sale or barter or giving away of used DVDs and/or watching a movie at a friend's house as theft? It wouldn't surprise me at all if they did. A clerk at Blockbuster once told me Disney won't allow them to sell their used DVDs.
Gotta do more to pump up those phony figures, MPAA, till they're so ridiculous nobody will believe you. Try 50 DVDs per person per day, men, women and infants included, why not?
People in high places don't like it when they get caught with their pants down, their evil deeds exposed. So they use intimidation tactics (prosecution, threat of prison time etc) to shut us up so we won't expose them. But I rather expect that such tactics will eventually come around and bite those who use them in the rear-hard.
You still reap what you sow. None of God's laws have ever been repealed, nor will they ever be.
As always, it's greed that kills the goose that laid the golden egg. Not content with one a day the farmer killed the goose thinking he'd get a whole bunch at once and ended up with nothing.
The art of writing software flourished before the courts started allowing patents on software, Now we have patent wars, patent trolls and all sorts of patent abuse, and software development has slowed to a crawl as companies have to spend $billions and much time defending themselves against questionable patents. Patent trolls are leeches and parasites who invent nothing, have no usable product to sell, and acquire patents for the sole purpose of suing others for patent infringement. Now we even have copyright trolls who do much the same thing, only in a little different way.
Even Bill Gates said that if patents had applied to software 20 years ago, none of the computing technology that we use every day today would exist.
Art flourished long before there was such a thing as copyrights. When copyrights came along it was for the purpose of rewarding authors for their work with a limited time monopoly on their work, I think about 14 years. Copyright today has become a protection racket for big corporations which virtually control copyright law. Back in the dawn of copyright, once a copyright expired the work entered the public domain and could be used by anyone. Now the term is the life of the author plus 70 years, and for all practical purposes forever, since every time Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire the term of copyright gets extended another 20 years. Not content with that, the term of copyright has actually been extended backward I think to about 1916 on copyrights whose terms were about to expire under old copyright law, when the new law was enacted. This means it will probably be decades (if ever) before any new works enter the public domain, by which time the media they were recorded on will have decayed and the works lost forever.
Copyright is fine if it would be used as originally intended, it is certainly not fine the way it is being used today.
@Franklin Ryzzo: Unfortunately as long as we can be kept sedated with the Jersey Shore, and the Kardashians, and all the other crap that is passed off by the networks as entertainment or news, not enough people will ever care or even know that this is happening.
In my estimation 90% of the stuff our main media networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) feed us in prime time is nothing but audio-visual pig slop, stuff that appeals to the gross, carnal nature of unsaved human beings. And it's steadily getting worse.
Here's another analogy: A man beats another man over the head with a claw hammer and kills him. So the government stages a guns-drawn armed SWAT raid on the company that manufactured the hammer, shuts it down and seizes all its assets because it provided the murder weapon. Never mind the company had nothing to do with the murder, never intended the hammer to be used as a weapon, had no knowledge of how the killer came by the hammer (he might have stolen it), and probably had no knowledge of the murder.
Hypothetical situation, hypothetical outcome. But most of the actual raids the government has carried out make about as much sense as the above. And it makes about as much sense as the ICE seizing a domain name when they can't even prove a crime has been committed, much less by the company whose domain name they are seizing.
Doublethink-my definition--thinking two different, illogically connected things at the same time. Like, "We don't have any proof or evidence, but he's guilty anyway."
Our government has become arrogant beyond measure. If you care to check out www.naturalnews.com you will find story after story of government raids on food stores, suppliers of natural supplements, cherry growers, sellers of raw milk, and now even an armed raid, guns drawn, on the manufacturers of Gibson Guitars over alleged violations of some obscure, vaguely worded law. Our federal agencies, particularly the FDA and the USDA, are totally out of control,
I have written my congress people regarding this, but I don't know how much good it is going to do. If enough of us write and complain of these criminal raids on our citizens maybe they'll take notice and do something about it.
If the courts can make up exclusive rights out of whole cloth without any basis in law, they can make up pretty much any "law" they want to out of whole cloth. Liberal, activist courts have been doing this for years, and it seems to me this is violating the constitution by usurping the exclusive legislative function of congress. It is the job of the courts to interpret and enforce existing laws made by congress, not invent new "laws" that have no basis in existing law.
My understanding is you can copyright the compilation as a whole, but you can't apply that copyright to the individual articles that make up the compilation and you have to get the authors' permissions to use the individual articles in the compilation. The copyrights on the individual articles remain the property of the authors who wrote them.
It is also my understanding that you cannot put your copyright on something that is in the public domain. You can rewrite something that is in the public domain (in your own words, expand, condense etc.) and copyright your version, but the original work remains in the public domain and you can't keep others from using it or making their own versions.
I am not a lawyer, so this might not be entirely correct. If you have questions on this go talk to your lawyer.
IP addresses are not unique identifiers for at least two reasons:
1) DHCP-Dynamic addressing, Most ISPs use DHCP to assign IP addresses to users on an as-needed basis. When a user logs on he is assigned an IP address from a pool of IP addresses the ISP maintains. When he logs off that address goes back into the pool, and the next time that user logs on he may get an entirely different IP address, and someone else may get the IP address the first user previously had used. Most Internet users get their IP addresses by DHCP, as ISPs usually charge extra for a fixed IP address.
2) IP addresses can be spoofed-that is the person doing the spoofing can make his IP address to appear as someone else's.
The only reliable unique identifier that can be tied to a particular piece of equipment is the MAC address of the router, Ethernet card or other device that interfaces to the Internet. That number (more like a serial number) is unique to each and every device that connects to a network, but to the best of my knowledge is not recorded, and would probably be difficult to tie to a particular user from ISP or other records.
This is nothing less than criminal extortion and should be treated like the crime it is. Using copyright infringement with flimsy evidence for a cover does not excuse the true purpose of such an operation-to beat money out of people by threat of bankrupting them.
It grieves me the degree that selfishness and greed have multiplied in recent years, and especially in the corporate arena. This idea of, "It's MINE! And you can't have it unless I (we) get a huge chunk of money out of it" attitude turns me off big time. It's not the way I was raised. Call me old fashioned if you want, but things were a lot better when people shared things freely.
People who have and insist on enforcing this "It's MINE!" attitude only hurt themselves in the long run. The RIAA has enforced this attitude with vengeance in recent years and what has it gotten them? A fast trip into the tank for CD sales. Suing your customers is no way to drum up business. You'll only drive them off. I for one will not touch anything with an RIAA label on it.
Read the article! Brazil allows sharing and their music business is prospering. The claims of business lost to sharing made by the RIAA and MPAA are grossly exaggerated and vastly inflated and everybody knows it. First off sharing gives valuable exposure, which helps to increase sales. Secondly those who download illegally probably wouldn't have bought the CD in the first place, so nothing was lost. And the entertainment industry is full of Luddites who have fought every new technology that has come along, making unsubstantiated claims that it is going to destroy their business, only to discover it opened up vast new areas of business when it was allowed.
Tying down the pressure relief valve on a steam engine will get you a quick trip to the hereafter, and likewise over-zealous enforcement of "rights" is only ultimately going to turn people against you and hurt your business.
On the post: If Your Business Strategy Relies On Suing Others, You're Not A Business, You're A Leech On The System
Re: Re: Re:
I have no quarrel with actual inventors seeking redress for infringement of actual inventions, but suing for infringement of naked patents with nothing to protect is crossing the line.
On the post: If Your Business Strategy Relies On Suing Others, You're Not A Business, You're A Leech On The System
Re: Selling protection
As far as I'm concerned, trolling patents is nothing less than legalized extortion, and it's time Congress passed laws to shut it down.
On the post: Ubisoft Learns Nothing From Its DRM Past; Condemns Paying Customers To Repeat It
Confucius say...
On the post: Double Bogus DMCA Takedown All The Way!
Re: Unwarranted takedowns-oops
On the post: Double Bogus DMCA Takedown All The Way!
Unwarranted takedowns
Now if he is taking down other people's videos just because he doesn't like them, and they are not using any of his content. then that's a whole 'nother matter. Then he *is* violating the law.
On the post: MPAA So Thrilled With Zediva Ruling, It Offers To Help The Court Spread It
MPAA tyranny
But these people's minds are so eaten up with greed, even if it did happen they'd find something else to blame it on. The RIAA has insisted on suing their customers back to the stone age, their sales have tanked, and they can't figure out why. I guess they're still blaming it all on downloading.
On the post: MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year
I wonder...
Gotta do more to pump up those phony figures, MPAA, till they're so ridiculous nobody will believe you. Try 50 DVDs per person per day, men, women and infants included, why not?
On the post: Man Facing 75 Years In Jail For Recording The Police; Illinois Assistant AG Says No Right To Record Police
Police state
You still reap what you sow. None of God's laws have ever been repealed, nor will they ever be.
On the post: Starz, Netflix And How Industry Jealousies Strangle A Golden Goose
Starz dumps Netflix
Too bad.
On the post: Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?
Software and patents-art and copyrights
Even Bill Gates said that if patents had applied to software 20 years ago, none of the computing technology that we use every day today would exist.
Art flourished long before there was such a thing as copyrights. When copyrights came along it was for the purpose of rewarding authors for their work with a limited time monopoly on their work, I think about 14 years. Copyright today has become a protection racket for big corporations which virtually control copyright law. Back in the dawn of copyright, once a copyright expired the work entered the public domain and could be used by anyone. Now the term is the life of the author plus 70 years, and for all practical purposes forever, since every time Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire the term of copyright gets extended another 20 years. Not content with that, the term of copyright has actually been extended backward I think to about 1916 on copyrights whose terms were about to expire under old copyright law, when the new law was enacted. This means it will probably be decades (if ever) before any new works enter the public domain, by which time the media they were recorded on will have decayed and the works lost forever.
Copyright is fine if it would be used as originally intended, it is certainly not fine the way it is being used today.
'nuff said.
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Re: Re: Re: Government property seizures
Unfortunately as long as we can be kept sedated with the Jersey Shore, and the Kardashians, and all the other crap that is passed off by the networks as entertainment or news, not enough people will ever care or even know that this is happening.
In my estimation 90% of the stuff our main media networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) feed us in prime time is nothing but audio-visual pig slop, stuff that appeals to the gross, carnal nature of unsaved human beings. And it's steadily getting worse.
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Re: Re:
Hypothetical situation, hypothetical outcome. But most of the actual raids the government has carried out make about as much sense as the above. And it makes about as much sense as the ICE seizing a domain name when they can't even prove a crime has been committed, much less by the company whose domain name they are seizing.
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Re: Re: Re: Doublething
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Government property seizures
I have written my congress people regarding this, but I don't know how much good it is going to do. If enough of us write and complain of these criminal raids on our citizens maybe they'll take notice and do something about it.
On the post: Federal Court Invents A New Intellectual Property Right: The Money Makes It So Exclusive Right To Record
Out of whole cloth...
On the post: You Can Copy Our Articles All You Want... But Please Don't Claim The Copyright Belongs To You
Re: Compilations
It is also my understanding that you cannot put your copyright on something that is in the public domain. You can rewrite something that is in the public domain (in your own words, expand, condense etc.) and copyright your version, but the original work remains in the public domain and you can't keep others from using it or making their own versions.
I am not a lawyer, so this might not be entirely correct. If you have questions on this go talk to your lawyer.
On the post: US Copyright Group Lawsuits Based On Highly Questionable Evidence
Why IP address alone is not a reliable identifier
1) DHCP-Dynamic addressing, Most ISPs use DHCP to assign IP addresses to users on an as-needed basis. When a user logs on he is assigned an IP address from a pool of IP addresses the ISP maintains. When he logs off that address goes back into the pool, and the next time that user logs on he may get an entirely different IP address, and someone else may get the IP address the first user previously had used. Most Internet users get their IP addresses by DHCP, as ISPs usually charge extra for a fixed IP address.
2) IP addresses can be spoofed-that is the person doing the spoofing can make his IP address to appear as someone else's.
The only reliable unique identifier that can be tied to a particular piece of equipment is the MAC address of the router, Ethernet card or other device that interfaces to the Internet. That number (more like a serial number) is unique to each and every device that connects to a network, but to the best of my knowledge is not recorded, and would probably be difficult to tie to a particular user from ISP or other records.
On the post: US Copyright Group Lawsuits Based On Highly Questionable Evidence
Extortion
On the post: Brazil Looks To Criminalize Ripping A CD?
Re: Re: Re: Brasil's Reasons
On the post: Brazil Looks To Criminalize Ripping A CD?
Greed
People who have and insist on enforcing this "It's MINE!" attitude only hurt themselves in the long run. The RIAA has enforced this attitude with vengeance in recent years and what has it gotten them? A fast trip into the tank for CD sales. Suing your customers is no way to drum up business. You'll only drive them off. I for one will not touch anything with an RIAA label on it.
Read the article! Brazil allows sharing and their music business is prospering. The claims of business lost to sharing made by the RIAA and MPAA are grossly exaggerated and vastly inflated and everybody knows it. First off sharing gives valuable exposure, which helps to increase sales. Secondly those who download illegally probably wouldn't have bought the CD in the first place, so nothing was lost. And the entertainment industry is full of Luddites who have fought every new technology that has come along, making unsubstantiated claims that it is going to destroy their business, only to discover it opened up vast new areas of business when it was allowed.
Tying down the pressure relief valve on a steam engine will get you a quick trip to the hereafter, and likewise over-zealous enforcement of "rights" is only ultimately going to turn people against you and hurt your business.
Next >>