One thing I've been pondering, which is if copyright is extended and public domain works, could an artist/company/estate sue for damages for the period in which the work was public domain?
Logic being that if copyright is necessary to protect investment, and copyright being extended to a work once public domain, then it must be assumed being in the public domain caused some kind of harm or loss of incentive to create such that we indeed needed to pull it out of the public domain.
Therefore, there is no simple way to "pull a third level", without the help of the domain holder.
Technically, it's a whole different world.
You read it here first folks - asking someone to take down particular sites from their service is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT when asking another person to take down particular sites. Why? Because we don't have WHOIS information.
I'll be glad to wake up tomorrow to find wordpress.com and blogspot.com gone and be gone legally having been done at the registrar level because 20 blogs had child porn. Obviously there was nothing that could be done - all the domains that Google and Wordpress have control over did not, in fact, exist, and there was no technical nor legal means to contact them to have the sites removed.
I think Mike is too generous with the kool aid to be honest. After the favourites of the week podcast, I've had to force myself to keep drinking just to clear space for anything else.
Your don't need an analogy - the credit card companies apply in both situations, and in both situations credit card companies do not automagically know when an account is being used for theft or fraud before hand, as damaging as it is the mental model of holding third parties accountable for someone else's actions in situations where said party deals with hundreds of thousands and millions of transactions every day.
In which case by all means retest them - here it seems irrelevant of being identical or bioequivalent or other such justified concerns that might require a generic drug maker to test again, only that a patentee not have any data from such tests be used in conjunction with generic makers attempts at getting approved. It's slow down on a process they've apparently already been excluded from in not being able to produce a patented drug.
What's funny about this is you're trying to defend an action ICE has already admitted was a mistake. There is no technical or legal reason that would have stopped ICE in contacting the owners of mooo.com to seize the 10 subdomains they needed. There is no allegation that the owners of mooo.com were in any way involved with the activities being targeted, nor that it was legal and necessary for all of mooo.com to be seized.
Following your logic, from a legal sense, there would be no "slicing" between mooo.com and all .com domains. Each step is merely a further nesting of the same basic principle, the only difference between them being who owns and who we trust to manage said domain. In the case of .com, it's ICANN, in the case of domains on mooo.com, it's afraid.org.
www.mooo.com will result in a request to ICANN's DNS service for where mooo is - after that mooo's DNS is asked where www is (www usually refers to HTTP on port 80). No different than if you were to ask for a blog at Blogspot or Wordpress - does that justify shutting down all of Wordpress's and Blogspot's subdomains for 10 child porn blogs? Does that make it impossible technically and legally to "slice" between all of Blogspot and Wordpress and the 10 child porn blogs hosted on them?
Re the former, the data is a scarcity as between the original drug developer and generic "wannabes". Is access to this data, which is maintained in confidence for obvious reasons, deemed a public right? It is, after all, a trade secret by any standard definition. If its trade secret status can be truncated with the stroke of a pen, would this not suggest that for all practical purposes trade secrets are no longer available under law?
I'm not sure this makes sense at all when you're already enforcing patents to deliberately exclude people from making a drug. What exactly is the point of going further and making generic producers repeat tests of "safety and efficacy" we already know the outcome of? It's unnecessary.
Also, it doesn't appear to make any distinction between data kept private and data that's public - only that you cannot use such data without authorisation for at least 5 years (10 years for plant protection products).
There was also another odd part of the agreement that guaranteed if you were to judge someone worthy of life protection with copyright, you were at minimum to guarantee 70 year protection after their death (Page 3).
ARTICLE 10.6: DURATION OF AUTHORS’ RIGHTS
Each Party shall provide that, where the term of protection of a work is to be calculated on the basis of the life of a natural person, the term shall be not less than the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death.
You're right, I should've said subdomains, though I'm not sure it makes a particularly huge difference outside of the technical details - ICE still affected 84,000 innocent sites through a seemingly stupid mistake that likely could've been avoided.
Well it obviously has nothing to do with the lack of necessity in re-buying digital when a significant amount of consumers have good enough quality from CD and DVD and the ability to rip them straight onto a PC is widely available.
You're talking about *other* reasons the RIAA suits may or may not hinder filesharing.
No I'm not, I'm talking about the fundamental assumptions that the next logical steps have to be based on. When someone says file sharing is higher - file sharing has ceased to be limited by lawsuits, implicit in the statement file sharing is higher is likely to be other evidence and assumptions relating to the nature of file sharing, which differs from the evidence and assumptions relating to the nature of copyright.
You do not have to believe that copyright has failed to stifle creativity if file sharing is not being hindered by law suits, only if you ignore what the base assumptions someone is making are should you assume that.
That has nothing to do with what the previous AC said, does it?
Yes it does, considering those same companies about whom it's being said are creating because of copyright are right now complaining that copyright isn't strong enough and that without greater protection, there won't be a music, film or book industry.
So we take the claims that they're creating in an environment where copyright isn't strong enough and isn't providing the necessary protections, in which case their creations are happening not directly because of copyright enabling them to do so, or we can dispense with a significant amount of the noise being made by those companies in favour of stronger protections. Maybe the poster agrees with the latter, but nevertheless someone is in some way wrong or over stating things.
Hollywood studios generally buy 10 times as many scripts as they make into movies, which means they currently own exclusive rights to a shitload of films that will never see production. And in most cases, they won't let anyone else have them. E.T., The Matrix, Pulp Fiction and Star Wars are all films that you never would have seen because the studios that owned them were content to sit on each forever. They were saved only because someone convinced another studio to re-buy them, usually at a higher price.
Sometimes the reasons for stalling a project are even more duplicitous. According to screenwriter Howard Meibach, in the 90s Disney bought a script for a hockey-related movie that was getting attention in Hollywood simply because it had a different hockey movie in production and "[didn't] want another studio to get it." Thanks to Disney's unapologetic cock-blocking, we will never know what the actual film was about.
[...]
OK, so you probably don't care about a crappy superhero B-movie or some foreign flick about old people falling in love or, like, rain (look, we don't see a lot of foreign movies). But how about Mike Judge's movie Idiocracy? Despite how much America loves Judge for Beavis and Butthead and Office Space, 20th Century Fox did everything it could to bury his movie. It tried to weasel out of a theatrical release for over a year and finally did the bare minimum to fulfill its contract by opening Idiocracy in seven cities, with no trailers or press kits.
Most of the great movies, TV shows, books, etc. these days are created BECAUSE of copyright.
So copyright still isn't strong enough to incentivise them such that they'll completely stop being made if we don't have agreements like ACTA or bills like COICA. They're so ineffective that piracy is destroying jobs, yet also responsible for most of the works created today.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Just trying to help.
Also, in apparently catching what Mike said, you still apparently preferred to ignore it in favour of what suited your own agenda.
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Important Copyright Case: Will Review First Amendment vs. Copyright Issue
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Logic being that if copyright is necessary to protect investment, and copyright being extended to a work once public domain, then it must be assumed being in the public domain caused some kind of harm or loss of incentive to create such that we indeed needed to pull it out of the public domain.
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You read it here first folks - asking someone to take down particular sites from their service is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT when asking another person to take down particular sites. Why? Because we don't have WHOIS information.
I'll be glad to wake up tomorrow to find wordpress.com and blogspot.com gone and be gone legally having been done at the registrar level because 20 blogs had child porn. Obviously there was nothing that could be done - all the domains that Google and Wordpress have control over did not, in fact, exist, and there was no technical nor legal means to contact them to have the sites removed.
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/dns.htm
http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System
Have fun.
On the post: Darrell Issa Tells IP Czar That She's 'Not Trying' If She Can't Pin Liability For File Sharing On Third Parties
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are Visa responsible in a process intended for hosts of content and sites?
On the post: Darrell Issa Tells IP Czar That She's 'Not Trying' If She Can't Pin Liability For File Sharing On Third Parties
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Darrell Issa Tells IP Czar That She's 'Not Trying' If She Can't Pin Liability For File Sharing On Third Parties
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Darrell Issa Tells IP Czar That She's 'Not Trying' If She Can't Pin Liability For File Sharing On Third Parties
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Darrell Issa Tells IP Czar That She's 'Not Trying' If She Can't Pin Liability For File Sharing On Third Parties
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contrac t
Have fun.
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hMkSNiBPvE
Excuse the presenter being drugged up, he was in an accident.
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Following your logic, from a legal sense, there would be no "slicing" between mooo.com and all .com domains. Each step is merely a further nesting of the same basic principle, the only difference between them being who owns and who we trust to manage said domain. In the case of .com, it's ICANN, in the case of domains on mooo.com, it's afraid.org.
www.mooo.com will result in a request to ICANN's DNS service for where mooo is - after that mooo's DNS is asked where www is (www usually refers to HTTP on port 80). No different than if you were to ask for a blog at Blogspot or Wordpress - does that justify shutting down all of Wordpress's and Blogspot's subdomains for 10 child porn blogs? Does that make it impossible technically and legally to "slice" between all of Blogspot and Wordpress and the 10 child porn blogs hosted on them?
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
I'm not sure this makes sense at all when you're already enforcing patents to deliberately exclude people from making a drug. What exactly is the point of going further and making generic producers repeat tests of "safety and efficacy" we already know the outcome of? It's unnecessary.
Also, it doesn't appear to make any distinction between data kept private and data that's public - only that you cannot use such data without authorisation for at least 5 years (10 years for plant protection products).
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/october/tradoc_145180.pdf Page 14
There was also another odd part of the agreement that guaranteed if you were to judge someone worthy of life protection with copyright, you were at minimum to guarantee 70 year protection after their death (Page 3).
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Once Again, As The MPAA Whines About 'Piracy,' It Had Record Results At The Box Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No I'm not, I'm talking about the fundamental assumptions that the next logical steps have to be based on. When someone says file sharing is higher - file sharing has ceased to be limited by lawsuits, implicit in the statement file sharing is higher is likely to be other evidence and assumptions relating to the nature of file sharing, which differs from the evidence and assumptions relating to the nature of copyright.
You do not have to believe that copyright has failed to stifle creativity if file sharing is not being hindered by law suits, only if you ignore what the base assumptions someone is making are should you assume that.
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes it does, considering those same companies about whom it's being said are creating because of copyright are right now complaining that copyright isn't strong enough and that without greater protection, there won't be a music, film or book industry.
So we take the claims that they're creating in an environment where copyright isn't strong enough and isn't providing the necessary protections, in which case their creations are happening not directly because of copyright enabling them to do so, or we can dispense with a significant amount of the noise being made by those companies in favour of stronger protections. Maybe the poster agrees with the latter, but nevertheless someone is in some way wrong or over stating things.
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: This is the way things are headed...
Oh really?
http://www.cracked.com/article_19012_5-hollywood-secrets-that-explain-why-so-many-movies- suck.html
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So copyright still isn't strong enough to incentivise them such that they'll completely stop being made if we don't have agreements like ACTA or bills like COICA. They're so ineffective that piracy is destroying jobs, yet also responsible for most of the works created today.
Next >>