Hey! According to the FDA cherry juice and any other natural substance that has health benefits is an illegal drug, and if you make any claims of health benefits for your product they just might raid you and shut you down.
The record industry could make a mint off of licensing file-sharing if they only would try it, but evidently they're too stupid to figure that out, or too selfish to let it happen.
I wrote the president of RIAA some years ago suggesting this, but he/they ignored me. They deserve whatever they get.
In the USA, copyright is automatic on everything (even your baby's scribbling on a piece of paper) and is for all practical purposes forever. Yes, the current term is life of the author plus 70 years, but that gets extended all over again on every copyrighted work every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire, so it might as well be forever. Buh-bye, public domain.
As for trademark, generic words are not supposed to be eligible for trademark protection, but it is done anyway. Some examples:
-Monster Cable, which claims exclusive rights on "Monster" and for years has been suing anybody and everybody who used the word "monster" in any commercial context. Victims ranged all the way from a mom and pop clothing store to Walt Disney for the movie, "Monsters Inc."
-Microsoft, which owns trademark rights on "Windows", and sued Lindows for infringing its trademark, then ended up paying Lindows a bundle of money to change its name to Linspire when it found out it was in danger of losing trademark status for "Windows".
-I think it was Deckers (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that trademarked the work "Ugg" in the USA, then took off suing the pants off of of Australian shoemakers who had been using the word in a generic sense for 30 years prior to that for the inside-out sheepskin boots they made.
Anybody know of any more such instances of trademark abuse? Let's hear it.
ISTR the patent office gets paid something extra for approving patents, which incentivizes them to approve as many as they can. Not sure if this is entirely accurate, but ISTR having heard that.
Another, more likely possibility is that they are so swamped with junk patents they just rubber stamp them to get them out of the way. Only somebody needs to swap the "Approved" and the "Denied" stamps. ;-)
Another problem is the ridiculous term of copyright. There used to be a thing called public domain, which all copyrighted material entered when its copyright expired. When the term of copyright was 28 years lots of stuff went into the public domain while it was still useful. Now, with life plus 70 years being the term of copyright, and the term being extended another 20 + years every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire, if you produce something today, your great, great grandchildren will be dead of old age before it ever enters the public domain.
Moreover, with the 1979 law recapturing and extending all copyrights about to expire, all the way back to 1917 or so, it will likely be decades before anything at all enters the public domain again. This benefits nobody but the mega-corporations which own all the copyrights and don't want anybody else getting any benefit out of anything without their getting a big chunk of money from it.
I tried to tell 'em a long time ago they could make a mint licensing filesharing but they wouldn't listen. I guess they'd rather sue their customers and run em all off, so they can continue to complain about those nasty old pirates stealing all their money.
Greed knows no limits.
I guess they don't believe God's law of sowing and reaping is still in effect. But it is.
My point is, that by making special concessions to special interests and forcing a one-size-fits-all regime tailored to that special interest on everyone congress is doing enormous damage to the public interest. Why not have an initial term of 28 years with the option of one renewal at a nominal fee for a second 28 years, then as one reader suggested, graduated fee increases for successive renewals. That way those companies who have active content they want to continue to protect could do so, while other content which has become stale or obsolete or orphaned or whose owners or authors no longer want or need to protect would be allowed to enter the public domain. Then others would be free to use them, rewrite, expand, update, prepare derivative works from, preserve for future generations,etc. without fear of getting sued. This is how culture is preserved and how it evolves, not by locking everything away for four or more generations by which time it has been long forgotten and of no use to anyone.
Would this sort of arrangement (short term and optional extensions) be acceptable to you?
another techdirt article speaks of Viacom sending out some 63,000 takedown notices all at one time. Now how long would it take Viacom or anyone else to make a fair evaluation including fair use for all 63,000 files in that batch? I doubt Viacom's entire staff doing nothing but evaluations full time would be able to keep up with that kind of load. My suspicion is these outfits (as another reader suggested) simply search keywords with mildless bots that automatically send out a takedown notice every time one gets a hit.
I would liken patent troll strategy to someone who obtains a copy of the title to someone else's house, puts his name on it, then demands rent from the owner and threatens to sue if he refuses. These people have been known to watch what others are developing, patent it and then sue the pants off of the inventor for infringing their patent. Jerome Lemelson, the granddaddy of all patent trolls amassed a $2 billion fortune doing this, then cried when someone called him a parasite.
And that's exactly what I think patent trolls are. They just mooch off of other people's work.
Answer me this: Can the Associated Press or anybody else claim copyright on the public domain by way of using or quoting something that is in the public domain? Can they extend their copyright back to the public domain source, just because they published/used it?
I think not. But I wouldn't put it past them to try.
The legal monopoly the author has over his work. He alone can make or authorize to be made copies, derivative works, perform the work or authorize others to do so, and so on. The original concept of copyright was to give the author this monopoly for a limited time, after which the work was to pass into the public domain, so anyone could make use of it.
I believe the original term of copyright was 14 years, with an optional extension for another 14 years. Now it is the life of the author plus 70 years. And it gets extended another 20 years or so every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire. Under the current term of copyright no work copyrighted today will enter the public domain in our lifetime, the lifetime of our children, our grandchildren or maybe even the lifetime of our great, great grandchildren. In many cases that means when the author dies, his work dies with him because no one knows who owns the copyrights, the work is under copyright for the next two generations and nobody knows who to contact for permission to use the work. This is what is known as an "orphaned work." By the time it enters the public domain it is long forgotten and lost forever.
If congress is going to extend the term of copyright another 20 or more years every time somebody or another's copyright is about to expire, nothing under copyright since 1919 (I think, all works under copyright whose copyrights were about to expire under the old law had their term automatically extended under the new) will ever enter the public domain. This means that potentially much of the culture of today and the past 90 years could be lost forever. Not that with the quality of some of the works being produced today, that would be any great loss. But there is a lot of stuff from the past which will also be lost, if the term of copyright is extended forever.
The RIAA has whined and bellyached for years about filesharing on the Internet, saying it is stealing from artists and composers and what not, deliberately inflating figures about how much money filesharing steals from the above mentioned.
A couple of things here. #1, the RIAA and the record industry keeps the lion's share of whatever profits they make from record sales. The performers, composers, whatever maybe get a few pennies for the sale of each CD which probably costs less than a dollar to make, and typically brings close to $20 a pop retail.
#2, RIAA figures on losses from downloading are enormously inflated. Many of those who download music wouldn't buy the albums even if they couldn't download, so for those there's no real loss. And the RIAA assumption is that each song downloaded means an entire album sale lost. On the other hand, there are people who having downloaded a song to hear it, if they like it will go out and buy the album. So the gains probably offset the losses to where they pretty much balance out.
Further, the RIAA doesn't seem to consider that suing your customers is a good way to alienate them. So they sue the pants off of potential customers, and then wonder why record sales are tanking? Go figure.
I emailed RIAA some years ago suggesting they could make a mint licensing filesharing. Those who wanted to be able to share music with others or download such music could each pay a fee of a few dollars a month, be free to share all the music they wanted to, legally, free from the threat of lawsuits, and the RIAA could potentially bring in enough from filesharing royalties to more than make up for any losses in CD sales. There are millions, as I understand it, who are now illegally engaged in sharing copyrighted music who I believe would gladly pay a few dollars a month to be free of the threat of lawsuits, and the RIAA could be raking in maybe 10s $millions every month they could be distributing to those who make the music, if only they would, and not just stick it in their own pockets.
But I guess the RIAA is too set in its ways to recognize or implement the obvious.
As for a music tax, no I don't think that's a good idea. Most of the money would probably end up lining some bureaucrats' pockets.
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
Re: Re: Seriously, where is the link between laws and changing peoples habits?
It has been said, "there are three kinds of lies.
-Lies,
-Damn lies,
-and Statistics."
Statistics can be tilted 10,000 different ways to make them say whatever you want them to say. If that isn't lying I don't know what is.
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
Re: Anonymous coward
Talk about organized crime!
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
Re: IP dip dog egg
I wrote the president of RIAA some years ago suggesting this, but he/they ignored me. They deserve whatever they get.
On the post: Vancouver Olympics 'Brand Protection Guidelines' Almost Entirely Arbitrary
Re: PRIOR ART TIME ( ANCIENT GREECE )
As for trademark, generic words are not supposed to be eligible for trademark protection, but it is done anyway. Some examples:
-Monster Cable, which claims exclusive rights on "Monster" and for years has been suing anybody and everybody who used the word "monster" in any commercial context. Victims ranged all the way from a mom and pop clothing store to Walt Disney for the movie, "Monsters Inc."
-Microsoft, which owns trademark rights on "Windows", and sued Lindows for infringing its trademark, then ended up paying Lindows a bundle of money to change its name to Linspire when it found out it was in danger of losing trademark status for "Windows".
-I think it was Deckers (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that trademarked the work "Ugg" in the USA, then took off suing the pants off of of Australian shoemakers who had been using the word in a generic sense for 30 years prior to that for the inside-out sheepskin boots they made.
Anybody know of any more such instances of trademark abuse? Let's hear it.
On the post: OMG! IBM Patented LOL! ROTFLMAO!
Re: don't blame IBM, hold the patent office to the flame
On the post: OMG! IBM Patented LOL! ROTFLMAO!
Re: Re:
On the post: OMG! IBM Patented LOL! ROTFLMAO!
Re: Already Done and USED long long ago.
Another, more likely possibility is that they are so swamped with junk patents they just rubber stamp them to get them out of the way. Only somebody needs to swap the "Approved" and the "Denied" stamps. ;-)
Has anybody patented emoticons yet? :-0
On the post: What Will The Recording Industry Be Blaming For All Their Problems A Decade From Now?
Re: Re:
On the post: What Will The Recording Industry Be Blaming For All Their Problems A Decade From Now?
Re: Re: Lets see...
Moreover, with the 1979 law recapturing and extending all copyrights about to expire, all the way back to 1917 or so, it will likely be decades before anything at all enters the public domain again. This benefits nobody but the mega-corporations which own all the copyrights and don't want anybody else getting any benefit out of anything without their getting a big chunk of money from it.
As I said before, greed knows no limits.
On the post: What Will The Recording Industry Be Blaming For All Their Problems A Decade From Now?
Re: Re: Same Thing
Greed knows no limits.
I guess they don't believe God's law of sowing and reaping is still in effect. But it is.
On the post: What Will The Recording Industry Be Blaming For All Their Problems A Decade From Now?
Re: Re: Re: That's easy
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Anti-mike
Would this sort of arrangement (short term and optional extensions) be acceptable to you?
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Re: Re: Anti-mike needs to read this:
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Re: sharing is caring
Greed knows no limits.
On the post: Film Your Kid Dancing To A McDonald's Happy Meal CD... Get A Takedown Notice From Google
Fair use & Takedown notices
On the post: Clear And Concise Explanation For Why Software Patents Harm Innovation
patent troll strategy
And that's exactly what I think patent trolls are. They just mooch off of other people's work.
On the post: YouTube Taking Down Public Domain Works?
Re: An explanation of how that match might have been made
Yeah, understandable. But can they extend their copyright back to the public domain original and claim copyright on it?
I don't think they can-not legally anyway. But I wouldn't put it past them to try.
On the post: YouTube Taking Down Public Domain Works?
Re: Re: Burden of proof
I think not. But I wouldn't put it past them to try.
On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shocking
The legal monopoly the author has over his work. He alone can make or authorize to be made copies, derivative works, perform the work or authorize others to do so, and so on. The original concept of copyright was to give the author this monopoly for a limited time, after which the work was to pass into the public domain, so anyone could make use of it.
I believe the original term of copyright was 14 years, with an optional extension for another 14 years. Now it is the life of the author plus 70 years. And it gets extended another 20 years or so every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire. Under the current term of copyright no work copyrighted today will enter the public domain in our lifetime, the lifetime of our children, our grandchildren or maybe even the lifetime of our great, great grandchildren. In many cases that means when the author dies, his work dies with him because no one knows who owns the copyrights, the work is under copyright for the next two generations and nobody knows who to contact for permission to use the work. This is what is known as an "orphaned work." By the time it enters the public domain it is long forgotten and lost forever.
If congress is going to extend the term of copyright another 20 or more years every time somebody or another's copyright is about to expire, nothing under copyright since 1919 (I think, all works under copyright whose copyrights were about to expire under the old law had their term automatically extended under the new) will ever enter the public domain. This means that potentially much of the culture of today and the past 90 years could be lost forever. Not that with the quality of some of the works being produced today, that would be any great loss. But there is a lot of stuff from the past which will also be lost, if the term of copyright is extended forever.
Isn't that enough damage?
On the post: Debunking The Idea Of A Music Tax For The Creation Of New Music
Music tax
#1, the RIAA and the record industry keeps the lion's share of whatever profits they make from record sales. The performers, composers, whatever maybe get a few pennies for the sale of each CD which probably costs less than a dollar to make, and typically brings close to $20 a pop retail.
#2, RIAA figures on losses from downloading are enormously inflated. Many of those who download music wouldn't buy the albums even if they couldn't download, so for those there's no real loss. And the RIAA assumption is that each song downloaded means an entire album sale lost. On the other hand, there are people who having downloaded a song to hear it, if they like it will go out and buy the album. So the gains probably offset the losses to where they pretty much balance out.
Further, the RIAA doesn't seem to consider that suing your customers is a good way to alienate them. So they sue the pants off of potential customers, and then wonder why record sales are tanking? Go figure.
I emailed RIAA some years ago suggesting they could make a mint licensing filesharing. Those who wanted to be able to share music with others or download such music could each pay a fee of a few dollars a month, be free to share all the music they wanted to, legally, free from the threat of lawsuits, and the RIAA could potentially bring in enough from filesharing royalties to more than make up for any losses in CD sales. There are millions, as I understand it, who are now illegally engaged in sharing copyrighted music who I believe would gladly pay a few dollars a month to be free of the threat of lawsuits, and the RIAA could be raking in maybe 10s $millions every month they could be distributing to those who make the music, if only they would, and not just stick it in their own pockets.
But I guess the RIAA is too set in its ways to recognize or implement the obvious. As for a music tax, no I don't think that's a good idea. Most of the money would probably end up lining some bureaucrats' pockets.Next >>