What I find amazing is that you typed this all out, and didn't even catch the reason why your point isn't good.
However there are no patents in theoretical physics so Peter Higgs was able to put the two ideas together and solve the problems of both.
Had this been a practical, patent infested, field he would have been able to do nothing without getting a licence from both Goldstone and Yang and Mills. If either had turned awkward then progress would have been stymied.
It's a good story, but you miss one of the most important points, and the reason why patents generally are not a bad idea:
If nobody is using them, they are worthless.
Even if the two previous steps had been patent, they were both useless as they were. Both parties had spent time, money, and effort, and had reached a dead end. Their efforts in both cases were a "loss". For many companies, these types of "got a patent but can't use it" are negatives on the books, things that draw the company down.
So each of them would more than likely be not just willing to license their patents, but more than happy to find a way to monetize something that is otherwise a negative. heck, I wouldn't be shocked in many cases if they would sell the patents outright for less than they cost to research, because that gets rid of much of the negative on the books.
You cannot ignore the economic aspects of patents, nor can you ignore the basics of profit and loss on a company or individual's actions.
If Mr Higgs had an use for the two patents that together would make something profitable for all, it is likely that all would want to participate. If he was shrewd, he would buy the patents or license them without disclosing his concept.
Money is a great motivator, and the money tied up in a non-functioning patent is often huge.
To use this analogy, it would be like somebody walking into the car rental office and demanding that they stop a person driving a car they rented because they claim to have seen a car with that licence number breaking the law.
My point exactly is this: They citizen (copyright holder) shouldn't have to prove their case entirely before they can get to this information. There needs to be an expedient way for the copyright holder to be able to get the right person in court. The Australian court judgment essentially means that the copyright holder has to entirely prove their case against the ISP, and show it all, and then MAYBE the ISP will be obliged to provide user data (if they kept it that long). It makes ISPs into road blocks to legal action, which they should never be.
As for IP addresses, as I say, you may think they are not reliable indentfiers, but outside of people hacking IPS, they are pretty hard to get around. You cannot make bidirectional communication with an IP address that isn't in the routed block. Yes, you can fake a header, but you would never get an answer back (as it wouldn't be routed to you). ISPs log user names, MAC addresses, and IPs together typically, so it is a pretty good triad of information.
Can someone hack it? All things are possible, but it would be pretty rare that all three of those things would match up, right?
The courts have exactly made it a free for all, because they have made it effectively impossible for a copyright holder to expect to get proper legal proceedings underway in any reasonable amount of time.
With this judgment, the copyright holders are bound to bring the ISP to court, prove their entire case of copyright infringement against a "john doe", all to only get the user information from the ISP. That process could take years. Then they go back to square 1 with the user info, and restart the entire process from zero. Another few years to get satisfaction.
Meanwhile, they have spent hundreds of thousands (if not millions) to prosecute the case, and they are likely to find the defendant at the end is like Jammie Thomas, without two cents to rub together. So they are down a ton of money, and it took years to get that SINGLE copyright violation to stop.
Essentially, the Australian courts have made it pretty much impossible to stop file trading. They just raised a price and time barrier that no longer makes it worth going through.
It creates a free for all. The chance that a user would face any legal action is negligible, which creates a free for all.
There are a couple of things to add here that are very important, and really do change the story.
The charges have little (pun) to do with the website, but rather with DVDs purchased and shipped to the particular conservative southern county. The prosecution rests almost entirely on that one act, as it is interstate commerce in obscene materials, and with the materials being shipping into the area, it is the standards of that area that judged the level of obscenity.
So it wasn't about the download, as much as it was about physical product shipped. Most obscenity cases are made in the same manner, because the physical product is easier to explain in court that attempting to set the standards for web traffic. This case is entirely about physical product delivered when ordered from the internet.
All I can say is that you probably want to check your tin foil hat, it appears not to be properly grounded. You missed the target entirely, but I guess this is just what the voices told you to write.
The specific example we discussed was that there is increasing evidence that when a professor or company gets a patent in the field of genetics research, other researchers simply stop doing work in that specific area.
You sort of have to read the sentence twice to catch the sneaky part of it. Basically, they are discussion that there may be increase evidence (but no hard facts) to support their claims.
If a researcher is granted a patent in an area after spending time and money to get there, it is unlikely that they are just going to put something on the shelf and ignore it. That would be like spending millions to build the world fastest F1 car,and then never taking it to a race. I am sure some people might have done it, but those would be move exceptional cases.
If anything, it would seem more likely that once a patent is granted for something, that more R&D money would be thrown in to take it from "discovery" stage to "production stage", where the people paying the bills could actually recoup their money.
The article goes against the basics of investment and return. Effectively, they would be calling biotech companies and their investors idiots.
As a side note, again this isn't all bad. If you have a strong and patent concept in one area, is it not better than other moneys from other groups are spend in other areas, to advance other parts of Bio-science? Having a number of companies doing the same thing isn't more likely to advance all of bio-science, now is it?
I also think that investors and researchers moving to other areas is a good business move. Why fight against an existing patent when you can go out and work other areas? The return on investment on duplicating someone else's work is low, the return on a new discovery is much higher (one would think). Plus society benefits from a wider scope of scientific work, rather than it all being focused in a single area. Good for business, and good for people too.
I considered it and dismissed the idea that Mike might have some of his people playing anonymous to try to bait me off the site. Mike isn't that type of a guy.
I do find it interesting that the collective contributors don't seem to make very many posts. That musician dude from Toronto made a few last year, but I suspect his school work load this year is too high.
1 - if you didn't have the rights to make more without violating someone's copyright, then it sort of is (and more than one person has used the term).
2 - Without your skin, and muscles, your bones would be out. How would that feel?
3 - Copyright infringement isn't super evil, it's just a crime with no apparent evil being done, because you aren't taking something from in front of the shop keeper, you are doing it at home with a nameless, faceless whatever. Morally it would be very different if you had to go into Bono's house and copy the discs in front of him on his computer, because then you would know who you are stealing from. The anonymous factor makes it seem like it's not evil at all.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
How appropriate - file shares don't have malice, they just don't realize they are hurting anyone.
What you call "sock puppets" is really just to get people to stop debating the person (TAM) and debate the issues (copyright). Too many people here are busy attacking me rather than attacking ideas. Heck, RD spends probably 75% of his posts of demeaning and insulting TAM. Yet, when I posted as someone else, with very similar views, he was all into discussing the ideas.
It is one of the benefits of the internet, you can be like Roger on American Dad, throw on a wig and a fake mustache and come back as someone else two seconds later, and nobody seems to know. I find I am more likely to get people's real opinion that way.
No, I don't chat with myself, and no, I don't post to myself. I leave that to the AC and his three or four inner voices that seem to be going on.
First, I wasn't originally weird harold. You just don't know who I was, I have been around here much longer than you think (and no, I am not Angry Dude, though I miss him). You also missed about a half a dozen registered names (and many more unregistered) I have used here, but then again, you never were very good at figuring out who was who. I will say that I never talk to myself, I never answer myself (except as myself, to append to an idea), and I don't engage in being misleading. Sometimes the other names are just there to see what the reaction is to the same comments coming from a different name would be, which is why I so enjoy idiots like RD going off on me only because it is me, and then having a very social discussion with me as someone else, because he hasn't figured it out.
My businesses are successful, and have paid for a very good living for the last 14 or 15 years. Most people (you included) couldn't find the internet without a map back when people like me were already out here doing stuff. then again, you would probably think Archie and Veronica are just characters in a cartoon.
I am still waiting for the list of the "long history of professional failures" considering that the little blogs and scrape style sites you mention are all profitable. I would say that unless you have some sort of proof, you might want to take that part back, as it just isn't true.
It's a fairly ugly decision, it basically reads like pandering to the conservative Christians and the Mormons, two groups who have a significant hatred for pretty much the whole internet, it seems.
I can picture Rush Limbaugh having a celebratory OxyContin for this one.
1 - it is an original delray paperback from 1984, and I have original issue copies of Gateway as well somewhere in a box. I won't even bore you with my old Heinlein collection.
2 - public domain to me is like running to 1st base. You don't have to keep your foot on the bag to be safe. Once you touch the bag, you are there, nobody can take it away. but, 1 step before, you are still copyright and if they move the bag another 20 feet, well, you gotta leg it out.
3 - all creativity is relative. So are your aunts and uncles.
4 - Yeah boy! Flavor Flav would be proud. I knowz what time it is.
5 - Straight questions get easy answers, usually anything that starts with "hey asshole" sort of get shuffled. Just as with Lobo earlier on, I will answer any question within reason. You may not like my answer, but I will answer.
"What "exceptional circumstances" (if any) do you believe justify violating the "copyright bargain" by taking stuff BACK from the Public Domain?
(Of course, that also begs the question of whether copyright term extensions THEMSELVES represent a breach of said "bargain").
As I said before, I think that once something enters the public domain, it should stay. I can't off the top of my head think of a very good reason to claw something back, although it has happened. I am thinking an exceptional case might be an extension that isn't passed in time, say due to a filibuster, or perhaps an election that delays the work of the government.
That being said, I am also a big fan of letting sleeping dogs lie. What happened in the past has happened, perhaps we all learn from it. I think that any future copyright extension should not allow a clawback, and any copyright reduction should change the term of current work (move the bag closer, you don't have to run as far to be safe at first).
Extensions aren't really a breach of the bargain, in part because the time frame is somewhat related to useful life. Example, M*A*S*H is effectively 40 years old, and just as funny and ripe today as it was back in the day (I can still remember McLean Stevenson fishing in a swimming pool as an ad for the show on CBC during it's first run). Something might not have had a 40 year shelf life in the past, so we are entering a new sort of universe here. Basically, all of the TV from the color era is still pretty much fair game today, with a reasonable market in reruns / syndication.
To me that is part of the bargain in reverse too...
Really. Stop being such drama queens, you act like you're going to be sent to the gallows, but really you may just need to find another job. A lot of us have already survived something like that.
I'm not looking for another job, I don't work in the film or movie business. So you can save the drama for a llama, I guess.
I don't think anyone would complain if they were getting replaced with something better. You know, buy an old tear down house, get rid of it, and build a shiny new hi-rise or a great luxury home. That isn't the case here. Instead, we are ripping down a shiny hi-rise and so far the only replacement plans out there are for a tar paper shack. That isn't very logical.
To use a Mike analogy, it's like the buggy is being replaced by a square wheel cart. We aren't moving forward here. There is no reason for the buggy whip guys to go out of business if nobody is coming up with a better replacement for the buggy.
Mike's practically a saint. Unlike most of us, he seems to avoid the negativity.
Oh god, please! Half the posts on this blog seem to be "gotcha" posts against copyright holders, government agencies, and so on. Mike goes super negative, but does it in a way that you aren't even noticing it. At least recently he has dropped the "smart - dumb" thing, because that was getting really thin. Mike ain't a saint, just a Guru with a message and good slide presentation.
If there were some way to "sniff" the outside of an email or a file for copyrighted material, then it might be legal to do so. As it is, you can't tell what's in an email or a file without looking at its contents, which is the equivalent of opening the mail in your analogy, and which would make doing so a constitutional violation.
Actually, you can do it. Ports, packet size, source, etc. There are plenty of ways you can tell what is in a packet without opening the packet. You can know that there is P2P traffic, and at minimum you can shape it. Since much of what goes on is "public announce", you can use the IP address to query for files, and away you go.
You don't have to actually look at the packet content to know it's P2P, and from there, you can look at other publicly available information to discover illegal file trading.
As a law enforcement agent, you would know that this sort of combination of information would be more than enough for warrant, right?
The system needs to allow the copyright holders to rapidly identify the right people to serve and deal with under the existing legal framework. I don't make any of them into "judge and jury", I just think it is better if the right parties meet each other in a court of law, rather than playing "who is hiding behind bush #1".
I am not suggesting for a second to violate anyone's due process, in fact, I am pushing to get the right person in court to have their due process. Right now, the copyright holders are fighting the ISPs, which is pointless. The ISP should get out of the way and be neutral, rather then being obstacles to justice.
Then due process goes all the way to the end, with the party who is charged able to get their day in court to fight the charges, rather than using the ISP as a punching bag.
Again, if it is only a small percentage of the people infringing, you might have a point. But the courts have pretty much turned file sharing in Australia into a free for all, and if everyone is downloading, who is left buying?
Nobody. Then the potential sales lost are actual sales lost, no?
Generally, the reassertion of copyright on previously public domain material is a bad thing. In my mind, it's like writing a speeding ticket on a parked car because you know it was going fast before. The logic doesn't follow.
However, in the process of extending copyright over time, there have been some cases where this has happened. I personally don't agree with it.
My feeling is that if something has hit the public domain, it stays, even if the copyright term is extended. If something is still in copyright and the term is extended, then it benefits from that extended term.
Clawing back is just horseshit, and rather dishonest.
So sorry, I can't really prove you wrong, because I don't disagree.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re:
However there are no patents in theoretical physics so Peter Higgs was able to put the two ideas together and solve the problems of both.
Had this been a practical, patent infested, field he would have been able to do nothing without getting a licence from both Goldstone and Yang and Mills. If either had turned awkward then progress would have been stymied.
It's a good story, but you miss one of the most important points, and the reason why patents generally are not a bad idea:
If nobody is using them, they are worthless.
Even if the two previous steps had been patent, they were both useless as they were. Both parties had spent time, money, and effort, and had reached a dead end. Their efforts in both cases were a "loss". For many companies, these types of "got a patent but can't use it" are negatives on the books, things that draw the company down.
So each of them would more than likely be not just willing to license their patents, but more than happy to find a way to monetize something that is otherwise a negative. heck, I wouldn't be shocked in many cases if they would sell the patents outright for less than they cost to research, because that gets rid of much of the negative on the books.
You cannot ignore the economic aspects of patents, nor can you ignore the basics of profit and loss on a company or individual's actions.
If Mr Higgs had an use for the two patents that together would make something profitable for all, it is likely that all would want to participate. If he was shrewd, he would buy the patents or license them without disclosing his concept.
Money is a great motivator, and the money tied up in a non-functioning patent is often huge.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point exactly is this: They citizen (copyright holder) shouldn't have to prove their case entirely before they can get to this information. There needs to be an expedient way for the copyright holder to be able to get the right person in court. The Australian court judgment essentially means that the copyright holder has to entirely prove their case against the ISP, and show it all, and then MAYBE the ISP will be obliged to provide user data (if they kept it that long). It makes ISPs into road blocks to legal action, which they should never be.
As for IP addresses, as I say, you may think they are not reliable indentfiers, but outside of people hacking IPS, they are pretty hard to get around. You cannot make bidirectional communication with an IP address that isn't in the routed block. Yes, you can fake a header, but you would never get an answer back (as it wouldn't be routed to you). ISPs log user names, MAC addresses, and IPs together typically, so it is a pretty good triad of information.
Can someone hack it? All things are possible, but it would be pretty rare that all three of those things would match up, right?
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With this judgment, the copyright holders are bound to bring the ISP to court, prove their entire case of copyright infringement against a "john doe", all to only get the user information from the ISP. That process could take years. Then they go back to square 1 with the user info, and restart the entire process from zero. Another few years to get satisfaction.
Meanwhile, they have spent hundreds of thousands (if not millions) to prosecute the case, and they are likely to find the defendant at the end is like Jammie Thomas, without two cents to rub together. So they are down a ton of money, and it took years to get that SINGLE copyright violation to stop.
Essentially, the Australian courts have made it pretty much impossible to stop file trading. They just raised a price and time barrier that no longer makes it worth going through.
It creates a free for all. The chance that a user would face any legal action is negligible, which creates a free for all.
If you can't see that...
On the post: Appeals Court Says Internet Content Should Be Held To Standards Of Strictest Jurisdiction
The charges have little (pun) to do with the website, but rather with DVDs purchased and shipped to the particular conservative southern county. The prosecution rests almost entirely on that one act, as it is interstate commerce in obscene materials, and with the materials being shipping into the area, it is the standards of that area that judged the level of obscenity.
So it wasn't about the download, as much as it was about physical product shipped. Most obscenity cases are made in the same manner, because the physical product is easier to explain in court that attempting to set the standards for web traffic. This case is entirely about physical product delivered when ordered from the internet.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: ALSO
On the post: UK Whistleblowers Highlight The Dangers Of Widespread Police Surveillance/Database
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
You sort of have to read the sentence twice to catch the sneaky part of it. Basically, they are discussion that there may be increase evidence (but no hard facts) to support their claims.
If a researcher is granted a patent in an area after spending time and money to get there, it is unlikely that they are just going to put something on the shelf and ignore it. That would be like spending millions to build the world fastest F1 car,and then never taking it to a race. I am sure some people might have done it, but those would be move exceptional cases.
If anything, it would seem more likely that once a patent is granted for something, that more R&D money would be thrown in to take it from "discovery" stage to "production stage", where the people paying the bills could actually recoup their money.
The article goes against the basics of investment and return. Effectively, they would be calling biotech companies and their investors idiots.
As a side note, again this isn't all bad. If you have a strong and patent concept in one area, is it not better than other moneys from other groups are spend in other areas, to advance other parts of Bio-science? Having a number of companies doing the same thing isn't more likely to advance all of bio-science, now is it?
I also think that investors and researchers moving to other areas is a good business move. Why fight against an existing patent when you can go out and work other areas? The return on investment on duplicating someone else's work is low, the return on a new discovery is much higher (one would think). Plus society benefits from a wider scope of scientific work, rather than it all being focused in a single area. Good for business, and good for people too.
On the post: Ten Good Reasons To Buy: The Newspaper Edition
Re: Re: Re: Rule #1
I do find it interesting that the collective contributors don't seem to make very many posts. That musician dude from Toronto made a few last year, but I suspect his school work load this year is too high.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: *sigh* :(
2 - Without your skin, and muscles, your bones would be out. How would that feel?
3 - Copyright infringement isn't super evil, it's just a crime with no apparent evil being done, because you aren't taking something from in front of the shop keeper, you are doing it at home with a nameless, faceless whatever. Morally it would be very different if you had to go into Bono's house and copy the discs in front of him on his computer, because then you would know who you are stealing from. The anonymous factor makes it seem like it's not evil at all.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
How appropriate - file shares don't have malice, they just don't realize they are hurting anyone.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: What You Talkin' about, TAM?
It is one of the benefits of the internet, you can be like Roger on American Dad, throw on a wig and a fake mustache and come back as someone else two seconds later, and nobody seems to know. I find I am more likely to get people's real opinion that way.
No, I don't chat with myself, and no, I don't post to myself. I leave that to the AC and his three or four inner voices that seem to be going on.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, I wasn't originally weird harold. You just don't know who I was, I have been around here much longer than you think (and no, I am not Angry Dude, though I miss him). You also missed about a half a dozen registered names (and many more unregistered) I have used here, but then again, you never were very good at figuring out who was who. I will say that I never talk to myself, I never answer myself (except as myself, to append to an idea), and I don't engage in being misleading. Sometimes the other names are just there to see what the reaction is to the same comments coming from a different name would be, which is why I so enjoy idiots like RD going off on me only because it is me, and then having a very social discussion with me as someone else, because he hasn't figured it out.
My businesses are successful, and have paid for a very good living for the last 14 or 15 years. Most people (you included) couldn't find the internet without a map back when people like me were already out here doing stuff. then again, you would probably think Archie and Veronica are just characters in a cartoon.
I am still waiting for the list of the "long history of professional failures" considering that the little blogs and scrape style sites you mention are all profitable. I would say that unless you have some sort of proof, you might want to take that part back, as it just isn't true.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Internet Content Should Be Held To Standards Of Strictest Jurisdiction
I can picture Rush Limbaugh having a celebratory OxyContin for this one.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Helpful links
2 - public domain to me is like running to 1st base. You don't have to keep your foot on the bag to be safe. Once you touch the bag, you are there, nobody can take it away. but, 1 step before, you are still copyright and if they move the bag another 20 feet, well, you gotta leg it out.
3 - all creativity is relative. So are your aunts and uncles.
4 - Yeah boy! Flavor Flav would be proud. I knowz what time it is.
5 - Straight questions get easy answers, usually anything that starts with "hey asshole" sort of get shuffled. Just as with Lobo earlier on, I will answer any question within reason. You may not like my answer, but I will answer.
"What "exceptional circumstances" (if any) do you believe justify violating the "copyright bargain" by taking stuff BACK from the Public Domain?
(Of course, that also begs the question of whether copyright term extensions THEMSELVES represent a breach of said "bargain").
As I said before, I think that once something enters the public domain, it should stay. I can't off the top of my head think of a very good reason to claw something back, although it has happened. I am thinking an exceptional case might be an extension that isn't passed in time, say due to a filibuster, or perhaps an election that delays the work of the government.
That being said, I am also a big fan of letting sleeping dogs lie. What happened in the past has happened, perhaps we all learn from it. I think that any future copyright extension should not allow a clawback, and any copyright reduction should change the term of current work (move the bag closer, you don't have to run as far to be safe at first).
Extensions aren't really a breach of the bargain, in part because the time frame is somewhat related to useful life. Example, M*A*S*H is effectively 40 years old, and just as funny and ripe today as it was back in the day (I can still remember McLean Stevenson fishing in a swimming pool as an ad for the show on CBC during it's first run). Something might not have had a 40 year shelf life in the past, so we are entering a new sort of universe here. Basically, all of the TV from the color era is still pretty much fair game today, with a reasonable market in reruns / syndication.
To me that is part of the bargain in reverse too...
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not looking for another job, I don't work in the film or movie business. So you can save the drama for a llama, I guess.
I don't think anyone would complain if they were getting replaced with something better. You know, buy an old tear down house, get rid of it, and build a shiny new hi-rise or a great luxury home. That isn't the case here. Instead, we are ripping down a shiny hi-rise and so far the only replacement plans out there are for a tar paper shack. That isn't very logical.
To use a Mike analogy, it's like the buggy is being replaced by a square wheel cart. We aren't moving forward here. There is no reason for the buggy whip guys to go out of business if nobody is coming up with a better replacement for the buggy.
Mike's practically a saint. Unlike most of us, he seems to avoid the negativity.
Oh god, please! Half the posts on this blog seem to be "gotcha" posts against copyright holders, government agencies, and so on. Mike goes super negative, but does it in a way that you aren't even noticing it. At least recently he has dropped the "smart - dumb" thing, because that was getting really thin. Mike ain't a saint, just a Guru with a message and good slide presentation.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
Actually, you can do it. Ports, packet size, source, etc. There are plenty of ways you can tell what is in a packet without opening the packet. You can know that there is P2P traffic, and at minimum you can shape it. Since much of what goes on is "public announce", you can use the IP address to query for files, and away you go.
You don't have to actually look at the packet content to know it's P2P, and from there, you can look at other publicly available information to discover illegal file trading.
As a law enforcement agent, you would know that this sort of combination of information would be more than enough for warrant, right?
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: TAM is SPAM
The system needs to allow the copyright holders to rapidly identify the right people to serve and deal with under the existing legal framework. I don't make any of them into "judge and jury", I just think it is better if the right parties meet each other in a court of law, rather than playing "who is hiding behind bush #1".
I am not suggesting for a second to violate anyone's due process, in fact, I am pushing to get the right person in court to have their due process. Right now, the copyright holders are fighting the ISPs, which is pointless. The ISP should get out of the way and be neutral, rather then being obstacles to justice.
Then due process goes all the way to the end, with the party who is charged able to get their day in court to fight the charges, rather than using the ISP as a punching bag.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody. Then the potential sales lost are actual sales lost, no?
On the post: Ten Good Reasons To Buy: The Newspaper Edition
Re: Re:
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Helpful links
However, in the process of extending copyright over time, there have been some cases where this has happened. I personally don't agree with it.
My feeling is that if something has hit the public domain, it stays, even if the copyright term is extended. If something is still in copyright and the term is extended, then it benefits from that extended term.
Clawing back is just horseshit, and rather dishonest.
So sorry, I can't really prove you wrong, because I don't disagree.
On the post: Ten Good Reasons To Buy: The Newspaper Edition
Next >>