Getting opinions from Average Joe and Terry Hart is analogous to relying on the medical student and the guy who graduated from medical school last year (aka "the intern") to decide whether to operate when you've been diagnosed with cancer. Yes, they might know more than those of us who are laymen, but their experience level is zilch.
If copyright lasts a lifetime beyond the lifetime of the guy who labored to produce the work, then that means that the people who own the rights to that copyrighted material don't have to do any work of their own after the original author is dead and gone. They can sit on their hind ends while other people serve them.
Explain to me again how this promotes productivity.
I think most people have an intuitive sense that this is wrong, and that's a large part of why you are losing public opinion.
I'm not too sure I want to get very far comparing slavery and the current IP situation, but lets observe that in the first half of the 19th century, wealthy Southerner's were able to do exactly that -- sit around while other served them. Now look where that got them. Economically they were steam-rolled by the North.
"...how these foreign books being removed from public domain are a First Amendment issue."
The free speech issue is whether the speech of individuals who performed or distributed public domain works prior to 1994 should have the distribution of those same works restrained from 1994 onward -- 1994 being the date when some works within the public domain returned to copyrighted status
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sovereign immunity precludes such a claim
""Sadly, it is true. It is the same way that someone can be sent to death row and executed for crimes, yet be later proved to be not guilty. The action at the time was "rightful", even if it was not right in the long run. There is such a huge difference...
You realize of course that your cohort today, Mr. Green Snowflake, has argued here on other days essentially that the law itself is the definition of right -- as if lawful always equals morally good.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sovereign immunity precludes such a claim
Genesis 18
"26 So the Lord said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.” .... ... ...And He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.” 33 So the Lord went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham"
Well, there's the rule from God himself. If there are only 10 innocent people in a city, you have to spare it
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sovereign immunity precludes such a claim
Yes... and Anne Boleyn's head was rightfully separated from her shoulders because it was done in accordance with the law at that time... (plus she hadn't delivered on that promise to give Henry his male heir so she really, really deserved it).
"One more example of why just because you can do something from a legal standpoint, it doesn't mean you should "
Ah, but let us never forget ...billable hours
This is also just one more example (of many) where a company that engages a law firm to take care of their interests, and then loses track of where those interests end, ...and their attorney's interests continue.
"Wouldn't the complex only get seized if the they could prove that the complex owner was part of the problem"
That's correct. There is drug activity that goes on in apartment complexes all the time, especially now that it has become known that you can mix up your own meth in a 2 liter soda bottle. Where is the raft of apartment complex seizures? Where are all the innocent apartment residents with their belongings sitting on the curb?
"how many people think accused of doing it = you did it, you can see the problem here."
That might be true if only 1 or 2 sites were falsely accused. I don't think even the casual observer is going to be confused when 84,000 people appear to have a viable claim.
"You basically give up your right when you buy your ticket. If you choose to not give up your right, you have to find a different means of transportation."
The TSA is not acting as a private security contractor for private companies, i.e. the airlines. The TSA policy has the force of law, and if you recall, people have been arrested and threatened with criminal charges for resisting these search procedures. So explain again to me how the US Constitution doesn't apply.
Also, if someone blew up a boat and the same search procedures were subsequently applied on piers and docks, what will you say then? I have the right to swim if I don't like it???
"... the general tenor of the post suggests that the national law of foreign countries may be used against US businesses in those countries in matters pertaining to laws such as patent law, and that such US businesses might be surprised at the application of such laws to their in-country activities.
This is hardly "news" to US businesses, which have been dealing with just these issues for decades, and are none the worse for the wear."
Yes, but it is likely that those companies who have been dealing with this issues for decades were not the same companies which had been the driving force behind the CoC's efforts. This latter group, if I am not mistaken, is from the entertainment sector, whereas the companies who have experienced this problem (and likely will continue to deal with its consequences) are companies who either import or manufacture durable goods, in particular, the high-tech industry.
Funny, Mr. AC. You are frequently here calling any politician who disagrees with you a grand-stander, but I don't see you accusing John Morton of grand-standing when he's up there in front of cameras telling us how he's been keeping us safe at night from cyber-terrorists, child-pornographers, pirates and counterfeiters. Unlike Morton, neither Lofgren or Wyden are busy calling press conferences. They've just been standing on principle in the course of their regular Congressional activities. You must be frustrated that you haven't been able to pay them to bend their principles so they will do what they are told.
Lawsuit = publicity. Doubtless when attention is focused on ICE's activity, more people will actually start thinking about the issue and recognize it for what it is:
...Abuse of Government Power
The lack of due process won't go unnoticed. Despite what apologists have been saying here-->That the court order is all the due process needed, the common person won't believe that once they heard what happened.
1) Universities and research institutions are paying the bulk of the journal fees, so the individuals who need them often don't feel the costs personally. Certainly in public institutions, the cost of these journals is borne by the taxpayers.
2)With few exceptions, academic journals are not associated with or published by an individual university or institution. As an alternative to the current peer review systems operated by the publishing houses, the most likely entities to conduct peer review would be the many professional and specialty societies. Unfortunately, most specialty societies are already "on-the-take" through joint agreements with the publishing houses. The society lends its name and prestige to a journal, and in return the publishers funnel cash to the society. In other words, making logical changes in the way academic research is disseminated and published would require a major reorganization of funding for most professional societies. As it stands now, journals are often the most important source of funds for some societies.
3)The concept of a wiki is strongly associated in the public eye with Wikipedia. Many academics remains suspicious, if not downright hostile to Wikipedia, and by extension are uncomfortable with wikis
4)Never underestimate the power of inertia. Often people don't bother to change until they have to change. Right now, as long as the money issues continue to be dealt with as per Items #1 and #2, then there is no impetus to create a new system.
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Again Explains How And Why Domain Seizures Violate The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, they might know more than those of us who are laymen, but their experience level is zilch.
On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Explain to me again how this promotes productivity.
I think most people have an intuitive sense that this is wrong, and that's a large part of why you are losing public opinion.
I'm not too sure I want to get very far comparing slavery and the current IP situation, but lets observe that in the first half of the 19th century, wealthy Southerner's were able to do exactly that -- sit around while other served them. Now look where that got them. Economically they were steam-rolled by the North.
On the post: How To Get Elected Officials To Actually Hear Our Worries About Censorship: Speak Up!
Writing Letters to the Supreme Court
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Important Copyright Case: Will Review First Amendment vs. Copyright Issue
Re:
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sovereign immunity precludes such a claim
On the post: Just Because You Don't Like Something Online, Doesn't Mean We Should Blame Third Parties
Re: Re: RIP
BTW, don't you mean 5-4, not 6-5. There are only 9 members of Scotus.
On the post: Just Because You Don't Like Something Online, Doesn't Mean We Should Blame Third Parties
Re:
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sovereign immunity precludes such a claim
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sovereign immunity precludes such a claim
On the post: NY Times Lawyers Shut Down Blog Promoting The NY Times
bill for it-- just because you can
This is also just one more example (of many) where a company that engages a law firm to take care of their interests, and then loses track of where those interests end,
...and their attorney's interests continue.
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is drug activity that goes on in apartment complexes all the time, especially now that it has become known that you can mix up your own meth in a 2 liter soda bottle.
Where is the raft of apartment complex seizures?
Where are all the innocent apartment residents with their belongings sitting on the curb?
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that the Feds have a safe-harbor against having to worry about safe-harbors, so long as they are chasing CP?
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Re: Re: Publicity
I don't think even the casual observer is going to be confused when 84,000 people appear to have a viable claim.
On the post: ChurchHatesTucker's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One more question though, how much did you pay for Ronald Dumsfeld?
On the post: Lazy TSA Agents Let Thousands Of Bags Through Unscreened (But They Gotta See Us Naked)
Re: Re: Laziness or civil disobedience?
So explain again to me how the US Constitution doesn't apply.
Also, if someone blew up a boat and the same search procedures were subsequently applied on piers and docks, what will you say then?
I have the right to swim if I don't like it???
On the post: Be Careful What You Wish For: Taiwan Using US Pressured Patent Laws Against US Companies
Re:
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Re:
Unlike Morton, neither Lofgren or Wyden are busy calling press conferences. They've just been standing on principle in the course of their regular Congressional activities.
You must be frustrated that you haven't been able to pay them to bend their principles so they will do what they are told.
On the post: Be Careful What You Wish For: Taiwan Using US Pressured Patent Laws Against US Companies
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Doubtless when attention is focused on ICE's activity, more people will actually start thinking about the issue and recognize it for what it is:
...Abuse of Government Power
The lack of due process won't go unnoticed.
Despite what apologists have been saying here-->That the court order is all the due process needed, the common person won't believe that once they heard what happened.
On the post: The Artificially High Price Of Academic Journals And How It Impacts Everyone
Re:
1) Universities and research institutions are paying the bulk of the journal fees, so the individuals who need them often don't feel the costs personally. Certainly in public institutions, the cost of these journals is borne by the taxpayers.
2)With few exceptions, academic journals are not associated with or published by an individual university or institution. As an alternative to the current peer review systems operated by the publishing houses, the most likely entities to conduct peer review would be the many professional and specialty societies. Unfortunately, most specialty societies are already "on-the-take" through joint agreements with the publishing houses. The society lends its name and prestige to a journal, and in return the publishers funnel cash to the society. In other words, making logical changes in the way academic research is disseminated and published would require a major reorganization of funding for most professional societies. As it stands now, journals are often the most important source of funds for some societies.
3)The concept of a wiki is strongly associated in the public eye with Wikipedia. Many academics remains suspicious, if not downright hostile to Wikipedia, and by extension are uncomfortable with wikis
4)Never underestimate the power of inertia. Often people don't bother to change until they have to change. Right now, as long as the money issues continue to be dealt with as per Items #1 and #2, then there is no impetus to create a new system.
Next >>