"Copyright to the question posed by the third party would belong to that third party unless the person who posed the question"
Uh, how does a spoken question qualify for copyright at all? The 'copyright' is the recording and not the spoken words correct?
If the person asking the question is also the creator of the recording I get that they own the copyright on the 'recording' but not the words spoken themselves. And if there was an agreement to prohibit recordings of said call, then regardless, the recorder does not have the right to post it.
Of course logic and the Streisand Effect aren't usually used together either...
Without commenting on whether it should be released or not..
"To bar others from making this better, you're effectively relying on an old mousetrap for a bigger mouse. That leaves other parties to take away your advantage and keeps you stuck in the potty instead of planning your next campaign."
I would disagree. If your side is 'better' at building something from 'scratch', then keeping the other side from reaping your benefits isn't a bad idea. (Since obviously the GOP would have the same start position if it was from Rove)
Yes you have to reinvent the wheel next time, but if you're better at that, then it's still an advantage.
Without commenting on whether it should be released or not..
"To bar others from making this better, you're effectively relying on an old mousetrap for a bigger mouse. That leaves other parties to take away your advantage and keeps you stuck in the potty instead of planning your next campaign."
I would disagree. If your side is 'better' at building something from 'scratch', then keeping the other side from reaping your benefits isn't a bad idea. (Since obviously the GOP would have the same start position if it was from Rove)
Yes you have to reinvent the wheel next time, but if you're better at that, then it's still an advantage.
Actually, banning things *does* work. We banned lead in water and products and funny enough, lead levels have dropped.
But you do need to actually 'ban' certain types of guns, like the assault rifles. They don't serve a useful purpose for any normal activity. Not hunting, not target shooting, nothing.
So yes, ban those and the high capacity clips. 10 shots vs 25-30 is a big big difference in lethality and the ability to stop someone.
Re: China consumes more than HALF the world's cement.
China is a communist country that realized capitalist markets are better and so they control them, but let them provide the benefits.
They aren't growing like gangbusters because of 5 yr planning. They're growing because they're allowing the markets to work.
That and it's easy to build a 3 Gorges Dam when the gov't just says 'do it'. Big things can be done by all manner of governments. With top down direction, if not control, though you run a much higher risk of marching off in the wrong direction.
I would argue that TOO STRONG IP laws are bad, just as None or too weak laws are bad.
If you want to argue the premise for copyright providing incentive to artists to better the public good is wrong on its face, that's one thing and I don't know that most even here would agree with that.
However, wildly overreaching broad IP laws clearly are a hindrance to innovation and creativity. But 'some' IP laws are necessary. The physical world demands them, the digital world not nearly as much due to the infinite nature of its 'resources'.
Just because Google provides the capability doesn't mean that there *is* demand for it. Just that now in advertising Google would be faster and people would want that.
They completely buried the lead though:
"Our infrastructure has the ability to provide much faster speeds today."
So point blank they could do more today and are choosing not too. Hence it's in the ground and wouldn't cost them a damned penny to turn it on.
Because copyright terms have been made longer multiple times in the last 100 years, I can't use the "I have a dream speech" to make something new yet; I am restricted or, ahem, 'hindered', in what I can do with it until it enters the public domain.
Longer copyright terms means more time spent being 'hindered'.
On the post: NJ Gubenatorial Candidate Speaks Out Against Six Strikes: ISP Shouldn't Decide What You Can Download
Re: Re:
On the post: Company Tries To Delete Recording Of Exec Cursing Analyst During Conference Call Via Copyright Claim
Copyright on spoken words?
Uh, how does a spoken question qualify for copyright at all? The 'copyright' is the recording and not the spoken words correct?
If the person asking the question is also the creator of the recording I get that they own the copyright on the 'recording' but not the words spoken themselves. And if there was an agreement to prohibit recordings of said call, then regardless, the recorder does not have the right to post it.
Of course logic and the Streisand Effect aren't usually used together either...
On the post: California Senator Leland Yee Tells Gamers To Shut Up And Let The Grown Ups Talk
Re:
Dunno, Congress lately seems to be nothing BUT grandstanding politicians...
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Re: Irony
"To bar others from making this better, you're effectively relying on an old mousetrap for a bigger mouse. That leaves other parties to take away your advantage and keeps you stuck in the potty instead of planning your next campaign."
I would disagree. If your side is 'better' at building something from 'scratch', then keeping the other side from reaping your benefits isn't a bad idea. (Since obviously the GOP would have the same start position if it was from Rove)
Yes you have to reinvent the wheel next time, but if you're better at that, then it's still an advantage.
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Re: Irony
"To bar others from making this better, you're effectively relying on an old mousetrap for a bigger mouse. That leaves other parties to take away your advantage and keeps you stuck in the potty instead of planning your next campaign."
I would disagree. If your side is 'better' at building something from 'scratch', then keeping the other side from reaping your benefits isn't a bad idea. (Since obviously the GOP would have the same start position if it was from Rove)
Yes you have to reinvent the wheel next time, but if you're better at that, then it's still an advantage.
On the post: Police Use HIPAA To Justify Charging Citizen For Recording Them
Prison time
On the post: Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Granted this is usually/generally covered by the ASCAP licensing, but the principle is the same.
On the post: Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
Re: Re:
There are downsides to having your work associated against your will...
I'm all in favor of copyright being drastically reduced, but 'upside' associations such as Vimeo's lip dubs aren't the only side of association.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re:
On the post: Apple's Blocks Popular Kickstarter Project [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stupid reason, cheap PR stunt for Kickstarter rival
So there's more than a little self interest in his 'method' of doing refunds.
On the post: NRA: To Protect The 2nd Amendment, We Must Trample The 1st & 4th Amendments
Re:
But you do need to actually 'ban' certain types of guns, like the assault rifles. They don't serve a useful purpose for any normal activity. Not hunting, not target shooting, nothing.
So yes, ban those and the high capacity clips. 10 shots vs 25-30 is a big big difference in lethality and the ability to stop someone.
On the post: NRA: To Protect The 2nd Amendment, We Must Trample The 1st & 4th Amendments
Re: Was Bertrand Russell insane?
On the post: NRA: To Protect The 2nd Amendment, We Must Trample The 1st & 4th Amendments
Re: NRA proposal
Besides, how many times have you heard that the 'armed' airline marshal was the one who subdued the problem passengers?
It seems to me the vast majority of people 'solving' the problem are the other passengers...much like Flight 93.
Reinforced cockpit doors and the knowledge that if you don't fight them you're going to likely die are what has made flying safer.
On the post: The Fastest Growing Emerging Economies Are Also Those With The Weakest IP Laws
Re: China consumes more than HALF the world's cement.
They aren't growing like gangbusters because of 5 yr planning. They're growing because they're allowing the markets to work.
That and it's easy to build a 3 Gorges Dam when the gov't just says 'do it'. Big things can be done by all manner of governments. With top down direction, if not control, though you run a much higher risk of marching off in the wrong direction.
On the post: The Fastest Growing Emerging Economies Are Also Those With The Weakest IP Laws
Re:
If you want to argue the premise for copyright providing incentive to artists to better the public good is wrong on its face, that's one thing and I don't know that most even here would agree with that.
However, wildly overreaching broad IP laws clearly are a hindrance to innovation and creativity. But 'some' IP laws are necessary. The physical world demands them, the digital world not nearly as much due to the infinite nature of its 'resources'.
On the post: Time Warner Cable Doesn't Think There's Demand For Google Fiber
Re: Google can have the market and spend the money
"Our infrastructure has the ability to provide much faster speeds today."
Comcast already did the wiring. They just aren't turning it on. BIG difference.
On the post: Time Warner Cable Doesn't Think There's Demand For Google Fiber
Re: TWC can't keep their story straight
Just because Google provides the capability doesn't mean that there *is* demand for it. Just that now in advertising Google would be faster and people would want that.
They completely buried the lead though:
"Our infrastructure has the ability to provide much faster speeds today."
So point blank they could do more today and are choosing not too. Hence it's in the ground and wouldn't cost them a damned penny to turn it on.
On the post: Corruption Laundering: The Art Of Manipulating Regulations To Block Innovation
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Corruption Laundering: The Art Of Manipulating Regulations To Block Innovation
Re: Re: Re:
Because copyright terms have been made longer multiple times in the last 100 years, I can't use the "I have a dream speech" to make something new yet; I am restricted or, ahem, 'hindered', in what I can do with it until it enters the public domain.
Longer copyright terms means more time spent being 'hindered'.
On the post: Corruption Laundering: The Art Of Manipulating Regulations To Block Innovation
Re: And let's not forget the laundering that goes on here
We're just arguing for some fairness and some updating to reflect modern reality.
You are arguing for a fantasy land that doesn't exist.
Next >>