Copyright law, like patent law, is only about squeezing as much money as possible from others for as long as possible on ideas that are terribly obvious or if unique aren't shared with enough detail to help the rest of society.
The truly maddening part is that most of the entities holding those rights or benefiting from these byzantine laws, aren't even the the creators. Corporations, collection societies, and of course the ever present lawyers.
Promote the progress of .... well anything other than profits for the select few, isn't a part of 'intellectual property' law.
'Intellectual property' is poised to become the next 'war on drugs' or alcohol prohibition. Criminalizing a large swath of the population to the detriment of society in general.
If only we could get those in office to actually represent their constituents (I mean you and me, _not_ the corporate interests that pour money into their pockets). They would see that what's best for us, our shared culture and the economic health of the nation as a whole, would be a drastic scaling back of all aspects of 'intellectual property' law, if not an outright abolishment of same.
Rights are only rights when they are difficult to make use of.
Why is it that corporations only want to "allow" you to have a right, when that right is difficult to actually exercise? (setting aside for the moment the lunacy of requiring some one else to "allow" you to exercise a 'right'.)
Try this little thought experiment:
A show is aired on television (free OTA).
You purchase this nifty little machine called a VCR.
You use said VCR to tape said show.
Media producers go ballistic (Boston strangler references and all).
Supreme Court rules time-shifting, media-shifting for personal use LEGAL. (Hooray!).
Set VCR to tape show when you're away, O.K.
Ask wife to tape show for you. O.K.
Give taped show to grandfather to watch (he still can't get it to stop blinking 12:00). O.K.
Ask someone at the office, if they taped last nights show so you can watch it, your VCR broke and you bought a new one. O.K.
Fast forward to today.... DVR replaces VCR, DVD+-/R/RW or files replaces VHS tapes.
Copy show for yourself? Maybe O.K., maybe 'protected by broadcast flag', maybe DVR set to wipe it 24 hours later, whether you've watched it or not.
Have your wife copy show? Maybe (see above) At least as your wife she doesn't have to testify against you.
A copy for grandpa? If you can get a copy onto a disk or file, and you walk it over, maybe. If someone catches you though..... :(
Asking someone if they have a copy you could watch? $150,000+ lawsuit.
What the @#)(!*@$!&#) ?
You could do the same Gedankenexperiment with music, but you'd have to include mixtapes, and taping off the radio.
Same result.
Lots of us (and I'm dating myself here) grew up with it being perfectly legal to swap VHS copies, mix tapes, tape off the TV or radio. Then the N.E.T. Act (No Electronic Theft Act 1997) made non-commercial copyright infringement for personal use illegal. The DMCA (The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998) made it trivially easy for media companies to prevent you from even using your rights. A simple, not terribly effective, digital lock and now magically 'legal' non-infringing or otherwise Fair-Use of media that you own was a crime. They didn't say you couldn't make that legal backup, but if you broke their 'encryption' you could still go to jail. And to add insult to injury, it's now illegal to talk about, or build the means to actually make use of your rights.
It's like saying you have the right to bear arms, as long as you can build the guns yourself, and you can't tell anyone else how you did it...
So as long as it was impractical for you to make use of your rights, it was O.K. But as soon as it becomes easy and convenient, it's illegal.
I guess Prohibition didn't teach these people anything. Why do people 'break the law' en masse? Because what they are doing wasn't illegal, and shouldn't be illegal.
I guess I still don't see the point of a cell phone.
Too expensive, too limiting, too fragile. I'll use one occasionally when I travel now that pay phones are hard to find and prepaid cards don't reliably give you the number of minutes they advertise on the card.
When I can get a cell phone that you can drop/get damp without ruining it, that doesn't cost hundreds of dollars, and gives you unlimited minutes for everyone in the house for less than (putting an actual less than symbol in the comment truncates the post apparently) 50 dollars a month the let me know.
I guess I still don't see the point of a cell phone.
Too expensive, too limiting, too fragile. I'll use one occasionally when I travel now that pay phones are hard to find and prepaid cards don't reliably give you the number of minutes they advertise on the card.
When I can get a cell phone that you can drop/get damp without ruining it, that doesn't cost hundreds of dollars, and gives you unlimited minutes for everyone in the house for
Lets see, people who infringe are 'low lifes'. They should have 'just stopped buying/using/enjoying' content. Blah....
It seems as if everyone who claims people who share content are stealing/infringing/low lives/pirates/.... just don't get it. Most people who 'share content' don't believe that they are doing anything wrong. It's not wrong morally, ethically, or spiritually. It just so happens to be illegal, at the moment.
It's only illegal because vested interests are using the law to make boatloads of cash. They are in control of the government (by the corporation, for the corporation) and pass laws that benefit themselves. If confronted with a nonsensical law, the common response is to ignore it.
If a law was passed tomorrow that made it illegal to use certain words without paying a 'rights holder' (You think I'm kidding. If singing to yourself requires a license payment, speaking is gonna be next.) These rights holders just happen to be major corporations. Do you honestly think the average person is going to count up his words and send some organization a check at the end of the day? Good luck with that.
If people don't agree with the word tax, they should just refrain from speaking (according to 'Sam I am') and let the word licensing industry die a legal death.
Just what kind of pirate goes about using words without a license. Don't they realize all of the hard work that went into creating those words? Just think of all the people that they are putting out of business. Why I hear the corn farmers are suffering terribly.
Yea, right....
Most people think of copyright (on every little thing, into perpetuity - minus a day) as nonsensical.
People understand stealing. That's why your average copyright infringer wouldn't for a moment consider walking out of a store with an unpaid for DVD, or CD, or book. That's wrong. I can't take some _THING_ without paying for it. On the other hand, it's perfectly natural to share what you have, or to 'go in halves' with some one else if you can't afford it.
The only thing that's changed over the years is that technology has progressed to the point were we can make copies of things, easier and cheaper.
First there was stories, songs, know how. Someone learned it and taught others the story, the song, how to do it.
Then there was writing, books, parchment. Someone, or lots of someones bought/borrowed a book and a copy was made, may be of all of it, maybe only a part.
Then there was recorders, and photocopiers. Someone bought a book or went to the library and used the photocopier. Someone bought a record, or put their tape recorder up to the radio and copied a few songs. You taped a television show this afternoon and watched it that evening. If your neighbor missed it, you lent/gave her your VHS tape. Still no problem (at least as far as common sense would have it).
Now at this point, copyright infringement done for personal use, without making over $1000, was completely legal. You could make a mix tape and give it to your friends legally. The Supreme Court gave us the Sony Betamax decision which prohibited the content industries from dictating technology.
Then we had CD's and personal computers. BBS (Bulletin Board Systems for you youngins) and AOL. Things are even easier to copy. I still have an older stereo system LP/cassette tape/CD player. It has synchronous taping to make it easier to create copies from CD's and other tapes.
Most 'boom boxes' had built in microphones to let you record whatever you wanted. (Bask for a moment in the forgotten freedom.)
Then the world started getting crazy. The No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act) made infringement illegal even if it was not for profit. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DCMA) was passed, making it illegal to bypass any half hearted attempt at copy-protection. Even if you were legally allowed to make that copy (back up/time shifting/ etc.). At the same time we have the Internet, DVD burners, scanners, multi terabyte hard drives.
It's now easier than ever to share content. Instead of asking your neighbor if they could tape that episode of South Park for you, you could see if anyone else on the planet had, and if they did, could give you a copy.
Instead of borrowing that tape from your brother and making yourself a copy. You could check if anyone on the planet could give you a copy.
Unfortunately, the people who were making millions out of having you buy an Lp, then rebuy a cassette then rebuy a CD wanted to keep making their millions. So they kept getting laws passed. Like extending copyright to everything, not just those things that were registered. Like making copyright last for 100+ years, instead of 28. Like allowing patents on math, genes, software, and exercising your cat.
You share what you have with others, not making a hundred boot leg disks and selling them out of your trunk, just passing around the digital equivalent of mix tapes, and VHS tapped television shows and suddenly you're a 'pirate', your a 'thief', a 'low life'. You're potentially on the hook for millions of dollars. If you walked into Wal-Mart and stole a CD, you'd get a fine (couple hundred dollars max) maybe a day or two in jail. You share a song with other like minded individuals. A copy from your hard drive, to their hard drive. No one's stolen anything from anyone. You're looking at a six or seven figure fine?!?!?
It boggles the mind. It doesn't compute. So most people deal with it the only way they know how. They ignore it.
The only people stealing anything are the content industries that are stealing our history, our culture, our sense of identity. Locking up pictures, melodies, even words trying to extort us into paying to express ourselves.
The only sane result is to have copyright/patents repealed. No one can with a straight face honor a copyright system that says every utterance in a fixed medium is covered by copyright for more than a hundred years. No one with a straight face can honor a system that claims exercising your cat with a laser pointer, doing math a certain way, having blue eyes, deserves a patent.
The only thing is how much collateral damage will be allowed to happen before it's washed away.
Remember we once had a constitutional amendment that prohibited people from consuming alcohol. Just how well did that work out? Even grandma kept a pint '...strictly for medicinal purposes...'.
The 'intellectual property' (I feel dirty just typing it) system has gotten to the point that it's farcical.
Learn a song, and teach it to your friends and family.
CNet: Piracy costs software industry $51 billion in '09
CNet's at it as well.
Here's the email I sent to the article's author. It only took a little legwork to get his email address. CNet doesn't let you comment without having an account, and while they will let you 'email' (their little javascript applet) someone just fine, they won't let you send it unless you log in. Of course they don't tell you that until you fill in the captcha to send it.
--------------
Dear Lance,
Why are you reporting the IDC / BSA numbers as if they were facts? The GAO has reported that the numbers from previous IDC/BSA reports and the assumptions they are based upon are baseless. The IDC has previously accused the BSA of 'misrepresenting' their findings and a similar report referenced in Canada was blasted for being basically made up.
Nowhere in your article do you discuss the assumptions or methodology of this report. If it is like their previous piracy reports, it starts with the assumption that every copy that wasn't purchased was a lost sale and goes downhill from there.
You are doing your readers a severe disservice in simply parroting the IDC/BSA numbers.
Please do some research before you simply re-post what is basically BSA's propaganda. A correction or followup to your recent referenced article would be helpful.
Here's a good place to start in finding critics of that annual report.
Price/Value & copyright as the means to never having to work again....
While this is probably going to be as useful as discussing philosophy with a gold fish......
Value vs. Price:
Breathable air (w/Oxygen) - extremely valuable.
Breathable air (w/Oxygen) - priceless. As in I don't expect to pay for it.
Life itself = most valuable thing I can think of.
Life itself = $0.00 (unless you are talking to health insurance companies ;).
Copyright = promoting the creation of Art (plus other things not germane to this discussion).
It's supposed to be a trade of a _limited_ monopoly on copying for a _limited_ time to encourage people to produce more. The public looses the ability to make free use and copies for a short time in exchange for getting a richer public domain.
What people like Technopolitical are suggesting is that it's all about making money from what you had produced indefinitely. That's the _opposite_ of the purpose of copyright for those of you who have been paying attention.
Under Technopolitical's world view you create once and never have to create again as you should be able to keep collecting money from that one thing. The end result is _less_ works being produced. I guess that's what you get when people and corporations develop a sense of entitlement and a welfare mentality. Sad.... truly sad.
Personally I think the closest analogy to a lyricist or songwriter is architect. Just like the architect she is often the designer for the builders (performers) to create buildings (music). Just as some people can design and build their own house (singer/songwriter) they can be the same person. Often though they are paid to create blueprints (lyrics - melodies) for others to use.
Now if an architect does a really good job of designing a building (say the plans for a Wallyworld store) she doesn't get paid every time Wallyworld builds a new store using those plans. She gets paid according to the agreement she had with the people she created them for.
Even sillier would be the thought that if other people went to a web site and looked up how many stairs there are in a Wallyworld store (you know to settle a bet), or wanted to see how the bathrooms were laid out because they were building their own store and thought that was a particularly good idea they way they are laid out in Wallyworld stores. That the original architect should get a cut.
Unfortunately, people like Technopolitical seem to think that every time anyone references, makes a mention of, or thinks about lyrics that the songwriter/lyricist should get a cut. The recording industry talks about the "entitlement mentality" of people who share files... 'pot meet kettle'.
The lyricist did a job and got paid what he thought it was worth. If he didn't then he should have taken the job in the first place. The thought that someone else can make money off of your work doesn't entitle him to a cut in perpetuity. You want to get more money, then produce more. If your work is so popular then you should be able to demand a higher pay for your next piece of work, whether it's plans for a house or lyrics to a song.
Why are computer/software/electronics firms allowed to get away with things that people would never stand for in another sector?
To use the woefully overused automobile comparison;
If Ford required that you could only use Ford authorized auto parts, Ford gasoline, Ford air fresheners, in your Ford car, no one would be surprised at the lawsuits flying fast and free. Most everyone would expect Ford to loose and loose big.
If Apple does it with iPods and iPads, and iPhones people come out of the woodwork to defend Apple. When Microsoft does it (such is the subject of this thread), we hear the same sort of mush mouth responses.
Consumers are told that if they don't like it they should stop buying products from that company. That the Company has the God given right to lock anyone out of their walled garden that they want.
Autos vs. Electronics
Forced to use dealer parts? No Yes
Forced to use dealer store? No Yes
Have existing features removed? No Yes
Break existing compatibility? No Yes
There is nothing magical about computers or electronics that we should be allowing companies to engage in such heinous behavior. Just because it's easier to do with computers and electronics is no reason that consumers should be forced to put up with it.
Just as it would be silly for someone to tell you the solution to Ford not allowing you to use a non Ford tire on your car is to stop buying Fords, it's equally unhelpful to say that the solution to Microsoft not allowing you to use non Microsoft memory cards in your XBox360 is to not buy an XBox360.
Perhaps I'm just getting old, but why does this piece of seeming 'common sense' just seem terribly uncommon?
At some point I would think that it would be cheaper to just GPS tag the entire population. After all it shouldn't matter what car your driving if you're speeding.
I know some of you are probably thinking, about the passengers. Well just like those bastions of self control (the Chinese gov., the RIAA, MPAA, BIAA, etc.) introducing secondary liability would be a 'wonderful thing'. The passengers would be 'encouraged' to make sure the driver isn't speeding so that they don't get a ticket.
I mean isn't this what all the cctv cameras and auto plate recognition systems, GPS etc. are leading to?
Just like the great British National ID Card, it will be 'entirely optional' initially. It will only be mandatory for those working with 'vulnerable populations' and those pesky foreigners of course....
It seems that government believes it's purpose is to secure the persons, privileges, and wealth of the moneyed elite. What better to way to achieve that goal than to have the common man go about his day in fear of everywhere he goes, everything he does, and best of all anything he's thinking about.
I could be mistaken here, hopefully some of your readers from the other side of the pond can chime in.
I was under the impression that it wasn't possible for consumers to waive their consumer protections, regardless of what any contract might say.
If that's the case (and it should be in the states as well) then Sony can point to their license agreement until they are blue in the face. It wouldn't be worth the bits they use to store it.
This is just the decision of a few years ago coming back to bite them in the nether region.
Cable Internet lobbied for, and got, reclassified as title 1 "information service" which the FCC has very little power over, rather than the "common carrier" title 2 that they actually are.
The FCC has much broader powers to regulate industries classified as "common carriers".
This allowed the Cable companies not to have to share their lines, nor follow anything resembling network neutrality. Shortly there after the telco's; Bell Atlantic, etc. sued to have their internet services also reclassified as "information systems" and that was the day that CLEC's providing broadband died. The telco's were no longer required to share their lines.
At the time they claimed that 'competition' would ensure more investment, more choice, faster speeds and all the rest of the usual pack of lies we've heard over the years.
Result; little to no competition, limited investment, limited penetration, speeds that are the laughing stock of the first world, and ISP's that play all sorts of havoc with your data, simply because they can.
Now that they (the FCC) want to actually DO something, they can't. They've inadvertently emasculated themselves.
The first thing they (FCC) need to do is to properly classify them (ISP's) as "common carriers". Then they need to ensure that they act like one. If Comcast doesn't think they'll make enough money they are free to go out of business.
If working as reliable dumb pipes isn't profitable 'enough' then perhaps the information-highway needs to be run like the physical highway.
In any event consumers and other businesses should be able to get equitable, stable, reasonable means to conduct their lives and their business.
Actually the patentable part of your description isn't the genes themselves (you've admitted that they already occur) it's the machine to _purify_ them.
If Eli Whitney were Myriad then he would have been granted a patent on cotton, no the cotton gin. After all what's what a cotton gin is right, a device to purify cotton. I may exists in nature, but he came up with a more efficient way to isolate it. By your reasoning he should have been granted the cotton patent. Certainly much more valuable than the one he got on the gin. No one else could have done anything with cotton without his permission. Just think of the advances in science and technology that were wasted by not giving Eli the exclusive rights to cotton. Um, no that's not right. Neither is Myriad getting a patent on the BRCA1 or any other gene sequence.
They want a patent on their gene purification machine, go for it. They want (and sadly got) a patent on genes themselves, That's eeeevvvviiiillll....
I've written it before, and I'll write it again (not that anyone in necessarily going to do anything about it).
Patents have long out lived their usefulness.
Just reading what others have written in this thread should be enough to get them repealed.
Patents were _supposed_ to be about promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. Instead of keeping your new invention of a physical object (cotton gin, gun trigger, etc.) a closely guarded trade secret, to perhaps be lost to the annals of time, you got a patent on it.
The patent had to be detailed enough so that someone else, skilled in the trade, could recreate it from just the patent. If it wasn't obvious, to people skilled in the trade, your reward was a limited monopoly building that invention for a set period of time. This was in return for you helping advance the start of the art.
Anything that existed, or could exist without your patent wasn't patentable. If the day before you 'invented' your patented invention it already exists somewhere in the world, then you can't patent that. When people used to talk about it, it was said that you couldn't patent it because God already had that patent. It was why you couldn't patent; rocks, trees, plants, animals, gravity, light, etc.
Without the patent in question would the BRCA1 gene exist? Ummmm... why yes. What should have happened is that the patent office _should_ have stamped that application as "not patentable subject matter". Have a nice day, thank you for playing.
So let's see, it fails right there. Next test; does the patent describe in sufficient detail to someone skilled in the trade, how to _build_the_BRCA1_ gene? I would imagine not (it's a genetic sequence naturally occurring in women). Fail 2.
Just like 'software' patents, genetic patents are a perversion. A pariah, a pox, and a plague upon us all.
If I 'patent' the gene sequence for blue eyes does that mean I get to demand payment from anyone on the planet that happens to have blue eyes? Can I get an injunction? I know I'll get the ITC to ban the 'import' of any blue eyed people into the U.S. That'll show them. I can be like SCO (the one that's formally Caldera) I'll offer to sell couples "Blue eye source licenses" then in the event that you happen to conceive a blue eyed child you'll be indemnified (i.e. I won't sue you) against your inadvertent infringement of my patent.
-- That's the great thing about patents you don't have to even know about them to infringe. --
With a little bit of clever lawyering, I bet I could get it extended at least a couple of times. Then I'll prevent anyone else from even looking at those genes. Follow up related patents; brown eyes (there are a lot of infringers of that one), green eyes, black eyes, and hazel (that one was real tricky). A favorable court decision and I could get one of my patents broadened, after it's been granted, to encompass eyes themselves. Wouldn't that be great!
Unless you are using a braille reader, or text to speech, everyone reading this post is using my patent pending eyes. Please submit payment promptly (for current and past infringement) and then gouge out your eyes. Please include documentation (no actual eyes please) along with your payment as proof that you are now eyeless.
Don't you wish you're parents had purchased a "Blue eye source license" before you were born....... Get yours now and save your future children the cost and inconvenience of having to go through life sightless. Buy one today, just think of the children.
{for the sarcasm impaired, that last portion was sarcasm }
The only ones upset are reading this post. A skillful combination of money, corruption, distraction, fear mongering has ensured that the masses are only concerned with what _they_ want us to be concerned with.
Owning most of the mainline media, and the systematic dumbing down of the American public through our disgrace of a public school system didn't hurt either.
Unlike Po Pot, they don't have to kill the intelligentsia, they just have to minimize our numbers and our opportunities for mischief.
It's not that there's no outrage, moral or otherwise. It's just that there are too few of us for the politicians to worry about.
I believe that you are way too focused on patent lawsuits and have overlooked the myriad of ways that patents allow people to extort income from others backed with the full force of the U.S. Government.
You state that many patent suits fail due to improper disclosure. That's closing the barn door not only after the horse has left, but after the horse's entire linage has died of old age and the barn itself has rotted to a foundation and a few barely standing timbers.
Fighting a patent suit costs $2 million plus. Do you have a couple dozen _million_ dollars just burning a hole in your pocket to fight this? Even then there's no guarantee you'll succeed. Just look at East Texas. Even if you do succeed, you probably still have many _years_ of litigation and appeals ahead of you.
The bigger question is _why_ were they granted _in_the_first_place_? I would wager that if you take any dozen or so 'business method' or software patents and have someone try to _build_ the described _invention_, they would fail. Heck, I would doubt that they could even get started. These aren't about documenting innovative designs they are about preventing others from doing basic things without paying the patent holder. If what you said was actually true, there would be no software patents, no method patents of any kind.
You present many stats about the number of patents in the U.S. and compare them to the number of law suits to reach the conclusion that patents haven't devolved into "...a government sponsored method of forcing money from completely unrelated people and companies.." There are a couple of glaring flaws with that logic.
First, you discount the number of other ways patents are used to extract money from people other than law suits, from forced 'licensing deals' to chilling effect that these bogus patents have forestalling any competition and allowing you to charge monopoly prices.
Second you artificially reduce the percentage of patents to law suits by including 'traditional patents' in that calculation. A more illuminating comparison would be the type of patent law suit by patent type. How many patents are there by type? Traditional patents "an actual invention" vs what would have been traditionally not patented patents "one's that don't specify an actual invention" [use the criteria from my previous post]. Then compare the number of law suits involving traditional patents to those involving non-traditional patents. You're results will differ markedly from the 2.6% you've calculated above.
Bottom line: Way too many 'patents' have been and are still being granted for things that _never_ should have gotten patent protection. People and companies are using (mainly) these non-traditional patents to extract monies and other advantages from completely unrelated parties. The process is causing untold collateral damage. Expecting people wronged to spend years and millions of dollars trying to correct this injustice is something only someone benefiting from the current dysfunctional state of affairs would even suggest.
If the patent office can't stop granting patents that never should have been granted to begin with (and I don't mean one or two, I mean whole categories of subject matter) and doesn't invalidate them en mass, then they should just be abolished.
The societal benefit from traditional patents no longer out way the harm caused by the proliferation of 'non-traditional' patents.
Patents probably should be gotten rid of at this point.
Actually I think the best part of patents, and the one part that seems to be least followed these days, was the disclosure.
It used to be that in order to get a patent you had to describe your invention in sufficient detail to allow someone else skilled in the trade to build that invention from the patent. When the choice was secret processes that died with the inventor, giving them a 'limited' monopoly in exchange for that data was a good idea.
Of course what was a good idea when we were talking about the design of a self advancing rotating barrel for a hand gun, is completely worthless when we are talking software or business processes.
I don't think you most of the software/business patents awarded these days would allow anyone (except maybe an alien psychic ) to build _anything_.
The patent on the method to associate gestures with selecting user interface elements (just to give a hopefully made up example). What exactly _IS_ that? What knowledge would have been lost if the 'inventor' never shared that knowledge with the rest of the world through her patent application? How would you _build_ anything from that patent?
If patents hadn't devolved into a government sponsored method of forcing money from completely unrelated people and companies, most of these patents would have never been granted.
Let's go back to the very simple patent rules and let patents be about promoting progress and keeping information from being lost.
Where to start....
No patent for anything existing in nature (genes, plants, mathematics, laws of physics or chemistry, etc.) God already invented those.
No patent for ways of doing business, exercising your cat with a bright light, or looking up the results of a test in a database. Basically, no patents for 'methods' that don't involve an actual 'invention'. No, software doesn't count. Neither does sprinkling "with a computer" or "across a network" magically make something patentable.
No patent for anything that someone in that field could/would/should have thought up if someone had asked them the question. If I take 10 bright people trained in that field and ask them what would you build to solve "X". If any of them would have said "Y" you don't get a patent on "Y".
If I give your patent application to someone trained in the field, and they can't build whatever it is that you are trying to patent, then you don't get a patent.
The purpose of patents is to document the special, one of a kind _device_, the inventor designed to solve an issue so that progress in that field is furthered. If it's really good, we give you a monopoly for a limited time as a reward for sharing that with the rest of us.
Any patents that don't follow the above should never have been granted.
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Not really surprising......
Copyright law, like patent law, is only about squeezing as much money as possible from others for as long as possible on ideas that are terribly obvious or if unique aren't shared with enough detail to help the rest of society.
The truly maddening part is that most of the entities holding those rights or benefiting from these byzantine laws, aren't even the the creators. Corporations, collection societies, and of course the ever present lawyers.
Promote the progress of .... well anything other than profits for the select few, isn't a part of 'intellectual property' law.
'Intellectual property' is poised to become the next 'war on drugs' or alcohol prohibition. Criminalizing a large swath of the population to the detriment of society in general.
If only we could get those in office to actually represent their constituents (I mean you and me, _not_ the corporate interests that pour money into their pockets). They would see that what's best for us, our shared culture and the economic health of the nation as a whole, would be a drastic scaling back of all aspects of 'intellectual property' law, if not an outright abolishment of same.
On the post: As Hurt Locker Producers Sue Thousands For File Sharing... They Claim Free Speech Rights To Copy Story Of Soldier
Rights are only rights when they are difficult to make use of.
Try this little thought experiment:
A show is aired on television (free OTA).
You purchase this nifty little machine called a VCR.
You use said VCR to tape said show.
Media producers go ballistic (Boston strangler references and all).
Supreme Court rules time-shifting, media-shifting for personal use LEGAL. (Hooray!).
Set VCR to tape show when you're away, O.K.
Ask wife to tape show for you. O.K.
Give taped show to grandfather to watch (he still can't get it to stop blinking 12:00). O.K.
Ask someone at the office, if they taped last nights show so you can watch it, your VCR broke and you bought a new one. O.K.
Fast forward to today.... DVR replaces VCR, DVD+-/R/RW or files replaces VHS tapes.
Copy show for yourself? Maybe O.K., maybe 'protected by broadcast flag', maybe DVR set to wipe it 24 hours later, whether you've watched it or not.
Have your wife copy show? Maybe (see above) At least as your wife she doesn't have to testify against you.
A copy for grandpa? If you can get a copy onto a disk or file, and you walk it over, maybe. If someone catches you though..... :(
Asking someone if they have a copy you could watch? $150,000+ lawsuit.
What the @#)(!*@$!&#) ?
You could do the same Gedankenexperiment with music, but you'd have to include mixtapes, and taping off the radio.
Same result.
Lots of us (and I'm dating myself here) grew up with it being perfectly legal to swap VHS copies, mix tapes, tape off the TV or radio. Then the N.E.T. Act (No Electronic Theft Act 1997) made non-commercial copyright infringement for personal use illegal. The DMCA (The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998) made it trivially easy for media companies to prevent you from even using your rights. A simple, not terribly effective, digital lock and now magically 'legal' non-infringing or otherwise Fair-Use of media that you own was a crime. They didn't say you couldn't make that legal backup, but if you broke their 'encryption' you could still go to jail. And to add insult to injury, it's now illegal to talk about, or build the means to actually make use of your rights.
It's like saying you have the right to bear arms, as long as you can build the guns yourself, and you can't tell anyone else how you did it...
So as long as it was impractical for you to make use of your rights, it was O.K. But as soon as it becomes easy and convenient, it's illegal.
I guess Prohibition didn't teach these people anything. Why do people 'break the law' en masse? Because what they are doing wasn't illegal, and shouldn't be illegal.
just a thought....
On the post: Tipping Point? Quarter Of All Homes Have Totally Abandoned Landlines
I guess I'm a luditte.... (continued again)
I guess I still don't see the point of a cell phone.
Too expensive, too limiting, too fragile. I'll use one occasionally when I travel now that pay phones are hard to find and prepaid cards don't reliably give you the number of minutes they advertise on the card.
When I can get a cell phone that you can drop/get damp without ruining it, that doesn't cost hundreds of dollars, and gives you unlimited minutes for everyone in the house for less than (putting an actual less than symbol in the comment truncates the post apparently) 50 dollars a month the let me know.
Until then it's good old fashioned POTS for me.
On the post: Tipping Point? Quarter Of All Homes Have Totally Abandoned Landlines
I guess I'm a luditte.... (continued)
On the post: Tipping Point? Quarter Of All Homes Have Totally Abandoned Landlines
I guess I'm a luditte....
Too expensive, too limiting, too fragile. I'll use one occasionally when I travel now that pay phones are hard to find and prepaid cards don't reliably give you the number of minutes they advertise on the card.
When I can get a cell phone that you can drop/get damp without ruining it, that doesn't cost hundreds of dollars, and gives you unlimited minutes for everyone in the house for
On the post: Hollywood Gets Injunction Against Pirate Bay Bandwidth Provider?
Stupid laws get ignored by most people.......
It seems as if everyone who claims people who share content are stealing/infringing/low lives/pirates/.... just don't get it. Most people who 'share content' don't believe that they are doing anything wrong. It's not wrong morally, ethically, or spiritually. It just so happens to be illegal, at the moment.
It's only illegal because vested interests are using the law to make boatloads of cash. They are in control of the government (by the corporation, for the corporation) and pass laws that benefit themselves. If confronted with a nonsensical law, the common response is to ignore it.
If a law was passed tomorrow that made it illegal to use certain words without paying a 'rights holder' (You think I'm kidding. If singing to yourself requires a license payment, speaking is gonna be next.) These rights holders just happen to be major corporations. Do you honestly think the average person is going to count up his words and send some organization a check at the end of the day? Good luck with that.
If people don't agree with the word tax, they should just refrain from speaking (according to 'Sam I am') and let the word licensing industry die a legal death.
Just what kind of pirate goes about using words without a license. Don't they realize all of the hard work that went into creating those words? Just think of all the people that they are putting out of business. Why I hear the corn farmers are suffering terribly.
Yea, right....
Most people think of copyright (on every little thing, into perpetuity - minus a day) as nonsensical.
People understand stealing. That's why your average copyright infringer wouldn't for a moment consider walking out of a store with an unpaid for DVD, or CD, or book. That's wrong. I can't take some _THING_ without paying for it. On the other hand, it's perfectly natural to share what you have, or to 'go in halves' with some one else if you can't afford it.
The only thing that's changed over the years is that technology has progressed to the point were we can make copies of things, easier and cheaper.
First there was stories, songs, know how. Someone learned it and taught others the story, the song, how to do it.
Then there was writing, books, parchment. Someone, or lots of someones bought/borrowed a book and a copy was made, may be of all of it, maybe only a part.
Then there was recorders, and photocopiers. Someone bought a book or went to the library and used the photocopier. Someone bought a record, or put their tape recorder up to the radio and copied a few songs. You taped a television show this afternoon and watched it that evening. If your neighbor missed it, you lent/gave her your VHS tape. Still no problem (at least as far as common sense would have it).
Now at this point, copyright infringement done for personal use, without making over $1000, was completely legal. You could make a mix tape and give it to your friends legally. The Supreme Court gave us the Sony Betamax decision which prohibited the content industries from dictating technology.
Then we had CD's and personal computers. BBS (Bulletin Board Systems for you youngins) and AOL. Things are even easier to copy. I still have an older stereo system LP/cassette tape/CD player. It has synchronous taping to make it easier to create copies from CD's and other tapes.
Most 'boom boxes' had built in microphones to let you record whatever you wanted. (Bask for a moment in the forgotten freedom.)
Then the world started getting crazy. The No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act) made infringement illegal even if it was not for profit. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DCMA) was passed, making it illegal to bypass any half hearted attempt at copy-protection. Even if you were legally allowed to make that copy (back up/time shifting/ etc.). At the same time we have the Internet, DVD burners, scanners, multi terabyte hard drives.
It's now easier than ever to share content. Instead of asking your neighbor if they could tape that episode of South Park for you, you could see if anyone else on the planet had, and if they did, could give you a copy.
Instead of borrowing that tape from your brother and making yourself a copy. You could check if anyone on the planet could give you a copy.
Unfortunately, the people who were making millions out of having you buy an Lp, then rebuy a cassette then rebuy a CD wanted to keep making their millions. So they kept getting laws passed. Like extending copyright to everything, not just those things that were registered. Like making copyright last for 100+ years, instead of 28. Like allowing patents on math, genes, software, and exercising your cat.
You share what you have with others, not making a hundred boot leg disks and selling them out of your trunk, just passing around the digital equivalent of mix tapes, and VHS tapped television shows and suddenly you're a 'pirate', your a 'thief', a 'low life'. You're potentially on the hook for millions of dollars. If you walked into Wal-Mart and stole a CD, you'd get a fine (couple hundred dollars max) maybe a day or two in jail. You share a song with other like minded individuals. A copy from your hard drive, to their hard drive. No one's stolen anything from anyone. You're looking at a six or seven figure fine?!?!?
It boggles the mind. It doesn't compute. So most people deal with it the only way they know how. They ignore it.
The only people stealing anything are the content industries that are stealing our history, our culture, our sense of identity. Locking up pictures, melodies, even words trying to extort us into paying to express ourselves.
The only sane result is to have copyright/patents repealed. No one can with a straight face honor a copyright system that says every utterance in a fixed medium is covered by copyright for more than a hundred years. No one with a straight face can honor a system that claims exercising your cat with a laser pointer, doing math a certain way, having blue eyes, deserves a patent.
The only thing is how much collateral damage will be allowed to happen before it's washed away.
Remember we once had a constitutional amendment that prohibited people from consuming alcohol. Just how well did that work out? Even grandma kept a pint '...strictly for medicinal purposes...'.
The 'intellectual property' (I feel dirty just typing it) system has gotten to the point that it's farcical.
Learn a song, and teach it to your friends and family.
On the post: If It's May It's Time For The Press To Parrot Bogus Stats Announcement From The BSA
CNet: Piracy costs software industry $51 billion in '09
Here's the email I sent to the article's author. It only took a little legwork to get his email address. CNet doesn't let you comment without having an account, and while they will let you 'email' (their little javascript applet) someone just fine, they won't let you send it unless you log in. Of course they don't tell you that until you fill in the captcha to send it.
--------------
Dear Lance,
Why are you reporting the IDC / BSA numbers as if they were facts? The GAO has reported that the numbers from previous IDC/BSA reports and the assumptions they are based upon are baseless. The IDC has previously accused the BSA of 'misrepresenting' their findings and a similar report referenced in Canada was blasted for being basically made up.
Nowhere in your article do you discuss the assumptions or methodology of this report. If it is like their previous piracy reports, it starts with the assumption that every copy that wasn't purchased was a lost sale and goes downhill from there.
You are doing your readers a severe disservice in simply parroting the IDC/BSA numbers.
Please do some research before you simply re-post what is basically BSA's propaganda. A correction or followup to your recent referenced article would be helpful.
Here's a good place to start in finding critics of that annual report.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100511/1516059386.shtml
On the post: Publishers Still Trying To Squeeze Money Out Of Lyrics Sites
Price/Value & copyright as the means to never having to work again....
Value vs. Price:
Breathable air (w/Oxygen) - extremely valuable.
Breathable air (w/Oxygen) - priceless. As in I don't expect to pay for it.
Life itself = most valuable thing I can think of.
Life itself = $0.00 (unless you are talking to health insurance companies ;).
Copyright = promoting the creation of Art (plus other things not germane to this discussion).
It's supposed to be a trade of a _limited_ monopoly on copying for a _limited_ time to encourage people to produce more. The public looses the ability to make free use and copies for a short time in exchange for getting a richer public domain.
What people like Technopolitical are suggesting is that it's all about making money from what you had produced indefinitely. That's the _opposite_ of the purpose of copyright for those of you who have been paying attention.
Under Technopolitical's world view you create once and never have to create again as you should be able to keep collecting money from that one thing. The end result is _less_ works being produced. I guess that's what you get when people and corporations develop a sense of entitlement and a welfare mentality. Sad.... truly sad.
Personally I think the closest analogy to a lyricist or songwriter is architect. Just like the architect she is often the designer for the builders (performers) to create buildings (music). Just as some people can design and build their own house (singer/songwriter) they can be the same person. Often though they are paid to create blueprints (lyrics - melodies) for others to use.
Now if an architect does a really good job of designing a building (say the plans for a Wallyworld store) she doesn't get paid every time Wallyworld builds a new store using those plans. She gets paid according to the agreement she had with the people she created them for.
Even sillier would be the thought that if other people went to a web site and looked up how many stairs there are in a Wallyworld store (you know to settle a bet), or wanted to see how the bathrooms were laid out because they were building their own store and thought that was a particularly good idea they way they are laid out in Wallyworld stores. That the original architect should get a cut.
Unfortunately, people like Technopolitical seem to think that every time anyone references, makes a mention of, or thinks about lyrics that the songwriter/lyricist should get a cut. The recording industry talks about the "entitlement mentality" of people who share files... 'pot meet kettle'.
The lyricist did a job and got paid what he thought it was worth. If he didn't then he should have taken the job in the first place. The thought that someone else can make money off of your work doesn't entitle him to a cut in perpetuity. You want to get more money, then produce more. If your work is so popular then you should be able to demand a higher pay for your next piece of work, whether it's plans for a house or lyrics to a song.
On the post: Judge Won't Dismiss Antitrust Charges Against Microsoft For Breaking 3rd Party Xbox Memory Cards
Why are computers and electronics so special?
Why are computer/software/electronics firms allowed to get away with things that people would never stand for in another sector?
To use the woefully overused automobile comparison;
If Ford required that you could only use Ford authorized auto parts, Ford gasoline, Ford air fresheners, in your Ford car, no one would be surprised at the lawsuits flying fast and free. Most everyone would expect Ford to loose and loose big.
If Apple does it with iPods and iPads, and iPhones people come out of the woodwork to defend Apple. When Microsoft does it (such is the subject of this thread), we hear the same sort of mush mouth responses.
Consumers are told that if they don't like it they should stop buying products from that company. That the Company has the God given right to lock anyone out of their walled garden that they want.
Autos vs. Electronics
Forced to use dealer parts? No Yes
Forced to use dealer store? No Yes
Have existing features removed? No Yes
Break existing compatibility? No Yes
There is nothing magical about computers or electronics that we should be allowing companies to engage in such heinous behavior. Just because it's easier to do with computers and electronics is no reason that consumers should be forced to put up with it.
Just as it would be silly for someone to tell you the solution to Ford not allowing you to use a non Ford tire on your car is to stop buying Fords, it's equally unhelpful to say that the solution to Microsoft not allowing you to use non Microsoft memory cards in your XBox360 is to not buy an XBox360.
Perhaps I'm just getting old, but why does this piece of seeming 'common sense' just seem terribly uncommon?
On the post: UK Testing Speed Cameras From Space? Not Exactly, But Still Troubling
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just tag the people?
I know some of you are probably thinking, about the passengers. Well just like those bastions of self control (the Chinese gov., the RIAA, MPAA, BIAA, etc.) introducing secondary liability would be a 'wonderful thing'. The passengers would be 'encouraged' to make sure the driver isn't speeding so that they don't get a ticket.
I mean isn't this what all the cctv cameras and auto plate recognition systems, GPS etc. are leading to?
Just like the great British National ID Card, it will be 'entirely optional' initially. It will only be mandatory for those working with 'vulnerable populations' and those pesky foreigners of course....
It seems that government believes it's purpose is to secure the persons, privileges, and wealth of the moneyed elite. What better to way to achieve that goal than to have the common man go about his day in fear of everywhere he goes, everything he does, and best of all anything he's thinking about.
On the post: PS3 Owner Given Refund After Sony Makes PS3 Less Useful
Isn't the EULA less enforcable in Europe?
I was under the impression that it wasn't possible for consumers to waive their consumer protections, regardless of what any contract might say.
If that's the case (and it should be in the states as well) then Sony can point to their license agreement until they are blue in the face. It wouldn't be worth the bits they use to store it.
On the post: Court Tells FCC It Has No Mandate To Enforce Net Neutrality (And That's A Good Thing)
Common Carriers
Cable Internet lobbied for, and got, reclassified as title 1 "information service" which the FCC has very little power over, rather than the "common carrier" title 2 that they actually are.
The FCC has much broader powers to regulate industries classified as "common carriers".
This allowed the Cable companies not to have to share their lines, nor follow anything resembling network neutrality. Shortly there after the telco's; Bell Atlantic, etc. sued to have their internet services also reclassified as "information systems" and that was the day that CLEC's providing broadband died. The telco's were no longer required to share their lines.
At the time they claimed that 'competition' would ensure more investment, more choice, faster speeds and all the rest of the usual pack of lies we've heard over the years.
Result; little to no competition, limited investment, limited penetration, speeds that are the laughing stock of the first world, and ISP's that play all sorts of havoc with your data, simply because they can.
Now that they (the FCC) want to actually DO something, they can't. They've inadvertently emasculated themselves.
The first thing they (FCC) need to do is to properly classify them (ISP's) as "common carriers". Then they need to ensure that they act like one. If Comcast doesn't think they'll make enough money they are free to go out of business.
If working as reliable dumb pipes isn't profitable 'enough' then perhaps the information-highway needs to be run like the physical highway.
In any event consumers and other businesses should be able to get equitable, stable, reasonable means to conduct their lives and their business.
On the post: New Study Points Out That Gene Patent On Trial Is Very, Very Broad
RE: The argument for gene patents
Actually the patentable part of your description isn't the genes themselves (you've admitted that they already occur) it's the machine to _purify_ them.
If Eli Whitney were Myriad then he would have been granted a patent on cotton, no the cotton gin. After all what's what a cotton gin is right, a device to purify cotton. I may exists in nature, but he came up with a more efficient way to isolate it. By your reasoning he should have been granted the cotton patent. Certainly much more valuable than the one he got on the gin. No one else could have done anything with cotton without his permission. Just think of the advances in science and technology that were wasted by not giving Eli the exclusive rights to cotton. Um, no that's not right. Neither is Myriad getting a patent on the BRCA1 or any other gene sequence.
They want a patent on their gene purification machine, go for it. They want (and sadly got) a patent on genes themselves, That's eeeevvvviiiillll....
On the post: New Study Points Out That Gene Patent On Trial Is Very, Very Broad
Abolish patents......
Patents have long out lived their usefulness.
Just reading what others have written in this thread should be enough to get them repealed.
Patents were _supposed_ to be about promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. Instead of keeping your new invention of a physical object (cotton gin, gun trigger, etc.) a closely guarded trade secret, to perhaps be lost to the annals of time, you got a patent on it.
The patent had to be detailed enough so that someone else, skilled in the trade, could recreate it from just the patent. If it wasn't obvious, to people skilled in the trade, your reward was a limited monopoly building that invention for a set period of time. This was in return for you helping advance the start of the art.
Anything that existed, or could exist without your patent wasn't patentable. If the day before you 'invented' your patented invention it already exists somewhere in the world, then you can't patent that. When people used to talk about it, it was said that you couldn't patent it because God already had that patent. It was why you couldn't patent; rocks, trees, plants, animals, gravity, light, etc.
Without the patent in question would the BRCA1 gene exist? Ummmm... why yes. What should have happened is that the patent office _should_ have stamped that application as "not patentable subject matter". Have a nice day, thank you for playing.
So let's see, it fails right there. Next test; does the patent describe in sufficient detail to someone skilled in the trade, how to _build_the_BRCA1_ gene? I would imagine not (it's a genetic sequence naturally occurring in women). Fail 2.
Just like 'software' patents, genetic patents are a perversion. A pariah, a pox, and a plague upon us all.
If I 'patent' the gene sequence for blue eyes does that mean I get to demand payment from anyone on the planet that happens to have blue eyes? Can I get an injunction? I know I'll get the ITC to ban the 'import' of any blue eyed people into the U.S. That'll show them. I can be like SCO (the one that's formally Caldera) I'll offer to sell couples "Blue eye source licenses" then in the event that you happen to conceive a blue eyed child you'll be indemnified (i.e. I won't sue you) against your inadvertent infringement of my patent.
-- That's the great thing about patents you don't have to even know about them to infringe. --
With a little bit of clever lawyering, I bet I could get it extended at least a couple of times. Then I'll prevent anyone else from even looking at those genes. Follow up related patents; brown eyes (there are a lot of infringers of that one), green eyes, black eyes, and hazel (that one was real tricky). A favorable court decision and I could get one of my patents broadened, after it's been granted, to encompass eyes themselves. Wouldn't that be great!
Unless you are using a braille reader, or text to speech, everyone reading this post is using my patent pending eyes. Please submit payment promptly (for current and past infringement) and then gouge out your eyes. Please include documentation (no actual eyes please) along with your payment as proof that you are now eyeless.
Don't you wish you're parents had purchased a "Blue eye source license" before you were born....... Get yours now and save your future children the cost and inconvenience of having to go through life sightless. Buy one today, just think of the children.
{for the sarcasm impaired, that last portion was sarcasm }
On the post: Where's The Outrage Over The Gov't Brushing Mass Privacy Violations Under The Rug?
Intelligentsia minimized, job well done.
The only ones upset are reading this post. A skillful combination of money, corruption, distraction, fear mongering has ensured that the masses are only concerned with what _they_ want us to be concerned with.
Owning most of the mainline media, and the systematic dumbing down of the American public through our disgrace of a public school system didn't hurt either.
Unlike Po Pot, they don't have to kill the intelligentsia, they just have to minimize our numbers and our opportunities for mischief.
It's not that there's no outrage, moral or otherwise. It's just that there are too few of us for the politicians to worry about.
On the post: Would 2010 Steve Jobs Sue 1996 (Or 1984) Steve Jobs Over Patents?
RE: AC it's worse than you make it out to be.
You state that many patent suits fail due to improper disclosure. That's closing the barn door not only after the horse has left, but after the horse's entire linage has died of old age and the barn itself has rotted to a foundation and a few barely standing timbers.
Fighting a patent suit costs $2 million plus. Do you have a couple dozen _million_ dollars just burning a hole in your pocket to fight this? Even then there's no guarantee you'll succeed. Just look at East Texas. Even if you do succeed, you probably still have many _years_ of litigation and appeals ahead of you.
The bigger question is _why_ were they granted _in_the_first_place_? I would wager that if you take any dozen or so 'business method' or software patents and have someone try to _build_ the described _invention_, they would fail. Heck, I would doubt that they could even get started. These aren't about documenting innovative designs they are about preventing others from doing basic things without paying the patent holder. If what you said was actually true, there would be no software patents, no method patents of any kind.
You present many stats about the number of patents in the U.S. and compare them to the number of law suits to reach the conclusion that patents haven't devolved into "...a government sponsored method of forcing money from completely unrelated people and companies.." There are a couple of glaring flaws with that logic.
First, you discount the number of other ways patents are used to extract money from people other than law suits, from forced 'licensing deals' to chilling effect that these bogus patents have forestalling any competition and allowing you to charge monopoly prices.
Second you artificially reduce the percentage of patents to law suits by including 'traditional patents' in that calculation. A more illuminating comparison would be the type of patent law suit by patent type. How many patents are there by type? Traditional patents "an actual invention" vs what would have been traditionally not patented patents "one's that don't specify an actual invention" [use the criteria from my previous post]. Then compare the number of law suits involving traditional patents to those involving non-traditional patents. You're results will differ markedly from the 2.6% you've calculated above.
Bottom line: Way too many 'patents' have been and are still being granted for things that _never_ should have gotten patent protection. People and companies are using (mainly) these non-traditional patents to extract monies and other advantages from completely unrelated parties. The process is causing untold collateral damage. Expecting people wronged to spend years and millions of dollars trying to correct this injustice is something only someone benefiting from the current dysfunctional state of affairs would even suggest.
If the patent office can't stop granting patents that never should have been granted to begin with (and I don't mean one or two, I mean whole categories of subject matter) and doesn't invalidate them en mass, then they should just be abolished.
The societal benefit from traditional patents no longer out way the harm caused by the proliferation of 'non-traditional' patents.
On the post: Would 2010 Steve Jobs Sue 1996 (Or 1984) Steve Jobs Over Patents?
Patents probably should be gotten rid of at this point.
It used to be that in order to get a patent you had to describe your invention in sufficient detail to allow someone else skilled in the trade to build that invention from the patent. When the choice was secret processes that died with the inventor, giving them a 'limited' monopoly in exchange for that data was a good idea.
Of course what was a good idea when we were talking about the design of a self advancing rotating barrel for a hand gun, is completely worthless when we are talking software or business processes.
I don't think you most of the software/business patents awarded these days would allow anyone (except maybe an alien psychic ) to build _anything_.
The patent on the method to associate gestures with selecting user interface elements (just to give a hopefully made up example). What exactly _IS_ that? What knowledge would have been lost if the 'inventor' never shared that knowledge with the rest of the world through her patent application? How would you _build_ anything from that patent?
If patents hadn't devolved into a government sponsored method of forcing money from completely unrelated people and companies, most of these patents would have never been granted.
Let's go back to the very simple patent rules and let patents be about promoting progress and keeping information from being lost.
Where to start....
No patent for anything existing in nature (genes, plants, mathematics, laws of physics or chemistry, etc.) God already invented those.
No patent for ways of doing business, exercising your cat with a bright light, or looking up the results of a test in a database. Basically, no patents for 'methods' that don't involve an actual 'invention'. No, software doesn't count. Neither does sprinkling "with a computer" or "across a network" magically make something patentable.
No patent for anything that someone in that field could/would/should have thought up if someone had asked them the question. If I take 10 bright people trained in that field and ask them what would you build to solve "X". If any of them would have said "Y" you don't get a patent on "Y".
If I give your patent application to someone trained in the field, and they can't build whatever it is that you are trying to patent, then you don't get a patent.
The purpose of patents is to document the special, one of a kind _device_, the inventor designed to solve an issue so that progress in that field is furthered. If it's really good, we give you a monopoly for a limited time as a reward for sharing that with the rest of us.
Any patents that don't follow the above should never have been granted.
On the post: Brazil's Catholic Church Sues Columbia Pictures For Destroying Jesus Statue In 2012... In Violation Of Its Copyright
Re: Isn't this the same film/film maker that didn't destroy any Muslim monuments?
On the post: Brazil's Catholic Church Sues Columbia Pictures For Destroying Jesus Statue In 2012... In Violation Of Its Copyright
Isn't this the same film/film maker that didn't destroy any Muslim monuments?
I guess the Catholic Church won't issue a fatwa, but they aren't above sending in the lawyers.
On the post: School Accused Of Spying On Kids In Their Homes With Spyware That Secretly Activated Webcams
RE: Rick H. -> Video doesn't seem to match complaint
In the complaint the student _take_the_laptop_home_.
In the complaint the school secretly webcam's students _in_their_home.
In the complaint an administrator _shows_the_student_ a print out of the _secret_webcam_capture_ and uses it as a reason to discipline the student.
If the program was only used _in_school_ then it _may_ have been O.K. But that's _not_ what this complaint is about...
Next >>