I am fully expecting some maximalist dork to express the thought that 'creators' still need to eat' in these tough times, even more than pesky users. In their heads, those 'creators' actually mean the executives of the copyright holding companies that have never actually created anything, except the the current copyright mess. Oh, right, they may have also 'created' some inventive ways of withholding income to actual creators in such a way that the feathering of their own nest looks legitimate, in similar ways they go about withholding taxes due the government.
The whole silo schema is about retaining a larger portion of income without having to share it with broadcasters and cable companies. In the end they will find that they are holding on so tight in order to control their 'product' that that they crush the system. The rate of change is ever increasing and it took X amount of time for broadcasting to succumb to cable. It will take less time for cable to succumb to silos (which seems to be happening fairly fast), and even less still for silos to succumb to whatever is next.
With the bogus patent in hand the holders could accuse infringers they will still wind up spending money and time in court till a court says the patent is invalid. That is if they do. The really sad part is that until someone is sued they won't have standing to object to the patent issued, bogus or not.
"Plus this does not fix the problem with copyrighted works being incorporated by reference and having the force of law. The obvious case is building codes, but there are more obscure cases such as privately drawn maps used in zoning."
Maybe the court is setting up an act of self preservation. They need to have more things to decide in the future. Being clear and all encompassing is not in their best interest.
I have a feeling that some of his corporate buddies...ah...contributors might have put a bug in his ear when they had trouble getting their government granted monopolies.
The question now is how do we get the USPTO to follow the directions the Supreme Court laid down, rather than what appears to be direction from the Executive. Courts don't have enforcement powers, but I doubt they could rely on the DoJ to follow up anyway.
I have never heard of the Supreme Court issuing a contempt of court ruling, but I suppose they could. It would certainly be interesting for such an order to be issued against the person in charge of the Executive. It would be even more interesting to see someone try to enforce that ruling. Who would they get, Capitol Police? What other options are there?
I would think that the mere presentation of keywords to Facebook for addition to their filters by public entities, universities or not, would be the 1st Amendment violation. The fact that Facebook is running the filter does not come into consideration, except for their integrity part, in accepting those keywords and applying them.
It is hard to extricate scientific achievement from politics, but there are examples of politicians giving scientists a challenge and then using those achievements for their own advantage. To name a couple, the development of the nuclear bomb and the space race, both of which have ancillary consequences both good and bad. I am sure there are many others.
Isn't public domain the same as eternal copyright? The creator(s) get their fiscal reward during the monopoly period (which should go back to the 14 + optional (but expensive) 14 years) and then it remains as culture with creative recognition rewards, eternally.
Maybe the eternal part should include required reference to whatever creator 'influenced' the current creation, though that list might get awfully long and has big opportunities for missing contributors which might extend the maximalist penchant for litigation.
That satisfies all the objectives that UNESCO stated, without the money part, which has a tendency to stick to processing parts and never makes it to the supposed beneficiary(s), a likely intended consequence of the imagined protocol.
The government, and apparently you, are suggesting that some mind reader might pick a particular twit out of the thousands (millions) of twits posted daily that that NSL, that likely took at least several days to procure and transmit, would be a clue as to which twit it was? Would you, and the government please share what your smoking?
At least a part of the issue is will any of the broadband providers (including AT&T) actually spend the money on its intended purpose? They haven't in the past which raises the question as to why they are being given more?
5G is one excuse, and not a very good one as it would take 5-10 times more installations than 4G, but wireless is one of the excuses for broadband to not upgrade their networks last mile installations.
Give them enough Hydroxychloroquine (the one for fish tanks, not the malaria medicine) to cure what ails them along with a directive to follow Trump's advice. It should make all the 'fake' new channels, and create some opportunities.
"...providing that a person commits election fraud if the person knowingly or intentionally causes a ballot to be obtained under false pretenses, or a misleading statement to be provided on an application for ballot by mail"
The first is, what if the application says 'because I don't want to take the risk of being infected with the Coronavirus at your close quarters voting place' and the ballot is sent anyway. Does that constitute a violation of the law by the voter, or just the people processing the ballots?
The second is, what if some large percentage of Texas voters do lie on their applications and claim disability for say a hangnail and get the ballot. Is the attorney general will to put more than, say 50% of Texans in jail? I could see him trying to fine them the $10,000, but what would the process do to the court system?
Agreed, but we have a big problem in that I don't see a methodology for constituting such boards without significant issues. If appointed (I think the most usual way) the person doing the appointing is usually the head of the municipality, an elected official. People in these positions tend to be influenced in many ways, their political party, contributors, groups like police unions that have wide sway. If elected, the people running for the positions on the oversight board may be similarly influenced.
Thinking about getting someone from outside the jurisdiction to do the appointing I am having a hard time coming up with any entity that would take the position of citizens. DoJ, no. Some court, they are sometimes elected or appointed and then approved through a politically compromised process. What other way could we get a board that has the citizens rights foremost in their consideration to give the powers you suggest to?
Mike is home, and there is no reason he, nor anyone else should not have or express their opinion.
You wear your own flag bravely, but you haven't thought this through. You do know what will happen if Google takes their ball and goes home, don't you? The media organizations will be in the same sad position they find themselves now, only worse. They could of course start their own search engines, spend a few years figuring out how to run them, and then a few more years getting all the users in Australia to stop using Google (or other search engine) and move to their search engine, and then they can pay themselves for using their own snippets.
Oh, wait...that won't work because then they would be transferring money to their competitors (unless they use a double standard and exempt themselves) and might very well ban all the smaller media companies from their search results. How will that sit?
I have some agreement with the nuclear option, then I think about what will happen when the rest of the world gets on the same train. Does Google news only list blogs? Do other search engines follow suit in a self-protective move? Do they de-list the media organizations entirely out of spite? Is Google News a significant enough part of Google Search to have a serious impact on the rest of their search business?
In the end it will be the users who get hurt. Yes the media organizations will also get hurt, and after a whole lot of screaming and crying foul, followed by some serious pouting, might, and I mean might, beg the search industry to re-include them. Whether they do or not will depend upon their fiscal ability to remain solvent in the mean time.
It's our game, we make the rules, till Google quits that is.
"“This will help to create a level playing field,” he said."
If they want a level playing field, wouldn't all the players need to be playing the same game? Google doesn't write news articles, the media organizations do. The media organizations don't run search engines, Google does. Those seem like different games to me. It's more like cricket and croquet.
I am not sure why Facebook is even in the conversation except they have a lot of money and apparently some of their users post things about subjects that also wind up on media organizations sites. Does Facebook actually post snippets from media organizations? Or is it that users post snippets? If the latter is the case, how is that Facebook's fiscal responsibility?
On the post: OK, Landlord: If Copyright Supporters Are Going To Insist Copyright Is Property, Why Are They So Mad About Being Called Landlords?
Tell it like it is
OK, if they want it to be property, then the little © isn't enough. Let them place No Trespassing signs on their works. That way, us little people will understand how they feel, and stay away entirely.
/s...or maybe not
On the post: Piracy Sees 'Unprecedented' Pandemic Bounce, But So Does All Media Consumption
Re: 'Next to study: The rise of cabin fever.'
I am fully expecting some maximalist dork to express the thought that 'creators' still need to eat' in these tough times, even more than pesky users. In their heads, those 'creators' actually mean the executives of the copyright holding companies that have never actually created anything, except the the current copyright mess. Oh, right, they may have also 'created' some inventive ways of withholding income to actual creators in such a way that the feathering of their own nest looks legitimate, in similar ways they go about withholding taxes due the government.
The whole silo schema is about retaining a larger portion of income without having to share it with broadcasters and cable companies. In the end they will find that they are holding on so tight in order to control their 'product' that that they crush the system. The rate of change is ever increasing and it took X amount of time for broadcasting to succumb to cable. It will take less time for cable to succumb to silos (which seems to be happening fairly fast), and even less still for silos to succumb to whatever is next.
On the post: US Patent Office: Supreme Court Made Us Reject More Patents, But We've Now Fixed That And Are Back To Approving Bad Patents
Re: Re: Constitutional crisis in the making
With the bogus patent in hand the holders could accuse infringers they will still wind up spending money and time in court till a court says the patent is invalid. That is if they do. The really sad part is that until someone is sued they won't have standing to object to the patent issued, bogus or not.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Georgia's 'Official Code' Is Public Domain -- Including Annotations
Re: Re: Re:
Well, judicial activism isn't a new thing, even for the Supreme Court. Qualified immunity comes to mind, but there are probably other examples.
On the post: US Patent Office: Supreme Court Made Us Reject More Patents, But We've Now Fixed That And Are Back To Approving Bad Patents
Re: Re: HOw stupid can this get.
Well, the USPTO bosses for a start.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Georgia's 'Official Code' Is Public Domain -- Including Annotations
Re:
Maybe the court is setting up an act of self preservation. They need to have more things to decide in the future. Being clear and all encompassing is not in their best interest.
On the post: US Patent Office: Supreme Court Made Us Reject More Patents, But We've Now Fixed That And Are Back To Approving Bad Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of power
I have a feeling that some of his corporate buddies...ah...contributors might have put a bug in his ear when they had trouble getting their government granted monopolies.
On the post: US Patent Office: Supreme Court Made Us Reject More Patents, But We've Now Fixed That And Are Back To Approving Bad Patents
Constitutional crisis in the making
The question now is how do we get the USPTO to follow the directions the Supreme Court laid down, rather than what appears to be direction from the Executive. Courts don't have enforcement powers, but I doubt they could rely on the DoJ to follow up anyway.
I have never heard of the Supreme Court issuing a contempt of court ruling, but I suppose they could. It would certainly be interesting for such an order to be issued against the person in charge of the Executive. It would be even more interesting to see someone try to enforce that ruling. Who would they get, Capitol Police? What other options are there?
On the post: Public Colleges Are Violating The 1st Amendment In Using Facebook Filters
Re: No 1A issue here
I would think that the mere presentation of keywords to Facebook for addition to their filters by public entities, universities or not, would be the 1st Amendment violation. The fact that Facebook is running the filter does not come into consideration, except for their integrity part, in accepting those keywords and applying them.
On the post: Censorship Kills: US Government's Focus On COVID-19 'Messaging' Over Actual Protection Did Real Damage
Re: Re: Say no more
It is hard to extricate scientific achievement from politics, but there are examples of politicians giving scientists a challenge and then using those achievements for their own advantage. To name a couple, the development of the nuclear bomb and the space race, both of which have ancillary consequences both good and bad. I am sure there are many others.
On the post: UNESCO Suggests COVID-19 Is A Reason To Create... Eternal Copyright
How long is infinity minus 1?
Isn't public domain the same as eternal copyright? The creator(s) get their fiscal reward during the monopoly period (which should go back to the 14 + optional (but expensive) 14 years) and then it remains as culture with creative recognition rewards, eternally.
Maybe the eternal part should include required reference to whatever creator 'influenced' the current creation, though that list might get awfully long and has big opportunities for missing contributors which might extend the maximalist penchant for litigation.
That satisfies all the objectives that UNESCO stated, without the money part, which has a tendency to stick to processing parts and never makes it to the supposed beneficiary(s), a likely intended consequence of the imagined protocol.
On the post: Famed Law Professor Richard Epstein's Ever Changing Claims About How Many People Will Die From COVID-19
Re:
Libertarians? I heard that Trump was a Republican. Did I hear that wrong?
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Twitter's Long-Running Lawsuit Over NSL Reporting
Re: Re:
The government, and apparently you, are suggesting that some mind reader might pick a particular twit out of the thousands (millions) of twits posted daily that that NSL, that likely took at least several days to procure and transmit, would be a clue as to which twit it was? Would you, and the government please share what your smoking?
On the post: AT&T Provided FCC Bunk Broadband Availability Data Across 20 States
Re: Missing the *bigger* picture.
At least a part of the issue is will any of the broadband providers (including AT&T) actually spend the money on its intended purpose? They haven't in the past which raises the question as to why they are being given more?
5G is one excuse, and not a very good one as it would take 5-10 times more installations than 4G, but wireless is one of the excuses for broadband to not upgrade their networks last mile installations.
On the post: Texas Attorney General's Office Says It Can Toss People In Jail For Suggesting Coronavirus Fears Are A Legit Reason To Vote From Home
Re: Isn't it obvious by now...
Give them enough Hydroxychloroquine (the one for fish tanks, not the malaria medicine) to cure what ails them along with a directive to follow Trump's advice. It should make all the 'fake' new channels, and create some opportunities.
On the post: Texas Attorney General's Office Says It Can Toss People In Jail For Suggesting Coronavirus Fears Are A Legit Reason To Vote From Home
Two Things
The first is, what if the application says 'because I don't want to take the risk of being infected with the Coronavirus at your close quarters voting place' and the ballot is sent anyway. Does that constitute a violation of the law by the voter, or just the people processing the ballots?
The second is, what if some large percentage of Texas voters do lie on their applications and claim disability for say a hangnail and get the ballot. Is the attorney general will to put more than, say 50% of Texans in jail? I could see him trying to fine them the $10,000, but what would the process do to the court system?
On the post: Oversight Board Calls Out Austin PD For Revamping Policies To Minimize Citizen Complaints
Re: Police Oversight Boards Are a Joke
Agreed, but we have a big problem in that I don't see a methodology for constituting such boards without significant issues. If appointed (I think the most usual way) the person doing the appointing is usually the head of the municipality, an elected official. People in these positions tend to be influenced in many ways, their political party, contributors, groups like police unions that have wide sway. If elected, the people running for the positions on the oversight board may be similarly influenced.
Thinking about getting someone from outside the jurisdiction to do the appointing I am having a hard time coming up with any entity that would take the position of citizens. DoJ, no. Some court, they are sometimes elected or appointed and then approved through a politically compromised process. What other way could we get a board that has the citizens rights foremost in their consideration to give the powers you suggest to?
On the post: Australia Gives Up Any Pretense: Pushes Straight Up Tax On Facebook & Google To Pay News Orgs
Re:
Mike is home, and there is no reason he, nor anyone else should not have or express their opinion.
You wear your own flag bravely, but you haven't thought this through. You do know what will happen if Google takes their ball and goes home, don't you? The media organizations will be in the same sad position they find themselves now, only worse. They could of course start their own search engines, spend a few years figuring out how to run them, and then a few more years getting all the users in Australia to stop using Google (or other search engine) and move to their search engine, and then they can pay themselves for using their own snippets.
Oh, wait...that won't work because then they would be transferring money to their competitors (unless they use a double standard and exempt themselves) and might very well ban all the smaller media companies from their search results. How will that sit?
On the post: Australia Gives Up Any Pretense: Pushes Straight Up Tax On Facebook & Google To Pay News Orgs
Re:
I have some agreement with the nuclear option, then I think about what will happen when the rest of the world gets on the same train. Does Google news only list blogs? Do other search engines follow suit in a self-protective move? Do they de-list the media organizations entirely out of spite? Is Google News a significant enough part of Google Search to have a serious impact on the rest of their search business?
In the end it will be the users who get hurt. Yes the media organizations will also get hurt, and after a whole lot of screaming and crying foul, followed by some serious pouting, might, and I mean might, beg the search industry to re-include them. Whether they do or not will depend upon their fiscal ability to remain solvent in the mean time.
On the post: Australia Gives Up Any Pretense: Pushes Straight Up Tax On Facebook & Google To Pay News Orgs
It's our game, we make the rules, till Google quits that is.
If they want a level playing field, wouldn't all the players need to be playing the same game? Google doesn't write news articles, the media organizations do. The media organizations don't run search engines, Google does. Those seem like different games to me. It's more like cricket and croquet.
I am not sure why Facebook is even in the conversation except they have a lot of money and apparently some of their users post things about subjects that also wind up on media organizations sites. Does Facebook actually post snippets from media organizations? Or is it that users post snippets? If the latter is the case, how is that Facebook's fiscal responsibility?
Next >>