An unanswered question that I have had for a long time has been the ACLU's position on so-called intellectual property? It seems that the progressive abuse of intellectual property laws depriving consumers of their civil rights has been "overlooked" by the ACLU. I believe this may be simply a case of an organization born out of the social ills of the early 20th century not truly recognizing the insidious expansion of so-called IP laws in the 21st century. Hopefully, as the ACLU hires younger technologically sophisticated lawyers the organization may become more activity fighting so-called intellectual property.
I did a quick search of ACLU on TechDirt, and there were quit a few hits. So maybe things are as bad as I am thinking.
Another Slide Down the Slippery Slope into Abusridity
This will be just like "infringement" for playing your radio too loud. Just think of the lawsuit potential when bus loads of tourists take pictures of gobs of people standing around some sort of historical artifact or a casual picture of people at a crowded sports event. Lawyers will be rich!
Yes!!! The application of DRM violates the property rights of the consumer. It also violates the consumer's due process by allowing companies to assume police powers, act as a biased judge, and unilaterally impose exorbitant penalties.
Why would IBM want to patent this? Seems that there has to be an undisclosed motive. What interest would IBM have in determining passenger numbers based on vehicle gross weight?
I had assumed that that this so-called innovative technology would already be utilized at US border crossings. Its a no brainier. Not to mention truck weighing stations too.
Also why limit to people? A "better" more abstract and ridicules patent would be "a method of assessing the validity of cargo being carried on a generic vehicle based on gross weight".
China will follow the Microsoft curve; evolving from ignoring IP to being a major proponent and enforcer of IP.
What does this mean to the US? Should ACTA go into effect we will be paying China a "licensing fee" for everything technological that we use. I wonder how the US IP crowd will react? Won't be pretty.
Another implication, many IP advocates seem to believe that the US is technologically ahead of the rest of the world. But as I read these posts (others who have experience in other countries) point out that the US is actually behind. So why do these IP proponents refuse to look into the mirror and attempt to figure out why we are losing our technological edge? Could it be that patent/copyright law are actually counter productive? That seems to be a question that the IP crowd refuses to even consider despite the overwhelming evidence.
Re: Its called "Playing by the rules", ALL the rules and laws.
Incorrect statement -> "Of course, if you don't like the rules, don't play the game.. You overlook the fact that private industry now goes to the Congressional supermarket to buy favorable legislation. Look at the changes to copyright law which has criminalized certain activities, extended the scope and length of copyright. The rule-of-law in the US is rapidly fading.
Missing the point. What about the responsibility of those who acquire the data? Just because you have acquired an item of information does not give you the right to sell it to the entire world.
Instead of phrasing this as a question of government intrusion for "protecting us", we should be asking why private enterprise does not step-up to the plate and accept responsibility for protecting the private data that they hold. Rotenberg, for example, wrote "it is hard to imagine that the typical internet user can really do much to safeguard their privacy when companies purposefully make it so difficult." The issue should not be "somebody should protect me", but it should be that the other guy should behave himself.
The US it seems has become an entitlement culture where vultures can circle the consumer to pick them clean without any repercussion. Why should it be the sole responsibility of the consumer to protect themselves? If companies don't accept the responsibility of protecting data, then they should be regulated through government intervention.
An absurd statement: "It pretty much drains the revenue stream of the content creator." Why should content creators be exempt from the free-market? How many people who assert that content creators are somehow entitled to a revenue stream would stand-up for people who own businesses or are employees who are put out-of-business because of technological/productivity advances?
If you can't control your revenue stream - don't create the content. Content creators have no right to deprive people of other peoples rights through onerous laws as a means of enriching themselves.
Both copyright along with patents, EULUAs and TOSs can be lumped together under the umbrella of so-called intellectual property. Each of these intellectual property components, over the past few years, have been chipping away at the concept of "Sale", that is the ability of the purchaser to acquire full property rights to products that they have bought.
I guess an important "contribution" of copyright is that sellers claim post-sale control over the content they sell. The real-estate industry, based on this post, is simply copy cating the concept that an "original" owner can somehow retain post sale controls. I wonder if that is the "real" copyright infringement!
Another sad implication of out-of-control "intellectual property" has been the apparent elimination of reverse engineering as a legitimate strategy to bring products (such as ink) to market.
Like others I am appalled by statements that companies, if they spend mega dollars, should somehow be entitled to gouge the consumer to "recover" their investment. The free-market system is based on competition. If a company can't make money too bad, you go out of business.
We are supposed to be a free-market system. New technologies always emerge, there are winners and for the lack of a better politically correct term, losers. Progress unfortunately requires adaptation. Regretfully, the dying industries in their attempt to survive assert that they have to deprive the consumer of their (consumer) rights including the freedom to choose. Unfortunately or political leaders have been accepting this premise without considering its effect on the free-market system. Basically, we have an entitlement/welfare society to protect those who can't adapt.
As an addendum. Patents are no longer being given on an actual device based on real blueprints. Instead we have clouds with abstract titles linked to other clouds with other abstract titles.
To illustrate, if you design an oscillating sprinkler to water a lawn and get a patent for it, a competitor should be able to also build an oscillating sprinkle of a different design.
But today - the assertion is that once a patent is granted for an oscillating sprinkler all oscillating sprinklers (as a concept) are covered by that patent and any other manufacturer who produces and oscillating sprinkler is deemed to have infringed.
Well, for one, this tarnishes my image of Larry Ellison.
Another implication is that Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems which has Open Office and MySQL. Both of these programs are important to the LINUX community. If Oracle is going to make a stink about patents, what does this imply in terms of Oracle's commitment to these products?
Precisely. I constantly hear ads for "free money", newscasters promise a story after the break with an "tease" but then don't deliver, and we hear of companies that will "abolish" most of your credit card debt. EULA's and TOS have onerous conditions that are simply ignored.
A fundamental problem that I have with all these so-called licenses is: By what right can the copyright holder create (assert) ever more licensing rights? If you buy the music one should implicitly have a right to make an MP3 recording, if you have a radio then everyone in reasonable proximity should have a right to listen to the music.
This has gotten to be absurd. As another commenter pointed out on another post, if you privately listen to music on an MP3 file with earphones while at the barber shop you are OK, but if the barber plays music that you can both here, it becomes a performance violation. Given the absurd trend of the copyright holders to become ever more extreme in aggrandizing their so-called rights, we will eventually need licenses for each ear.
On the post: Consumer Group Points Out That IP Laws Are Often Anti-Consumer And Need To Be Fixed
Where is the ACLU?
I did a quick search of ACLU on TechDirt, and there were quit a few hits. So maybe things are as bad as I am thinking.
On the post: Man Arrested In India For Photographing Woman In A Public Place & 'Insulting Her Modesty'
Another Slide Down the Slippery Slope into Abusridity
On the post: HDCP 'Master Key' Found? Another Form Of DRM Drops Dead
Re: Keeps "honest" people "honest"...
On the post: IBM Patents Guessing How Many Kids Are On A School Bus
Why?
I had assumed that that this so-called innovative technology would already be utilized at US border crossings. Its a no brainier. Not to mention truck weighing stations too.
Also why limit to people? A "better" more abstract and ridicules patent would be "a method of assessing the validity of cargo being carried on a generic vehicle based on gross weight".
On the post: If There Were No IP Restrictions, What Kind Of Mobile Devices Could You Build?
Re: Re:
What does this mean to the US? Should ACTA go into effect we will be paying China a "licensing fee" for everything technological that we use. I wonder how the US IP crowd will react? Won't be pretty.
Another implication, many IP advocates seem to believe that the US is technologically ahead of the rest of the world. But as I read these posts (others who have experience in other countries) point out that the US is actually behind. So why do these IP proponents refuse to look into the mirror and attempt to figure out why we are losing our technological edge? Could it be that patent/copyright law are actually counter productive? That seems to be a question that the IP crowd refuses to even consider despite the overwhelming evidence.
On the post: Righthaven Sues Senate Candidate Sharron Angle
Arrogance of Power
Yet another example of how copyright/patent law have become so convoluted that these laws are impossible to apply and therefore lose all meaning.
On the post: Is Falsely Being Accused Of File Sharing With An Automated Pre-Settlement Letter A Form Of Harassment?
Corportasim Running Amok
Content can be taken down without notice based on questionable justification.
Devices can be bricked if a company does not like the way you use the device.
Privacy is the sole responsibility of the unfortunate recipient never the sender (offender).
On the post: eBay Dumping All Third Party Checkout Options
PayPal for California
On the post: Microsoft, Who Supports Software Patents, Now Asks Supreme Court To Help It Against Patent Holder
Re: Its called "Playing by the rules", ALL the rules and laws.
On the post: How Involved Should The Government Be In Protecting Online Privacy?
Re: Re: Wrong Question
On the post: How Involved Should The Government Be In Protecting Online Privacy?
Wrong Question
The US it seems has become an entitlement culture where vultures can circle the consumer to pick them clean without any repercussion. Why should it be the sole responsibility of the consumer to protect themselves? If companies don't accept the responsibility of protecting data, then they should be regulated through government intervention.
On the post: Judge Considering Innocent Infringement Provision For Cat Blogger Sued By Righthaven
Re: At some point it's not fair use
If you can't control your revenue stream - don't create the content. Content creators have no right to deprive people of other peoples rights through onerous laws as a means of enriching themselves.
On the post: Treating Houses Like Copyright... And Then Securitizing And Selling Off The Revenue From Future Resales
The concept of Sale is Being Eliminated
I guess an important "contribution" of copyright is that sellers claim post-sale control over the content they sell. The real-estate industry, based on this post, is simply copy cating the concept that an "original" owner can somehow retain post sale controls. I wonder if that is the "real" copyright infringement!
On the post: Lexmark, HP Using Patent Law To Try To Block Replacement Ink Cartridges From The Market
Reverse Engineering
Like others I am appalled by statements that companies, if they spend mega dollars, should somehow be entitled to gouge the consumer to "recover" their investment. The free-market system is based on competition. If a company can't make money too bad, you go out of business.
On the post: Some Modest Proposals To 'Save' Other Industries
New Industries Emerge Old Ones Fade Out
On the post: Why The Oracle Java Patents Were Literally A Joke Played By Sun Engineers
Re: Re: Patents and Purpose
To illustrate, if you design an oscillating sprinkler to water a lawn and get a patent for it, a competitor should be able to also build an oscillating sprinkle of a different design.
But today - the assertion is that once a patent is granted for an oscillating sprinkler all oscillating sprinklers (as a concept) are covered by that patent and any other manufacturer who produces and oscillating sprinkler is deemed to have infringed.
On the post: Why The Oracle Java Patents Were Literally A Joke Played By Sun Engineers
Implications?
Another implication is that Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems which has Open Office and MySQL. Both of these programs are important to the LINUX community. If Oracle is going to make a stink about patents, what does this imply in terms of Oracle's commitment to these products?
On the post: If Your Ad Claims 'Save More Every Time You Shop,' Does That Need To Be True?
Re: Bull and plenty of it
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Re: What is the Origin of the Licensing Rights?
A fundamental problem that I have with all these so-called licenses is: By what right can the copyright holder create (assert) ever more licensing rights? If you buy the music one should implicitly have a right to make an MP3 recording, if you have a radio then everyone in reasonable proximity should have a right to listen to the music.
This has gotten to be absurd. As another commenter pointed out on another post, if you privately listen to music on an MP3 file with earphones while at the barber shop you are OK, but if the barber plays music that you can both here, it becomes a performance violation. Given the absurd trend of the copyright holders to become ever more extreme in aggrandizing their so-called rights, we will eventually need licenses for each ear.
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
What is the Origin of the Licensing Rights?
Next >>