Re: A fine line between protecting your rights and catching criminals
When all this surveillance started, it was about 'terrorism', then crime was added, then property interests. Then more actions were determined to be criminal. Frankly, I prefer my privacy to omnipotence of states that have given no indication of giving a tinkers damn about me.
Difficult to understand unless your sputtering economy depends on responding to content lobbies' demand to criminalize and root out any and all downloading...
Yes, the Europeans rejected it, but not before Sarkozy tried to sneak his pillow-talk legislation back in in what he hoped to be unread pockets of the seemingly unrelated telecoms package (the Europeans are still wondering what interest Business Software Alliance had in lobbying hard for the telecoms package...), a scheme thwarted only by a curious UK academic who discovered it. Is anyone beginning to notice the overlap between IP worldwide policing and the decline in so-called personal data protection (non-existent in the US but historically important for Europe) in the name of the War on Terror? IP is what's left of the western economy, especially now that finance has tanked. This is not conspiracy, it is industrial policy, let lose in a world where we have gone from being citizens to consumers to data subjects, with our rights diminishing accordingly. Running along side is the content lobby's relentless efforts to criminalize all perceived IP infringement (search IPRED2) in Europe, pursuing the secret ACTA which would leave IP enforcement in the hands of customs officials worldwide, while trying to get the US government to pursue its civil actions on the home front (the homeland? whatever) among other things. See legislative history of Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act 2008
The same Burnham who can't distinguish between straight copyright (rewarding creators for their efforts) related or neighboring rights (rewarding broadcasters and record companies for their investments and performers for their renditions (in the old sense of the word) and moral rights (rewarding nothing, but protecting the reputation of the creators from misuse of their creation). Help us, o supernatural forces from the Burnhams of this world.
It's not so much that the 'trademark remains'. The trademark appeared when the copyright ran out (50 years, as it then was, from 1929), and if anyone had had the money, time and inclination, it probably never would have survived a challenge. Mickey shouldn't be a trademark - he did not make the T-shirts, etc. on which he appears. He does not distinguish his goods from those of others. He is a character who should inhabit the public domain, just like Betty Boop. This is where big money comes in - who would bother, against the Disney phalanx, to point this out in court? So don't hold your breath. He's incarcerated in IP for the duration.
As a teacher of IP and international law, I often get the same questions from students. I usually respond something along the lines of "understanding what's going on around you reduces your victimhood and is an enjoyable activity in itself". Your posting will help to expand on that. Thanks, continue the good work, and Happy New Year to all.
It is indeed a fight to the death. The problem is the IP people are backed, or more correctly are backing the 'national security' people and with the info they collect together, users barely have a chance. We must first realize how powerful this duo in violating our privacy and our right to the internet (yes, it is time for this) before we can develop an effective strategy to combat it.
Of course they get paid. That's what it's about. Thank Sarkozy's pillow talk for this one. One whisper from Carla and it's (almost) French law. Another whisper from Sarkozy and it's (almost EU law). One more whisper...
Dear Anonymous, You're not wrong per se, but the goal of the original Berne was to allow citizens of signatory states to have their copyrights recognized in other signatory states and to free authors from complying with state-imposed bureaucratic requirements in order to do so. These requirements intially offended the US (which at that time claimed to be developing country and therefore entitled to copy anything), as did moral rights (the right to protect the author's reputation after he had sold the economic rights). It wasn't until 1989 (not 1979) that the US acceded to Berne, and then basically because they were pushing for everyone else to join and felt it unseemly (remember when we found things unseemly?) not to join themselves. Since the 1990s, and particularly after the 1995 World Trade Agreement TRIPS provisions, it has been the pharma and content industries who have dictated the contents of international treaties, while the US government engages in constant forum shopping (WIPO to WTO, back to WIPO. Currently ACTA is being (secretly, as we know) negotiated through the World Customs Organization - ever heard of that one?) to make the task of pharma and content even easier.
'Outsourcing policing' is right on point. The brewing but still secret "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" is just that. Get the border guards to do it. Let's keep our collective eye on that ball.
This plan is really making the rounds. After lobbying Sarkozy, who promptly and perhaps successfully tried to introduce it into French law, RIAA then convinced him, as president of the EU to initiate legislation introducing it into the EU as a harmonizing directive. Rejected by a full 88% of the European Parliament, he is still attempting to bring it in through the back door. Much has been written on this at the EU This is a case study in RIAA international lobbying for the circumvention of due process. It is closely tied with the collection of personal data, which obviously would make their task much easier.
Yes, there's much more to IP than copyright. There's patent, for example. Patents on seeds and plants, the source of food and drugs. A less than neutral take on IP has no place in the trade policy of a country whose reputation for fairness and compassion, let alone decency, is on the rocks, to put it mildly. Watch The World According to Monsanto, or The Future of Food to find out what IP means for the rest of the world. IP is much more than copyright.
One must accept that IP law is no longer aimed at fostering innovation but at protecting the old guys who once had a thought. Lawrence Lessig is on the right track - go after the lobbyists who 'push' congress to enact ever more draconian IP law, and parse out 'national security' from IP law so that these guys can't use fear to get every detail of your life.
If you are American, it makes sense that you don't understand. If you are European, that sums up the problem right there.
1) the EC has mountains of power - EC makes law and that law trumps national law where there's a conflict.
2) The Council here is made up of all the cabinet ministers from the various countries. It is they who vote for legislation initiated (always) by the Commission.
3) The Parliament is made up of elected Parliamentarians from the member states and though it does not function like a national parliament, it has some say in the legislation that passes through it on the way from the Commission to the Council (an over simplification, but it will do in a pinch).
Hope this helps.
Does anyone really wonder why 1)Ireland voted against the Lisbon Treaty and 2) no other country has the guts to allow its citizens a referendum? France deserves what it gets - they voted for him. As for the rest? You decide (please).
Afterthought: This is an EC right. Finland probably didn't register it under Russian law, so, unless Russia invades wearing said duds, no infringement. It's territorial this stuff. Sorry Finland.
First of, this is neither copyright (which, by the way costs nothing and comes into existence at the moment your creation has fixed form) nor patent (used to protect inventions, very expensive and requires novelty, inventiveness and utility, none of which camo has). It is 'design' protection, a right which doesn't exist in US law except for the rather useless (to those who need immediate and inexpensive design protection) 'design patent', that has hardly any overlap in use or structure to the European design right, which this is about. IP isn't semantics, it's the last hold of the western world on the global economy. It is our 'savior' and our damnation. Might be good if people understood it a bit more. Otherwise, charming story. You go Finland.
Another long forgotten detail: people the world over knew about (and even admired) America through its films - they were cheap to see and everyone could watch them. It was indeed culture, not content. Now films (at least if reliant on legal distribution) have gone the way of education - get it if you have the money, otherwise eat cake (or worse).
ACTA is much more than 'changing national copyright laws'. TRIPS did that in 1995. It applies to all forms of IP and from what one can glean, would require customs officials in all 'signatory' (i.e. those forced to sign after the formerly developed countries have it securely in place) to enforce IP laws at the borders at the expense of all other interests. So much feeds into this. Would, for example, US law permitting confiscation and copying of hard disks at borders in order to 'detect' and 'prevent' illegal import and export of IP be globalized? It's fairly clear that it would. It is not for nothing that this is being negotiated through the formerly low-key International Customs Organization. It is being kept secret because this makes the World Trade Agreement of 1995 look like child's play. IP is the last hold the US and the EU have on the world economy. They are not going to let it go down the drain because of the fundamental rights this ACTA will violate, namely but not exclusively privacy and the right to protect personal data.
On the post: UK Police Now Allowed To Hack Home PCs Without Court Approved Warrant
Re: A fine line between protecting your rights and catching criminals
On the post: UK Police Now Allowed To Hack Home PCs Without Court Approved Warrant
gov hacking
On the post: RIAA Dumps MediaSentry, But Hires DtecNet Instead
On the post: UK Copyright Expiration On Popeye May Be A Test For Mickey Mouse
Re: You know mike what will happen
On the post: UK Copyright Expiration On Popeye May Be A Test For Mickey Mouse
mickey
On the post: On Staying Happy
happiness
On the post: MPAA Also Likes The Idea Of ISP Enforcers For File Sharing
fight to the death
On the post: MPAA Also Likes The Idea Of ISP Enforcers For File Sharing
Re: Why?
On the post: ACTA Negotiators Hold Closed Door Meeting To Say They Need To Be More Transparent
Re: international treaties.
On the post: Some ISPs Push Back On RIAA Plan
Re: About time
On the post: RIAA's New Policy Isn't About Deterrence, It's About Sidestepping Due Process
three strikes
On the post: Why Obama Should Change US Trade Policy On Intellectual Property
Re: Becerra
On the post: If You Worked At Mattel And Thought About Making A Non-Barbie Doll, You Can't
IP
On the post: European Council Rejects EU Parliament's Amendment Against Three Strikes Rule
Re: I dont understand all this Euro stuff
1) the EC has mountains of power - EC makes law and that law trumps national law where there's a conflict.
2) The Council here is made up of all the cabinet ministers from the various countries. It is they who vote for legislation initiated (always) by the Commission.
3) The Parliament is made up of elected Parliamentarians from the member states and though it does not function like a national parliament, it has some say in the legislation that passes through it on the way from the Commission to the Council (an over simplification, but it will do in a pinch).
Hope this helps.
On the post: European Council Rejects EU Parliament's Amendment Against Three Strikes Rule
Someone should listen to Ireland
On the post: Finland Thinks Russia Violated Its Design Right With Military Camouflage
camo
On the post: Finland Thinks Russia Violated Its Design Right With Military Camouflage
camo
On the post: Once Again, Lego Learns That It Doesn't Own The Concept Of Interconnecting Blocks
faux trademark
On the post: Copyright And Its Harm On Culture
culture
On the post: EU Continues To Give Bogus Reasons For Keeping ACTA Secret
ACTA is so much more
Next >>