Maybe this is just the cynic in me, but the two sentences from Sonic.net appear to be specifically worded to allow for loopholes...
Sonic.net does not actively monitor customer use of the Internet, customer email or other customer communications in the course of its regular operations.
Notice it only says that Sonic.net doesn't do these things, not that it prevents other groups from doing so.
"Sonic.net is also strongly opposed to the use of third-party information-harvesting strategies and technologies such as unlawful wiretapping."
And this statement doesn't actually say that Sonic.net doesn't allow third-party information harvesting, just that they're opposed to it. I can just hear it now, "Well, we are opposed to it, but we can't afford not to sell your personal information. Duh! What did you think we meant?"
the patent means only Genzyme can produce the drug
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that because it holds the patent on this drug, only Genzyme can decide if other companies can produce the drug? I mean, patents don't prevent a patent holder from contracting out the manufacture of its patented product. It's just that in this case, Genzyme is choosing not to do this, right?
Rereading Mike's post, I can see where the "There's simply no way" statement could be interpreted as an absolute statement about "every company out there", but I didn't interpret it that way. To me there's a big distinction between an absolute statement and an opinion, even an hyperbolic one.
They'll just blame it on some poor schmuck who created their website for them. I'm sure they'll claim they had no idea that their website was copied from somewhere else.
That's true and that reasoning would probably hold up in a court of law. But in order to get content taken down that you don't like -- or in this case, copied "without your knowledge" -- you don't need to take someone to court. All it takes is a DMCA takedown notice and some bullying.
How funny would it be if each group sent a takedown notice to each other's ISP and both sites were shut down?! (Hmmm, is there such a thing as an amicus brief but for DMCA takedowns?)
The execs were also asked how much incentive patents provided for developing software, and the answer was about as close to none as you could expect.
I don't find this suprising at all. If you had to think of the most popular incentives for creating software, I bet it would include: to make money, to help people, to gain recognition, for the pure satisfaction of solving a problem. Maybe it's just the way I'm looking at it, but a patent isn't a direct incentive to create anything, but more of an indirect factor that comes into play after you've already decided to create something. In other words, you may believe that you'll make more money if your idea is patented, but the underlying incentive is to make money, not "the patent system".
Well, as the AC above alluded to, it depends on how you define "valid". I would certainly hope that it refers not just to whether you have the copyright on the material which is used by someone else, but also includes conditions on that material being used illegally. If not, copyright owners could go around issuing DMCAs without any regard for fair use. Not that this is properly taking into account in the real world, but what would be the point in defining sanctions for an invalid takedown if the definition didn't take into account fair uses?
I think we're looking at this the wrong way. Given legal precedent, the lawsuit actually makes sense. If LimeWire and Gnutella were deemed illegal due in part to the fact that they provided access to a P2P network, then MMS is illegal too because it's a P2P network. They're both P2P networks that don't prevent the transfer of infringing material. What's ridiculous is the fact that no network of any kind, P2P or otherwise, can reliably prevent the transfer of infringing material. What's rediculous is that some people think it's right to sue the owner of the medium instead of the party who actually infringed.
But this particular lawsuit? It makes sense from the standpoint of Ludvarts who saw an opportunity to take advantage of a legal precedent.
"I think that IP reform will only truly go mainstream when the total lockdown mode of our current IP system starts to (visibly) hurt the profits of big companies."
I find this situation ironic because most times that documentary filmmakers are mentioned on TechDirt, it's to describe the troubles they have with acquiring the rights to include copyrighted material. I can't imagine that the makers of the documentary in question are too popular in the overall community of documentary filmmakers. If they would have won their appeal, it would have just made it all the more difficult for everyone else.
I enjoyed the original Halo, but I don't want to have to install Vista/W7 to be able to play the sequel.
Looking at it one way, you can say that high-end PC games are a niche market -- the kind of which is targeted by indie developers -- in comparison to the blockbuster console games. You don't want to upgrade your computer hardware to the latest and greatest very year, that's fine. It just means that you're not the target for the developer who creates games that push the envelope.
It's funny that you should use Halo as an example because as someone who doesn't own a console, I was quite disappointed that they stopped making PC versions of Halo. I happened to enjoy Halo 1 and 2, but I wasn't about to buy a console for the "opportunity" to give up my mouse/keyboard for a console controller. So, in a weird way, Microsoft are being more inclusive, not because they require you to install Vista/W7 to play a years-old version of Halo, but because they stopped putting out PC versions of Halo so they could focus on the broader console market which doesn't require you to upgrade your hardware every couple of years.
Let BP do what they want with their own studies. In the meantime, what we need are neutral geologists and physicists to come in and actually assess the situation from a ... you know... scientific standpoint.
But that's one of the key points of Mike's post, that BP are locking up the experts with contracts that limit their ability to publish their results possibly to prevent negative results from being released. So, you can't just say let BP do "their own studies" because BP will try and hire the top people to do the studies who will then be silenced, leaving fewer and/or less-qualified people to do the public studies.
I understand that it's difficult for a research organization to turn away funding, but in this case it's clearly the ethical thing to do. These universities did the right thing. In fact, I think there should be a universal standard among research organizations (universities, government organizations, private firms, etc) which states that all research will be made public immediately on completion of the study. Commissioning a study and burying the findings because you don't like what the results were -- or, in this case, what you surely know they will be -- is, in my opinion, a clear ethical violation. I'm not saying that this should be forced on research organizations with a new law, but I would like a simple way to tell whether the study results I'm reading about are from a group who can bury results or from one who lives up to (or at least says they do) a higher standard. Maybe some kind of accreditation board or even just a statement saying that the organization vows to live up to this standard. If the public doesn't find out the results at the same time as the group who commissioned the study, then it's far less trustworthy.
If you find yourself digging for *quotes*, please, just QUIT WRITING.
Wow, you really don't like quotes, do you? Your opinion actually reminds me of a common theme on TechDirt, namely the "not invented here" attitude. Like many in the business world, you seem to have an inexplicable need to re-invent the wheel. If someone else did something or, in the case of quotes, said something that exactly matches your needs, what benefit is there, other than to your ego, to invent/write it again?
Hello Jon. It's nice to see such a polite response to a post that disagreed with your post, but...
Your comment "these three options are not meant to be set in stone, rather a jumping off point" seems to directly contractict the title of your post: Why Music Should Never Be Given Away For "Free".
Is this another case where an overzelous editor decided to change your title in the hopes of grabbing more attention?
Comparing the two does not mean there is confusion. No one picks up one of these lasers and thinks it's a lightsaber or associated at all with George Lucas.
But the C&D letter invokes copyright, not trademark, so it's not about the subjective idea of whether the average consumer would be confused or think that the laser was being the sold by Lucas, but whether there are enough objective similarities between the laser and a lightsaber. Right?
We recently talked about the FAA approving flying cars and lots of news articles compared it to the flying cars in the Jetsons. Does that mean there's confusion? I don't think so...
Right, but what if the flying car also looked very similar to the Jetsons flying car? I think that would be a better analogy. Lucas isn't suing all makers of lasers, just the one that made a laser that most people would agree looks like a lightsaber.
(BTW, I'm not saying that Lucas should win. As another person mentioned, I think that Wicked Lasers can make a case that the form of the laser has more to do with the human hand than with an effort to infringe on Lucas' copyright. Wasn't there some story about chocolate bunnies that referenced this principle?)
And BTW, the CNN article linked above does mention trademark, although almost certainly erroneously.
This is probably what you meant, but to clarify, the article does mention trademark, but in a quote from the Wicked Lasers CEO. So, CNN accurately quoted someone who erroneously referenced trademark.
I based my comment on this statement from the article...
"It is apparent from the design of the Pro Arctic Laser that it was intended to resemble the hilts of our lightsaber swords, which are protected by copyright ... ," said the letter, dated last month and provided to CNN by Wicked Lasers.
The reference to trademark is actually by the CEO of Wicked Lasers, not by Lucas...
"They're a big company that needs to protect their trademarks. Maybe they're having to look like they're protecting their trademark in case they need to [protect it again] later."
Let's hope that the lawyer that he hires doesn't also confuse trademark with copyright.
On the post: Which ISPs Hand Private Surfing Info Over To Secretive Private Group Who Monitors It For The Feds?
Re: Not sonic.net
Sonic.net does not actively monitor customer use of the Internet, customer email or other customer communications in the course of its regular operations.
Notice it only says that Sonic.net doesn't do these things, not that it prevents other groups from doing so.
"Sonic.net is also strongly opposed to the use of third-party information-harvesting strategies and technologies such as unlawful wiretapping."
And this statement doesn't actually say that Sonic.net doesn't allow third-party information harvesting, just that they're opposed to it. I can just hear it now, "Well, we are opposed to it, but we can't afford not to sell your personal information. Duh! What did you think we meant?"
On the post: Patents Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives; Fabry Disease Sufferers Petition US Gov't To Step In
Only Genzyme can produce the drug?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that because it holds the patent on this drug, only Genzyme can decide if other companies can produce the drug? I mean, patents don't prevent a patent holder from contracting out the manufacture of its patented product. It's just that in this case, Genzyme is choosing not to do this, right?
On the post: If Andy Warhol Painted His Campbell's Soup Paintings Today, How Fast Would The Cease & Desist Arrive?
Re: Re:
On the post: If Andy Warhol Painted His Campbell's Soup Paintings Today, How Fast Would The Cease & Desist Arrive?
Re:
It's a good thing then that Mike didn't actually say this although you imply that he did.
On the post: US Copyright Group Caught Red Handed Copying Competitor's Website
Re: Scapegoat
That's true and that reasoning would probably hold up in a court of law. But in order to get content taken down that you don't like -- or in this case, copied "without your knowledge" -- you don't need to take someone to court. All it takes is a DMCA takedown notice and some bullying.
How funny would it be if each group sent a takedown notice to each other's ISP and both sites were shut down?! (Hmmm, is there such a thing as an amicus brief but for DMCA takedowns?)
On the post: Software Firms Overwhelmingly Against Patents
Incentive
I don't find this suprising at all. If you had to think of the most popular incentives for creating software, I bet it would include: to make money, to help people, to gain recognition, for the pure satisfaction of solving a problem. Maybe it's just the way I'm looking at it, but a patent isn't a direct incentive to create anything, but more of an indirect factor that comes into play after you've already decided to create something. In other words, you may believe that you'll make more money if your idea is patented, but the underlying incentive is to make money, not "the patent system".
On the post: Reviewer Caught Posting Marketing Material As A Review... Uses DMCA To Takedown Site Of Guy Who Exposed Him
Re: More than a bit ironic...
False advertising! Everyone knows that copyright infringement isn't theft. /s
On the post: Reviewer Caught Posting Marketing Material As A Review... Uses DMCA To Takedown Site Of Guy Who Exposed Him
Re: Confused
Well, as the AC above alluded to, it depends on how you define "valid". I would certainly hope that it refers not just to whether you have the copyright on the material which is used by someone else, but also includes conditions on that material being used illegally. If not, copyright owners could go around issuing DMCAs without any regard for fair use. Not that this is properly taking into account in the real world, but what would be the point in defining sanctions for an invalid takedown if the definition didn't take into account fair uses?
On the post: Is MMS Just Like Limewire? New Lawsuit Against AT&T, Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile Says So...
But MMS *is* just like LimeWire
I think we're looking at this the wrong way. Given legal precedent, the lawsuit actually makes sense. If LimeWire and Gnutella were deemed illegal due in part to the fact that they provided access to a P2P network, then MMS is illegal too because it's a P2P network. They're both P2P networks that don't prevent the transfer of infringing material. What's ridiculous is the fact that no network of any kind, P2P or otherwise, can reliably prevent the transfer of infringing material. What's rediculous is that some people think it's right to sue the owner of the medium instead of the party who actually infringed.
But this particular lawsuit? It makes sense from the standpoint of Ludvarts who saw an opportunity to take advantage of a legal precedent.
On the post: Is MMS Just Like Limewire? New Lawsuit Against AT&T, Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile Says So...
Re: A win could be interesting
"I think that IP reform will only truly go mainstream when the total lockdown mode of our current IP system starts to (visibly) hurt the profits of big companies."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100215/0014498158.shtml#c171
On the post: Appeals Court Reminds Documentary Makers That Facts Are Not Copyrightable
Irony
On the post: Big Game Studio Mocks Indie Developer For Saying He Wants To Connect With Fans
Re:
Looking at it one way, you can say that high-end PC games are a niche market -- the kind of which is targeted by indie developers -- in comparison to the blockbuster console games. You don't want to upgrade your computer hardware to the latest and greatest very year, that's fine. It just means that you're not the target for the developer who creates games that push the envelope.
It's funny that you should use Halo as an example because as someone who doesn't own a console, I was quite disappointed that they stopped making PC versions of Halo. I happened to enjoy Halo 1 and 2, but I wasn't about to buy a console for the "opportunity" to give up my mouse/keyboard for a console controller. So, in a weird way, Microsoft are being more inclusive, not because they require you to install Vista/W7 to play a years-old version of Halo, but because they stopped putting out PC versions of Halo so they could focus on the broader console market which doesn't require you to upgrade your hardware every couple of years.
On the post: BP Hiring Scientists To 'Study' Oil Spill... But Prohibits Them From Publishing Or Sharing Research
Re: That's all good...
But that's one of the key points of Mike's post, that BP are locking up the experts with contracts that limit their ability to publish their results possibly to prevent negative results from being released. So, you can't just say let BP do "their own studies" because BP will try and hire the top people to do the studies who will then be silenced, leaving fewer and/or less-qualified people to do the public studies.
On the post: BP Hiring Scientists To 'Study' Oil Spill... But Prohibits Them From Publishing Or Sharing Research
Burying study results
On the post: Oh No! Run And Hide! Kids Getting High With MP3s! Moral Panic! Moral Panic!
Binaural beats
(A moral panic about smoking beetroot actually makes more sense than "i-dosing".)
On the post: WSJ Opinion Highlights The Problems Of 'Permission Culture'
Re: So what's wrong with originality?
Wow, you really don't like quotes, do you? Your opinion actually reminds me of a common theme on TechDirt, namely the "not invented here" attitude. Like many in the business world, you seem to have an inexplicable need to re-invent the wheel. If someone else did something or, in the case of quotes, said something that exactly matches your needs, what benefit is there, other than to your ego, to invent/write it again?
On the post: Is It Better To *Require* Or *Request* Something In Return For Free Content?
Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!
Your comment "these three options are not meant to be set in stone, rather a jumping off point" seems to directly contractict the title of your post: Why Music Should Never Be Given Away For "Free".
Is this another case where an overzelous editor decided to change your title in the hopes of grabbing more attention?
On the post: Can Laser Maker Be Blamed For Blogs Comparing Laser To Star Wars Lightsabers?
Re: Re:
But the C&D letter invokes copyright, not trademark, so it's not about the subjective idea of whether the average consumer would be confused or think that the laser was being the sold by Lucas, but whether there are enough objective similarities between the laser and a lightsaber. Right?
We recently talked about the FAA approving flying cars and lots of news articles compared it to the flying cars in the Jetsons. Does that mean there's confusion? I don't think so...
Right, but what if the flying car also looked very similar to the Jetsons flying car? I think that would be a better analogy. Lucas isn't suing all makers of lasers, just the one that made a laser that most people would agree looks like a lightsaber.
(BTW, I'm not saying that Lucas should win. As another person mentioned, I think that Wicked Lasers can make a case that the form of the laser has more to do with the human hand than with an effort to infringe on Lucas' copyright. Wasn't there some story about chocolate bunnies that referenced this principle?)
On the post: Can Laser Maker Be Blamed For Blogs Comparing Laser To Star Wars Lightsabers?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is probably what you meant, but to clarify, the article does mention trademark, but in a quote from the Wicked Lasers CEO. So, CNN accurately quoted someone who erroneously referenced trademark.
On the post: Can Laser Maker Be Blamed For Blogs Comparing Laser To Star Wars Lightsabers?
Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
The reference to trademark is actually by the CEO of Wicked Lasers, not by Lucas...
Let's hope that the lawyer that he hires doesn't also confuse trademark with copyright.
Next >>