Well, Fox violates the main part of the deal, which is the factual part... But, see that problem has nothing to do with whether they come to conclusions based on facts they determine... Hell, even if they called themselves the "Fox Opinion Network: We decide, then tell you what we decided, 'cause we're the deciders, too." with the "O'Reilly All-Spin-All-The-Time Zone", I don't see that excusing actual lies.
Well, Fox violates the main part of the deal, which is the factual part... But, see that problem has nothing to do with whether they come to conclusions based on facts they determine... Hell, even if they called themselves the "Fox Opinion Network: We decide, then tell you what we decided, 'cause we're the deciders, too." with the "O'Reilly All-Spin-All-The-Time Zone", I don't see that excusing actual lies.
> The problem with chelleliberty's examples was that
> actually the second option is the better reporting,
> unless the media makes it clear what its leanings
> are, and even then that's not ideal.
I have a hard time understanding how you can reconcile the first part of your statement with the second--my entire point was that the first option *is indeed making those leanings clear* whereas the second one *is hiding them* behind a contrived 'neutrality'? Give me those who are straight up about their biases any day; I'd watch someone giving report #1 over report #2 any day of the week regardless of which side of the issue I came down on.
And, simply asserting "actually the second option is the better reporting" still does not answer my related criticism: the mere selection of what facts to present is going to provide more than ample room for someone's biases to come through in their reporting, whether or not those biases are made explicit. So, again, aren't we at an advantage when someone reporting a charged situation as in my examples doesn't pretend they don't have an opinion? Don't those biases provide me with far more to go on about what may have been left out of the report when I am attempting to collate enough information to form an educated opinion?
And you put forth a "third type" but how is one to come up with the difference? If I didn't already know that a reporter had biases, and I didn't know anything about flat earth vs. round earth, how am I even supposed to know to check it out? You are giving a case which, to me, seems nothing more than a straw man: of course it's easy to knock down and say QED. But what of more complex cases: what of cases where you don't know a priori whether those statistics are valid? What of more complex cases where you have a reasonable sounding alternative on the other side? Theoretically the journalist did research, right? If all that reporter is going to do is give me quotes from the sources, then why in the heck would I ever choose to listen to that person anyway instead of going out and finding people who are going to actually give me some sort of details of what their investigation found?
The case I gave however, is a situation that is much more like the situation we have today, for instance, in cases of violent action by troops in wartime. I could have just as well taken the other perspective for my non-neutral and the example would have been just as valid.
Would you rather have had a report on the Mai Lai massacre saying what the reporter had determined was a more reasonable view of what had happened? Or, rather, just saying some people say this, some people say that, well, who knows, right?
Or, what of reporters reporting on the Dutch contributions to the massacre of thousands of Muslims in Srebrenica? Better just to say well, the government says this, the war institute says this, who can say? Would that have been good journalism?
Not from where I sit. There's are many reasons, but one driving factor behind the very small press given to similar situations happening in wartime to this day, as compared to stories such as were reported during the Vietnam era, is the belief of so many non-journalists that 'neutrality' rather than 'rational enquiry' is the proper function of such reporting, rational conclusions be damned.
Factual, not neutral: "Today government X has admitted to the murder of thousands of Y people, claiming that the act was necessary due to law Z. Thousands of people have stormed the capital in protest of this clearly horrendous act, saying what is obvious: that the murders of thousands could never be justified through law Z, and that those in charge should be brought to justice. Still, the people who ordered the operation have tried to defend their actions with spurious arguments, saying that law Z gave them all the authority they needed, and showing just how far they are willing to go in defense of this law."
Factual, neutral: "Today government X has admitted to the killing of thousands of Y people, pointing to law Z as justification. Thousands stormed the capital in protest, saying that law Z couldn't justify the killings, and demanding that those in charge be punished. The people who ordered the operation, however, stand by their claim that the law provided the justification necessary for the killings."
My point being: I have heard this argument many times, that we must have the neutral facts recited to us (RE: the he-said she-said comment in the article) without any opinion interspersed that might possibly cloud the issue. But, please explain: how is it that having an opinion means that you don't give the facts? I will agree that making up facts in support of your opinion is not journalistic, but I still have not heard one good reason why someone can't do both: have/give an opinion, while still giving the facts.
And, I will also add: how do you propose that the selection of the facts to present doesn't also inherently, except in the simplest of situations, already force an implicit reliance on the opinion of the authors about which facts are important?
I'd much rather get the facts and opinion together (which, by the way, I don't really have a problem parsing out which is which, do you?) and know what biases to watch out for, than to receive the facts with all trace of the true opinion of the journalist removed from view, such that it's hard to know which types of bias I should be looking out for in their interpretation of the facts.
Well, certainly agreed that there's a serious problem currently... I suppose that I don't think it's that patents have value, because that's simply an artifact of the system; patents do have value, per se, since any sort of restriction on your competitors, or guarantee that those who use whatever your patent covers without a license will have to pay you. Those things, as far as I can tell, are not separable from whether many/most individuals in society benefit from the posited extra invention that accompanies them, since it's precisely what makes them valuable to those that own them that encourages the theoretical extra amount of invention in the first place.
But, let's posit that we have a patent system that's one you would accept; what would ever stop that system from degenerating into the one we have now? I can't see anything other than possibly "all of a sudden everyone in the position to profit from the patent system politically or economically becomes a saint and does everything in their power to ensure that they never take advantage of the power that exists due to the system in a bad way..."
What is it that prevents those with self-interest in doing so (read: big business and the politicians they're in bed with) from subverting the well-intended acceptable system? Instead of truly encouraging innovation, restricting it to a look at more recent times, it has stifled innovation. Without patents, wouldn't big corporations have even more incentive to innovate, since they can no longer rest on their laurels, relying on a patents as a big stick to whack their would-be competitors with? What sort of changes could be made to ensure that patents were so cut-and-dry that no one could file suit with the knowledge that in many cases those sued will simply settle rather than deal with the uncertainty?
It's not that you're saying something I haven't heard, or that I don't agree that things *could be* far better than they are. But, that they *aren't* seems good evidence against them, and until there are some very convincing answers to the many questions that arise such as those, and as to how such a system can be devised, implemented, and then maintained indefinitely without being corrupted at some point by those who will do whatever is in their power to derail or alter the system so that they can benefit from the imbalances created by an system stacked in their favor.
Originally I was wondering why this kind of response to what was a seemingly innocuous amusing post, but looking at the rest of the threads and the post times, I think I see what happened and why you were angry, so, I'll "skip a bit"...
* RE: you categorically stating that Mike is an "arrogant prick" who belittles artists
May I ask for some examples of articles where you felt Mike did this? I can't imagine from the stuff I've read that any of it was intended to belittle artists, but I'd be interested to see examples so I can perhaps avoid people thinking what an arrogant bitch I must be for belittling them... In fact, if anything Mike strikes me as someone who wants to protect artists from the predatory methods of those in big media.
OTOH, I have seen a bit of Mike standing up to the a**holes profiting off others from big media and our supposed representatives in the government, who sometimes seem to be constantly trying to stick it to us, their customers and constituents, as often and as hard as possible, for their own selfish reasons, so I suppose I can see that may come off as a little arrogant at times... although none of it IMO approaching the arrogance of those he speaks against. Anyways, it was the entire sentiment that is my main concern, although I think "strong" and "arrogant" are perhaps being mistaken, for one in the same.
RE: the fact that you seem to pretty much agree with the Techdirt/Mike's/Our position on artists going directly to the fans and also on how to treat your fans
Is that an accurate reading? If so, am I correct in thinking that we pretty much agree on things other than whether it's right to say music is property?
RE: your argument against saying "intangible means not valuable"
You're responding to a straw man argument that I have seen *no one* on here ever make, although I could have missed it easily. But, in response:
Of course there are many valuable things that are not "tangible" property! But that's because "value" is something that resides in every individual that "values" something, and there are many (most?) of us that value things like sculpture, music, painting, poetry, etc., and is entirely independent, like it or not, of something's status as property. For instance, I think air is quite valuable, but (and let's make it easy and just say: "in an area of the countryside, with no real pollution to speak of and few people around") air is a great example of something that is very valuable, and yet it is not (in the countryside mentioned) a *scarce* resource, and it does not need allocation between the few people in that countryside to prevent conflict, and therefore, is not something which needs to be property in that location.
But saying something has value is a far cry from saying that the thing can be treated as property, at least for the important purpose of determining who has the right to use a resource which can only be used by one person at a time. And in the case of music, and I mean the underlying *concept* of the music, i.e. the idea, not any particular CD, but just "the song", there is no conflict between the right of different individuals when two people both "have the song" and try to "use" it at the same time; me "having the song" at a particular would not deprive you of "having the song" at the same time, nor would there be any incentive for me to try to, say, hit you over the head and "take the song" from you, since, we're assumedly talking about a song that's already released and available somewhere. (You most certainly can keep complete control over the song, in which case you could be said to be the only one to "have" it. But, little short of never playing it except by yourself with no one else around to hear would really give you that kind of 'ownership' over it, and even then it's a bit of a stretch of the concept of property/ownership.)
But, so, to answer your question, the line drawn which (historically, legally) has been used to distinguish property from non-property is just that: the scarcity of the thing in question--if something physically exists in the world, and can not be claimed by multiple parties with conflicting interests at the same time, then it is a scarce resource and can be property. Property law, in fact, provides ways acceptable to a majority of people to determine who is the "rightful" owner of a piece of scarce property in a conflict, without resorting to a "might makes right" philosophy.
In the case of music, yes it has a tangible effect on people! Yes, it is very valuable. I can't even imagine how much less rich my life would have been in a world without music! But, since it (the sound of the music is what I'm referring to here) can be reproduced/play by one individual without at the same time depriving another individual of their ability to reproduce/play the exact same sound: even at the exact same time. It is not a scarce resource needing to be treated as property in order to decide the rightful owner in case of conflict; each person can play the music, therefore there is no traditional idea of a legal property conflict involved. (Yes, I realize there is a conflict here, but a property conflict doesn't mean a conflict as in: "we have conflicting views on whether you should listen to that without paying" but a property conflict only arises when one party can't use scarce resources because another person has deprived them of those resources.)
In fact (here's where I am more extreme than most, including Mike, who has said on at least one occasion I saw that he is not totally against IP) considering music or other non-scarce goods as property completely turns traditional property rights on their collective head: because, in that case, whenever someone writes down an idea or makes a song or what-have-you, a corresponding restriction on scarce property, and, in fact, restrictions on the way that every other person may use their own, rightfully owned, scarce property are now given to the one who simply wrote down the idea or recorded the song. Like it or not, intellection restriction rights are not only "property" in the (historical/legal) sense of the word, they are the inverse of property: rights that you obtain in telling other people what to do with their property because you wrote something down.
Regardless of the points to be made in in favor of intellectual restriction rights, calling those rights "Intellectual Property" is misleading, and that has long struck me as fundamentally incorrect. I think those who are rabidly defend the extending of such rights beyond even their present unprecedented scope (for instance, treating them criminally instead of civilly is a rather novel concept for the U.S.
Much of this wouldn't have gone through so easily if big media hadn't managed to fire the opening salvos under the radar; things may well have gone differently if we had a real debate, framed as: "Hey, by having these rights, there are a lot of difficult issues, including, among other things: providing severe criminal penalties for the first time on many infringements that previously were purely civil matters; extending these rights is taking away even more of people's freedom to use their own scarce property in nonviolent ways as they see fit; causing a number of actions which used to be, not only *not* a criminal offense, but perfectly legal under the law (such as sharing music without profiting from it); or the Constitutional issues at least in the U.S. where the explicitly stated purpose of copyright was to benefit the people, not individuals" etc. etc. as opposed to the (initially very successful) campaign by big media to frame the debate, almost in its entirety, as: "Copying is stealing someone else's intellectual *property*, and we know that people who steal other people's property are just thieves. We harshly punish thieves when we catch them, and we should harshly punish these thieves who are *stealing other people's property* by copying, too. And why on earth would you listen to anyone about this issue who would copy things, since they are just thieves, and thieves will make any excuses for their behavior."
Which was indeed a very powerful argument for those standing to benefit from 'winning' the debate, but which, as you can see, ignores every relevant point in an intellectually honest framing of the debate.
Hey, I disagree that copyright could ever be implemented in a way that does not reward or punish the wrong people. I also believe that the fact that intellectual restriction laws conflict with long standing property law used to remedy and reduce conflict over scarce resources in free societies is more than enough to reject it out of hand without very strong evidence showing, not only that there *might* be some benefit to intellectual restriction law, but that the benefit is so strong that it outweighs the benefits of having a simple, consistent way of dealing with the conflicts that naturally arise around scarce property. But I would't for a second try to frame it, even if I knew I could score a quick "win" by doing so by saying, "Hey, people that want copyright law want to throw close to 1,000 years of property law out the window so they can steal the rightful use of your stuff. And people that want to steal your stuff are thieves..." etc. But that's because I actually care to understand and to come to understanding, not to just ram my beliefs down someone else's throat.
Of course, I'm sure if you were ask some of the people that post here, it's clear that anyone that thinks what I think must obviously be a 'freet*rd' who 'just wants something for nothing' and wants to 'screw the rightful owners of intellectual property out of their due.' And, of course, anything I say must be just an attempt to obfuscate and confuse, because I'm just a thief trying to justify stealing your works as well as others', and that's what you get for coming here and talking to people that actually agree with that scoundrel Mike Masnick. :)
Anyway, post is far too long and it's far too late, so I leave all typos, mistakes, ambiguities and other errors to posterity, but perhaps this is too long after the original post to be read by many anyway and people will mostly simply pull it out as evidence from time to time that I am far too radical on intellectual restriction law and therefore should be dismissed out of hand without really reading it closely enough to realize the plethora of errors which certainly remain. :P
(*) the "tian" in "techdirtian" is pronounced like the "tian" in "martian", and I immediately lay claim to this as my own work and place it into the public domain, or I give a license to it under the least restrictive license in your jurisdiction, or under your choice among several if there are several equivalently less restrictive licenses in your jurisdiction. damn, someone probably already has used techdirtian, though, haven't they? ;D
> And no, I'm not a Techdirt regular I'm a noob, but it's
> fucken annoying when I see posts with headlines like this
> one on my Twitter feed.
Perhaps it's annoying for reasons other than anything inherent in the headline? I thought it was an interesting attempt to draw an analogy; dunno if it exactly works for me, but at least it's food for thought. But I don't get what's so offensive about it...
I mean, I imagine the fact that you are here to begin with and were willing to try to get your point of view across so that others might learn something shows that you are not one of the people here that believes they are completely 100% right about everything they think ever, or that believes no one here might be willing to listen and learn, and I very much admire that you came and tried to make your point.
But, really, the thing is that most of us in the world actually have very similar goals: we want people to be better off, not worse off; we do not desire to gain everything at the expense of others having nothing; in general, people believe what they believe because they think their opinions on things are to the benefit of all. I believe there are a minority, a very vocal and currently in-power minority, that actually do not care about others, but frame their arguments to attempt to make people believe they do. I also believe, however, that it's practically impossible to tell them apart short of direct admissions.
Therefore, I believe it's better to take people at their word, and to argue as if everyone is out for what they think is right and good; in any case, especially in a forum such as this, there will be people that come and read the comments who hold very similar ideas who truly DO want what's best, and there's no advantage to making it an Us vs. Them argument. I try just treat everyone as Us, although I probably often fail.
But, the main point I want to make in response to your comment is that, as an admitted newcomer to Techdirt, was it really appropriate to come out swinging? Please put aside your assumptions about our motivations and approach it from the perspective that maybe we really do care, and maybe we really do mean what we say, and maybe, just maybe, if you treat people with respect, and you have valid points, at least some of us will listen and understand; or, we'll disagree respectfully and say why.
Also remember that many of us have put many years (urm, or decades for some people, no idea who could be that old ;D) into thinking, discussing, and coming to conclusions about these issues, so we are not necessarily just trying to be contrary if we disagree, nor do we necessarily consider our ideas to be above those of all others. I have put enough thought into most of what I talk about that I'm pretty sure I'm right due to having had a constant debate with myself when I wasn't talking with others. No, not everyone has done so, but why assume things about anyone when you can't know who has put the thought in and who hasn't?
Isn't learning something new really about the only good reason for having a discussion about our beliefs in the first place? I'm not here to 'win' or to score points against someone else, I left those tactics behind along with the debate team I was on in school. I certainly don't think a flame fest ever really helped anyone, or at least in the sense of helping that I have in mind...
"I'm not looking to the future for some magic thing to happen that means I never have to write a new song again. [etc.]"
Read my post again. When did I EVER say that?!
I simply pointed out that a very very small minority could even make a living, because about the only ones who could were those who struck it rich.
You call out an assumption you think is made by others, but why would you assume that I must not be a musician, or understand musicians' concerns, if I support Mike and Techdirt and *gasp* actually even go farther in my dislike of copyright than most anyone else here? And perhaps I have just seen a different perspective, but where do you get that "most people" think that musicians want to make a big payoff and retire? Seems like you're making another fairly big assumption there yourself...
I actually am a musician and have created some music, and one who would have likely been able to make a living creating and enriching the lives of others rather than coding up a bunch of stuff for industry. (No, I'm not saying what I did wasn't valuable, just not as good for as many other people in the world and certainly not what I would have preferred...) I would have much rather had a life where I could hear people say "wow, she really made a difference in my life with her music" rather than "wow, she really coded up some great systems to run our hardware"... I mean, I released a little bit of my music (12-string instrumental guitar if you're interested) on the original mp3.com (now garageband.com, kinda, wikipedia has some comments on it), and I was very grateful for the opportunity to have had my 5 fans for the time I did.
But, I was unable to dedicate the amount of time it takes to be a truly professional musician (by "professional" I just mean one dedicated to the craft, not simply someone who gets paid) and instead took satisfaction in providing what little enjoyment I could to people I knew, as an amateur, because that's what was available to me. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel like my time was wasted. I took one of my talents and used it to its fullest and I am proud of that. But I saw, even back then, how messed up the whole situation was, and how different my life could have been if I could have fast forwarded 15-20 years.
Being a professional was not an option for me at the time precisely because of the f**ked-up-ness of the industry which funneled almost every entertainment dollar into its own coffers and only to a very small percentage of the artists involved; charging $15-20 for a damned casette, CD, etc., while barely paying anyone except in that aforementioned small minority, even the ones that did "make it" onto a label. I just wish you could realize that (IMO) you're actually blessed that people don't treat music as property, because if they did, the entertainment giants would probably be able to maintain a stranglehold on the system and still be the gatekeepers to musical success.
Oh, and I just want to point out that I'm not hypocritical about this. I have given some of my code, that I've had time to do in between jobs lately, to the world via a Creative Commons CC0 dedication+free licensing for jurisdictions that don't allow for an author to give things to the public domain, and when I finally get my first album released, it shall be the same. It will be my gift to anyone in the world that gets something out of it. And always, "with love". I'll provide a way that people can support me if they so choose, but I will not voluntarily participate in a system that has harmed so many...
And there's a hell of a lot more damage done than just within artistic communities, but this post is already far too long.
> You are absolutely, completely, living in the past if you
> think that's how a modern music artist's mind works.
I was painting a picture of how it used to be vs. how it is now; I totally agree it's not how a modern music artist's mind works; you seem to understand a lot better than your original post let on.
> There is no middle man anymore, we go straight to the fans.
Then great! You seem to have the right idea. But, so I imagine you realize that copyright law ain't gonna be what draws your fans to ya.
But, so, you really shouldn't be accusing Mike or the other regulars here of trying to screw you since we actually care about you, the artists, and those of us that can afford to actually do pay to help artists we enjoy create the art we enjoy, as evidenced by the growing number of people who are able to make a living at things like music, despite copyright having become a non-impediment to anyone who wanted to try to simply get everything for free...
It's just not true that we don't think about the little artists. In fact, many of us are very likely the ones that, if we like your stuff, and we aren't dead broke, then we will pay you the full price directly for it instead of you having to pay almost everything to make to the record companies. That is, if you get a record contract with them.
Having a copyright doesn't guarantee people will buy your music. But really, even in a system without copyright, you are probably one of the increasing numbers of people who can now actually make a living off your art (as opposed to the great great minority that have been able to up until now) while you "only live for your music".
Instead of say, waiting tables the rest of your life, waiting for your big break. Yeah, gotta love the way it was before people starting trading songs over the internet, huh?
Seriously, there are some good articles on Techdirt about leveraging the current system: if you truly have been around enough to validly make comments like "One thing that frustrates me about Techdirt and particularly its author" then you damn well ought to take the time to read the things that show its author actually is very concerned that you be able to make a living and he has written many articles pointing you towards how to do that.
Just look to the right under "From the Techdirt Archive..." and please don't act like you know anything about how much I or others care about artists like you when you don't even get that we do think you're better off now than when copyright was hard to violate, and that our push back against big media is something far more valuable to you than trying to prevent those that already weren't going to pay for your music from listening to it.
Indeed. Or, they'll just 'reinterpret' the laws that exist and do whatever they want anyway. Like, y'know, they are already doing.
Without a sea change in the way people view the government, I see little hope of things getting better near-term. Mid- to long- term, however they will screw up like all large bureaucratic organizations, and fall as inevitably and at least as hard as did the Berlin wall...
That could take some time though, so I'm working towards educating people for the sea change. :)
The article just seems a bit overdone to me on the patent troll thing, as that seems, to me, to miss the real lesson to be learned here.
Does the foundation have the responsibility to acknowledge responsibility for selling off their patents without guarantees that they wouldn't be used in the way that they themselves said they were avoiding? I certainly believe they do. Clearly at least an "our bad" is in order depending on the details, which I also would hope would be forthcoming. Maybe even an explanation of how they mucked it up, if they did so, or an admission that they just didn't really care, or whatever.
But this is a separate issue from the whole 'patent troll' concept.
Let me put this out there: the reason that so-called 'patent trolls' are considered by many to be double plus ungood has little or nothing to do with the fact that the companies are non-practicing. And I think that's what gets lost in the language there. But, if you accept patent law at all, you have no real ground for rejecting non-practicing entities: in fact, an open market with non-practicing entities that simply buy (or license I suppose in this case) patents increases the value of valid patents through increased demand.
For that matter, what of the (mythical?) 'little guy' that comes up with some sort of industrial patent that they would never be able to implement due to costs, etc.? Are they only allowed to profit from that patent by selling it to someone who can implement it? I mean, if the little guy kept the patent and then sued a company that implemented it without licensing, would the 'little guy' now be considered a patent troll? [Hmm, "No *true* patent troll actually created the patent..."]
See, I think what is, generally, meant by "patent troll" has little to do with whether the entity is practicing or non practicing, and I think that by focusing so much on whether a horrible horrible patent troll (or someone who enabled the existence of such a troll) is doing some horrible horrible patent trolling ["trip trop, trip trop, who is that using my process for a piece of software?"] we're not saying what really needs to be said.
And what do I think needs to be said?
First, these patents seem to me to *clearly* be obvious to those skilled in the art. Patents are not supposed to be granted for obvious inventions. Seriously, take ten decent development teams, give them the basic requirements, ask for additional ideas too, and I counterfactually bet that with a week of brainstorming, ten of the teams would come up with most of what is contained in those patents, and that at least one would have them all.
Second, using bad law to do something that in other contexts could be called "extortion" is still wrong, regardless of whether it's legal. And in this case it's against companies that seem to me to currently be the ones that truly "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". And they did it simply using ideas that they likely were able to develop independently with little effort.
People who use the law in this manner, are, quite frankly, a**holes. And those that knowingly enable them to do so? Also a**holes. Someone: "But they're within their rights, so they're not doing anything wrong." So what? When someone was within their legal rights to get someone sent to debtors prison, did that make them less of an a**hole? No. And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who defends the people using these tactics: also a**holes.
And, finally, I think that it needs to be said that we already know there are a**holes that are willing to do things like this, yet the true problem isn't that there are a**holes out there, it's that the screwed up patent law system itself encourages a**holes to act like total a**holes, at least as it currently stands. I mean, c'mon, there are always going to be a**holes. But if we've got a legal construct that is increasingly and massively allowing a**holes to be... well, so a**holish, shouldn't that tell you there's a systemic problem far larger than any one a**hole?
I think that, especially in this case, by solely focusing the negative energy on the patent troll enabler, you have completely missed an opportunity to hit at the root of the issue: patent law sucks. (Yes, I realize you hit at the root many times elsewhere, I just mean that articles like this tend to polarize people against what are fairly small potatoes, in the scheme of things, through what amounts to a demonization. Us vs. Them. But, I mean, c'mon, current patent law encourages entities to obtain, sell, and use bad patents, by pretty much any workable definition of "bad patent".
How about some additional perspective, like:
"Current patent law can't be patched, because it's in many ways a political system that gathers power unto itself like any other bureaucracy, so, really, we should even expect what would otherwise be a foundation we could support to go bad, the system provides too many pitfalls allowing what would have otherwise been a squeaky-clean organization to be corrupted?"
I know I'm not saying anything new here, but software patents tend to be so much bulls**t anyway, and despite one possibly good but ambiguous ruling that possibly could have limited the scope of patents, it ultimately failed, and the momentum is always going to be towards expanding patents to and past the point that the public good is even involved, much less the entire reason for it.
And, given the obvious inability of judges to remedy the situation, the only possible solution would be for the legislation to be re-worked entirely. But that would also be doomed to failure, because (as we saw with SOPA/PIPA among many other things) most politicians are a**holes as well and the legislation will almost certainly be designed to simply help those who have greased the right palms.
So, like I say, yes, I agree with the main thrust of your article: the foundation did something it said it wouldn't do, and it ought at the very least take responsibility for that. But I have seen increasing vitriol directed at patent trolls (not saying it's just here), and I just wish it seemed that when I read about the awful trolls, I saw something more proportional as to what truly makes the trolls into trolls, and as to the root cause of the situation, and what could even possibly be done about it.
Re: besides, current measures don't "effectively" contr... no, nevermind...
Besides, the law requires that the protection measures "effectively control" the items in question, so things that are already easily circumvented don't really do tha...
Oh, my bad, "effectively control" just means that the protection measure requires, "to gain access to the work," either the "application of information, or a process or treatment" with the authority of the copyright owner. [sheesh, so basically it sounds someone could provide a static serial number, "1", and require that you enter the "1" to gain access, and if you enter "1" without having permission you would be in violation of the anti-circumvention measures. amirite? ahh well, no matter.]
Sorry, wait, well, there are exemptions, but only if the Librarian of Congress says it's oka...
No, no; hold a sec... only if the Librarian of Congress agrees after receiving a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights reques...
Ummm... (Wow, there's a lot of stuff in there, hold on, I'll get it...) Oh, okay, so: if the Librarian of Congress says it's okay after having received a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights, after consulting with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, then you can... oh... sigh...
Okay, got it this time: if the Librarian of Congress says it's okay, after having received a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights, who, after having consulted with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, then reports and comments on his or her views leading to the recommendation, then, finally the exempt...
wait, almost there...
Actually it's: if the Librarian of Congress (after having received the recommendation from the Register of Copyrights, who consulted with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and reported and commented on his or her views leading to the recommendation) makes the determination, in an on-the-record rulemaking proceeding, that persons using a copyrighted work are adversely affected (or are likely to be so within a 3-year period) by the anti-circumvention rule [wait, wouldn't that actually be anyone that wanted to do formerly allowed things, like making backups, or playing things on alternate players, or scores of other things?] while considering various factors listed in the law plus the Librarian's own judgement... THEN it's perfectly okay to circumvent the measure... Well, for the next three years, until the next round of rulemaking begins.
Sheesh and some of you guys act like the DMCA restrictions on circumvention are, like, onerous and set in stone or something... ;) :P
[And, don't give me that bull about how bad it is that they've put in this requirement for a proceeding etc. that prevents all you freeturds from just circumventing away and then pretending that it's okay just because you otherwise would have had a legal justification for your actions... I mean, really, why wouldn't you want the law to make sure that a further political hearing is required to affirm that you are actually adversely affected by being unable to exercise your rights due to DRM? Hell, maybe you're better off... builds character... um, uphill, both ways... y'know, get out and get some exercise or something instead of just sitting there circumventing all day. ;)]
On the post: Free For The First Time In Decades, Libyan Media Struggles To Define Itself
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Free For The First Time In Decades, Libyan Media Struggles To Define Itself
On the post: Free For The First Time In Decades, Libyan Media Struggles To Define Itself
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutrality
> actually the second option is the better reporting,
> unless the media makes it clear what its leanings
> are, and even then that's not ideal.
I have a hard time understanding how you can reconcile the first part of your statement with the second--my entire point was that the first option *is indeed making those leanings clear* whereas the second one *is hiding them* behind a contrived 'neutrality'? Give me those who are straight up about their biases any day; I'd watch someone giving report #1 over report #2 any day of the week regardless of which side of the issue I came down on.
And, simply asserting "actually the second option is the better reporting" still does not answer my related criticism: the mere selection of what facts to present is going to provide more than ample room for someone's biases to come through in their reporting, whether or not those biases are made explicit. So, again, aren't we at an advantage when someone reporting a charged situation as in my examples doesn't pretend they don't have an opinion? Don't those biases provide me with far more to go on about what may have been left out of the report when I am attempting to collate enough information to form an educated opinion?
And you put forth a "third type" but how is one to come up with the difference? If I didn't already know that a reporter had biases, and I didn't know anything about flat earth vs. round earth, how am I even supposed to know to check it out? You are giving a case which, to me, seems nothing more than a straw man: of course it's easy to knock down and say QED. But what of more complex cases: what of cases where you don't know a priori whether those statistics are valid? What of more complex cases where you have a reasonable sounding alternative on the other side? Theoretically the journalist did research, right? If all that reporter is going to do is give me quotes from the sources, then why in the heck would I ever choose to listen to that person anyway instead of going out and finding people who are going to actually give me some sort of details of what their investigation found?
The case I gave however, is a situation that is much more like the situation we have today, for instance, in cases of violent action by troops in wartime. I could have just as well taken the other perspective for my non-neutral and the example would have been just as valid.
Would you rather have had a report on the Mai Lai massacre saying what the reporter had determined was a more reasonable view of what had happened? Or, rather, just saying some people say this, some people say that, well, who knows, right?
Or, what of reporters reporting on the Dutch contributions to the massacre of thousands of Muslims in Srebrenica? Better just to say well, the government says this, the war institute says this, who can say? Would that have been good journalism?
Not from where I sit. There's are many reasons, but one driving factor behind the very small press given to similar situations happening in wartime to this day, as compared to stories such as were reported during the Vietnam era, is the belief of so many non-journalists that 'neutrality' rather than 'rational enquiry' is the proper function of such reporting, rational conclusions be damned.
On the post: More Comedians Following Louis CK's Path... But They Don't Need To Copy It Exactly
Re: Re: Re: $5 selling on website won't always work?
<scraps plans for $5 gt/lt form-post proxy feature>
On the post: More Comedians Following Louis CK's Path... But They Don't Need To Copy It Exactly
Re: $5 selling on website won't always work?
and on another note:
[suggests that comment section allow obviously non-HTML tags such as <scraps (as in <scraps plans for website>) and just print them verbatim.]
;)
On the post: More Comedians Following Louis CK's Path... But They Don't Need To Copy It Exactly
$5 selling on website won't always work?
On the post: Free For The First Time In Decades, Libyan Media Struggles To Define Itself
Re: Neutrality
Factual, neutral: "Today government X has admitted to the killing of thousands of Y people, pointing to law Z as justification. Thousands stormed the capital in protest, saying that law Z couldn't justify the killings, and demanding that those in charge be punished. The people who ordered the operation, however, stand by their claim that the law provided the justification necessary for the killings."
My point being: I have heard this argument many times, that we must have the neutral facts recited to us (RE: the he-said she-said comment in the article) without any opinion interspersed that might possibly cloud the issue. But, please explain: how is it that having an opinion means that you don't give the facts? I will agree that making up facts in support of your opinion is not journalistic, but I still have not heard one good reason why someone can't do both: have/give an opinion, while still giving the facts.
And, I will also add: how do you propose that the selection of the facts to present doesn't also inherently, except in the simplest of situations, already force an implicit reliance on the opinion of the authors about which facts are important?
I'd much rather get the facts and opinion together (which, by the way, I don't really have a problem parsing out which is which, do you?) and know what biases to watch out for, than to receive the facts with all trace of the true opinion of the journalist removed from view, such that it's hard to know which types of bias I should be looking out for in their interpretation of the facts.
On the post: Holocaust History Preserver Shoah Foundation's Patents Being Used To Sue Google, Facebook, Hulu, Netflix, Amazon
Re: Re: Patent Troll! Patent Troll! Patent Troll!
But, let's posit that we have a patent system that's one you would accept; what would ever stop that system from degenerating into the one we have now? I can't see anything other than possibly "all of a sudden everyone in the position to profit from the patent system politically or economically becomes a saint and does everything in their power to ensure that they never take advantage of the power that exists due to the system in a bad way..."
What is it that prevents those with self-interest in doing so (read: big business and the politicians they're in bed with) from subverting the well-intended acceptable system? Instead of truly encouraging innovation, restricting it to a look at more recent times, it has stifled innovation. Without patents, wouldn't big corporations have even more incentive to innovate, since they can no longer rest on their laurels, relying on a patents as a big stick to whack their would-be competitors with? What sort of changes could be made to ensure that patents were so cut-and-dry that no one could file suit with the knowledge that in many cases those sued will simply settle rather than deal with the uncertainty?
It's not that you're saying something I haven't heard, or that I don't agree that things *could be* far better than they are. But, that they *aren't* seems good evidence against them, and until there are some very convincing answers to the many questions that arise such as those, and as to how such a system can be devised, implemented, and then maintained indefinitely without being corrupted at some point by those who will do whatever is in their power to derail or alter the system so that they can benefit from the imbalances created by an system stacked in their favor.
On the post: Thinking Of Copyright As Property Is As Natural As Thinking Of Smells As Property
Re: Re: Re: An Artist's perspective
* RE: you categorically stating that Mike is an "arrogant prick" who belittles artists
May I ask for some examples of articles where you felt Mike did this? I can't imagine from the stuff I've read that any of it was intended to belittle artists, but I'd be interested to see examples so I can perhaps avoid people thinking what an arrogant bitch I must be for belittling them... In fact, if anything Mike strikes me as someone who wants to protect artists from the predatory methods of those in big media.
OTOH, I have seen a bit of Mike standing up to the a**holes profiting off others from big media and our supposed representatives in the government, who sometimes seem to be constantly trying to stick it to us, their customers and constituents, as often and as hard as possible, for their own selfish reasons, so I suppose I can see that may come off as a little arrogant at times... although none of it IMO approaching the arrogance of those he speaks against. Anyways, it was the entire sentiment that is my main concern, although I think "strong" and "arrogant" are perhaps being mistaken, for one in the same.
RE: the fact that you seem to pretty much agree with the Techdirt/Mike's/Our position on artists going directly to the fans and also on how to treat your fans
Is that an accurate reading? If so, am I correct in thinking that we pretty much agree on things other than whether it's right to say music is property?
RE: your argument against saying "intangible means not valuable"
You're responding to a straw man argument that I have seen *no one* on here ever make, although I could have missed it easily. But, in response:
Of course there are many valuable things that are not "tangible" property! But that's because "value" is something that resides in every individual that "values" something, and there are many (most?) of us that value things like sculpture, music, painting, poetry, etc., and is entirely independent, like it or not, of something's status as property. For instance, I think air is quite valuable, but (and let's make it easy and just say: "in an area of the countryside, with no real pollution to speak of and few people around") air is a great example of something that is very valuable, and yet it is not (in the countryside mentioned) a *scarce* resource, and it does not need allocation between the few people in that countryside to prevent conflict, and therefore, is not something which needs to be property in that location.
But saying something has value is a far cry from saying that the thing can be treated as property, at least for the important purpose of determining who has the right to use a resource which can only be used by one person at a time. And in the case of music, and I mean the underlying *concept* of the music, i.e. the idea, not any particular CD, but just "the song", there is no conflict between the right of different individuals when two people both "have the song" and try to "use" it at the same time; me "having the song" at a particular would not deprive you of "having the song" at the same time, nor would there be any incentive for me to try to, say, hit you over the head and "take the song" from you, since, we're assumedly talking about a song that's already released and available somewhere. (You most certainly can keep complete control over the song, in which case you could be said to be the only one to "have" it. But, little short of never playing it except by yourself with no one else around to hear would really give you that kind of 'ownership' over it, and even then it's a bit of a stretch of the concept of property/ownership.)
But, so, to answer your question, the line drawn which (historically, legally) has been used to distinguish property from non-property is just that: the scarcity of the thing in question--if something physically exists in the world, and can not be claimed by multiple parties with conflicting interests at the same time, then it is a scarce resource and can be property. Property law, in fact, provides ways acceptable to a majority of people to determine who is the "rightful" owner of a piece of scarce property in a conflict, without resorting to a "might makes right" philosophy.
In the case of music, yes it has a tangible effect on people! Yes, it is very valuable. I can't even imagine how much less rich my life would have been in a world without music! But, since it (the sound of the music is what I'm referring to here) can be reproduced/play by one individual without at the same time depriving another individual of their ability to reproduce/play the exact same sound: even at the exact same time. It is not a scarce resource needing to be treated as property in order to decide the rightful owner in case of conflict; each person can play the music, therefore there is no traditional idea of a legal property conflict involved. (Yes, I realize there is a conflict here, but a property conflict doesn't mean a conflict as in: "we have conflicting views on whether you should listen to that without paying" but a property conflict only arises when one party can't use scarce resources because another person has deprived them of those resources.)
In fact (here's where I am more extreme than most, including Mike, who has said on at least one occasion I saw that he is not totally against IP) considering music or other non-scarce goods as property completely turns traditional property rights on their collective head: because, in that case, whenever someone writes down an idea or makes a song or what-have-you, a corresponding restriction on scarce property, and, in fact, restrictions on the way that every other person may use their own, rightfully owned, scarce property are now given to the one who simply wrote down the idea or recorded the song. Like it or not, intellection restriction rights are not only "property" in the (historical/legal) sense of the word, they are the inverse of property: rights that you obtain in telling other people what to do with their property because you wrote something down.
Regardless of the points to be made in in favor of intellectual restriction rights, calling those rights "Intellectual Property" is misleading, and that has long struck me as fundamentally incorrect. I think those who are rabidly defend the extending of such rights beyond even their present unprecedented scope (for instance, treating them criminally instead of civilly is a rather novel concept for the U.S.
Much of this wouldn't have gone through so easily if big media hadn't managed to fire the opening salvos under the radar; things may well have gone differently if we had a real debate, framed as: "Hey, by having these rights, there are a lot of difficult issues, including, among other things: providing severe criminal penalties for the first time on many infringements that previously were purely civil matters; extending these rights is taking away even more of people's freedom to use their own scarce property in nonviolent ways as they see fit; causing a number of actions which used to be, not only *not* a criminal offense, but perfectly legal under the law (such as sharing music without profiting from it); or the Constitutional issues at least in the U.S. where the explicitly stated purpose of copyright was to benefit the people, not individuals" etc. etc. as opposed to the (initially very successful) campaign by big media to frame the debate, almost in its entirety, as: "Copying is stealing someone else's intellectual *property*, and we know that people who steal other people's property are just thieves. We harshly punish thieves when we catch them, and we should harshly punish these thieves who are *stealing other people's property* by copying, too. And why on earth would you listen to anyone about this issue who would copy things, since they are just thieves, and thieves will make any excuses for their behavior."
Which was indeed a very powerful argument for those standing to benefit from 'winning' the debate, but which, as you can see, ignores every relevant point in an intellectually honest framing of the debate.
Hey, I disagree that copyright could ever be implemented in a way that does not reward or punish the wrong people. I also believe that the fact that intellectual restriction laws conflict with long standing property law used to remedy and reduce conflict over scarce resources in free societies is more than enough to reject it out of hand without very strong evidence showing, not only that there *might* be some benefit to intellectual restriction law, but that the benefit is so strong that it outweighs the benefits of having a simple, consistent way of dealing with the conflicts that naturally arise around scarce property. But I would't for a second try to frame it, even if I knew I could score a quick "win" by doing so by saying, "Hey, people that want copyright law want to throw close to 1,000 years of property law out the window so they can steal the rightful use of your stuff. And people that want to steal your stuff are thieves..." etc. But that's because I actually care to understand and to come to understanding, not to just ram my beliefs down someone else's throat.
Of course, I'm sure if you were ask some of the people that post here, it's clear that anyone that thinks what I think must obviously be a 'freet*rd' who 'just wants something for nothing' and wants to 'screw the rightful owners of intellectual property out of their due.' And, of course, anything I say must be just an attempt to obfuscate and confuse, because I'm just a thief trying to justify stealing your works as well as others', and that's what you get for coming here and talking to people that actually agree with that scoundrel Mike Masnick. :)
Anyway, post is far too long and it's far too late, so I leave all typos, mistakes, ambiguities and other errors to posterity, but perhaps this is too long after the original post to be read by many anyway and people will mostly simply pull it out as evidence from time to time that I am far too radical on intellectual restriction law and therefore should be dismissed out of hand without really reading it closely enough to realize the plethora of errors which certainly remain. :P
(*) the "tian" in "techdirtian" is pronounced like the "tian" in "martian", and I immediately lay claim to this as my own work and place it into the public domain, or I give a license to it under the least restrictive license in your jurisdiction, or under your choice among several if there are several equivalently less restrictive licenses in your jurisdiction. damn, someone probably already has used techdirtian, though, haven't they? ;D
On the post: Thinking Of Copyright As Property Is As Natural As Thinking Of Smells As Property
Re: Re: Re: An Artist's perspective
> fucken annoying when I see posts with headlines like this
> one on my Twitter feed.
Perhaps it's annoying for reasons other than anything inherent in the headline? I thought it was an interesting attempt to draw an analogy; dunno if it exactly works for me, but at least it's food for thought. But I don't get what's so offensive about it...
I mean, I imagine the fact that you are here to begin with and were willing to try to get your point of view across so that others might learn something shows that you are not one of the people here that believes they are completely 100% right about everything they think ever, or that believes no one here might be willing to listen and learn, and I very much admire that you came and tried to make your point.
But, really, the thing is that most of us in the world actually have very similar goals: we want people to be better off, not worse off; we do not desire to gain everything at the expense of others having nothing; in general, people believe what they believe because they think their opinions on things are to the benefit of all. I believe there are a minority, a very vocal and currently in-power minority, that actually do not care about others, but frame their arguments to attempt to make people believe they do. I also believe, however, that it's practically impossible to tell them apart short of direct admissions.
Therefore, I believe it's better to take people at their word, and to argue as if everyone is out for what they think is right and good; in any case, especially in a forum such as this, there will be people that come and read the comments who hold very similar ideas who truly DO want what's best, and there's no advantage to making it an Us vs. Them argument. I try just treat everyone as Us, although I probably often fail.
But, the main point I want to make in response to your comment is that, as an admitted newcomer to Techdirt, was it really appropriate to come out swinging? Please put aside your assumptions about our motivations and approach it from the perspective that maybe we really do care, and maybe we really do mean what we say, and maybe, just maybe, if you treat people with respect, and you have valid points, at least some of us will listen and understand; or, we'll disagree respectfully and say why.
Also remember that many of us have put many years (urm, or decades for some people, no idea who could be that old ;D) into thinking, discussing, and coming to conclusions about these issues, so we are not necessarily just trying to be contrary if we disagree, nor do we necessarily consider our ideas to be above those of all others. I have put enough thought into most of what I talk about that I'm pretty sure I'm right due to having had a constant debate with myself when I wasn't talking with others. No, not everyone has done so, but why assume things about anyone when you can't know who has put the thought in and who hasn't?
Isn't learning something new really about the only good reason for having a discussion about our beliefs in the first place? I'm not here to 'win' or to score points against someone else, I left those tactics behind along with the debate team I was on in school. I certainly don't think a flame fest ever really helped anyone, or at least in the sense of helping that I have in mind...
On the post: Thinking Of Copyright As Property Is As Natural As Thinking Of Smells As Property
Re: Re: Re: An Artist's perspective
Read my post again. When did I EVER say that?!
I simply pointed out that a very very small minority could even make a living, because about the only ones who could were those who struck it rich.
You call out an assumption you think is made by others, but why would you assume that I must not be a musician, or understand musicians' concerns, if I support Mike and Techdirt and *gasp* actually even go farther in my dislike of copyright than most anyone else here? And perhaps I have just seen a different perspective, but where do you get that "most people" think that musicians want to make a big payoff and retire? Seems like you're making another fairly big assumption there yourself...
I actually am a musician and have created some music, and one who would have likely been able to make a living creating and enriching the lives of others rather than coding up a bunch of stuff for industry. (No, I'm not saying what I did wasn't valuable, just not as good for as many other people in the world and certainly not what I would have preferred...) I would have much rather had a life where I could hear people say "wow, she really made a difference in my life with her music" rather than "wow, she really coded up some great systems to run our hardware"... I mean, I released a little bit of my music (12-string instrumental guitar if you're interested) on the original mp3.com (now garageband.com, kinda, wikipedia has some comments on it), and I was very grateful for the opportunity to have had my 5 fans for the time I did.
But, I was unable to dedicate the amount of time it takes to be a truly professional musician (by "professional" I just mean one dedicated to the craft, not simply someone who gets paid) and instead took satisfaction in providing what little enjoyment I could to people I knew, as an amateur, because that's what was available to me. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel like my time was wasted. I took one of my talents and used it to its fullest and I am proud of that. But I saw, even back then, how messed up the whole situation was, and how different my life could have been if I could have fast forwarded 15-20 years.
Being a professional was not an option for me at the time precisely because of the f**ked-up-ness of the industry which funneled almost every entertainment dollar into its own coffers and only to a very small percentage of the artists involved; charging $15-20 for a damned casette, CD, etc., while barely paying anyone except in that aforementioned small minority, even the ones that did "make it" onto a label. I just wish you could realize that (IMO) you're actually blessed that people don't treat music as property, because if they did, the entertainment giants would probably be able to maintain a stranglehold on the system and still be the gatekeepers to musical success.
Oh, and I just want to point out that I'm not hypocritical about this. I have given some of my code, that I've had time to do in between jobs lately, to the world via a Creative Commons CC0 dedication+free licensing for jurisdictions that don't allow for an author to give things to the public domain, and when I finally get my first album released, it shall be the same. It will be my gift to anyone in the world that gets something out of it. And always, "with love". I'll provide a way that people can support me if they so choose, but I will not voluntarily participate in a system that has harmed so many...
And there's a hell of a lot more damage done than just within artistic communities, but this post is already far too long.
On the post: Thinking Of Copyright As Property Is As Natural As Thinking Of Smells As Property
Re: Re: Re: An Artist's perspective
> think that's how a modern music artist's mind works.
I was painting a picture of how it used to be vs. how it is now; I totally agree it's not how a modern music artist's mind works; you seem to understand a lot better than your original post let on.
> There is no middle man anymore, we go straight to the fans.
Then great! You seem to have the right idea. But, so I imagine you realize that copyright law ain't gonna be what draws your fans to ya.
But, so, you really shouldn't be accusing Mike or the other regulars here of trying to screw you since we actually care about you, the artists, and those of us that can afford to actually do pay to help artists we enjoy create the art we enjoy, as evidenced by the growing number of people who are able to make a living at things like music, despite copyright having become a non-impediment to anyone who wanted to try to simply get everything for free...
On the post: Thinking Of Copyright As Property Is As Natural As Thinking Of Smells As Property
Re: An Artist's perspective
Having a copyright doesn't guarantee people will buy your music. But really, even in a system without copyright, you are probably one of the increasing numbers of people who can now actually make a living off your art (as opposed to the great great minority that have been able to up until now) while you "only live for your music".
Instead of say, waiting tables the rest of your life, waiting for your big break. Yeah, gotta love the way it was before people starting trading songs over the internet, huh?
Seriously, there are some good articles on Techdirt about leveraging the current system: if you truly have been around enough to validly make comments like "One thing that frustrates me about Techdirt and particularly its author" then you damn well ought to take the time to read the things that show its author actually is very concerned that you be able to make a living and he has written many articles pointing you towards how to do that.
Just look to the right under "From the Techdirt Archive..." and please don't act like you know anything about how much I or others care about artists like you when you don't even get that we do think you're better off now than when copyright was hard to violate, and that our push back against big media is something far more valuable to you than trying to prevent those that already weren't going to pay for your music from listening to it.
On the post: Why Anti-Circumvention Laws Are Evil: Hollywood Gets To Veto DVD Jukebox, Despite Complete Lack Of Infringement
Re: the start of something big
Without a sea change in the way people view the government, I see little hope of things getting better near-term. Mid- to long- term, however they will screw up like all large bureaucratic organizations, and fall as inevitably and at least as hard as did the Berlin wall...
That could take some time though, so I'm working towards educating people for the sea change. :)
On the post: Holocaust History Preserver Shoah Foundation's Patents Being Used To Sue Google, Facebook, Hulu, Netflix, Amazon
Patent Troll! Patent Troll! Patent Troll!
The article just seems a bit overdone to me on the patent troll thing, as that seems, to me, to miss the real lesson to be learned here.
Does the foundation have the responsibility to acknowledge responsibility for selling off their patents without guarantees that they wouldn't be used in the way that they themselves said they were avoiding? I certainly believe they do. Clearly at least an "our bad" is in order depending on the details, which I also would hope would be forthcoming. Maybe even an explanation of how they mucked it up, if they did so, or an admission that they just didn't really care, or whatever.
But this is a separate issue from the whole 'patent troll' concept.
Let me put this out there: the reason that so-called 'patent trolls' are considered by many to be double plus ungood has little or nothing to do with the fact that the companies are non-practicing. And I think that's what gets lost in the language there. But, if you accept patent law at all, you have no real ground for rejecting non-practicing entities: in fact, an open market with non-practicing entities that simply buy (or license I suppose in this case) patents increases the value of valid patents through increased demand.
For that matter, what of the (mythical?) 'little guy' that comes up with some sort of industrial patent that they would never be able to implement due to costs, etc.? Are they only allowed to profit from that patent by selling it to someone who can implement it? I mean, if the little guy kept the patent and then sued a company that implemented it without licensing, would the 'little guy' now be considered a patent troll? [Hmm, "No *true* patent troll actually created the patent..."]
See, I think what is, generally, meant by "patent troll" has little to do with whether the entity is practicing or non practicing, and I think that by focusing so much on whether a horrible horrible patent troll (or someone who enabled the existence of such a troll) is doing some horrible horrible patent trolling ["trip trop, trip trop, who is that using my process for a piece of software?"] we're not saying what really needs to be said.
And what do I think needs to be said?
First, these patents seem to me to *clearly* be obvious to those skilled in the art. Patents are not supposed to be granted for obvious inventions. Seriously, take ten decent development teams, give them the basic requirements, ask for additional ideas too, and I counterfactually bet that with a week of brainstorming, ten of the teams would come up with most of what is contained in those patents, and that at least one would have them all.
Second, using bad law to do something that in other contexts could be called "extortion" is still wrong, regardless of whether it's legal. And in this case it's against companies that seem to me to currently be the ones that truly "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". And they did it simply using ideas that they likely were able to develop independently with little effort.
People who use the law in this manner, are, quite frankly, a**holes. And those that knowingly enable them to do so? Also a**holes. Someone: "But they're within their rights, so they're not doing anything wrong." So what? When someone was within their legal rights to get someone sent to debtors prison, did that make them less of an a**hole? No. And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who defends the people using these tactics: also a**holes.
And, finally, I think that it needs to be said that we already know there are a**holes that are willing to do things like this, yet the true problem isn't that there are a**holes out there, it's that the screwed up patent law system itself encourages a**holes to act like total a**holes, at least as it currently stands. I mean, c'mon, there are always going to be a**holes. But if we've got a legal construct that is increasingly and massively allowing a**holes to be... well, so a**holish, shouldn't that tell you there's a systemic problem far larger than any one a**hole?
I think that, especially in this case, by solely focusing the negative energy on the patent troll enabler, you have completely missed an opportunity to hit at the root of the issue: patent law sucks. (Yes, I realize you hit at the root many times elsewhere, I just mean that articles like this tend to polarize people against what are fairly small potatoes, in the scheme of things, through what amounts to a demonization. Us vs. Them. But, I mean, c'mon, current patent law encourages entities to obtain, sell, and use bad patents, by pretty much any workable definition of "bad patent".
How about some additional perspective, like:
"Current patent law can't be patched, because it's in many ways a political system that gathers power unto itself like any other bureaucracy, so, really, we should even expect what would otherwise be a foundation we could support to go bad, the system provides too many pitfalls allowing what would have otherwise been a squeaky-clean organization to be corrupted?"
I know I'm not saying anything new here, but software patents tend to be so much bulls**t anyway, and despite one possibly good but ambiguous ruling that possibly could have limited the scope of patents, it ultimately failed, and the momentum is always going to be towards expanding patents to and past the point that the public good is even involved, much less the entire reason for it.
And, given the obvious inability of judges to remedy the situation, the only possible solution would be for the legislation to be re-worked entirely. But that would also be doomed to failure, because (as we saw with SOPA/PIPA among many other things) most politicians are a**holes as well and the legislation will almost certainly be designed to simply help those who have greased the right palms.
So, like I say, yes, I agree with the main thrust of your article: the foundation did something it said it wouldn't do, and it ought at the very least take responsibility for that. But I have seen increasing vitriol directed at patent trolls (not saying it's just here), and I just wish it seemed that when I read about the awful trolls, I saw something more proportional as to what truly makes the trolls into trolls, and as to the root cause of the situation, and what could even possibly be done about it.
[let the flaming begin ;)]
On the post: Holocaust History Preserver Shoah Foundation's Patents Being Used To Sue Google, Facebook, Hulu, Netflix, Amazon
On the post: Why Anti-Circumvention Laws Are Evil: Hollywood Gets To Veto DVD Jukebox, Despite Complete Lack Of Infringement
RE: Changing the outcome of the VCR case
Sounds like a job for the Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time!
On the post: Why Anti-Circumvention Laws Are Evil: Hollywood Gets To Veto DVD Jukebox, Despite Complete Lack Of Infringement
On the post: Why Anti-Circumvention Laws Are Evil: Hollywood Gets To Veto DVD Jukebox, Despite Complete Lack Of Infringement
Re: besides, current measures don't "effectively" contr... no, nevermind...
Oh, my bad, "effectively control" just means that the protection measure requires, "to gain access to the work," either the "application of information, or a process or treatment" with the authority of the copyright owner. [sheesh, so basically it sounds someone could provide a static serial number, "1", and require that you enter the "1" to gain access, and if you enter "1" without having permission you would be in violation of the anti-circumvention measures. amirite? ahh well, no matter.]
On the post: Why Anti-Circumvention Laws Are Evil: Hollywood Gets To Veto DVD Jukebox, Despite Complete Lack Of Infringement
circumvention not always absol... oh, wait, nevermind...
Sorry, wait, well, there are exemptions, but only if the Librarian of Congress says it's oka...
No, no; hold a sec... only if the Librarian of Congress agrees after receiving a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights reques...
Ummm... (Wow, there's a lot of stuff in there, hold on, I'll get it...) Oh, okay, so: if the Librarian of Congress says it's okay after having received a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights, after consulting with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, then you can... oh... sigh...
Okay, got it this time: if the Librarian of Congress says it's okay, after having received a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights, who, after having consulted with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, then reports and comments on his or her views leading to the recommendation, then, finally the exempt...
wait, almost there...
Actually it's: if the Librarian of Congress (after having received the recommendation from the Register of Copyrights, who consulted with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and reported and commented on his or her views leading to the recommendation) makes the determination, in an on-the-record rulemaking proceeding, that persons using a copyrighted work are adversely affected (or are likely to be so within a 3-year period) by the anti-circumvention rule [wait, wouldn't that actually be anyone that wanted to do formerly allowed things, like making backups, or playing things on alternate players, or scores of other things?] while considering various factors listed in the law plus the Librarian's own judgement... THEN it's perfectly okay to circumvent the measure... Well, for the next three years, until the next round of rulemaking begins.
Sheesh and some of you guys act like the DMCA restrictions on circumvention are, like, onerous and set in stone or something... ;) :P
[And, don't give me that bull about how bad it is that they've put in this requirement for a proceeding etc. that prevents all you freeturds from just circumventing away and then pretending that it's okay just because you otherwise would have had a legal justification for your actions... I mean, really, why wouldn't you want the law to make sure that a further political hearing is required to affirm that you are actually adversely affected by being unable to exercise your rights due to DRM? Hell, maybe you're better off... builds character... um, uphill, both ways... y'know, get out and get some exercise or something instead of just sitting there circumventing all day. ;)]
Next >>