Except that for copyright infringement (one of the Most Sacred "Intellecutal Properties") one cannot really tell if one infringes or not. It has to go to trial, in all reality, and trials have yielded judgements like reproducing a whole newpaper article isn't infringing, while reproducing just a few words of a song is infringing.
Also, copyright infringement by and large isn't a crime, it's a civil matter.
So, "Due Process" before stopping copyright infringement seems like a damn good idea. Either you're for "Due Process", or you're a Royalist, you monarchical scum, you.
It's called "persona management". Some software gives his posts typographical idiosyncracies so that we'll all think "darryl" is different from "Darryl" is different from "Anonymous Coward with good grammar, and a fetish for consulting lawyers".
Time to update the "persona management software", "darryl".
The your/you're confusion is a bit heavy-handed. It went out with version 3.17.5-6a, for sure. You should upgrade to the latest version of the 4.19.3-x series.
Isn't "the problem" with "Intellectual Property" litigation that litigation is actually required?
That is, despite the constant exhortations to consult a lawyer, said lawyer really truly can't tell you that a particular use infringes. Whole-article-copying has been ruled fair use, and less-than-10-word quotes have been ruled infringing, with respect to copyrights.
As far as patents go, you really can't tell when an idea is patented or not: google "submarine patents" for one problem, and look at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160 for about the only study on whether things judged "infringing" were actually independent inventions or not.
HomeSec and ICE, ACTA and COICA probably won't save the labels, I agree with you. But they'll do a lot of damage before and after the labels go bankrupt, or effectviely quit beling major labels.
> Why do you continuously mislead the conversation in that manner?
I think it's an attempt by some organization(s) with the rumored "persona management software" to put a big, fat, meme in the general public's subconscious. It's a lot like the "Drive Drunk - Go To Jail" tee vee ad campaign. The point of that campaign is to make all possible jurors see "DUI" as a black-or-white binary situation, without nuance. Any defense attorney doesn't stand a chance of getting a jury to look at the facts if that campaign succeeds.
Similarly, F. Fud Bailey's Coporate Overlords want nearly everyone to think of "copyright infringement" as theft, or worse, CHILD PRON. By constantly repeating the assertion in every possible circumstance, no matter how small or obscure, then nearly all of the American public will have been exposed to it, and will "just believe it".
> I think this gets overturned on procedural issues.
Oh, so they're overturn on a technicality. Rightness or wrongness doesn't enter into it. The technicalities are wrong.
Isn't this the kind of thing that drives most Real Americans crazy about the Court system? We want justice, and you and the other Officers of the Court offer us paperwork.
Actually, no. Please understand: the commentor above *did* comprehend that fair use is an affirmative defense. He/she clearly stated that: "Fair use should be assumed, until proven otherwise (you know, innocent until proven guilty)".
The commentor believe that Fair Use *should be* a question of "innocent until proven guilty". I tend to agree. Making Fair Use into an affirmative defense puts "intellectual property" ahead of freedom of speech. That seems like a losing position to me, except for a very few "rightsholders".
Statistically, real threats are rare, but ambition and corruption are common. Overwhelmingly, the purpose of censorship is not the protection of national security, but the protection of individual careers. That's not ideology, but mathematics. Because there are very, very, few true
national secrets, but a huge amounts of information that someone would like to bury for one reason or another.
I think it could offer up the copyright registration on its code. That's "being" in its most tangible form, since the copyright clause appears directly in the constitution, and any amendment that gives an AI "personhood" would be just that: an amendment, which doesn't supercede anything that comes first.
If we grant "personhood" to a chunk of code, then don't the corporate masters of those who wrote the code own the copyright? The rightsholders could legally prevent the AI from fixing any bugs it detects, couldn't they?
Also, wouldn't the right-to-lifers get involved at this point? The rightsholders, in preventing any copying, would be preventing the reproduction of a living, thinking being.
But you hit some of the pricing issues with health care in the US.
The supply of "doctors" is too low, maybe for a number of reasons. The USA doesn't really have that many medical schools. Don't suppose for a minute that I'm down on medical doctors. I'm not: they are simply amazing these days. A general practice doctor is probably the educational and medical equivalent of a high-powered specialist in 1980. But we do have strict licensing requirements, and that probably does keep the supply artificially low.
Malpractice suits are probably too common. This drives physicians to perform "unnecessary" tests, just to cover all bases all the time. We don't allow for mortality and judgment. Perhaps "loser pays" (English Rule) would be a solution, perhaps caps on settlements. I don't know.
Because suits are so common, malpractice insurance is too high in cost. I don't know if I've heard a solution to this one, except "cap settlements", which could easily have some really bad side effects.
Pharmaceuticals, indeed, all medical-related materials, are held to extremely strict standards in materials and manufacturing than anything else, except maybe aerospace flight hardware and software. It's cool that everything in a hospital is carefully over-engineered and tracked, but it costs.
I don't know what the solution(s) is, but it's got to be a combination of things.
Yes, I'd like to request further explanation as well.
Because I don't understand at all. Doesn't Microsoft "compete" with it's own product? Windows XP was amazingly successful, although it did age. Windows Vista failed at least partially because it was competing with XP, MSFT's own product. The various versions of Internet Explorer kind of compete with each other.
But as a consumer, I'd like Microsoft, and Ford and Harper Collins and Apple and Motorola etc to compete with their own product. I want them to sink costs in developing the next, faster CPU, or to sink costs in designing a more efficient auto, or whatever. As a consumer, I don't want my tax dollars to go towards protecting some firm from having to do R&D to make a new product.
So, I just don't understand what you're saying at all. You seem to be saying something totally anti-free-market, something almost merchantilist in implication.
The article says "no notice and no public discussion". As a US citizen, I can assure you, on my mother's grave, that "ObamaCare" received as much notice and public discussion as any bill has ever had in my lifetime.
Now, if you'd said "How is this different than the PATRIOT Act" or it's extensions, I'd have to give you that point.
So, we have the UK's "Digital Economy Act", this Irish thing, and the way France slipped their 3-strikes law into place. For those that remember the past, there was an effort in the USA to pass an atrocity called "UCC-2B" into law. It mercifully failed, although supporters did get it passed into state law in Virginia (I think) and at least one other state. Some US states got "Super-DMCA" laws in the last 10 years, I recall.
How does the actually mechanics of getting some weird-beard law slipped past the very basic mechanisms of the legislatures work? I'm not talking the legal fine points here, these clearly differ a great deal between US Federal, US States, UK Parliament, Irish legislature and French Parliament. What I want to know, is what kind of shenanigans do you have to pull to get such a thing done?
Is every member of every legislative body *that* amenable to just "slipping something through"? I'd think that a small fraction of every legislative body would be revolted by that sort of thing, just on principle, because they like debating and arguing. I'd think a largish fraction of the pro bureaucrats would be just horrified by a caper of this sort, mainly because it would disrupt their professional lives, and cause a lot of unusual paperwork. And what about the press? Surely Fleet Street reporters love to flaunt these sorts of capers around in the UK. Don't they?
And after those considerations, how much does all the back-room conniving cost? International smoke-filled room conferences can't come cheap. What if you get caught?
On the post: MPAA Praises Government Censorship And Lack Of Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, copyright infringement by and large isn't a crime, it's a civil matter.
So, "Due Process" before stopping copyright infringement seems like a damn good idea. Either you're for "Due Process", or you're a Royalist, you monarchical scum, you.
On the post: The Emperor's New Paywall
Re: Re: How is your paywall going mike ????
On the post: Microsoft Wants To Make It Illegal To Buy From An Overseas Company That Uses Unauthorized Software
Re: your 20 years too late mike !!!
The your/you're confusion is a bit heavy-handed. It went out with version 3.17.5-6a, for sure. You should upgrade to the latest version of the 4.19.3-x series.
On the post: Yet Another Study Says Enforcement Won't Bring Back Consumer Spending On Music; But Will Strangle New Biz Models
Mimimizing the risk by staying away
That is, despite the constant exhortations to consult a lawyer, said lawyer really truly can't tell you that a particular use infringes. Whole-article-copying has been ruled fair use, and less-than-10-word quotes have been ruled infringing, with respect to copyrights.
As far as patents go, you really can't tell when an idea is patented or not: google "submarine patents" for one problem, and look at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160 for about the only study on whether things judged "infringing" were actually independent inventions or not.
The usual viewpoint is that you *can't* minimize risk when actually producing things. This is a problem with a lot of laws now a days, not just in "Intellectual Property". See http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556 for a good explanation.
On the post: Forget Infringement, Major Labels Should Be Worrying About Having To Pay Much Higher Royalties On Downloads
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Defending The Indefensible: Lawyers Who Love Loopholes Ignoring Serious Constitutional Issues In Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's an attempt by some organization(s) with the rumored "persona management software" to put a big, fat, meme in the general public's subconscious. It's a lot like the "Drive Drunk - Go To Jail" tee vee ad campaign. The point of that campaign is to make all possible jurors see "DUI" as a black-or-white binary situation, without nuance. Any defense attorney doesn't stand a chance of getting a jury to look at the facts if that campaign succeeds.
Similarly, F. Fud Bailey's Coporate Overlords want nearly everyone to think of "copyright infringement" as theft, or worse, CHILD PRON. By constantly repeating the assertion in every possible circumstance, no matter how small or obscure, then nearly all of the American public will have been exposed to it, and will "just believe it".
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, so they're overturn on a technicality. Rightness or wrongness doesn't enter into it. The technicalities are wrong.
Isn't this the kind of thing that drives most Real Americans crazy about the Court system? We want justice, and you and the other Officers of the Court offer us paperwork.
On the post: Big, Big Loss For Righthaven: Reposting Full Article Found To Be Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The commentor believe that Fair Use *should be* a question of "innocent until proven guilty". I tend to agree. Making Fair Use into an affirmative defense puts "intellectual property" ahead of freedom of speech. That seems like a losing position to me, except for a very few "rightsholders".
On the post: Wikileaks Unveils Evidence Of Indian Parliamentary Bribery
Re:
national secrets, but a huge amounts of information that someone would like to bury for one reason or another.
Seth Finkelstein
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid=03/12/16/0526234&mode=flat
On the post: When Will We Have To Grant Artificial Intelligence Personhood?
Re: One more...
Wait a minute...
On the post: When Will We Have To Grant Artificial Intelligence Personhood?
Re:
If we grant "personhood" to a chunk of code, then don't the corporate masters of those who wrote the code own the copyright? The rightsholders could legally prevent the AI from fixing any bugs it detects, couldn't they?
Also, wouldn't the right-to-lifers get involved at this point? The rightsholders, in preventing any copying, would be preventing the reproduction of a living, thinking being.
This sounds like a supreme mess.
On the post: Retroactive Drug Monopoly Raises Rates From $10... To $1,500
Re:
The supply of "doctors" is too low, maybe for a number of reasons. The USA doesn't really have that many medical schools. Don't suppose for a minute that I'm down on medical doctors. I'm not: they are simply amazing these days. A general practice doctor is probably the educational and medical equivalent of a high-powered specialist in 1980. But we do have strict licensing requirements, and that probably does keep the supply artificially low.
Malpractice suits are probably too common. This drives physicians to perform "unnecessary" tests, just to cover all bases all the time. We don't allow for mortality and judgment. Perhaps "loser pays" (English Rule) would be a solution, perhaps caps on settlements. I don't know.
Because suits are so common, malpractice insurance is too high in cost. I don't know if I've heard a solution to this one, except "cap settlements", which could easily have some really bad side effects.
Pharmaceuticals, indeed, all medical-related materials, are held to extremely strict standards in materials and manufacturing than anything else, except maybe aerospace flight hardware and software. It's cool that everything in a hospital is carefully over-engineered and tracked, but it costs.
I don't know what the solution(s) is, but it's got to be a combination of things.
On the post: Even WIPO Realizing That Copyright Law May Have Gone Too Far
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because I don't understand at all. Doesn't Microsoft "compete" with it's own product? Windows XP was amazingly successful, although it did age. Windows Vista failed at least partially because it was competing with XP, MSFT's own product. The various versions of Internet Explorer kind of compete with each other.
But as a consumer, I'd like Microsoft, and Ford and Harper Collins and Apple and Motorola etc to compete with their own product. I want them to sink costs in developing the next, faster CPU, or to sink costs in designing a more efficient auto, or whatever. As a consumer, I don't want my tax dollars to go towards protecting some firm from having to do R&D to make a new product.
So, I just don't understand what you're saying at all. You seem to be saying something totally anti-free-market, something almost merchantilist in implication.
On the post: Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question
Re: Re: Re:
They say that it's time to get help if you ask yourself a question, and then answer yourself.
I'd say it's time to get help AC/Peter.
On the post: Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: EU Realizes That You Fight Child Porn At The Source... Not By Trying To Hide It
Re: Re: Re:
Presuming that the inclusion of 'casual' means there's, what, a 'formal' "pedo in training"?
If either or both of these is true, how do you know it?
On the post: Irish Gov't Trying To Sneak Through Massive Copyright Law Changes Via Questionable Legal Process
Read the article, Funny Boy
Now, if you'd said "How is this different than the PATRIOT Act" or it's extensions, I'd have to give you that point.
On the post: Irish Gov't Trying To Sneak Through Massive Copyright Law Changes Via Questionable Legal Process
The Mechanics of these "Back-door" laws?
How does the actually mechanics of getting some weird-beard law slipped past the very basic mechanisms of the legislatures work? I'm not talking the legal fine points here, these clearly differ a great deal between US Federal, US States, UK Parliament, Irish legislature and French Parliament. What I want to know, is what kind of shenanigans do you have to pull to get such a thing done?
Is every member of every legislative body *that* amenable to just "slipping something through"? I'd think that a small fraction of every legislative body would be revolted by that sort of thing, just on principle, because they like debating and arguing. I'd think a largish fraction of the pro bureaucrats would be just horrified by a caper of this sort, mainly because it would disrupt their professional lives, and cause a lot of unusual paperwork. And what about the press? Surely Fleet Street reporters love to flaunt these sorts of capers around in the UK. Don't they?
And after those considerations, how much does all the back-room conniving cost? International smoke-filled room conferences can't come cheap. What if you get caught?
Next >>