The patent office issued a patent for what? Hahaah. This should be instead listed under the “lets issue patents for everything and let the companies with the largest bankroll duke it out with the little guys plan. (Obvious special-interesting angle of approach) It must be a special interest lobbying group conception.
Detecting and preventing (Internet browsing/usage) Illegal anything is kind of lame to anyone who has read the Bill of Rights. Or even the Constitution. Exsquease me but haven't we been introduced to totalitarian ant hill concepts before? -explicit rant-
OK lets put on the breaks on the obvious concerns and hold for now.
This is a great article pointing out the ridiculous side of patent law. Since this seems like a software patent (triply redundantly ridiculous) is way off into legislated Oz land. (“Oz” is copyrighted in so many ways. Why does the average citizen worry about casual inferences like this???!?? What areas of freedom of expression are wiped out?)
What effect does this type of thinking have on culture? What type of culture is encouraged with usage of this 'system'? Is is a good and desirable way of life? Who cares... We/us? The type and style of culture is the point for constitutional rationalizations.
To the point; If firms profit by totalitarian thinking then... they will. And. Will do so. -absoluteness- Whether or not McAfee profits by such a patent is completely a cultural and societal based argument. (fascinating, Love it and hate it at same time.)
The McAfee proposed system raises many censorship and privacy concerns. Just them thinking about such nasty concepts is bothering.
The anti-computer-virus industry benefits more than most from FUD. Fear (of viruses), Uncertainty (of the consequences) and doubt (about the remedies) from such an unknown outside terror. Since its logical that the computer virus industry might vanish if knowledge of how to avoid contamination becomes a part of popular culture... would their investor financial projections decrease?
To be honest the anti-virus industry does perform a valued function if overrated. But! Because of FUD this industry profits in enormous ways. Its a bad symptom of current (low?) cultural IQ.
Reactionary,
(AC comment) Anyone who studies the statistics of virus invasion of computers knows that disabling flash and Java for all sites (this method also impedes innovative input) visited is the only way to be sure of avoiding casual virus problems. Use of a non popular OS helps (for general browsing) also. Other things. (complex thoughts)
Rouge site lists will always be taken advantage of by political hijacking. Its a, given classic, censorship by opportunity thing.
Btr1701; Legal and illegal is not even a good argument anymore. With CFAA and DMCA combined with current copyright law 95% of citizens are breaking the law just using the copy-machines, scanners and computers in their possession. Law is quickly becoming irreverent in favor of something else. (like I know wtf.) Its a good point.
AB; A keyloger! Yes thats the term for this McAfee spyware proposal. Good observation.
Can we offer you another special interest infested government plan/agency/policy on student loans? Oh you've already written in up thats so nice of you and its so thoughtful of you to drag out the legalese for 2840 pages. Whats the executive summery say its about?
The after-market companies for defaulted student loans also spend money for lobbying congress for a better cut of the pie and other schemes and additional methods to prevent other government services if in default. All they have to do wait for another student loan 'reform' bill/act/legislation
Life is as beautiful as it is horrible and in life and death things happen. Families break down and people are left with no one to take care of them. Businesses are formed and many wither before 5 years. Its kind of normal that way.
Why do they get special rules in debt preservation that other companies do? Thats why bankruptcy exits. It cant be helped. Its easy for a millionaire (a large percent of legislators) to forget how dirty the gutter is. Its unfair that student loans are treated differently for many reasons.
Whatever cries raised by both sides whether is accusations of loan sharking or students ripping off the system we tend to forget is about people being able to recover from inevitable happenstance of health and physical disaster. (natural or otherwise.)
It sets bad precedent. Its a surely a wrong direction for government. Insert “slippery slope” argument here ( ).
There is not one stage of the creation of law that should be secret. None at all! Its just not done by an open government with nothing to hide. In this respect; What difference does the final product make when the wording and special undisclosed meanings or interpretations are hidden and never published. Exactly how a bill/act/treaty/legislation is the point. The process of which treaties (and the future law delineated within) are created/worded is so very important.
We currently have enough trouble when the various intelligence agencies have already some weird secret policy derived from a hidden interpretation of poorly written legislation. Its a problem already out of control and needs sharp public criticism.
Submitting a ill advised secretly created work of malcontent is no way to operate a democracy. Think thats to harsh? All mysteriously fornicated things are ill advised malformed things!
Its basic human nature to take advantage of any situation. This is not absurd thinking considering who are gathering around the negotiation table; Corporations, special interest groups and diplomats (that are frequently former corporate activists/employees/lawyers/etc) and none of the people/citizens that are liable for such future law or treaties that affect future law.
Further considering how weak and unmotivated the average US voters are it seems they can get away with (almost) anything they want. Its an legislatively unhealthy situation no matter how one looks at it.
The legitimate number of reasons for secrecy are none. The justifications for open negotiations with public input are infinite.
Its hard to comment of the various secret trade talks and the several treaties involved. Because their blackout is working. There is no information. All we can do is argue/conjecture about the hints and suggestions a member group personnel slips out every now and then.
This is one of the main reasons that I believe this is unconstitutional. How can there be ANY credible citizen response about what is secret? If we who are directly involved and responsible to these negotiations... (blankity blank blank!) It is our right to oversee, and produce, negotiate changes in it at any stage. There can be no secret nothing about anything that is our responsibility.
Its goes without saying that congress should shut this down immediately. (did I hear an echo in the post?)
The legal redderic and currently rational reasoning mouthed by the congressional comities, (and the entire two houses of congress), might even be ignored considering they have already endorsed such nonsense. Its up to the judicial branch now. Take your bets one side or the other. Ganbaru! (Japanese for good luck.)
More worryingly; The judicial branch has not been democratically inspiring lately. Cross your fingers. It may be one of those PTSS events. (Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome) Where we forget that the Supreme Court exists or not.
Am in total agreement that the legal system is broken in this respect.
The concept of making prosecuting lawyers responsible for losses along with the plaintiff is fascinating and have not heard of it before. Since lawyers do share in the proceeds of litigation by a large percent it would be a great deterrent to baseless, unfounded, meritless lawsuits. Most of the risks are presently assumed to be on the person hiring the lawyer. Not sure how that would be implemented.
Is sad that the 9th circuit court did not allow the defendant to recoup defense litigation expenses. In this case it seems appropriate that Veoh should be able to. Its possible that the judge is not very tech savvy and might not see the disparity in accusation vs substantial proof.
Universal seems like a dark entity with no good standing. If they went bankrupt in an economically horrible way it might be good thing.
But. All of that observing is kind of irrelevant to the real problem; If copyright term limits were reasonable and not eternal in length there might be much less to contest about.
Considering that Mr. Metzger was likely in the business of profiting from eternal copyright its not surprising this was not mentioned. Putting forth the question; How would Veoh benefit from copyright terms of 14-28 (or less) years? Its likely that the base of its operations would have been reduced in size unless they could find a way to benefit from Public Domain Rights. The business model would still work though.
Reactionary,
Loser pays might be a good thing for companies. For people maybe not. (many posts) Companies end in bankruptcy, and that happens, but people end up in the gutter and that is bad.
Mike Brown; “You're darn right the burden is on the "offended." That's where it belongs.”
This is not a bad attitude in respect to the way burden of proof is upon the accuser and that the defendant is innocent until otherwise found guilty. Its MENT that there be a high level of confirmation (first person witness etc) for any evidence. For any firm to profit by just leveling an accusation is beyond the scope of civil law. Courts are not always up on new technology and its implications.
However this suggests that there be new legislation that requires the judicial branch to demand a higher level of evidentiary proof of harm or damages before allowing a civil lawsuit. This might be a nice thing to see.
That One Guy; “All the ones who go around accusing all and sundry of the most heinous acts for daring to have a different opinion on something, are, I can only assume, guilty of those very acts, and in an attempt to deflect their guilt they go around blaming everyone else.”
Hypocrisy is one of the first symptoms of a lier/perpetrator. Its one of the easiest ways to measure the “something going on” thing. Hilarious is the fact that many times even the lairs/perpetrators themselves wholeheartedly believe that they are not lying or doing anything wrong and that they were the first to be duped.
The economic analysis is a great way to approach the eternal copyright problem. These types of articles (however over my head) is one of the reasons this site is cool. This is the type of rational, logical, scientific way to prove the point that current copyright policy is a drain on the economy. A culture of profitability needs something/things to build on.
Eventually its likely that the present legacy based media industries will implode because they refused to change. (happens all the time) It would be wise to document the real reasons as they will surely blame everyone but themselves. (its them darn pirating fools!)
Since the study was based with 1958-9 data there are many new technology factors, of which some are pointed out, that will affect any current analysis. On-line and mail media sales have changed the way we view movies and other content greatly.
The observation (that its questionable) of money spent on content creation applied as capital investment seems apt. Some authors write a 600 page novel over a month spending just a few hours a day only 3 days a week but might claim otherwise. Others take 7 years working 18 hour days over a work of love and devotion. The IRS would have a fit in either case. Most authors don't care and keeping track is too much a bother.
Its well known that the economic lifetime of books is over in the first year or so. The big surprise for me was finding that Maps were at 48% renewal. Especially since maps are out of date very quickly. Of course that may have changed negatively over the years also.
The falling quantity of movies was interesting also. What happened to the low budget movie? Star Wars IV (the first movie) was a low budget movie with low budget special effects. (although considered good in its day) In speculation this may be a time based local effect that was happening during the 1948-9 time period compared to the next few years. (not enough data to be clear)
The only constant is that MPAA figures should be totally ignored. Who knows what Hollywood accounting distortions will pop up for whatever current rational. (Wow they change so rapidly. A bad signal for consistency.)
Using the data given its safe to offer that a 40 year total term would be more than generous and a great improvement for culture to boot. Assuming that Fair Use Rights are expanded and better protected.
However. Society and culture are directly dependent on the use and sharing of content (whatever the source or format) during the lifetime of its citizens. Culture, and the sharing of it, is much more important than any economic rational. The value to us is healthy cultural growth via technology and innovation and that is whats most important to society.
Considering this; what ultimate terms would be acceptable to both society and authors. Each have opposing viewpoints. (notice that publishers are not mentioned, yet)
Reactionary,
Everyone seems to have their own interpretation of how long limits should exist. (Wow, culturally speaking, that is so healthy!)
Currently its a personal opinion (the shorter the monopoly the better) that a ultimate limit of 28 years. 14 with conditional, creative commons like, extensions to 28 and more conditions (only for treaty satisfaction until 40 years and then only until treaties can be modified to 28 years). Its not quite arbitrary in that it allows a huge time span for the author to dally with and yet guarantees that the works enter the Public Domain (Rights) well within the lifetime of an average citizen. The only reason the terms might sound appealing is that they are based on the original copyright act.
Many a post mentioned copyright terms of less than 10 years. Its fine with me as long as the rational is culturally based. What we are hopefully aiming for is nothing less than continual cultural revolution. (in a good way) A society with a culture of sharing ideas and knowledge has a higher IQ than otherwise. It is up to society itself to determine the rules. (its scary if a government even has an opinion)
Increasing the fees for every reapplication might also be a good tactic. If a work was not producing revenue it would fall back within Public Domain Rights.
When it comes to the bump and grind; No copyright at all is preferable to present law. When cultural IQ and societies growth potential is considered... Its that important. Democratic American Culture of freedom of expression (whatever the format) is the greatest achievement, and foundation of, western civilization. To throw it away for, the likes of present Hollywood, ideals of fakery and illusion allows the intrusion of everything it stands against.
Interesting how once Hollywood stood for clear dreams and bright ambition has now become muddied with cloudy falseness and dark lies. Special interest groups are like hired political assassins. (very dirty work) And accounting methods have been sullied forevermore.
Not mentioned are the inevitable abuses of trademark law as exemplified by Disney. All the Disney characters are trademarked in perpetuity and will NEVER enter Public Domain Rights. The fee (250/year?) is nominal compared to the permanent monopoly it grants. Batman, Superman, etc... all trademarked and no derivative work can use them ever.
Limiting a trademark to one per company does not work well since every movie and TV show is a corporation itself for the obvious reasons of limited liability. But there may be some merit to this.
Have thought about is a bit and only solution might be to let society decide by vote if a trademark is being used properly for identification or abused just to perpetuate a monopoly on content. Any other ideas? Would there be room for a trademark abuse court?
Tomxp411.
The copyright continuation rational that was dependent on production of new derivative work was refreshing. The 10 year limit is fair and reasonable also. The attitude “make the publisher put their money where their mouth is” is great.
Textbooks would hopefully run into some ultimate time limit because they sometimes are updated continuously for 40 or more years. (and still going and any firm, worth their salt, would do so in perpetuity if a monopoly was at stake)
The concept of 'out of print' will soon be obsolete and already is for books issued in only electronic form.
DRM is evil in almost every way. The great danger DRM represents is not just inconvenience but the loss of knowledge. A book or video that has DRM will quickly become unreadable/un-viewable as new hardware is purchased and this has happened to anyone who bought any media over the years. Its understandable that consumers are angry about it.
What we need for out society to survive (yes its that important) is a DRM that can be broken easily. Or none at all. Any electronically stored media is, like a delicate not quite permanent glass flower, easily crushed or destroyed. Backups and copies are a necessary consequence of any attempt at permanence.
Its a valuable, important Nobel goal for a society and its culture to enter a realm of semi permanence. If we allow all our teaching, learning, educational or entertainment/edutainment materials be put under DRM (or physical) lock and key... how will we live and learn?
It might be that any culturally advanced society would outlaw DRM in any form.
Reading the comments for this article was very enjoyable.
A public officials job IS to uphold the constitution. Its the reason for the job in the first place. Its Why we have elected officials. Makes one wonder what goes on in the minds of New York voters as they enter the ballot box. Now that Mayor Bloomberg has officially come out of the bag, and shown himself as a sympathizer of authoritarian regimes, has his democratic usefulness ended?
When a public official looses sight of his given democratic oaths, admittedly easy to grasp but hard articulate, its time to remove them from office. They just are not doing their job. Or worse. Destroying the institution of Democracy.
And what of the poor citizens of New York cowering in their homes afraid to even walk on the streets if only because of news media parroting the mostly baseless fears of bureaucracy. Since its still much more likely to be killed randomly by a police officers (let alone a US anti-drug-policy black market supported gangland) stray bullet than by a terrorist bomb such claims of are way off base. Statistically speaking its more logical to fear government than terrorists.
Mayor Bloomberg, a politician, is afraid to walk the streets and translating this fear into law and policy. His policy has been somewhat to sweep unsightly reality under the city carpet so its not too surprising he cant see it.
As anyone who has tried to use the head in the sand approach they can tell yo that your butt is over exposed and the effort will do them no good.
At the base level. Life is scary ALL OF THE TIME! What we need are leaders that help us understand that we have to carry on in a democratic way despite all of the FUD and real safety concerns of just living a normal life. For Mayor Bloomberg to spout FUD and echo his own personal safety fears is just downright irresponsible.
If he cared one whit for the citizens of NYC he would stop being a constitutional scaredy cat and start to live again. Good leaders stand strong against the sea of uncertainty. Like the permanence of rock enduring the hurricane of doubt born of governments current mistaken sense of (over the top) responsibility. It seems that Mayor Bloomberg's constitutional resolve is like an small ice-cube floating down the Mississippi river in summer.
It gets worse for such who talk of tossing the constitution. It leads down the road of dictatorial rule of bureaucracy based law benefiting no one. Even the leaders of such nations are hated by all in reality and by none in public. If only because any who complained are jailed, enslaved or just plain dead. (Do some homework on this one its historical fact.)
Not living in NYC this opinion would is lacking but its offered anyway. If NYC voters want to be impressive they might do so by keeping the constitution and forgetting the current mayor. Since this guy seems constitutionally dangerous one might consider impeachment as an option. (just making a suggestion)
reactionary,
History might record that in A.D. 2013 the NYC residents allowed the Constitution to be Bloomberged out of existence.
The above essay is basic and objective concerning the constitutional concerns. Have not mentioned that Bloomberg is a billionaire with many profit conflicts possible. Good questions might be how would anyone profit by authoritarian rule? Do any of his directly owned or subsidiaries (or possibly shell companies) benefit from such? Do any of his family members or friends benefit? Such accusations would require evidence.
AC remark on a quote from Tim Cushing; “ 'we know there are people who want to "take away our freedoms.” '
but if we can erode our privacy and add more surveillance more quickly, if we are lucky, we can beat them to it!”
I could have saved myself a 700 word essay if I could have been so observant and witty.
The furniture killing your family by poisonous smoke produced by cotton (foam padding is another matter) burning is (sic) hilarious in that hemp (and other) fiber(s) burning is non toxic (and non hallucinogenic) but not supported by special interest groups like the extremely powerful cotton industry. Hemp is a stronger more durable fiber and makes clothes last much longer. Its preferred for rope used in the maritime industry for hundreds of years. We just love special interest groups!
A nice report on open sourced genetic research economic benefits with convincing supporting data. In general its a great example of data sharing openness. Good news for a culture based on more sharing of ideas. Compared to the firewall of senseless applications of patent law slowing innovation and new tech. Now if only legislators looked at results and not the campaign contributions from industry special interest groups.
In this new age where the new areas of research are so broad that they are not covered by patent law its technological suicide for any nation that slows down due to corporate greed. Allowing genes to be patented during a time when we don't even really know what we are talking about is beyond stupid. Its an infant technology where we still don't know what the majority of genes do and especially the long term consequences of modifying them.
Software patents are similar idiocy. In such an fledgling industry growth is stunted by ridiculous patents issued on simple buttons. (one click to buy) This type of patent abuse should be legislated into oblivion until the technology matures. It will likely take a (conservative) few hundred years to do this if comparing it to mechanical innovation and technology 3000 year development rate. (historically speaking)
Its becoming a given that if we want to succeed by technological means and innovation there has to be an open data and reduced patent approach. It wont happen any other way. Without the average citizen being included by policy and law into the group of potential innovators we loose a large part of the huge base of intelligence derived from a culture of invention.
$$$
The Human Genome Project (HGP) is a model good investment and resulting success. What was so very impressive was the ROI figure of (at least) 60 to 1. We are talking NASA space program comparable returns on investment (ROI) which is what one expects of a good investment of tax dollars.
The returns from the HGP cannot be valued only in dollars. The value of accurate genetic tests and the exact identify diseases through DNA testing have begun a revolution of medical technology that no superlative can express it.
To even surpass the above superlatives DNA based treatments to exactly target the previously exactly identified disease is even more astoundingly amazing. Now consider the insanity of slowing such research down with patent prohibitions.
The argument that open sourced research provides a better ROI than a proprietary method is compelling. However its likely that the officially published figures are skewed in the classic way corporations overestimate their benefits and the oppositely classic way open sourced projects underestimate their contributions.
Since Celera is a private concern its natural to challenge the ROI figures for the obvious reasons that pressure to show results often produce misleading numbers. They should consider themselves lucky that they aren't viewed to be as bad as the MPAA or RIAA or any associations using Hollywood accounting principles.
On the other hand (this is not a compliment) considering what firms like Celera spend on special interest lobbying its amazing that they show a profit at all. Any profit is more likely due to the fact that DNA research is so important rather than some proprietary attitude.
Most open sourced estimates are low and consecutive in comparison. If only because a lot of it is off the records and not officially reported as a category in general accounting methods.
Its even likely that firms using Celera data also benefited highly from the open sourced community. For reasons of corporate pride they will not likely admit that any investment (in Celera data) would prove a mistake and would most probably under report such gain.
In short. If a nation wants to hobble its culture of innovation through new technology... chain it to a patent system. It wont go anywhere. At least until the patent expires!
(Note; This compares directly to the loss of culture from eternal copyright also.)
The comments said most of what I would have. Corruption, theft, scandal, non tin foil hat conspiracy, real loss to artists and most notably loss to culture. There have been some lawsuits against PRO's and other sales sites but mostly from well off bands that can afford the litigation expense.
Have been expounding on the clear observation that RIAA and MPAA have business models almost indistinguishable from organized crime. Can add Performance Rights Organizations (PRO) and Music Licensing Companies (MLC) to that list? Not a surprise since they possibly aspire to be like their big daddy **AA's.
This is great stuff! Where there is money we will find corruption. Follow the trail! (and toss the stupid rational that its just a mistake or that we just misunderstand)
What we need are more victims willing to prosecute. Keep gathering evidence. Donate to the EFF to remedy expected expenses. Its likely that only through subpoenas and warrants will sufficient data for prosecution to occur as these types seem like habitual lairs.
Reactionary,
Andy. Would there be any connection between the MLO and PRO's? Collusion might bring up RICO charges which are much stronger (even if the RICO law itself is weird) in terms of penalties and possible prison terms for the involved.
Anonymouse. In Hollywood accounting one takes money from one pile and allocates it to some expense not necessarily involved with the original production. (its all in the contract fine print) The First Star Wars movie is a good example where the production of the second movie ate up the proceeds from the first (along with some large capital investments in the LucusFilm empire notably computer graphics and special effects.)
Of course this partial explanation does not make it any easier on the actors and others stiffed of proceeds from a very profitable film.
The term “Copyright Lobotomy” has a realistically vivid depiction of current law. Its intellectually prophetic in that if current trends in copyright law continue our nation will be lobotomized in many ways not to mention technology and innovation.
A used MP3 is a laughable statement. Its just another new format for culture to develop by sharing it by resale or gift. Due to the nature of copying it can be re-gifted in unlimited ways. Its new every time.
Copyright was written/developed hundreds of years ago to use the newer printing and distributing methods of the day. Most of the commercial opportunities were based on the fact that nobody could afford a printing press. This is no longer true.
Everyone that owns a computer with Internet and a printer has the same capacity of a small scale printer of the 1900s. Copying a file such as an MP3 would have been unimaginable magic.
For culture to develop in the same way we immediately forgot the ice cooled food storage box for the refrigerator we need to allow the same for the new ways we can communicate through innovative formats like MP3's. (or mkv, avi, Ogg, Vorbis, or other)
The legally preposterous claim of theft when a file is copied can not be sustained if we need our culture of technological advancement to take off and succeed in a world of competitiveness.
The Record companies, RIAA and other sound based organizations have basically argued that black is white and up is down in an incredibly asinine attempt to continue selling vinyl ice to everyone who has already purchased a refrigerator (computer). Trying to enforce this anti cultural attitude by lobbying (however successfully) for laws must eventually backfire.
What we need is to tailor copywrong law around our individual technological abilities so that at the very least our kids don't end up in jail or fined lifetime amounts.
Its our turn to reform black copywrong into a new culturally beneficial system based on copyright that forces authors to produce more works by having workable/reasonable term limits less than the lifetime of the listeners. Who cares about the author when talking about culture, innovation and developing new works based on old (crap) is concerned.
Reactionary,
Somewhat in agreement with Akari Mizunashi that the phrase Intellectual Property is wrong on so many levels. The word property is to possessive and suggests ownership over ideas and knowledge which is way so bad. If accepted for normal use it lends to much in favor of entitlement at the cost of culture and society.
Its probably best to challenge even the usage of it immediately when some copyright maximalist tries to use it in some silly argument in favor of new law. (or whatever is being attempted there seems so much weirdness and incongruence in Hollywood law these days.
In this article the term was used only in the title “The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid” accompanied with two derogatory words which seems the proper treatment of the term 'intellectual property'.
In the text it was followed up with two different uses of property both based on the physical sense building an argument that articulated the concept of the phrase 'intellectual property' being used as an analogy itself and how limited and useless it is as an analogy. A good read.
Sounds like both the challenge (nice to see it put to task just to have the lousy phrase mentioned) and the article are OK. No complaints.
Now if we could only have such a quick challenge during the promotion of some stupid misguided legislation/law/bill/act that would be real progress.
Leigh Brandon. “I would choose abolition over the absolute disaster that is copyright today.”
I so totally agree with this statement. Copymight is so totally corrupted by Hollywood ways of thinking. It may be that we can transform todays copywrong into copyright again but thats a real challenge and would require a lot of rational minds working together. Very hard to do that.
Things are so bad that copyright monopoly base industries have had a taste of making monopolistic law. That is a very dictatorially (power hype) addictive thing likely to end in a bad way for both consumer and complicit firms. Culture will suffer.
Its pointless to ague about the right to own and listen to an MP3. One might argue whether the same MP3 is broadcast and heard from a radio is a public performance which is equally ridiculous. (But law says otherwise if certain conditions are met) What was once considered Fair Use Rights is now illegal.
Things are so bad today that possibly the only way to get the attention of copyright holders it to toss them into the same gutter they are now throwing (us?) their very own fans/customers/users/supporters/etc into. All together now... Heave ho!
The pay-wall comment for financial news was great insight on the nature of sharing culture.
Monopolies will rule until they don't. Within their industry field they have almost absolute command. Only breaking them up with the Axe of public support of government resolve through judicial action will do this.
Its fascinating how monopolies have morphed over the years into seemingly upstanding companies that successfully claim to benefit the very people taken advantage of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolies Most large monopolistic firms have learned to avoid the ominous official definitions of a monopoly.
In this case the drug firms government granted monopoly of patent protection has ended but they find it profitable to continue like usual. Since other firms sense the opportunities of profit and market expansion this is hard and would take some real negotiations likely combined with outright intimidation mixed with legal threats.
The fact that these types of back door monopoly deals do exist is not a good sign in any respect. It might, from either sides perspective/viewpoint, be called extortion. (funny that)
There are many ways a monopoly can be perpetuated and contract law is one of them. In the cooperating way its used here the technical monopolistic term would be an Oligarchy. An oligarchy is not one but several entities (people, nations or corporations) acting in concert to effect a monopoly through cooperation.
Since drug firms routinely invest less in research than in advertising the whines of investment funding is moot. Because many people die from the high US cost of pharmaceuticals as compared to other more regulated national medical drug policies the matter has grown way out of proportion.
India might just be better at recognizing monopolies than the US with their recent denial of a Cancer drug through weird patent extension schemes. Japan seems a good example also.
In many cases brought to regulatory light the fines are far less than the profits and only serve to approve whatever scheme or practice perpetrated. However its good that such efforts do the basic research that begins to highlight the root causes of such effective monopolistic methods.
Reactionary,
RyanNerd points out that government is not always on the side of the average Joe. There have been a disturbing number of one sided government decisions legislative, executive and judicial.
There seem to be no helping that Google handles DMCA take-downs badly. Its inherent in the way DMCA was written. Its bad law derived from flawed legislation to begin with. It cant be helped.
This terrible handling of web content is a result of ignoring judicial review and trial by jury with at each stage some level of evidence of harm must be shown. In spite of thousands of examples of the DMCA being abused as a way of censorship and tools for corporate rivalry its amazing that the courts have not blasted the DMCA into oblivion.
Mentioned was using the DMCA to take down lyrics with no mention of Fair Use Rights. If ever there was a more sensitive area of copyrighted content usage its got to by music lyrics. Talk about cultural shutdown crime! In their corporate selfishness they would destroy the legacy of so many artists. No way would any real artist agree to that.
Taking liberty off of a previous TD article comment; The only modifications that copyright law needs can be performed with a sledgehammer.
Since Google seems to take seriously the removal of any link they are arguable doing a better job than most especially since they do contest some of them. Especially the stupid ones like “remove ALL the infringing content links”. Which would be 90% of the entire web as defined by Hollywood accounting principles. (don't laugh these very same Hollywood accounting statistics are being submitted to congress as fact as you read this)
The commentary about the legal aspects of the DMCA is dismal reading. This was written by media special interest groups wasn't it? No respect for anyone except themselves?
The fictional proud ship USS RIAA. “Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead! Engine room... Ramming Speed!” (What... We hit the constitution? Get ready for another run!)
Ahhh. That slippery slope. Ironic that a government can witness and experience it in the same way citizens do. Rare is the observation though. Its a good point.
Its also nice that Spain has enough transparency in government to show this internal conflict. Very healthy. The US should learn from Spain not the other way around in this area. Expect huge pressure to continue further discussion behind a curtain of FUD and secrecy.
It would be likely be wise if Spain quietly ignored the 301 list. Nicer still would be a public deceleration of the obvious nonsense it is. Either option would be better than acquiescing/appeasing to any Hollywood based reasoning. There is no satisfying a (copyright in this case) monopoly. It just does not happen. No way!
In reality Spain might be being held in check by threats from US and whatever other nation or international organizations fallen victim to the siren call of Hollywood.
Suggestions to improve copywrong to copyright in Spain might be to keep term limits around 14-28 years (with reapplications every 5yrs until 40 for treaty reasons. Hope treaties can be revised soon also.) and expand on Fair Use Rights. Good luck to Spain and its citizens.
Did Canada really toss the Special 301 list? I am so proud of them! With the US government basically purchased by Hollywood special interest groups that had to be a hard thing to do. Being bullied by someone bigger than you is never a pleasant thing.
Reactionary,
In history there is so much evidence that open government with no secrecy benefits positively both society and its culture. Its an unarguable point to such an extent that if one does it mean there is something else going. The red lights and loud horns of legitimate suspicion light up. The Constitution is (was?) a great example of why authoritarian rule is bad for a nation.
In history there are so many examples that monopolies get in the way of every type or way of a nations development of technology, innovation in any form and not the least the growth of its culture and society of such development. To let monopolies control all of media and intellectual works (did not say property as this does not apply to ideas) is more like national suicide. In the US they fought off Steel, Oil and Railroad monopolies. (among others)
A society that bases its culture on developing new ways to communicate along with new technology to do so would definitely provide new opportunities and growth not available to ANY, otherwise based, anthill society.
In the US there might be the problem that every citizen imagines themselves as the queen bee or queen ant and on top of things. Such an illusion is as unwise as wrong. (Only one ring to rule them all...) Its important to admit that we live and share gossip and ideas alike. The format is supposed to be irrelevant.
Another essay that went off in a completely different way originally imagined. Its possible that I agree with the concept of the article but not the analogy used? Analogies are risky in that they are only similar concepts, used to explain more complex arguments, and function just to the extent that they do and not beyond.
“Street View cars were just arbitrarily recording bits of data they picked up from the open wi-fi networks”
This attitude of Google to arbitrarily record and commercialize all the 'little bits' of personal data/info of the daily lives of people/suckers is quite bothering.
The analogy to garbage picking was interesting but may not have gone far enough. How would anyone feel about a company that scanned all your sensitive garbage before it entered the garbage truck? Its already technologically feasible.
Just think of all the bank account, credit card, stock broker statements that could be scanned as this would set the victim up as a mark for whatever sized scam is needed to fleece any of their cash. With a decent NSA recombination program even torn or shredded documents can be recreated.
Don't forget all the used condoms or KY refills to be counted also just to target your email for some more Viagra spam offers or coupons to redeem at the local sex clinic addressed to your house with your name on it in a colorful envelope with ads on it? (even a plain unmarked envelope would be scary)
Throw out any dirty magazines that the local kids missed? Whats your particular taste or style in uninhibited sex or unrequited love? Yes there will be free samples sent to your mailbox with vibrant ads clearly placed. (Or not as maybe they would be more sensitive than Google or govt agencies might be.)
Throw out some embarrassing love letters or other emotionally charged content? Thats right the garbage scan (scam) man might have a little side business related to the local copyporn troll lawyer... Prepare the divorce papers in advance. Make any photo copies of those dirty magazines? (For an extra fee your bank and credit info will be included.) The illicit commercial possibilities are endless!
Not to be forgotten are the selfish government agencies that are never satisfied with only a little collection of your personal data. Because we are all potential terrorists (pointless to deny such childish accusations) working for foreign interests this will be decried as a valuable augmentation to that new police camera on the street lamp post in front of your home looking at your bedroom window.
The examples are endless... In short; Garbage is just to sensitive an area to waive off with conjecture.
If Google really did collect more than just the Wi-Fi account names that might be incriminating grounds for privacy invasion. Since they seem to have not used it (hahaha) there might not be much to fuss about but that is not a problem. Other issues pop up. (keep reading)
Making this analogy more complex is the fact that in the US, for reasons of legitimate salvage, garbage is considered abandoned goods once its put out on the curb. If we feel the need for more protection of privacy some legislation might be needed. Some already exists for the protection of bank and credit card info but its sketchy.
“if Google or another company had actually made use of all that sensitive data”
Agreement that Google did not use any of the data is good but that is most likely because of the public outcry about the gathering of such. Google is fairly public opinion savvy with one of the industries best tools for such analysis right at their fingertips. (the data gathered from the Google search engine)
Its not realistic to imagine that any corporation (Google in this case) would not use this data. They just had not found the time, way to use it or way to fit it into their database yet. Even if a data collection firm did not use abuse a credit card number it would still be intel gathered. Used for ID of on-line identity? At least its worth a check mark on a list (of what?) that the homeowner actually had and used a credit card on line?
Remember we are talking about human herd instincts. Corporate, mentality being what it is, usage of any personal info is unavoidable. Without the hammer of serious law on the side of private citizens all will be considered fair play while the average individual will be in the frying pan. You are the meat that runaway govt and corporate animals will dine on.
Agreement on holding both governments and corporations (Google in this case) to a high standard but our current ideals may not be good enough. It may be true that no laws were broken and as such no fines or penalties would incur but the potential for corporate abuse is large.
“And let's still not forget that this was data on open wi-fi networks”
There are different levels of open. Just leaving a router open for Internet use is one thing but leaving your computers open for sharing is insane. Yes the Wi-Fi diapers need to be changed for these infant level computer users but such are the expected growing pains for new tech culture. Most users have never even logged onto the setup pages forcing this duty onto a younger family member. (more on this complicated privacy issue below)
Reactionary,
There are of course some real tech legacy issues to deal with also as Chronno pointed out.
Open Wi-Fi is not a bad thing in itself and not necessarily a security problem if set up correctly. Just making it illegal is just stupid and helps nobody. (many posts)
Tomxp411; brought up some interesting legal definitions of which all seem correct. Not always known is that they are based on the various wire laws derived from the constitutional mistake of not considering analog or digital communications as part of free speech or the Bill of Rights.
Privacy is privacy but the issue of what is private is in flux. A no trespassing, private property sign is required to protect land and provide the 'expectation of privacy' that courts recognize. What is the difference between a private and public format? When we put a letter into an envelope it is recognized as private as compared to a post card which is not.
Location of the Wi-Fi router might also be an issue with its range of serviceable area. Is this router located in a farmhouse miles from any other house and its completely on private or leased property?
What about the mental fitness of the wi-fi operator? An elderly, ill or mentally handicapped person would not be expected to be able to do what a normal person would.
Encryption is a great technological envelope to use (and please do!) but what if we developed our own format or encoding (and did not publish the specs) would that not another private way to communicate?
Its more likely that each of these so called officials (worried sympathizers) asking for surveillance plans/cameras are more interested in new taxes or outside federal grants to beef up their bureaucracy. (thus patronage jobs and power)
If these guys are really worried about the normal kooks and nut-heads that happen several times a year they would provide better community protection if they just did their jobs and let the citizens be the eyes and ears. It was a citizen who spotted the Boston terrorist suspect after they were let out of their sequestration. (read jailed in their own homes for obvious government bureaucratic stupidity)
Just as mentioned in the earlier TD article; Let the citizens out of their homes and live and work normally. This in itself will provide the needed eyes, ears and intelligent aware minds that are needed. It would be more logical to conclude that all the present surveillance cameras and networks was a wast of good taxpayer cash. More cameras wont help.
Its the logical observation that an inept bureaucracy is covering for itself at the expense of democratic values. Incompetency breeds only more incompetency. As pointed out an earlier TD article the economic expense and loss of citizens awareness was a critical point. (it reminds me of when Bushy boy jr shut down the entire US airline industry for 9/11 at an untold of cost for state, national and international business.) Its seems like a loud and vociferous cover for clear mistakes.
Its law enforcement and intelligence agency mistakes like this that are one of the main reasons GDP and business is in the crapper.
“More taxes and less privacy” has got to be the rally cry of a failed politician or government policy. Good money after bad was always a solution to loose more money. (Yes. It was necessary to point that out.) And there is more to loose here than just money but basic constitutional rights. It would not be worth it.
The greater problem is that once idiots (or worse corrupted) people get elected its hard to toss them out. Even those who voted for them don't want to look like they were fooled and might undergo some symptoms of denial. Because of reasons of personal pride. Nobody wants to look like a fool so only a politician who has gone way, way, way beyond societal bounds will be impeached.
The average constituent who voted for these (lower life form?) politicians might find it easier to nose down and meekly drink their totalitarian tainted kool-aid. Surveillance is the low road that lead down and down.
That was a great legally oriented copyright discussion. The comprehension of law and the legal citations make the analysis rise above the average (like mine).
It continues to remind me what copyright proponents have accomplished, over the years in the name of monopoly, with no legal basis whatsoever other than the allusion of author selfishness. Its truly amazing what corporate profit and control motives, natural bureaucratic expansion desires combined with a weak defense (we blinked?) of constitutional law, and cultural growth needs, can do.
Reactionary,
Thanks Karl for the rebuttal of a statement that many a misinformed person might spout in ignorance of the law and history of copyright. Such totally wrong misunderstandings are common and its always good to see in-depth rational thought articulated so well.
For any who pay attention to subtle things like the difference between what one says and does its funny despite the serious bad things that may be perpetrated. (sick humor)
Its a common occurrence that when any newly elected official enters office that they 'take for granted' the current legislative and special interest groups as normal, acceptable or worse even good. Such are the dangers of accepting information from biased sources.
AC. It does seem that copyright proponents are on hyper drugs. Crack would be a logical suspicion since the incoherence of their logical and legal arguments don't make sense.
Its nice that text to speech technology is becoming quite developed and somewhat (still needs improvement) usable. This, good for the blind social group, recent innovation has been arrested by claims that it is a 'public performance'. Yeah something so weird as copyright working as a stop-point of culture. No mention that it might be used in private. No mention that; even in public it's still only a way for citizens to share culture between themselves.
Fascinating how one silly useful program at one time decried by Prendaa as evidence for their case is now used as one for convenient damage control. Would this not be circumstantial evidence for claims that they knew this and were just waging the best unfair battle they could? Exactly when did they 'learn' this lesson and how?
If CCleaner is evidence for the deletion of files then what significance is the file delete button? What incrimination is incurred due to the 'empty trash' button? At such a level it is funny. A joke, right your honor. Its a joke... Now try and make the same assertion to the defendant.
Fair is fair and these types of accusations work both ways. Especially since the learning of this basic knowledge was not from the defendants attorneys who basically stated the truth. (as expected)
At the Popehat.com site Cathy Gellis noted the quote from judge Chen; "Normally if you argue spoliation, you win the case!" the claim is even more bizarre when the prosecutor makes this claim and not the defendant. There is definitely something going on behind the scene as none of these actions make any sense to a legitimate case. Prendda's new claim to dismiss the case is that its just to expensive. Now if that only worked for the defendant. (Thank you Judge Chen!)
Its a good lesson on human behavior to see the metaphorical judicial magnifying glass (in full sunlight no less) being applied and more fascinating to see whats left after the lies and subterfuge are burnt off.
Yet it seems (as the dark side of the 5th amendment has been invoked, seemingly arbitrarily, right in the middle of several cases) that they still have yet to step into the light and reveal whatever they are. (about) One might abuse the imagery of a Blade/Vampire movie when one of their kind enters sunlight.
“Aaaaahhhhhh!” (SFX=Poommff.) -dust falls-
Now if copyporn (right?) trolls would only do that in real life.
But of course like some old Freddy/Chucky/Halloween bad horror movie the perpetrator never dies so cleanly nor quickly. Keep up the supplies of popcorn, chips & salsa and cheesy chili dogs. Just let me know when the show is on.
One thing is clear is that in almost all of the currently active Prendda cases both the defense and judges themselves are starting to ask questions about the mysterious off shore holding company AF holdings. (and the big unanswered question is... what does AF stand for???)
$$$ in other Prendda news;
Over at DieTrollDie.com they brought us the interesting point that partial torrent downloads are useless as a file. Totally useless when the beginning of the file is not there as it wont load up at all. Not pointed out is the complete uselessness of ANY partially downloaded file. Torrents deride up a file into hundreds if not thousands of tiny pieces and even if a file is 98% downloaded its still 100% junk.
So basically any plaintiff/prosecutor must prove a complete download. Since many torrents are poorly seeded many, if not most, stop a download long before its finished.
More on the “Southwest Virginia Songwriters Association” serenade.
The event was called the annual “Grammys on the Hill” awards which was a “VIP cocktail reception at The Hamilton venue in downtown Washington” where supporters of copyright law gathered to schmooze and ooze with Grammy associated music artists. A seemingly self justification event designed to promote and reward only those who support more draconian copyright law.
http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/advocacy/goth Obviously a production of the Grammy organization. Purportedly to gather donations for various school music programs? Fat chance. If they wanted to distinguish this kind of nice effort then they would not dirty it up with the nasty politics of copyright law.
The (prompted by who? Hoh?) comments by Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md of “Thou shalt not steal,” and “There’s no caveat.” about the topic of “,musical property,” shows no concept or articulation of Public Domain Rights nor Fair Use Rights.
Here we have an event almost entirely sponsored to sway legislators in the D.C. area. Since they specifically talked about copyright... Exactly why does such an event exist? Why risk tainting such a potentially beneficial event? Why risk poisoning the donation pool even if it seems profitable currently?
If this really is a serious attempt at gathering donations for a good legitimate goal why do they involve politics? Its possible the event organizers will have some serious soul searching to do about the nature of this event.
There are two angles of approach that one might take.
One is to call your local senator/legislator who supports this stupid idea (or any stupid idea) telling them they are making a mistake in your opinion. Make them invest their time and recourses on your legitimate claims as a real constituent.
The more time they spend on listening to legitimate constituent concerns the less time and resources they have at their disposal to actually articulate such bad legislation. Of course no donation will be made to this person.
Two. Send a few bucks with a SHORT note of appreciation and support about the issue of concern to any local/state/national legislator. Money speaks its own language.
A politically active person would easily spend a few hundred of their precious dollars a year. Sending 5-20 dollars to several different candidates/legislators might be a good way to divide up the pot.
On the obvious level taxation is complicated enough. Why make it worse and why involve ordinary mom and pop stores in pointless jurisdictional battles with the usually intractable IRS? “Tracking out of state purchases” Most ordinary people don't even “track” anything at all let alone the drinks purchased at a bar visited on vacation in another state!
Such a nightmare of legal tax violations would potentially curtail any foreign travel. It would just be to dangerous.
If remembering correctly it was SUPPOSED to be an incentive for each state to keep its taxes low or purchases would naturally go out of state. Free market values have slipped a lot.
There is no legal basis for your local towns sales tax to apply to anything one purchases outside of it. None. This includes state taxes also. If one wants to purchase a camera in a duty free store inside an airport so what? Its a viable business strategy. Sales tax is a locally derived compensation for the local infrastructure.
If one wants to purchase cigarettes from another state that does not have ruinous vice taxes so high it encourages a black market then kudos to them for still obeying the law and purchasing from a legitimate store.
Stupid taxation policies only help to tear apart society along various social boundaries.
Reactionary.
“law abiding citizen” is an becoming an oxymoron. Since everyday eating, breathing and gossiping at the back fence is quickly becoming a felony offense there is no basis in 'fair and just' application of the law. Current law seems definitely un-abiding.
ZIP codes will not be enough to exactly identify a tax as many straddle several town and county boundaries depending on population.
On the post: McAfee Patents System To 'Detect And Prevent Illegal Consumption Of Content On The Internet'
Detecting and preventing (Internet browsing/usage) Illegal anything is kind of lame to anyone who has read the Bill of Rights. Or even the Constitution. Exsquease me but haven't we been introduced to totalitarian ant hill concepts before? -explicit rant-
OK lets put on the breaks on the obvious concerns and hold for now.
This is a great article pointing out the ridiculous side of patent law. Since this seems like a software patent (triply redundantly ridiculous) is way off into legislated Oz land. (“Oz” is copyrighted in so many ways. Why does the average citizen worry about casual inferences like this???!?? What areas of freedom of expression are wiped out?)
What effect does this type of thinking have on culture? What type of culture is encouraged with usage of this 'system'? Is is a good and desirable way of life? Who cares... We/us? The type and style of culture is the point for constitutional rationalizations.
To the point; If firms profit by totalitarian thinking then... they will. And. Will do so. -absoluteness- Whether or not McAfee profits by such a patent is completely a cultural and societal based argument. (fascinating, Love it and hate it at same time.)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-26/guest-post-good-guys-are-not-coming-save-us An article about how the average American thinks some white knight will save them without doing anything drastic like changing their voting habits...
The McAfee proposed system raises many censorship and privacy concerns. Just them thinking about such nasty concepts is bothering.
The anti-computer-virus industry benefits more than most from FUD. Fear (of viruses), Uncertainty (of the consequences) and doubt (about the remedies) from such an unknown outside terror. Since its logical that the computer virus industry might vanish if knowledge of how to avoid contamination becomes a part of popular culture... would their investor financial projections decrease?
To be honest the anti-virus industry does perform a valued function if overrated. But! Because of FUD this industry profits in enormous ways. Its a bad symptom of current (low?) cultural IQ.
Reactionary,
(AC comment) Anyone who studies the statistics of virus invasion of computers knows that disabling flash and Java for all sites (this method also impedes innovative input) visited is the only way to be sure of avoiding casual virus problems. Use of a non popular OS helps (for general browsing) also. Other things. (complex thoughts)
Rouge site lists will always be taken advantage of by political hijacking. Its a, given classic, censorship by opportunity thing.
Btr1701; Legal and illegal is not even a good argument anymore. With CFAA and DMCA combined with current copyright law 95% of citizens are breaking the law just using the copy-machines, scanners and computers in their possession. Law is quickly becoming irreverent in favor of something else. (like I know wtf.) Its a good point.
AB; A keyloger! Yes thats the term for this McAfee spyware proposal. Good observation.
On the post: If You Don’t 'Like' Your Student Loan Servicer on Facebook, You Will Default
The after-market companies for defaulted student loans also spend money for lobbying congress for a better cut of the pie and other schemes and additional methods to prevent other government services if in default. All they have to do wait for another student loan 'reform' bill/act/legislation
Life is as beautiful as it is horrible and in life and death things happen. Families break down and people are left with no one to take care of them. Businesses are formed and many wither before 5 years. Its kind of normal that way.
Why do they get special rules in debt preservation that other companies do? Thats why bankruptcy exits. It cant be helped. Its easy for a millionaire (a large percent of legislators) to forget how dirty the gutter is. Its unfair that student loans are treated differently for many reasons.
Whatever cries raised by both sides whether is accusations of loan sharking or students ripping off the system we tend to forget is about people being able to recover from inevitable happenstance of health and physical disaster. (natural or otherwise.)
It sets bad precedent. Its a surely a wrong direction for government. Insert “slippery slope” argument here ( ).
On the post: Not Learning From ACTA: IPR Protection And Enforcement Seen As 'Less Difficult Issue' For TAFTA/TTIP
We currently have enough trouble when the various intelligence agencies have already some weird secret policy derived from a hidden interpretation of poorly written legislation. Its a problem already out of control and needs sharp public criticism.
Submitting a ill advised secretly created work of malcontent is no way to operate a democracy. Think thats to harsh? All mysteriously fornicated things are ill advised malformed things!
Its basic human nature to take advantage of any situation. This is not absurd thinking considering who are gathering around the negotiation table; Corporations, special interest groups and diplomats (that are frequently former corporate activists/employees/lawyers/etc) and none of the people/citizens that are liable for such future law or treaties that affect future law.
Further considering how weak and unmotivated the average US voters are it seems they can get away with (almost) anything they want. Its an legislatively unhealthy situation no matter how one looks at it.
The legitimate number of reasons for secrecy are none. The justifications for open negotiations with public input are infinite.
On the post: Not Learning From ACTA: IPR Protection And Enforcement Seen As 'Less Difficult Issue' For TAFTA/TTIP
This is one of the main reasons that I believe this is unconstitutional. How can there be ANY credible citizen response about what is secret? If we who are directly involved and responsible to these negotiations... (blankity blank blank!) It is our right to oversee, and produce, negotiate changes in it at any stage. There can be no secret nothing about anything that is our responsibility.
Its goes without saying that congress should shut this down immediately. (did I hear an echo in the post?)
The legal redderic and currently rational reasoning mouthed by the congressional comities, (and the entire two houses of congress), might even be ignored considering they have already endorsed such nonsense. Its up to the judicial branch now. Take your bets one side or the other. Ganbaru! (Japanese for good luck.)
More worryingly; The judicial branch has not been democratically inspiring lately. Cross your fingers. It may be one of those PTSS events. (Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome) Where we forget that the Supreme Court exists or not.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130407/21003122619/eric-holder-american-library-associati on-wikipedia-are-americas-worst-porn-enablers.shtml#c762
Hit me on the head! Am I making sense? “Dazed and confused.” (Rock star quote.)
On the post: Winning But Losing: Lessons From An Internet StartUp
The concept of making prosecuting lawyers responsible for losses along with the plaintiff is fascinating and have not heard of it before. Since lawyers do share in the proceeds of litigation by a large percent it would be a great deterrent to baseless, unfounded, meritless lawsuits. Most of the risks are presently assumed to be on the person hiring the lawyer. Not sure how that would be implemented.
Is sad that the 9th circuit court did not allow the defendant to recoup defense litigation expenses. In this case it seems appropriate that Veoh should be able to. Its possible that the judge is not very tech savvy and might not see the disparity in accusation vs substantial proof.
Universal seems like a dark entity with no good standing. If they went bankrupt in an economically horrible way it might be good thing.
But. All of that observing is kind of irrelevant to the real problem; If copyright term limits were reasonable and not eternal in length there might be much less to contest about.
Considering that Mr. Metzger was likely in the business of profiting from eternal copyright its not surprising this was not mentioned. Putting forth the question; How would Veoh benefit from copyright terms of 14-28 (or less) years? Its likely that the base of its operations would have been reduced in size unless they could find a way to benefit from Public Domain Rights. The business model would still work though.
Reactionary,
Loser pays might be a good thing for companies. For people maybe not. (many posts) Companies end in bankruptcy, and that happens, but people end up in the gutter and that is bad.
Mike Brown; “You're darn right the burden is on the "offended." That's where it belongs.”
This is not a bad attitude in respect to the way burden of proof is upon the accuser and that the defendant is innocent until otherwise found guilty. Its MENT that there be a high level of confirmation (first person witness etc) for any evidence. For any firm to profit by just leveling an accusation is beyond the scope of civil law. Courts are not always up on new technology and its implications.
However this suggests that there be new legislation that requires the judicial branch to demand a higher level of evidentiary proof of harm or damages before allowing a civil lawsuit. This might be a nice thing to see.
That One Guy; “All the ones who go around accusing all and sundry of the most heinous acts for daring to have a different opinion on something, are, I can only assume, guilty of those very acts, and in an attempt to deflect their guilt they go around blaming everyone else.”
Hypocrisy is one of the first symptoms of a lier/perpetrator. Its one of the easiest ways to measure the “something going on” thing. Hilarious is the fact that many times even the lairs/perpetrators themselves wholeheartedly believe that they are not lying or doing anything wrong and that they were the first to be duped.
On the post: Bureau Of Economic Analysis Shows Why Copyright Terms Should Be Greatly Diminished
Eventually its likely that the present legacy based media industries will implode because they refused to change. (happens all the time) It would be wise to document the real reasons as they will surely blame everyone but themselves. (its them darn pirating fools!)
Since the study was based with 1958-9 data there are many new technology factors, of which some are pointed out, that will affect any current analysis. On-line and mail media sales have changed the way we view movies and other content greatly.
The observation (that its questionable) of money spent on content creation applied as capital investment seems apt. Some authors write a 600 page novel over a month spending just a few hours a day only 3 days a week but might claim otherwise. Others take 7 years working 18 hour days over a work of love and devotion. The IRS would have a fit in either case. Most authors don't care and keeping track is too much a bother.
Its well known that the economic lifetime of books is over in the first year or so. The big surprise for me was finding that Maps were at 48% renewal. Especially since maps are out of date very quickly. Of course that may have changed negatively over the years also.
The falling quantity of movies was interesting also. What happened to the low budget movie? Star Wars IV (the first movie) was a low budget movie with low budget special effects. (although considered good in its day) In speculation this may be a time based local effect that was happening during the 1948-9 time period compared to the next few years. (not enough data to be clear)
The only constant is that MPAA figures should be totally ignored. Who knows what Hollywood accounting distortions will pop up for whatever current rational. (Wow they change so rapidly. A bad signal for consistency.)
Using the data given its safe to offer that a 40 year total term would be more than generous and a great improvement for culture to boot. Assuming that Fair Use Rights are expanded and better protected.
However. Society and culture are directly dependent on the use and sharing of content (whatever the source or format) during the lifetime of its citizens. Culture, and the sharing of it, is much more important than any economic rational. The value to us is healthy cultural growth via technology and innovation and that is whats most important to society.
Considering this; what ultimate terms would be acceptable to both society and authors. Each have opposing viewpoints. (notice that publishers are not mentioned, yet)
Reactionary,
Everyone seems to have their own interpretation of how long limits should exist. (Wow, culturally speaking, that is so healthy!)
Currently its a personal opinion (the shorter the monopoly the better) that a ultimate limit of 28 years. 14 with conditional, creative commons like, extensions to 28 and more conditions (only for treaty satisfaction until 40 years and then only until treaties can be modified to 28 years). Its not quite arbitrary in that it allows a huge time span for the author to dally with and yet guarantees that the works enter the Public Domain (Rights) well within the lifetime of an average citizen. The only reason the terms might sound appealing is that they are based on the original copyright act.
Many a post mentioned copyright terms of less than 10 years. Its fine with me as long as the rational is culturally based. What we are hopefully aiming for is nothing less than continual cultural revolution. (in a good way) A society with a culture of sharing ideas and knowledge has a higher IQ than otherwise. It is up to society itself to determine the rules. (its scary if a government even has an opinion)
Increasing the fees for every reapplication might also be a good tactic. If a work was not producing revenue it would fall back within Public Domain Rights.
When it comes to the bump and grind; No copyright at all is preferable to present law. When cultural IQ and societies growth potential is considered... Its that important. Democratic American Culture of freedom of expression (whatever the format) is the greatest achievement, and foundation of, western civilization. To throw it away for, the likes of present Hollywood, ideals of fakery and illusion allows the intrusion of everything it stands against.
Interesting how once Hollywood stood for clear dreams and bright ambition has now become muddied with cloudy falseness and dark lies. Special interest groups are like hired political assassins. (very dirty work) And accounting methods have been sullied forevermore.
Not mentioned are the inevitable abuses of trademark law as exemplified by Disney. All the Disney characters are trademarked in perpetuity and will NEVER enter Public Domain Rights. The fee (250/year?) is nominal compared to the permanent monopoly it grants. Batman, Superman, etc... all trademarked and no derivative work can use them ever.
Limiting a trademark to one per company does not work well since every movie and TV show is a corporation itself for the obvious reasons of limited liability. But there may be some merit to this.
Have thought about is a bit and only solution might be to let society decide by vote if a trademark is being used properly for identification or abused just to perpetuate a monopoly on content. Any other ideas? Would there be room for a trademark abuse court?
Tomxp411.
The copyright continuation rational that was dependent on production of new derivative work was refreshing. The 10 year limit is fair and reasonable also. The attitude “make the publisher put their money where their mouth is” is great.
Textbooks would hopefully run into some ultimate time limit because they sometimes are updated continuously for 40 or more years. (and still going and any firm, worth their salt, would do so in perpetuity if a monopoly was at stake)
The concept of 'out of print' will soon be obsolete and already is for books issued in only electronic form.
DRM is evil in almost every way. The great danger DRM represents is not just inconvenience but the loss of knowledge. A book or video that has DRM will quickly become unreadable/un-viewable as new hardware is purchased and this has happened to anyone who bought any media over the years. Its understandable that consumers are angry about it.
What we need for out society to survive (yes its that important) is a DRM that can be broken easily. Or none at all. Any electronically stored media is, like a delicate not quite permanent glass flower, easily crushed or destroyed. Backups and copies are a necessary consequence of any attempt at permanence.
Its a valuable, important Nobel goal for a society and its culture to enter a realm of semi permanence. If we allow all our teaching, learning, educational or entertainment/edutainment materials be put under DRM (or physical) lock and key... how will we live and learn?
It might be that any culturally advanced society would outlaw DRM in any form.
Reading the comments for this article was very enjoyable.
On the post: NYC Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Boston Bombing Renders The Constitution Obsolete
When a public official looses sight of his given democratic oaths, admittedly easy to grasp but hard articulate, its time to remove them from office. They just are not doing their job. Or worse. Destroying the institution of Democracy.
And what of the poor citizens of New York cowering in their homes afraid to even walk on the streets if only because of news media parroting the mostly baseless fears of bureaucracy. Since its still much more likely to be killed randomly by a police officers (let alone a US anti-drug-policy black market supported gangland) stray bullet than by a terrorist bomb such claims of are way off base. Statistically speaking its more logical to fear government than terrorists.
Mayor Bloomberg, a politician, is afraid to walk the streets and translating this fear into law and policy. His policy has been somewhat to sweep unsightly reality under the city carpet so its not too surprising he cant see it.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/17560722411/next-nanny-state-bloomberg-tries-to-ma ke-you-not-think-about-cigarettes.shtml#c397
As anyone who has tried to use the head in the sand approach they can tell yo that your butt is over exposed and the effort will do them no good.
At the base level. Life is scary ALL OF THE TIME! What we need are leaders that help us understand that we have to carry on in a democratic way despite all of the FUD and real safety concerns of just living a normal life. For Mayor Bloomberg to spout FUD and echo his own personal safety fears is just downright irresponsible.
If he cared one whit for the citizens of NYC he would stop being a constitutional scaredy cat and start to live again. Good leaders stand strong against the sea of uncertainty. Like the permanence of rock enduring the hurricane of doubt born of governments current mistaken sense of (over the top) responsibility. It seems that Mayor Bloomberg's constitutional resolve is like an small ice-cube floating down the Mississippi river in summer.
It gets worse for such who talk of tossing the constitution. It leads down the road of dictatorial rule of bureaucracy based law benefiting no one. Even the leaders of such nations are hated by all in reality and by none in public. If only because any who complained are jailed, enslaved or just plain dead. (Do some homework on this one its historical fact.)
Not living in NYC this opinion would is lacking but its offered anyway. If NYC voters want to be impressive they might do so by keeping the constitution and forgetting the current mayor. Since this guy seems constitutionally dangerous one might consider impeachment as an option. (just making a suggestion)
reactionary,
History might record that in A.D. 2013 the NYC residents allowed the Constitution to be Bloomberged out of existence.
The above essay is basic and objective concerning the constitutional concerns. Have not mentioned that Bloomberg is a billionaire with many profit conflicts possible. Good questions might be how would anyone profit by authoritarian rule? Do any of his directly owned or subsidiaries (or possibly shell companies) benefit from such? Do any of his family members or friends benefit? Such accusations would require evidence.
AC remark on a quote from Tim Cushing; “ 'we know there are people who want to "take away our freedoms.” '
but if we can erode our privacy and add more surveillance more quickly, if we are lucky, we can beat them to it!”
I could have saved myself a 700 word essay if I could have been so observant and witty.
The AC comment about the greater danger from our own furniture was right to the point.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130422/21100822804/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-thinks-boston-bom bing-renders-constitution-obsolete.shtml#c502 Its even likely that jaywalking is more dangerous than terrorism. Driving a car? Hahaha!
The furniture killing your family by poisonous smoke produced by cotton (foam padding is another matter) burning is (sic) hilarious in that hemp (and other) fiber(s) burning is non toxic (and non hallucinogenic) but not supported by special interest groups like the extremely powerful cotton industry. Hemp is a stronger more durable fiber and makes clothes last much longer. Its preferred for rope used in the maritime industry for hundreds of years. We just love special interest groups!
On the post: Public Domain Human Genome Project Generated More Research And More Commercial Activity Than Proprietary Competitor
In this new age where the new areas of research are so broad that they are not covered by patent law its technological suicide for any nation that slows down due to corporate greed. Allowing genes to be patented during a time when we don't even really know what we are talking about is beyond stupid. Its an infant technology where we still don't know what the majority of genes do and especially the long term consequences of modifying them.
Software patents are similar idiocy. In such an fledgling industry growth is stunted by ridiculous patents issued on simple buttons. (one click to buy) This type of patent abuse should be legislated into oblivion until the technology matures. It will likely take a (conservative) few hundred years to do this if comparing it to mechanical innovation and technology 3000 year development rate. (historically speaking)
Its becoming a given that if we want to succeed by technological means and innovation there has to be an open data and reduced patent approach. It wont happen any other way. Without the average citizen being included by policy and law into the group of potential innovators we loose a large part of the huge base of intelligence derived from a culture of invention.
$$$
The Human Genome Project (HGP) is a model good investment and resulting success. What was so very impressive was the ROI figure of (at least) 60 to 1. We are talking NASA space program comparable returns on investment (ROI) which is what one expects of a good investment of tax dollars.
The returns from the HGP cannot be valued only in dollars. The value of accurate genetic tests and the exact identify diseases through DNA testing have begun a revolution of medical technology that no superlative can express it.
To even surpass the above superlatives DNA based treatments to exactly target the previously exactly identified disease is even more astoundingly amazing. Now consider the insanity of slowing such research down with patent prohibitions.
The argument that open sourced research provides a better ROI than a proprietary method is compelling. However its likely that the officially published figures are skewed in the classic way corporations overestimate their benefits and the oppositely classic way open sourced projects underestimate their contributions.
Since Celera is a private concern its natural to challenge the ROI figures for the obvious reasons that pressure to show results often produce misleading numbers. They should consider themselves lucky that they aren't viewed to be as bad as the MPAA or RIAA or any associations using Hollywood accounting principles.
On the other hand (this is not a compliment) considering what firms like Celera spend on special interest lobbying its amazing that they show a profit at all. Any profit is more likely due to the fact that DNA research is so important rather than some proprietary attitude.
Most open sourced estimates are low and consecutive in comparison. If only because a lot of it is off the records and not officially reported as a category in general accounting methods.
Its even likely that firms using Celera data also benefited highly from the open sourced community. For reasons of corporate pride they will not likely admit that any investment (in Celera data) would prove a mistake and would most probably under report such gain.
In short. If a nation wants to hobble its culture of innovation through new technology... chain it to a patent system. It wont go anywhere. At least until the patent expires!
(Note; This compares directly to the loss of culture from eternal copyright also.)
On the post: Performance Rights Organizations Accused Of 'Retitling' Songs To Collect Royalties Without Paying Artists
Have been expounding on the clear observation that RIAA and MPAA have business models almost indistinguishable from organized crime. Can add Performance Rights Organizations (PRO) and Music Licensing Companies (MLC) to that list? Not a surprise since they possibly aspire to be like their big daddy **AA's.
This is great stuff! Where there is money we will find corruption. Follow the trail! (and toss the stupid rational that its just a mistake or that we just misunderstand)
What we need are more victims willing to prosecute. Keep gathering evidence. Donate to the EFF to remedy expected expenses. Its likely that only through subpoenas and warrants will sufficient data for prosecution to occur as these types seem like habitual lairs.
Reactionary,
Andy. Would there be any connection between the MLO and PRO's? Collusion might bring up RICO charges which are much stronger (even if the RICO law itself is weird) in terms of penalties and possible prison terms for the involved.
Anonymouse. In Hollywood accounting one takes money from one pile and allocates it to some expense not necessarily involved with the original production. (its all in the contract fine print) The First Star Wars movie is a good example where the production of the second movie ate up the proceeds from the first (along with some large capital investments in the LucusFilm empire notably computer graphics and special effects.)
Of course this partial explanation does not make it any easier on the actors and others stiffed of proceeds from a very profitable film.
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
A used MP3 is a laughable statement. Its just another new format for culture to develop by sharing it by resale or gift. Due to the nature of copying it can be re-gifted in unlimited ways. Its new every time.
Copyright was written/developed hundreds of years ago to use the newer printing and distributing methods of the day. Most of the commercial opportunities were based on the fact that nobody could afford a printing press. This is no longer true.
Everyone that owns a computer with Internet and a printer has the same capacity of a small scale printer of the 1900s. Copying a file such as an MP3 would have been unimaginable magic.
For culture to develop in the same way we immediately forgot the ice cooled food storage box for the refrigerator we need to allow the same for the new ways we can communicate through innovative formats like MP3's. (or mkv, avi, Ogg, Vorbis, or other)
The legally preposterous claim of theft when a file is copied can not be sustained if we need our culture of technological advancement to take off and succeed in a world of competitiveness.
The Record companies, RIAA and other sound based organizations have basically argued that black is white and up is down in an incredibly asinine attempt to continue selling vinyl ice to everyone who has already purchased a refrigerator (computer). Trying to enforce this anti cultural attitude by lobbying (however successfully) for laws must eventually backfire.
What we need is to tailor copywrong law around our individual technological abilities so that at the very least our kids don't end up in jail or fined lifetime amounts.
Its our turn to reform black copywrong into a new culturally beneficial system based on copyright that forces authors to produce more works by having workable/reasonable term limits less than the lifetime of the listeners. Who cares about the author when talking about culture, innovation and developing new works based on old (crap) is concerned.
Reactionary,
Somewhat in agreement with Akari Mizunashi that the phrase Intellectual Property is wrong on so many levels. The word property is to possessive and suggests ownership over ideas and knowledge which is way so bad. If accepted for normal use it lends to much in favor of entitlement at the cost of culture and society.
Its probably best to challenge even the usage of it immediately when some copyright maximalist tries to use it in some silly argument in favor of new law. (or whatever is being attempted there seems so much weirdness and incongruence in Hollywood law these days.
In this article the term was used only in the title “The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid” accompanied with two derogatory words which seems the proper treatment of the term 'intellectual property'.
In the text it was followed up with two different uses of property both based on the physical sense building an argument that articulated the concept of the phrase 'intellectual property' being used as an analogy itself and how limited and useless it is as an analogy. A good read.
Sounds like both the challenge (nice to see it put to task just to have the lousy phrase mentioned) and the article are OK. No complaints.
Now if we could only have such a quick challenge during the promotion of some stupid misguided legislation/law/bill/act that would be real progress.
Leigh Brandon. “I would choose abolition over the absolute disaster that is copyright today.”
I so totally agree with this statement. Copymight is so totally corrupted by Hollywood ways of thinking. It may be that we can transform todays copywrong into copyright again but thats a real challenge and would require a lot of rational minds working together. Very hard to do that.
Things are so bad that copyright monopoly base industries have had a taste of making monopolistic law. That is a very dictatorially (power hype) addictive thing likely to end in a bad way for both consumer and complicit firms. Culture will suffer.
Its pointless to ague about the right to own and listen to an MP3. One might argue whether the same MP3 is broadcast and heard from a radio is a public performance which is equally ridiculous. (But law says otherwise if certain conditions are met) What was once considered Fair Use Rights is now illegal.
Things are so bad today that possibly the only way to get the attention of copyright holders it to toss them into the same gutter they are now throwing (us?) their very own fans/customers/users/supporters/etc into. All together now... Heave ho!
The pay-wall comment for financial news was great insight on the nature of sharing culture.
On the post: 'Pay For Delay' Drug Deals Under Scrutiny In US, EU And UK
Its fascinating how monopolies have morphed over the years into seemingly upstanding companies that successfully claim to benefit the very people taken advantage of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolies Most large monopolistic firms have learned to avoid the ominous official definitions of a monopoly.
In this case the drug firms government granted monopoly of patent protection has ended but they find it profitable to continue like usual. Since other firms sense the opportunities of profit and market expansion this is hard and would take some real negotiations likely combined with outright intimidation mixed with legal threats.
The fact that these types of back door monopoly deals do exist is not a good sign in any respect. It might, from either sides perspective/viewpoint, be called extortion. (funny that)
There are many ways a monopoly can be perpetuated and contract law is one of them. In the cooperating way its used here the technical monopolistic term would be an Oligarchy. An oligarchy is not one but several entities (people, nations or corporations) acting in concert to effect a monopoly through cooperation.
Since drug firms routinely invest less in research than in advertising the whines of investment funding is moot. Because many people die from the high US cost of pharmaceuticals as compared to other more regulated national medical drug policies the matter has grown way out of proportion.
India might just be better at recognizing monopolies than the US with their recent denial of a Cancer drug through weird patent extension schemes. Japan seems a good example also.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130401/09233022536/indian-supreme-court-rejects-evergreening -pharma-patents.shtml
In many cases brought to regulatory light the fines are far less than the profits and only serve to approve whatever scheme or practice perpetrated. However its good that such efforts do the basic research that begins to highlight the root causes of such effective monopolistic methods.
Reactionary,
RyanNerd points out that government is not always on the side of the average Joe. There have been a disturbing number of one sided government decisions legislative, executive and judicial.
On the post: You're All The Weakest Link: Bad Law Permits Bad Takedowns, Which Google Handles Badly
This terrible handling of web content is a result of ignoring judicial review and trial by jury with at each stage some level of evidence of harm must be shown. In spite of thousands of examples of the DMCA being abused as a way of censorship and tools for corporate rivalry its amazing that the courts have not blasted the DMCA into oblivion.
Mentioned was using the DMCA to take down lyrics with no mention of Fair Use Rights. If ever there was a more sensitive area of copyrighted content usage its got to by music lyrics. Talk about cultural shutdown crime! In their corporate selfishness they would destroy the legacy of so many artists. No way would any real artist agree to that.
Taking liberty off of a previous TD article comment; The only modifications that copyright law needs can be performed with a sledgehammer.
Since Google seems to take seriously the removal of any link they are arguable doing a better job than most especially since they do contest some of them. Especially the stupid ones like “remove ALL the infringing content links”. Which would be 90% of the entire web as defined by Hollywood accounting principles. (don't laugh these very same Hollywood accounting statistics are being submitted to congress as fact as you read this)
The commentary about the legal aspects of the DMCA is dismal reading. This was written by media special interest groups wasn't it? No respect for anyone except themselves?
The fictional proud ship USS RIAA. “Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead! Engine room... Ramming Speed!” (What... We hit the constitution? Get ready for another run!)
On the post: Spain Admits New Copyright Law Is Designed To Keep It Off US's 'Naughty' List
Its also nice that Spain has enough transparency in government to show this internal conflict. Very healthy. The US should learn from Spain not the other way around in this area. Expect huge pressure to continue further discussion behind a curtain of FUD and secrecy.
It would be likely be wise if Spain quietly ignored the 301 list. Nicer still would be a public deceleration of the obvious nonsense it is. Either option would be better than acquiescing/appeasing to any Hollywood based reasoning. There is no satisfying a (copyright in this case) monopoly. It just does not happen. No way!
In reality Spain might be being held in check by threats from US and whatever other nation or international organizations fallen victim to the siren call of Hollywood.
Suggestions to improve copywrong to copyright in Spain might be to keep term limits around 14-28 years (with reapplications every 5yrs until 40 for treaty reasons. Hope treaties can be revised soon also.) and expand on Fair Use Rights. Good luck to Spain and its citizens.
Did Canada really toss the Special 301 list? I am so proud of them! With the US government basically purchased by Hollywood special interest groups that had to be a hard thing to do. Being bullied by someone bigger than you is never a pleasant thing.
Reactionary,
In history there is so much evidence that open government with no secrecy benefits positively both society and its culture. Its an unarguable point to such an extent that if one does it mean there is something else going. The red lights and loud horns of legitimate suspicion light up. The Constitution is (was?) a great example of why authoritarian rule is bad for a nation.
In history there are so many examples that monopolies get in the way of every type or way of a nations development of technology, innovation in any form and not the least the growth of its culture and society of such development. To let monopolies control all of media and intellectual works (did not say property as this does not apply to ideas) is more like national suicide. In the US they fought off Steel, Oil and Railroad monopolies. (among others)
A society that bases its culture on developing new ways to communicate along with new technology to do so would definitely provide new opportunities and growth not available to ANY, otherwise based, anthill society.
In the US there might be the problem that every citizen imagines themselves as the queen bee or queen ant and on top of things. Such an illusion is as unwise as wrong. (Only one ring to rule them all...) Its important to admit that we live and share gossip and ideas alike. The format is supposed to be irrelevant.
On the post: Google Fined For Wi-Fi Privacy Violations, Grandstanding German Regulators Not Satisfied
“Street View cars were just arbitrarily recording bits of data they picked up from the open wi-fi networks”
This attitude of Google to arbitrarily record and commercialize all the 'little bits' of personal data/info of the daily lives of people/suckers is quite bothering.
The analogy to garbage picking was interesting but may not have gone far enough. How would anyone feel about a company that scanned all your sensitive garbage before it entered the garbage truck? Its already technologically feasible.
Just think of all the bank account, credit card, stock broker statements that could be scanned as this would set the victim up as a mark for whatever sized scam is needed to fleece any of their cash. With a decent NSA recombination program even torn or shredded documents can be recreated.
Don't forget all the used condoms or KY refills to be counted also just to target your email for some more Viagra spam offers or coupons to redeem at the local sex clinic addressed to your house with your name on it in a colorful envelope with ads on it? (even a plain unmarked envelope would be scary)
Throw out any dirty magazines that the local kids missed? Whats your particular taste or style in uninhibited sex or unrequited love? Yes there will be free samples sent to your mailbox with vibrant ads clearly placed. (Or not as maybe they would be more sensitive than Google or govt agencies might be.)
Throw out some embarrassing love letters or other emotionally charged content? Thats right the garbage scan (scam) man might have a little side business related to the local copyporn troll lawyer... Prepare the divorce papers in advance. Make any photo copies of those dirty magazines? (For an extra fee your bank and credit info will be included.) The illicit commercial possibilities are endless!
Not to be forgotten are the selfish government agencies that are never satisfied with only a little collection of your personal data. Because we are all potential terrorists (pointless to deny such childish accusations) working for foreign interests this will be decried as a valuable augmentation to that new police camera on the street lamp post in front of your home looking at your bedroom window.
The examples are endless... In short; Garbage is just to sensitive an area to waive off with conjecture.
If Google really did collect more than just the Wi-Fi account names that might be incriminating grounds for privacy invasion. Since they seem to have not used it (hahaha) there might not be much to fuss about but that is not a problem. Other issues pop up. (keep reading)
Making this analogy more complex is the fact that in the US, for reasons of legitimate salvage, garbage is considered abandoned goods once its put out on the curb. If we feel the need for more protection of privacy some legislation might be needed. Some already exists for the protection of bank and credit card info but its sketchy.
“if Google or another company had actually made use of all that sensitive data”
Agreement that Google did not use any of the data is good but that is most likely because of the public outcry about the gathering of such. Google is fairly public opinion savvy with one of the industries best tools for such analysis right at their fingertips. (the data gathered from the Google search engine)
Its not realistic to imagine that any corporation (Google in this case) would not use this data. They just had not found the time, way to use it or way to fit it into their database yet. Even if a data collection firm did not use abuse a credit card number it would still be intel gathered. Used for ID of on-line identity? At least its worth a check mark on a list (of what?) that the homeowner actually had and used a credit card on line?
Remember we are talking about human herd instincts. Corporate, mentality being what it is, usage of any personal info is unavoidable. Without the hammer of serious law on the side of private citizens all will be considered fair play while the average individual will be in the frying pan. You are the meat that runaway govt and corporate animals will dine on.
Agreement on holding both governments and corporations (Google in this case) to a high standard but our current ideals may not be good enough. It may be true that no laws were broken and as such no fines or penalties would incur but the potential for corporate abuse is large.
“And let's still not forget that this was data on open wi-fi networks”
There are different levels of open. Just leaving a router open for Internet use is one thing but leaving your computers open for sharing is insane. Yes the Wi-Fi diapers need to be changed for these infant level computer users but such are the expected growing pains for new tech culture. Most users have never even logged onto the setup pages forcing this duty onto a younger family member. (more on this complicated privacy issue below)
Reactionary,
There are of course some real tech legacy issues to deal with also as Chronno pointed out.
Open Wi-Fi is not a bad thing in itself and not necessarily a security problem if set up correctly. Just making it illegal is just stupid and helps nobody. (many posts)
Tomxp411; brought up some interesting legal definitions of which all seem correct. Not always known is that they are based on the various wire laws derived from the constitutional mistake of not considering analog or digital communications as part of free speech or the Bill of Rights.
Privacy is privacy but the issue of what is private is in flux. A no trespassing, private property sign is required to protect land and provide the 'expectation of privacy' that courts recognize. What is the difference between a private and public format? When we put a letter into an envelope it is recognized as private as compared to a post card which is not.
Location of the Wi-Fi router might also be an issue with its range of serviceable area. Is this router located in a farmhouse miles from any other house and its completely on private or leased property?
What about the mental fitness of the wi-fi operator? An elderly, ill or mentally handicapped person would not be expected to be able to do what a normal person would.
Encryption is a great technological envelope to use (and please do!) but what if we developed our own format or encoding (and did not publish the specs) would that not another private way to communicate?
++
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
If these guys are really worried about the normal kooks and nut-heads that happen several times a year they would provide better community protection if they just did their jobs and let the citizens be the eyes and ears. It was a citizen who spotted the Boston terrorist suspect after they were let out of their sequestration. (read jailed in their own homes for obvious government bureaucratic stupidity)
Just as mentioned in the earlier TD article; Let the citizens out of their homes and live and work normally. This in itself will provide the needed eyes, ears and intelligent aware minds that are needed. It would be more logical to conclude that all the present surveillance cameras and networks was a wast of good taxpayer cash. More cameras wont help.
Its the logical observation that an inept bureaucracy is covering for itself at the expense of democratic values. Incompetency breeds only more incompetency. As pointed out an earlier TD article the economic expense and loss of citizens awareness was a critical point. (it reminds me of when Bushy boy jr shut down the entire US airline industry for 9/11 at an untold of cost for state, national and international business.) Its seems like a loud and vociferous cover for clear mistakes.
Its law enforcement and intelligence agency mistakes like this that are one of the main reasons GDP and business is in the crapper.
“More taxes and less privacy” has got to be the rally cry of a failed politician or government policy. Good money after bad was always a solution to loose more money. (Yes. It was necessary to point that out.) And there is more to loose here than just money but basic constitutional rights. It would not be worth it.
The greater problem is that once idiots (or worse corrupted) people get elected its hard to toss them out. Even those who voted for them don't want to look like they were fooled and might undergo some symptoms of denial. Because of reasons of personal pride. Nobody wants to look like a fool so only a politician who has gone way, way, way beyond societal bounds will be impeached.
The average constituent who voted for these (lower life form?) politicians might find it easier to nose down and meekly drink their totalitarian tainted kool-aid. Surveillance is the low road that lead down and down.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
It continues to remind me what copyright proponents have accomplished, over the years in the name of monopoly, with no legal basis whatsoever other than the allusion of author selfishness. Its truly amazing what corporate profit and control motives, natural bureaucratic expansion desires combined with a weak defense (we blinked?) of constitutional law, and cultural growth needs, can do.
Reactionary,
Thanks Karl for the rebuttal of a statement that many a misinformed person might spout in ignorance of the law and history of copyright. Such totally wrong misunderstandings are common and its always good to see in-depth rational thought articulated so well.
For any who pay attention to subtle things like the difference between what one says and does its funny despite the serious bad things that may be perpetrated. (sick humor)
Its a common occurrence that when any newly elected official enters office that they 'take for granted' the current legislative and special interest groups as normal, acceptable or worse even good. Such are the dangers of accepting information from biased sources.
AC. It does seem that copyright proponents are on hyper drugs. Crack would be a logical suspicion since the incoherence of their logical and legal arguments don't make sense.
On the post: MPAA Tells US Government To Screw Over The Blind, Reject Fair Use
On the post: Prenda Now In Trouble In Another Case In California
If CCleaner is evidence for the deletion of files then what significance is the file delete button? What incrimination is incurred due to the 'empty trash' button? At such a level it is funny. A joke, right your honor. Its a joke... Now try and make the same assertion to the defendant.
Fair is fair and these types of accusations work both ways. Especially since the learning of this basic knowledge was not from the defendants attorneys who basically stated the truth. (as expected)
At the Popehat.com site Cathy Gellis noted the quote from judge Chen; "Normally if you argue spoliation, you win the case!" the claim is even more bizarre when the prosecutor makes this claim and not the defendant. There is definitely something going on behind the scene as none of these actions make any sense to a legitimate case. Prendda's new claim to dismiss the case is that its just to expensive. Now if that only worked for the defendant. (Thank you Judge Chen!)
Its a good lesson on human behavior to see the metaphorical judicial magnifying glass (in full sunlight no less) being applied and more fascinating to see whats left after the lies and subterfuge are burnt off.
Yet it seems (as the dark side of the 5th amendment has been invoked, seemingly arbitrarily, right in the middle of several cases) that they still have yet to step into the light and reveal whatever they are. (about) One might abuse the imagery of a Blade/Vampire movie when one of their kind enters sunlight.
“Aaaaahhhhhh!” (SFX=Poommff.) -dust falls-
Now if copyporn (right?) trolls would only do that in real life.
But of course like some old Freddy/Chucky/Halloween bad horror movie the perpetrator never dies so cleanly nor quickly. Keep up the supplies of popcorn, chips & salsa and cheesy chili dogs. Just let me know when the show is on.
One thing is clear is that in almost all of the currently active Prendda cases both the defense and judges themselves are starting to ask questions about the mysterious off shore holding company AF holdings. (and the big unanswered question is... what does AF stand for???)
$$$ in other Prendda news;
Over at DieTrollDie.com they brought us the interesting point that partial torrent downloads are useless as a file. Totally useless when the beginning of the file is not there as it wont load up at all. Not pointed out is the complete uselessness of ANY partially downloaded file. Torrents deride up a file into hundreds if not thousands of tiny pieces and even if a file is 98% downloaded its still 100% junk.
So basically any plaintiff/prosecutor must prove a complete download. Since many torrents are poorly seeded many, if not most, stop a download long before its finished.
On the post: Bob Goodlatte Receives Most Awkward Serenade Ever With Pro-Copyright Song
The event was called the annual “Grammys on the Hill” awards which was a “VIP cocktail reception at The Hamilton venue in downtown Washington” where supporters of copyright law gathered to schmooze and ooze with Grammy associated music artists. A seemingly self justification event designed to promote and reward only those who support more draconian copyright law.
http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/advocacy/goth Obviously a production of the Grammy organization. Purportedly to gather donations for various school music programs? Fat chance. If they wanted to distinguish this kind of nice effort then they would not dirty it up with the nasty politics of copyright law.
The (prompted by who? Hoh?) comments by Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md of “Thou shalt not steal,” and “There’s no caveat.” about the topic of “,musical property,” shows no concept or articulation of Public Domain Rights nor Fair Use Rights.
Quotes fom http://hoh.rollcall.com/
Here we have an event almost entirely sponsored to sway legislators in the D.C. area. Since they specifically talked about copyright... Exactly why does such an event exist? Why risk tainting such a potentially beneficial event? Why risk poisoning the donation pool even if it seems profitable currently?
If this really is a serious attempt at gathering donations for a good legitimate goal why do they involve politics? Its possible the event organizers will have some serious soul searching to do about the nature of this event.
On the post: Senator Wyden Takes A Stand Against Overbroad Tax On Internet Transactions
One is to call your local senator/legislator who supports this stupid idea (or any stupid idea) telling them they are making a mistake in your opinion. Make them invest their time and recourses on your legitimate claims as a real constituent.
The more time they spend on listening to legitimate constituent concerns the less time and resources they have at their disposal to actually articulate such bad legislation. Of course no donation will be made to this person.
Two. Send a few bucks with a SHORT note of appreciation and support about the issue of concern to any local/state/national legislator. Money speaks its own language.
A politically active person would easily spend a few hundred of their precious dollars a year. Sending 5-20 dollars to several different candidates/legislators might be a good way to divide up the pot.
On the obvious level taxation is complicated enough. Why make it worse and why involve ordinary mom and pop stores in pointless jurisdictional battles with the usually intractable IRS? “Tracking out of state purchases” Most ordinary people don't even “track” anything at all let alone the drinks purchased at a bar visited on vacation in another state!
Such a nightmare of legal tax violations would potentially curtail any foreign travel. It would just be to dangerous.
If remembering correctly it was SUPPOSED to be an incentive for each state to keep its taxes low or purchases would naturally go out of state. Free market values have slipped a lot.
There is no legal basis for your local towns sales tax to apply to anything one purchases outside of it. None. This includes state taxes also. If one wants to purchase a camera in a duty free store inside an airport so what? Its a viable business strategy. Sales tax is a locally derived compensation for the local infrastructure.
If one wants to purchase cigarettes from another state that does not have ruinous vice taxes so high it encourages a black market then kudos to them for still obeying the law and purchasing from a legitimate store.
Stupid taxation policies only help to tear apart society along various social boundaries.
Reactionary.
“law abiding citizen” is an becoming an oxymoron. Since everyday eating, breathing and gossiping at the back fence is quickly becoming a felony offense there is no basis in 'fair and just' application of the law. Current law seems definitely un-abiding.
ZIP codes will not be enough to exactly identify a tax as many straddle several town and county boundaries depending on population.
Next >>