"Far from fair and balanced his posts NEVER explain why copyright increases the amount of high quality content."
Unlike FOX or MSNBC Mike has never claimed Techdirt is a news outlet. Techdirt is commentary and analysis not news. In the world of journalism those are entirely different things.
At that, it's not as much that Mike or other authors on Techdirt are opposed to copyright as a concept it's that Mike is opposed to the insane lengths of copyright as it stands today and the IP extremists, and the lengths they'll go to, that has become the issue around copyright.
Copyright, remember, was developed and introduced in a world of dead tree books and ink. A world that is rapidly vanishing. It was never intended to enrich publishers, movie and recording studios at the expense of creators which is where we're at now.
So how about you coming up with an alternative for the digital age?
Despite your mistaken assertions that without copyright all creativity would stop you haven't yet explained how such towering works as Shakespeare's and "The Canterbury Tales" came to be written and/or performed in a world without copyright. (And those are just two of a solar system worth of examples.)
Copyright does not, in and of itself increase the amount of high quality content. If it did then Hollywood would be churning out high quality 75% of the time instead of 10% if we're all lucky. And don't bother with the argument that they have to appeal to the masses. So did Shakespeare. So did Homer and so did every writer and musician prior to the introduction of copyright. But create they did and not just themselves but many others. That's the part people like you always seem to miss.
So movies, recordings, television and other acts of creation, not to mention software, photography, design and just about any other creative act you can think of would continue to be made because that's what human's do.
As you cite LoTR as one of your expensive examples of what copyright can accomplish as an act of creation there are two things wrong with that.
1) For most of the Trilogy's existence, and The Hobbit, American publishers didn't recognize English or anyone else's copyrights so Tolkien wasn't paid so much as a penny of royalties on the best sellers. I guess they were all pirates.
2) LoTR, unlike a great many films, had a built in audience who were not about to accept junk but give them (and me) quality they'd be all over it. And we were. Done even three quarters right it was guaranteed a mass audience and it got one. And the profits as well. So, like Titanic, it's a bad example.
It gets increasingly hard to listen the all the stale, old and untrue arguments that are tossed out in defense of the current copyright regime which has nothing at all to do with education and less to do with actually paying the artists that actually create for the gatekeepers.
Of course, then, when I'm looking for a belly laugh along comes bob, powered by the green envy monster, so thanks for that bob. I can see a long and profitable career in front of you as a low level exec in one of the *AA's or in the lower echelon of parts of the Republican Party insisting that evolution didn't happen and using yourself as Exhibit A.
Just why is it that I recall doing all those things with an IBM mainframe back in the 80s at work? And not thinking anything about it.
Has no one at the patent office heard of things like prior art, originality and all that good stuff that's supposed to apply to a patent, including things like it can't be obvious?
NEWS FLASH
Yahoo and Facebook will both apply for patent covering the ability to keep time across a network that will take into account the rotation of planet Earth and additionally claim a patent on the forces of gravitation, strong and weak nuclear forces et al, just to make darned sure they've covered everything! ;-)
You are right about obscurity, though I have heard of a lot of the acts. Might be overdosing on CBC Radio One that I have. The more obscure the better for the Mother Corp particularly when it comes the the "whining" class of music known as singer-songwriter.
Then again, when I do listen to commercial radio as most do, most of these acts are nowhere to be found. Rightly so in many cases.
Then again, it's in the Canadian nature of things to celebrate failure rather than success and then complain about American and British cultural imperialism. ;-)
PS: I'm Canadian so I get to say those sorts of things.
PPS: There's an effective boycott of the Junos by recording acts from Quebec and Acadia because there's a real absence of acts in French by the awards except of one token classification even if those acts outsell most of their English performing counterparts.
"The misuse of drugs can cause problems, the actions we take may fail to address those problems, they may even make the situation worse but as long as we seek to stop the activity we are doing the right thing."
Strictly from a moralistic perspective your conclusion is exactly the conclusion used to continue the "war on drugs" despite over a century of evidence that it's an abysmal failure. I'd argue that based on the evidence it's immoral to continue it, pour money down the drain to continue it and just start to work on the root causes.
Just to be picky I'd point out that the most dangerous and frequently abused drugs are perfectly legal, as in alcohol and prescription drugs. I'd also point out that many banned drugs do have legitimate medical uses including pot.
Let's move to "piracy". As you say the "war on piracy" seems to have the polar opposite effect that IP maximalists insist will be the outcome should they "win". Mind you, they've been at this and saying this since the development of the player piano to little or no effect or evidence. Casting infringement as a moral issue doesn't change that while I'm more likely to cast the increasing scope and length of effect of IP laws is immoral.
Incidentally I'd argue that the current focus on child (sexual) abuse and how it's being done is making the problem worse by ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of it occurs in family and not by the "pedophile" we're told about constantly. And that I do consider to be immoral as it neither addresses the real problem or the cause.
Keep in mind that I'm a recovering alcoholic and addict. I'm also a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. With all that you'd think I'd be in favour of existing laws. Nope. The reasons are simple. They not only don't work, they make things worse by focusing on the wrong things.
Piracy, as the "content" industry has cast it the evidence indicates the polar opposite of what they claim it does. Naturally it has nothing at all to do with declining demand for their products or the marketplace getting tired of the junk they produce and ceasing to buy in any form. We're called freetards and worse by our AC trolls as well as overweaning "entitlement". They're the entitled ones. Just because you make a movie or tv show, write and/or publish a book, take a picture, making a sculpture or painting you are not entitled to make any money from it. In that sense they're as bad or worse than the "pushers" or "dealers" or "bootleggers" I dealt far too much with while I was in active addiction and alcoholism only they lie even more than pushers ever do.
Under those circumstances the case, which is deader than a bag of door nails, could go on forever!
More to the point Tasini has pretty much guaranteed that he's on the "do not hire", "do not allow to blog", "do not even talk to" and automatic "circular file" list for every media company, for profit or not profit, across North America and the English speaking world.
It takes real talent in screwing yourself blind to get a case dismissed with this much judicial scorn and with prejudice. What Tasini really ought to do is ask Gibson if there's room for him at Gibson's law firm. They'd make an ideal pair!
The infinite supply is the ability to make perfect copies of the songs without reducing what's available to others including Sony and Micheal Jackson's estate.
That doesn't automatically or, more like, automagically, mean the artist isn't being paid or is being ripped off. You make the assumption that because something can be done it must, therefore, be being done. The one doesn't mean the other is being done. (I don't deny that it is but it's your assumption that because Suja is stating a fact that, ergo, Suja must be a pirate. That makes less sense than 99% of the *AA trolls usually do around here which is quite an accomplishment.)
I'm not even sure the upper echelons of political power know about this or similar stories. Whether it's the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the German Chancellor or the President of France they all seem trapped in an idealistic notion of what patent law does and not the realism of what happens "on the ground" with patent trolls, the abuse of medical and pharma patents and...well complete the list yourself.
Yes, there'll be some who carry on about recovering research costs or monetizing the invention(s) to endow both public and private universities but at some time there has to be a good look at IP law in general to see if it really is doing what it's supposed to these days which is to encourage creation for the public and economic good.
It's not like the broader principles of AAC or a lot of the specifics are covered by patents preventing practitioners from doing their job as the women behind the development of Speak For Yourself have and still do. That they could have helped develop something that while it expresses the same idea doesn't infringe on the patent held by Prof Baker doesn't seem to have occurred to company he set up to enforce his patents. It's not like there doesn't appear to be a ton or three of prior art that is folded into the patents he holds.
I don't even know if Prof Baker was directly involved in the decision to file the action that has brought us to this but it remains the essential heartlessness of the action that sticks in my craw. It's clearly in direct opposition to the humanitarianism attributed to him.
All that said, this is an ideal situation to hold the political class's feet to the fire on. Almost as good as SOPA/PIPA was.
This is one situation that really ought not be allowed to slip into oblivion or meekly accepted.
The patents cover the development of the systems sold by minispeak.com and others developed and patented by a Professor Bruce R Baker of Pittsburg and is associated with or founded Semantic Compaction® Systems, Inc who hold the copyrights, patents and so on associated with his particular development of AAC on a personal computer. The patents were granted in 1982 which means that they were granted well before the appearance of software patents which is explains why the patents are so specific about the relationship between the software and now obsolete hardware.
I'll have to, for the moment, assume that the patents were extended/renewed once software patents appeared. His units sell for, at the bottom or the range approximately $8,000 US all the way up to over $15,000US. The hardware, if a post at http://supportforspecialneeds.com/2012/03/26/the-iceman-cometh-with-his-legal-team/ is a general indication seems somewhat fragile given its use. The warranty cost would back this up.
For Maya, the girl in the Techdirt article the is about, despite the expense, the expensive systems don't work. Period. For the writer of the link above is coming to a point where it's time for his daughter to upgrade. The expensive stuff works for her, which is great.
BUT...and this is an enormous but, Minispeak and it's licensed manufacturer have no plans now or in the future to port the software to an iPad or, I suspect, an Android or Linux or Windows based pad. And therein lies the rub. Even from the photos on the Prentke Romich site the hardware appears and is heavy and awkward and would be even for an adult. Somewhere between the original Compaq luggable and a true portable. There may be a good reason of it but I can't find one anywhere.
My suspicion is that, particularly after reading The Iceman Cometh With His Legal Team post is that Minspeak and Prentke Romich make a good part of their profit off the hardware rather than the software.
I fairness to Minspeak and the women who released Speak For Yourself there is significant support from the developers for the users of both systems.
As much as I'm disturbed by the lawsuit itself I'm disturbed that Professor Baker won a Healthcare Hero Award which, alongside his work in AAC highlights his humanitarian activities which seems quite out of line with the lawsuit. http://www.minspeak.com/students/documents/Healthcare%20Hero%20Award.pdf
Then again, the award appears to have been given by the company founded to take care of his patents so take that as you will.
Understand that I'm not taking a thing away from Prof. Baker. He's done and continues to do fantastic work. But if he's such a healthcare hero this lawsuit never would have been filed. As his companies have made abundantly clear that they aren't interested in the iPad or anyPad market it's hard to square his "hero" status with a suit against a product that IS in that space and doesn't seem interested in the custom hardware space Minspeak is in.
Something is very wrong when a "Healthcare Hero" doesn't seem interested in the affects this legal move will have on those like Maya who prefer, for whatever reason, and improve with an iPad app like Speak For Yourself.
Oh, and one other thing is that Maya's mother when she wrote the piece in her blog expected some support from the AAC community what she didn't expect was the wave of support she's received and is receiving from the tech community. While she may not know that the tech community is leery to to the point of hostility towards things like patents and copyright and how they're used, she's grateful and amazed.
I have a misdirected email for you here from the RIAA offering you the vacant job as the RIAA CTO. All you have to do is surgically remove all your ethics, morals and any and all sense of reality. Forwarding it now!
The recent couple of Righthaven posts sent me in search of Righthaven's history and business model. Copyright trolls are, it turns out, interesting creatures. At least this one has been. Even if, dead as it is, it just won't lay down.
As "infringers" fought back Righthaven seems to have discovered a previously unknown way to assure that litigators can piss off each and every judge the litigators can find.
Now comes Steve Gibson complaining that he's being "ambushed" by the EFF. http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/mar/27/fighting-sanction-righthaven-ceo-complains-foes-am/
An interesting complaint given that a large part of Righthaven's business model was ambushing so called infringers without even the DCMA niceties like a take down notice before demanding settlement. This on copyrights they didn't own and despite not being a law firm.
It's hard to keep the veil of LLCs intact when Gibson seems intent on shredding it long before a court decides that it needs to be pierced.
It's deliciously ironic that Gibson would now complain, wrongly, that someone is doing to him what he did to so many others.
(And what is it with him and the pictures of him wearing a cheap call centre microphone?)
Even if you look at the 13thC alone in any detail it undermines his point and then some. As I say in another post the 13thC set the stage for the Renaissance in many important ways. All without copyright or patents. The High Middle Ages was a very creative and innovative period.
"We are better off than ever, we continue as a people to move ahead quickly... so remind me again how this is all so bad?"
Well, if you live in the United States, Canada, Australia or New Zealand or the EU.
The rest of the world still scrabbles for their next meals, a greater percentage of humanity is starving than at any other period in written human history. And in many places people DO try to scratch out a living out of an overworked plot of land which WE make so much easier by depositing carbon into our atmosphere by the star system load. In more than a few places on this planet the same people live in decades old wars that this overfed part of the world cheerfully ignores.
Is it really that possible that as you call for comparisons between time periods that your are so completely ignorant of this one? Or totally ignorant of history beyond a cartoon book perspective that focuses only on the United States?
It's not so bad. Until you ignore the rest of the human species which you seem more than happy to do. That's what's so bad. Your abominable ignorance both of history and of the state of the world as it is now.
May I suggest you spend some time in the Congo, subSaharan Africa, large parts of South America or Central Asia? Then come back and tell me with a straight face that all we should care about is fucking copyright and patent law as if either are going to help those people?
It's your ignorance that's so fucking bad. It's your near total lack of historical knowledge that's so fucking bad.
Now tell me, once again, about the ethics of infringing on something so damned unimportant as copyright to the majority of people on this planet or patents to the same people? Or how vital and important they are?
Guess, what, kiddo, people will create because that's what humans do and have always done. Copyright and patent law had places before they stretched into eternity, when the monopoly period was short and before the *AAs of the world who are only creative when it comes to cheating creators out of what's theirs by not paying them.
Now tell me that a starving child or adult will care a tinkers damn about your precious copyright or patent. Or how THEY help find them food.
Are you really that heartless and well as willfully ignorant?
"I think there is also the problem that today's "culture" (and I do put it in quotes) seems to think that taking someone else's recorded work and adding their own words over it is somehow creative and should be exempt from copyright laws. Until that mentality is filtered out, new music sites will always have problems because the content will be questionable."
That MUST mean the content of most Hymn books is questionable music as hymns are classic example of taking someone elses music and putting new words to them. Ancient psalms did the same thing. Which means that the compilers of hymnals are...shudder...PIRATES!!!! HOLY PIRATES!!!!!!
And while we're on this subject of mentality, by your definition of "culture" we really should stop performing most 19th Century symphonies as the composers freely borrowed (infringed or pirated) the public domain and their peers. Let's stop grand opera, too, for raping the works of Shakespeare and translating them (remixing) into badly broken Italian and horrible "music".
Remind me to ask both you and the old guard just what is acceptable creation, valid and non infringing. Oh, and ethics as that same old guard during the early days of the recording and movie industries freely ignored, infringed on copyright and broken patent law to get what THEY wanted.
Just the group I need to lecture me on ethics, creation or just what makes a good author or composer or musician. When hell freezes over.
Calling up comparisons between the 13th Century and the 20th Century is another one of the strawmen ACs keep criticizing others for but are more than happy to toss out as well.
But let's look anyway. Communication, thanks to the telegraph and radio was on the verge of becoming global as the 20thC opened up. At best it was regional, frequently local in the 13th.
The 13th Century, the end of the period known as the High Middle Ages, would feature notables such as Thomas Aquinas, Peter Abélard, Roger Bacon and Dante.
The rise of Parliament an institution with some, if not much, authority the signing of perhaps the most important document in the development of democracy and freedom in the English speaking world leading to such documents as the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- Magna Carta.
The introduction of Arabic numbers into Europe, the development of the number zero which, until then, didn't factor into western mathematics. Wind and watermills, the spinning wheel, paper mills (paper as we know it), non-movable type printing, gunpowder, eyeglasses, the astrolabe and magnetic compass, scissors of the modern design, musical notation, Romanesque architecture, the fixing of ships rudders to the aft (rear) of the ship instead of on the port or starboard side near the aft and I could keep going.
Not bad for a period with no copyright or patent law. All built, of course, on the knowledge of what came before and influenced by the Muslim and Byzantine empires of the time who never did lose contact with ancient Greece and Rome or China.
The 20thC did extremely well too. Once again, built on knowledge that came before the inventors invented, literature and writing in styles and formats based on what came before. (Sadly no Divine Comedy though.) Though, I should caution that patent and copyright terms were much shorter until the 1980s. The two worst wars in human history helped immensely, I'm sorry to say. Oh, and the entire concept of copyright and patent as something called "intellectual property" didn't show up till the last quarter of the 20th C. Oh, as we now have to ability to destroy the planet at the push of a button and we're filling the atmosphere with more carbon dioxide that is good for us or the planet.
To be honest I suspect that historians in the future will label the 20thC as an age of rapid technological change and innovation, the first half of the century great powers either fighting one another or preparing to and I'll bet they'll still be trying to count up the dead. Large damage to the environment. Oh, and overpopulation something the 21stC will have to deal with.
Though MOST of the 20thC's innovations and "invention" began in the 19thC including such things as the assembly line and most of the electrical theory that has made the world what it is. Digital computers, in fact, are a development of technology that existed in the 18th and 19thC.
Given what each century had to draw on I'd suggest the 13thC did much better than the 20th. What happened in 13thC set the stage for and started the Renaissance, after all. It's too early to say what the 20th is leaving behind for the 21st. And the 13thC did it all without copyright or patents.
The 20th would have done much of what it did to with or without copyright or patent laws. Why? Because that's what people do. Just that simple. But the 20th had far more to draw on and did nothing in isolation except, perhaps, figure out that fuller's earth makes wonderful kitty litter.
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Unlike FOX or MSNBC Mike has never claimed Techdirt is a news outlet. Techdirt is commentary and analysis not news. In the world of journalism those are entirely different things.
At that, it's not as much that Mike or other authors on Techdirt are opposed to copyright as a concept it's that Mike is opposed to the insane lengths of copyright as it stands today and the IP extremists, and the lengths they'll go to, that has become the issue around copyright.
Copyright, remember, was developed and introduced in a world of dead tree books and ink. A world that is rapidly vanishing. It was never intended to enrich publishers, movie and recording studios at the expense of creators which is where we're at now.
So how about you coming up with an alternative for the digital age?
Despite your mistaken assertions that without copyright all creativity would stop you haven't yet explained how such towering works as Shakespeare's and "The Canterbury Tales" came to be written and/or performed in a world without copyright. (And those are just two of a solar system worth of examples.)
Copyright does not, in and of itself increase the amount of high quality content. If it did then Hollywood would be churning out high quality 75% of the time instead of 10% if we're all lucky. And don't bother with the argument that they have to appeal to the masses. So did Shakespeare. So did Homer and so did every writer and musician prior to the introduction of copyright. But create they did and not just themselves but many others. That's the part people like you always seem to miss.
So movies, recordings, television and other acts of creation, not to mention software, photography, design and just about any other creative act you can think of would continue to be made because that's what human's do.
As you cite LoTR as one of your expensive examples of what copyright can accomplish as an act of creation there are two things wrong with that.
1) For most of the Trilogy's existence, and The Hobbit, American publishers didn't recognize English or anyone else's copyrights so Tolkien wasn't paid so much as a penny of royalties on the best sellers. I guess they were all pirates.
2) LoTR, unlike a great many films, had a built in audience who were not about to accept junk but give them (and me) quality they'd be all over it. And we were. Done even three quarters right it was guaranteed a mass audience and it got one. And the profits as well. So, like Titanic, it's a bad example.
It gets increasingly hard to listen the all the stale, old and untrue arguments that are tossed out in defense of the current copyright regime which has nothing at all to do with education and less to do with actually paying the artists that actually create for the gatekeepers.
Of course, then, when I'm looking for a belly laugh along comes bob, powered by the green envy monster, so thanks for that bob. I can see a long and profitable career in front of you as a low level exec in one of the *AA's or in the lower echelon of parts of the Republican Party insisting that evolution didn't happen and using yourself as Exhibit A.
On the post: Facebook Hits Back Hard On Yahoo Patent Claims, Countersues Over Its Own Patents: Nuclear War Begins
Has no one at the patent office heard of things like prior art, originality and all that good stuff that's supposed to apply to a patent, including things like it can't be obvious?
NEWS FLASH
Yahoo and Facebook will both apply for patent covering the ability to keep time across a network that will take into account the rotation of planet Earth and additionally claim a patent on the forces of gravitation, strong and weak nuclear forces et al, just to make darned sure they've covered everything! ;-)
On the post: MPAA Says Letting Anyone Access Data On Megaupload Servers Would Represent Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Carpathia: so pull the fucking drives out...
On the post: MPAA Says Letting Anyone Access Data On Megaupload Servers Would Represent Infringement
Re:
At least that what the MPAA and RIAA are convinced of. Along with an AC or two around here!
On the post: Is There Any Value In Cracking Down On 'Piracy' If It Doesn't Increase Sales?
Re: Obscurity is a bigger problem...
Then again, when I do listen to commercial radio as most do, most of these acts are nowhere to be found. Rightly so in many cases.
Then again, it's in the Canadian nature of things to celebrate failure rather than success and then complain about American and British cultural imperialism. ;-)
PS: I'm Canadian so I get to say those sorts of things.
PPS: There's an effective boycott of the Junos by recording acts from Quebec and Acadia because there's a real absence of acts in French by the awards except of one token classification even if those acts outsell most of their English performing counterparts.
The "Two Solitudes" are alive and well!
On the post: Is There Any Value In Cracking Down On 'Piracy' If It Doesn't Increase Sales?
Re: Re: Re: Re: New Coke
Strictly from a moralistic perspective your conclusion is exactly the conclusion used to continue the "war on drugs" despite over a century of evidence that it's an abysmal failure. I'd argue that based on the evidence it's immoral to continue it, pour money down the drain to continue it and just start to work on the root causes.
Just to be picky I'd point out that the most dangerous and frequently abused drugs are perfectly legal, as in alcohol and prescription drugs. I'd also point out that many banned drugs do have legitimate medical uses including pot.
Let's move to "piracy". As you say the "war on piracy" seems to have the polar opposite effect that IP maximalists insist will be the outcome should they "win". Mind you, they've been at this and saying this since the development of the player piano to little or no effect or evidence. Casting infringement as a moral issue doesn't change that while I'm more likely to cast the increasing scope and length of effect of IP laws is immoral.
Incidentally I'd argue that the current focus on child (sexual) abuse and how it's being done is making the problem worse by ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of it occurs in family and not by the "pedophile" we're told about constantly. And that I do consider to be immoral as it neither addresses the real problem or the cause.
Keep in mind that I'm a recovering alcoholic and addict. I'm also a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. With all that you'd think I'd be in favour of existing laws. Nope. The reasons are simple. They not only don't work, they make things worse by focusing on the wrong things.
Piracy, as the "content" industry has cast it the evidence indicates the polar opposite of what they claim it does. Naturally it has nothing at all to do with declining demand for their products or the marketplace getting tired of the junk they produce and ceasing to buy in any form. We're called freetards and worse by our AC trolls as well as overweaning "entitlement". They're the entitled ones. Just because you make a movie or tv show, write and/or publish a book, take a picture, making a sculpture or painting you are not entitled to make any money from it. In that sense they're as bad or worse than the "pushers" or "dealers" or "bootleggers" I dealt far too much with while I was in active addiction and alcoholism only they lie even more than pushers ever do.
On the post: Judge Smacks Down Lawsuit From HuffPo Volunteers, Says 'They Got What They Paid For'
Re: Re: Re:
More to the point Tasini has pretty much guaranteed that he's on the "do not hire", "do not allow to blog", "do not even talk to" and automatic "circular file" list for every media company, for profit or not profit, across North America and the English speaking world.
It takes real talent in screwing yourself blind to get a case dismissed with this much judicial scorn and with prejudice. What Tasini really ought to do is ask Gibson if there's room for him at Gibson's law firm. They'd make an ideal pair!
On the post: Musician Jonathan Coulton: I Value The Internet A Lot More Than The Record Industry
Re:
Why pay when there's a near endless supply of groupies? :-)
On the post: Sneeje's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't automatically or, more like, automagically, mean the artist isn't being paid or is being ripped off. You make the assumption that because something can be done it must, therefore, be being done. The one doesn't mean the other is being done. (I don't deny that it is but it's your assumption that because Suja is stating a fact that, ergo, Suja must be a pirate. That makes less sense than 99% of the *AA trolls usually do around here which is quite an accomplishment.)
On the post: Sneeje's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, there'll be some who carry on about recovering research costs or monetizing the invention(s) to endow both public and private universities but at some time there has to be a good look at IP law in general to see if it really is doing what it's supposed to these days which is to encourage creation for the public and economic good.
It's not like the broader principles of AAC or a lot of the specifics are covered by patents preventing practitioners from doing their job as the women behind the development of Speak For Yourself have and still do. That they could have helped develop something that while it expresses the same idea doesn't infringe on the patent held by Prof Baker doesn't seem to have occurred to company he set up to enforce his patents. It's not like there doesn't appear to be a ton or three of prior art that is folded into the patents he holds.
I don't even know if Prof Baker was directly involved in the decision to file the action that has brought us to this but it remains the essential heartlessness of the action that sticks in my craw. It's clearly in direct opposition to the humanitarianism attributed to him.
All that said, this is an ideal situation to hold the political class's feet to the fire on. Almost as good as SOPA/PIPA was.
On the post: Sneeje's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
The patents cover the development of the systems sold by minispeak.com and others developed and patented by a Professor Bruce R Baker of Pittsburg and is associated with or founded Semantic Compaction® Systems, Inc who hold the copyrights, patents and so on associated with his particular development of AAC on a personal computer. The patents were granted in 1982 which means that they were granted well before the appearance of software patents which is explains why the patents are so specific about the relationship between the software and now obsolete hardware.
I'll have to, for the moment, assume that the patents were extended/renewed once software patents appeared. His units sell for, at the bottom or the range approximately $8,000 US all the way up to over $15,000US. The hardware, if a post at http://supportforspecialneeds.com/2012/03/26/the-iceman-cometh-with-his-legal-team/ is a general indication seems somewhat fragile given its use. The warranty cost would back this up.
For Maya, the girl in the Techdirt article the is about, despite the expense, the expensive systems don't work. Period. For the writer of the link above is coming to a point where it's time for his daughter to upgrade. The expensive stuff works for her, which is great.
BUT...and this is an enormous but, Minispeak and it's licensed manufacturer have no plans now or in the future to port the software to an iPad or, I suspect, an Android or Linux or Windows based pad. And therein lies the rub. Even from the photos on the Prentke Romich site the hardware appears and is heavy and awkward and would be even for an adult. Somewhere between the original Compaq luggable and a true portable. There may be a good reason of it but I can't find one anywhere.
My suspicion is that, particularly after reading The Iceman Cometh With His Legal Team post is that Minspeak and Prentke Romich make a good part of their profit off the hardware rather than the software.
I fairness to Minspeak and the women who released Speak For Yourself there is significant support from the developers for the users of both systems.
As much as I'm disturbed by the lawsuit itself I'm disturbed that Professor Baker won a Healthcare Hero Award which, alongside his work in AAC highlights his humanitarian activities which seems quite out of line with the lawsuit.
http://www.minspeak.com/students/documents/Healthcare%20Hero%20Award.pdf
Then again, the award appears to have been given by the company founded to take care of his patents so take that as you will.
Understand that I'm not taking a thing away from Prof. Baker. He's done and continues to do fantastic work. But if he's such a healthcare hero this lawsuit never would have been filed. As his companies have made abundantly clear that they aren't interested in the iPad or anyPad market it's hard to square his "hero" status with a suit against a product that IS in that space and doesn't seem interested in the custom hardware space Minspeak is in.
Something is very wrong when a "Healthcare Hero" doesn't seem interested in the affects this legal move will have on those like Maya who prefer, for whatever reason, and improve with an iPad app like Speak For Yourself.
Oh, and one other thing is that Maya's mother when she wrote the piece in her blog expected some support from the AAC community what she didn't expect was the wave of support she's received and is receiving from the tech community. While she may not know that the tech community is leery to to the point of hostility towards things like patents and copyright and how they're used, she's grateful and amazed.
Even with some of our AC trolls.
http://niederfamily.blogspot.ca/2012/03/prc-scs-vs-speak-for-yourself-links.html
Let's not let this one die.
On the post: MPAA CTO Jumps Ship To Internet Society, An Opponent Of Greater Online Copyright Enforcement
Re: Re: Re: Reality Strikes
On the post: EFF Slams Righthaven CEO For Pretending He Can Ignore Court Orders
Ambusher complaining of being ambushed?
As "infringers" fought back Righthaven seems to have discovered a previously unknown way to assure that litigators can piss off each and every judge the litigators can find.
Now comes Steve Gibson complaining that he's being "ambushed" by the EFF.
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/mar/27/fighting-sanction-righthaven-ceo-complains-foes-am/
An interesting complaint given that a large part of Righthaven's business model was ambushing so called infringers without even the DCMA niceties like a take down notice before demanding settlement. This on copyrights they didn't own and despite not being a law firm.
It's hard to keep the veil of LLCs intact when Gibson seems intent on shredding it long before a court decides that it needs to be pierced.
It's deliciously ironic that Gibson would now complain, wrongly, that someone is doing to him what he did to so many others.
(And what is it with him and the pictures of him wearing a cheap call centre microphone?)
On the post: UK Entertainment Industry: Fair Use Hurts Economic Growth
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: REPORT HIM...HE INSLUTED A TROLL!
On the post: UK Entertainment Industry: Fair Use Hurts Economic Growth
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Entertainment Industry: Fair Use Hurts Economic Growth
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, if you live in the United States, Canada, Australia or New Zealand or the EU.
The rest of the world still scrabbles for their next meals, a greater percentage of humanity is starving than at any other period in written human history. And in many places people DO try to scratch out a living out of an overworked plot of land which WE make so much easier by depositing carbon into our atmosphere by the star system load. In more than a few places on this planet the same people live in decades old wars that this overfed part of the world cheerfully ignores.
Is it really that possible that as you call for comparisons between time periods that your are so completely ignorant of this one? Or totally ignorant of history beyond a cartoon book perspective that focuses only on the United States?
It's not so bad. Until you ignore the rest of the human species which you seem more than happy to do. That's what's so bad. Your abominable ignorance both of history and of the state of the world as it is now.
May I suggest you spend some time in the Congo, subSaharan Africa, large parts of South America or Central Asia? Then come back and tell me with a straight face that all we should care about is fucking copyright and patent law as if either are going to help those people?
It's your ignorance that's so fucking bad. It's your near total lack of historical knowledge that's so fucking bad.
Now tell me, once again, about the ethics of infringing on something so damned unimportant as copyright to the majority of people on this planet or patents to the same people? Or how vital and important they are?
Guess, what, kiddo, people will create because that's what humans do and have always done. Copyright and patent law had places before they stretched into eternity, when the monopoly period was short and before the *AAs of the world who are only creative when it comes to cheating creators out of what's theirs by not paying them.
Now tell me that a starving child or adult will care a tinkers damn about your precious copyright or patent. Or how THEY help find them food.
Are you really that heartless and well as willfully ignorant?
On the post: UK Entertainment Industry: Fair Use Hurts Economic Growth
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I think there is also the problem that today's "culture" (and I do put it in quotes) seems to think that taking someone else's recorded work and adding their own words over it is somehow creative and should be exempt from copyright laws. Until that mentality is filtered out, new music sites will always have problems because the content will be questionable."
That MUST mean the content of most Hymn books is questionable music as hymns are classic example of taking someone elses music and putting new words to them. Ancient psalms did the same thing. Which means that the compilers of hymnals are...shudder...PIRATES!!!! HOLY PIRATES!!!!!!
And while we're on this subject of mentality, by your definition of "culture" we really should stop performing most 19th Century symphonies as the composers freely borrowed (infringed or pirated) the public domain and their peers. Let's stop grand opera, too, for raping the works of Shakespeare and translating them (remixing) into badly broken Italian and horrible "music".
Remind me to ask both you and the old guard just what is acceptable creation, valid and non infringing. Oh, and ethics as that same old guard during the early days of the recording and movie industries freely ignored, infringed on copyright and broken patent law to get what THEY wanted.
Just the group I need to lecture me on ethics, creation or just what makes a good author or composer or musician. When hell freezes over.
On the post: UK Entertainment Industry: Fair Use Hurts Economic Growth
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Entertainment Industry: Fair Use Hurts Economic Growth
Re: Re: Re:
But let's look anyway. Communication, thanks to the telegraph and radio was on the verge of becoming global as the 20thC opened up. At best it was regional, frequently local in the 13th.
The 13th Century, the end of the period known as the High Middle Ages, would feature notables such as Thomas Aquinas, Peter Abélard, Roger Bacon and Dante.
The rise of Parliament an institution with some, if not much, authority the signing of perhaps the most important document in the development of democracy and freedom in the English speaking world leading to such documents as the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- Magna Carta.
The introduction of Arabic numbers into Europe, the development of the number zero which, until then, didn't factor into western mathematics. Wind and watermills, the spinning wheel, paper mills (paper as we know it), non-movable type printing, gunpowder, eyeglasses, the astrolabe and magnetic compass, scissors of the modern design, musical notation, Romanesque architecture, the fixing of ships rudders to the aft (rear) of the ship instead of on the port or starboard side near the aft and I could keep going.
Not bad for a period with no copyright or patent law. All built, of course, on the knowledge of what came before and influenced by the Muslim and Byzantine empires of the time who never did lose contact with ancient Greece and Rome or China.
The 20thC did extremely well too. Once again, built on knowledge that came before the inventors invented, literature and writing in styles and formats based on what came before. (Sadly no Divine Comedy though.) Though, I should caution that patent and copyright terms were much shorter until the 1980s. The two worst wars in human history helped immensely, I'm sorry to say. Oh, and the entire concept of copyright and patent as something called "intellectual property" didn't show up till the last quarter of the 20th C. Oh, as we now have to ability to destroy the planet at the push of a button and we're filling the atmosphere with more carbon dioxide that is good for us or the planet.
To be honest I suspect that historians in the future will label the 20thC as an age of rapid technological change and innovation, the first half of the century great powers either fighting one another or preparing to and I'll bet they'll still be trying to count up the dead. Large damage to the environment. Oh, and overpopulation something the 21stC will have to deal with.
Though MOST of the 20thC's innovations and "invention" began in the 19thC including such things as the assembly line and most of the electrical theory that has made the world what it is. Digital computers, in fact, are a development of technology that existed in the 18th and 19thC.
Given what each century had to draw on I'd suggest the 13thC did much better than the 20th. What happened in 13thC set the stage for and started the Renaissance, after all. It's too early to say what the 20th is leaving behind for the 21st. And the 13thC did it all without copyright or patents.
The 20th would have done much of what it did to with or without copyright or patent laws. Why? Because that's what people do. Just that simple. But the 20th had far more to draw on and did nothing in isolation except, perhaps, figure out that fuller's earth makes wonderful kitty litter.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Piracy Justifies Monopoly, Wants The Power To Control Digital Music Services
Re: YAWN
Next >>