Once again, signs that the patent system is broken. Nice example for a case study, too. It really stacks many common flaws in a patent lawsuit... - Abusive type: software patent. - Abusive concept: "do x over Internet", where "x" is something as old as civilization. - Abusive location: East Texas. - Abusive exploitation: no actual use of patent aside from suing others. - Abusive use: cherry-picking lines in the patent and interpreting them very broadly.
And yet, this is not just laughed out of court. Moreover, you will find so many companies still advocating that the patent system is just fine, sometimes even as they are the target of such lawsuits.
A sign that "evolution" doesn't rhyme with "improvement".
The top left image is a registered logo for the Washington Nationals baseball team, the bottom left is the registered "W" flag the Chicago Cubs fly whenever they win a game,(...)
... and they somehow don't have a problem with each other? Two teams - two baseball teams - sport the letter "W" with roughly the same choice of colors ("blue over white" vs "white over blue")... and they both have a problem not with each other but a completely unrelated company (a financial one) that uses the same letter with a different color choice.
That's not a trademark issue. It's clearly a "too much time to waste" issue.
"It almost sounds as if you're trying to insinuate that two wrongs make a right here." I agree with your argument here: two wrongs do not make a right... assuming (one more assumption) that some of the possible victims of that teacher did the right thing first. If they did report the teacher and he was still allowed to keep his position of authority over his victims, then there is not much left other than trying for a public outcry. It's sad, but it's often only then that some people are placed in front of their responsibilities.
"Not at all. It implicitly states certain public figures may not be threatened by certain individuals." Except that the matter of "threat" has been mostly overlooked (and the Popehat post on the same subject underlines this more). Saying "I'll kill you" is not a threat in all contexts. It can often be seen as mere bluff, and the "rap" style of music often uses very harsh and violent statements without a single true intent of acting on those threats. Hence the requirement in actual justice court for "threats" to be "true threats" to lose "free speech" protection. In this case, the level of "threat" has been brushed aside (not completely overlooked, but not given the consideration it deserves either). A simple "threat" that - according to the article - nobody actually believed in was enough to trigger censorship.
This "right to be forgotten" is of course not to be taken literally. (That would be thought policing, which is both illegal and impossible.) However, what it actually is is not much better: it's the "right to prevent people from reminding others about you"... which is basically a right to censor things about you past a certain date (which is not even clearly defined).
It means that you can ask everyone to stop publishing a piece of information about you once you consider that piece is not "relevant". (= Outdated information)
This is quite arbitrary and will be abused. Already is from what I can hear.
Lobbyists, particularly (but not exclusively) copyright lobbyists, have never bothered with consistency in their speech. They say whatever suits them at the very second they say it, even if they contradicts themselves seconds later. (They sometimes contradict themselves in a single sentence.)
Is there any surprise that they can both advocate a free-market, then pretend a free-market is bad for them a few months later?
They can boast about their fantastic box office records in a conference, then complain about the rampant piracy that cripples them... a few lines later in the same speech. They can go to EU parliament to explain that they need law to protect them because they are a very large part of the EU economy and beg to the same persons for more EU subventions because they are in danger of being bankrupted by those nasty pirates. They will mix the concepts of physical copies that they sell and licences that they rent depending on what point they want to make.
The only few times they don't move much in the concepts they use are how copyright is a "property" (which it isn't) and by extension how copyright violation is "theft" (which it isn't either) unless they are the ones violating some copyright or other. In that case it can range from "mistake in good faith" (yeah, right) to completely ignoring the issue at hand.
They lie, they cheat, and they are few, but rich. And that's precisely the kind of people most politicians listen to.
So, again, it's confusing as to what Hollywood's real complaint is.
For all I can understand, the answer is "control". They want the money of course, but they mostly want control because it makes things easier for them.
Control means they can decide who watches what, for how long and how much... This way they have an easier way making trends and directing the public away from a variety of offers into a few box office titles. It allows a smaller offer to provide a much higher ROI.
They don't want to provide the public what it wants. They want the public to buy what they offer. Once again, their goal is definitely not "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" as written in the US Constitution... but to restrain it for their own profit.
So the idea is that they want to freeze the world into their "tried and proved" business model from the past 20-30 years. That seems to be the logical conclusion coming from giving them a dictatorial power over individual pieces of our culture.
Sounds like something a french comedian said a while ago... "Journalists don't believe in politician's lies, but they repeat them nonetheless. It's worse."
And yet... because the pharma industry just doesn't like having to deal with Bass at all, it's trying to destroy the whole IPR process
Sounds more like they're using him as a convenient excuse to ask for the ban of IPR.
"Look, there is this one guy that abuses the system, so we should bring the whole system down."
Funny enough, that "logic" could apply to the whole patent system if we were willing to play their game. There are quite a number of people abusing the patent system, so maybe we should bring the whole patent system down? (With the difference that we can show that the patent system is way more prone to abuse that the IPR.)
The old argument of "having nothing to hide" has often been heard. Curiously, some of the same people who say this are also prone to ask judges to censor something about them.
It's the same as "free speech" debates: many are totally in favor of free speech... as long as you don't say anything they don't like.
Privacy and free speech are issues that have this in common that some of their "loudest" defenders are the ones most quick to deny them to others. They have to understand that if they want privacy and free speech, they have to allow it for everyone. It simply doesn't work "just for them".
Then again, they might simply be used to being "more equal than others".
"You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.
Let's assume for just a second that citizens do indeed make the choice of security over privacy... which is in itself quite doubtful.
The problem at hand is that the police force does not even deliver the promised security. They are all too often the very cause of insecurity. Not as much as the criminals themselves (hopefully) but still enough that citizens, particularly those with specific profiles, are clearly not "more secure" when the police is given total freedom in their use of (excessive) force.
If we can't have both, and if we can't have "crime-free environment", I think the conclusion if obvious.
"Actually, what he has been trying to do is get the entirety of the case heard in NZ as the basis of extradition, and that has entirely been shut down by the NZ justice system." I agree on that one. Extradition trial is not about guilt or innocence and Kim already lost that recourse (trying to "prove" himself innocent to the NZ court). However, his overall challenge of the extradition is not wrong in itself.
"In fact, if he had done so 3 years ago and was in fact innocent, his problems would already be over." That is so very unlikely.
First of all, some of the requests he made was about the data that was seized. The point was that US wanted the data before knowing if Kim would actually be extradited, then keep the incriminating evidence (copy of files that violate copyright, of emails taken out of context, etc.) while destroying or encouraging the destruction of everything else (non-infringing files, emails that can bring context, etc.) That is definitely not the right basis for a fair trial.
Second, fighting extradition is not an admission of guilt, as pointed several times in these comments. The "Case Study" comment has a major point: "2) that country has a bad record of over-exaggerated punishments for the crime at hand". US has a long history of unfair trials with over-inflated punishments in copyright cases. Who in their right mind would willingly submit himself to US "justice" in this context?
So many dangerous arguments in there. - "First", getting a pass by the president isn't very meaningful. I'd like a more impartial validation. - "Second", using legal recourse against extradition isn't "being a fugitive". Legal recourse is, by definition, legal, unlike just running away from legal summons. Moreover, it magically becomes "bad" when a citizen does it while it's normal (or even "good") when the government abuses the legal system? Talk about double-standards. - "Third", "asset forfeiture not being unique to his case" doesn't make this a good thing. And Mike uses this as an illustration that it's not a good thing in general. He's not defending Dotcom, he's not saying "forfeiture shouldn't have been used here". He's saying that asset forfeiture is a flawed procedure, and it's easy to abuse. For anyone. It sounds like, even in case of actual fugitive, he doesn't think it's "due process". - Next, he might be able to reclaim it, but it's highly doubtful and that certainly won't be trivial. (Mike already responded to that one.) As for getting the same treatment as druglords and organized crime... Seriously? That's your argument there? - Finally, so what if Dotcom fails in his recourse against extradition or sending his data to US? He has the right to them, to have these options examined and rejected in due process.
I agree with one thing though, but not worded as you did. Since fighting on legal grounds is costly, will Kim have to face US courts with the means to have a fair trial (if he ever has to)? Or will he be deprived of resource through dubious processes before then? And (still he he has to face US courts) will he even have the rights to a fair trial, having the money for it or not? That already seems doubtful, notwithstanding guilt or innocence.
On the post: If You're Selling Gift Cards Over The Internet, There's A Patent Troll Coming For You
Patent abuse
Nice example for a case study, too. It really stacks many common flaws in a patent lawsuit...
- Abusive type: software patent.
- Abusive concept: "do x over Internet", where "x" is something as old as civilization.
- Abusive location: East Texas.
- Abusive exploitation: no actual use of patent aside from suing others.
- Abusive use: cherry-picking lines in the patent and interpreting them very broadly.
And yet, this is not just laughed out of court.
Moreover, you will find so many companies still advocating that the patent system is just fine, sometimes even as they are the target of such lawsuits.
A sign that "evolution" doesn't rhyme with "improvement".
On the post: MLB Drops Trademark Opposition Against WalletHub For 'W' Logo After WalletHub Bows At The MLB Altar
... and they somehow don't have a problem with each other? Two teams - two baseball teams - sport the letter "W" with roughly the same choice of colors ("blue over white" vs "white over blue")... and they both have a problem not with each other but a completely unrelated company (a financial one) that uses the same letter with a different color choice.
That's not a trademark issue. It's clearly a "too much time to waste" issue.
On the post: Court Reverses Previous Decision; Upholds Suspension For Student Who Rapped About School Employee Misconduct
I agree with your argument here: two wrongs do not make a right... assuming (one more assumption) that some of the possible victims of that teacher did the right thing first. If they did report the teacher and he was still allowed to keep his position of authority over his victims, then there is not much left other than trying for a public outcry. It's sad, but it's often only then that some people are placed in front of their responsibilities.
"Not at all. It implicitly states certain public figures may not be threatened by certain individuals."
Except that the matter of "threat" has been mostly overlooked (and the Popehat post on the same subject underlines this more). Saying "I'll kill you" is not a threat in all contexts. It can often be seen as mere bluff, and the "rap" style of music often uses very harsh and violent statements without a single true intent of acting on those threats. Hence the requirement in actual justice court for "threats" to be "true threats" to lose "free speech" protection.
In this case, the level of "threat" has been brushed aside (not completely overlooked, but not given the consideration it deserves either). A simple "threat" that - according to the article - nobody actually believed in was enough to trigger censorship.
On the post: UK Orders Google To 'Forget' News Articles Discussing Previous Right To Be Forgotten Requests
Re:
However, what it actually is is not much better: it's the "right to prevent people from reminding others about you"... which is basically a right to censor things about you past a certain date (which is not even clearly defined).
It means that you can ask everyone to stop publishing a piece of information about you once you consider that piece is not "relevant". (= Outdated information)
This is quite arbitrary and will be abused. Already is from what I can hear.
On the post: Funny How Recording Industry Only Likes A 'Free Market' When It's To Their Advantage
Cognitive dissonance? Nothing new there
Is there any surprise that they can both advocate a free-market, then pretend a free-market is bad for them a few months later?
They can boast about their fantastic box office records in a conference, then complain about the rampant piracy that cripples them... a few lines later in the same speech.
They can go to EU parliament to explain that they need law to protect them because they are a very large part of the EU economy and beg to the same persons for more EU subventions because they are in danger of being bankrupted by those nasty pirates.
They will mix the concepts of physical copies that they sell and licences that they rent depending on what point they want to make.
The only few times they don't move much in the concepts they use are how copyright is a "property" (which it isn't) and by extension how copyright violation is "theft" (which it isn't either) unless they are the ones violating some copyright or other. In that case it can range from "mistake in good faith" (yeah, right) to completely ignoring the issue at hand.
They lie, they cheat, and they are few, but rich. And that's precisely the kind of people most politicians listen to.
On the post: Hollywood Keeps Breaking Box Office Records... While Still Insisting That The Internet Is Killing Movies
What Hollywood really wants...
For all I can understand, the answer is "control".
They want the money of course, but they mostly want control because it makes things easier for them.
Control means they can decide who watches what, for how long and how much... This way they have an easier way making trends and directing the public away from a variety of offers into a few box office titles. It allows a smaller offer to provide a much higher ROI.
They don't want to provide the public what it wants. They want the public to buy what they offer. Once again, their goal is definitely not "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" as written in the US Constitution... but to restrain it for their own profit.
So the idea is that they want to freeze the world into their "tried and proved" business model from the past 20-30 years.
That seems to be the logical conclusion coming from giving them a dictatorial power over individual pieces of our culture.
On the post: Intel Officials' Claims That NSA Couldn't Access Majority Of Cellphone Records Apparently Bogus
Re:
"Journalists don't believe in politician's lies, but they repeat them nonetheless. It's worse."
On the post: New Yorker Decides US Has Too Much Free Speech; Dismisses 'Free Speech Extremists'
Re: Surprise!
https://xkcd.com/1357/
On the post: News Corp's CEO Bizarre Obsession With Made Up Lies About Google
Who ever said you can't be both?
On the post: Could A Hedge Fund Manager Trying To Short Stocks Of Pharma Companies With Bad Patents Derail Patent Reform?
Sounds more like they're using him as a convenient excuse to ask for the ban of IPR.
"Look, there is this one guy that abuses the system, so we should bring the whole system down."
Funny enough, that "logic" could apply to the whole patent system if we were willing to play their game. There are quite a number of people abusing the patent system, so maybe we should bring the whole patent system down? (With the difference that we can show that the patent system is way more prone to abuse that the IPR.)
On the post: The Faulty Google Search That Set Off A Constitutional Crisis
Respect
No problem, they will request a law stating that respect is due. It seems to work so well with judges and cops.
On the post: The Failure Of Google Plus Should Be A Reminder That Big Companies Very Rarely Successfully 'Copy' Startups
On the post: Chris Christie So Obsessed With Increasing Surveillance He Pretends He Was A Fed On 9/11 Even Though He Wasn't
Idiocracy
On the post: Google To French Regulators Looking To Expand 'Right To Be Forgotten' Globally: Forget About It
Re:
On the post: Cop To Vet On Receiving End Of Bogus Raid: Investigating Things Beforehand Just Slows Us Down
"To protect and serve...
Seems like that is the actual motto of police forces nowadays.
On the post: Everyone's A Bad Guy: German Regulator Orders Facebook To Drop Its Stupid 'Real Name' Policy
Nothing to hide...
It's the same as "free speech" debates: many are totally in favor of free speech... as long as you don't say anything they don't like.
Privacy and free speech are issues that have this in common that some of their "loudest" defenders are the ones most quick to deny them to others. They have to understand that if they want privacy and free speech, they have to allow it for everyone. It simply doesn't work "just for them".
Then again, they might simply be used to being "more equal than others".
On the post: Officer Indicted For Lying On Warrant Application That Led To Toddler Being Burned By Flashbang Grenade
Breach of contract
Let's assume for just a second that citizens do indeed make the choice of security over privacy... which is in itself quite doubtful.
The problem at hand is that the police force does not even deliver the promised security. They are all too often the very cause of insecurity. Not as much as the criminals themselves (hopefully) but still enough that citizens, particularly those with specific profiles, are clearly not "more secure" when the police is given total freedom in their use of (excessive) force.
If we can't have both, and if we can't have "crime-free environment", I think the conclusion if obvious.
On the post: Even If You Think Kim Dotcom Is Guilty As Sin, The US Government Stealing His Assets Should Concern You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think of this as August.
I agree on that one. Extradition trial is not about guilt or innocence and Kim already lost that recourse (trying to "prove" himself innocent to the NZ court).
However, his overall challenge of the extradition is not wrong in itself.
"In fact, if he had done so 3 years ago and was in fact innocent, his problems would already be over."
That is so very unlikely.
First of all, some of the requests he made was about the data that was seized. The point was that US wanted the data before knowing if Kim would actually be extradited, then keep the incriminating evidence (copy of files that violate copyright, of emails taken out of context, etc.) while destroying or encouraging the destruction of everything else (non-infringing files, emails that can bring context, etc.) That is definitely not the right basis for a fair trial.
Second, fighting extradition is not an admission of guilt, as pointed several times in these comments. The "Case Study" comment has a major point: "2) that country has a bad record of over-exaggerated punishments for the crime at hand". US has a long history of unfair trials with over-inflated punishments in copyright cases. Who in their right mind would willingly submit himself to US "justice" in this context?
On the post: FCC Signs Off on AT&T DirecTV Merger, And Early Indications Are The Conditions Are Hot Garbage
Re: Typo?
We should read "0 times the size..."
:D
On the post: Even If You Think Kim Dotcom Is Guilty As Sin, The US Government Stealing His Assets Should Concern You
Re: Think of this as August.
- "First", getting a pass by the president isn't very meaningful. I'd like a more impartial validation.
- "Second", using legal recourse against extradition isn't "being a fugitive". Legal recourse is, by definition, legal, unlike just running away from legal summons. Moreover, it magically becomes "bad" when a citizen does it while it's normal (or even "good") when the government abuses the legal system? Talk about double-standards.
- "Third", "asset forfeiture not being unique to his case" doesn't make this a good thing. And Mike uses this as an illustration that it's not a good thing in general. He's not defending Dotcom, he's not saying "forfeiture shouldn't have been used here". He's saying that asset forfeiture is a flawed procedure, and it's easy to abuse. For anyone. It sounds like, even in case of actual fugitive, he doesn't think it's "due process".
- Next, he might be able to reclaim it, but it's highly doubtful and that certainly won't be trivial. (Mike already responded to that one.) As for getting the same treatment as druglords and organized crime... Seriously? That's your argument there?
- Finally, so what if Dotcom fails in his recourse against extradition or sending his data to US? He has the right to them, to have these options examined and rejected in due process.
I agree with one thing though, but not worded as you did.
Since fighting on legal grounds is costly, will Kim have to face US courts with the means to have a fair trial (if he ever has to)? Or will he be deprived of resource through dubious processes before then? And (still he he has to face US courts) will he even have the rights to a fair trial, having the money for it or not? That already seems doubtful, notwithstanding guilt or innocence.
Next >>