Talking of cellphones, the European Commission has just brokered a deal between a number of cell phone manufacturers to start using the same charger by next year. They are also working on a similar deal for laptops and digital cameras... See, governement can do some good things once in a while...
Come on Mike... You know very well that copyright law is very complex and that it is often not unreasonable for people to wrongly believe they own the copyright on something. What really needs to change is the following: Courts need to be able to slap a fine/damages on anyone who brings a lawsuit which has little to no chance of success. Basically, if you have no claim, you are just abusing the legal system to shake somebody down, and I think it's reasonable to make you pay for it to deter you. It's a rule in many countries and it does deter people from filing lawsuits when they don't have a claim.
OK everyone. Stop saying that these people are stupid. That is just plain not true. Patents are a great way to make a ton of money without having to do anymore work. It is a perfectly valid business model whereby somebody else (the government) does work so you don't have to. That may not be good for society, immoral, annoying and discouraging innovation, but it is making some people a ton of money which is their goal... When Microsoft sues Apple and get a hundred million dollars, they are not stupid. They got a hundred million dollars which is definitely in their advantage. When cab drivers fight to have a monopoly, they are not stupid, they are fighting for themselves. Nothing stupid about that.
If copyrighting facts becomes allowed, it would be fun to oppose it by starting a "newspaper" with a $1000 monthly membership and aggressively go after all sorts of facts then copyright them. You're not allowed to know a plane crashed unless you have $1000 to spend. That would show the disaster that such a law could wreck.
The best way to fight them is to drive them out of business. It will happen eventually as artists release on their own. And I am sure that pretty soon, we will see an organization which will help artists implement the whole connect with the fans etc business model. When that happens, we'll have reached a tipping point. At the moment, the problem is that artists are getting the message that without copyrights they'll starve. Of course, that is bull, but if a big org emerged which told artists: Here is how you can make a shit load more money without copyrights and we'll help you (for a price of course). Then we will have won...
I have a question for you guys... You have shown all sorts of amazing new business models for artistic creation. Musicians can do concerts and sell special upper-dupper collector's edition CDs, Movies can depend on the same collector's edition stuff and cinema, writers can just depend upon e-books sucking at least for now (and I find it easy to imagine authors connecting with the fans etc...) However, I am curious about what you think about software. I don't mean games which have fans and can such. I mean just simple productivity software like Microsoft Word. Now of course, we have OpenOffice, but that's non-profit and so that's a different story. You're always saying that all you have to do is tie the non-scarce product to a scarce one. Now, in some cases, that is really hard and the guy who created the abundant product can't figure it out. Now, the easy way out is to say that well, then, he doesn't have an inherent right to get paid. That's all well and good, but maybe he would have otherwise created an abundant product of value. I'm just thinking that in some areas, the absence of intellectual property rights of sorts can be a real deterrent to innovation. I feel like this could be solved. I'm sure that there is a profitable business model for whoever writes Microsoft Word. I just want to make sure that they can focus of coding Microsoft Word and have some relative certainty that if it has value to users, they can capture some of that value.
I think the fair use doctrine specifically denies there being such a moral right. Obviously, the fact that a law (or precedent) is written one way does not in any way imply that it should be written that way, but it does give insight in the mind of its authors. Fair use specifically allows parody. Now, if you look at the rest of copyright laws, that is somewhat odd. Other forms of derivative works are not subject to fair use, but parody is. The simple explanation is that the purpose of copyright is to enhance innovation and that authors are likely to refuse giving licenses to people to parody their work because authors probably don't like being made fun of. (at least some) So this whole argument is bogus. Copyright laws are specifically designed to prevent authors from hindering innovation just because they don't like a certain use of their work. (Though only in narrow cases)
Honestly, I have to agree mostly with most people here. If you have a folder on your desktop that is called: "My child porn" it is fair game. (If anything because you are a moron and perhaps putting you in jail will remove you from the gene pool) If the file is somewhat hidden and the tech has to browse through the computer before finding anything, it should clearly be inadmissible. However, if the file is in your Recently Played of something like that and the name is ambiguous at all (and remember that stuff such as lolicon whatever it's called is legal so a lot can be ambiguous) then the tech should not have opened it. It might be easier to select something from "recently played" in order to test the DVD drive software, but it still is an invasion of privacy.
I think that here the FTC is not wrongly focusing on the tech. Unlike in traditional media advertising, pay per post is decentralized and the people who do it do not have big legal departments to advise them. Holding bloggers by the same rules as the traditional media is unreasonable.
You know, I think this actually makes sense... If the government comes to you, tells you you have to do something of questionable legality and passes a law that makes you immune from prosecution for it, you really are making a gamble either way... Maybe that law will be declared unconstitutional and you will be protected if you refuse to go along, but maybe it won't. I think fundamentally, you have a right to trust what the government says and not get in trouble for it. (Up to a point) After that the government should be held accountable for lying and breaking the law, but it seems like a poor policy to setup this catch-22 thing where if you do what the government says, you get sued, but if you don't, they can keep beating on you.
It would be interesting to look at the reason why those who download also purchase. I'm kind of wondering if they might be purchasing because they buy into the whole inherent morality of IP idea. If they do, it is possible that a removal of IP laws would make them poor customers.
Honestly, I think suing actually makes sense here. The whole point of the suit is to establish whether the security auditor did an appropriate job or not. That's how we can keep security auditors honest. If they did a good job, the suit should show it. If they didn't the suit should also show that. I just hope the judge doesn't mistake doing a good job and making a foolproof system.
The RIAA is going to be the first industry ever to be happy they are going to be taxed if pirates can be sought for tax evasion. But I mean, who cares? Illegal downloading is already illegal, so making it also tax evasion isn't really an issue in my mind...
My question concerns artists who donate their music though. The law seems to imply that if a band gives its music away, we have to pay a tax on it. That's really stupid. It's not like you have to pay taxes on watching commercials...
I didn't say that I want to be judged based on what the judge feels about me personally. I just said that you should expect you public image to be well... public. And judges are people who will take that into account as part of your character. There is a reason character witnesses are called.
On the post: If AT&T Mobile Broadband Banned TV Streaming, Why Does It Allow MLB Streaming?
European Standard for Cell Phone Chargers
Talking of cellphones, the European Commission has just brokered a deal between a number of cell phone manufacturers to start using the same charger by next year. They are also working on a similar deal for laptops and digital cameras... See, governement can do some good things once in a while...
On the post: If AT&T Mobile Broadband Banned TV Streaming, Why Does It Allow MLB Streaming?
On the post: Should There Be A Penalty For Falsely Claiming Copyright Over Public Domain Material?
On the post: Do Morons In A Hurry Like Lettuce Restaurants?
On the post: Judge Posner Recommends Extending Copyright Law To Protect Newspapers
On the post: How Difficult Is It To Post A Bill On The White House Website For Five Days?
On the post: Moby Says 'Disband The RIAA' For Winning $1.92 Million From Jammie Thomas
On the post: And Of Course: RIAA Mouthpieces Defend $1.92 Million Judgment
On the post: IBM's Where-in-HQ-is-Samuel-J-Palmisano? Patent
On the post: Is It Really So Bad If Music Is Used In A Way The Musician Doesn't Like?
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Over Computer Tech's Right To Search Your Computer
On the post: Pay Per Post Model Moves To Twitter
On the post: That's One Way To Grab Search Traffic
On the post: As Expected, Judge Dismisses Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuits Against Telcos
On the post: Yet Another Study: 'Pirates' Are Actually Industry's Best Customers
On the post: That Blurry Line Between Commercial & Non-Commercial Use Still Troubling For Creative Commons
On the post: Is A Security Auditor Liable If There's A Security Breach?
On the post: Can Washington Charge Unauthorized Downloaders With Tax Evasion?
My question concerns artists who donate their music though. The law seems to imply that if a band gives its music away, we have to pay a tax on it. That's really stupid. It's not like you have to pay taxes on watching commercials...
On the post: Judge 'Friends' Lawyer During Case, Influenced By Defendant's Website
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge 'Friends' Lawyer During Case, Influenced By Defendant's Website
Re: Re:
Next >>