If the "content" industry can't get what it wants through legislation it'll get it this way. Complete with White House backing.
There is something seriously wrong when an industry, any industry, gets to rewrite laws through the back door and bypass due process by the same route.
When it's one that contributes something less that 1% to the GDP of the United States there's something even more wrong.
When the same industry gets to decide, on its own, who can and cannot use the major means of communication people use these days there is something terribly wrong.
When they get to have accomplices in the form of cableco's, essentially monopolies in many areas then there is something bloody awfully wrong.
Since when did anyone sign up for a legal system based on the interests of private corporations? Divine right of the "content" industry????
Oh yes, and not to be snide or dismissive if what you're saying but this is one case where the old saw "necessity is the mother of invention" most definitely applies. Antenna's are not only one way devices.
It's a challenge but if TPB has multiple ground sources that are basically just T3 pipes then it could be difficult to figure out what the sources are.
TPB isn't talking about transmitting at wi-fi levels but something a little stronger. Even in the wi-fi spectrum they can transmit as greater signal strength that wi-fi base stations and still stay "legal".
Lemme see here. Big media will kill their own business by admitting that the Internet, primarily the web has changed just about everything including consumer consumption habits and expectations (most quite reasonable).
On the other hand shills like you say that "piracy" will kill Big Media if it's allowed to continue unabated.
That's quite the Catch-22 you're setting up here. "Piracy" won't go anywhere till Big Media changes and that will kill Big Media. Big Media can't change because that will kill Big Media.
That being the case Big Media deserves to die, I'd say.
It certainly is. I hadn't thought of that. The authorities in the UK didn't beat pirate radio either. The whole thing ended when the UK allowed commercial radio and television. In other words, for those who don't remember, the status quo lost.
Why do I always get this feeling that while all this decryption is going on and the NSA is storing all those porn pics being downloaded by our favourite ACs and all the attention being paid to this that whatever does actually appear that would really threaten the United States will happen in clear text right under their noses and they won't even notice it.
History is full of examples of that but we all know better now, don't we? ;-)
The positioning of this post just above the lawsuit against Samsung and RIM about emoticons/smilies is just a wonderful summary about what's wrong with IP laws these days and Hollywood's sense of entitlement surrounding them. To the extent that one of their number thinks it can claim ownership on a date!
Give the *AA's a couple more years and there won't be a public domain left. Or a calendar!
Re: Re: so what happens to all the "evidence" that was illegally seized
As you point out while the evidence isn't from a poison tree so it's not automatically excluded but you can bet every torrent and file sharing going out there at any given moment Dotcom's lawyers (barristers) will hammer the living daylights out of this and other real and perceived errors to prevent the extradition from ever taking place. Not to mention the failure to keep Dotcom behind bars.
Even should he be ordered extradited the appeals will take years while Dotcom sits safely in NZ before he even makes it to the States if he ever does.
As with NZ, Oz and the UK Canada operates in the same way but the time the judge is taking to determine whether or not the property should be returned is curious. If the procedural errors and there correction were a slam dunk what usually happens is that authorities get to keep what they took. If the order is to return the property then the police are told that they have to start all over again with a completely new application rather than the tainted one.
No matter how this turns out the raid, warrant, extradition application and even the US indictment seem to be full of holes and hurried. On a wing or a prayer.
If it did allow for it then law enforcement would define "good faith" then, after the fact, try to convince a judge of that without a "null and void" ruling entering into it.
It will be very interesting to see what sort of patience the judge has for all the errors, overreach and mistakes that have already happened when it comes time to rule on whether or not all DotCom's property be returned.
He's an obnoxious jerk and show off but neither of those are crimes or even violate any civil law. If they did folks like The Donald would have been in prison years ago!
It was pointed out, any number of times by any number of people that the Patriot Act and HSA would effectively mean "the terrorists" had won.
Part of the point of spreading terror is to have governments clamp down hard on whatever freedoms and liberties the citizens of a country enjoy in the same of security and the need to "stop the terrorists".
I don't know how easy a win this would be for Romney, if he chose to use it because, by and large, I think a substantial number of Americans have bought into the notion that losing previously cherished freedoms and liberties is the price they must pay to "stop the terrorists". After all there hasn't been a terrorist attack on America since 9/11 has there?
Unless you count this sort of thing as a form of "terrorism" which I'm inclined to do because it keeps the fear level of American citizens just high enough to tolerate this trash.
(Not that we Canucks are any better at this sort of thing. If anything frequently worse but that's for another post in another topic!)
It's curious that Bollywood wasn't part of this just the Indian music/recording industry.
I do wonder when people (the industries) and the courts/legislators will ever learn that people in India who do download/share/pirate/steal music will just route around this.
I don't know American law well enough to say that it's precedent setting in or outside of Oregon but it certainly has the look of something future judges can take into account in the future because of the clarity of the statement and that, as I read it, it makes that statement in the context of the US Constitution.
If it does become precedent I can see it being used in other countries that follow the Statue of Anne model of copyright in that it clarifies, beyond doubt I'd say, what copyright does and does not protect in the marketplace.
What you and the *AA's seem to miss is that with the advent of high speed internet to homes the market changed from local to global. (As do any countries that dictate when Hollywood can send their movies there in the local language.)
None of which changes the not so minor detail that Canada, for example, has a large English speaking population and, should we choose, we can see the movies in our major centres at exactly the same moment Americans can in theirs but we can't buy them because of some regional roll out or something. Nor do we have any laws stating that there is a delay between the movie coming out in English or in Quebecois French. That and we're supposed to be in a free trade zone with the United States.
We can't watch TV clips because the rights in Canada are owned by a local network though most of us can watch the same show originating from the United States unless the Canadian network runs the same episode of the same show at the same time. And, again, we're supposed to be in a free trade zone.
In short there are no legal or logistical reasons for this other than self-imposed ones. Because I watch a clip, say on Techdirt doesn't make me less likely to watch it on the Canadian network, in many cases it may make me more willing to watch it.
Do I expect to get less than US retail? Nope. Never have before so why should I now unless the SRP here happens to be less.
My expectations are, in fact, realistic and completely logical and yet many times I can't see or buy things because of some rolling release schedule. For example I can see Avatar in my local multiplex at the same time as Americans can but I can't legally purchase the DVD yet while Americans can.
So we're back to the expectations of the *AA's of the world that the market didn't change when the Web came along so they didn't need to either.
News flash! It did!!!!! When they figure that part out a lot of piracy will vanish. And when they figure out that some of their pricing is way out of line with what the consumer market values the product at they'll get rid of most of the rest of it.
The unrealistic expectations I see aren't mine they're the *AA's of the world. And yours.
You do understand that NEVER is one hell of a long time, right?
Other than trolls I don't read all that many angry posts (other than responses to trolls) just amazement that some people could be so pointlessly dense.
I'd say that most of us here DO pay for software, even software from the Evil Empire (Microsoft) and DO pay for music (a lot of it from RIAA member companies) when the mood strikes.
If you want to find out where to get freebie/freeloader stuff I recommend you look at any usenet group whose name starts with warze. Most of us have the good sense to avoid those places but I'm sure you'd just love it and could post there what you think of them. Just be sure to let us know how it goes. :-)
In most industries once the R&D is paid off the price begins to drift down. Notice that I didn't say plummet. Having paid off their up front costs Bayer still wants to charge $70,000 for a years course of treatment with this drug.
Now, can you see why pharma, big and small, has a bad name?
For North America and Europe this isn't as much of an issue as it is in places like India because at some point Bayer gets to gouge insurance companies/systems instead of individuals. Or Bayer may hope it isn't. Frequently patients will find themselves waiting to get a drug (perhaps this one) while a mess of hoops get jumped through before an insurance carrier or system demand to know if this is the only medication that will aid the customer so they can avoid the high cost.
In most other industries once the up front is paid off the next step is to get the product as widely used as possible to gain as much of a profit as possible to plow into the next one coming down the pipeline. It seems to me that lowering the price, even to $35,000 would get the drug more widely used and allow Bayer to make a greater profit which they then could invest in whatever else they're working on. Doesn't seem to work for pharma. (I'm sure there's a convoluted reason why it doesn't which will be explained to me by a pharma defender so I'll wait to see what it is.)
Then there's the opaque path a lot, if not most, of the research into new medications takes place. Most takes place at publicly funded schools who bear most of the cost or at private universities with injections of public funds as seems to be the case here. So the total risk taken by Bayer in developing this medication is far less than it would have been had it all been done in house. (The same applies when public funds are injected directly into in house research and development by drug companies.)
While the testing costs remain I'm unsure where "pure research" does as drug companies usually sponsor that at universities often far better equipped for that sort of thing and they aren't the largest sponsors by far.
As I said. I'm not talking about selling it for pennies. I am talking about getting a price point in a given market where the drug will actually sell and do what it was intended to do. In this case save a life.
Ultimately if pharma isn't in business to save lives or help repair broken ones then their market, at one point or another, will cease to exist. Over time there won't be anyone left to pay any price.
That extreme answers your extreme that ANY reduction in price will hurt future developments in the field. Maintaining stratospheric prices after your R&D is paid for is morally unconscionable it's also silly in the market for the simple reason that lowering the price means insurance providers and medical systems will be more likely to approve the use of the drug meaning the more MDs will be likely to prescribe it. Meaning you actually sell more of it. Or, in this case, Bayer does.
But that's transparency, don't you know. Show the text to a select number of congress critters, swear them to secrecy and then trumpet about how transparent you've been.
Change congress critter for member of parliament and that just about covers all the rest of "free" world. In that sense it's just the title changed, the same opacity and the same insistence that the representatives keep their yaps shut about what they just saw other than the pre-cooked PR lines.
Now THAT'S transparency in trade negotiations, right?
On the post: Why Hollywood's Six Strike Plan Should Be Investigated For Antitrust Violations
SOPA/PIPA only much worse
There is something seriously wrong when an industry, any industry, gets to rewrite laws through the back door and bypass due process by the same route.
When it's one that contributes something less that 1% to the GDP of the United States there's something even more wrong.
When the same industry gets to decide, on its own, who can and cannot use the major means of communication people use these days there is something terribly wrong.
When they get to have accomplices in the form of cableco's, essentially monopolies in many areas then there is something bloody awfully wrong.
Since when did anyone sign up for a legal system based on the interests of private corporations? Divine right of the "content" industry????
On the post: The Pirate Bay Claims It's Going To Host The Site Via Drones Flying Over International Waters
Re: An interesting point has been brought up...
I'm getting more intrigued by this by the moment.
On the post: The Pirate Bay Claims It's Going To Host The Site Via Drones Flying Over International Waters
Re: An interesting point has been brought up...
On the post: The Pirate Bay Claims It's Going To Host The Site Via Drones Flying Over International Waters
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Pirate Bay Claims It's Going To Host The Site Via Drones Flying Over International Waters
Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand shills like you say that "piracy" will kill Big Media if it's allowed to continue unabated.
That's quite the Catch-22 you're setting up here. "Piracy" won't go anywhere till Big Media changes and that will kill Big Media. Big Media can't change because that will kill Big Media.
That being the case Big Media deserves to die, I'd say.
On the post: The Pirate Bay Claims It's Going To Host The Site Via Drones Flying Over International Waters
Re:
Just as it eventually will here.
On the post: A Terrifying Look Into The NSA's Ability To Capture And Analyze Pretty Much Every Communication
History is full of examples of that but we all know better now, don't we? ;-)
On the post: Summit Entertainment Claims To Own The Date November 20, 2009; Issues Takedown On Art Created On That Day
Give the *AA's a couple more years and there won't be a public domain left. Or a calendar!
On the post: :-( Samsung, Research In Motion Sued For Making It Easy To Use Emoticons
You have GOT to be kidding!
This got a patent?????????
Does any sentient creature not understand now why software patents are a horrible, bad, terrible thing?
(Sentient creature automatically rules out the majority of IP maximalist trolls here, by the way.)
On the post: Procedural Error By Law Enforcement Means Restraining Order On Kim Dotcom 'Null And Void'
Re: Re: so what happens to all the "evidence" that was illegally seized
Even should he be ordered extradited the appeals will take years while Dotcom sits safely in NZ before he even makes it to the States if he ever does.
As with NZ, Oz and the UK Canada operates in the same way but the time the judge is taking to determine whether or not the property should be returned is curious. If the procedural errors and there correction were a slam dunk what usually happens is that authorities get to keep what they took. If the order is to return the property then the police are told that they have to start all over again with a completely new application rather than the tainted one.
No matter how this turns out the raid, warrant, extradition application and even the US indictment seem to be full of holes and hurried. On a wing or a prayer.
This one could be very interesting. :-)
On the post: Procedural Error By Law Enforcement Means Restraining Order On Kim Dotcom 'Null And Void'
Re: Re:
It will be very interesting to see what sort of patience the judge has for all the errors, overreach and mistakes that have already happened when it comes time to rule on whether or not all DotCom's property be returned.
He's an obnoxious jerk and show off but neither of those are crimes or even violate any civil law. If they did folks like The Donald would have been in prison years ago!
On the post: Senators Tell The Obama Administration To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The Patriot Act
Re: Re: Re: A couple of thoughts on this...
Part of the point of spreading terror is to have governments clamp down hard on whatever freedoms and liberties the citizens of a country enjoy in the same of security and the need to "stop the terrorists".
I don't know how easy a win this would be for Romney, if he chose to use it because, by and large, I think a substantial number of Americans have bought into the notion that losing previously cherished freedoms and liberties is the price they must pay to "stop the terrorists". After all there hasn't been a terrorist attack on America since 9/11 has there?
Unless you count this sort of thing as a form of "terrorism" which I'm inclined to do because it keeps the fear level of American citizens just high enough to tolerate this trash.
(Not that we Canucks are any better at this sort of thing. If anything frequently worse but that's for another post in another topic!)
On the post: Senators Tell The Obama Administration To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The Patriot Act
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Further evidence that today Politicians are pretty much the same.
There FIFY
(Each Province has different names for its members but federally it's MP).
That and you'd be hard pressed to convince Chretien or Harper that it's not diety. ;-)
On the post: Indian Court Orders 104 Sites Censored Based On The Say So Of The Indian Music Industry
I do wonder when people (the industries) and the courts/legislators will ever learn that people in India who do download/share/pirate/steal music will just route around this.
It's nuts.
On the post: Indian Court Orders 104 Sites Censored Based On The Say So Of The Indian Music Industry
Re: Re: Re: The content industry wants no law but those that are stop first prove later.
On the post: Judge Chooses Pi Day To Reject Lawsuit Over Attempt To Copyright Pi As A Song
Re: My favorite quote from the decision...
If it does become precedent I can see it being used in other countries that follow the Statue of Anne model of copyright in that it clarifies, beyond doubt I'd say, what copyright does and does not protect in the marketplace.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
None of which changes the not so minor detail that Canada, for example, has a large English speaking population and, should we choose, we can see the movies in our major centres at exactly the same moment Americans can in theirs but we can't buy them because of some regional roll out or something. Nor do we have any laws stating that there is a delay between the movie coming out in English or in Quebecois French. That and we're supposed to be in a free trade zone with the United States.
We can't watch TV clips because the rights in Canada are owned by a local network though most of us can watch the same show originating from the United States unless the Canadian network runs the same episode of the same show at the same time. And, again, we're supposed to be in a free trade zone.
In short there are no legal or logistical reasons for this other than self-imposed ones. Because I watch a clip, say on Techdirt doesn't make me less likely to watch it on the Canadian network, in many cases it may make me more willing to watch it.
Do I expect to get less than US retail? Nope. Never have before so why should I now unless the SRP here happens to be less.
My expectations are, in fact, realistic and completely logical and yet many times I can't see or buy things because of some rolling release schedule. For example I can see Avatar in my local multiplex at the same time as Americans can but I can't legally purchase the DVD yet while Americans can.
So we're back to the expectations of the *AA's of the world that the market didn't change when the Web came along so they didn't need to either.
News flash! It did!!!!! When they figure that part out a lot of piracy will vanish. And when they figure out that some of their pricing is way out of line with what the consumer market values the product at they'll get rid of most of the rest of it.
The unrealistic expectations I see aren't mine they're the *AA's of the world. And yours.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Other than trolls I don't read all that many angry posts (other than responses to trolls) just amazement that some people could be so pointlessly dense.
I'd say that most of us here DO pay for software, even software from the Evil Empire (Microsoft) and DO pay for music (a lot of it from RIAA member companies) when the mood strikes.
If you want to find out where to get freebie/freeloader stuff I recommend you look at any usenet group whose name starts with warze. Most of us have the good sense to avoid those places but I'm sure you'd just love it and could post there what you think of them. Just be sure to let us know how it goes. :-)
On the post: Putting Lives Before Patents: India Says Pricey Patented Cancer Drug Can Be Copied
Re: Re: Re:
Now, can you see why pharma, big and small, has a bad name?
For North America and Europe this isn't as much of an issue as it is in places like India because at some point Bayer gets to gouge insurance companies/systems instead of individuals. Or Bayer may hope it isn't. Frequently patients will find themselves waiting to get a drug (perhaps this one) while a mess of hoops get jumped through before an insurance carrier or system demand to know if this is the only medication that will aid the customer so they can avoid the high cost.
In most other industries once the up front is paid off the next step is to get the product as widely used as possible to gain as much of a profit as possible to plow into the next one coming down the pipeline. It seems to me that lowering the price, even to $35,000 would get the drug more widely used and allow Bayer to make a greater profit which they then could invest in whatever else they're working on. Doesn't seem to work for pharma. (I'm sure there's a convoluted reason why it doesn't which will be explained to me by a pharma defender so I'll wait to see what it is.)
Then there's the opaque path a lot, if not most, of the research into new medications takes place. Most takes place at publicly funded schools who bear most of the cost or at private universities with injections of public funds as seems to be the case here. So the total risk taken by Bayer in developing this medication is far less than it would have been had it all been done in house. (The same applies when public funds are injected directly into in house research and development by drug companies.)
While the testing costs remain I'm unsure where "pure research" does as drug companies usually sponsor that at universities often far better equipped for that sort of thing and they aren't the largest sponsors by far.
As I said. I'm not talking about selling it for pennies. I am talking about getting a price point in a given market where the drug will actually sell and do what it was intended to do. In this case save a life.
Ultimately if pharma isn't in business to save lives or help repair broken ones then their market, at one point or another, will cease to exist. Over time there won't be anyone left to pay any price.
That extreme answers your extreme that ANY reduction in price will hurt future developments in the field. Maintaining stratospheric prices after your R&D is paid for is morally unconscionable it's also silly in the market for the simple reason that lowering the price means insurance providers and medical systems will be more likely to approve the use of the drug meaning the more MDs will be likely to prescribe it. Meaning you actually sell more of it. Or, in this case, Bayer does.
On the post: Maine Demands That The US Be More Open And Transparent In TPP & Other International Trade Negotiations
Re: Response
Change congress critter for member of parliament and that just about covers all the rest of "free" world. In that sense it's just the title changed, the same opacity and the same insistence that the representatives keep their yaps shut about what they just saw other than the pre-cooked PR lines.
Now THAT'S transparency in trade negotiations, right?
What else could you possibly want? /sarcasm off
Next >>