Copyright as currently practiced in the USA is stifling innovation, communication and, in some cases, free speech. Everything is copyrighted. Copyright lasts (effectively) forever now. Fair Use is only a defense after you are sued (which means you've already lost if your're the little guy).
The "unauthorized" posting of this video to YouTube did you nothing but good. Your take-down order did you nothing but harm.
So when Amazon (and all the financial institutions) refusing to service Wikileaks, wouldn't you call that a "Denial of Service"? And, since it all came at about the same time could you call it an attack on Wikileaks? Further since it's many different companies, is it not distributed?
Oh, but it's all okay because they claim "Terms of Service" violation.
So that means you've never met an open source programmer? There's a lot of them. Why do they do what they do? Have you ever met a volunteer? Why do they do that?
I think you've lead a rather sheltered life. Might be fun to get out there and meet some of these folks.
So I suggest each and every person reading this blog and who is against banning books for any reason bang out a hundred page book "Pitcher in the Oats: the Unofficial Sequel", then set it up at a print-on-demand site like Amazon and/or put in a torrent. What would happen if there are hundreds or thousands of these floating around? Would they ban them all? Would they sue us all?
I just got Dragon Dictate software. Perhaps it can be a stream of consciousness treatises on what Mr. H thinks about how intellectual property rights have run amuck.
"It was the best of times (for patent trolls), it was the worst of times (for innovation)."
I just read that a guy, Mr. E. Bateman, ordered what he thought were a legitimate pair of Nike trainers on-line. As it turned out they were counterfeit. Nike sued him and won. Is this true?
If this is true then I can never buy your shoes again because I may not know if they are counterfeit or not. You must realize that is the only way I can protect myself from litigious companies such as Nike appears to be.
One major fallacy in your poll is your assumption that one of these two parties, or any other party, represent me, my beliefs or my aspirations for our government. It is my considered opinion that anyone who can succeed in getting elected in the current state of the US election environment has had to compromise his/her principals to the point that he/she is no longer fit to hold the office. Why don't you poll that?
So I would have said ZERO too, because neither party has earned my trust to act in good faith after being elected. To conclude that Americans do not care about who governs them based on this highly flawed and poorly conceived survey says more about you than it does about the Americans who participated.
"YouGov is a professional research and consulting organization" ... you get paid for doing this?
"What the world thinks" ... not if this is an example of your work. Think again.
So, no, I care little about politics, but I do care about my country and how it is governed and how it's operated. Maybe your little survey did reach the correct answer but asked the wrong question.
why he needs to go through the scanner/groping process after the flight
@Mike, you asked, "why he needs to go through the scanner/groping process after the flight"
After hearing what the TSA guys had to say, I thinkhe had to be re-screened because A) the Paris screening wasn't up to TSA standards and B) this screening was after leaving customs where the passengers had access to their luggage and would be released into the airport post-screening area to reach other flights. The fact that Matt's travel terminated in Cincinnati didn't matter to them.
So it sounds like if they had an exit into the pre-screening part of the airport, they could have let him go.
When the VCR was first introduced there was no pre-recorded tapes. It's only use was to record programming from the television ... copyrighted programming. So it was, indeed, dedicated to infringing and the TV channels objected and sued.
"[T]he United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held Sony liable for contributory infringement. The court also held that the Betamax was not a staple article because its main purpose was copying. It went on to suggest damages, injunctive relief and compulsory licenses in lieu of other relief."
The Supreme Court nearly agreed with the Ninth Circuit but eventually reversed in a 5 to 4 decision. Had Universal City Studios, Inc. prevailed I believe that all the devices mentioned would have never been allowed to exist.
So now you're arguing pretty much the same argument that would have prevented them from being legal.
Just how far do they have to go before you'd draw the line? Full cavity search okay with you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.
Why doesn't the fourth amendment apply here? They have no probable cause and no search warrant.
@Tim Wu ... okay, now define "dominates a market".
From Wikipedia:
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Or
(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"
These are the "standard" definitions I find and they don't seem to match yours.
When we had one phone company in the USA, Bell Telephone, that was a monopoly ... single seller. Apple has a monopoly on OS-X and Microsoft on Windows but I don't thing that's the same thing exactly.
So I looked for a legal definition and found this:
monopoly n. A business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations, and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies, or prohibit restraint of trade. However, limited monopolies granted by a manufacturer to a wholesaler in a particular area are usually legal, since it is like a "license." Public utilities such as electric, gas and water companies may also hold a monopoly in a particular geographic area since it is the only practical way to provide the public service, and they are regulated by state public utility commissions.
Still I'm not sure I'm clear on what your "dominates a market" definition really means. I think clear definitions facilitate any discourse and would love to see some clarification on this.
@SuperSparky, thank you, thank you, thank you for saying this. It's what I was formulating.
Three times before I was ten one government department or another in the USA forced my family to sell our property to them for "the good of the many" at a price they insisted was fair, but was not.
Now, as we know, the government can make YOU sell your property to them if they decide they can get more tax revenue by giving/selling it to someone else.
So think twice before you embrace "the good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the one". SuperSparky got it exactly right and StarTrek set it up and then knocked it down. I see many missed the lesson there.
The USA used to be the poster child for individual rights but no more. Look how many people we have behind bars. Prisons are a growth industry and the prison companies are writing the laws to make sure the prison populations continue to grow.
"The argument is that the CEO doing so is trying to avoid responsibility for the statement, but couldn't it also be that they actually appreciate the work of the team around them? My initial reaction to a CEO who uses "I" repeatedly is that he or she is hogging the credit and not a good leader."
So you reject their research out of hand an then substitute your gut. Is that what you're saying? If so, why not just say that?
"Creative Commons is NOT an organization that you can count on to be around in 10 years."
That is downright funny. Creative Commons is a set of licenses, not an organization.
And, yes, it is all very confusing trying to take back your rights from the government that has taken them away. That's what default copyright is, in fact. It is a limit to what you can do with your own IP.
It is reported that they're going after everybody that uses the "E" word. This article in Business Review lists some other folks that have encountered EMI. Any subscribers reading here? Vote with your dollars; don't buy or subscribe. Don't patronize their advertisers. (How would you know who they are? Check the web site maybe.)
What is the origin of the word "magazine" and who used it first? Anybody with access to OED, please look it's first use up. Maybe then Entrepreneur Magazine can get a C&D too.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-24863.pdf "By way of this Notice and a follow-on report, the Task Force seeks to identify policies that will: (1) Increase benefits for rights holders of creative works accessible online but not for those who infringe on those rights; (2) maintain robust information flows that facilitate innovation and growth of the Internet economy; and (3) at the same time, safeguard end-user interests in freedom of expression, due process, and privacy. The report will evaluate current challenges to protecting online copyrighted works and to sustaining robust information flows, and it will analyze various approaches to meet those challenges."
On the post: Columbus Dispatch Issues Takedown On Famous YouTube Video Of Homeless Guy With Great Radio Voice
Dear Old Media Company
Here's their reasoning, such as it is: http://www.topix.net/forum/source/columbus-dispatch/T9JG877NU02MHP799#lastPost
I left this comment on that page:
On the post: Just Weeks After Cutting Off Wikileaks, Amazon Brags About How US Federal Gov't Is One Of Its Biggest AWS Customers?
Denial of Service
Oh, but it's all okay because they claim "Terms of Service" violation.
On the post: Does The FCC Really Not Understand The Difference Between A Device Operating System And A Mobile Network?
Here's a link to the original FCC news release
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1221/DOC-303745A1.pdf
I like to see the original document before writing to my congress person.
On the post: Harvard Newspaper Staff Apparently In Need Of A Lesson On Copyright Basics
Re: Open Source
I think you've lead a rather sheltered life. Might be fun to get out there and meet some of these folks.
On the post: US Banning Books: Unauthorized Catcher In The Rye Sequel Permanently Banned
Let's all write a sequel CITR
I just got Dragon Dictate software. Perhaps it can be a stream of consciousness treatises on what Mr. H thinks about how intellectual property rights have run amuck.
"It was the best of times (for patent trolls), it was the worst of times (for innovation)."
I know ... different book.
On the post: Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet
My email to Nike
I just read that a guy, Mr. E. Bateman, ordered what he thought were a legitimate pair of Nike trainers on-line. As it turned out they were counterfeit. Nike sued him and won. Is this true?
If this is true then I can never buy your shoes again because I may not know if they are counterfeit or not. You must realize that is the only way I can protect myself from litigious companies such as Nike appears to be.
Sincerely,
Rob:-]
On the post: Does Saying You Wouldn't 'Buy' A Congressional Seat Mean You Don't Care About Politics?
This is my post in YouGov about this survey
So I would have said ZERO too, because neither party has earned my trust to act in good faith after being elected. To conclude that Americans do not care about who governs them based on this highly flawed and poorly conceived survey says more about you than it does about the Americans who participated.
"YouGov is a professional research and consulting organization" ... you get paid for doing this?
"What the world thinks" ... not if this is an example of your work. Think again.
So, no, I care little about politics, but I do care about my country and how it is governed and how it's operated. Maybe your little survey did reach the correct answer but asked the wrong question.
Peace,
Rob:-]
On the post: TSA Claims You Need To Be Naked Scanned Or Groped After A Flight?
why he needs to go through the scanner/groping process after the flight
After hearing what the TSA guys had to say, I thinkhe had to be re-screened because A) the Paris screening wasn't up to TSA standards and B) this screening was after leaving customs where the passengers had access to their luggage and would be released into the airport post-screening area to reach other flights. The fact that Matt's travel terminated in Cincinnati didn't matter to them.
So it sounds like if they had an exit into the pre-screening part of the airport, they could have let him go.
That's the only logical reason I can think of.
Peace,
Rob:-]
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
VCR: Evil Infringement Engine
When the VCR was first introduced there was no pre-recorded tapes. It's only use was to record programming from the television ... copyrighted programming. So it was, indeed, dedicated to infringing and the TV channels objected and sued.
Here's one version of that history.
The Supreme Court nearly agreed with the Ninth Circuit but eventually reversed in a 5 to 4 decision. Had Universal City Studios, Inc. prevailed I believe that all the devices mentioned would have never been allowed to exist.
So now you're arguing pretty much the same argument that would have prevented them from being legal.
Read your history. It is repeating.
Peace,
Rob:-]
On the post: TSA Does Full Grope Search On Screaming Three Year Old [Update]
Forth Amendment
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: Deal with it.
Just how far do they have to go before you'd draw the line? Full cavity search okay with you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.
Why doesn't the fourth amendment apply here? They have no probable cause and no search warrant.
On the post: Success, By Itself, Is Not A Monopoly
Re: MONOPOLY
From Wikipedia:
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Or
(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"
These are the "standard" definitions I find and they don't seem to match yours.
When we had one phone company in the USA, Bell Telephone, that was a monopoly ... single seller. Apple has a monopoly on OS-X and Microsoft on Windows but I don't thing that's the same thing exactly.
So I looked for a legal definition and found this:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/monopoly
monopoly n. A business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations, and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies, or prohibit restraint of trade. However, limited monopolies granted by a manufacturer to a wholesaler in a particular area are usually legal, since it is like a "license." Public utilities such as electric, gas and water companies may also hold a monopoly in a particular geographic area since it is the only practical way to provide the public service, and they are regulated by state public utility commissions.
Still I'm not sure I'm clear on what your "dominates a market" definition really means. I think clear definitions facilitate any discourse and would love to see some clarification on this.
Peace,
Rob:-]
On the post: Success, By Itself, Is Not A Monopoly
Monopolies can be avoided ...
I'm on both Facebook and Twitter but I go weeks at a time without looking at them. I've found little utility in either.
"harder than bypassing Starbucks, Wal-Mart ... "
I've set foot in neither in months. I guess monopolies don't affect everyone the same.
On the post: Pizza Shop Sues Former Employee For 'Stealing' Recipe
Trade Secret
On the post: Texas Supreme Court Cites The Wisdom Of Spock On Star Trek
Re: Not so fast
Three times before I was ten one government department or another in the USA forced my family to sell our property to them for "the good of the many" at a price they insisted was fair, but was not.
Now, as we know, the government can make YOU sell your property to them if they decide they can get more tax revenue by giving/selling it to someone else.
So think twice before you embrace "the good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the one". SuperSparky got it exactly right and StarTrek set it up and then knocked it down. I see many missed the lesson there.
The USA used to be the poster child for individual rights but no more. Look how many people we have behind bars. Prisons are a growth industry and the prison companies are writing the laws to make sure the prison populations continue to grow.
On the post: Telltale Signs A CEO Is Lying (Or Not)
Research vs. Gut
So you reject their research out of hand an then substitute your gut. Is that what you're saying? If so, why not just say that?
On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion
Wow! Love your humor!
That is downright funny. Creative Commons is a set of licenses, not an organization.
And, yes, it is all very confusing trying to take back your rights from the government that has taken them away. That's what default copyright is, in fact. It is a limit to what you can do with your own IP.
On the post: Entrepreneur Magazine Claiming It Owns The Word Entrepreneur?
This is not new for Entrepreneur Media
On the post: Entrepreneur Magazine Claiming It Owns The Word Entrepreneur?
But who owns the word "magazine"?
On the post: Commerce Department Wants To Hear From You About Copyright
Are they asking the right questions?
"By way of this Notice and a follow-on report, the Task Force seeks to identify policies that will: (1) Increase benefits for rights holders of creative works accessible online but not for those who infringe on those rights; (2) maintain robust information flows that facilitate innovation and growth of the Internet economy; and (3) at the same time, safeguard end-user interests in freedom of expression, due process, and privacy. The report will evaluate current challenges to protecting online copyrighted works and to sustaining robust information flows, and it will analyze various approaches to meet those challenges."
Next >>