What about things "invented" using genetic algorithms? I've seem some youtube video by an MIT (?) professor showing how a genetic algrithm "invented" a circuit that seperated low frequency and high frequency sounds, patented in the 1930s.
Genetic algorithms work in (we believe) exactly the same way mother nature does.
Should something "invented" this way be patentable?
That's not true. In the case of "Intellectual Property", more specifically copyright and patent, a state-enforced monopoly is really all the "property" that exists.
Whoops! I think your Identity Management software is on the fritz, dude! You admitted to having sockpuppets, and to trolling. What's left? Admitting that you're employed by (A) the RIAA (B) the MPAA, (C) DtecNet or (D) the US Government, or worse, admitting you're employed by Wagg-Ed?
*I'll disclaim yet again: I'm not for the media cartels.*
Come, come, out_of_the_blue, none of your famous false modesty! We won't hear of it!
You need to make more than a casual disclaimer. Your disclaimer is kind of like the phrase, "With all due respect.." prefacing something that expresses disrespect. That is, it does nothing. Since on the internet, mostly all we've got is words, your words give lie to your disclaimer, and point out your biases and prejudices.
At the point of 5 (or 6) strike programs, you'll see reality. I'd wager on huge backlashes when people get their "high speed internet" pulled for mere accusations of infringement, and you have to pay $35 to "dispute" an accusation. The banks who re-ordered incoming checks so as to make the maximum in overdraft fees found out about that sort of thing just a few years ago.
You're kidding, right? One reception is one share. They are semantically, procedurally and ethically identical.
Or maybe you're the Anonymous Legalistic Coward. Because there's probably some case law somewhere that says that merely receiving something isn't the same as participating in the sharing of something. In that case, Carry On, Oh Great Legum, but be aware that no non-lawyers live in that universe.
In your example, I'm pretty sure that in the USA, you would hold the copyright. "Copyright" is not "ownership". Copying something illegally is not theft, it's infringement. And no matter how you slice it, I can copy that photo.Whoops! I just did it! Did I infringe? I doubt it. No matter what your opinion is, someone would have to take me to court to decide. Did I steal the photo? Absolutely not. I will not confess this to a priest as a sin, nor will St Peter mark it in the Book of Life against me.
Not only do I not have respect for copyright laws, and "IP" laws in general, I'm beginning to wonder about the USA legal system and it's professionals. "The Law" seems to have crawled completely inside itself, the practitioners seem to think that legal reasoning and legal reasons override reality. All you have to do is get enough judges to believe a given legal theory, and *poof* it's the new reality.
And that's where the real damage comes from, doesn't it?
If you have to "consult a lawyer" to understand where a copyright lies (see also, the H.P. Lovecraft kerfuffle) then you're not going to use something that just might possibly lie in a grey area. We're impoverishing the giant bulk of the people, who can't justify the cost of "consulting a lawyer" in order to use something that very probably is either (a) not under copyright or (b) the use is fair use. Our culture is much the worse for it. I have a number of books ("Where's my Jetpack?", "How to escape a robot uprising" among them) that don't have very many illustrations. Why? I don't know for sure, but I imagine because of the cost of getting copyright clearance. Just one example among many. Sucky books, in an age of on-demand printing, and digital photography and image manipulation. What a ripoff!
I also have to note that a lawyer, even an "IP" lawyer, can't really tell you about who holds a copyright. Don't you have to take it to trial to be absolutely certain?
If we won't be able to see any increase in sales, then what's the point of the Hadopi dragnet? I'm told Hadopi had a budget of 12 million euros for 2011. That's a lot of money. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for an instrument of repression, if nothing economically positive happens?
When (not if) the "3 strikes" campaign comes to the USA, will this dis-economony come in to the discussion? In business-oriented USA, the lack of bang for the buck would seem to mean we should not want 3 strikes at all.
This prose very definitely evokes a copyrighted work. I presume that the rightholders will exercize their droit du seigneur, and get your evocation taken down.
And I have it on good, Anonymously Cowardly authority that Fair Use does not hold for evocation of copyrighted works.
Mike writes: "Such is the life of a professional liar,"
What do you know that we don't? I really wish the on-line-shill phenomenon had a logical way out, that let people who ran the forums (who actually act ethically about anonymous comments) denounce the real shills.
Unfortunately, I don't see a way out of it. So "Blogger Bob" gets to run his keyboard like a weedeater on rocket fuel under the anonymous coward flag, and everybody just gets to call him a shill.
Hey, that's a good point. The US, as a society, has learned a bunch of things along the way, some of which seem counter-intuitive at first.
What we've learned:
1. Don't assume guilt. Assume innocence.
2. Don't allow anonymous accusations.
3. Let the accused examine the evidence.
4. Avoid systems that don't define things so that anyone can figure it out without asking an authority.
The proposed cartel-enforcement described here does absolutely none of these things. It will fail, but do a lot of damage on the way to disappearing.
Re: Exclude Software
What about things "invented" using genetic algorithms? I've seem some youtube video by an MIT (?) professor showing how a genetic algrithm "invented" a circuit that seperated low frequency and high frequency sounds, patented in the 1930s.
Genetic algorithms work in (we believe) exactly the same way mother nature does.
Should something "invented" this way be patentable?
Re: Re: Re:
Finally telling the truth
Re: Re: Re: Fashion Trolls
Don't bother, "Intellectual Ventures" is already working on this one.
Re: Does this even scratch smug assertions that you'll get away with "piracy"?
Come, come, out_of_the_blue, none of your famous false modesty! We won't hear of it!
You need to make more than a casual disclaimer. Your disclaimer is kind of like the phrase, "With all due respect.." prefacing something that expresses disrespect. That is, it does nothing. Since on the internet, mostly all we've got is words, your words give lie to your disclaimer, and point out your biases and prejudices.
At the point of 5 (or 6) strike programs, you'll see reality. I'd wager on huge backlashes when people get their "high speed internet" pulled for mere accusations of infringement, and you have to pay $35 to "dispute" an accusation. The banks who re-ordered incoming checks so as to make the maximum in overdraft fees found out about that sort of thing just a few years ago.
Re: Re:
Or maybe you're the Anonymous Legalistic Coward. Because there's probably some case law somewhere that says that merely receiving something isn't the same as participating in the sharing of something. In that case, Carry On, Oh Great Legum, but be aware that no non-lawyers live in that universe.
Re:
You're a lawyer.
You work as a lawyer, don't you?
Re: Copyright ruins everything
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you have to "consult a lawyer" to understand where a copyright lies (see also, the H.P. Lovecraft kerfuffle) then you're not going to use something that just might possibly lie in a grey area. We're impoverishing the giant bulk of the people, who can't justify the cost of "consulting a lawyer" in order to use something that very probably is either (a) not under copyright or (b) the use is fair use. Our culture is much the worse for it. I have a number of books ("Where's my Jetpack?", "How to escape a robot uprising" among them) that don't have very many illustrations. Why? I don't know for sure, but I imagine because of the cost of getting copyright clearance. Just one example among many. Sucky books, in an age of on-demand printing, and digital photography and image manipulation. What a ripoff!
I also have to note that a lawyer, even an "IP" lawyer, can't really tell you about who holds a copyright. Don't you have to take it to trial to be absolutely certain?
Re: "It'll be interesting to see if there's any noticeable impact on purchases in France."
When (not if) the "3 strikes" campaign comes to the USA, will this dis-economony come in to the discussion? In business-oriented USA, the lack of bang for the buck would seem to mean we should not want 3 strikes at all.
Re: Re: Re: I see money in the future of...
It's also the first time I've fired up a BitTorrent client since I downloaded Slackware 13.1 Linux, also perfectly legal.
Am I freeloading?
I think you can expect a DMCA takedown notice
And I have it on good, Anonymously Cowardly authority that Fair Use does not hold for evocation of copyrighted works.
I think you can expect a DMCA takedown notice
Re: Re:
What do you know that we don't? I really wish the on-line-shill phenomenon had a logical way out, that let people who ran the forums (who actually act ethically about anonymous comments) denounce the real shills.
Unfortunately, I don't see a way out of it. So "Blogger Bob" gets to run his keyboard like a weedeater on rocket fuel under the anonymous coward flag, and everybody just gets to call him a shill.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: You play the lotto?
Male, dumpy, balding? Much much less than 1 in 100 chance of a grope.
Re: Copyright misuse
Great points
What we've learned:
1. Don't assume guilt. Assume innocence.
2. Don't allow anonymous accusations.
3. Let the accused examine the evidence.
4. Avoid systems that don't define things so that anyone can figure it out without asking an authority.
The proposed cartel-enforcement described here does absolutely none of these things. It will fail, but do a lot of damage on the way to disappearing.
More comments from Bruce Ediger >>
Bruce Ediger’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt