Ima Fish's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

from the too-much-ownership-culture dept

Hello fellow Techdirtheads. I'm Ima Fish and am an attorney with a concentration in IP law. But unlike most lawyers who study IP law, I want to drastically curtail how it presently operates. So when I talk about my "favorite" posts, I'm being satirical, of course.

As anyone who reads this site knows, ownership culture has gone way past mere copyright, patents, and trademarks. The pervasiveness of ownership culture can be seen in my favorite post of the week, Timothy's post concerning Shawn Cheek, who believes he has a monopoly on writing letters on the keys of a keyboard to better teach students. Unfortunately, despite having no such copyright or patent, Mr. Cheek has had videos removed from YouTube. That's very troubling.

Another troubling post is Mike's from Tuesday and involves the patenting of vegetables in Europe. The mere idea of giving out monopolies over nature should send a shiver down everyone's spine. Especially when, as the movie Jurassic Park taught us, nature finds a way. This can be seen in a related story, wherein experimental GMO wheat from Monsanto, never cleared for release, was found growing "naturally" by a farmer in Oregon. Will Monsanto go after the farmer who found it for violating their patents? If he had tried to harvest it rather than destroy it, Monsanto might have had a chance based upon the US Supreme Court decision in Bowman v Monsanto. Will farmers in Europe eventually face the same legal threat, merely because nature followed its course?

Simply put, patenting acts of nature actually make acts of nature illegal. Do you feel that shiver now?

One of my other favorite themes at Techdirt is the fact that the copyright industry does not operate in a free market. This can be seen in three posts this week. First, the news that police in the UK are allowing employees of the entertainment industry to arrest and interrogate alleged infringers. While it makes no sense to us, it does from the perspective of the copyright industry when you realize the industry does not actually have customers. It has government granted tolls people are obligated to pay under force of law. So it makes sense for the music and movie industries to hire a bunch of former police and prosecutors to ensure every dime is collected. But the fact politicians are allowing it is very troubling.

The next such posts are the RIAA's outrageous claim that it has never stifled innovation and the depressing news concerning the aftermath of allowing the copyright industry to control innovation.

While stopping the progress of technology may seem outrageous to us, it makes sense for the copyright industry. Because the copyright industry has no actual customers, it has no clue how to compete. So whenever a new technology is released, rather than rolling up their collective sleeves and coming up with better product, the copyright industry sues, e.g., the player piano, the radio, cable TV, DVRs, etc. And as long as the copyright industry's business is collecting tolls rather selling a product or service to customers, these attacks against technology will continue.

Another favorite theme of mine here is the copyright industry's desire to eliminate the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. The DMCA was enacted when I was in law school, and it was hotly debated among students and professors. The only commonality of thought we all had was that if the law was passed, it absolutely needed safe harbors. Even the copyright maximalists in the debate conceded that. It was clear to everyone that without safe harbors, the internet would be destroyed. But as Mike posted Wednesday, the RIAA is back at it again.

People tend to ask, "Why should internet providers act as the copyright industry's police force?" But in my opinion, that's not what this is really about. The RIAA and the MPAA do not really care about stopping piracy. Seriously. All they actually want is a new revenue stream. Forcing Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook and others to pay is what the copyright industry considers a new business model.

This would basically be licensing. Let's look back to when copyright first started covering performances. Back then, the music industry could have sued individual bands or audience members. Instead they sold licenses to bar, club, and theater owners. And by "sold" I mean owners were forced to pay for licenses.

The same will happen once Google and the rest start paying. For example, the music industry won't have to concern itself much with selling CDs or advertising. It'll just sit back and collect its tolls from large internet service providers, increasing those tolls every few years, of course.

My last favorite post involves the destruction of the right of first sale in relation to the console gaming industry. As posted by Timothy on Wednesday, it is hoped that Sony learns from the backlash and supports used games in the upcoming PS4.

In my opinion, don't hold your breath. Sony is the same company that took away the "other" OS option in the PS3, installed root kids on PCs via music CDs, and came up with the most convoluted anti-consumer way to sell digital music ever conceived. If Sony is our only hope to save first sale rights, we're screwed.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), Jun 1st, 2013 @ 12:38pm

    Well put!

    "In my opinion, don't hold your breath. Sony is the same company that took away the "other" OS option in the PS3, installed root kids on PCs via music CDs, and came up with the most convoluted anti-consumer way to sell digital music ever conceived. If Sony is our only hope to save first sale rights, we're screwed."

    Sony? Won't buy from them, but I will steal from them... They deserve nothing less! And yes, I have, in the past (and still) owned Sony TV's, cassette and tape recorders, mini-disc recorders/players, CD/DVD players, and laptop computers. Wonder how much Sony cruft I've purchased since the CD root-kit fiasco? Try $0.00, zip, zero, nothing. When will I purchase more Sony cruft? When they publicly apologize for the CD root-kit fiasco, and pay everyone who was harmed by it at least $1000 USD... Yeah, and the universe will likely undergo heat death first...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jun 1st, 2013 @ 1:07pm

    Techdirtheads?

    Actually, I kind of like it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 2:00pm

    The patenting is extremely scary globally.

    Patenting naturally occuring things, like genes is problematic since you can end up with inadvertant infringement from passivity which goes fundamentally against the thought behind current consumer protection laws.

    The problem is exacerbated by the self-replication which makes for an erosion of the right to sell what you own and specifically some extremely problematic jurisprudence on "selective breeding" which is a technique older than the bible!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Baldaur Regis (profile), Jun 1st, 2013 @ 3:09pm

    Thank you for your comprehensive review of this week's examples of IP overreach.

    Of particular concern to me is the seemingly constant assertions of IP ownership over things the content owners (or their representatives) should know they have little or no stake in. There seem to be no penalties for sending Cease & Desist letters, taking down content via automated systems, or scatter-shotting legal nastygrams in general. The burden falls on the accused to prove fair use or that no infringement ever took place - the costs of which can be devastating to an individual, prohibitive to a small company, and inconvenient to a corporation. The accusers can do this with absolutely no fear of repercussions.

    Does there exist - anywhere in the world - a system in place where these claims can be heard be an administrative magistrate, who can at the very least issue a (non-binding or not) declaration as to the validity of the claims? It would be a good first step - the fact that you either have to go Full Legal or Go Home upon receipt of just an assertion is one of the most egregious aspects of current IP law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 3:23pm

    Greetings, Ima Fish. Ima Nonymous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 3:54pm

    Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,

    and others considers a new business model. Someone else creates the draw, then those grifters get the money. --Without passing on a cent to the creators. They're not even middlemen, add nothing, pay for nothing, only leverage already created values. They are grifters.

    You guys repeat same assertions over and over. That's why my taglines are really all that's necessary to refute.

    Every "new business model" here requires first getting valuable products -- for example, headlines to skim -- for free.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    drunk sill, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 4:08pm

    Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,

    We must stop those wild wild west cybercowboys from stealing from poor artists and riding their virtual horses down the intertubes to get away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 4:09pm

    Re: Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,

    drunk shill *

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Drunk Shill, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 4:18pm

    Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,

    we cyberpolice also musin put all these cyberbandits in cyberjail after three strikes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 4:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,

    I've tripped over drunk sills occasionally, but I always go out of my way to trip aggressively over drunk shills. I keep a special pair of shill-tripping boots in the truck - just in case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 4:59pm

    Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,

    "That's why my taglines are really all that's necessary to refute."

    Statements like this are why nobody takes you seriously, either as a legitimate commentator or as a troll.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Nigel (profile), Jun 1st, 2013 @ 5:00pm

    Well Stated

    "While stopping the progress of technology may seem outrageous to us, it makes sense for the copyright industry. Because the copyright industry has no actual customers, it has no clue how to compete."


    Really, could not have summed that up any better. Well played sir.

    Nigel

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 5:13pm

    Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,

    What, like your charity comments? Bullshit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 6:18pm

    Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,

    Are you saying search engines have no value? I'd like to see you create something that makes it as easy to find sites as google does. Google's search has created more value for web surfers and site owners than you will ever create for anyone

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 6:48pm

    While stopping the progress of technology may seem outrageous to us, it makes sense for the copyright industry.

    Another dick head lawyer who does not know what the hell he is talking about, and at the same time makes his living from the IP and laws that govern us.

    What progress of technology is stopped by copyright again ?? some examples please..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 6:50pm

    Oh and Jurassic Park is a fictional movie!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 6:56pm

    installed root kids on PCs via music CDs

    got many root kids do you, Mr fish ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 7:11pm

    One of my other favorite themes at Techdirt is the fact that the copyright industry does not operate in a free market.

    oh ok, so you have shown us that you don't understand what copyright is, OR what a free market is.. no wonder you are one of those 'lawyers' who don't have the balls to put your name on what you say.. embarrassed I guess.

    as a 'lawyer' don't you make your living from the product of your intellect? you know the property of your intellect is how you do your 'work', or are you the 'other' kind of lawyer ?

    Are you Lionel Hutz ? aka Miguel Sanchez aka Nguyen Van Phuoc ?

    Did you graduate from the Prinston School of Law ?

    Is the name of you company "I cant believe it's a law firm"

    or is it called "Dewey, Cheatem and howe"

    (Do we cheat them?, and how!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2013 @ 8:23pm

    Good summary of the "ownership culture" problem. It's really getting bad isn't it? Sadly I think people won't learn better until they've been abused for another ten years. :(

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2013 @ 12:23am

    Re:

    Clearly you don't have the balls either. Shame we already all know you're darryl, Mr. Fair-Use-in-Australia-makes-my-dick-sad.

    Learn to spell "Princeton", dumbass. Or do your solar panel clients not require you to spell their names right? Or are all your clients solar panels?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    ChronoFish (profile), Jun 2nd, 2013 @ 6:57am

    Re:

    "... Sadly I think people won't learn better until they've been abused for another ten years....."

    Consumers will never learn. And corporations have already learned *that*:

    Verizon recently raised their rates in a very underhanded way. All the Internet was in an uproar. Of those who complained the loudest, how many actually dropped Verizon?

    Companies do what makes sense monetarily. As Monsanto says "We're in business to make money. It's the FDA's responsibility to keep the public safe." (Nevermind the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto....)

    -CF

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2013 @ 8:11am

    Re: Well put!

    And Akio Morita has been spinning in his grave ever since. If he were still alive and still in control of Sony none of this would of happened.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Leigh Beadon (profile), Jun 2nd, 2013 @ 11:44am

    Re: Using values for nothing is what Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook,

    You think Google "adds nothing"? You think Facebook "adds nothing"? And, even more bafflingly, you think they pay for nothing?

    What are you, insane? Those sites pay TONNES of money. They employ huge staffs and operate multiple massive server farms -- they have to pay costs of millions or tens of millions of dollars in order to offer these free services.

    And, if they add nothing, why do billions of people use them, exactly?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Leigh Beadon (profile), Jun 2nd, 2013 @ 11:47am

    Re:

    Did you just explain the Dewey, Cheatem and Howe joke? C'mon dude... what's the matter with you?

    Explaining a joke is like debating a troll. Nobody's that interested and the troll looks stupid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    hopponit (profile), Jun 2nd, 2013 @ 12:05pm

    Sony

    I am of the opinion that Sony got caught out on the root-kits on their second attempt. Prior to the scandal with CDs they were attempting to kill off Bleem, a Playstation emulator. They managed to drag Bleem through the courts so long that they (Bleem) had to go out of business, even though Sony didn't win in court. The weird part was if you had bought a copy of Bleem to run in your PC. When you ran Bleem it let you load a Playstation game and run it on your PC just like it would look on the console, neat ( and a great reason to buy Sony games and stuff!). However soon after the war on Bleem started if you loaded a game produced later, your PC would suddenly be unable to run Bleem,even older titles that had worked till then! The only work around was to re-install you whole Windows OS. The early titles would work again until to tried to load a later title. If you did, you had to go back and re-install the OS AGAIN. Real effective bully tactic but not a good public relations move. I have refused to buy any Sony products, or reccomend them ever since. Till then I had been a fan and had spread the word on how "great" Sony was. I am not sure that this counted as a root-kit, but if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, odds are it isn't a chicken. This was about a year or so before the CD root-kit. Still got my copy of Bleem, just can't really use it. That and the fact that I only bought Xbox stuff from then on!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 2nd, 2013 @ 3:03pm

    Re: Re:

    Besides, his explanation was wrong. The firm name isn't supposed to sound like a question and answer. It uses "do" in the affirmative, like, "boy, do we ever".

    Stupid troll can't even explain jokes that require no explanation properly. In other words, stupid troll is stupid....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2013 @ 6:55pm

    While it makes no sense to us, it does from the perspective of the copyright industry when you realize the industry does not actually have customers. It has government granted tolls people are obligated to pay under force of law.

    No your not. Just don't fucking partake of the experience, you freeloading sack of shit. No one has a gun at your head. You don't want to pay? Fine. Just don't take what doesn't belong to you. Problem solved. You're welcome.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Leigh Beadon (profile), Jun 2nd, 2013 @ 7:42pm

    Re:

    What do you mean "take"? Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong. But, er, what does that have to do with copyright infringement? Piracy doesn't involve any taking whatsoever...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2013 @ 8:55pm

    Re:

    You seem mad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:16am

    Re:

    Hey random angry dude, guess what, I do exactly what you suggest, and it's the worst possible thing I could do to those 'producers' you are 'protecting' so much.

    Any big label music, I avoid, neither pirating, buying, or even caring about.

    Any ebooks put out by major publishers(With the notable exception of Baen) are likely to be stuffed to the gills with DRM, and just as expensive as the physical copies, so I avoid them completely, or buy dead-tree versions maybe once every couple of months(due to the hassle of having to drive a good distance to get to a book store).

    Any movies, I wait until it hits redbox or a similar service, and even then I rarely watch any, as the good ones are few and far in-between.

    I don't care for the drek that's modern tv(yet another 'reality' show, oh joy /s), so I don't have a cable subscription or even watch tv in general.

    Now, that said, I do...

    Pay for music made by independent musicians on sites such as bandcamp, where it's easy to try, and easy(and cheap) to buy.

    Pay for plenty of ebooks from sites such as smashwords, where there is not only no DRM, but I can read a sampling of a book before deciding if I want to pick it up.

    Pay for book versions of the webcomics I follow(much better than tv: no commercials, better quality, and much more variety), to support the artists.

    Now then, you may notice that the first group, the ones you are 'defending', gets zero of my money, and an equal amount of my attention or interest, while the second group gets as much money as I can throw at them.

    Take a wild guess as to which group is likely to be around and thriving come a decade or two, and which group will only still be around if they can buy enough laws to make it illegal not to pay them, whether you are interested in their product or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 4:29am

    Re:

    Then don't come whining to me that you couldn't afford another diamond-studded swimming pool, jackass, because whatever you produced, I don't want it, I'm not paying for it, and I don't have a copy of it. Problem solved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Mike Raffety (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 11:14am

    "installed root kids on PCs via music CDs"?

    Ah yes, that's what happened after Monsanto bought out Sony and Genentech.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2013 @ 10:50am

    A midshipman is a naval officer in training or a commissioned officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Kenya. The rank was also used, prior to 1968, by the Royal Canadian Navy, but upon the creation of the Canadian Forces the rank of midshipman was replaced with the rank of naval cadet.

    In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (17931815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.

    During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.

    Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2013 @ 10:51am

    A midshipman is a naval officer in training or a commissioned officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Kenya. The rank was also used, prior to 1968, by the Royal Canadian Navy, but upon the creation of the Canadian Forces the rank of midshipman was replaced with the rank of naval cadet.

    In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (17931815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.

    During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.

    Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.
    A midshipman is a naval officer in training or a commissioned officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Kenya. The rank was also used, prior to 1968, by the Royal Canadian Navy, but upon the creation of the Canadian Forces the rank of midshipman was replaced with the rank of naval cadet.

    In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (17931815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.

    During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.

    Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2013 @ 10:52am

    A midshipman is a naval officer in training or a commissioned officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Kenya. The rank was also used, prior to 1968, by the Royal Canadian Navy, but upon the creation of the Canadian Forces the rank of midshipman was replaced with the rank of naval cadet.

    In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (17931815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.

    During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.

    Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.
    A midshipman is a naval officer in training or a commissioned officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Kenya. The rank was also used, prior to 1968, by the Royal Canadian Navy, but upon the creation of the Canadian Forces the rank of midshipman was replaced with the rank of naval cadet.

    In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (17931815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.

    During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.

    Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.
    A midshipman is a naval officer in training or a commissioned officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Kenya. The rank was also used, prior to 1968, by the Royal Canadian Navy, but upon the creation of the Canadian Forces the rank of midshipman was replaced with the rank of naval cadet.

    In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (17931815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.

    During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.

    Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.
    A midshipman is a naval officer in training or a commissioned officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Kenya. The rank was also used, prior to 1968, by the Royal Canadian Navy, but upon the creation of the Canadian Forces the rank of midshipman was replaced with the rank of naval cadet.

    In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (17931815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.

    During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.

    Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Masnick is a Coward, Jun 18th, 2013 @ 10:55am

    yep

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2013 @ 11:00am

    A midshipman is a naval officer in training or a commissioned officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Kenya. The rank was also used, prior to 1968, by the Royal Canadian Navy, but upon the creation of the Canadian Forces the rank of midshipman was replaced with the rank of naval cadet.

    In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (17931815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipman in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.

    During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.

    Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2013 @ 11:04am

    Mike just hates it when he loses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This