Explain to me what your objecting is, if you will.
DRM means that I can't have full access to the technological capabilities of hardware that I own.
This happens because for DRM to work ALL hardware has to have locks on it just in case some DRM'ed file is loaded into it - even if the owner never uses it for that.
My question is about the exclusive rights: Is there ANY part of the exclusive rights part of copyright that Mike supports
Well I'll answer you.I don't support any of the exclusive rights - partly because one of the consequences of those rights is the existence of people with attitudes like yours.
That is the normal rule for industrial employee inventions.
That is part of the rule written in a typical contract, however the true situation is typically much more complex.
Two scenarios exist:
1. The work is done as part of a project set up by the employer with pre-defined expectations in respect of patent rights. The will have been spelled out in advance - and the decision about whether to patent will have been made before the invention. If that had been the case then CERN would have patented it regardless of TBL's opinion.
2. The work is an independent initiative by an employee whose contract gives some freedom to work on whatever he thinks will be useful. The decision to patent then belongs to the inventor (because only he is aware that something patentable exists). Typically in those cases, although the organisation would own the patent by default, they would usually make some agreement to pay royalties and/or give some control to the inventor.
I believe that the WWW fell under category 2. Hence, although TBL would not have owned the patent the decision would have been his and he would have benefitted from any royalties.
Although there were other magnetic tape cartridge systems, Philips' Compact Cassette became dominant as a result of Philips' decision in the face of pressure from Sony to license the format free of charge.
Capitalism is not really a system so much as the lack of a system.
It amounts to the statement that - left to their own devices - on average the mass of positive thinking and energetic people will tend to do useful things.
The motivation is not money, in fact attempts to engineer a financial incentive into the system (such as copyright, patents and "performance related pay") usually backfire.
Of course without a system there is no guarantee that all the necessary bases wil be covered - which is why you have to have public provision for security, law and order and (in sensible places) health, education water and sewerage infrastucture, power, roads and public transport
unless --- they are perform content-based censorship and their censors (human/automated?) fail anything they can't read.
Since the book is bilingual (ie everything written in Cornish is repeated in English) even that excuse fails.
Geographical indication is something of a European thing, mostly, and one which the United States has actually pushed back on.
Mostly because they don't have any decent geographically located foodstuffs.
I can see nothing wrong is forcing a geographical description on a product to be accurate.
If Chinese chocolate is as good as Belgian then it should be able to compete without calling itself Belgian.
Having said that I do think that "Belgian Recipe" or "Belgian Syle" should be allowed. (Champagne went too far when it banned other producers from using the term "Methode Champenoise")
Re: You promote tiny outlets, disregarding collateral damage
YET, when you use other people's work, especially if to help you gain income, you ARE subject to restrictions; it's part of copyright so as to minimize grifters getting unearned income.
HA HA . Given that the primary purpose of copyright is to maximise unearned income for publishers your comment is a joke!
Furthermore I would say that copyright acts as a magnet to the dregs of humanity. Its promise of a income (effectively) for ever in exchange for no further effort brings out the worst in people (and brings the worst people in!).
Look at the kibnd of people who run the gatekeepers, the kind of creators who proactively defend copyright - and - yes - the trolls round here - and you will see what I mean.
For you, anyway, it's about taking away the rights of authors and artists. Your rhetorical move in focusing on these evil "gatekeepers" is cute (and I'm sure effective), but at bottom you don't think authors and artists should have any rights to their works.
I suggest you actually read the linked article, which was written by an author who explicitly said that he thought his "rights" were less important than the integrity of the internet and he was prepared to abandon them if the damage caused by keeping them was too great.
it's not hard for most people, just most people here !
That's because most people just take whatever the government says at face value - whilst most people here take the trouble to analyse the situation in greater depth!
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
DRM means that I can't have full access to the technological capabilities of hardware that I own.
This happens because for DRM to work ALL hardware has to have locks on it just in case some DRM'ed file is loaded into it - even if the owner never uses it for that.
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re:
Well I'll answer you.I don't support any of the exclusive rights - partly because one of the consequences of those rights is the existence of people with attitudes like yours.
On the post: Here's Another Inventor Who Willingly Gave Away His Greatest Idea In Order To Establish It As A Global Standard
Re: Employee Inventions
That is part of the rule written in a typical contract, however the true situation is typically much more complex.
Two scenarios exist:
1. The work is done as part of a project set up by the employer with pre-defined expectations in respect of patent rights. The will have been spelled out in advance - and the decision about whether to patent will have been made before the invention. If that had been the case then CERN would have patented it regardless of TBL's opinion.
2. The work is an independent initiative by an employee whose contract gives some freedom to work on whatever he thinks will be useful. The decision to patent then belongs to the inventor (because only he is aware that something patentable exists). Typically in those cases, although the organisation would own the patent by default, they would usually make some agreement to pay royalties and/or give some control to the inventor.
I believe that the WWW fell under category 2. Hence, although TBL would not have owned the patent the decision would have been his and he would have benefitted from any royalties.
On the post: Here's Another Inventor Who Willingly Gave Away His Greatest Idea In Order To Establish It As A Global Standard
Cassette
From Wikipedia:
On the post: Broadcast Treaty Is Baaaaaack: Plan To Create Yet Another Copyright-Like Right For Hollywood
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It amounts to the statement that - left to their own devices - on average the mass of positive thinking and energetic people will tend to do useful things.
The motivation is not money, in fact attempts to engineer a financial incentive into the system (such as copyright, patents and "performance related pay") usually backfire.
Of course without a system there is no guarantee that all the necessary bases wil be covered - which is why you have to have public provision for security, law and order and (in sensible places) health, education water and sewerage infrastucture, power, roads and public transport
On the post: Veoh Still Not Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks Court To Rehear Case Yet Again
Re: Mike downplays key point of "red flag" knowledge.
Delete which file?
Every file?
Your comment?
On the post: Veoh Still Not Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks Court To Rehear Case Yet Again
Re: Re:
On the post: French Intelligence Agency Forces Wikipedia Volunteer to Delete Article; Re-Instated, It Becomes Most-Read Page On French Wikipedia
Re:
French Intelligence : oxymoron
(As opposed to the Dihydrogen oxymorons that live in Florida.)
On the post: California Court Rules It Illegal To Check Maps On Your Phone While Driving
Re: Re: Re: Driving Distracted
Pot - meet kettle!
Next time check what he actually said.
Tell me how tracking where to go next by looking down on a PAPER map isn't distracting as you drive.
On the post: Here's The Vine Video Prince Abused The DMCA To Take Down
Re: Re: Counter Sue
On the post: Can Commercial VPNs Really Protect Your Privacy?
Re:
Nor is it smart to rely on the fact that you have multiple layers of defence unless you treat each layer as if it were the only one.
On the post: Amazon Refuses To Publish First Cornish-Language Ebook
Re: Amazon is within their rights
Presumably you have no problem publishing a book written by a vegetable if you are a fruit yourself - but if you are a river then it's another matter.
On the post: Amazon Refuses To Publish First Cornish-Language Ebook
Re: Putting on my tin hat
Since the book is bilingual (ie everything written in Cornish is repeated in English) even that excuse fails.
On the post: Belgium: We Want To Be The Champagne Of Chocolate
US
Mostly because they don't have any decent geographically located foodstuffs.
I can see nothing wrong is forcing a geographical description on a product to be accurate.
If Chinese chocolate is as good as Belgian then it should be able to compete without calling itself Belgian.
Having said that I do think that "Belgian Recipe" or "Belgian Syle" should be allowed. (Champagne went too far when it banned other producers from using the term "Methode Champenoise")
On the post: UK Music Licensing Agency Says You Can't Use Its Music In Your Podcast Without First Purchasing A License It Doesn't Even Offer
Re: You promote tiny outlets, disregarding collateral damage
HA HA . Given that the primary purpose of copyright is to maximise unearned income for publishers your comment is a joke!
On the post: Damaging The Internet Is Not Acceptable Collateral Damage In The Copyright Wars
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Furthermore I would say that copyright acts as a magnet to the dregs of humanity. Its promise of a income (effectively) for ever in exchange for no further effort brings out the worst in people (and brings the worst people in!).
Look at the kibnd of people who run the gatekeepers, the kind of creators who proactively defend copyright - and - yes - the trolls round here - and you will see what I mean.
On the post: Damaging The Internet Is Not Acceptable Collateral Damage In The Copyright Wars
Re:
I suggest you actually read the linked article, which was written by an author who explicitly said that he thought his "rights" were less important than the integrity of the internet and he was prepared to abandon them if the damage caused by keeping them was too great.
On the post: This Is Not The Cloud Computing We Should Have
Re:
On the post: UPS Coughs Up $40 Million Because It Delivered Drugs From Rogue Pharmacies
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's because most people just take whatever the government says at face value - whilst most people here take the trouble to analyse the situation in greater depth!
On the post: UPS Coughs Up $40 Million Because It Delivered Drugs From Rogue Pharmacies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which, oddly enough is exactly the SAME ARGUMENT that the DOJ is using against UPS.