The governmental peer pressure came from Mexico and other Latin American countries bordering the Pacific as well as smaller countries on the other side of the puddle. It's not like the USA was wanting us there at all.
Truth be known I don't think they did and when we and Mexico joined we were given a card table down the door from the conference room and not let in. We're there in our own interests and those interests include increasing trade with nations other than the United States.
Our interests in this are different than American interests. The US is having to contend with the one massive player who isn't at the table at TPP who may overtake them as the largest player on the Pacific Rim in the next decade. China. And China has no interest in playing this silly game. (Though I bet Chinese intelligence has all the documents down to the last comma and accent grave in them so far.)
In fact, TPP is a large joke without the Chinese there.
Ahhh, trish, please read what I just posted. I expect that I speak for better than 30 million of us, in both official languages, when I say that we don't want a say in that mess.
For all the control you say the Americans have over our current government Hollywood and it's Canadian allies, including the CBC, lost big time on C-11 so it's not as great an influence as many seem to think it would be.
Changing that would mean the opposition parties would have to get their acts together so there was an option too. We'll have to see what the NDP have to offer now that Jack Layton's gone. The Liberals are a totally lost cause for one or two more elections if not permanently.
Last time I looked, Average Joe, Canada was NOT the 51st state and we have zero desire to become that. Nor are we part of or subject to American regulatory processes, your lunacy or that of the so-called entertainment industry.
As for the jobs and dollars can you at least come up with one, just one, reputable study that shows that before spouting off again? Do take your time. It's gonna take a long time to find one that fits in with your view and that of Hollywood.
Re: Er, if in place presumably 100% of those charged would /be/ stopped.
The problem is that no one is being charged with anything. Three strike rules don't charge, they suspect that ootb is engaged in piracy so after three "warnings" ootb, a complete innocent, is cut off the Internet.
Perhaps a complete innocent in that torrenting and http file transfer are both too hard for him.
All silliness aside. Charging means something entirely different than suspicion. It also indicates that the person charged has the opportunity to challenge the evidence protected by the presumption of innocence.
Just don't bother the MPAA and it's phantom polling firms down under to figure that part out. Legality gives them headaches.
The reality is that it's easier and offends fewer vested interests than tackling the entire patent system. Keeping in mind that the courts are a significant part of the reason it's broken.
That said if there's good reason to pressure the ITC over one (some) patents there's an even better reason to press for going over the entire broken system.
Judge Posner had some valid points about actually cutting the number and type of "inventions" qualifying for patent protection down. You had some good responses.
I'd also point to the term of patents these days. Cutting it in half to 10 years even in Pharma wouldn't hurt much and limiting renewals would hurt even less.
As has been pointed out by both you and Judge Posner is that patent protection is possible in the tech sector even if it is largely prior art, well known and practised or considered obvious by practitioners. And there it hangs till it gets challenged and invalidated or worked around.
And I'm just barely beginning. Like telling patent trolls that unless they're actually MAKING what the patent covers they're gonna lose it in short order and it'll go into the public domain.
Once you get by concentration of ownership, if you can, you'll find that most investigative reporting tends to avoid challenging the power structure which is what Woodward and Bernstein did. Though, to be honest, print still covers more deeply than TV does. And more than most blogs do.
As others have mentioned newpapers have been in cost cutting mode long before craigslist or blogs appeared so that their ownership could pay off the debts established building huge chains of papers. And the easiest way to do that? Lay off your most seasoned and experienced staff and hire people on the cheap. Pay AP not your own staff. Hire stringers. Specialize in "he said, she said" stories and pretend that's objective and penetrating journalism. And if there's no blood for the "if it bleeds, it leads" truism, find a way to create some.
And as you said, reprint, almost verbatim, corporate and government press releases without investigation or even a hint of rewrite to them.
As for craigslist or Kijji, the most recent response to that around these parts has been to put the classifieds behind a paywall!
So, put another way, the people uploadng to pirate sites are either employees who have stripped debugging code and other dreck before sending it off into the great torrent cloud in the sky or someone along the way has reverse engineered the software and done the same thing.
Either way, someone isn't understanding Step 4 so no matter how big a stick they use at Step 6 that won't change.
(Waving my 36" chain saw in air menacingly at any nearby stickes carried by the Average Joe's of the world.)
What frightens me is that I can see a group of pale puritianical types in a cube farm somewhere on floor B-124 at Google staying up all night thinking this stuff up, deciding which space position the censorship will begin at.
Entirely for our own good, you understand. We need to be protected from perfectly good Anglo-Saxon words while words that originated in French before becoming part of English which every serious perv knows are left completely alone!
Even if I was to agree, totally, that the old scheme could be gamed to only provide relatives and friends already in Canada with employment, with the help of a trusty and friendly immigration consultant saying that the proposed business requires VC blessing won't stop that. It'll just add cost up front to legitimate business class immigrants who were always going to set up shop here anyway.
Incidentally there's nothing at all wrong with with employing friends and family particuarly if it keeps them off the dole and become tax paying, contributing members of society. It's long been the nature of immigrant communities that they "stick to thier own" for hiring and employment for at least the first generation particularly when places like Canada are so culturally different from where they came from. The same applies to the United States.
If we can get the needs of Canada and the immigrant to line up, which they often do, then both get properly served.
More likely we'll get unethical venture capitalists taking over from unethical immigration consultants who rob Canada and the migrant blind. And just as we get the immigration consultant scams under control we pull this one off.
Mike's centuries of history is actually thousands of years of it.
Of course you won't find it neatly filed away under "Copyright" as both the name of the law/concept are a relatively new innovation with a new stated goal.
Among other things some Roman emperors forbade unauthorized images of them be made and sold. Each one that tried that failed and the market flooded with busts and other goodies portraying the Emperor's likeness flooded the empire. Given that manufacture or these things often brought the death penalty with them and not a fine that may seem surprising but all the emperor did was to create a market for these things where none existed before. Remember, too, that almost the only way of avoiding one of several horrific deaths the Romans kept on hand for executions, was to be a Roman citizen then you'd have the relative mercy of being beheaded instead of all the other agonizing alternatives the Roman's kept on hand.
Remember, too, that the Emperor was a God and worshiped as one in Rome so he'd expect his orders to be instantly followed whether he was sane or not.
That you can't read or research history doesn't surprise me nor does not being able to find what Mike could quite easily.
Other places enforcement didn't act as a deterrent are easily found too. Poaching by hungry peasants on the local baron's hunting preserve was never stopped by enforcement. Ever. Thus far the criminalization of marijuana complete with deterrence hasn't had much in the way of deterrence value and far more to do with taking up and creating an artificial demand for more prison cells. Oh, and increasingly violent activity by suppliers of an otherwise mostly harmless substance is criminal but not, for the most part, the use of the drug itself. It has far better uses as a medicinal agent. So much for the automatic increase in enforcement married to a decrease in whatever activity supposedly it's designed to deter just isn't there. Actually the best case against your view about that is the rise of Christianity given that it flourished and spread widely, even as Christians were being killed off at an increasing rate while adherents to the religion increased.
I'm not staying up all night to prove you're no historian or even a candidate for becoming one. It just isn't necessary. There's no need for Mike to "believe" that the historical evidence he has is anything but fact. It's historical fact.
And you are a moron.
I just hope that you'll make a better lawyer than your research skills indicate here because you're simply hopeless at researching history except to enter into your own style of "confirmation bias". Then again, lawyers have to do research as well so I guess you'd be well off my list should I need a solicitor one day.
You are right on one score. There is no infallibility here. Increased enforcement can work for a short time period...short, before the activity being deterred returns to a normal level or even slightly higher. There may fallibility there but the mass of the evidence agrees with Mike.
As for being a piece of work, have a good long look in the mirror. You'll see one there while you shave. If you shave.
Please try not to trip over your ego on steroids on the way out the door and fall flat on your face into your ignorance.
Actually, he has someone to punish. Any accredited Twitter representative in the court up to and including their lawyer who is presumed to be taking instruction from them.
Even then, the fine can only be a "small" one and with some conditions that make it impossible for the judge to keep fining Twitter and/or its representatives over and over again for the same thing.
As has been noted Criminal Contempt requires a hearing. The fine I'm discussing is more in the way of the fine one might pay in any other civil matter like parking for two hours and 10 seconds in a two hour zone. You can appeal that, too, but in most cases you still pay the fine for parking.
Most judges I know of in Canada, where I live would put a stay on the order they issued as the appeal went forward. Particularly if the grounds for the appeal was a serious point of law. I'm presuming that the judge issued the "produce the data" order because he interprets Twitter's refusal to do so as, in some way, hindering the collection of information useful in a prosecution which is, in and of itself a criminal act.
Which leads us all out of the civil realm and into the criminal one again.
Though that changes nothing in terms of Twitter's right to appeal the contempt ruling and the judge's original ruling.
Incidentally none of this has to do with the judge being fair. He can pat himself on the back as much as he wants he's there to correctly interpret the law, make rulings based on that interpretation based on precedent, similar cases and so on down the line. Fair doesn't enter the picture.
Nor does effectively denying Twitter its right to appeal. That, pardon my phrasing, is contemptible in and of itself.
10 years without renewal sounds about right. Damned near perfect actually.
It's a pipe dream, of course,but far more in line with what the creators of things like copyright and patent law were looking for and, in fact, created as opposed to the corrupt corpus of law and precedent we have now.
You must, of course, be referring to a talentless collection of multimillionaires who freely stole everything from riffs to entire songs, uncredited, and got away with it while tying to sue the butts off of anyone who tried something even remotely like that on them.
Hint: one of the barf bag songs of the past century given the number of times it has, uninvited and increasingly unwanted invaded our ear canals.
If you guessed Led Zeppelin after the hints you have just won yourself a three month long cruise through every distillery around the world that the Bronfman family owns and produces beverages at from exclusively stolen recipes. (As do most distilleries.) Enjoy!
Now, what was that you were saying about failed artists and the economically marginal, entitled losers?
As for the right you claim on the chair a reminder is in order that your claimed right only goes as far as to your sale of the chair and it is delivered to the buyer at which point your claimed right is the buyer`s right until the chair is sold again. That, and you have zero control over what the original buyer does with that chair or on what terms they can sell it. Unless, that is, voluntarily agreed to by seller and buyer prior to the sale being finalized (on delivery).
"Intellectual Property" is a privilege extended by the body politic to, in the United States promote the "useful arts and sciences" or, in the British Empire and Commonwealth to promote education, trade and free information flow. It`s not property as defined in the free market it has always been a legislative or constitutional privilege and/or directive to the market to promote a broad, laudable goal in the market. What "IP" is not is a right. Nor, at least in Canada as of this past summer, is it license-able for the purpose of fair dealing/fair use though, under Canadian Law and the Canadian Constitution fair dealing/fair use are protected rights.
IP extremists such as yourself try to recast a temporary privilege as a right which they are clearly not. Nor are they property in any sense of real property from a chair to a mansion to an aircraft carrier. Trying to recast it as something it isn't doesn't mean you've miraculaously changed it into something you want it to be.
Nice to see after being absent most of the summer that some things never change. And no it won't do copyright maximalists and those still fighting the pro-SOPA/PIPA battle one bit of good except bring forward the day of copyright's demise and theirs by their continued abuse of the privileges they get with so-called "intellectual property" laws.
Our survey also revealed that 100% of anti-pirate particles, anti-pirate things and non-stuff like that smoothie you're sure you just made but has vanished, even though the blender is full of smoothie stuff clinging to the sides.