Summary of Investor-State dispute resolution. These types of clauses are out of the ordinary, but then again in any relationship between an investor and a sovereign the sovereign is essentially judgment proof if it happens to breach the investment agreement. Not sure that placing two parties on a more equal footing is necessarily a bad thing.
If you actually understood how it's being used in practice, you'd realize that's not true. It's disingenuous to downright dishonest to argue that, say, refusing to grant a patent that Eli Lilly wants, is a form of "breaching an investment agreement."
And there are mechanisms in place to deal with such sovereign abuse, from *country* level sanctions, to the actual loss of business, to the WTO. You don't need to give corporations sovereign powers above and beyond.
As for IP section, I am not aware of anything the US has proposed that is not within the scope of international treaties.
That's not really the issue is it? The issue is that what the US is proposing is flat out crony capitalism to over protect a few lame industries, at the expense of everyone else, including innovators and the public.
Some of us believe that we shouldn't have the government protecting such companies. I recognize that you, as a product of just such a company, feels like the government's job is to protect your salary. That's why it's difficult to take you seriously.
If the USTR is playing "hard ball", then good for him.
Not if the proposals are bad. Are you so incredibly dense as to honestly believe that *any* proposal is good so long as the USTR is playing hardball?
Maybe we should move his over from the USTR to the Department of State, which seems to be in sore need of people who understand and are able to negotiate and close deals that actually mean something.
The fact that they spent the time and effort to totally re-create the photo, and tweak the lighting to give it even more "over the top" aesthetic gravitas, those help. GoldieBlox did the equivalent of the crude "head pasting" listed above. Re-doing the music for "Girls" can be done on an iPad, and should've been given a lot more effort to embody a transformative work.
That's your very subjective opinion. Others would easily argue the exact opposite. The Naked Gun poster could be done easily in Photoshop. Whereas the Girls remake involved having to rewrite the entire lyrics of the song and then record an entirely different arrangement of the music with the new song.
Based on your own argument, seems like Goldieblox has a much STRONGER fair use claim.
Naked Gun = copping style for parody, GoldieBlox = playing note-for-note rip-off.
This is both wrong and a meaningless distinction. Both Naked Gun and Goldieblox made significant changes for the sake of parody, while keeping key elements to make the parody work (i.e., to make it known what the original was).
If GoldieBlox had only lifted 1 verse of the Beastie Boys song, then taken it in a completely different direction - say, add in some Hans Zimmer EPIC STRINGS and the occasional John Powell BOOMING BASSLINE, and it'd be very transformative as an artistic work.
That only matters if they were making a different transformative argument, not a parody one. So that's meaningless.
. They went out of their way to preserve the sound/feel of the song
Which, um, is kind of the WHOLE POINT of a parody.
They embraced the overall motif of the song
Again, that's how you do a parody.
Basically, comparing a photo to a song is pretty disingenuous
You didn't just say that, did you? No offense, but it's difficult to take you seriously. Yes, there are differences between music and photos, but the argument works against you.
which the original artists would be provided consideration for the potential damage to a well-known reputation
There is NOTHING in copyright law that says that the original's reputation matters. This is a complete non-issue under the law. I'll admit that Goldieblox's move may have been an obnoxious move that many people find morally repugnant, but that's not the copyright issue.
doesn't change the fact that it's an ad first
Again, the case above is also ad first. You keep saying stuff that you believe to be true, but which is not true under the law.
Please help.... If i take all the transformer movies and split up the clips and create my own storyboard could i then make it my own and sell it to the cinemas?
No. Nor has anyone claimed otherwise. It would have to go through a fair use analysis, and that would very much depend on what you were doing with it, but merely moving the clips around without some further purpose, would almost certainly not be considered fair use.
I don't get this line of argument, frankly. People keep insisting if this one specific situation is deemed fair use that suddenly everything is fair use. No one has made that argument.
Could i take any movie and just change the vocals to make it a different story and licence it as a new movie and benefit from the copyright on it?
Again, the specifics would matter. This is why it's helpful to learn about fair use rather than making blanket statements.
I think the problem comes from many people believing that the content creator should benefit financially if any of their work is used to generate income in any way.
What many people believe and what the law actually says are two different things. And what matters is what the law says.
It's the same song with the words changed to suit the advertisement.
How do you think parody works?
When Sunkist changed the words to 'Good Vibrations' and put it in an ad do you think they claimed "parody! fair use!" and told Brian Wilson to go fuck himself?
You really ought to learn something about fair use. It can be parody if it was *commenting* on the original. In that case, it's not doing it. In this case, there's a very strong argument that they are commenting on it.
Nope. Only the robber barons in SillyCON Valley would be so douchey and stupid to try this.
Um. Okay, so you're not here for any legitimate purpose than other to argue from a position of near total ignorance. Okay then.
As I've said elsewhere, Goldieblox may be complete douchebags. But that's not particularly relevant to the question of fair use.
23andMe is a service sold and marketed directly to patients, who are much more likely to misinterpret results, worry needlessly, and make bad decisions. 23andMe can add all the disclaimers it wants, but people will tend to look at the data and ignore the disclaimers.
So the solution is to deny them the information they want about themselves? How utterly obnoxious and paternalistic of you.
...and you actually believe a for-profit company is creating a video out of the kindness of its own heart?
No one has argued that. Nor does that matter in the fair use analysis.
If this was a 501c3, great, no controversy, awesome...but trying to pull a fast one and say a form of advertising for a target market using a highly-recognizable song (that you can't legally license because of the band's own wishes) isn't going to pass test element #1.
This is so wrong. First, the four factor test is a balancing test. You don't have to "pass" every test. You have to win *on balance*. Second, as we've noted directly *multiple times* commercial use quite frequently is fair use, contrary to your claims.
It's funny to see the claim that "Oh it's ok our mission means we can re-define what fair use means and then claim public opinion makes it so!"
No one is trying to re-define fair use. Their argument falls squarely within previous fair use case law.
We actually discussed *exactly* that in our last post and I totally disagree. James Ellis created a similar concept, but it was NOT what Diffie-Hellman did. Cocks came up with a method similar to Rivest's and Williamson more or less came up with Diffie-Hellman, but actually figured it out a few months *after* Diffie spoke about it.
Either way, Diffie-Hellman most certainly invented it totally independently, and between Diffie and Rivest, they were the ones who actually made it useful.
GCHQ had no idea what they had on their hands and ignored it.
In your article you use the phrase "most people" a lot. The FDA in its review of appropriate medical claims made -- particularly in direct-to-consumer communications -- is not concerned with "most people". It is concerned with "some people" to the extent that they may use this information in a way that will predictably lead those "some people" to negative health outcomes.
I'd argue that protecting "some people" who can't understand fairly clear limitations of the information and how to use it while fucking over EVERYONE ELSE in terms of getting access to their own information creates many, many more "negative health outcomes."
I find it totally dishonest and ridiculous for people to screw over everyone to just protect a small group of "some people" who can't follow basic instructions.
Perhaps that would be an individual deciding they don't need to follow the therapy prescribed by their physician.
Perhaps, and 23andme is clear about this possibility, the test results related to a specific potential illness aren't 100% accurate -- a 'false negative'. And then an individual decides either to stop adhering to a current prescribed therapy, or not to seek benefit of any advice or intervention from a physician in the event of a possible risk factor.
Or, perhaps people find out accurate information and are able to help better their lives. Yet the FDA precludes ALL of that.
Nothing is going to be 100% accurate. People aren't so stupid. Most understand this.
There is plenty of evidence showing that incorrect patient interpretations, assumptions, or simply preferences with respect to adherence to prescribed therapy is not unusual, and can result in serious medical consequences.
Yeah, that's the astounding thing you realize if you deal with these kinds of people long enough. They honestly do treat it as a game. It's entirely about winning, not doing what's right. It's kind of sickening.