I don't think it's so much making things up as it is making logical errors. In this case, I think Techdirt's response is missing the point of the article. The intended claim is that IF the manufacturer had implemented IP protection and not allowed other manufacturers to copy the design, they'd now be the only authorized manufacturer of one of the most popular weapons in the world and thus have a cash cow that would have prevented their current profitability issues. The problem with this line of reasoning is that one of the reasons that the AK-47 is so popular is that it was so widely manufactured and thus so easily available. If the design had been locked up behind IP walls, it's quite likely that it would never have achieved its current popularity and may even be a footnote in the pages of weapons history by now.
It is just technobabble. I saw this yesterday and am just as confused.
No need to be confused. You simply need to realize that the wrong question is being asked. The question being asked is "How can we ignore all of this new technology and roll things back so that our outdated business model still works?"
So the proposed solution is to make digital copies somehow work like physical copies. If you look at things through Clueless-Music-Executive goggles, it makes sense. Of course, those goggles hide all sorts of realities that doom the attempt to failure, but no one's ever accused CMEs of being particularly bright or perceptive when it comes to dealing with the realities of the market.
That depends in part on what you mean by "law" and "crime." Downloading music and similar activities is prohibited by DoD policy on DoD computers. Violation of that by military members is essentially failure to obey a direct order, which certainly does open up the member to prosecution. It's doubtful (though not impossible) that the member would go to a Court's Martial, but members have received Non-Judicial Punishment for violating IT policy. Non-military personnel, such as civilian employees or contractors, would probably not face legal prosecution, but could face consequences, including loss of their job.
So it's arguable that the information provided is factually correct. However, it's extremely misleading in that it seems to imply that the act of downloading music is always in and of itself illegal/immoral. The training should distinguish between illegal downloading, and legal downloading that violates DoD policy.
(I'm retired Navy now working as a Network Engineer on a DoD network. I haven't had to take this training yet but I probably will in the near future.)
Let me start by saying that I don't buy Apple's arguments for a second. It's lame and obviously a scare tactic that Apple is hoping with influence the non-technical members of the committee. That beings said, I think their argument is being somewhat mischaracterized above. Their argument isn't that the DMCA will prevent terrorists from jailbreaking the iPhone. Their argument is that the DMCA will prevent or at least slow down the proliferation of tools that would allow the terrorist to jailbreak iPhones.
This is pretty silly, since there are already plenty of tools out there to do so, but at least there's a thread of attempted logic there. They aren't claiming that a terrorist is going to say "Gee, I'd like to jailbreak this iPhone and attack a cell tower but the DMCA says I can't, so I guess I won't." They're saying that adding an exemption would make it easier for a terrorist to find the tools to do the jailbreak.
IANAL but it sounds to me that if I purchase a product and give it to you, you must pay taxes on the purchase price but if the product was originally free, there is no tax. I wonder if this is intended to thwart you sending your out of state buddy the money, having him download the file and send it to you.
To correct myself, the Q&A does make this clear. You just have to read down a ways:
Digital products given away for free
There is a use tax exemption for the recipient of digital products given away for free. (See 606). There is also a sales and use tax exemption for the person purchasing digital products, digital codes, or remote access software to give it away for free. The purchaser must provide an exemption certificate. (See sections 503(1)(b) and 603(2) of the digital products bill).
Note that the Q&A talks about products "...given away for free..." but the bill itself actually says "...obtained by the end user free of charge..." The Q&A sounds like it would not apply to illegal downloads, since they arguable weren't "given away" but rather were "stolen." ("Stolen" in quotes because I'm well aware of the difference in copyright infringement and theft but I'm not sure that legal officials would be.) However, a literal reading of the bill makes no such distinction, and I'm not sure how that would play out in court.
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as Dan J.)
I don't think it's so much making things up as it is making logical errors. In this case, I think Techdirt's response is missing the point of the article. The intended claim is that IF the manufacturer had implemented IP protection and not allowed other manufacturers to copy the design, they'd now be the only authorized manufacturer of one of the most popular weapons in the world and thus have a cash cow that would have prevented their current profitability issues. The problem with this line of reasoning is that one of the reasons that the AK-47 is so popular is that it was so widely manufactured and thus so easily available. If the design had been locked up behind IP walls, it's quite likely that it would never have achieved its current popularity and may even be a footnote in the pages of weapons history by now.
Re: Technobabble (as Dan J.)
It is just technobabble. I saw this yesterday and am just as confused.
No need to be confused. You simply need to realize that the wrong question is being asked. The question being asked is "How can we ignore all of this new technology and roll things back so that our outdated business model still works?" So the proposed solution is to make digital copies somehow work like physical copies. If you look at things through Clueless-Music-Executive goggles, it makes sense. Of course, those goggles hide all sorts of realities that doom the attempt to failure, but no one's ever accused CMEs of being particularly bright or perceptive when it comes to dealing with the realities of the market.
Re: Legal (as Dan J.)
That depends in part on what you mean by "law" and "crime." Downloading music and similar activities is prohibited by DoD policy on DoD computers. Violation of that by military members is essentially failure to obey a direct order, which certainly does open up the member to prosecution. It's doubtful (though not impossible) that the member would go to a Court's Martial, but members have received Non-Judicial Punishment for violating IT policy. Non-military personnel, such as civilian employees or contractors, would probably not face legal prosecution, but could face consequences, including loss of their job.
So it's arguable that the information provided is factually correct. However, it's extremely misleading in that it seems to imply that the act of downloading music is always in and of itself illegal/immoral. The training should distinguish between illegal downloading, and legal downloading that violates DoD policy.
(I'm retired Navy now working as a Network Engineer on a DoD network. I haven't had to take this training yet but I probably will in the near future.)
Re: (as Dan J.)
Not without getting the video owner's permission, they shouldn't.
And if using an executive's picture on a wanted poster is fair use due to it's transformative nature, why isn't this fair use of the song?
Apple's arguments (as Dan J.)
Let me start by saying that I don't buy Apple's arguments for a second. It's lame and obviously a scare tactic that Apple is hoping with influence the non-technical members of the committee. That beings said, I think their argument is being somewhat mischaracterized above. Their argument isn't that the DMCA will prevent terrorists from jailbreaking the iPhone. Their argument is that the DMCA will prevent or at least slow down the proliferation of tools that would allow the terrorist to jailbreak iPhones.
This is pretty silly, since there are already plenty of tools out there to do so, but at least there's a thread of attempted logic there. They aren't claiming that a terrorist is going to say "Gee, I'd like to jailbreak this iPhone and attack a cell tower but the DMCA says I can't, so I guess I won't." They're saying that adding an exemption would make it easier for a terrorist to find the tools to do the jailbreak.
Re: Re: Re: (as Dan J.)
IANAL but it sounds to me that if I purchase a product and give it to you, you must pay taxes on the purchase price but if the product was originally free, there is no tax. I wonder if this is intended to thwart you sending your out of state buddy the money, having him download the file and send it to you.
Re: Re: Free codes (as Dan J.)
To correct myself, the Q&A does make this clear. You just have to read down a ways:
Note that the Q&A talks about products "...given away for free..." but the bill itself actually says "...obtained by the end user free of charge..." The Q&A sounds like it would not apply to illegal downloads, since they arguable weren't "given away" but rather were "stolen." ("Stolen" in quotes because I'm well aware of the difference in copyright infringement and theft but I'm not sure that legal officials would be.) However, a literal reading of the bill makes no such distinction, and I'm not sure how that would play out in court.
Re: (as Dan J.)
Take a look at the bill itself, particularly section 606. The PDF is available here.