Patents and copyright are government sponsored licensed monopolies. Given that they are "licensed", meaning your monopoly doesn't last forever (in theory), it should be illegal to sell them on.
Think of it this way. You apply for a drivers licence, pay the fee, take the test and if you meet the criteria you get your drivers license. You are no however allowed to sell that license on. Now some people will say "yeah but that drivers license is unique to you and covers only you". Which is true.
However the whole point about copyright and patents is the IP created is unique. An inventor is granted a patent when the inventor creates a unique innovation nobody else would have thought of because it's not obvious. Which makes that invention or innovation unique to the inventor.
Of course the USPTO and the US government know full well the overwhelmingly vast majority of patents are not for unique innovations or inventions. Which is why they are moving to "first to file" rather than "first to invent". Which really brings into question the legitimacy of most patents.
LOL! This whole IP ownership nonsense gets more ridiculous by the day. Before you know it every human on the planet will have to devise his/her/it's own language and totally unique name just to live without being sued. Of course we'll all have to pay each other royalties every time we talk to one another using the other's language.
So what this guy is saying that just by using consumer technologies, bought and paid for from a high street store, consumers are infringing on patents? God help us if this is allowed to set a precedent. Can you imagine how many patents the average consumer could be accused of violating? How many patents are involved in PCs, cars, TVs, mobile phones, land line phones, cookers, microwave ovens, iPods, MP3 players, bues, power tools, toys, trains and planes and any other consumer device or object you care to name?
The Amish life is looking appealing. Although I'm pretty sure someone has a patent on the horse and cart.
If you can't use information or knowledge then what's the point of knowing about it? And that's what IP laws do. They lock-down knowledge and stop people from using it. So it really makes no difference if people kept their knowledge secrete without IP protection. It's a rare event when there's only one person working on an idea. The world wouldn't suffer without IP laws.
What these patents demonstrate is that anything can be patented if you fill in the form correctly and pay the money. Now who's patented blogging? Seriously that's got to be more lucrative than a temporary snow person.
I predict an anti-trust law suit in the next few years when Windows 8 hits the stores. Apparently Microsoft are insisting OEMs and ODMs producing "Ultrabooks" who are participating in the Windows 8 logo program use a "security" feature of UEFI which requires an OS to be digitally signed with special keys. Which will of course lock out many GNU/Linux distributions from the mainstream PC market.
I think this will come down to the format rights for the shows. If the Italian show infringes on the BBC's format rights then the BBC could have a case. As dumb as that sounds. I think the BBC are being really stupid here.
I think maybe all these little developers should move to a country where copyright is considered sufficient to protect original software works. Maybe then the US and other countries where software patents are problematic will get a clue.
Have the TechDirt staff been taking stupid pills lately? I don't think anybody calls e-mail "file sharing software". I think we know what sort of applications this university are talking about. Torrent clients and the like.
It's also not a bad thing to get people to learn about copyright, what is or isn't infringement. Isn't that part of what you guys try to do here. Make people aware?
Simple fact of the matter is Nominet has always reserved the right to discontinue your domain name if you don't play by their rules. This is nothing new. Domain names so far as I know are effectively rented for a minimum of 2 years.
So who makes the final decision? Likely Nominet in the first instance. However they are a British company operating under British law. Which means they must abide by certain trading standards.
Now if the Police take improper action and pressure Nominet to take down a site without sufficient evidence purely on the say so of the MPAA. The you could conceivably complain to the Police Complaints Commission.
Where I find ICE particularly controversial, which is what the article seems to be comparing this policy review by Nominet to, is that ICE seems to operate beyond USA borders. Which is actually more of a case for each country managing it's own registries than it is an anti-IP case.
The UK is not the USA. Our Police aren't nearly as trigger happy as in the US. And technically speaking domain names could probably already be seized if there was evidence to support the seizure. This is not a new law or the establishment of a new body. This is an existing company reviewing it's policies to formalise what they're already doing.
Considering Nominet have stated civil requests should be excluded. Meaning the record industry can't just ask Nominet to do a seizure and they're considering an appeals process and have excluded requests that would suppress free speech. I think we should wait until the screw up before we shoot them.
I also think a few more people here should actually read the PDF.
"Draft recommendations – key principles
•
Nominet should have an abuse policy that specifically addresses criminal activity in its terms and conditions.
•
Nominet should be able to act under an expedited process to suspend domain names associated with serious crime when requested by a law enforcement agency.
•
An expedited procedure to suspend domain names should only be available where a) it is the last resort in dealing with the domain name, following requests with registrar, ISPs etc in the first instance or b) it is the most viable option to prevent imminent or ongoing serious consumer harm.
• The policy should exclude suspension where issues of freedom of expression are central aspects of the disputed issue.
• Nominet should consider establishing a registrant appeal mechanism.
•
When the policy is operational, Nominet should set up an independent panel to review how the policy is working.
• Nominet should exclude civil or third party requests from this policy (which is focused on criminality), but these merit further discussion under the policy process.
•
Nominet should communicate the outcome of its policy development to Government to inform its own deliberations in this field."
Most of the water we need comes from our food. Anybody who actually drinks 8 pints of water everyday will likely suffer from water on the brain. Which can be fatal or leave lasting damage.
Play it safe and pay attention to your body. You normally know when you need a drink. Because you're thirsty!
Capitalism has always been broken. Capitalism in practice doesn't operate on the premise of doing enough to survive and grow at a sustainable rate. It operates on the principle of greed. Grab as much as you can, as fast as you can, from whomever you can.
It's the same flaw that brought the Soviet Union to it's knees. The only difference in a capitalist culture is the masses are kept in the dark by filling their brains with meaningless drivel on TV and pressure to always have the next upgrade.
The majority are so distracted by trivial material concerns they can't see the majority of the worlds wealth being concentrated increasingly in the hands of a minority of very, very few individuals.
By the time the world wakes up. It will be too late.
Drugs and Piracy fund terrorism. So clearly we must cut off the funding. So expect for searches of everybody's houses. Terrorists blend in and are thus indistinguishable from people. So every body is now guilt until proven not guilty yet. Innocent has been dropped as a verdict. We're all guilty of something.
"In the end, it makes you wonder how, after 30+ years of printing registration codes inside PC games, such a system could fail so badly when translated to console games. "
Because consoles are so much easier to use than PCs?
I think the question that seems to have been over looked is, has Google removed the copyrighted content as requested by the copyright holder? Surely if they ignore that part of the request they would be liable?
Now from what I've read here it seems Google hasn't actually refused to comply with the request to remove copyrighted content. All they've refused is a request not to publish the DMCA.
Selling Patents And IP should Be Illegal
Patents and copyright are government sponsored licensed monopolies. Given that they are "licensed", meaning your monopoly doesn't last forever (in theory), it should be illegal to sell them on.
Think of it this way. You apply for a drivers licence, pay the fee, take the test and if you meet the criteria you get your drivers license. You are no however allowed to sell that license on. Now some people will say "yeah but that drivers license is unique to you and covers only you". Which is true.
However the whole point about copyright and patents is the IP created is unique. An inventor is granted a patent when the inventor creates a unique innovation nobody else would have thought of because it's not obvious. Which makes that invention or innovation unique to the inventor.
Of course the USPTO and the US government know full well the overwhelmingly vast majority of patents are not for unique innovations or inventions. Which is why they are moving to "first to file" rather than "first to invent". Which really brings into question the legitimacy of most patents.
IPMAX In Thunderdrome!
LOL! This whole IP ownership nonsense gets more ridiculous by the day. Before you know it every human on the planet will have to devise his/her/it's own language and totally unique name just to live without being sued. Of course we'll all have to pay each other royalties every time we talk to one another using the other's language.
Re:
IBM and some other company tried and failed.
(untitled comment)
So what this guy is saying that just by using consumer technologies, bought and paid for from a high street store, consumers are infringing on patents? God help us if this is allowed to set a precedent. Can you imagine how many patents the average consumer could be accused of violating? How many patents are involved in PCs, cars, TVs, mobile phones, land line phones, cookers, microwave ovens, iPods, MP3 players, bues, power tools, toys, trains and planes and any other consumer device or object you care to name?
The Amish life is looking appealing. Although I'm pretty sure someone has a patent on the horse and cart.
(untitled comment)
If you can't use information or knowledge then what's the point of knowing about it? And that's what IP laws do. They lock-down knowledge and stop people from using it. So it really makes no difference if people kept their knowledge secrete without IP protection. It's a rare event when there's only one person working on an idea. The world wouldn't suffer without IP laws.
Fill in the form and pay the money!
What these patents demonstrate is that anything can be patented if you fill in the form correctly and pay the money. Now who's patented blogging? Seriously that's got to be more lucrative than a temporary snow person.
Microsoft and UEFI
I predict an anti-trust law suit in the next few years when Windows 8 hits the stores. Apparently Microsoft are insisting OEMs and ODMs producing "Ultrabooks" who are participating in the Windows 8 logo program use a "security" feature of UEFI which requires an OS to be digitally signed with special keys. Which will of course lock out many GNU/Linux distributions from the mainstream PC market.
Format Rights?
I think this will come down to the format rights for the shows. If the Italian show infringes on the BBC's format rights then the BBC could have a case. As dumb as that sounds. I think the BBC are being really stupid here.
(untitled comment)
Just when I thought ad campaigns couldn't get any dumber than Microsoft's. I'm proven wrong.
Maybe they should move?
I think maybe all these little developers should move to a country where copyright is considered sufficient to protect original software works. Maybe then the US and other countries where software patents are problematic will get a clue.
(untitled comment)
Have the TechDirt staff been taking stupid pills lately? I don't think anybody calls e-mail "file sharing software". I think we know what sort of applications this university are talking about. Torrent clients and the like.
It's also not a bad thing to get people to learn about copyright, what is or isn't infringement. Isn't that part of what you guys try to do here. Make people aware?
This is not a violation of free speech.
If someone was running around a cemetery kicking over headstones wouldn't people expect the police and the courts to do something about it?
Defacing a memorial is just wrong no matter where it's done.
Re: Thin end of wedges
Simple fact of the matter is Nominet has always reserved the right to discontinue your domain name if you don't play by their rules. This is nothing new. Domain names so far as I know are effectively rented for a minimum of 2 years.
So who makes the final decision? Likely Nominet in the first instance. However they are a British company operating under British law. Which means they must abide by certain trading standards.
Now if the Police take improper action and pressure Nominet to take down a site without sufficient evidence purely on the say so of the MPAA. The you could conceivably complain to the Police Complaints Commission.
Where I find ICE particularly controversial, which is what the article seems to be comparing this policy review by Nominet to, is that ICE seems to operate beyond USA borders. Which is actually more of a case for each country managing it's own registries than it is an anti-IP case.
(untitled comment)
The UK is not the USA. Our Police aren't nearly as trigger happy as in the US. And technically speaking domain names could probably already be seized if there was evidence to support the seizure. This is not a new law or the establishment of a new body. This is an existing company reviewing it's policies to formalise what they're already doing.
Considering Nominet have stated civil requests should be excluded. Meaning the record industry can't just ask Nominet to do a seizure and they're considering an appeals process and have excluded requests that would suppress free speech. I think we should wait until the screw up before we shoot them.
I also think a few more people here should actually read the PDF.
"Draft recommendations – key principles
•
Nominet should have an abuse policy that specifically addresses criminal activity in its terms and conditions.
•
Nominet should be able to act under an expedited process to suspend domain names associated with serious crime when requested by a law enforcement agency.
•
An expedited procedure to suspend domain names should only be available where a) it is the last resort in dealing with the domain name, following requests with registrar, ISPs etc in the first instance or b) it is the most viable option to prevent imminent or ongoing serious consumer harm.
•
The policy should exclude suspension where issues of freedom of expression are central aspects of the disputed issue.
•
Nominet should consider establishing a registrant appeal mechanism.
•
When the policy is operational, Nominet should set up an independent panel to review how the policy is working.
•
Nominet should exclude civil or third party requests from this policy (which is focused on criminality), but these merit further discussion under the policy process.
•
Nominet should communicate the outcome of its policy development to Government to inform its own deliberations in this field."
You normally know when you need a drink.
Most of the water we need comes from our food. Anybody who actually drinks 8 pints of water everyday will likely suffer from water on the brain. Which can be fatal or leave lasting damage.
Play it safe and pay attention to your body. You normally know when you need a drink. Because you're thirsty!
Capitalism has always been broken.
Capitalism has always been broken. Capitalism in practice doesn't operate on the premise of doing enough to survive and grow at a sustainable rate. It operates on the principle of greed. Grab as much as you can, as fast as you can, from whomever you can.
It's the same flaw that brought the Soviet Union to it's knees. The only difference in a capitalist culture is the masses are kept in the dark by filling their brains with meaningless drivel on TV and pressure to always have the next upgrade.
The majority are so distracted by trivial material concerns they can't see the majority of the worlds wealth being concentrated increasingly in the hands of a minority of very, very few individuals.
By the time the world wakes up. It will be too late.
Drugs and Priracy Fund Terrorism
Drugs and Piracy fund terrorism. So clearly we must cut off the funding. So expect for searches of everybody's houses. Terrorists blend in and are thus indistinguishable from people. So every body is now guilt until proven not guilty yet. Innocent has been dropped as a verdict. We're all guilty of something.
(untitled comment)
"In the end, it makes you wonder how, after 30+ years of printing registration codes inside PC games, such a system could fail so badly when translated to console games. "
Because consoles are so much easier to use than PCs?
(untitled comment)
I think the question that seems to have been over looked is, has Google removed the copyrighted content as requested by the copyright holder? Surely if they ignore that part of the request they would be liable?
Now from what I've read here it seems Google hasn't actually refused to comply with the request to remove copyrighted content. All they've refused is a request not to publish the DMCA.
Wet wipes!
With every used laptop or PC you buy always remember to invest in some wet wipes.