When we finally get an Information Bill of Rights, I hope it includes something like: "People may record their own experiences for whatever reason they may choose and such recordings shall be treated as part of their papers and effects pursuant to the Fourth Amendment."
the Internet is basically US territory. Everything we do, we do on the Internet. I can't think of anything stupider than inviting warfare on one's own territory.
"Zero tolerance" is a form of extremism. Just like "never again," the attempt to absolutely prevent the recurrence of something bad that happened inevitably creates other tragedies.
If the content had some fair market value as determined by other transactions and it was licensed for nothing to a campaign, that's the value of the contribution.
If a campaign infringes and the rights holder does not assert their rights, I suspect an electoral law judge would see it as a contribution.
If a campaign infringes and the rights holder does assert their rights and demands payment, let the games begin!
I suspect you'd have to modify your brain to interpret those signals as well. Otherwise, the same neurons firing would go to the same places in your brain. You'd just see the same red.
if the material is covered under fair dealing, then yes, the argument fails. But it is an interesting angle. If someone did have to license material for a campaign and did not do so, I agree it would count as a contribution in kind.
FDA won't approve anyone making the old version because it isn't safe and now there's a safer alternative. That isn't a patent issue. This decision was probably in the works but they rushed it to coincide with the patent expiring to stop anyone from manufacturing it the old way.
I feel ripped off by this article. It did not deliver it's promised dosage of anti-patent content. Articles that stretch their point like this don't help the cause, they hurt it, and make it hard for me to get friends interested.
Absolutely! Allowing strong encryption is a direct consequence of your right to remain silent. That's one reason why encryption was allowed domestically but you were forbidden to export it.
Re: So, anyone who still believes that "1984" is fiction?
Apparently Amazon doesn't think so, since it erased 1984 from Kindles.
(untitled comment)
"Is there any method of communication that is not being monitored?"
Yes, the old fashioned way: meeting in parking garages wearing trench coats.
(untitled comment)
Nice article, Mike. Can we make this required reading for our would-be protectors?
(untitled comment)
When we finally get an Information Bill of Rights, I hope it includes something like: "People may record their own experiences for whatever reason they may choose and such recordings shall be treated as part of their papers and effects pursuant to the Fourth Amendment."
(untitled comment)
the Internet is basically US territory. Everything we do, we do on the Internet. I can't think of anything stupider than inviting warfare on one's own territory.
(untitled comment)
"Zero tolerance" is a form of extremism. Just like "never again," the attempt to absolutely prevent the recurrence of something bad that happened inevitably creates other tragedies.
(untitled comment)
Next up on the Authors Guild hit list: library card catalogs.
(untitled comment)
I have no problem if companies want to develop proprietary communications technologies using the internet. Just keep them off Port 80.
Re: google glass panic
If we ban cameras, then people with photographic memories will be like gods. They must be the ones behind this.
(untitled comment)
Interesting article involving Lehman Brothers:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-naked-swindle-20100405
Re: Extending drug patents?
The new patent is only on the new delivery method. That's why this is a bad example of evergreening.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, yes, it's definitely tricky. But if I were that campaign's opponent, and I thought it would be beneficial, I wouldn't let that stop me.
Re: Re:
If the content had some fair market value as determined by other transactions and it was licensed for nothing to a campaign, that's the value of the contribution.
If a campaign infringes and the rights holder does not assert their rights, I suspect an electoral law judge would see it as a contribution.
If a campaign infringes and the rights holder does assert their rights and demands payment, let the games begin!
Re:
That link has nothing to do with evergreening.
(untitled comment)
This news has the unmistakable stank of Prince. I'm sure he's behind it somehow, because he's a real artist.
(untitled comment)
I suspect you'd have to modify your brain to interpret those signals as well. Otherwise, the same neurons firing would go to the same places in your brain. You'd just see the same red.
(untitled comment)
if the material is covered under fair dealing, then yes, the argument fails. But it is an interesting angle. If someone did have to license material for a campaign and did not do so, I agree it would count as a contribution in kind.
(untitled comment)
FDA won't approve anyone making the old version because it isn't safe and now there's a safer alternative. That isn't a patent issue. This decision was probably in the works but they rushed it to coincide with the patent expiring to stop anyone from manufacturing it the old way.
I feel ripped off by this article. It did not deliver it's promised dosage of anti-patent content. Articles that stretch their point like this don't help the cause, they hurt it, and make it hard for me to get friends interested.
(untitled comment)
If mortgages were like music files, don't you think the banks would have found a way to copy them already?
(untitled comment)
Absolutely! Allowing strong encryption is a direct consequence of your right to remain silent. That's one reason why encryption was allowed domestically but you were forbidden to export it.