Actually, as a former Military Police, I object to your characterization of myself as a "Cop Hater" The objection is not to trying to keep LEO's safe, but to all the pitfalls that this could introduce. The idea is that a police officer has to be able to swear, under oath, that the person in the courtroom is the person that they ticketed.
What this is all about is "Fair Use" which is allowed under USC (United States Code, also known as Federal Law) title 17. (BTW USC Title 17 is the actual Copyright Law, here in the U.S.)
from 17 U.S.C. § 107
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
The Author's Guild sued claiming that Google's actions constituted a violation of copyright under U.S.C. Title 17. Google's defense was based on the "Fair Use Doctrine" as stated above.
THE JUDGE AGREED WITH GOOGLE
It IS NOT "whacko logic" If you would actually READ the judgement, you will find that there are several "litmus tests" that a fair use defense must pass to be upheld.
Judge Chin, in his rulling, dicusses these "litmus tests" and how Google has met them, thereby proving their defense of the issue an winning the lawsuit
Now, while you may not aggree with the judgement, it an actual, honset-to-god binding legal judgement. The Author's Guild has elected to excerise their right of appeal, however, having only filed a "Notice Of Appeal" and not a full brief, no one knows what points in the disputed ruling they are contesting. This is perfectly fine. Now, if on appeal, this judgement is reversed, then Google will have to deal with that. If, on appeal, the judgement is upheld, then the Author's Guild will have to burn more money for futher appeals. If you actually do a little research ibnto current copyright cases, you will discover that after the 1st appeal, the plantiff's chances dim (absent obvious and glaring faults in the originaly judgement.) I commend to you a study of the whole Prenda Law traigi-comedy. One of the funniest excecises in futility I have ever seen Arisotle said "We may conclude then that the law is reason without passion, and that it is therefore preferable to any individual." It is this viewpoint that forms one of the basis of our Judicial system We just need to wait and see
"Do you know how to make a Stradivarius violin? Neither does anyone else. Why? There was no protection for creations in his day so he like everyone else protected their creations by keeping them secret."
Actually, if you bother to do a little research and learn a bit ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius" for a start), the reason that Stradivarius is so well regarded is the perception that he was a master craftsman who used his knowledge of wood and technique to craft a violin with superior sound generation characteristics.
As the above referenced article shows, the Stradivari have been rather heavily studied to determine just what exactly makes them so special. This research has been somewhat inconclusive. It's not as if the family "invented" a process that produced superior violins.
They just knew how to build them based on techniques and information that had been and were in general circulation, The fact that it seems like some sort of mysterious "knowledge" that they alone had is merely a reflection of a lack of understanding of the actual process.
Your comment about, "we force inventors underground like Stradivarius", in view of real, factual understanding and information is rather weak.
I do believe in patents. They do, as you noted, serve a purpose. However, the issue is not patents, but the flaws in the governing system that permit it to be abused and twisted, thereby damaging it's usefulness.
I do appreciate the link to the Professional Inventors Alliance and will be giving it a more studied look.
However, while skimming the page on "True Reform", I did see "The Constitution guarantees inventors exclusive rights to their inventions. There is no requirement that the inventor commercialize the invention."
This is true, however, have you contemplated the possibility of abusive scenarios inherent in the second line?
It's not actually a bad post, once you filter out the knee jerk reactive tone. I believe that you are capable of creating honest, productive discussion as long as you avoid the whole "us vs them" mentality trap.
Once again, I thank you for the link and I look forward to being able to actually sit and study it. My first skim did show me a number of points that I am, at least, in sympathy with
What is shaking the foundations of our social compacts (now doesn't that just sound pretentious)is the fact that human communications have reached a real time reaction speed to our world/environment that is faster than our institutions can respond to.
In the 1969, Laurence Peter & Raymond Hull published a book called "The Peter Principle" which is most often expressed as "Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle)
The issue is that governments do NOT see themselves as "employees", per se. Members of a government have a tendency to see themselves as, somehow, indispensable, to the continued existence of their polity.
What they can forget is that their power was is not some inherent gift, but a function of the process that got them power in the first place.
Now, technology gives the governed the ability to implement process change on a basic level, bypassing the classic channels of control that governments traditonally use to maintain themselves.
This comment by Erodogan is a knee jerk fear response to the governed populace registering a protest in a manner reminiscent of the start of the "Arab Spring"
Well, you just basically stated my thoughts, but more succinctly. I do understand the bigger house issue. Currently house hunting for a place that has a Great Room where I can bulid floor to ceiling bookshelves with one of those awesome oak ladder/brass rail setups. Baen Books, you're the devil ;)
Why don't we actually set up a meeting, like Mike wrote. Invite EVERYBODY! make it as public as possible, get the buzz out like we did for SOPA/PIP. Put it live on the net, and then, when their punk coward butts don't show, we crucify them via the net
This is taken from Robert Heinlen's book "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" It stands for "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". Basically, for those of you that just seem to be floored by your internal "divide by Zero" error, here's an example of how it works. You offer a FREE Buffet (food) but the person MUST buy 2 drinks (liquid) to get the FREE buffett. The drinks are priced so as to cover the total cost of the drinks, themselves, AND the avergage cost of food that one customer eats along with a profit margin. The !!FOOD!! is free, you make your money off the "DRINKS". Apply this to your issues with "free" and "business models". hopefully this will get through to those who just don't seem to get it
The rulings that you reference all concern "physical access" to a "brick-and-mortar establishment". This has nothing to do with that. Ms. Young can access the internet. What Ms. Young is upset about is that Facebook has exercised it's right, under agreed upon terms and conditions, to ban her for harassment. This has nothing to do with her "constitutional" rights of the ADA
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Johnny Shade.