2. Pretty easy most of the time. If I hold the rights to something, and didn't grant the right of use to you, it's generally infringing.
This is only true for you (the copyright holder) or me (the alleged infringer). Third parties (such as filelockers or ISPs) have no way of readily knowing whether I am you or whether I have been authorized by you (setting aside the issue of Fair Use).
If I see somebody driving a car on the street, I know whether that car is mine. I do not necessarily know whether the car is yours. Even if I do know the car is yours, I do not necessarily know whether you gave the driver permission to use it.
Should I be responsible for reporting your car stolen?
To prove trademark infringement, Bell will need to show dilution of their brand. In other words, they will have to provide the court with evidence indicating that video gamers are less likely to buy Bell helicopters as a result of them being shown in the game. Somehow I don't see that happening.
There is no reason why all copyrighted works shouldn't have a digitized copy registered with a national copyright office. After a suitable grace period, if a work hasn't been registered and a digitized copy submitted, it should be assumed that the creator expected the work to be public domain.
Copyright holders should also be expected to periodically re-register their works. It is ridiculous to have such a large percentage of the world's culture and knowledge in a state of limbo as to its accessibility, and for there to be such great uncertainty surrounding the legality of commonplace activities.
The article is a bit misleading in that Google/Motorola were the ones being sued by Microsoft in the Seattle case. It might be legitimate to criticize Google for their Florida and Wisconsin countersuits, but it was hardly an option for Google to not defend themselves in Washington.
"Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts.
"Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause.
"Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!"
One does not even need to have fiber available for this arbitrary limitation to impact them. The U-verse network cabling supports about 60Mbps, but over 50Mbps is dedicated to TV service. There is no option available to get the full bandwidth available, even if the customer is willing to sacrifice television service and pay for the "additional" network bandwidth.
To this end, I would like to state something that I hope is uncontroversial. The issues of authors are intertwined with the interests of the public. As the first beneficiaries of the copyright law, they are not a counterweight to the public interest but instead are at the very center of the equation. In the words of the Supreme Court, “[t]he immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an ‘author’s’ creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.” Congress has a duty to keep authors in its mind’s eye, including songwriters, book authors, filmmakers, photographers, and visual artists. A law that does not provide for authors would be illogical —hardly a copyright law at all.
No, this is not uncontroversial. That there may be an "immediate effect" of copyright law does not elevate that effect to being an "aim" of the legislation, nor does it place a "duty" upon Congress to continue the subvention of the effect.
A Department of Natural Resources might institute a program that places a bounty on certain pelts in an effort to control the animals' populations, which might have the immediate effect of providing income to some number of trappers and hunters, but that does not mean the government has a duty to consider the entitlement of those trappers and hunters to such income in administering the program -- that is not the "aim" of the program, even though it is an "effect".
Likewise, the provision for authors and creators should never be confused with the aim of copyright policy. It may be an effect of the policy that is instituted, but it is not the goal. The goal, according to the Supreme Court's statement, is "to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good".
The ISP would need to have three separate private keys: the user's, the VPN's, and the certificate authority's of the VPN. These are called private because they are never shared -- they are never sent through the ISP so there is no way for the ISP to ever "catch" them.
I'd recommend that you read up on TLS and VPN. VPN is designed precisely to avoid man-in-the-middle vulnerabilities, whether that "man" is a neighbor sniffing your wireless, a hotel access point, or a nefarious ISP.
You missed the key point that I conjecture the ISP is directly looking at upload/download ratio OR amount of data to determine torrenting or other unusual rates, then asking Big Media to examine the actual content for an opinion.
Two things. Firstly, torrenting is neither illegal nor against an ISP's terms of service; it is an efficient and popular means of transferring large amounts of data on the Internet.
Secondly, an ISP is not able to examine the actual content that you exchange through a VPN; that channel is encrypted. Your computer encrypts the data, sends it to your VPN, your VPN decrypts it, and sends it to the destination. Likewise, the destination sends the response (as cleartext) to your VPN, your VPN encrypts it, and forwards it to you. The destination site has no way of determining who you are, and your ISP has no way of knowing what you are sending or to whom you are sending it.
Transfer of any copyright needs to be "in writing and signed by the owner of the rights" (17 USC §204). It can not be accomplished as a "term of entry".
This preoccupation with source of funds misses a very important point...legal rights such as patents and copyrights are unrelated to who "fronted" any money. In the first instance, by law, rights go to inventors and authors, and not to their "patron(s)".
Nonetheless, the courts have recognized "shop rights" of employers to a presumed license to use inventions that their employees were hired to develop. And since in the case of federally funded research the employer is effectively the public taxpayer,...
Re: Re: Re: If not an "unwarranted burden" for MPAA, then
Re: If not an "unwarranted burden" for MPAA, then
If I see somebody driving a car on the street, I know whether that car is mine. I do not necessarily know whether the car is yours. Even if I do know the car is yours, I do not necessarily know whether you gave the driver permission to use it.
Should I be responsible for reporting your car stolen?
A tough sell
To prove trademark infringement, Bell will need to show dilution of their brand. In other words, they will have to provide the court with evidence indicating that video gamers are less likely to buy Bell helicopters as a result of them being shown in the game. Somehow I don't see that happening.
Re: Public Airwaves
Agreed. My vote is to hand the abandoned frequencies over to packet radio.
(untitled comment)
There is no reason why all copyrighted works shouldn't have a digitized copy registered with a national copyright office. After a suitable grace period, if a work hasn't been registered and a digitized copy submitted, it should be assumed that the creator expected the work to be public domain.
Copyright holders should also be expected to periodically re-register their works. It is ridiculous to have such a large percentage of the world's culture and knowledge in a state of limbo as to its accessibility, and for there to be such great uncertainty surrounding the legality of commonplace activities.
(untitled comment)
The article is a bit misleading in that Google/Motorola were the ones being sued by Microsoft in the Seattle case. It might be legitimate to criticize Google for their Florida and Wisconsin countersuits, but it was hardly an option for Google to not defend themselves in Washington.
Re:
They provide links to Chilling Effects so that consumers can more easily find pirated content. ;)
Re: Almost done?
3A should be IVEHF
5D is then FRRQ
Also, 2D should be GURJROBSYVSR, not GURJROBSYVPR.
Role reversal
"Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts.
"Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause.
"Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!"
-- an advertisement from 1984
(untitled comment)
One does not even need to have fiber available for this arbitrary limitation to impact them. The U-verse network cabling supports about 60Mbps, but over 50Mbps is dedicated to TV service. There is no option available to get the full bandwidth available, even if the customer is willing to sacrifice television service and pay for the "additional" network bandwidth.
Re:
Indeed. And the traditional way of ensuring accountability for such abuse is to actually prohibit it in the wording of the legislation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They're not public interest groups, they're company interest groups
But that is what the DMCA anti-circumvention provision does: ignores the content but prohibits accessing the delivery medium.
Re: Imitation
They both look like 2.5-D versions of Spy Hunter, which people were playing written 30 years ago.
Re: If all discoveries should be patentable...
... then if I come up with an idea for a new law then I should hold a monopoly on that law -- and the government prohibited from enacting it.
Imaginary property
The converse of "real" is "imaginary", to my mind a more apt modifier.
Entitlement is controversial
From the (expected) testimony:
No, this is not uncontroversial. That there may be an "immediate effect" of copyright law does not elevate that effect to being an "aim" of the legislation, nor does it place a "duty" upon Congress to continue the subvention of the effect.
A Department of Natural Resources might institute a program that places a bounty on certain pelts in an effort to control the animals' populations, which might have the immediate effect of providing income to some number of trappers and hunters, but that does not mean the government has a duty to consider the entitlement of those trappers and hunters to such income in administering the program -- that is not the "aim" of the program, even though it is an "effect".
Likewise, the provision for authors and creators should never be confused with the aim of copyright policy. It may be an effect of the policy that is instituted, but it is not the goal. The goal, according to the Supreme Court's statement, is "to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The ISP would need to have three separate private keys: the user's, the VPN's, and the certificate authority's of the VPN. These are called private because they are never shared -- they are never sent through the ISP so there is no way for the ISP to ever "catch" them.
I'd recommend that you read up on TLS and VPN. VPN is designed precisely to avoid man-in-the-middle vulnerabilities, whether that "man" is a neighbor sniffing your wireless, a hotel access point, or a nefarious ISP.
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Secondly, an ISP is not able to examine the actual content that you exchange through a VPN; that channel is encrypted. Your computer encrypts the data, sends it to your VPN, your VPN decrypts it, and sends it to the destination. Likewise, the destination sends the response (as cleartext) to your VPN, your VPN encrypts it, and forwards it to you. The destination site has no way of determining who you are, and your ISP has no way of knowing what you are sending or to whom you are sending it.
Re: Terms of entry
Transfer of any copyright needs to be "in writing and signed by the owner of the rights" (17 USC §204). It can not be accomplished as a "term of entry".
Re: Re: Re:
Nonetheless, the courts have recognized "shop rights" of employers to a presumed license to use inventions that their employees were hired to develop. And since in the case of federally funded research the employer is effectively the public taxpayer,...