Good. Great. Awesome. Sue the hell out of them if they can and lets not exclude damages and suffering of which there have been much. Any secrecy at all at the policy making level is absurd in a democratic society.
If they were negotiating some boring trade agreement then they would have nothing to fear? Its likely something else is being negotiated and the bargaining chips seem to be the basic freedoms every individual cherishes.
It has always been my opinion that any trade agreement that citizens/firms will be held accountable for MUST be publicly debated with FULL disclosure or it would be (completely, 100%) unconstitutional. Whatever nonsense rational defending such behavior should be not only ignored but hopefully prosecuted/impeached as the dangerous tyrannical tendencies they are.
Denying even one citizen a current copy (within a few days or better yet a web page updated daily) of such a treaties converts all the efforts done by such organizations/government into 'bad faith' negotiations.
All of the trade-associations/congress/EU might profess devoutly that they were only following some boring standard policy and had the legal standing to do so. When pressed at the impossibility of such behavior by a public body they might further whine about some imaginary terrorist threat. (As if that should make any difference in an open democratic process?!)
Public Safety is as nonsensical as any idiotic reason to deny public input. It can be easily reasoned that lack of openness would be a threat to public safety. Would not any public official acting in such a non open way be terrorizing the democratic process?
Worse is the normal habit of government and trade-associations to ignore public input. Its common that treaty-negotiators or government-agencies/departments/officials will ignore tens of thousands of valid citizens letters against some idiotic treaty in favor of a few biased corporate opinions.
Have no confidence in the EU or US court system to make any unbiased ruling in regards to the unconstitutionality of any secretly generated legislation. Especially in the US... When was the last time anyone heard of ANY act or bill that was ruled unconstitutional?
Reactionary,
AC pointed out that no good will come of any order of unmasking the secrecy or openness because the public will still be omitted from the negotiation table. The problems that manifested such behavior are still present and active... Voters are still likely electing the wrong people.
Another AC said “In the world of trade agreements, where logic is a city on the moon,” is so true although it might be added that democracy is another civilization in a 'galaxy far away'.
It seems that GEMA is another example of how monopolies naturally run away from logic and usefulness. Their activities don't make much sense in the way that it should support the various cultural groups that make up a healthy society. It is not a far toss to say that their method of operations suppress the spread and creation of new culture.
Since GEMA is a government granted for profit monopoly its likely to be just as belligerent, corrupt and horrible as the great majority of other monopolies in history. Zero surprise. Whats to like about them at all? Seemingly another music licensing organization that operates more like organized crime than a legitimate business in good standing.
GEMA makes their own rules seemingly answering to a small self profiteering group. Their enforcement is guilty until proven otherwise. Their fee structure seems more like a communist's states policy on public gatherings. (that is that they are illegal/prohibited) Their revenue distribution favors some groups over the expense of others tossing out any ideas of equality or evenhandedness. Apparent dictatorial management policies with no control of music usage by original authors. Charge/pay-up first and only possibly allow exceptions/refunds later. (maybe)
“,music-makers don't sign over ownership of their music upon joining GEMA, they sign over their usage rights—the right to legally manage and collect licensing fees for playback, reproduction and broadcast of their music”. Whats the difference between ownership and the way they define “usage rights”? This kind of legal nonsense is the same as doublespeak and congressional bill/act naming as neither says/implies what they actually do. Its the same as lying with clever words.
Why pay for a song you could not sing or play? Why pay for a video that anyone could not perform a skit from in public or at work or school? Why pay for a book that one cannot copy and pass-out whole chapters just to discuss pertinent topics within groups? (In person or on the net.) Etc. (rant) We do so only because of the current copyright based monopolies are the only source of such culture. Free market and Public Domain Rights are faltering.
It might be expected that GEMA's revenue from live events will go way down. With such putative fee structure its impossible to see how small live event clubs can survive. Its hard to understand how they can promote music and culture with such policies. Such a policy will likely destroy an entire culture and the industries (clubs, parties, etc) built up around it.
Lets put this in terms closer to home. If one puts on a party and wants either a DJ and or a live band in a cornfield they would have to pay for how much square footage? By their rules they expect a fully sold-out-house/attendance for each venue...
What charges would a street performer pay? The size of the sidewalk or more likely the whole street would be expected to be the size of the venue? Would everyone who walked by have to be considered an audience member even if they hated the music? What life destroying charges or law suits would be inflicted upon the homeless street performers just trying to get a few quarters tossed in a hat?
What about the songs groups of people sing when they get together? What about the songs and lyrics protesters sing or shout out? A lot of this reminds me of the US state of Washington's very draconian dance tax. It would still (not?) be a shocker if GEMA charged more if the audience started swaying to the tune and extra fees if the started to dance.
What is really the worst effect of GEMA's club over-pricing structure is the limiting the basic human activities like freedom of expression and the freedom of association. What is being hurt most are the various cultures that any society supports. Songs, Sining and music are some of the most basic cultural items in existence today. To regulate their usage with fees, taxes and other limitations can be described as cultural insanity.
Small nightclubs with live events must be on someones shiitlist. The likely consequence of this policy is to drive such events underground to invitation only hidden clubs. The
German local (beer) bar scene is a large tourist attraction and in no way can GEMA be helping this industry. None.
GEMA seems to be just another selfish for profit monopoly in business for itself and only for itself. Its increasing demand for a more control and profit might even destroy the very thing it makes money off of.
Of course the real problem is that Germany has similar eternal copyright laws/monopolies. If the terms were much shorter the sharing of culture would be a much more elegant/smoother event.
Reactionary.
PaulT mentions an interesting cultural affect of the licensing structure of charging for each song stored on a DJ's laptop. Diverse culture will end up supporting small slices of pop culture under GEMA rules. Its cultural warfare! Sonic Attack! Run for your soundproof bunkers.
Steel's brazen use of the word “pirate” is surely just as childish as in any other case. Its irresponsible and unprofessional because it might poison the available jury pool or easily swayed judge. The “word” pirate is a presupposition of guilt associated with bad things of which the accused have never done. It would be a great idea for any interviewer to challenge it by asking exactly what the use of the word “pirate” means. Its a likely form of slander that should be a proprietorial offense.
Its important that the idiocy be called out in the open at every level. Its obvious hypocrisy that they would call anyone “pirates” when at the same finger-pointing 5th grade brat/bully level they could themselves be called “pirates” for endorsing legislation that “steals” culture from the Public Domain Rights.
AF holdings... hmmmm.
Guess; 30-160 million Prendda profit (plus expenses) (to unknown foreign offshore holding shell firms?)from copyporn trolling. Who knows for real? The offshore holding company is just to sophisticated an operation for just 1 to 15 million. (keep in mind that hiding cash from government or hostile adversaries is likely a good thing regardless of their political standing/position/opinion)
Have been absorbing a lot of the Prendda news lately. Heard lots of great things but so far its limited to court procedure related violations. Its a good start and probably a good thing. Will munch much popcorn as the case(s) prosecution closes in for the bite.
Unless Prendda gets the evidence tossed there seems no escaping some of these charges. The real fun is that there seems so much more going on than just these simple court procedure violations.
It seems that the real problem Prendda has... is that they have too many irons (lawsuits) in the fire. Especially since its their business to put them (lawsuits) in there (the fire). Expect Prendda to step on their foot(s) in the future. Each step and misstep might lead to other discoveries. It could even cascade. (the depth of this rabbit hole is unmeasured, as of yet.)
Prendda seems to have attempted various damage control maneuvers most notably was the closing of several vulnerable cases except some that were to late. Expect more of that along with an ultimate effort in the court of appeals. Every step along the way will be one more revealing aspect of the mysterious unknown Prendda rabbit hole.
It is some disappointment that they still are in the lucrative money making business of copyporn trolling? This industry needs to be quashed with a (few?) good civil lawsuit(s) at the multi million dollar level. Wouldn't this be taking advantage of religious and or puritanical attitudes?
Now is the time. (?!) Because... they wont take the stand or wont answer much in their defense. Since because of the (many?) missteps made by Prendda the court procedure violations might affect the civil trial they possibly would be good defense based questions. This would possibly be a discrimination case and it would be significant if they broke the law or court procedures going out of their way to discriminate?
They (Prendda) might be more worried about the likely criminal charges of falsifying/altering/forging court records and or documents. (and other stuff, its not as if anyone would know how deep the rabbit hole is) This behavior might continue until the statute of limitations runs out which is various in all the states except the fed. And. If they are not... then there is more evidence or perjury to fuel the court procedures violations cases.
All that is needed is a totally pissed off, beyond any recrimination, citizen that somehow understands the religious and or puritanical bulls eye that they have been targeted by. If they were hit by some legal 'rock' thrown by an overzealous law firm... (looking only for profit and willing to break the law to do so?) then they might have a significant case. (...)
One might want to dismiss all of this(?) in some claim of businesses as usual and thats the way to make money. If only money were the criteria of success (as a moral and intellectual society we do have some growth potential here) then thats fine. But. There are many social and cultural complications. What is important is intent to harm.
Example; Steel used the word “piracy” which might be considered slander at best especially if used before a defendant has revived a verdict. Also. The words “theft” and or “stolen” do not apply for copyright violations.
Intellectual Property Owners Association. (IPOA) Another cold heartless organization bent on destroying life giving/saving/supporting/nurturing culture to a vulnerable group of people?
Its a crying shame that such beneficial culture can be labeled a fair use exception. What is this deal with exceptions anyway and how do we allow such a valuable support society be cubbyholed as an 'exception'? Its an important goal that fair use be fully enshrined as Fair Use Rights.
There is no right of profit over disadvantaged groups. There is no right to deny them a support group that has existed, developed and even flourished. The population of blind is 0.08% (USA 2006 from NAMCS) thats not even one tenth of one percent. Explain how this tiny minuscule group size is going to cut into anyones profits.
Only ~10% of the blind know how to read braille and the rest depend on other means of reading like Books for the Blind or a computer that reads text aloud. Forcing the blind to pay for performance rights or whatever copywrong (right) scheme to profit off of the disabled is just too much.
The blind have enough problems because (mostly) many people don't want to or cannot care for disabled who are often pushed onto government support. Where is the IPOA not adding to this incredible burden that the blind already carry?
And. The IPOA is a collection of big, large, huge, gigantic corporations. Apple, IBM, Proctor & Gamble, Microsoft, Dow Chemical and on and on. Its clear that these corporations didn't give nary a whit about the society and culture of support the blind rely on everyday. Maybe they felt that .08% was not large enough a group to take seriously?
Arrrg.
Reading the IPOA 'recommendation' letter to the USPTO was depressing/boring and seemed only to further cubbyhole and diminish the Fair Use Rights of the disabled. The IPOa seemed insistent on not just labeling them “exceptions” but further restricted the Fair Use Rights of disabled to “limitations and exceptions” (or L/E) as if “exceptions wasn't enough.
The letter speaks of “dangerous precedent” and that may just be true. Since copyright has grown into a law that kills off culture and society rather than the additive plus it was to have been they might be worried. And. They should. (If voters actually learn higher than two candidates.)
Furthermore. What idea does the IPOA have to actually connect the two words Intellectual and Property. Ideas are not property and its kind of disgusting to hear some (obviously culturally blind) association make the association. (pun)
If justice were a lady... then, about 7 months before repealing all the copyright changes since its inception, the DoJ will be ordered to surprise search every IPOA members corporation headquarters for copyright violations (guaranteed there will be many as the laws are way too broad). It would be nice to have official complaints and or tip-offs to be legit.
The recent trend in treaties has been to include an fully operating kitchen sink and a three car garage deep into the small print. This is done thorough unnecessary complexity born from secret back room negotiations (remember ACTA?) that find ways to insert such tricky pitfalls. These economic traps are of course benefiting only the few who can afford such a princely prize “as such”. (literary kick.)
The “investor-state dispute resolution” clause/paragraph is a magnificently princely prize. To force any nation to bow down to some outside (name it what you will) court would be the envy of any kingdom or tyrant. Its sure to have taken several high paid lawyers and diplomats a month or two to come up with the seemingly innocent name of “investor-state dispute resolution” which slips by the 'future problem radar' we all have at some level.
For a nation to stay a nation it has to use its own courts. Their is no sovereignty without sovereignty. When any nation gives up on the right of its own destiny is it really an independent nation or just some vassal of another entity. The question is; What to name this entity? Who controls this globeilization thing? Why do we pander “as such”?
Its silly to depend on the impartiality of some outside court. Most nations have enough problems trying to keep a lid on corruption in their own courts let alone some super powerful world dominating trade relations court.
The tendency for every nation/kingdom/tyrant/democracy/communist-state to attempt at every angle/moment/way the suborning/corrupting/swaying of such a powerful body is 100% completely guaranteed as it would be addictive. Its a guaranteed way of loosing a chunk of international sovereignty “as such”. (if not all)
Considering the current way of formulating and writing these Free Trade Agreements (FTA) its kind of silly to put in the word “Free”. Sounds like another literary fiction license being used to promote... whatever is in the fine print of such treaties.
One might consider where and how these treaties are made. Huge multinational corporation representatives get together in sequestered (guarded) private locations and hash out the wording details. It should be, absolutely no surprise, that the fine print will come out in favor or this group.
Think of the power of such groups as entire cities are put under what amounts to prison lock-down during the negotiations and protesters are rounded up and put in jail. Don't waste time considering the faint whimpers of impartiality from any corporate sponsored group “as such”.
The names of such groups are irrelevant as they change and morph into whatever view thats acceptable. Power is its own aim and desire. Never let it out of the bag “as such”.
Intent is all fine and nice but its the unintended meanings that can slip in when loosely worded law is endorsed/accepted/used. In the US its already a huge constitutional problem that many agencies have secret interpretations of loosely written legislation.
The term/phrase “as such” is unknown presently and can not be defined. The danger is that language and individual word meanings change over time and some new definition might pop up. Its so loosly applied its easy to just stick it onto the end of any statement without it overtly changing the meaning/gist/idea of the sentence “as such”.
The reverse might also be true? Adding the phrase “as such” onto the end of a sentence/thought/idea/meaning might also mean that there was more implied than just what was conveyed. If the phrase “as such” is added then what if another idea/thought/meaning “wasn't such”? Do we look deeper into the sentence to define “such”?
If we don't let “it” out of the bag “as such” the how about when “it” “is not such”? The real hoodwink (bag over the head) would be defining what “such” is. Judging from the integrity of the groups that fornicate such wording its likely to become some 'gotcha' clause.
The “such” possibly described into this essay was that its not a good idea to blindly follow what someone/firm/corporation/government/etc says and to look at the fine print before signing anything stupid. However the proponents of TPP, ACTA, TRIPS and other international treaties would loudly (and likely) that they “weren't such”.
They would argue insistently and belligerently with white robes and halos over their heads that everything is fine and this is just an exception and not of any harm. (insert cigarette augment here) Relax. Take it eeeeeeeasy. Just sign here. It'll all be over in a minuet.
Reactionary,
“Preferably, investment chapters will be rejected in their entirety, as they are becoming a corporate sword of Damocles that hangs over the head of rich and poor governments alike.” Oops. Did we already sign the TRIPS agreement? Are the farm animals running loose already?
“,legitimate expectations for profit,” now thats a phrase that should be connected to the loss of Public Domain Rights through trademark and copyright law.
Yeah for New Zealand! Always thought that software patents are 200 years too early or even a never viable concept. Code is already covered under the already overpowering copyright monopoly.
Intent is all fine and nice but its the unintended meanings that can slip in when loosely worded law is endorsed/accepted/used. In the US its already a huge constitutional problem that many agencies have secret interpretations of loosely written legislation.
The term/phrase “as such” is unknown presently and can not be defined. The danger is that language and individual word meanings change over time and some new definition might pop up. Its so loosly applied its easy to just stick it onto the end of any statement without it overtly changing the meaning/gist/idea of the sentence “as such”.
The reverse might also be true? Adding the phrase “as such” onto the end of a sentence/thought/idea/meaning might also mean that there was more implied than just what was conveyed. If the phrase “as such” is added then what if another idea/thought/meaning “wasn't such”? Do we look deeper into the sentence to define “such”?
If we don't let “it” out of the bag “as such” the how about when “it” “is not such”? The real hoodwink (bag over the head) would be defining what “such” is. Judging from the integrity of the groups that fornicate such wording its likely to become some 'gotcha' clause.
To point; A possible angle of any software applicant (however obvious) might be to say that their method was NOT a software patent. That its “wasn't such”.
It was always clear that the War on Terror has been a total waste of money. Its likely that Bush pushed the imaginary panic button multiple times with the equally panicky fed agencies adding to the freaking out thing.
There will always be Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs or Fruity loops people out there no matter how many trillions or how many freedoms or expressions are sacrificed on the alter of terror. Its a human condition that's lived with by everyone.
The real problem is that modern communications make every event a backyard gossiping event. What was once a local news sharing event the over the fence news sharing time has now taken on national/international scope. Instead of the local car crash that killed 6 teens we now have the crazy psycho killer chicken who used a shotgun to massacre school kids. Of which we are helpless to gossip about being the human information animals we are.
It really does look like our elected/appointed officials are running around with their little chicken heads cut off. Like a squabble of Chicken Littles screaming that the sky is falling. Surely there will be more idiots with bombs and other excited decomposition devices in the future.
Deal with it and don't ask for expensive and complicated toys to play with. Mommy and Daddy cant afford it.
Since this was an FBI area of jurisdiction it interesting how they treated the local fusion center. It was not in the loop of command. An irrelevant extremity not to be given a high enough security clearance to even know about a local bombing in its own area of preview. Do we have a (classic) jurisdiction fight between the FBI and Homeland Security? Always very bad for citizens who happen to be trapped between department rivalries.
Makes one wonder how the fusion center employees (let alone the upper management) felt when watching the news feeds as the incident played out. Did they feel useless, ineffective or left out? Who knows.
Why do the Fusion Centers exist? Possibly only for patronage jobs. Good paying patronage jobs are always at a premium and never a surplus. In fact if one actually believed Keynesian economic theory its actually beneficial to the GDP measurement. (GDP adds all government spending into the good side of the force)
Reactionary,
uma; Libertarian. If the average voter would learn to count above two parties that would be an improvement. Voter awareness... a lost key of American national success.
The Dems and Repubs are like wraiths that change shape and form with public awareness. They will only change when another party starts to take away votes. And. Then they will, (change) because of the 'addiction to the spotlight' theory.
Its kind of funny about Disney trying to appropriate a holiday name. The guys in the copywong department need to put in some overtime to keep the nonsense down. They do look embarrassing from this viewpoint.
Disney attempting to trademark Día De Los Muertos is quite similar to trying to copyright the holiday of Halloween and its cultural festival of trick or treating activities.
Who would purchase food from a media firm?
Rant on Trademark law,
Disney wants a Trademark on the entire world. No news there. Its a small world (after all). Trademark law has morphed from the original intent to protect a consumer from misidentifying a product made by someone other than who consumer expects. Its supposed to be a legal device to prevent fraud.
Where does locking up widespread American Culture come under the heading of fraud prevention? Using/Abusing trademark law for taking away many of the cartoon/comic hero's from many generations is an unmeasurable loss to society and its various cultures.
Just putting up a Batman, Goofy, Micky Mouse, or Sailor Moon shrine page with some pictures of the characters and maybe some bio and some important episode outlines is a trademark offense capable of tossing the entire family into the street. The characters themselves are both copyrighted and trademarked.
Trademark, along with copyright, law are Weapons of Mass Cultural Destruction. Even the very American Culture of freedom and expression are on the bargaining table as we speak/write/post.
Trademark law has become so powerful and dangerous that even when a firms products are used illegally for fraud both they and the authorities don't bother to make criminal accusations but use trademark violations instead. Example;
Trademark law has grown so out of control that even words from the dictionary are under attack. A trademark is supposed to only covering the logo and not ever the printed words. (with some exceptions) Even another advertiser should be able to use a competitors logo and name so that a potential customer can recognized which brand is being used in any comparison.
Kara Mizunashi san desu; “I saved myself $60 so I can invest in a game from a better company.” Ditto! (copy that, the same)
Dont care about whatever issuers EA went through to beef up their infrastructure to handle the DRM always on nonsense. Its irrelevant to the fact that any DRM'd program is dependent on the health and success of the technology and the company/firm that controls it.
EA has not been doing well as a company. Its earnings are falling despite all the poor people purchasing SimCity6. The DRM program looks like a loss for EA and its customers. What happens when EA goes under or is bought out by some random firm looking to recoup their buyout expenses?
Its bad enough that consumers are harmed/dissatisfied/denied-use/anoyed by the obvious DRM that EA put in/on SimCity.
Its dangerous to the existence of companies rely on DRM'd software. It should be an entry on the stock portfolio about how much a firm depends on DRM'd software licenses just to get a better risk profile on that firm.
Why is the House Judiciary Committee involved with copyright reform? From the majority of these 'witnesses' the only consensus will be not in favor of cultural and public domain expansions. The unnecessary legal constraints upon the daily lives of ordinary citizens using normal ordinary appliances and or computers and or cell phones and or cameras (converging technologies?) ARE the problem.
These very copyright laws have intruded upon everyday, every hour, lives in ways the Bill/Act sponsor's could/would/might never realize. It seems that every web page is a potential source for accusations based on downloading a picture or video clip.
Worse is the monitoring of usage further eroding Privacy Rights. The default method of viewing a YouTube clip is that whenever one wanted to watch a clip they had to access the site. Digging in the web browser catch for a file transfer is classic but that would be prohibited if most firms could find a way to force/cough-up a few revenue dollars from the typical site user.
Witness #1 Jon Baumgarten; Might probably want to appear impartial while framing 'cultural arresting' law/penalties/fines/taxes on the entire body of copyrighted material. This witness is most likely to be a drain on the various cultures of society.
Witness #2 Laura N. Gasaway?; Board member of the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). A big broker of licenses. Great! Another industry insider to tell us how we need less culture and more loss to Public Domain Rights. Possibly in a direct but biased way.
Witness #3; Daniel Gervais. Director of international relations at CCC, head of the Copyright Projects section of the WIPO, a panelist (domain name) at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. This person seems more like a hired copyright corporate gunslinger than anyone who would explain how culture, innovation and technological advancement is stunted by current copyright law.
Witness #4; Pam Samuelson; interestingly critical of the role of copyright and economics and actually has some grasp of the cultural innovation of Public Domain Rights. This person is outnumbered 4:1. Possibly should be heading the entire committee. Someone with real world experience of the cultural damage current copyright law entails.
Witness # 5;Jule Sigall; Info in Mike's article is better. How can a likely aggressive copyright expansion goaled firm's ex employees attitude differ from whom their future pension/retirement-income depends? Expecting a pro MS
Prediction. Few good things will come out of this committee. When the chorus is full of monkeys how can we get anything but squeaks and grunts?
What kind of 'witnesses' are these? In no way do they represent the people who will be affected by the outcome of this deliberation. Where are the people who want to sing/share Happy Birthday or harmless karaoke at their party of 100 friends?
Where are the 'witnesses' to speak up about trying to share a book to several of their kids before they die? Or rewrite that same book using significant portions of the old?
Where are the 'witnesses' to explain the disappointment and loss of culture when they cannot perform a Monty Python skit at the school play?
Where are the exposed and hurt victims of the shameful area of copyright industry's “copyporn extortion”? The destroyed families whose lives were torn apart by some almost random layer threat and huge settlement payment.
Where are the victims of web site seizures that was done with no warning and destroyed the culture surrounding those sites.
Where are the artists and writer victims where they had derivative works denied or suppressed by current eternal copyright?
Where is the average citizen represented in this group of people thats likely highly tilted toward copyright expansion and domination over culture and not the reverse where society and culture shape law. Law over culture rather than culture over law is not any sort of democratic rule.
With such poor representation all we can do is sit on the sidelines and twiddle thumbs. Speculation is the best anyone can do. Its a bad position to be in that the only thing left is hope.
Reactionary,
Just because Pam Samuelson will be sitting around a table with the other 4 likely copyright expansionists it would be nice to listen in. The legitimate cultural, real world based arguments from Pam countered by the protectionist tinted whining about potentially loosing their eternal copyright monopoly would be fun?
AC and Greevar; pointed out the obvious conflict between the Bern Convention and American Constitutional values. There are/have-been several treaties that try to outline and define 'Intellectual Property' but fail to further expand the Intellectual parts of Fair Use Rights.
The USTR agency is changing the leadership from Ron Kirk to Michael Froman so what effect does that have on the current operations?
Treaties nowadays don't seem to have that “preservation of peace, culture and society” kind of feel to them? How do we compare TPP, TRIPS or ACTA measure on the level of the Bern Convention? Why do we trade away our freedoms and Public Domain Rights away along with trade agreements? What we gain is not positive at all but a real loss of personal expression.
Freedom and Expression (Freedom of Expression) are NOT on the bargaining table. These people must know that they do not have the right to trade away these things that are boldly written in the Constitution. Why would the leadership of the USTR agency risk the legacy work of their lives in future Constitutional conflicts with current questionable special interest skewed interpretations?
Have called these weirdo trade agreements unconstitutional before and either the constitution wins or it doesn't. Who cares about whether the literal, clear writing of first preamble and the Bill of Rights will win out over the poorly written slipshod corporate protectionism special interest infested impossible to be interpreted without some complaisant judge and jury (complaisant because they did not throw the treaty our whole for being obviously unconstitutional.)
Trade negotiations using Freedom and Expression as bargaining chips seems more like a slave trade agreement. Seriously. What aware and intelligent person would trade away their Intellectual Rights for anything let alone some out-sized media firms profit margin?
Has the term 'to big to fail' become overused? Ideas are not property! The term 'Intellectual Property' should be abolished with the abhorrence equal to some former political regimes.
Why does anyone consider intellectual property to trump/steal-from Intellectual Rights?! Its not a bargain a free individual or country should ever consider. Its a no-win deal from every aspect. NOBODY benefits and even the short sighted firms/corporations profit will decline in an anthill based society's diminishing return economic profile.
The US seems bent on making their precious trade agreements irrelevant with including so many clauses that force a countries domestic law to conform to some silly trade agreement. Where does a trade agreement need to have such authority? The USTR agency authority seems way over its mandate without the convening of a full Constitutional Congress to back up such blatant signing away of basic Constitutional Rights.
This is more than just a large country bullying smaller Least Developed Countries. How does the “no roll back” clause affect other members of the treaty in later negotiations? Consider the US position if the courts wised up and actually considered the Constitution to be valid and threw it out along with some other ill advised treaties?
It sounds more and more like a trap/back door attempt to further perpetuate special interest protectionist legislation temporarily benefiting only a few large multi national corporations.
Reactionary,
Change in government takes some time. Even if the top leadership of the Executive Branch and the majority of the Congressional Branch are replaced by men and women who have read and keep close to the heart the constitution it will take time to replace all the special interest influenced appointees in the various agencies and offices.
What is important is that the process be started... Any time soon now? Hahaha Its at least possible. Vote wisely. The system is allowed to exist and influence candidates/law/treaties/etc only because of our voting habits. We typically only vote for one of two pre decided candidates and ignore all the other parties.
The other parties are vilified so successfully by the two dominant parties that most consider them as 'unviable' but thats likely only demonization using whatever media opportunities available to poison the publics viewpoint. Its important that people know that the media news is just only a viewpoint and often not even close to correct or right.
Chili along with Canada. Another wise and intelligent country that recognizes the folly of allowing the word 'property' to be attached to the word 'intellectual'. The “Special 301” list is nonsense based on special interest derived trade negotiations that benefit only a few corporations at the expense of others. Mostly for silly self destructive national protectionism reasons.
Who makes the suggestions on which countries to put on the naughty list? The MPAA? What kind of corporate favoritism is that?? Get real! How many media biased lawyers have been appointed or hired by such appointees are in the DoJ anyway?
Since copyright and trademark law is currently more like runaway protectionism than original author creative cultural works motivation its the right thing to ignore it. Its so bad that abolishing it would be better. Regaining national culture is more important than the whimpering whines of intermediary distribution firms.
Whats with this list thing anyway. Its their country! Let them decide how to encourage new original creative cultural works. Trying to homogenize the various State or Country individual efforts will only stifle and suppress true originality.
Example Analogy; Lets take the US Dept of Educations attempt to homogenize the entire American public school system into a cookie cutter based nonsensical method of learning. It does NOT work. Its failing at such a horrendous rate that many other countries have now surpassed the US. The inspiration for individual success just does not translate with this monolithic method.
The original local school district based system produced a superior learning environment. For whatever reason? Its most likely that each districts population is unique just enough that it requires an individual creative approach. When idiocy trumps wisdom and success its time to get rid of the entire Dept of Education. Save a bunch of tax dollars at the same time.
A similar concept is the attempt to force US copyright law (admittedly a special interest biased corporate favoritism/protectionism based idea) onto other countries original cultural creative processes.
Reactionary,
Even what the USA does supposedly for itself in copyright law only benefits a few corporate concerns and will not help produce more creative works. Under the current rules even any new works will not enter into Public Domain Rights in the lifetime of anyone who purchases it.
Its only a matter of time before copyright maximalists start referring the accused as terrorists or funding terrorist organizations. The ratcheting up of rhetoric is so predictable it makes on wonder on how much reality the 'war on terror' is based on.
Ninja; 'Green leprechauns'. Thats gotta be it. Yes! Watch out Ireland.
Ahhhh. The scent of money. The thrill of the chase and the excitement of riches beyond measure... Taxes. Newly minted and freshly carved from the public carcass and cooked with the most luscious bureaucratic marinade and special interest seasoning. Nothing can match the power of new funding for some future political spending spree.
Keep in mind that the GDP measures government spending as a good thing. An idiotic Keynesian economic dream.
With the House and Senate out of public control there is little doubt that this federal stupidity will grow. Taxes have always been a great method of control over goods and services.
Since government spending and self restraint is non existent the basic response should be NO. What is the problem is that citizens can't vote specifically about legislation that directly harms their lives. On may wonder at the logic of requiring the US House and Senate to be forced to ask for voter approval of the various bills and acts but considering the worthless special interest infested legislation produced lately there should be no problem. (with the logic) Its so obvious that the elected politicians have NOT been doing their jobs of protecting the average citizen.
In many US states there are voter requirements on tax bills and other legislation. As one might have guessed the property, sales and income taxes are much lower in such smart states with wise citizens. Compare Co or Wy with NY or IL. The ratio of taxation is sometimes 5:1 (and greater in some cases) and yet the lower taxation states do better in services and infrastructure upkeep. It is (again) a voter awareness problem.
For random example; In IL a roadwork construction project asphalt truck would load up at the asphalt plant with asphalt being billed to that same state/county/township roadwork project and divert it to some politicians or other paying residents driveway re blacktopping. (Cook county 'Trucks for hire' scandal) When big money is involved corruption is rampant. Always hard to ferret out.
One of the finest/best ways to put a cork on runaway government is to limit its ability to tax the populace. Since taxation is abused in so many ways by special interest legislation its an easy logical thing to do.
In the realm of limiting runaway government spending programs who cares about fair. Fair has noting to do with it. Dump and complain about any elected politician or idiotic bureaucracy infested party (both of them?) that allows such obvious slipshod taxation.
In all cases; “Spending will increase to match available funding.” It is mandatory that this funding be strictly limited otherwise it will be common that government will waste billions on panic/fear based nonsense like Doctor Who imaginary cybermen attacks. (Oops? Did that already happen?)
Reactionary,
Mentioned before is the two part action; 1) A constituent calling their legislator and POLITELY explaining how dissatisfied they are with a vote on extra taxes is a great thing to do. It lets them know they wont be able to get their vote for reelection and spends some of their limited congressional staff budget allowance.
2) Send a few bucks to the few House and Senate legislators and a BRIEF note telling them you love them when they say NO to more taxation. Even if these politicians are from another state.
“If one designs an engine” Thats way to complicated a device and makes a great illustration of the principle of mechanical/electrical/software patent substitution. Any engine is made up of many separate inventions. Yes one can patent an engine. Its a process patent. But, even in this circumstance. Did the original patent find the best way to implement this idea?
Probably not and other inventors/firms will take that wonderful engine idea and make it better and patent these ideas. Its normal that others do better than the original inventor. The steam engine development was rich with patent wars and the winners charged what they could. The steam engine was the forerunner of the combustion engine and who could have foreseen that at the time?
The original inventor or firm would be left with a possibly a usable patent but the (now) old engine will have an extra bolt or mechanical device that some other inventor found a way to get by more efficiently without those old style methods.
Will the original inventor/firm use the new and better ways of making the very same engine you patented earlier? Maybe not as the new patentees will want to charge more money via licensing fees. If the original invention was still viable then it would be sold even it it took a few extra mechanisms or valves or bolts or whatever. (levers, pinions, bearings, lever arms, seals, etc. etc. etc.)
Will the other firms be forced to pay the original inventor? Maybe. If the new improved way was so significantly better that even the original inventor/firm would be forced into some mutual agreement with the new upstart firm patenting the new and better methods. A classic lawyer-festival complete with lawsuits and all that mess.
The reverse is also true. Maybe some inventor came up with a new valve for the engine but wanted to charge ruinous licensing fees just so they could maintain their market position. Could some other inventor find a slightly less efficient valve of different design to do the same thing? Sure! And it would avoid the licensing fees.
Electrical Patent Substitution Example; Was Alternating Current better than Direct Current? Not especially. But rival inventors (Edison and Tesla) championed their own method of power transmission. Each with their own separate ways to do the same thing with different patents. When one is a genius almost anything is possible.
Software patent substitution was describe well enough in the above post.
There are so many historical examples of this. Most modern devices are a collection of so many current and expired patents its easy to be overwhelmed.
In short there is usually more than one way to do the same thing. All of them are patentable. Many times one can literally swap or substitute their own method of operation be it mechanical/electrical/software/fluidics/etc in place of some other patented method. Of course it helps to be a genius.
Loose patent law has spawned loose awarding of patents. Worse are the first to patent ideas that remove any sanity about separate development of the same idea.
In the mechanical world there are many ways to accomplish the same task but the only thing patentable is just the way you do it. Period. It good in that it rewards those who find the best way to do a particular task. It also forces various manufactures to maneuver around competitors patents by designing their own methods.
Many times one will find an extra hinge, bolt or moving part just so that manufacture could use their own patentable way to do the task and not use some overly charging other firms patent. Think a box or display looks funny? Patents might have covered the obvious way of folding or assembly. It was actually cheaper to do it in this roundabout way. Its kind of fun to learn why and how things are made.
Just making a product one has to dodge several political and legal hurdles and that assumes a fair market. What software patents are being abused for is not inductive to a level playing field in an unfettered democratic marketplace that allows innovation to succeed.
Software patent law is new and un-spanked. It has little precedence in the legal world and the “soft-patent everything” attitude before someone else does is rampant. It seems neither the US Patent office, any legal body, judge nor jury knows what to think of them.
In fact. It seems that the best use of them is for a moneyed up firm to use them for mudding the waters clouding the competitions outlook by draining them dry of funding. Its a lawyers dream to say the least.
In software its easy just putting a button on the screen that says it will do something just by clicking on it. What goes on behind the screen in all the various ways to program calls and functions varies so much from vendor to vendor its amazing. Even if the code is similar that is not congruency. (close but not quite wont do for clearly written law or exactly submitted patent applications.)
In light of this coding fact its silly that there even was a “click once and buy” patent. Who would bother except for the competitive legal threats that might be waged? Of course this assumes that software patents would behave similarly to mechanical patents. Since computers are so fast just inserting a few inefficient lines of code would slip by any software patent. Just purchase a few more servers.
The patent troll activity makes any innovative startup that much harder to pull off. Its scary and all because of careless legislation. For such a young and new market such as software we might just as well wait a few hundred years before we would stifle and slow down new development.
The mechanical realm started its early development cycle about 10,000 years ago. We can wait until at least the software industry matures beyond the obvious early innovation stage. If firms were forced to keep developing using the ideas openly shared by others it will happen that much faster.
In the early days of computer development people just shared their work in magazines and other bbs's for basically free. An established vendor would obtain value (thus revenue) in updating and maintaining their code. We can only loose when we bottle up the free flowing innovation, that is expected, with unexplored use/deployment of software patents.
Software patents are a monkey wrench into the growth of any nation. (just add 18 years onto the development cycle of any project and see how that affects profit.) Would an aware and clever software firm win against any such claims of others? Very possibly and maybe even likely. But its the legal environment that allows such a battle that kills off the competition which is the danger.
Its nice to see that basic constitutional values still enter the daily radar scope for the average person at least in some level. Long way to go.
The young crowd is as wet behind the ears as ever. The “nothing can hurt me I'm an American” syndrome infects the young mostly during the school years.
The Time/CNN group may not be noted for journalistic perfection and wonder if the questions used were neutral. Even when reading them its hard to tell without some professional physiological analysis.
Government officials have a tendency to ignore what is unpleasant to their ears and hype up the little bits/incidences that support their agenda. Unless this pols results start to influence the ballot box its only just a good sign.
In many ways its good that HTML5 does not support DRM. In this way one can easily eliminate the DRM'd sites from the normal ones. Its easy to ban flash by not installing it. In the same way its a bad thing that HTML5 is trying to become a do it all web protocol. WWW standards are to allow everything and disallow nothing.
If any content is sent to a computer it must be available for picking apart in any way if only to examining if there is some spyware or malware floating in on the encrypted stream. Its an absolute must. Safely surfing the net and DRM are diametrically opposed concepts.
Lets be honest; Who cares about some silly Hollywood fiction based idea of forced DRM?
If a firm wants to restrict its content with some proprietary or open-sourced encryption thats fine. Just don't force it on everyone. Since Flash uses semi-secret hard to delete flash-cookies (and what else don't we know about?) it is banned from any machine in many a place.
Its is important that the HTML5 standards group not be hijacked by corporations with only their own interests at heart. The World Wide Web Consortium exists to protect the openess of the net and hope they can survive this obvious takeover attempt by big media. What is the difference between Open Sourced and Open Forced?
The Content Decryption Modules CDMs seem evil in that Microsoft's Bing might require one to use windows and Apple's I-tunes would required OSX. The potential for abuse is staggering and inevitable in todays acidic and hostile corporate warfare. (where American culture and society are the victems)
In no way does this proposal for HTML5 help make the web more standardized and open. It should be more than just laughed at for being stupid but the consortium members need to be sanctioned for being stupid or worse.
There are so many legitimate arguments against DRM they are becoming uncountable. In every way will it subtract from the preservation and dissemination of culture and knowledge by whatever means/format. DRM should be outlawed for the good of all.
As long as the Hollywood fiction supporters like the MPAA, RIAA and other content middlemen like Netflix, MA and Apple are being listened to like they were serious organizations acting in the benefit culture and society we will have such preposterous proposals. Such ridiculous ideas like this will only further carve up the size and scope of Fair Use Rights and Public Domain Rights.
Reactionary,
Why shouldn't anyone be able to record a Netflix stream? Who cares! Preserving what we watch be it over the radio, cable, TV or net is a natural culturally beneficially function.
DRM even on rentals still seems too much. Rental fees are usually still quite high and re-encoding usually is to a down graded version of it of inferior quality.
Linux is definitely different an has many benefits but it is not compatible with windows or OSX in many ways. Its an open-sourced opportunity that many enjoy already but to have it forced on someone is never a good thing.
In the same way that it is hard to move from Windows2000 to Windows 8 or from Win to Mac OSX there are adaptation/learning problems also when moving to Linux from some other OS.
Windows does not play nice with Linux and its always only one win update away from having your Linux partition made unavailable from duel boot system. On the other hand Linux tries its best to be compatible. Installing Windows (after first installing Linux) will not allow duel OS use at all which seems very impolite. One has to install Linux second.
To be honest; Anyone who deliberately uses a proprietary system running proprietary software producing proprietary file formats is insane. The IBM microcomputer was originally accepted by the business community over Amiga and Apple because of its inter compatibility file formats. Rapidly are offices converting to mostly Linux machines. (there are exceptions when some software is required)
the words 'piracy' and theft still do not translate to copying files. Its childish and not worthy of attention once mentioned in any argument. Such grade school level bullying should be punished in of itself.
Its a many way intersection with lots of choices on which way to go when it comes to technology. Since its normal that people want to visually document their own lives Google Glass is a natural outcome of culture and technology. Just banning a service or technology is like cutting off a cultural or technological foot so to speak. Its just a knee jerk reaction to something the we as a society do not understand.
The rules for privacy are still the same. If one is in a public area then there is no reason to expect privacy. There are likely certain civil and criminal law exceptions to photographing in public areas.
Like only photographing someone when they blow or pick their nose or scratch their ass. If such targeting is done in a way that intends to demean, blackmail or in some photographic way similar to libel or slander as applied to pictures/video this might have some legal traction. Also, stalking with or without a camera can be a crime so its hard to see what is the problem as there are already some legal remedies.
Private areas are a another matter. Public thoroughfares are historically a new development and it was inevitable that when traveling you wandered over private land many a time. There were no roads in most places. Only trails that followed passable routes not property lines. Parcels were on the average much larger in able to support animal grazing and farming. In the years following there was a long legal process of developing ingress and egress land easement rights and publicly owned roads.
Its probable that restaurants, clubs and private property owners would use a public notification sign to avoid whatever imaginary legal entanglements from such activities. The conflicts of photographing from public spaces and coincidental inclusions will be fun to see worked out in detail by the courts and legislation. Keeping in mind that just clicking a photo should never be a problem.
There might also be exceptions to posting a 'no photo' sign. In the same way Fair Use Rights apply to media this would naturally extend to documenting ones life photographically. What is news and journalistic intent? An accident, however embarrassing, is important to document? An event that affects culture and society itself is an important thing to document? A speech? An arrest or police action?
Would the person wearing/using such a life documentation tool like Google Glass or a life cam device be required to publicly display the device. Might a notice or light be required so that the person knows they are being recorded? There is legal precedence in this in that some states require a beeping sound to be played when anyone is recorded over the phone. A hidden camera is at the least... not polite.
Public land should always be open for photographic or video use without asking. It must be a default that its always OK but thats not the case already. Notices in US national parks like “Filming and areas of the park require permission of the Park Ranger” kind of nonsense already exists. (Profiteering Idiots?) Of course there is a difference between one or two people filming for a documentary and a whole crew getting in the way of normal park operations.
Just like No Trespassing signs are placed on private property a No Photographing sign would also likely be applicable to the Google Glass and Life-Cam cultural path. No 'moral panic' is necessary. Since the White House Internet suggestion box is open to anything we will get more death star requests like this one?
Speaking of potential legislation it would be important for general public use that “just taking a picture” does not become illegal. Its a natural thing to want to document or enshrine some event , place or people/groups/persons. Do not let natural everyday functions become illegal.
An example of how bad law/legislation can become an evil monster that allows private prisons and lawyers feed cannibalisticly off of a singled out class of people would be the drug laws (lets face it, who cares what good or bad habits you have) and copyright laws (wow. Didn't we just have an article on how the blind support network was being targeted by the MPAA?). Each are a threat to culture and regulates opinions and habits of people/society based on some (likely religious and or profit motivated) targeted special interest written legislation.
So basically we have a freedom of expression argument with Google Glass and similar uses of low cost digital camera and storage technology. Hard to see what the problem is. Moral Panic? Its laughable. The right to do what we want, even if its dangerous, is a very American thing.
Once we have our life's documentation by drawings, sound, photo or video how do we protect it? By full encryption of course. Encryption is the best way to put of a sign that the data is private. Everyone should do this because of the, most likely overly lax, privacy laws. There is now some legal precedence that protects this also.
Not covered is the fact that some will make publicly available their life cam data. What is needed is legislation that prevents any government from just copying that citizens private life.
Reactionary,
From AC. If we don't stop regulating daily activities we might make gestures like pointing a finger at our heads and pulling the thumb trigger and saying “bang!” illegal. Its already been singled out in a grade school event so its already a problem. It would really be nice to see some heads roll, so to speak, and pink slips issued to those directly involved and the administrators who allowed such an unhealthy/panicky environment to exist in the first place.
Wonder how Germany would get this into service? A fake Mozilla web site or a man in the middle attack? Sound nefarious either way. Are they slipping back into the old SS ways of thinking (or did some out of control American agency give them some hints?) Would like some clean answers on that dirt. (and not just shoo shooing with some other political public distractions.)
Shams are everywhere and when a flim-flam (theft by deception) is being perpetrated its best to use the most trusted names in the world and Mozilla fits the evil need of the ones (Germany? And who else?) who want to deceive.
Wanna charge a person a fee to apply for a large famous company? Swipe the logos and name of IBM or ATT and see how much you can make before someone actually calls the home office. So in a way trademark law can make it easier for such deceptions to exist.
If a suggestion could be made; enforce the crime itself and don't involve trademark law. Its a derivative abuse of copyright law and not any more pleasant. Just because it was easier for Mozilla to prosecute for a corporate trademark violation is only a symptom of how weak common criminal/civil law is compared to corporate trademark law.
Trademark law, like copyright law, at one time did perform a somewhat beneficial service to Public Domain Rights but its all long gone in a wash of special interest farm animal feeding upon misplaced public trust in Washington. Was it used well and maybe wisely in this case? Sure, very possibly.
But what if the corporation that owns the trademark itself is the perpetrator of abuse? Would they file for trademark based take-down DMCA notices to try and suppress public opinion? Maybe. Its happened before and with the current lax, corporate one sided, law it will again. Unless steep penalties are enacted against companies who abuse free speech it will also increase.
A somewhat good example was Sony's use of a rootkit for spying on its very own paying customers. That was before layers learned to abuse the DMCA so it did not happen but it could have? Its sooooo easy to do. Might that same rootkit do some dirty work itself (or installing some new software that did) like monitoring any correspondence with the word Sony in it?
There are many problems with current trademark law. Much deals with the lack of oversight and its effects on society and its various cultures?
Trademark law was not supposed to interfere with culture or society. Many cultural figures are firmly based in culture like the Disney characters or Marvel heroes (now Disney controlled). These types of trademarks are subtractions from culture and should never have been allowed. Any such attempt at permanent theft from American culture should be punished.
How is Disney to profit if they loose their precious eternal copyright and trademark laws? Don't know. Maybe they would have to start making new creative work. An end to the rehashing of old crap would be nice. No we do not need another remake of Witch Mountain or whatever? Maybe you like that?
What we need are new interpretations that build or tear down the old way of thinking.
Punchline;
Do we need spy programs that build on the great work of other companies? No. Spying is always wrong. Trust, at least, your own citizens. Do we need to invoke trademark law to prevent this? No. Spying is illegal? Making false claims is illegal. Deception for profit or harm is illegal. Etc.
Who knows anymore. But. At least it once was; In a land called The United States of America. (at least was for some time after the constitution was written) That great almost-dead myth we invoke at camp-side fire to shoo away ghost stories of how the copyright bogeymen (people) will come and take you away in the night. Which is real and fiction?
Reactionary,
Its probably best not to use the built in search box and use some less common method like visiting a web page. Use two browsers. One for general browsing with all java and flash shut down and other safeguards like Privoxy and NoScript or whatever. Use the other less restricted browser for safe/known sites.
(untitled comment)
Good. Great. Awesome. Sue the hell out of them if they can and lets not exclude damages and suffering of which there have been much. Any secrecy at all at the policy making level is absurd in a democratic society.
If they were negotiating some boring trade agreement then they would have nothing to fear? Its likely something else is being negotiated and the bargaining chips seem to be the basic freedoms every individual cherishes.
It has always been my opinion that any trade agreement that citizens/firms will be held accountable for MUST be publicly debated with FULL disclosure or it would be (completely, 100%) unconstitutional. Whatever nonsense rational defending such behavior should be not only ignored but hopefully prosecuted/impeached as the dangerous tyrannical tendencies they are.
Denying even one citizen a current copy (within a few days or better yet a web page updated daily) of such a treaties converts all the efforts done by such organizations/government into 'bad faith' negotiations.
All of the trade-associations/congress/EU might profess devoutly that they were only following some boring standard policy and had the legal standing to do so. When pressed at the impossibility of such behavior by a public body they might further whine about some imaginary terrorist threat. (As if that should make any difference in an open democratic process?!)
Public Safety is as nonsensical as any idiotic reason to deny public input. It can be easily reasoned that lack of openness would be a threat to public safety. Would not any public official acting in such a non open way be terrorizing the democratic process?
Worse is the normal habit of government and trade-associations to ignore public input. Its common that treaty-negotiators or government-agencies/departments/officials will ignore tens of thousands of valid citizens letters against some idiotic treaty in favor of a few biased corporate opinions.
Have no confidence in the EU or US court system to make any unbiased ruling in regards to the unconstitutionality of any secretly generated legislation. Especially in the US... When was the last time anyone heard of ANY act or bill that was ruled unconstitutional?
Reactionary,
AC pointed out that no good will come of any order of unmasking the secrecy or openness because the public will still be omitted from the negotiation table. The problems that manifested such behavior are still present and active... Voters are still likely electing the wrong people.
Another AC said “In the world of trade agreements, where logic is a city on the moon,” is so true although it might be added that democracy is another civilization in a 'galaxy far away'.
(untitled comment)
It seems that GEMA is another example of how monopolies naturally run away from logic and usefulness. Their activities don't make much sense in the way that it should support the various cultural groups that make up a healthy society. It is not a far toss to say that their method of operations suppress the spread and creation of new culture.
Since GEMA is a government granted for profit monopoly its likely to be just as belligerent, corrupt and horrible as the great majority of other monopolies in history. Zero surprise. Whats to like about them at all? Seemingly another music licensing organization that operates more like organized crime than a legitimate business in good standing.
GEMA makes their own rules seemingly answering to a small self profiteering group. Their enforcement is guilty until proven otherwise. Their fee structure seems more like a communist's states policy on public gatherings. (that is that they are illegal/prohibited) Their revenue distribution favors some groups over the expense of others tossing out any ideas of equality or evenhandedness. Apparent dictatorial management policies with no control of music usage by original authors. Charge/pay-up first and only possibly allow exceptions/refunds later. (maybe)
“,music-makers don't sign over ownership of their music upon joining GEMA, they sign over their usage rights—the right to legally manage and collect licensing fees for playback, reproduction and broadcast of their music”. Whats the difference between ownership and the way they define “usage rights”? This kind of legal nonsense is the same as doublespeak and congressional bill/act naming as neither says/implies what they actually do. Its the same as lying with clever words.
Why pay for a song you could not sing or play? Why pay for a video that anyone could not perform a skit from in public or at work or school? Why pay for a book that one cannot copy and pass-out whole chapters just to discuss pertinent topics within groups? (In person or on the net.) Etc. (rant) We do so only because of the current copyright based monopolies are the only source of such culture. Free market and Public Domain Rights are faltering.
It might be expected that GEMA's revenue from live events will go way down. With such putative fee structure its impossible to see how small live event clubs can survive. Its hard to understand how they can promote music and culture with such policies. Such a policy will likely destroy an entire culture and the industries (clubs, parties, etc) built up around it.
Lets put this in terms closer to home. If one puts on a party and wants either a DJ and or a live band in a cornfield they would have to pay for how much square footage? By their rules they expect a fully sold-out-house/attendance for each venue...
What charges would a street performer pay? The size of the sidewalk or more likely the whole street would be expected to be the size of the venue? Would everyone who walked by have to be considered an audience member even if they hated the music? What life destroying charges or law suits would be inflicted upon the homeless street performers just trying to get a few quarters tossed in a hat?
What about the songs groups of people sing when they get together? What about the songs and lyrics protesters sing or shout out? A lot of this reminds me of the US state of Washington's very draconian dance tax. It would still (not?) be a shocker if GEMA charged more if the audience started swaying to the tune and extra fees if the started to dance.
What is really the worst effect of GEMA's club over-pricing structure is the limiting the basic human activities like freedom of expression and the freedom of association. What is being hurt most are the various cultures that any society supports. Songs, Sining and music are some of the most basic cultural items in existence today. To regulate their usage with fees, taxes and other limitations can be described as cultural insanity.
Small nightclubs with live events must be on someones shiitlist. The likely consequence of this policy is to drive such events underground to invitation only hidden clubs. The
German local (beer) bar scene is a large tourist attraction and in no way can GEMA be helping this industry. None.
GEMA seems to be just another selfish for profit monopoly in business for itself and only for itself. Its increasing demand for a more control and profit might even destroy the very thing it makes money off of.
Of course the real problem is that Germany has similar eternal copyright laws/monopolies. If the terms were much shorter the sharing of culture would be a much more elegant/smoother event.
Reactionary.
PaulT mentions an interesting cultural affect of the licensing structure of charging for each song stored on a DJ's laptop. Diverse culture will end up supporting small slices of pop culture under GEMA rules. Its cultural warfare! Sonic Attack! Run for your soundproof bunkers.
(untitled comment)
Steel's brazen use of the word “pirate” is surely just as childish as in any other case. Its irresponsible and unprofessional because it might poison the available jury pool or easily swayed judge. The “word” pirate is a presupposition of guilt associated with bad things of which the accused have never done. It would be a great idea for any interviewer to challenge it by asking exactly what the use of the word “pirate” means. Its a likely form of slander that should be a proprietorial offense.
Its important that the idiocy be called out in the open at every level. Its obvious hypocrisy that they would call anyone “pirates” when at the same finger-pointing 5th grade brat/bully level they could themselves be called “pirates” for endorsing legislation that “steals” culture from the Public Domain Rights.
AF holdings... hmmmm.
Guess; 30-160 million Prendda profit (plus expenses) (to unknown foreign offshore holding shell firms?)from copyporn trolling. Who knows for real? The offshore holding company is just to sophisticated an operation for just 1 to 15 million. (keep in mind that hiding cash from government or hostile adversaries is likely a good thing regardless of their political standing/position/opinion)
Have been absorbing a lot of the Prendda news lately. Heard lots of great things but so far its limited to court procedure related violations. Its a good start and probably a good thing. Will munch much popcorn as the case(s) prosecution closes in for the bite.
Unless Prendda gets the evidence tossed there seems no escaping some of these charges. The real fun is that there seems so much more going on than just these simple court procedure violations.
It seems that the real problem Prendda has... is that they have too many irons (lawsuits) in the fire. Especially since its their business to put them (lawsuits) in there (the fire). Expect Prendda to step on their foot(s) in the future. Each step and misstep might lead to other discoveries. It could even cascade. (the depth of this rabbit hole is unmeasured, as of yet.)
Prendda seems to have attempted various damage control maneuvers most notably was the closing of several vulnerable cases except some that were to late. Expect more of that along with an ultimate effort in the court of appeals. Every step along the way will be one more revealing aspect of the mysterious unknown Prendda rabbit hole.
It is some disappointment that they still are in the lucrative money making business of copyporn trolling? This industry needs to be quashed with a (few?) good civil lawsuit(s) at the multi million dollar level. Wouldn't this be taking advantage of religious and or puritanical attitudes?
Now is the time. (?!) Because... they wont take the stand or wont answer much in their defense. Since because of the (many?) missteps made by Prendda the court procedure violations might affect the civil trial they possibly would be good defense based questions. This would possibly be a discrimination case and it would be significant if they broke the law or court procedures going out of their way to discriminate?
They (Prendda) might be more worried about the likely criminal charges of falsifying/altering/forging court records and or documents. (and other stuff, its not as if anyone would know how deep the rabbit hole is) This behavior might continue until the statute of limitations runs out which is various in all the states except the fed. And. If they are not... then there is more evidence or perjury to fuel the court procedures violations cases.
All that is needed is a totally pissed off, beyond any recrimination, citizen that somehow understands the religious and or puritanical bulls eye that they have been targeted by. If they were hit by some legal 'rock' thrown by an overzealous law firm... (looking only for profit and willing to break the law to do so?) then they might have a significant case. (...)
One might want to dismiss all of this(?) in some claim of businesses as usual and thats the way to make money. If only money were the criteria of success (as a moral and intellectual society we do have some growth potential here) then thats fine. But. There are many social and cultural complications. What is important is intent to harm.
Example; Steel used the word “piracy” which might be considered slander at best especially if used before a defendant has revived a verdict. Also. The words “theft” and or “stolen” do not apply for copyright violations.
Just an opinion.
(untitled comment)
Intellectual Property Owners Association. (IPOA) Another cold heartless organization bent on destroying life giving/saving/supporting/nurturing culture to a vulnerable group of people?
Its a crying shame that such beneficial culture can be labeled a fair use exception. What is this deal with exceptions anyway and how do we allow such a valuable support society be cubbyholed as an 'exception'? Its an important goal that fair use be fully enshrined as Fair Use Rights.
There is no right of profit over disadvantaged groups. There is no right to deny them a support group that has existed, developed and even flourished. The population of blind is 0.08% (USA 2006 from NAMCS) thats not even one tenth of one percent. Explain how this tiny minuscule group size is going to cut into anyones profits.
Only ~10% of the blind know how to read braille and the rest depend on other means of reading like Books for the Blind or a computer that reads text aloud. Forcing the blind to pay for performance rights or whatever copywrong (right) scheme to profit off of the disabled is just too much.
The blind have enough problems because (mostly) many people don't want to or cannot care for disabled who are often pushed onto government support. Where is the IPOA not adding to this incredible burden that the blind already carry?
And. The IPOA is a collection of big, large, huge, gigantic corporations. Apple, IBM, Proctor & Gamble, Microsoft, Dow Chemical and on and on. Its clear that these corporations didn't give nary a whit about the society and culture of support the blind rely on everyday. Maybe they felt that .08% was not large enough a group to take seriously?
Arrrg.
Reading the IPOA 'recommendation' letter to the USPTO was depressing/boring and seemed only to further cubbyhole and diminish the Fair Use Rights of the disabled. The IPOa seemed insistent on not just labeling them “exceptions” but further restricted the Fair Use Rights of disabled to “limitations and exceptions” (or L/E) as if “exceptions wasn't enough.
The letter speaks of “dangerous precedent” and that may just be true. Since copyright has grown into a law that kills off culture and society rather than the additive plus it was to have been they might be worried. And. They should. (If voters actually learn higher than two candidates.)
Furthermore. What idea does the IPOA have to actually connect the two words Intellectual and Property. Ideas are not property and its kind of disgusting to hear some (obviously culturally blind) association make the association. (pun)
If justice were a lady... then, about 7 months before repealing all the copyright changes since its inception, the DoJ will be ordered to surprise search every IPOA members corporation headquarters for copyright violations (guaranteed there will be many as the laws are way too broad). It would be nice to have official complaints and or tip-offs to be legit.
(untitled comment)
The recent trend in treaties has been to include an fully operating kitchen sink and a three car garage deep into the small print. This is done thorough unnecessary complexity born from secret back room negotiations (remember ACTA?) that find ways to insert such tricky pitfalls. These economic traps are of course benefiting only the few who can afford such a princely prize “as such”. (literary kick.)
The “investor-state dispute resolution” clause/paragraph is a magnificently princely prize. To force any nation to bow down to some outside (name it what you will) court would be the envy of any kingdom or tyrant. Its sure to have taken several high paid lawyers and diplomats a month or two to come up with the seemingly innocent name of “investor-state dispute resolution” which slips by the 'future problem radar' we all have at some level.
For a nation to stay a nation it has to use its own courts. Their is no sovereignty without sovereignty. When any nation gives up on the right of its own destiny is it really an independent nation or just some vassal of another entity. The question is; What to name this entity? Who controls this globeilization thing? Why do we pander “as such”?
Its silly to depend on the impartiality of some outside court. Most nations have enough problems trying to keep a lid on corruption in their own courts let alone some super powerful world dominating trade relations court.
The tendency for every nation/kingdom/tyrant/democracy/communist-state to attempt at every angle/moment/way the suborning/corrupting/swaying of such a powerful body is 100% completely guaranteed as it would be addictive. Its a guaranteed way of loosing a chunk of international sovereignty “as such”. (if not all)
Considering the current way of formulating and writing these Free Trade Agreements (FTA) its kind of silly to put in the word “Free”. Sounds like another literary fiction license being used to promote... whatever is in the fine print of such treaties.
One might consider where and how these treaties are made. Huge multinational corporation representatives get together in sequestered (guarded) private locations and hash out the wording details. It should be, absolutely no surprise, that the fine print will come out in favor or this group.
Think of the power of such groups as entire cities are put under what amounts to prison lock-down during the negotiations and protesters are rounded up and put in jail. Don't waste time considering the faint whimpers of impartiality from any corporate sponsored group “as such”.
The names of such groups are irrelevant as they change and morph into whatever view thats acceptable. Power is its own aim and desire. Never let it out of the bag “as such”.
Note; this essay kinda merged into/with another so see this article to fully grasp the idea “as such.” http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/02445622949/how-investor-state-dispute-mechanisms-threaten -access-to-medicine-much-else.shtml )
Intent is all fine and nice but its the unintended meanings that can slip in when loosely worded law is endorsed/accepted/used. In the US its already a huge constitutional problem that many agencies have secret interpretations of loosely written legislation.
The term/phrase “as such” is unknown presently and can not be defined. The danger is that language and individual word meanings change over time and some new definition might pop up. Its so loosly applied its easy to just stick it onto the end of any statement without it overtly changing the meaning/gist/idea of the sentence “as such”.
The reverse might also be true? Adding the phrase “as such” onto the end of a sentence/thought/idea/meaning might also mean that there was more implied than just what was conveyed. If the phrase “as such” is added then what if another idea/thought/meaning “wasn't such”? Do we look deeper into the sentence to define “such”?
If we don't let “it” out of the bag “as such” the how about when “it” “is not such”? The real hoodwink (bag over the head) would be defining what “such” is. Judging from the integrity of the groups that fornicate such wording its likely to become some 'gotcha' clause.
The “such” possibly described into this essay was that its not a good idea to blindly follow what someone/firm/corporation/government/etc says and to look at the fine print before signing anything stupid. However the proponents of TPP, ACTA, TRIPS and other international treaties would loudly (and likely) that they “weren't such”.
They would argue insistently and belligerently with white robes and halos over their heads that everything is fine and this is just an exception and not of any harm. (insert cigarette augment here) Relax. Take it eeeeeeeasy. Just sign here. It'll all be over in a minuet.
Reactionary,
“Preferably, investment chapters will be rejected in their entirety, as they are becoming a corporate sword of Damocles that hangs over the head of rich and poor governments alike.” Oops. Did we already sign the TRIPS agreement? Are the farm animals running loose already?
“,legitimate expectations for profit,” now thats a phrase that should be connected to the loss of Public Domain Rights through trademark and copyright law.
(untitled comment)
Yeah for New Zealand! Always thought that software patents are 200 years too early or even a never viable concept. Code is already covered under the already overpowering copyright monopoly.
Intent is all fine and nice but its the unintended meanings that can slip in when loosely worded law is endorsed/accepted/used. In the US its already a huge constitutional problem that many agencies have secret interpretations of loosely written legislation.
The term/phrase “as such” is unknown presently and can not be defined. The danger is that language and individual word meanings change over time and some new definition might pop up. Its so loosly applied its easy to just stick it onto the end of any statement without it overtly changing the meaning/gist/idea of the sentence “as such”.
The reverse might also be true? Adding the phrase “as such” onto the end of a sentence/thought/idea/meaning might also mean that there was more implied than just what was conveyed. If the phrase “as such” is added then what if another idea/thought/meaning “wasn't such”? Do we look deeper into the sentence to define “such”?
If we don't let “it” out of the bag “as such” the how about when “it” “is not such”? The real hoodwink (bag over the head) would be defining what “such” is. Judging from the integrity of the groups that fornicate such wording its likely to become some 'gotcha' clause.
To point; A possible angle of any software applicant (however obvious) might be to say that their method was NOT a software patent. That its “wasn't such”.
Note; this essay kinda merged into/with another so see this article to fully grasp the idea “as such.” https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130411/09574122678/investor-state-dispute-resolution-sleeping-mo nster-inside-free-trade-agreements-begins-to-stir.shtml
(untitled comment)
It was always clear that the War on Terror has been a total waste of money. Its likely that Bush pushed the imaginary panic button multiple times with the equally panicky fed agencies adding to the freaking out thing.
There will always be Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs or Fruity loops people out there no matter how many trillions or how many freedoms or expressions are sacrificed on the alter of terror. Its a human condition that's lived with by everyone.
The real problem is that modern communications make every event a backyard gossiping event. What was once a local news sharing event the over the fence news sharing time has now taken on national/international scope. Instead of the local car crash that killed 6 teens we now have the crazy psycho killer chicken who used a shotgun to massacre school kids. Of which we are helpless to gossip about being the human information animals we are.
It really does look like our elected/appointed officials are running around with their little chicken heads cut off. Like a squabble of Chicken Littles screaming that the sky is falling. Surely there will be more idiots with bombs and other excited decomposition devices in the future.
Deal with it and don't ask for expensive and complicated toys to play with. Mommy and Daddy cant afford it.
Since this was an FBI area of jurisdiction it interesting how they treated the local fusion center. It was not in the loop of command. An irrelevant extremity not to be given a high enough security clearance to even know about a local bombing in its own area of preview. Do we have a (classic) jurisdiction fight between the FBI and Homeland Security? Always very bad for citizens who happen to be trapped between department rivalries.
Makes one wonder how the fusion center employees (let alone the upper management) felt when watching the news feeds as the incident played out. Did they feel useless, ineffective or left out? Who knows.
Why do the Fusion Centers exist? Possibly only for patronage jobs. Good paying patronage jobs are always at a premium and never a surplus. In fact if one actually believed Keynesian economic theory its actually beneficial to the GDP measurement. (GDP adds all government spending into the good side of the force)
Reactionary,
uma; Libertarian. If the average voter would learn to count above two parties that would be an improvement. Voter awareness... a lost key of American national success.
The Dems and Repubs are like wraiths that change shape and form with public awareness. They will only change when another party starts to take away votes. And. Then they will, (change) because of the 'addiction to the spotlight' theory.
(untitled comment)
Please insert this from my 301 oriented post which covers all that about this.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130503/14341222941/ustr-nominee-froman-called-one-most-e gregious-examples-way-revolving-door-works-between-govt-business.shtml#c517
(untitled comment)
Its kind of funny about Disney trying to appropriate a holiday name. The guys in the copywong department need to put in some overtime to keep the nonsense down. They do look embarrassing from this viewpoint.
Disney attempting to trademark Día De Los Muertos is quite similar to trying to copyright the holiday of Halloween and its cultural festival of trick or treating activities.
Who would purchase food from a media firm?
Rant on Trademark law,
Disney wants a Trademark on the entire world. No news there. Its a small world (after all). Trademark law has morphed from the original intent to protect a consumer from misidentifying a product made by someone other than who consumer expects. Its supposed to be a legal device to prevent fraud.
Where does locking up widespread American Culture come under the heading of fraud prevention? Using/Abusing trademark law for taking away many of the cartoon/comic hero's from many generations is an unmeasurable loss to society and its various cultures.
Just putting up a Batman, Goofy, Micky Mouse, or Sailor Moon shrine page with some pictures of the characters and maybe some bio and some important episode outlines is a trademark offense capable of tossing the entire family into the street. The characters themselves are both copyrighted and trademarked.
Trademark, along with copyright, law are Weapons of Mass Cultural Destruction. Even the very American Culture of freedom and expression are on the bargaining table as we speak/write/post.
Trademark law has become so powerful and dangerous that even when a firms products are used illegally for fraud both they and the authorities don't bother to make criminal accusations but use trademark violations instead. Example;
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130503/08510022937/mozilla-sends-cease-desist-letter- to-commercial-spyware-company-using-firefox-trademark-code-to-trick-users.shtml
Trademark law has grown so out of control that even words from the dictionary are under attack. A trademark is supposed to only covering the logo and not ever the printed words. (with some exceptions) Even another advertiser should be able to use a competitors logo and name so that a potential customer can recognized which brand is being used in any comparison.
(untitled comment)
Kara Mizunashi san desu; “I saved myself $60 so I can invest in a game from a better company.” Ditto! (copy that, the same)
Dont care about whatever issuers EA went through to beef up their infrastructure to handle the DRM always on nonsense. Its irrelevant to the fact that any DRM'd program is dependent on the health and success of the technology and the company/firm that controls it.
EA has not been doing well as a company. Its earnings are falling despite all the poor people purchasing SimCity6. The DRM program looks like a loss for EA and its customers. What happens when EA goes under or is bought out by some random firm looking to recoup their buyout expenses?
Its bad enough that consumers are harmed/dissatisfied/denied-use/anoyed by the obvious DRM that EA put in/on SimCity.
Its dangerous to the existence of companies rely on DRM'd software. It should be an entry on the stock portfolio about how much a firm depends on DRM'd software licenses just to get a better risk profile on that firm.
(untitled comment)
Why is the House Judiciary Committee involved with copyright reform? From the majority of these 'witnesses' the only consensus will be not in favor of cultural and public domain expansions. The unnecessary legal constraints upon the daily lives of ordinary citizens using normal ordinary appliances and or computers and or cell phones and or cameras (converging technologies?) ARE the problem.
These very copyright laws have intruded upon everyday, every hour, lives in ways the Bill/Act sponsor's could/would/might never realize. It seems that every web page is a potential source for accusations based on downloading a picture or video clip.
Worse is the monitoring of usage further eroding Privacy Rights. The default method of viewing a YouTube clip is that whenever one wanted to watch a clip they had to access the site. Digging in the web browser catch for a file transfer is classic but that would be prohibited if most firms could find a way to force/cough-up a few revenue dollars from the typical site user.
Witness #1 Jon Baumgarten; Might probably want to appear impartial while framing 'cultural arresting' law/penalties/fines/taxes on the entire body of copyrighted material. This witness is most likely to be a drain on the various cultures of society.
Witness #2 Laura N. Gasaway?; Board member of the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). A big broker of licenses. Great! Another industry insider to tell us how we need less culture and more loss to Public Domain Rights. Possibly in a direct but biased way.
Witness #3; Daniel Gervais. Director of international relations at CCC, head of the Copyright Projects section of the WIPO, a panelist (domain name) at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. This person seems more like a hired copyright corporate gunslinger than anyone who would explain how culture, innovation and technological advancement is stunted by current copyright law.
Witness #4; Pam Samuelson; interestingly critical of the role of copyright and economics and actually has some grasp of the cultural innovation of Public Domain Rights. This person is outnumbered 4:1. Possibly should be heading the entire committee. Someone with real world experience of the cultural damage current copyright law entails.
Witness # 5;Jule Sigall; Info in Mike's article is better. How can a likely aggressive copyright expansion goaled firm's ex employees attitude differ from whom their future pension/retirement-income depends? Expecting a pro MS
Prediction. Few good things will come out of this committee. When the chorus is full of monkeys how can we get anything but squeaks and grunts?
What kind of 'witnesses' are these? In no way do they represent the people who will be affected by the outcome of this deliberation. Where are the people who want to sing/share Happy Birthday or harmless karaoke at their party of 100 friends?
Where are the 'witnesses' to speak up about trying to share a book to several of their kids before they die? Or rewrite that same book using significant portions of the old?
Where are the 'witnesses' to explain the disappointment and loss of culture when they cannot perform a Monty Python skit at the school play?
Where are the exposed and hurt victims of the shameful area of copyright industry's “copyporn extortion”? The destroyed families whose lives were torn apart by some almost random layer threat and huge settlement payment.
Where are the victims of web site seizures that was done with no warning and destroyed the culture surrounding those sites.
Where are the artists and writer victims where they had derivative works denied or suppressed by current eternal copyright?
Where is the average citizen represented in this group of people thats likely highly tilted toward copyright expansion and domination over culture and not the reverse where society and culture shape law. Law over culture rather than culture over law is not any sort of democratic rule.
With such poor representation all we can do is sit on the sidelines and twiddle thumbs. Speculation is the best anyone can do. Its a bad position to be in that the only thing left is hope.
Reactionary,
Just because Pam Samuelson will be sitting around a table with the other 4 likely copyright expansionists it would be nice to listen in. The legitimate cultural, real world based arguments from Pam countered by the protectionist tinted whining about potentially loosing their eternal copyright monopoly would be fun?
AC and Greevar; pointed out the obvious conflict between the Bern Convention and American Constitutional values. There are/have-been several treaties that try to outline and define 'Intellectual Property' but fail to further expand the Intellectual parts of Fair Use Rights.
(untitled comment)
The USTR agency is changing the leadership from Ron Kirk to Michael Froman so what effect does that have on the current operations?
Treaties nowadays don't seem to have that “preservation of peace, culture and society” kind of feel to them? How do we compare TPP, TRIPS or ACTA measure on the level of the Bern Convention? Why do we trade away our freedoms and Public Domain Rights away along with trade agreements? What we gain is not positive at all but a real loss of personal expression.
Freedom and Expression (Freedom of Expression) are NOT on the bargaining table. These people must know that they do not have the right to trade away these things that are boldly written in the Constitution. Why would the leadership of the USTR agency risk the legacy work of their lives in future Constitutional conflicts with current questionable special interest skewed interpretations?
Have called these weirdo trade agreements unconstitutional before and either the constitution wins or it doesn't. Who cares about whether the literal, clear writing of first preamble and the Bill of Rights will win out over the poorly written slipshod corporate protectionism special interest infested impossible to be interpreted without some complaisant judge and jury (complaisant because they did not throw the treaty our whole for being obviously unconstitutional.)
Trade negotiations using Freedom and Expression as bargaining chips seems more like a slave trade agreement. Seriously. What aware and intelligent person would trade away their Intellectual Rights for anything let alone some out-sized media firms profit margin?
Has the term 'to big to fail' become overused? Ideas are not property! The term 'Intellectual Property' should be abolished with the abhorrence equal to some former political regimes.
Why does anyone consider intellectual property to trump/steal-from Intellectual Rights?! Its not a bargain a free individual or country should ever consider. Its a no-win deal from every aspect. NOBODY benefits and even the short sighted firms/corporations profit will decline in an anthill based society's diminishing return economic profile.
The US seems bent on making their precious trade agreements irrelevant with including so many clauses that force a countries domestic law to conform to some silly trade agreement. Where does a trade agreement need to have such authority? The USTR agency authority seems way over its mandate without the convening of a full Constitutional Congress to back up such blatant signing away of basic Constitutional Rights.
This is more than just a large country bullying smaller Least Developed Countries. How does the “no roll back” clause affect other members of the treaty in later negotiations? Consider the US position if the courts wised up and actually considered the Constitution to be valid and threw it out along with some other ill advised treaties?
It sounds more and more like a trap/back door attempt to further perpetuate special interest protectionist legislation temporarily benefiting only a few large multi national corporations.
Reactionary,
Change in government takes some time. Even if the top leadership of the Executive Branch and the majority of the Congressional Branch are replaced by men and women who have read and keep close to the heart the constitution it will take time to replace all the special interest influenced appointees in the various agencies and offices.
What is important is that the process be started... Any time soon now? Hahaha Its at least possible. Vote wisely. The system is allowed to exist and influence candidates/law/treaties/etc only because of our voting habits. We typically only vote for one of two pre decided candidates and ignore all the other parties.
The other parties are vilified so successfully by the two dominant parties that most consider them as 'unviable' but thats likely only demonization using whatever media opportunities available to poison the publics viewpoint. Its important that people know that the media news is just only a viewpoint and often not even close to correct or right.
(untitled comment)
Chili along with Canada. Another wise and intelligent country that recognizes the folly of allowing the word 'property' to be attached to the word 'intellectual'. The “Special 301” list is nonsense based on special interest derived trade negotiations that benefit only a few corporations at the expense of others. Mostly for silly self destructive national protectionism reasons.
Who makes the suggestions on which countries to put on the naughty list? The MPAA? What kind of corporate favoritism is that?? Get real! How many media biased lawyers have been appointed or hired by such appointees are in the DoJ anyway?
Since copyright and trademark law is currently more like runaway protectionism than original author creative cultural works motivation its the right thing to ignore it. Its so bad that abolishing it would be better. Regaining national culture is more important than the whimpering whines of intermediary distribution firms.
Whats with this list thing anyway. Its their country! Let them decide how to encourage new original creative cultural works. Trying to homogenize the various State or Country individual efforts will only stifle and suppress true originality.
Example Analogy; Lets take the US Dept of Educations attempt to homogenize the entire American public school system into a cookie cutter based nonsensical method of learning. It does NOT work. Its failing at such a horrendous rate that many other countries have now surpassed the US. The inspiration for individual success just does not translate with this monolithic method.
The original local school district based system produced a superior learning environment. For whatever reason? Its most likely that each districts population is unique just enough that it requires an individual creative approach. When idiocy trumps wisdom and success its time to get rid of the entire Dept of Education. Save a bunch of tax dollars at the same time.
A similar concept is the attempt to force US copyright law (admittedly a special interest biased corporate favoritism/protectionism based idea) onto other countries original cultural creative processes.
Reactionary,
Even what the USA does supposedly for itself in copyright law only benefits a few corporate concerns and will not help produce more creative works. Under the current rules even any new works will not enter into Public Domain Rights in the lifetime of anyone who purchases it.
Its only a matter of time before copyright maximalists start referring the accused as terrorists or funding terrorist organizations. The ratcheting up of rhetoric is so predictable it makes on wonder on how much reality the 'war on terror' is based on.
Ninja; 'Green leprechauns'. Thats gotta be it. Yes! Watch out Ireland.
(untitled comment)
Ahhhh. The scent of money. The thrill of the chase and the excitement of riches beyond measure... Taxes. Newly minted and freshly carved from the public carcass and cooked with the most luscious bureaucratic marinade and special interest seasoning. Nothing can match the power of new funding for some future political spending spree.
Keep in mind that the GDP measures government spending as a good thing. An idiotic Keynesian economic dream.
With the House and Senate out of public control there is little doubt that this federal stupidity will grow. Taxes have always been a great method of control over goods and services.
Since government spending and self restraint is non existent the basic response should be NO. What is the problem is that citizens can't vote specifically about legislation that directly harms their lives. On may wonder at the logic of requiring the US House and Senate to be forced to ask for voter approval of the various bills and acts but considering the worthless special interest infested legislation produced lately there should be no problem. (with the logic) Its so obvious that the elected politicians have NOT been doing their jobs of protecting the average citizen.
In many US states there are voter requirements on tax bills and other legislation. As one might have guessed the property, sales and income taxes are much lower in such smart states with wise citizens. Compare Co or Wy with NY or IL. The ratio of taxation is sometimes 5:1 (and greater in some cases) and yet the lower taxation states do better in services and infrastructure upkeep. It is (again) a voter awareness problem.
For random example; In IL a roadwork construction project asphalt truck would load up at the asphalt plant with asphalt being billed to that same state/county/township roadwork project and divert it to some politicians or other paying residents driveway re blacktopping. (Cook county 'Trucks for hire' scandal) When big money is involved corruption is rampant. Always hard to ferret out.
One of the finest/best ways to put a cork on runaway government is to limit its ability to tax the populace. Since taxation is abused in so many ways by special interest legislation its an easy logical thing to do.
In the realm of limiting runaway government spending programs who cares about fair. Fair has noting to do with it. Dump and complain about any elected politician or idiotic bureaucracy infested party (both of them?) that allows such obvious slipshod taxation.
In all cases; “Spending will increase to match available funding.” It is mandatory that this funding be strictly limited otherwise it will be common that government will waste billions on panic/fear based nonsense like Doctor Who imaginary cybermen attacks. (Oops? Did that already happen?)
Reactionary,
Mentioned before is the two part action; 1) A constituent calling their legislator and POLITELY explaining how dissatisfied they are with a vote on extra taxes is a great thing to do. It lets them know they wont be able to get their vote for reelection and spends some of their limited congressional staff budget allowance.
2) Send a few bucks to the few House and Senate legislators and a BRIEF note telling them you love them when they say NO to more taxation. Even if these politicians are from another state.
Re:
“If one designs an engine” Thats way to complicated a device and makes a great illustration of the principle of mechanical/electrical/software patent substitution. Any engine is made up of many separate inventions. Yes one can patent an engine. Its a process patent. But, even in this circumstance. Did the original patent find the best way to implement this idea?
Probably not and other inventors/firms will take that wonderful engine idea and make it better and patent these ideas. Its normal that others do better than the original inventor. The steam engine development was rich with patent wars and the winners charged what they could. The steam engine was the forerunner of the combustion engine and who could have foreseen that at the time?
The original inventor or firm would be left with a possibly a usable patent but the (now) old engine will have an extra bolt or mechanical device that some other inventor found a way to get by more efficiently without those old style methods.
Will the original inventor/firm use the new and better ways of making the very same engine you patented earlier? Maybe not as the new patentees will want to charge more money via licensing fees. If the original invention was still viable then it would be sold even it it took a few extra mechanisms or valves or bolts or whatever. (levers, pinions, bearings, lever arms, seals, etc. etc. etc.)
Will the other firms be forced to pay the original inventor? Maybe. If the new improved way was so significantly better that even the original inventor/firm would be forced into some mutual agreement with the new upstart firm patenting the new and better methods. A classic lawyer-festival complete with lawsuits and all that mess.
The reverse is also true. Maybe some inventor came up with a new valve for the engine but wanted to charge ruinous licensing fees just so they could maintain their market position. Could some other inventor find a slightly less efficient valve of different design to do the same thing? Sure! And it would avoid the licensing fees.
Electrical Patent Substitution Example; Was Alternating Current better than Direct Current? Not especially. But rival inventors (Edison and Tesla) championed their own method of power transmission. Each with their own separate ways to do the same thing with different patents. When one is a genius almost anything is possible.
Software patent substitution was describe well enough in the above post.
There are so many historical examples of this. Most modern devices are a collection of so many current and expired patents its easy to be overwhelmed.
In short there is usually more than one way to do the same thing. All of them are patentable. Many times one can literally swap or substitute their own method of operation be it mechanical/electrical/software/fluidics/etc in place of some other patented method. Of course it helps to be a genius.
(untitled comment)
Loose patent law has spawned loose awarding of patents. Worse are the first to patent ideas that remove any sanity about separate development of the same idea.
In the mechanical world there are many ways to accomplish the same task but the only thing patentable is just the way you do it. Period. It good in that it rewards those who find the best way to do a particular task. It also forces various manufactures to maneuver around competitors patents by designing their own methods.
Many times one will find an extra hinge, bolt or moving part just so that manufacture could use their own patentable way to do the task and not use some overly charging other firms patent. Think a box or display looks funny? Patents might have covered the obvious way of folding or assembly. It was actually cheaper to do it in this roundabout way. Its kind of fun to learn why and how things are made.
Just making a product one has to dodge several political and legal hurdles and that assumes a fair market. What software patents are being abused for is not inductive to a level playing field in an unfettered democratic marketplace that allows innovation to succeed.
Software patent law is new and un-spanked. It has little precedence in the legal world and the “soft-patent everything” attitude before someone else does is rampant. It seems neither the US Patent office, any legal body, judge nor jury knows what to think of them.
In fact. It seems that the best use of them is for a moneyed up firm to use them for mudding the waters clouding the competitions outlook by draining them dry of funding. Its a lawyers dream to say the least.
In software its easy just putting a button on the screen that says it will do something just by clicking on it. What goes on behind the screen in all the various ways to program calls and functions varies so much from vendor to vendor its amazing. Even if the code is similar that is not congruency. (close but not quite wont do for clearly written law or exactly submitted patent applications.)
In light of this coding fact its silly that there even was a “click once and buy” patent. Who would bother except for the competitive legal threats that might be waged? Of course this assumes that software patents would behave similarly to mechanical patents. Since computers are so fast just inserting a few inefficient lines of code would slip by any software patent. Just purchase a few more servers.
The patent troll activity makes any innovative startup that much harder to pull off. Its scary and all because of careless legislation. For such a young and new market such as software we might just as well wait a few hundred years before we would stifle and slow down new development.
The mechanical realm started its early development cycle about 10,000 years ago. We can wait until at least the software industry matures beyond the obvious early innovation stage. If firms were forced to keep developing using the ideas openly shared by others it will happen that much faster.
In the early days of computer development people just shared their work in magazines and other bbs's for basically free. An established vendor would obtain value (thus revenue) in updating and maintaining their code. We can only loose when we bottle up the free flowing innovation, that is expected, with unexplored use/deployment of software patents.
Software patents are a monkey wrench into the growth of any nation. (just add 18 years onto the development cycle of any project and see how that affects profit.) Would an aware and clever software firm win against any such claims of others? Very possibly and maybe even likely. But its the legal environment that allows such a battle that kills off the competition which is the danger.
(untitled comment)
Its nice to see that basic constitutional values still enter the daily radar scope for the average person at least in some level. Long way to go.
The young crowd is as wet behind the ears as ever. The “nothing can hurt me I'm an American” syndrome infects the young mostly during the school years.
The Time/CNN group may not be noted for journalistic perfection and wonder if the questions used were neutral. Even when reading them its hard to tell without some professional physiological analysis.
Government officials have a tendency to ignore what is unpleasant to their ears and hype up the little bits/incidences that support their agenda. Unless this pols results start to influence the ballot box its only just a good sign.
(untitled comment)
In many ways its good that HTML5 does not support DRM. In this way one can easily eliminate the DRM'd sites from the normal ones. Its easy to ban flash by not installing it. In the same way its a bad thing that HTML5 is trying to become a do it all web protocol. WWW standards are to allow everything and disallow nothing.
If any content is sent to a computer it must be available for picking apart in any way if only to examining if there is some spyware or malware floating in on the encrypted stream. Its an absolute must. Safely surfing the net and DRM are diametrically opposed concepts.
Lets be honest; Who cares about some silly Hollywood fiction based idea of forced DRM?
If a firm wants to restrict its content with some proprietary or open-sourced encryption thats fine. Just don't force it on everyone. Since Flash uses semi-secret hard to delete flash-cookies (and what else don't we know about?) it is banned from any machine in many a place.
Its is important that the HTML5 standards group not be hijacked by corporations with only their own interests at heart. The World Wide Web Consortium exists to protect the openess of the net and hope they can survive this obvious takeover attempt by big media. What is the difference between Open Sourced and Open Forced?
The Content Decryption Modules CDMs seem evil in that Microsoft's Bing might require one to use windows and Apple's I-tunes would required OSX. The potential for abuse is staggering and inevitable in todays acidic and hostile corporate warfare. (where American culture and society are the victems)
In no way does this proposal for HTML5 help make the web more standardized and open. It should be more than just laughed at for being stupid but the consortium members need to be sanctioned for being stupid or worse.
There are so many legitimate arguments against DRM they are becoming uncountable. In every way will it subtract from the preservation and dissemination of culture and knowledge by whatever means/format. DRM should be outlawed for the good of all.
As long as the Hollywood fiction supporters like the MPAA, RIAA and other content middlemen like Netflix, MA and Apple are being listened to like they were serious organizations acting in the benefit culture and society we will have such preposterous proposals. Such ridiculous ideas like this will only further carve up the size and scope of Fair Use Rights and Public Domain Rights.
Reactionary,
Why shouldn't anyone be able to record a Netflix stream? Who cares! Preserving what we watch be it over the radio, cable, TV or net is a natural culturally beneficially function.
DRM even on rentals still seems too much. Rental fees are usually still quite high and re-encoding usually is to a down graded version of it of inferior quality.
Linux is definitely different an has many benefits but it is not compatible with windows or OSX in many ways. Its an open-sourced opportunity that many enjoy already but to have it forced on someone is never a good thing.
In the same way that it is hard to move from Windows2000 to Windows 8 or from Win to Mac OSX there are adaptation/learning problems also when moving to Linux from some other OS.
Windows does not play nice with Linux and its always only one win update away from having your Linux partition made unavailable from duel boot system. On the other hand Linux tries its best to be compatible. Installing Windows (after first installing Linux) will not allow duel OS use at all which seems very impolite. One has to install Linux second.
To be honest; Anyone who deliberately uses a proprietary system running proprietary software producing proprietary file formats is insane. The IBM microcomputer was originally accepted by the business community over Amiga and Apple because of its inter compatibility file formats. Rapidly are offices converting to mostly Linux machines. (there are exceptions when some software is required)
the words 'piracy' and theft still do not translate to copying files. Its childish and not worthy of attention once mentioned in any argument. Such grade school level bullying should be punished in of itself.
(untitled comment)
Its a many way intersection with lots of choices on which way to go when it comes to technology. Since its normal that people want to visually document their own lives Google Glass is a natural outcome of culture and technology. Just banning a service or technology is like cutting off a cultural or technological foot so to speak. Its just a knee jerk reaction to something the we as a society do not understand.
The rules for privacy are still the same. If one is in a public area then there is no reason to expect privacy. There are likely certain civil and criminal law exceptions to photographing in public areas.
Like only photographing someone when they blow or pick their nose or scratch their ass. If such targeting is done in a way that intends to demean, blackmail or in some photographic way similar to libel or slander as applied to pictures/video this might have some legal traction. Also, stalking with or without a camera can be a crime so its hard to see what is the problem as there are already some legal remedies.
Private areas are a another matter. Public thoroughfares are historically a new development and it was inevitable that when traveling you wandered over private land many a time. There were no roads in most places. Only trails that followed passable routes not property lines. Parcels were on the average much larger in able to support animal grazing and farming. In the years following there was a long legal process of developing ingress and egress land easement rights and publicly owned roads.
Its probable that restaurants, clubs and private property owners would use a public notification sign to avoid whatever imaginary legal entanglements from such activities. The conflicts of photographing from public spaces and coincidental inclusions will be fun to see worked out in detail by the courts and legislation. Keeping in mind that just clicking a photo should never be a problem.
There might also be exceptions to posting a 'no photo' sign. In the same way Fair Use Rights apply to media this would naturally extend to documenting ones life photographically. What is news and journalistic intent? An accident, however embarrassing, is important to document? An event that affects culture and society itself is an important thing to document? A speech? An arrest or police action?
Would the person wearing/using such a life documentation tool like Google Glass or a life cam device be required to publicly display the device. Might a notice or light be required so that the person knows they are being recorded? There is legal precedence in this in that some states require a beeping sound to be played when anyone is recorded over the phone. A hidden camera is at the least... not polite.
Public land should always be open for photographic or video use without asking. It must be a default that its always OK but thats not the case already. Notices in US national parks like “Filming and areas of the park require permission of the Park Ranger” kind of nonsense already exists. (Profiteering Idiots?) Of course there is a difference between one or two people filming for a documentary and a whole crew getting in the way of normal park operations.
Just like No Trespassing signs are placed on private property a No Photographing sign would also likely be applicable to the Google Glass and Life-Cam cultural path. No 'moral panic' is necessary. Since the White House Internet suggestion box is open to anything we will get more death star requests like this one?
Speaking of potential legislation it would be important for general public use that “just taking a picture” does not become illegal. Its a natural thing to want to document or enshrine some event , place or people/groups/persons. Do not let natural everyday functions become illegal.
An example of how bad law/legislation can become an evil monster that allows private prisons and lawyers feed cannibalisticly off of a singled out class of people would be the drug laws (lets face it, who cares what good or bad habits you have) and copyright laws (wow. Didn't we just have an article on how the blind support network was being targeted by the MPAA?). Each are a threat to culture and regulates opinions and habits of people/society based on some (likely religious and or profit motivated) targeted special interest written legislation.
So basically we have a freedom of expression argument with Google Glass and similar uses of low cost digital camera and storage technology. Hard to see what the problem is. Moral Panic? Its laughable. The right to do what we want, even if its dangerous, is a very American thing.
Once we have our life's documentation by drawings, sound, photo or video how do we protect it? By full encryption of course. Encryption is the best way to put of a sign that the data is private. Everyone should do this because of the, most likely overly lax, privacy laws. There is now some legal precedence that protects this also.
Not covered is the fact that some will make publicly available their life cam data. What is needed is legislation that prevents any government from just copying that citizens private life.
Reactionary,
From AC. If we don't stop regulating daily activities we might make gestures like pointing a finger at our heads and pulling the thumb trigger and saying “bang!” illegal. Its already been singled out in a grade school event so its already a problem. It would really be nice to see some heads roll, so to speak, and pink slips issued to those directly involved and the administrators who allowed such an unhealthy/panicky environment to exist in the first place.
(untitled comment)
Wonder how Germany would get this into service? A fake Mozilla web site or a man in the middle attack? Sound nefarious either way. Are they slipping back into the old SS ways of thinking (or did some out of control American agency give them some hints?) Would like some clean answers on that dirt. (and not just shoo shooing with some other political public distractions.)
Shams are everywhere and when a flim-flam (theft by deception) is being perpetrated its best to use the most trusted names in the world and Mozilla fits the evil need of the ones (Germany? And who else?) who want to deceive.
Wanna charge a person a fee to apply for a large famous company? Swipe the logos and name of IBM or ATT and see how much you can make before someone actually calls the home office. So in a way trademark law can make it easier for such deceptions to exist.
If a suggestion could be made; enforce the crime itself and don't involve trademark law. Its a derivative abuse of copyright law and not any more pleasant. Just because it was easier for Mozilla to prosecute for a corporate trademark violation is only a symptom of how weak common criminal/civil law is compared to corporate trademark law.
Trademark law, like copyright law, at one time did perform a somewhat beneficial service to Public Domain Rights but its all long gone in a wash of special interest farm animal feeding upon misplaced public trust in Washington. Was it used well and maybe wisely in this case? Sure, very possibly.
But what if the corporation that owns the trademark itself is the perpetrator of abuse? Would they file for trademark based take-down DMCA notices to try and suppress public opinion? Maybe. Its happened before and with the current lax, corporate one sided, law it will again. Unless steep penalties are enacted against companies who abuse free speech it will also increase.
A somewhat good example was Sony's use of a rootkit for spying on its very own paying customers. That was before layers learned to abuse the DMCA so it did not happen but it could have? Its sooooo easy to do. Might that same rootkit do some dirty work itself (or installing some new software that did) like monitoring any correspondence with the word Sony in it?
There are many problems with current trademark law. Much deals with the lack of oversight and its effects on society and its various cultures?
Trademark law was not supposed to interfere with culture or society. Many cultural figures are firmly based in culture like the Disney characters or Marvel heroes (now Disney controlled). These types of trademarks are subtractions from culture and should never have been allowed. Any such attempt at permanent theft from American culture should be punished.
How is Disney to profit if they loose their precious eternal copyright and trademark laws? Don't know. Maybe they would have to start making new creative work. An end to the rehashing of old crap would be nice. No we do not need another remake of Witch Mountain or whatever? Maybe you like that?
What we need are new interpretations that build or tear down the old way of thinking.
Punchline;
Do we need spy programs that build on the great work of other companies? No. Spying is always wrong. Trust, at least, your own citizens. Do we need to invoke trademark law to prevent this? No. Spying is illegal? Making false claims is illegal. Deception for profit or harm is illegal. Etc.
Who knows anymore. But. At least it once was; In a land called The United States of America. (at least was for some time after the constitution was written) That great almost-dead myth we invoke at camp-side fire to shoo away ghost stories of how the copyright bogeymen (people) will come and take you away in the night. Which is real and fiction?
Reactionary,
Its probably best not to use the built in search box and use some less common method like visiting a web page. Use two browsers. One for general browsing with all java and flash shut down and other safeguards like Privoxy and NoScript or whatever. Use the other less restricted browser for safe/known sites.