"-- including Pete Seeger admitting both that he didn't write the song and (perhaps importantly) that the people who did copyright it in the 1960s did so "to protect it from being turned into an insipid pop song (as happened to 'Wimoweh')."
> Half a century ago, here is a reformer, "trying to prevent Hollywood from turning famous lyrics into an insipid pop hit"! Isn't this copyright being used to censor a transformative fair use because he didn't like it?
You make a fair point But considering the object example provided, it's hard to decide whether Mr Seeger deserves censure -- or praise. :-/
One question: Was there an actual problem in the first place?
I can't help feeling rather sceptical about the whole rational behind the FCC's new regulations on this matter.
It smells like a mostly theoretical problem, and that the new rule is over-kill for something that rarely if ever actually occurs -- and most likely will still be a problem, after this regulation has allegedly dealt with it, because this is essentially a "scapegoating" and/or "band-aid" response, rather than an effective solution).
> "TP-Link isn't exactly a brand favorite for most router buyers anyway"
> Maybe for average consumers, but for those who use firmware like OpenWrt they're a great value. Obviously that market is too small to make financially sense in catering to though.
I have a basic philosophy for buying any computer products: *) Decent support for FOSS is a surprisingly good indicator of "under the surface" quality *) If it doesn't support FOSS (Linux, DD-WRT, CUPS, or whatever is pertinent, then I'm not buying it for myself, and recommending against it for anyone who asks my opinion.
Before buying (or recommending) any router, I confirm that the model in question has good, full-featured, alternate firmware (and that it can be installed without too much hassle).
(I might not even actually install it -- but not having the option is a deal-breaker. Some people laugh, or think I'm anal-retentive, but I've been burned too many times -- going back to the days of Win-modems and Win-printers.)
I currently have a couple of TP-Link routers in my home. I've been pretty satisfied with them. I've recommended them to others as well. Some people sneer at the brand, but I've found them steady, reliable, and thanks to 3rd-party firmwares, I've been able to place on-going confidence in them.
* * * * * * *
In this era where (a) "black hats" are known to hack routers as a "low profile" exploit that easily hides from the usual counter-measures (especially the measures typical for the home or small-business user), and (b) manufacturers are notoriously lax about maintaining and distributing security patches on this kind of "sell-and-forget" essential hardware, even though the security implications are significant, I consider this precaution to be simply your basic "smart consumer" knowledge and self-protection.
* * * * * * *
It looks like TP-Link has lost my future business -- and that of the friends and acquaintances that seek my advice or help on such matters.
Most people don't know and won't care -- but many of them will be getting advice from people who do.
I suspect the judge was less "corrupt" than disinclined to believe the the plaintiff was so blatantly scamming the system -- and him.
After all, judges tend to be hard on litigants who they find to be bald-faced, outright lying to them; they call it "perjury", and mostly respond rather badly to it (unless, perhaps, you're a police officer in an "excessive force" case).
Xerox doesn't -- they'd be too embarrassed, and it would do too much damage to their reputation and to their business.
So what they'll do instead (as they've done before) is sell the patent off to some "Patent Assertion Entity" (a.k.a. "Troll") like they sold 5,689,64 https://www.google.com/patents/US5689642 to East Texas based Loramax LLC, who promptly filed suit against several dozen "infringers" in the notoriously "patent friendly" District Court of East Texas.
People like to sneer and dismiss Stallman as some sort of long-haired, hippy radical. But unfortunately, he keeps turning out to have been dead-on, absolutely right.
He's sort of like Marshall McLuhan, that way. Because Stallman wasn't (as McLuhan once explained his own success at "predicting the future") really attempting to predict the future, but rather was simply describing what he could see happening right in full plain view of everybody, but nobody was paying attention, nor generally cared to.
Enough is enough... it's History; Our common heritage -- No One should control it
I suggest that the fine old institution of "Copyright" badly needs (in addition to much shorter monopoly grants) a specific exemption for "historical" documents, such as, for example, The Diary of Anne Frank or Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech (and the historical film of him delivering that speech, too), news coverage, and similar works. (Imagine the consequences if, for example, the Gettysburg Address had been subjected to such nonsensically anti-social controls.)
It's ridiculous that we, as a society, are willing to concede that some private individual or corporation can essentially "own the rights to" and exercise control over public experience and to the very stuff of the historical record.
This needs to stop. Really! It Needs To Stop! It's Insane... Perhaps, between this case and the MLK documents, we can begin to consider applying a little common sense over the farcical legal framework that's grown up to wall us off from direct, simple access to our own common heritage.
The advertising rate of a physical periodical is in part based on the notion of it's "recirculation" ratio -- how many people will likely end up looking at a typical copy.
So the guy that glances through the sports section of the paper that gets left on the Starbuck's table, the lady who checks out the fashion pages, the person who browse the travel section on checks their horoscope -- all are valuable, additional audience that allows the publisher to charge and justify a higher rate for his advertising space.
Heck -- if your publication is any good, this is "free advertising", not "piracy" to sue over.