Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.
This could still be a fact if...
1) The database already exists. "We said that we wouldn't *create* a database; we didn't say that if we already had one, we couldn't use it to store these data."
2) It's not a database. "That's not a 'database', silly. We're storing all the data in an Excel file that Stan keep on his laptop. Stan is a good guy. He hardly ever forgets his laptop behind at the coffee shop."
3) The law stipulates that other parties have to collect the data and turn it over to the police. "Well, we can't trust the ISPs to collect this data because they're so obsessed with 'customer privacy' or some such nonsense, so we have to make the ISPs pay for a whole new category of company to log the data for them. Which of course means that they need to have access to all of the ISPs systems. And this totally isn't because we're trying to weasel out of our earlier promise. We're doing this for you!"
4) They're not "Canadians". "No no no, I can see where you'd think that we mean no Canadians would have their activity logged and turned over to the police. That's an easy mistake to make. What we meant, of course, is that we get to track all activity of all Internet traffic that comes through Canada. If the traffic just so happens to be by Canadians, then that's not our fault."
They're not very likely to be caught by any of the measures in these bills because they'll (a) read the text and (b) evade the enumerated measures.
Careful Rich, you're libel to be referenced by lawmakers as an expert in favor of keeping the details of this law secret. "Well, we can't just let the bad guys know what we're logging, so it *has* to be secret! Even TechDirt agrees to that!"
the production company pulled the streaming rights from us
They can do that? I would think that it'd be a no-brainer for Netflix to stipulate in the contract with the media company that they can't just arbitrarily pull the rights on a particular movie. But then again, the content companies have Netflix over a barrel, so maybe there's a clause in the contract for this very thing. Still, it seems odd that they can just yank a single title.
I would agree that it's not cencorship in the same way that taking down a whole site for an undefined period of time for an indefined reason is, but it's close enough for the big media companies to have some justification in their claim of curtailing their ability to participate in the democratic process.
If by "attacks", they're referring to the general uproar on the Internet and the negative feedback, then their statement is patently absurd. But..if they're talking about literal attacks i.e. DoS attacks or other forms of hacking, I can at least see some shred of logic.
If you pull off some traditional civil disobedience, like chaining yourself to a tree or marching in the streets without a permit, you may be inconveniencing others, but you're not taking away their freedom of speech or their ability to be involved in the democratic process. But if you take down a website which represents an opposing opinion, you are in effect censoring their speech. So, at least in this way, they may be right.
But overall, these attackers do more harm than good. Yes, it may draw attention to the issue, but it allows big media companies to use one of their standard tricks, Guilt by Conflation: associate two different things together and respond to objections using whichever one better supports your position. They did it with counterfeiting and infringement and certainly looks like they're doing it now with "attacks" and "protests".
These kinds of things were exactly what people have been warning about... and yet the US government ignored all those warnings (and probably still doesn't realize what it's kicked off here).
One would think that a normal part of the DOJ analysis on whether to move ahead with a certain legal action would be to 1) consider the possible consequences of that action and 2) after the action is taken, to review what the actual consequences were. What scary is that the DOJ either didn't do Option 1, did do Option 1, but wanted these chilling effects, or hasn't done Option 2. Any combination of those options is frightening.
Can they really be called unintended consequences if you never even bother to consider the consquences in the first place?
The fundamental issue is that the company sees the value of such patents as monetary whereas the victims and their physicians see the value of such patents as their ability to fill that medical necessity.
How the company actually sees things is irrelevent to the OP's point. The point is that the Medicines Patent Pool is stating that its model would be a "win" for J&J, which by any rational interpretation, would mean that it would be more profitable than doing business in the traditional way. But there is nothing in the quote from the Medicines Patent Pool to support this assertion. It could very well be documented somewhere else, but you'd think that this information would be important enough to include in the actual post instead of leaving it to trust in an organization that most TD readers have probably never heard of.
I read the patent pool explanation and I don't see how it gets the patent holder anywhere near the money they would have controling the monopoly.
I don't either. The quote from the Medicines Patent Pools makes blanket statements about the benefits of the patent pool model, but nothing in the quote provides any rationale. The patent pool model is described as a "win-win-win" but this just flies in the face of common sense. Now, I admit that I know next to nothing about patent pools, so there could be a perfectly logical reason that they would actually benefit big pharma as well as the patients, but there's nothing in this post that explains how.
"Johnson & Johnson says there is no urgency for making these drugs widely available in developing countries"
I seemed unlikely to me that a corporation would make such a blatantly crass statement, so I went looking for an original quote. (The quote above is second hand, via DWB.)
I couldn't find a quote that matched the "no urgency" message, but but here's a quote from Will Stephens, "vp of global access and partnerships at J&J’s Janssen Global Services"...
"Because WHO treatment guidelines drive the public health treatment focus and national guidelines in resource-limited countries, the current clinical demand for our medicines is extremely limited there. In addition, HIV resistance testing is not widely available in resource-limited settings, which makes the contruction (sic) of active treatment regimens challenging. As a result treatment of 3rd-line patients is largely restricted to centers of excellence where physicians have specialist knowledge and/or access to resistance testing."
Mayb e someone with some expertise in the area can provide better insight, but what he appears to be saying is that developing countries don't have the capabilities required to test for the kinds of conditions that would be addressed by the drugs in question. So, maybe he's using the term "demand" to mean the demand of the clinicians in the developing countries -- which would kinda, almost make a tiny bit of sense -- and not to mean the demand of the actual kids dying of AIDS -- which would not only be blatantly crass and insensitive, but just plain dumb from a business standpoint.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
I would have thought the distinction was quite easy to see.
What's quite easy to see, to everyone but you apparently, is that my question was about the distinction as it relates to your baffling implication that somehow the "managers" have more control of IP than the "owners". Are you sure you don't work for an online help desk? They use the same trick of addressing a single sentence out of a paragraph and ignoring the actual question being asked.
I'll try again...
Because while UMG might have the ultimate ownership, their subsidiary, Interscope, has management of it.
If UMG has the "ultimate ownership" of the video, what relevance does it have who manages it or whether someone designated is as "official"? Do you really think that these factors override who owns the copyright?
Please explain to us how, if this video is official, it can be unauthorized, ever? Because while UMG might have the ultimate ownership, their subsidiary, Interscope, has management of it.
Please explain to us what distinction you make between “ownership” and “management”? You seem to be implying that because Interscope is “managing” the video, it somehow trumps UMG’s rights in “owning” the video. It clearly doesn’t. Of course I don’t have access to the contracts, but I’d bet money that even if UMG is taking the funds to make the video out of 50 Cent’s cut, they still retain ultimate ownership of the IP. Just because someone put an “Official video” stamp on the video doesn’t change this.
Remember how the music labels like to say that everything they do is for the sake of the artists on their label?
No, I don't. I know this is a bit of innocent hyperbole, but even if some representative of a recording company said something that outrageous, it wouldn't be taken seriously. It's understood that the primary purpose of any company, much less a recording company, is to make money. Now, organizations like the RIAA, on the other hand, do claim to represent the best interests of the artists. (A claim that is almost, but not quite as laughable as it would be if made by a recording company.) I'd see your main point about hypocrisy being relevant if it were the RIAA who somehow got the video pulled, but not UMG.
For the record, I think it's counterproductive to UMG's profits to pull the video, but I think they're within their rights. It may be stupid, but not hypocritical.
Of course things like sex, money, drugs make for a good scandal, but to really achieve a grade A, world class, blockbuster scandal, you need hypocrisy. The politician caught cheating on his wife with a prostitute? Normal scandal. The politician who ran on family values caught cheating on his wife with a prostitute? Now you're talking!
It may not be enough, but I think hypocrisy will be a secret weapon against stupid copyright laws. Given our current laws, much less the draconian laws being proposed now, it's impossible to not infringe on some IP on an almost hourly basis. So anyone or any organization which is a vocal supporter of IP maximalism is just setting themselves up for the scandal-ready hypocrisy outlined in this post. You can bet that there will be more of these kinds of discoveries. Let's here it for crowdsourcing.