I don't know if Judge Otis Wright is biased, but he does seem to have a philosophical bent. Almost as if he believes in some nutty concept such as the separation of powers. As if it's his job to keep watch over and put limits on the executive branch. And we all know that's crazy, because the executive branch has to work with complete impunity to protect us from terrorists.
I used to love newspapers. I mean I loved them. I'd get to school or work and spend the first half an hour of my day reading. It was awesome. I'd save some for lunch, so I'd have something to read then.
It was annoying at times. Signing up for a subscription was always a suspicious process, sort of like signing up for a gym membership. Why was it so shady and complicated?
If you bought from a local machine, sometimes it'd be empty or wouldn't work. So you'd have to scurry around trying to find a paper.
Sometimes there would be missing sections to the paper, which always pissed me off.
Oh, and let's not forget the ads. Killing a tree to give me a ton of weekend ads I'll never look at just seemed so pointless. Even back when I was in love.
But none of those mattered, because I was in love. Until the internet came out. Back in the 90s I realized I was reading in the paper the exact same stories I read the night before online. AP story after AP story.
But I was in love, so it didn't matter. I still had local news, editorials, and the comics.
But the local news and editorials departments shrank, to save money. And in all honesty, I only read two or three comics. So I started getting newspapers less and less. And eventually I had to face the fact, I no longer loved newspapers.
But even worse, I didn't even have any fond memories of newspapers. You don't have fond memories of more difficult archaic ways. "Oh, I miss the days before microwave ovens when I'd spend 40 minutes warming up a frozen dinner." No, I don't.
When something better comes along, I don't look back fondly, I look back and think, "How did I put up with that crap?" So yes, newspapers were crap. They were the best we had at the time. They didn't have the immediacy of radio or TV, but they had depth and substance. But that advantage died with the net. And good riddance. You won't be missed by me.
I'm still waiting for the estate of Algis Budrys to sue over the movie 'Edge of Tomorrow' for "ripping off" his book 'Rouge Moon'. Which uses the idea of fighting, "dying", and then coming back for more fighting.
I understand what Amy is trying to do. Like the myth that Will Smith said "Welcome to Earf" to the crashed alien in Independence Day. We can hear him say it, even though he actually and clearly said "earth."
But check out the video here at 1:17. Did he step on a couch? No. He clearly jumped on a couch with both feet. You can't step with both feet at the same time. It's impossible.
I've worked in courts long enough to be utterly perplexed by this. I can imagine the files being sealed and made non-public. But actually allowing the files to be removed?! What's the legal basis for that?!
I've said this before: photographs do not deserve copyright protection because photographers do not need the incentive of copyright.
Brides and grooms will still hire wedding photographers. Moms will still make appointments at portrait studios. And photographers will still be paid to take pictures of public domain art.
The second reason is that photographs, especially these, are not creative. They are merely digital representations of other works of art. There's nothing new other than the format, which is not sufficient to give an entirely new copyright protection. Because if that's true, every time I open a PDF in OpenOffice, I'm creating a new copyright. Which is simply asinine.
It's not just folklore. It's a country's entire culture and sub-culture. It'd be like giving the US the right to sue other countries for misappropriating jazz, baseball, and cheerleaders. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
How are we harmed if some school in Nigeria wants to have a cheerleading squad? Vice versa, how is Nigeria harmed if my kids wears a Bini mask for Halloween?
Here's my thinking. The WIPO wants to force third world countries into accepting our IP laws. What advantage does that give those poorer countries? Nothing really. It just forces them to pay more and be sued for not paying. No advantage at all.
However, what if the WIPO promised those countries cultural rights? Basically promising they could sue other nations or corporations for cultural appropriation. So if someone opens a chain of Bombay Bistros in the US, India could sue to stop it or for profits.
It's a win/win for everyone but citizens. The IP maximalists get their view of the world imposed everywhere. And the poorer countries get to sell this to their people by saying they're protecting their cultures from western decadence, along with a tidy profit.