What is the worry, that someone is going to trick you that they put something into the public domain and then 35 years later terminate the grant and sue you? This is what we're worried about?
I think the much more likely scenario is heirs of the original creator seeking a payday, who don't have the same view on the public domain. Given how many stories we see of greedy heirs, this seems quite likely.
Hey guys. After talking to more people about this I've updated the post and noted that it's not as crazy as it first appeared. It appears the WH is really only dropping a bad idea that many had assumed to be dropped long ago -- and is instead focusing on a better plan to get the data out of the NSA (leaving it with the original companies).
Somewhere in there I missed the part where Costco made a copy of the watch image. At what point was copyright infringed?
The argument was that in selling the watch it was a form of distribution. Normally the First Sale doctrine protects against that when you're talking about a physical good that has a copyright-covered work built in (e.g., a book or a painting). But Omega argued that since First Sale only applied to works "lawfully made under this law" that it didn't apply to works created overseas, because they weren't made under *US copyright law.* The Supreme Court rejected that in Kirtsaeng.
So it's the distribution right that was the issue, not the reproduction right...
Hey Mike, I'm gonna come over and paint your house in colors I think I'll like. Don't worry, I'll make sure it's transformative.
Well, as long as it's for your private viewing and has no impact at all on how I or anyone else views the house, there's no problem with that, now is there? And in the case of people re-editing movies, that's exactly the case.
if Sony doesn't want to be repeatedly hacked, they should actually invest in some real cybersecurity. Storing passwords in plaintext files in a folder named 'Passwords' isn't going to cut it.
Eh, I don't think so. There's a big difference between *better security* and "unhackable." And the difference is important. It gets back to Schneier's discussions on airport security. People keep trying to set up airport security with the ridiculous claim that no bad guys can get through, but that's impossible and stupid. The way you do that is you don't let anyone fly.
The point is, if you want the benefits of air travel, you have to admit that there's some risk and then try to minimize it, while balancing the inconvenience/problems that creates. You don't try for perfect. You balance the tradeoffs.
Same with computer security. But the point NDT is making here ignores those tradeoffs completely.
Try, fail, learn, try again. That's EXACTLY how innovation works.
If that's what he was advocating, that would be right.
But it's not. He's advocating a tautology. Tautology is not innovation it's stating the same thing twice. He's not talking about improving systems, he's just saying "hey, don't do this." "Want to live? Don't die." That doesn't help an innovator in any way. It's useless.
Re: Re: Re: TechDirt wasn't the only one who got this letter
A few things on this:
Their contact phone numbers are all +44 (Great Britain). I'm not sure exactly what that address is in New Orleans, but I suspect it's just a postal presence. I doubt this company has any legal sway in the USA. Note the signature on the letter in incomprehensible and is labeled Icondia Ltd. They weren't even brave enough to have an actual person put their name on it.
Since Guernsey is quasi-UK, the +44 country code still applies:
I do understand your viewpoint, but believe that deference to the legal definition of what comprises a loan is a more prudent position for a number of reasons, one of which includes remaining in compliance with our tax laws.
Okay. Then you have to admit that tax law ALSO treats a recording contract and a venture investment *entirely* differently as well.
Yet you had no problem insisting they are one and the same.
Once again, it seems, you choose definitions that suit you and ignore it when the same rules you seek to apply to others are applied back to you.