Cave-lawyer: "Cave-man has just been issued a patent on the Wheel. We saw you moving blocks of stone on a platform of rolling logs. Pay us 3 wolf-pelts and 2 saber-tooth knives or we will sue you for a side of mastadon."
Cave-mason: "But I have been moving stuff on rolling logs for over 10 years and others have been doing it too. How can Cave-PTO issue such a broad patent now, given all of the obvious prior art?"
Cave-lawyer: "You have to examine each of the claims to measure their individual validity. You can't just say the patent is obvious without looking at the details. Cave-PTO examiners are experts that went to Cave-harvard university."
Cave-mason: [After carefully examining the stone tablet inscribed with the patent.] "I see this patent was applied for 6 years ago. That was around the same time I did some construction work on Cave-man's cave."
Cave-lawyer: "Cave-man draws inspiration for his inventions from many sources. Anyway, you better just pay up the 3 little pelts or you risk losing an entire half of a Mastadon. Plus you will be held up in extended court proceedings away from your work while your wife and children starve."
(Very early in its history, the human race goes extinct.)
There is some truth to what the AC said. It wasn't that the govt forced banks to make bad loans (as the AC did not say but you seem to have read into it that he did) but that the govt was complicit by guaranteeing loans to low income buyers. The banks aren't going to deny a loan if they have no risk.
The relatively few deaths caused by psychotic gun wielders is but a scratch on the body of humanity. But the emotional response of seeing an innocent killed causes humanity to thrash about in the dark trying to hit the thing that scratched it. Meanwhile humanity ignores the ton of bricks that are still a mile up, but clearly falling its way.
Cave-lawyer: "No, no, no. You can't have a patent on fire just on the process of making fire. If you make a fire by rubbing two sticks together you owe Cave-man a bear hide."
Cave-hunter: "Well, I made this fire by banging two stones together so bug off."
Cave-lawyer: "In that case you can either give Cave-man 3 beaver pelts (of which I will keep 2 for services), or we will sue you for a side of Mastadon."
Cave-hunter: "But I thought you said his patent was only on making fire by rubbing two sticks together?"
Cave-lawyer: "Doesn't matter. We wrote the patent with such broad terminology that we can still sue you. Better you just pay up the 3 little pelts than risk losing an entire half of a Mastadon. Plus you will be held up in extended court proceedings away from the hunt while your wife and children starve."
(Very early in its history, the human race goes extinct.)
Notice in the article how they talk about releasing it for download at first, then switching that after a set time to streaming with the provision to remove the streaming. In other words, they want to have a launch window. Problem is, that isn't how the internet works. Once you put something out, it is out, there is no reigning back in. I suspect that this is the missing piece of the puzzle. Because they are unable to control windows of availability the old fogies at EMI reject the idea completely.
The real problem with that youtube video is that there is NO VIDEO, probably because of copyright (bullshit) restrictions. I only "watched" enough of it to get the point. But I was hoping for some flaunting of glee girl butts. That would have kept me watching to the end!
That lack of video in that glee video just makes the point stronger.
Through creativity he modified something to sound almost completely different from the original. He made something new. Then someone else copied exactly what he did and didn't give him any credit for it. That is the problem here. I am all for anyone copying anything from anybody just as long as they admit it is a copy and give credit where it is due.
Yeah, legal gobbledygook and complicated arbitrary rules make the whole situation fine, don't they. Just means only the big guy with the team of lawyers can do whatever they want to the little guy. Thanks for making clear exactly what is wrong with this.
Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
Raise your hand if you worked at a university and haven't gone into the computer closet to jiggle a few wires to get your connection to work. Sure the door says "Authorized Personnel Only", but I thought that knowing what you are doing makes you authorized.
I reread that and realize it sounds bad. I wish he hadn't offed himself at all, of course. But I think he should have fought harder to fight the charges rather than giving up prematurely as though he had already lost. The mind is fragile.
I would rather that he had fought all the charges and then offed himself after (if) he lost.
But I can see someone like him getting depressed just by the in-the-face realization that some people are so cruel, that the system is so cold, and there is just nothing that you can do about it. I too become depressed when I think about these things, but I can just put it out of mind and dwell instead on snowflakes and unicorns. He couldn't.
You know that there are limits to everything. I consider myself principled, but if somebody held a gun to my head and told me to apologize for something I hadn't done I would do so, just to make them go away.
Swartz did return all documents to JSTOR, pay restitution and apologize. ... you cannot say Swartz didn't know and acknowledge that his conduct was wrongful.
And you never just payed the fine or apologized when you knew in your heart you were in the right? No one ever just apologized or paid the fine to make the thing go away or from other outside pressure or just convenience?
"Ah, since you paid the fine you admit that you ran the red light!"
"Yeah, I apologize for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office."
Why are prosecutors given so much power over what the end punishment of a criminal is? Seems like there should be more separation between the judge and the lawyers. Another thing I am wondering is if there are any consequences to lawyers for bringing bogus charges to court. Like, say they bring somebody up on 10 charges and the judge finds him guilty of 4. The prosecutor gets a -6 on their record or something?
Prosecutor: "Unless you sign off on this speeding ticket, chum, I'm gonna throw the book at you. That's right, I'll charge you with everything! You will be in court 20 years at least. You musta done something."
Not entertainment, but there is a large copyright industry built around the selling of academic papers. This, as a closet scientist, is an insane situation to me. I have to pay $25 just to look at some of the papers I am interested in. Knowledge should be free.
It remains unclear the motivations for the prosecutor bullying in this particular (Swartz) situation, though. What is clear is that it should not have happened.