I spent some time trying to get information out of the cops about this case. They seemed to be terrified of answering any questions on the phone, in fact I could hear two of the talking when one put the phone down, and they sounded so scared it was ridiculous. They also refused to supply me the information I wanted, and tried to pretend that some of it didn't exist.
Oh, and they tried to refer me to the IFPI, and when I pointed out that the IFPI shouldn't know what was in the arrest warrant, they seemed to get more nervous.
I don't think that the cops were at all happy with the IFPI, in fact I got the impression that the cops believe that the IFPI was lying to them. Curious, that.
If you want to read what I wrote at the time I made the call click here.
During the Canadian Copyright Consultation I filed a submission in which I advocated making copyrights non-transferable except by inheritance, i.e. the copyright would remain with the creator, or the creator's heirs. Anyone wanting to use the copyright would have to negotiate with the creator to lease the rights, with the rights being leased for a term of no more than six years, with no automatic renewals allowed.
The point of course being to protect the creator. I was told privately that my suggestion horrified certain people, and that the same people are less than happy that I won't shut up about it.
You could consider it 'consumer protection' legislation for artists from another point of view :)
This is quite common. It appears that many businesses regard something that is free as being free to them, but pay for everyone else. This is why Microsoft is so upset with the people at Mozilla and Open Office. Or for that matter Android. Microsoft wants every handset maker to pay them for using Android, which Microsoft did not have a hand in developing, and which probably doesn't infringe on any valid Microsoft patents (by valid I mean capable of withstanding a post-Bilski evaluation).
And we are seeing it come to pass. Various groups are attacking the Creative Commons license (and Free Software licenses).
Behind this are the RIAA & MPAA, and other similar groups. They are terrified of the new reality, that having a deal with a recording company is no longer worth pursuing, artists can make better profits by dealing directly with their fans. And artists are doing this in droves, which means that the packagers are loosing market share.
So of course they are trying to fight back. That what they are trying to do to lock in the talent now, would have prevented them from becoming what they are if it had have been tried on them when they were young, is amusing, but sad.
Katie Michaels is the porn star who advertised on Craigslist that she had tickets to a hockey game in Phoenix. Her website is Katie Michaels Dot Net.
I think I'm the person who posted about her originally, because she seems to have come up with the CWF+RtB idea on her own, and while it's not what usually gets discussed here, it shows that there's a wide range of businesses that it can be applied to.
Oh, and I also emailed her a link to the site. I wonder if she's been reading up on her options...
The release occurred after the EU Parliament asked for a legal ruling. The ACTA negotiators probably read up on the legal rights of parliament and decided that releasing it before they were ordered to was the best option, and they no doubt will argue when parliament next wants an update that they've already released it, and that nothing substantive has changed so that parliament doesn't need an update.
Simple but effective unless parliament is willing to fight.
Murdoch appears bent on driving his own newspapers into receivership. It's too bad that this will kill some famous names. But this is what happens when someone as unintelligent as Murdoch ends up controlling what used to be a national treasure (The Times).
The Patent Office is doing it's job by ignoring it's own rules? And this makes sense to you how?
As to needing a patent to produce a product, ok, so I don't have a patent, and XYZ Company claims that they do. Now I have to defend myself in court, which could end up costing me millions of dollars eve if I win, and if I don't win I will end up paying them even more, and therefore I can't sell the product as cheaply as I would have. Now my customers are unhappy because I have raised the price. Tell me how this is good for the economy.
What about those who don't believe in patents at all?
I've worked in manufacturing for a long time, on things like forklifts, construction equipment, lawn mowers, trucks, etc. In my last position I was responsible for evaluating technologies, and had to read a lot of patents. Guess what? Almost all of the patents that I read were invalid according to U.S. Patent Office rules.
Seriously. The most common issue was obviousness, but there were also a lot of patents that were invalid because the description was so poor that no one could learn anything from it, or the item patented was scientifically impossible. There were a few that were quite workable, but patented natural phenomenon.
The end result is that the patent system is a parasitic drag on the economy, and in the United States (the country which the Global Recession has hurt the worst) may cause a huge delay in recovery.
Of course there are a lot of people who will disagree with me on this, and in many quarters my opinion will not be welcome.