Paul 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (201)
-
On the post: House Committee Approves 'Keep Every American's Digital Data for Submission to the Federal Government Without a Warrant Act of 2011'
-
On the post: UK Appeals Court Agrees That Clicking A Link And Opening A Website… Is Infringing
Paul ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2011 @ 10:14amBut maybe a heading is just an "Industrial Prop"...
...Which would allow us to reproduce headlines of British articles in our News Aggregators as long as the news is only 15 years old...
-
On the post: Are There Any Politicians Who Know What PROTECT IP Is About? Senator Hutchison Thinks It's About Net Neutrality
Paul ( profile ), 19 Jul, 2011 @ 03:38pmRe: I wonder...
In my experience, John Cornyn tends to take a long time to respond, but he does eventually. I sent a protest to him on June 17. On July 7 I got the (more on topic) reply:
Dear Mr. XXXX:
Thank you for contacting me about Senate Bill 978 (S. 978). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.
As you may know, S. 978 would update federal criminal copyright statutes to address technological advancements that have been made since these laws were originally enacted in 1976. Under current law, individuals can be prosecuted for a felony for copying and selling ten digital copies of a copyrighted movie or record totaling at least $2,500. However, if the copyrighted content is distributed over an Internet stream, that same individual can sell thousands of copies, totaling millions of dollars, and yet only be prosecuted for a misdemeanor.
Unfortunately, federal prosecutors have little incentive to pursue misdemeanors, and as a result these crimes largely go unpunished. S. 978 would address the recent proliferation of intellectual property theft of copyrighted content over the Internet without expanding the scope of what is considered criminal activity. Instead, S. 978 corrects the disparity between copying and streaming crimes and will help safeguard the valuable intellectual property of creators, artists, and others who contribute so much to America?s economy. It is important to note that this legislation does not penalize the simple sharing or viewing of videos or linking to other websites with copyrighted content. S. 978 is narrow in focus and individuals cannot be prosecuted unless they are profiting from the dissemination of copyrighted content.
I appreciate having the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to pass common sense legislation that protects those who contribute to the growth of our economy. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov
Please sign up for my monthly newsletter at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/newsletter.
PLEASE NOTE:
Due to the nature of electronic communication, if you did not receive this e-mail directly from my office, I cannot guarantee that the text has not been altered. If you have questions about the validity of this message, or would like to respond to this message, please use the web form available at my website, http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact. -
On the post: Once Again, Using Industry's Own Methodology Shows That Copyright Exceptions Contribute More To The Economy Than Copyright
Paul ( profile ), 19 Jul, 2011 @ 10:12amIf Copyright DOES contribute so much...
... Then maybe we need to raise the fees paid by Content companies? After all, they are rolling in the dough from all their contributions, right?
If they are not, then why are we investing in their interests, I mean from an economic point of view? Shouldn't we instead focus on investing in things that do pay for themselves?
PROTECT IP and other expansions of IP policing cost money, time and effort. If there isn't a return on this, why are we doing it? -
On the post: The Copyright Alliance Blog Takes On Someone Who Wrote Something
Paul ( profile ), 19 Jul, 2011 @ 09:29amRe: She IS trying to avoid naming source!
Why not compare Aistar's approach to the Hindus who are currently protesting "Sita Sings the Blues". http://www.hindujagruti.org/denigrations/sitasingstheblues
If you read through the site, you will find all their arguments (including screen shots) telling you exactly why they think this movie is evil and wrong.
But then at the bottom they link to the entire movie so you can see how evil the movie is for yourself
I would point out that I don't agree with them, I think they misunderstand the western approach to religion, our freedom to poke fun at ourselves and others, and even the interest that this movie generates among non-Hindus.
None the less, they do Link to the content in question
So would it be fair to say that Aistar shows less ability to frame her arguments fairly than a rather literal religious group? -
On the post: App Developers Dropping Out Of US Out Of Fears Over Patent Lawsuits
Paul ( profile ), 18 Jul, 2011 @ 03:31pmPatents: They don't enable you to build a product
The problem here is that just because you have a patent doesn't mean you have all the patents you need. If you want to build your better "mouse trap", you can't unless your patent also covers the "bait" you use, the "spring" you need, your "platform", your "latch", your "framing", your "animal disposal method", etc. etc.
The fact is most products are *more* than a single patent. And the existing cloud of patents around your product means that your inventor can't bring his product to market on the basis of his patent. All he can do is either 1) force other products off the market, or 2) prevent products with his invention from entering the market, or 3) force products using his invention to pay him, or 4) get bought by some big corporation.
The option generally excluded by patents is the one where the inventor puts a product into the market and excludes other companies from making that product, and makes money by being productive. This option is excluded because Big Business will have plenty of patents to keep him out of the market, and if they choose to compete, then they will use their patents to force a cross licensing agreement (likely in their favor, not the inventor's).
But in no case recently that I can recall has the small inventor created a product, and used their patent(s) to make money by being productive and to keep the big corporations out of their way, and made loads of money.
Patents make things stop. They can't make things happen. -
On the post: Senator Gillibrand Thinks PROTECT IP Is About The Internet Kill Switch
Paul ( profile ), 18 Jul, 2011 @ 03:16pmKay Bailey Hutchison
I used the EFF form to contact my representatives about the PROTECT IP Act. This was my confirmation:
Dear Paul,
Thank you for urging your members of Congress to reject the PROTECT IP Act.
Your message has been sent to the following legislators.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Senator John Cornyn III
Representative John R. Carter
EFF is offering activists like yourself up to a third off our regular membership rates. See our activist membership page for details.
Thank you again for your help,
EFF Activism Team
And this was the good Senator's reply. Clearly she thinks anything associated with the EFF must be about net neutrality:
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communications Commission's actions relating to the openness of the Internet. I welcome your thoughts and comments.
The Internet is a valuable tool that facilitates business, education, and recreation for millions of Americans. In 2009, an estimated 198 million Americans had access to the Internet. I am committed to ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from the Internet as an open platform for innovation and commerce.
Instrumental to the success of the Internet is the long-standing policy of keeping the Internet as free as possible from burdensome government regulations. Increased investment in upgrading and expanding America?s communications infrastructure, and, in particular, new broadband networks, will ensure that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet. However, in my judgment, intensified regulation of the Internet, such as government-mandated treatment of data, would stifle competition and would decrease the incentive for network operators to invest in critical infrastructure.
The case for additional broadband regulatory authority, or ?net neutrality,? has not effectively been made. Broadband investment began to truly flourish when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a decision in 2002 to remove advanced communications technologies from the antiquated common carrier regulatory framework. However, advocates of a larger regulatory footprint have continued to call for net neutrality since 2006.
Unfortunately, the FCC chose to respond by beginning a new proceeding that would reverse the 2002 decision to treat advanced communications services with a "light touch" regulatory approach. On December 21, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC adopted new rules meant to impose a net neutrality regime on broadband services. I believe these new regulations represent an unprecedented power grab by the Commission to claim regulatory jurisdiction without Congressional authority. This FCC action threatens investment and innovation in broadband systems, places valuable American jobs at risk, and may subject communications companies to new legal liability in the management of their networks.
In response to the FCC's heavy-handed order, I intend to explore every option available to me to keep the Internet free from such burdensome regulations, including introducing a resolution of disapproval in an effort to repeal the new rules. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC, I will continue to work to prohibit further net neutrality-based regulations.
I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message as this mailbox is only for the delivery of outbound messages, and is not monitored for replies. Due to the volume of mail Senator Hutchison receives, she requests that all email messages be sent through the contact form found on her website at http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=email_kay .
-
On the post: Lobbyists Ramp Up Pressure To Get PROTECT IP Passed
Paul ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2011 @ 01:27pmThe Reps are clueless
I am in Texas, so my EFF submission went to Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn is still chewing on my protest of this bill. But Kay Baily Hutchison has already responded!
Yeah!
She carefully explains that we do not need additional regulation to insure net neutrality....
Wait, HUH?
Oh I get it. If I sent a message to her via EFF it must be about net neutrality. No need to read what I actually say.
Nuts! -
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Paul ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2011 @ 11:46amRe: Re:
Too Funny! But she caught on! It disappeared even as I was reading it!
-
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Paul ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2011 @ 10:34amRe:
Of course, YOU get to make that observation. We the readers can't make such observations on her post, Mr. Anonymous....
-
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Paul ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2011 @ 03:42pmRe: Why isn't there universal adoption of culture?
Just because everyone wins if you do something universal (like adopt the same religion or same language) doesn't mean that key individuals wouldn't lose and lose big.
Chaos is maintained by the tension between universal good and individual advantage. -
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Paul ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2011 @ 03:38pmRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonce!
If the value is the source, not the delivery method, why protect a system (copyright) which gives the delivery methods (producers, labels, studios) the vast majority of the income stream from content, and gives very little to the actual producers of content?
-
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Paul ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2011 @ 03:35pmRe: Re: Re:
We have an ever increasing supply of content. Since the middle of the last century, and to an ever increasing degree, every bit of produced music, video, movies, and writings remains available for consumption.
So while you are literally correct, that there is a limited supply of content, that supply of content is already much greater than anyone could possibly consume. For all practical purposes the supply of individual songs, movies, articles, comments, books, papers, poems, pictures, etc. are already approaching infinity, and that content is increasing all the time.
The fact is that the biggest competitor to the successful content producer becomes themselves, and those previous content producers whose work inspired them. Because increasingly, the consumer can access it all. Their work, the previous work, and the work previous to that, and all their contemporaries.
We are at the beginning of this trend. There will soon come a day when you might pick up a product that has a century of video in a single device, already loaded and indexed. One might never have to view current content ever again to be entertained.
So yes, by any pragmatic measure, content is infinite. -
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Paul ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2011 @ 03:24pmRe: Re: Re: Re: Secrets lose their value...
We are kinda splitting hairs here.
The point is that Trade Secrets and Patents do something of the same thing, allowing (potentially) a company to make a product that others cannot make.
Once we are talking about secret information which is in and of itself valuable, then the pros and cons of sharing the secret change. Even if it is just a regular secret (like Joe slept with Marge), the pros and cons might be more complex than implied in this brief post.
But let's consider trade secrets (as an example where the information itself has broad applications).
There is a fine line where keeping a trade secret might hurt the market for your product (where people need to validate the nature of your product before they will buy, for example. Or where your product is ignored because you are the only vendor and you haven't any customers. Or many other cases).
Furthermore, one might not be able to license one's know how if nobody knows what exactly it is that you know. Sharing to one extent or another might be required to gain the "power" or "value" of your secrets.
Just some observations off the top of my head. -
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Paul ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2011 @ 01:27pmRe: Re: Secrets lose their value...
I get that power and value are much alike. But the fact is, the value to the population increases in both your example and mine with the distribution of the ideas.
Face it, the progression of the technology would have been stunted if England could have kept the lid on their textile technology. And if one person alone cannot do much for everyone in the world without sharing their knowledge of how to cure cancer.
In both cases, the sum value (from the perspective of the entire population) of the secrets actually increases with disclosure. I would say this is because the secret isn't just who slept with who, but it actually holds information. -
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Paul ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2011 @ 01:20pmRe: I'll treasure this, for when I think MY writing wanders,
Maybe the fault isn't with her writing? I took a re-gander at the first few paragraphs, and cannot quite understand your difficulty in understand the ideas presented, nor following the progression of the article in discussing these ideas.
Heck, they are even outlined for you.
Maybe I am just too much of a geek to get your problem. -
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Paul ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2011 @ 01:15pmSecrets lose their value...
... unless they don't.
When secrets hold actual information (such as how to build automation for textiles, the basis for the development of computers), their value increases when the secrets are broken (i.e. widely shared). The value only decreases for those that held them and could leverage the information at the expense of everyone else.
Now this is just the TINIEST nit on a wonderfully insightful post, and in fact does not contradict the main ideas of the post (I don't think). I would like a discussion of how this way of viewing "products" would apply to technology and patents as well as to content and copyright. -
On the post: ISP's Five Strikes Plan: Railroading, MPAA/RIAA-Style
Paul ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2011 @ 03:27pmWho is paying for this?
1) Will the 35 dollar fees pay the costs?
2) Are the costs passed down to the customers?
3) Are the investors of these ISPs picking up the tab?
4) Or is the RIAA and MPAA paying the costs?
My bet is on a combination of 1) and 2). No matter where you stand on piracy, if you do not intentionally infringe on the content of others, why should you have to pay for the costs of policing for infringing content?
Why isn't the Answer 4)? Why should we tolerate a situation where a group benefits (i.e. 4) but doesn't pay the costs of said benefit? -
On the post: TSA Planning New, Even More Invasive Security Measures In Response To 'Threat' Of Implanted Bombs
Paul ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2011 @ 03:21pmTerrorists routinely bomb security check points
We know this. This is done every day. It doesn't require any surgery or any complex planing. It is done all the time, so it is quite understood by the terrorists we intend to thwart.
But despite this knowledge, TSA forms large lines that wind about themselves to make dense groups of people prior to screening.
Really smart. I feel so much safer, knowing that my security is in the hands of idiots. -
On the post: Mayor Bloomberg Demands SAIC Pay Back $600 Million In Cost Overruns For NYC Computer System
Paul ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2011 @ 02:10pmGovernment Designed Systems
Having worked on Government software projects for the last decade, I am here to tell you that this isn't the whole story.
Sometimes it is true that contractors come in and milk the contract for cash without any interest in delivering a usable system.
Most of the time, contractors do everything in their power to chase ever moving, ever changing requirements. At the same time, restrictions on code development methodologies force them into continual modifications of increasingly cryptic code bases, until there is just no hope.
I have no knowledge of this system in particular. However, I'd double down on any bet that NYC's specifications, restrictions, and moving requirements are really at fault.
Re: Re: A permanent crime scene?
"Lamar Smith is a he, not she"
Are you sure? Do you have proof? Maybe if we didn't destroy critical Internet communications as a matter of course, we might be able to settle this burning issue.
Until we have the bodyScan/CellPhonePicture/ChildhoodBathShots/DetailedAccountsFromPreviousGirlFriends(Or BoyFriends) I don't think we can close this question.
One more reason the People of the U.S. need this act, and need it now!