I am not sure if you are all playing dumb, but Gawker and other media have reported on Greenwald's financial association with a company that sold sexy dvds a decade or so ago. Can't be bothered looking it up and linking because the reporter can't be bothered. I don't remember GG ever claiming he was a saint.
I'm aware of that, but the term still makes no sense. Porn spy? WTF is that?
That said, I'm confused about how copyright applied in the first place because copyright only applies to things that have been put into a tangible form. When I tell you something verbally, what I say is not copyrightable. It sounds like someone recorded a conference call. until that recording, the call was not in a tangible form (and once the recording is made, the copyright to it belongs to the person who made the recording.)
Bloomberg did attempt to raise the argument that there was no copyright at all, but that sorta got dropped in the process. Lots of procedural crap...
But, as for the copyright, Swatch tried to copyright the entire call, and the Copyright Office (surprisingly) pushed back on that, and only let the company register the recordings of statements made by Swatch execs. Comments made by others were not covered.
Sure innovative drugs may be developed without patents...just as soon as developers figure out a way to keep others from making them and becoming competitors without having contributed anything to their development.
Except, if you look at the actual history of the pharmaceutical industry, you would know that it came out of the chemicals & dyes industries, which had nearly all of its major breakthroughs in Switzerland and Germany during periods of time when those countries did not allow patents on chemicals -- and yet the industry and innovation thrived in both countries.
So, yeah, there's plenty of evidence that you get a very dynamic and innovative industry without patents when all you're doing is mixing a bunch of chemicals together.
When was the secret interpretation of Section 215 created and acted upon? Was it right in 2001 when the PATRIOT Act was enacted? Sensenbrenner's comments seem to indicate that at least initially it wasn't misinterpreted so wildly but maybe I'm naively optimistic on that front.
The bulk collection of *phone* records under the FISA Court was first approved in May of 2006. From 2001 until 2006 it was done under presidential authorizations. So, realistically, the FISA Court technically "began" approving this in 2006, though they didn't explain the reasoning until 2013.
My comment was to these types of agreements in general, that there are pros and cons, and that almost invariably anything presented here fixates on the cons with virtually nary a mention of pros.
Oh bullshit. I will note that I've seen you on other sites, those of copyright and patent maximalists, where you universally cheer them on, with nary a complaint that they fail to present "the pros and cons" of their arguments.
My comment does not promote one over the other, but merely points out that there are perfectly valid reasons for provisions such as these. I did not endorse them, but only noted they are not irrational and without merit.
Oh bullshit. You ALWAYS pull that wounded innocent line. You clearly are supportive of this, just as you're supportive of IP maximalism and the surveillance state. It's only when we call you on your bullshit that you suddenly pretend you were "merely adding information" or whatever crap line you come up with.
Try negotiating complex business transactions with governments all over the world, both developed and underdeveloped nations, and perhaps you may gain some modicum of appreciation for why private parties may find such provisions an important consideration.
And, of course, you always conclude with some pedantic bullshit line like the above, implying that only you, the wise master, could possibly understand these issues.
What you are saying here is that the NSA is running a successful international terrorist organization spreading fear to people outside of the U.S.A. and blackmailing them to not rely on local infrastructure because they'll blow it up.
Not quite. But I did note that this was a problem.
So you are recommending supporting terrorism by moving business to the U.S.A. and thus funneling further money to the terrorists threatening the viability of the internet.
I didn't say that at all. I merely pointed out that it's not clear if anywhere else is safer.
Even if they are your terrorists, successful in getting your money for financing their deeds, should you be supporting them? Should you tell others to buckle under their threats and machinations?
Are you dense? I didn't say that this was something everyone should do. I pointed out the basic REALITY that things might not be any safer anywhere else, and noted that was a problem.
In the US they can come in with no warrant, no proof no nothing and get data from any company, encrypted or not.
And you don't think pretty much every other country doesn't allow its own intelligence/law enforcement forces to do the same thing?
They siphon data from their own fiber optic cables, considering most of the world's activity flows through the US, if you look at the internet globally the US is the main HUB of activity, so that is where they are actually going to focus most. I don't want my data in there.
Actually the indication is they have taps on pretty much all of the world's fiber optic cables. So there's no increased benefit for being somewhere else.
Your comment, as per your usual screeds, is so full of wrong that it's somewhat incredible.
"Corporate Sovereignty" my posterior. Whether one likes them or not, the motivation underlying such provisions from the perspective of investors (and investors include far more than just corporations, as the foregoing term would have one believe) is that they attempt to place a speed bump on the road to make it more difficult for a government to breach an agreement and then attempt to hide behind sovereign immunity to avoid the consequences of its breach.
Bullshit. First off, we're talking about the EU and the US here. How frequently are those countries breaching investor agreements? There are plenty of "speed bumps" already in place to block such breaches: such as the fact that investors would move their money elsewhere. Transatlatnic investment is already the largest bilateral trade in the world. There is no indication that there's some crazy risk of France running off with American investors' money.
There are already plenty of consequences of a breach in such situations: nobody would trust them again.
As a sovereign, countries can simply opt out of a lawsuit, as is done countless times here in the US at both the state and federal level. In many instances this leaves an individual (person, company, etc.) with zero recourse to judicial systems by which disputes are resolved. What good is it to have a legal right when the forum for vindicating that right tells you "Too bad. You are out of luck because Government X has decided to ignore your matter...leaving you SOL and without any remedy whatsoever."
Again, this is wrong. There are alternate dispute mechanisms in place, such as when *the country* goes to the WTO to dispute such a breach. This happens all the time, and allows things to be handled at the country level, rather than giving corporations alternate sovereignty above and beyond local laws.
In the context of international trade, private investors engage in country-specific investments with the general expectation that the country will not try to change the rules of the game on the investment is firmly ensconced within the country.
Again, you make it sound like these sort of breaches happen all the time between modern western democracies.
Your points MIGHT make sense if we were talking about a trade agreement with a banana republic (though, even then, the response is just to never invest again there), but when we're talking about two parts of the world that already trade freely? You're just spouting crazy ignorance.
As with any system for resolving disputes (mediation, arbitration, courts of law) there are always pluses and minuses. None of them are perfect and each can render a decision that operates as a manifest injustice. Nonetheless, they seem to be the best we have, and extra-judicial systems to have at least the benefit of arriving at decisions before the wheels of the judicial system have even begun to turn, which is an extremely important consideration in investment disputes.
You mean like when Eli Lilly sues Canada for "lost profits" because Canadian patent law finds their application unpatentable? That's not an investor dispute, that's a company seeking to object to Canada's patent system.
BTW, there is nothing to prevent a country that loses in such an extra-judicial venue from simply ignoring a decision. The consequence, however, is the possibility, not certainty, of trade sanctions and perhaps even a downgrade of such a country's international reputation for integrity. Of course, since few countries enjoy such a reputation, it hardly seems like a major "black eye" within the community of nations.
Except, even without ISDS, if a country breached an investor agreement they can and do face trade sanctions and a downgrade in international reputation. You don't need ISDS for that.
I don't understand why you come here, always pretending to be smarter than everyone, and then spout such ignorance.
Why would you redact contact info when posting a photo of a business card? It's a business card. Any contact info on a business card is deliberately being made public by whoever is listed on the card. It's not private or confidential at all.
Contact information can absolutely be private. If he gave the business card to one person that doesn't mean he meant for it to be public.
Indeed, but that was ICE with a specific mandate related to ICE. The idea that they're going into movie theaters to stop guys with Google Glass? That would be a huge stretch... Maybe, but that would be quite a story if true. Goes way beyond anything they've done.
For the sake of having all the facts right. I have been trying to find out who the agents that “interviewed” me at AMC were, so I asked help from a guy I know at FBI. I worked with this guy in the past when I was employed at a webhosting company. He did some digging, and he tells me the “federal agents” talking to me were DHS."
Looks like it was the Department of Homeland Security who interrogated him.
I find that equally unlikely. Claims like that need extraordinary proof of support, not just "some guy I know at the FBI." How would some FBI guy know that DHS went to a movie theater? And why would DHS be going to a movie theater over this? It has nothing to do with DHS's mandate.
I have that book, and while Terry is right that it's an absolutely worthwhile read, he is *totally* distorting the history as displayed in the book. That, by the way, is a specialty of Terry -- who you fail to note, is PAID to distort copyright in favor of the anti-union corporate lobbyists he works for.
For example, just take this bullshit line:
There are some who would say that the lesson of Betamax—or at least the fable version—is that the Copyright Act should be construed to favor tech companies over artists and creators.
Except that's been said by no one ever. What everyone has said, and which people like you and Terry refuse to acknowledge or recognize, is that the lesson is that the Copyright Act should be construed to favor what's *best for everyone* and with the case of new innovations that's often letting the innovation go forward. That's not *over artists and creators* but actually IN SUPPORT of them.
That's what's so frustrating about Terry's brand of bullshit (that you repeatedly endorse). You are blatantly distorting the basic fact that artists and creators are better off with this kind of innovation and that it's just *THE BIG CORPORATE GATEKEEPERS* who often *screw over* artists and creators who are harmed by innovation.
So, rather than repeating Terry's bullshit, I recommend people read that book and a number of other good ones about the gatekeepers fucking over artists and creators, compared to all the new opportunities created by innovators.
Which side are you on? A bunch of dying gatekeepers? You're on the shit side of history. As always. But don't bitch when you get run over by innovators, the public, artists and creators all together. Betting on obsolete gatekeepers is a sucker's bet. Are you a paid-in-full sucker like Terry?