I have to admit, I find the idea of authorizing the victims of illicit computer hacking -- who've for the most part demonstrated a lack of competence in matters of computer security -- to now go after those who've already outsmarted them to be somewhat amusing. Sort of like sending a bunch of hens out on a fox hunt.
Re: Re: Re: If not an "unwarranted burden" for MPAA, then
2. Pretty easy most of the time. If I hold the rights to something, and didn't grant the right of use to you, it's generally infringing.
This is only true for you (the copyright holder) or me (the alleged infringer). Third parties (such as filelockers or ISPs) have no way of readily knowing whether I am you or whether I have been authorized by you (setting aside the issue of Fair Use).
If I see somebody driving a car on the street, I know whether that car is mine. I do not necessarily know whether the car is yours. Even if I do know the car is yours, I do not necessarily know whether you gave the driver permission to use it.
Should I be responsible for reporting your car stolen?
To prove trademark infringement, Bell will need to show dilution of their brand. In other words, they will have to provide the court with evidence indicating that video gamers are less likely to buy Bell helicopters as a result of them being shown in the game. Somehow I don't see that happening.
There is no reason why all copyrighted works shouldn't have a digitized copy registered with a national copyright office. After a suitable grace period, if a work hasn't been registered and a digitized copy submitted, it should be assumed that the creator expected the work to be public domain.
Copyright holders should also be expected to periodically re-register their works. It is ridiculous to have such a large percentage of the world's culture and knowledge in a state of limbo as to its accessibility, and for there to be such great uncertainty surrounding the legality of commonplace activities.
The article is a bit misleading in that Google/Motorola were the ones being sued by Microsoft in the Seattle case. It might be legitimate to criticize Google for their Florida and Wisconsin countersuits, but it was hardly an option for Google to not defend themselves in Washington.
"Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts.
"Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause.
"Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!"
One does not even need to have fiber available for this arbitrary limitation to impact them. The U-verse network cabling supports about 60Mbps, but over 50Mbps is dedicated to TV service. There is no option available to get the full bandwidth available, even if the customer is willing to sacrifice television service and pay for the "additional" network bandwidth.
To this end, I would like to state something that I hope is uncontroversial. The issues of authors are intertwined with the interests of the public. As the first beneficiaries of the copyright law, they are not a counterweight to the public interest but instead are at the very center of the equation. In the words of the Supreme Court, “[t]he immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an ‘author’s’ creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.” Congress has a duty to keep authors in its mind’s eye, including songwriters, book authors, filmmakers, photographers, and visual artists. A law that does not provide for authors would be illogical —hardly a copyright law at all.
No, this is not uncontroversial. That there may be an "immediate effect" of copyright law does not elevate that effect to being an "aim" of the legislation, nor does it place a "duty" upon Congress to continue the subvention of the effect.
A Department of Natural Resources might institute a program that places a bounty on certain pelts in an effort to control the animals' populations, which might have the immediate effect of providing income to some number of trappers and hunters, but that does not mean the government has a duty to consider the entitlement of those trappers and hunters to such income in administering the program -- that is not the "aim" of the program, even though it is an "effect".
Likewise, the provision for authors and creators should never be confused with the aim of copyright policy. It may be an effect of the policy that is instituted, but it is not the goal. The goal, according to the Supreme Court's statement, is "to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good".