Adam Wasserman has spent the last decade working as a high-level strategist in technology-based product management and business development.
From 2004, he worked as an independent management consultant, assisting high-tech startups and venture capitalists in identifying, validating, and measuring demand for new technology-based products.
From 1998 to 2004, he was CTO for the International Air Transport Association (IATA), building the operations for its online businesses.
Prior to that, Adam was Product Manager of Internet Solutions at MPACT Immedia (which became Bell Emergis), and before that, Enterprise Solution Specialist at SHL Systemhouse. He spent another 7 years as a high-end network and connectivity specialist.
Adam sits on the Advisory Board of Little Animation.
My dear anonymous friend, you do not seem to understand the legal definitions of either privilege or rights.
Privilege is a special benefit, advantage, or Immunity enjoyed by a person or class of people that is not shared with others. It is an *exemption* from the law, an exception to the normal state of affairs.
It so happens that this describes copyright pretty well. The form of monopoly that is called copyright is a *temporary* privilege, not a natural right. Look up natural rights.
On the other hand a right is (as I and others have repeatedly pointed out) is simply an entitlement to something.
It so happens that citizens of the United States are *entitled* to use any "original work fixed in a tangible medium of expression" at any time without requiring anybody's permission as long as the use of that work meets the four factor analysis for fair use. That is the very definition of a right.
The bottom line is that humans are terrible at calculating risk.
As a whole, we are broken machines when it comes to figuring out what we should really be worrying about. I like what Peter Sandman, an expert in risk communications has done, he has redefined risk to make it match the human reality. He says Risk = Hazard + Outrage.
I wrote a blog post about it. People will always worry about the least likely thing to happen while ignoring what is actually happening *all the time*.
As out_of_the_blue points out: While the masses worry about a terrorist attack that will never come, they ignore US government restrictions on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. That is like worrying about dying in an airplane crash while driving on an interstate during Thanksgiving weekend.
Do you still feel that your prior (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110423/01033814013/another-judge-slams-righthaven-chilling-effec ts-that-do-nothing-to-advance-copyright-acts-purpose.shtml) interpretation of the law is the valid one in light of the fact that federal judges disagree with you?
I have frequently had opinions that I either hesitated to post or did not post at all for a variety of reasons ranging from a desire to remain civil to a fear of repercussions from the growing police state.
And I choose not to post these latter opinions anonymously because I feel that if I lack the courage of my convictions then why should anyone take me seriously?
As far as my inability to spell truely correctly, it is a chronic condition, an affliction really, and has plagued me for as long as I can remember. The shame, although intense, has become such a constant spectre in my life that I have become inured to the taunts of those more fortunate than I.
Finally @Keith, I understand the point you make re: providing a pseudo. You seem to assume some sort of technology that would make it impossible for someone to ever open more than one account and provide more than one pseudo.
Did you understand the point I was making (and confirming in my admission of self-censorship)?
As one to the very few *truely* non-anonymous posters I would like to point out that the vast majority of commenters on this site are anonymous.
In fact I have marginally more sympathy for the Anonymous Cowards who I can generously imagine are simply taking the path of least resistance. Less so the people who take the time to register and then supply a made up name, deliberately obfuscating their identity.
Not only have I provided my name, but my profile contains enough information to verify who I am, where I live, and that I am who I say I am. I have been posting on the Internet since before there was a web (Usenet days), and I have always used my full name. It has caused me some grief at times, but I learned in high school to never say anything if I was not willing to live with the repercussions of saying it.
From my perspective almost *all* commenters on Techdirt are anonymous, making this discussion a nit picking exercise abut what *kind* of anonymity is best.
"Why the heck is IP enforcement an issue of national security?"
I believe that the Washington establishment (both Democrats and Republicans) have decided that the US has already lost the manufacturing war and will lose world dominance unless we can convince the world to pay the US for "inventing" things to manufacture.
I think that the Rand Corporation et al has been telling our policy makers that ideas are the new oil, and whoever controls ideas will control the world.
A (over)simplification of deconstruction is: to identify the common central themes that are "obvious" and then *ignore* them, while promoting and focusing on the obscure peripheral meanings that everyone else ignores.
It was a pretty obscure form of literary analysis, so idiosyncratic that only Derrida could really do "properly"
Would you agree that the Strategic Alliance Agreement provides grounds to assert that Righthaven is a straw man due to the fact that they do not have have a genuine interest in the property. That all forms of interest other than pursuing lawsuits originates with, and are retained by, Stephans Media?
For example, do we know if Stephans Media has to share with Righthaven revenues from sub-licensing of copyrighted works?
@FUDbuster, you claim that "Righthaven is exercising its ownership by granting rights to its exclusive licensee, Stephens Media."
so what is your explanation of the Strategic Alliance Agreement showing exactly the opposite: that the original copyright holder Stephens Media retains all rights and grants to Righthaven ONLY the right to sue?
There are couple of different ways a film can be financed. I am only familiar with the independent production way.
In the films I have worked on where I was close enough to the production to know what was going on, each film is setup as a limited partnership where the producer (or production house) is the general partner, and the investors are the limited partners.
So you could say - in a way - that each film is like a VC fund of its own, where the whole fund goes into one investment.
As limited partners they share in the revenues, but also -as with startups and VCs - there can be a liquidity event of some sort, where the property gets bought. For example a distributor or studio might buy a successful independent film to add to its catalog. (Later on the property might even get sold again, and again) Then the limited partnership winds down. I have also seen cases where the producer has bought out the property and wound down the LP.