The founding fathers had a 'clean' political climate where they only had to deal with their own self interests and the self interests of the other 'politicians'. They could look at what had been done before in England and decide that there were better ways to do things, which is what they set out to document.
If George W. and Thomas J. would have had to deal with 'lobbiests' and 'corporate interests' (above and beyond their own) throwing wagon loads of cash at them, we might have had an entirely different constitution. As it was they were pretty free to get high and contemplate the 'better ways' to do things, which is what they drafted in the constitution.
Do I think a bunch of cross dressing, wig wearing, dope smoking, ex-patriots (from England) had more wisdom then our current crop of congress critters? Definitely, they had more wisdom in their little finger (the one they held out and wiggled when they were drinking their tea) than the entire crop of 'corporate stooges' that are in power today.
USA... the best government Corporations can Buy....
So are the banks buying this with the 'bailout' funds that we just gave them???
What a deal, where do we sign up for the same treatment...
1. Screw up so badly the government has to 'bail' you out
2. Buy 'carve out' with bailout funds
3. Profit...
What could be easier?
"The fact is, ownership is transferable, the right to sue is transferable, and that transferee can grant an exclusive license to another, even back to his transferor."
Did you actually read the article? The right to sue is NOT transferable as you just claimed....
"Silvers vs. Sony Pictures case, which notes that you can't assign just the right to sue"
Copyright law and legal precedent say one thing, and yet you still claim the other, so which one is right?
That sounds too close to a 'godly power' that someone was patenting.... I'm sure you'll be hearing from their lawyers soon.
So if I'm only streaming the content from my PC to my monitor, then I wouldn't be on the hook for criminal copyright theft???
That's nice to hear, but like most of the shilt spewed by the shill/trolls, it's a load of crap. I have a feeling that the word 'streaming' will be re-defined somewhere in the middle of the night in a totally unrelated bill that's somehow related to protecting users from child porn (think of the children, won't you) to be, "Any transmission of data from a storage location to a viewing device."
No I'm not a crackpot conspiracy theorist, but I stayed at a holiday inn last night....
obligatory.... butt-pirates.....
Yes, the but...but...but pirates are responsible for flaming hemorrhoids.....
Actually I think this means that the parody is no longer a parody, and The Onion is now infringing on reality's copyright.....
I'm not sure who will be suing, but you can bet if any lawyers thought they could get away with it, they would...
So you're saying with physical goods like books, the publisher can afford to loose a little bit on each sale and make up for it with volume.....
Makes about as much sense as paying for the same song on Record, 8-Track, Tape, DAT Tape, CD, and MP3.....
Sometimes you just have to pay more to be slower.... Makes sense if you don't think about it
(and some people obviously are MUCH slower)
I already had that thought 10-15 years ago...
You owe me for using my intellectual pooperty (it was a pretty crappy thought at the time)....
So now every Government Agency is supposed to waste time, effort, and money to 'trademark', 'copyright' and 'patent' their agencies name to protect it?
I can see the reasoning, this will provide much work for all those bored government employees when they aren't too busy spying on models or listening in on private conversations.
It would only take one employee a couple hours to propose an update that said.... "Government Agencies, Names, Acronyms, Internal Designations, and any related nomenclature are not subject to Trademark, Copyright, or Patenting".
Many hours of useless work for many government workers compared to a few hours for one worker..... You know which one they are going to go with
Apparently there isn't enough interest in the 'cyber-war' the politicians and their cronies (the ones making billions from the government protecting us from those bad cyber bullies) are trying to claim exists....
So they are trying to find a real enemy for the cyber-jihad they are sure we need to protect ourselves from. I'm sure one of the congress critter's buddies has a 'solution' ready to go to protect us, for the low one time fee of 1 bazillion dollars (taxes, fines, forfeitures, extraditions, licensing, and future protection not included).....
No I'm not jaded or cynical, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night....
I seem to recall that it used to be perfectly legal to kill trespassers if the homeowner felt 'imminent danger' to their person (or something similar).
Don't injure them and let them get away (or they will sue, and they will win), and make sure they are completely in the window before you shoot, so they don't fall out of the house (their relatives will sue, and probably win)....
What is this country coming to? Back in the USSR.... Would probably be better than here (if there still was a USSR).
Oh well, off to make another tinfoil beanie...
Haven't we learned anything yet?
War can be declared against anything that opposes the government and their owners (corporations) persuit of ultimate power and control.
Thus the 'War on Drugs' even though the drugs aren't fighting back, and are actually a large source of 'black ops' funding, which is the real reason for the war.... screw the people, the CIA is tired of competing with those 'illegal pirates' who are importing drugs and not giving the government their cut...
War on Intellectual Property is about the same thing, but it's a little silly to call it that, so we'll just call it a 'Cyberwar' since that sound better....
I'm not really serious... am i?
Did you hear that Buck Lateral raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
I'm sure I heard it somewhere on the web, and if it's not true, why won't he provide us with the information that proves he didn't?
It's entirely possible that I'm wrong, and this is just a mean and nasty accusation that will tarnish his reputation and have him liked to child porn for the rest of his life... but it's not like there is any lasting damage to his reputation, amirite?
/sarcasm off
Trademarking, copyrighting, and patenting (as nuclear stockpiles against future litigation):
Seal Team 1-5 & 7 thru infinity
Special Forces Team 1 thru infinity
Green Beret Team 1 thru infinity
Medic Team 1 thru infinity
Army Team 1 thru infinity
Navy Team 1 thru infinity
Air Force Team 1 thru infinity
Marine Team 1 thru infinity
JAFO
Sure it doesn't make much sense right now.... but just wait until one of them does 'something big' I'll be cashing in on licensing, or litigating the pants off someone....
Is this really what things are coming to?
Wait... we have two political parties.....
And here I thought we just had one two-faced political party....
semantice = some antics
You know who DOESN'T want a cashless society....
Politicians.....
Imagine the difficulty hiding the bribes...er special interest funding in a cashless society...
Sure most of it is 'imaginary' incentives and not direct cash payments, but there is enough cash going thru political lobbying channels to fund a couple third world countries for the next decade. And I'm not making these things up, I'm sure I saw a study from the BSA (BullShitAcademy of Statical review) that supports these statements.
/sarcasm
I was thinking the exact same thing, except multiplied exponentially....
I'm sure this is something Anonymous would love to tackle, when they aren't busy planting text files on Sony's computer system....
Re:
From the linked Copyhype article, "Other factors support the idea that most internet users have no reason to worry about this bill."
Sounds an awful lot like, "If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." .....
Except it's more like, "Most people have nothing to hide, so shouldn't worry about random mandatory police raids and searches of homes for potentially infringing material."
"What's infringing today?" ..... "We'll let you know as soon as we find it, we know it has to be here somewhere."
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."