Indonesia has started revoking treaties with this clause starting with its treaty with the Netherlands. See the Financial Times article 3/27. Hopefully this will torpedo the TPP and TTIP both of which include really terrible IP provisions which have nothing to do with trade and a bunch of trade provisions far to broad.
It appears from some of the leaked TPP and TTIP treaty materials that they will be used to impose 3rd party liability bypassing these protections. Now is a good time to write your congressman and tell him not to pass either treaty and not to give Obama TPA (Fast track).
There are only two software patents I'm aware of which are legitimate. Lempel ziv and GIF; the rest are simple business methods or obvious HUI which should not be patentable at all. Adding "computer" or "Web" does not make a normally used procedure patentable! Barring all software patents may be a bit extreme but may be the only solution. I can't articulate any clear criteria on what should make software patentable. Maybe because I'm stupid or maybe because there aren't any. I know it when I see it is not a viable criteria.
I'm puzzled by this comment. As I remember from the above Anonymous Coward was the one advocating the complete removal of all patent, TM and copyrights, was I wrong?
As for critiques of given patents most of us are not qualified to do so and apparently neither are the patent examiners. The only two patents I am familiar enough to comment on that are legitimate are Lempel Ziv and GIF. The rest of the software patents make vague too broad clams and are simply means of disguising business methods BS or concepts which are not patentable.
As foe copyright TD is not anti but for reform and fixing obvious abuses like the WB DMCA copyfraud.
I disagree as this approach is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The situation is easily fixed; disallow business method and software patents. (I am aware of only two software patents which were legitimate, the rest are only thinly disguised business methods which mention "computer, browser, etc." to obfuscate their purpose.)
I must disagree! "…laws are made in the interests of specific wealthy and influential individuals." is nonsense. Even the richest individuals are irrelevant any more. Its the big corporations and special interest groups who can give $xxxM bribes to congress who count.
"TPP, is a disgraceful, despicable example of the USA trying to take the best for itself and it's businesses" I must disagree with Anonymous Coward on this. The TPP is not about US interests but about powerful international companies whose interests are counter to those of the US as a whole—I agree that the TPP is despicable. The deification on Mickey Mouse is not in the US interest; it only benefits Disney. Unless Congress gets the balls to reign in NSA, DoJ and the FBI (given the recent otherwise senseless vote by the judiciary committee) I am led to wounder what information the NSA et al have on the senators.
The NSA is charged with spying on foreign interests. But the inability of the Congress to limit NSA to their legitimate role makes everyone wounder if the US can effectively govern anything.
Overall this will hurt the US far more then even the really disastrous TPP and TTIP as it gives legitimacy to anti competitive restrictions on the digital economy—which is the only growing segment of the US economy.
Most of the copyright negotiations are essentially open market. The only exception is the mechanical license. e.g. I want to use a song on my CD that someone else owns the copyright to. I don't need to go through expensive and often impossible negotiations, I simply pay a fixed fee and go ahead. For the rest of the copyrights I need to hire a specialty law firm (~$600–$1200) plus what ever price can be negotiated. That's OK if I'm making national commercials or a feature film; but not if I just want to use it in a wedding, a documentary, or a corporate event. Oz handles this by having a compulsory license for Wedding music sync. Maybe the way to go is to have a compulsory license for certain uses and then negotiate for uses where it makes sense. e.g. I want a sync license for use in a event video that will have less than some number of copies made—say 1,000—or an ametuer production that will have an audience of less than say 1,000 including any DVDs made.
There are a lot of things wrong with copyright which must get fixed, but if you say we will buy on an open market with out Imaginary Property Rights there is no negotiation.
I don't have any beef with the consumer. We all want what we want, when we want it, at a far price.
The problem I have is that in spite of Apple saving the music studios with their iTunes singles the studios still don't want to adapt their business model. The movie studios and networks are worse. They will eventually die and good riddance.
Musicians are not generally eligible for royalties in the US music industry. Compulsory licenses were developed in the days of player pianos to keep a monopoly from cornering the market and industry. They do not apply to broadcast in any way. If I have a band and want to record a record of some composers song I write the copyright holder—almost always a studio although that is changing rapidly—tell him how many copies I want to make and pay the couple cents peer minute per song. This should apply to streaming, MP3 or CD release. It should be applied to synchronization and all rights.
"You guys keep asserting that it's just lack of availability, but actually there's two words always tacked on to that for most people: for free. Those who aren't buying now won't buy any more."
This has been repeatedly proven incorrect over and over. Apple saved the music industry with their $0.99 music cost. Huge numbers of folks were willing to pay. What people will not pay for is being ripped off. Paying $12–14 for a CD with three or four new songs (one or two of which are good or maybe just OK) and the 20 minutes of covers on a 30 to 45 minute CD didn't cut it.
People are willing to pay. The classical music CD still does well but there you get high quality recordings with the CD having 60+ minutes of good music. I'd haply pay for a good CD of the USC performance of 'Carmina Burana' by Carl Orff in spite of the fact its online for free.
Why German politicians have given GEMA such a broad license to kill remains a mystery. But GEMA is running their line of credit low thanks to their greed and unreasonable demands including making schools pay for having students sing.
This looks like a great idea! Also extending the compulsory license to music syncronization would be necessary and beneficial. Sure some folks would not get huge royalties at one go bu they would get more a little at a time. In the past it wasn't uncommon to see someone who wanted to covert a song the contact the label and if they were not producing a lot of copies told "…go ahead don't bother us with a $$$ check…" or you send the check and it's never cashed—too much trouble and cost to bother with. Now its easy and simple to make money via the 'net on really small transactions with volume, and even if the volume is small the costs are negligible.
Today copyright is broken and badly in need of a fix, but that's a separate issue!
This could benefit everyone by providing some competition to the AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, COMCAST oligopoly—which must be broken up.
But maybe its no big deal as they are already supplying NSA the data either directly or, via the UK or the Germans.
As a 20 year EMT—now retired to a first responder—I know from experience—that only 3 to 7 "accidents" are actually accidental. The other ones are caused by a failure of the same component in one or more vehicles—that is the nut behind the wheel! This argues in favor of these cars.
Against this are two things: today any computer program complex enough to do something interesting can't be completely debugged.
Second is the inherently faulty design of the car's control systems. They are all on one common buss and compromise of any system will compromise vital ones as well as the WiFi or the entertainment center. This means that today's cars are easily hacked remotely via things like the tire pressure sensors. There have been presentations at most of the recent hacking conferences on the vulnerabilities of today's cars. Unless these are systematically addressed; which the automakers aren't interested in doing, cars and trucks are increasingly hazardous!
Hopefully any autonomous vehicle will address these problems. But the lack of reliable software still remains.
The 15 mph bumpers are big heavy and expensive and don't work all that well. They can limit the damage to the car, but not other: vehicles, objects, pedestrians or even horses A 25mph bumper may be technically feasible but it will not be foam.