The situation is not the same. If someone slipped a note in your post box "your window is unlocked", you would be very creeped out, but also lock you damned window and thank god you hadn't been robbed already.
The problem is that companies like ATT ignore those notes. The only time they fix their vulnerabilities is if there is a big public media blow up.
BTW when I was in university, we were frequently pranking (whitehatting) each other, and we learned how to lock our shit up. It is helpful.
The patents are already granted. The inventions are already protected.
By refusing to demonstrate, he is really admitting that the patent doesn't allow one skilled in the art (of butchery) to use the invention. He is admitting that his specific skill and or practice are also required.
In other words, the "invention" must also be taught to one skilled in the art, beyond reading and applying what is in the patent.
Not that we should be patenting cooking techniques. A special knife maybe, but he's using a bog standard butchering knife.
Please expound on how there is pre-existing law for implied license that covers all of this necessary copying, but how the **AAs and their defenders are citing the necessary copying as being evidence of infringement.
What Posner is doing is technically rewriting the law by ignoring one class of copying, without going into detail as to why it should be ignored for purposes of copyright law.
The courts have actually been doing this since the dawn of digital media.
If this were not the case, then playing a legitimately purchased DVD, even in my legitimately purchased DVD player, would be copyright infringement. All streaming would be infringement. Digital media, let alone all digital computing requires copies, and nowhere on the media you purchase will you find authorization for those copies.
In fact, you find an FBI warning telling you that all copying is infringement, subject to a scary big fine.
It would sure be nice if those critters in Washington would finally get their act together and allow copyright and, you know, digital computing, to coexist in a functional and legal fashion.
While I generally dislike judges ignoring the law or writing new law via precedent not supported by the text of the law, sometimes it's required in order to allow basic things to work because Congress does not work. Checks and balances and all.
So until Congress figures out they have no clue, starts including the technology sector in the discussion, and corrects the laws so that things can, you know, work. I'm afraid I would rather judges allow a wide range of unauthorized copying rather than enforce the infringement that occurs when I play the DVD I bought in the DVD player that I bought, neither of which I have modified.
1) "You don't have to negotiate, but doing so makes sense since having a license is better than not having one."
Negotiating every instance of fair use makes no sense. It would effectively stop the creation of knowledge. Should I have negotiated a fair use agreement with you to quote part of your comment? That would be idiotic.
2) Classifying various semi-random permutations of human thought as property is an extremely bad idea, as is demonstrated on a pretty much daily basis.
3) You tend to limit yourself to analysis of what the law is currently. A lot of this discussion is regarding the law being fundamentally wrong.
I appreciate your response and engagement. My question to you was sincere, as was your response. Your clarification is consistent with what I thought you meant in the first place. Again, your comment that I queried was cogent and insightful, and I appreciated the fact that you challenged the the OP's assertion. I agree the OP's equivalency was Bunk. (That's you Mike, no offense)
I do believe that we agree on the interpretation of current law in this area.
I would emphasize that the local part the Miller test doesn't make sense even within a single large city, let alone the country as a whole. If you (general you, not Pro Se you) have ever lived in a large city, you would know that the community standards vary widely within miles, or even along street borders.
Re: Obscenity over the internet: It isn't speculation, it is conviction.
I know this is not what you study and focus on, so just FYI ...
A guy who lived and worked in California was sentenced to prison in Florida for obscenity. He was sentenced for what he had on his website, which was viewable in Florida.
"Greenwald's entire point in discussing the farcical proceedings that convicted Little is that they specifically selected a venue for prosecution best suited to clearing that first hurdle:
'Even though he lived and worked in California, the Bush DOJ dragged him to Tampa, Florida in order to try him under Tampa's "community standards," on the theory that his website used servers physically based in Central Florida and some of the films were sent to Tampa customers who purchased them.'"
Easy to find lots of different takes on the issues, but the guy was in Cali, his internet business was in Cali, then he was convicted in Florida.
"And that's no legal standard at all - that's the whim of men, and most specifically men with a very particular kind of agenda regarding any and all public expressions or discussions of sex and sexuality - repulsive or otherwise. I think that the way to address this is not by a rigged judicial process but by passing better obscenity laws that have in mind as their first principles not moral scolding but the protection of porn performers, and that clearly lay down what is accepted and what is not rather than leaving those judgments to the whim of a given prosecutor."
Closing: Many of us feel that attacks on copyright infringement should not be as strident as they currently are. When the industries equate copyright infringement with kiddie porn, frankly ... kiddie porn gets a free pass.
Judges can be wrong and it is ok to point out when you think they are wrong.
Funny that, I didn't notice you actually pointing out anything you thought was either correct or incorrect in the posts or the rulings. You aren't here just to slag off Mike, are you?
I don't read this post as saying the judge is a genius, but rather: Thank God we have a technology case in front of a judge who understands technology a good bit.
The joinder case, I don't read as Mike calling the judge an asshole, but rather that it was unfortunate that the default judgement had to be rendered because the defendants didn't respond, and "WTF, why did he go beyond simple joinder to joint liability. Boggle."
Who knows, maybe the judge has been spending time to better understand this new internets thingy.