What about things "invented" using genetic algorithms? I've seem some youtube video by an MIT (?) professor showing how a genetic algrithm "invented" a circuit that seperated low frequency and high frequency sounds, patented in the 1930s.
Genetic algorithms work in (we believe) exactly the same way mother nature does.
Should something "invented" this way be patentable?
Whoops! I think your Identity Management software is on the fritz, dude! You admitted to having sockpuppets, and to trolling. What's left? Admitting that you're employed by (A) the RIAA (B) the MPAA, (C) DtecNet or (D) the US Government, or worse, admitting you're employed by Wagg-Ed?
*I'll disclaim yet again: I'm not for the media cartels.*
Come, come, out_of_the_blue, none of your famous false modesty! We won't hear of it!
You need to make more than a casual disclaimer. Your disclaimer is kind of like the phrase, "With all due respect.." prefacing something that expresses disrespect. That is, it does nothing. Since on the internet, mostly all we've got is words, your words give lie to your disclaimer, and point out your biases and prejudices.
At the point of 5 (or 6) strike programs, you'll see reality. I'd wager on huge backlashes when people get their "high speed internet" pulled for mere accusations of infringement, and you have to pay $35 to "dispute" an accusation. The banks who re-ordered incoming checks so as to make the maximum in overdraft fees found out about that sort of thing just a few years ago.
You're kidding, right? One reception is one share. They are semantically, procedurally and ethically identical.
Or maybe you're the Anonymous Legalistic Coward. Because there's probably some case law somewhere that says that merely receiving something isn't the same as participating in the sharing of something. In that case, Carry On, Oh Great Legum, but be aware that no non-lawyers live in that universe.
In your example, I'm pretty sure that in the USA, you would hold the copyright. "Copyright" is not "ownership". Copying something illegally is not theft, it's infringement. And no matter how you slice it, I can copy that photo.Whoops! I just did it! Did I infringe? I doubt it. No matter what your opinion is, someone would have to take me to court to decide. Did I steal the photo? Absolutely not. I will not confess this to a priest as a sin, nor will St Peter mark it in the Book of Life against me.
Not only do I not have respect for copyright laws, and "IP" laws in general, I'm beginning to wonder about the USA legal system and it's professionals. "The Law" seems to have crawled completely inside itself, the practitioners seem to think that legal reasoning and legal reasons override reality. All you have to do is get enough judges to believe a given legal theory, and *poof* it's the new reality.
And that's where the real damage comes from, doesn't it?
If you have to "consult a lawyer" to understand where a copyright lies (see also, the H.P. Lovecraft kerfuffle) then you're not going to use something that just might possibly lie in a grey area. We're impoverishing the giant bulk of the people, who can't justify the cost of "consulting a lawyer" in order to use something that very probably is either (a) not under copyright or (b) the use is fair use. Our culture is much the worse for it. I have a number of books ("Where's my Jetpack?", "How to escape a robot uprising" among them) that don't have very many illustrations. Why? I don't know for sure, but I imagine because of the cost of getting copyright clearance. Just one example among many. Sucky books, in an age of on-demand printing, and digital photography and image manipulation. What a ripoff!
I also have to note that a lawyer, even an "IP" lawyer, can't really tell you about who holds a copyright. Don't you have to take it to trial to be absolutely certain?
If we won't be able to see any increase in sales, then what's the point of the Hadopi dragnet? I'm told Hadopi had a budget of 12 million euros for 2011. That's a lot of money. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for an instrument of repression, if nothing economically positive happens?
When (not if) the "3 strikes" campaign comes to the USA, will this dis-economony come in to the discussion? In business-oriented USA, the lack of bang for the buck would seem to mean we should not want 3 strikes at all.
Mike writes: "Such is the life of a professional liar,"
What do you know that we don't? I really wish the on-line-shill phenomenon had a logical way out, that let people who ran the forums (who actually act ethically about anonymous comments) denounce the real shills.
Unfortunately, I don't see a way out of it. So "Blogger Bob" gets to run his keyboard like a weedeater on rocket fuel under the anonymous coward flag, and everybody just gets to call him a shill.
Hey, that's a good point. The US, as a society, has learned a bunch of things along the way, some of which seem counter-intuitive at first.
What we've learned:
1. Don't assume guilt. Assume innocence.
2. Don't allow anonymous accusations.
3. Let the accused examine the evidence.
4. Avoid systems that don't define things so that anyone can figure it out without asking an authority.
The proposed cartel-enforcement described here does absolutely none of these things. It will fail, but do a lot of damage on the way to disappearing.