As an Architectural Drafter I am very concerned with our clients taking our prelim designs and selling them or using them for other unrelated projects, because as the one responsible for the design and drafting of these buildings I have LIABILITY for any issue resulting in failure of the design and death/injury of any person present at the time of failure, so I support copyright for that reason but come on Protect IP is not about PROTECTING anything but the flow of money. Protect IP does not provide any harsher punishments for people "stealing" my work than are already in place.
In addition I have been an assistant instructor in an IP class at PSU in Pittsburg, Kansas. I can tell you first hand that all Intellectual Property Right Law are about is protecting money flow. Take America's very own hero Thomas Edison, who stole Heinrich Goebel and Joseph Swan's light bulb designs (don't forget what Edison did to Tesla) through some very questionable methods including settling a IP infringement suit by making the Plaintiff a business partner then completely buying him out (Swan) and "purchasing" the Goebel patent from his widow (for far less money then it was "worth") after stating to Goebel that there was no value to it. Edison is remembered as the "Inventor" of the light bulb yet what he patented wasn't his to patent.
Just like the example set by the "great" Thomas Edison, the tech industry is built on the work of others. They cannot afford for anymore restrictions on IP simply cause too many people and companies hold patents on the same designs.
Another small point here: Radio and Television are communications platforms that the government has restricted to broadcast media. What the FED doesn't like is that the internet fosters the exercise of *Gasp* the First Amendment, and they cannot regulate it like they can "broadcast media." And the funding to the lobby groups, well i know several lobbyists from minor groups and they get paid to support what the government wants them to support but cannot openly state in many cases.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Crix10.
As an Architectural Drafter I am very concerned with our clients taking our prelim designs and selling them or using them for other unrelated projects, because as the one responsible for the design and drafting of these buildings I have LIABILITY for any issue resulting in failure of the design and death/injury of any person present at the time of failure, so I support copyright for that reason but come on Protect IP is not about PROTECTING anything but the flow of money. Protect IP does not provide any harsher punishments for people "stealing" my work than are already in place.
In addition I have been an assistant instructor in an IP class at PSU in Pittsburg, Kansas. I can tell you first hand that all Intellectual Property Right Law are about is protecting money flow. Take America's very own hero Thomas Edison, who stole Heinrich Goebel and Joseph Swan's light bulb designs (don't forget what Edison did to Tesla) through some very questionable methods including settling a IP infringement suit by making the Plaintiff a business partner then completely buying him out (Swan) and "purchasing" the Goebel patent from his widow (for far less money then it was "worth") after stating to Goebel that there was no value to it. Edison is remembered as the "Inventor" of the light bulb yet what he patented wasn't his to patent.
Just like the example set by the "great" Thomas Edison, the tech industry is built on the work of others. They cannot afford for anymore restrictions on IP simply cause too many people and companies hold patents on the same designs.
Another small point here: Radio and Television are communications platforms that the government has restricted to broadcast media. What the FED doesn't like is that the internet fosters the exercise of *Gasp* the First Amendment, and they cannot regulate it like they can "broadcast media." And the funding to the lobby groups, well i know several lobbyists from minor groups and they get paid to support what the government wants them to support but cannot openly state in many cases.