So you are the blog police? People / governments never use badly crafted laws to go after their opposition or to just rack up convictions? You can garuntee that won't happen?
Also, you can read a substantial part of the article withough clicking through. So calling click bait is a really weak argument.
Are you going to actually contribute something to the discussion?
Look in the mirror much? For years you have been here claiming only to want to have interesting conversations about interpreting the law. Nicely revealed here AJ.
Now we know how hard you have been in your interpretations of law to always cast them on the maximalist side.
You clearly all these years have not been an interested law student, but a lobbyist for the legacy content industries.
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.
But we are talking about your position, not the position of some theologian.
"Morals are plainset, structured as very specific way. Otherwise, if they are subject to change/variation with the passing of time, that renders them useless."
Your position is that morals can not change, otherwise they are useless.
Your unstated position is that morals are universal. They are not.
"Sigh" and "Double Sigh" as responses to arguments are not at all responses, and clearly show that you are not able to argue your position.
Based on what I have read of your postings here, you seem like a reasonable person. It also now seems like you have a hangup on "marriage".
When posting on a tech blog, I suggest you drop the latter.
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.
Re: "Well, no, not really"????
30 minutes in moderation? Poor baby. I'm guessing there is a good reason for that, "Comunicator" already on a different ip.
If you had anything other than screaming "click bait" to add to the conversation, maybe you wouldn't be held in moderation.
I blame you for your double posts.
Blame me for feeding the troll.
Re: "Well, no, not really"????
So you are the blog police? People / governments never use badly crafted laws to go after their opposition or to just rack up convictions? You can garuntee that won't happen?
Also, you can read a substantial part of the article withough clicking through. So calling click bait is a really weak argument.
Are you going to actually contribute something to the discussion?
Who wrote we the wsj opinion peice
Thanks.
When I said the online article, I meant the WSJ article. I couldn't find the byline in the WSJ article.
Again, thanks for the venom.
Re: Similar to the English law
Even that doesn't work. No version of copyright works is everything is copyrighted on creation.
Consider this: You post is copyrighted.
How about I post a link to it saying "Hey, this is a great post that I didn't wright. Check it out."
Don't know who owns the copyright, but by this interpretation, I'm pretty sure I've just violated it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Current copyright isn't even compatible with the print world.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look in the mirror much? For years you have been here claiming only to want to have interesting conversations about interpreting the law. Nicely revealed here AJ.
Now we know how hard you have been in your interpretations of law to always cast them on the maximalist side.
You clearly all these years have not been an interested law student, but a lobbyist for the legacy content industries.
Re: Uhhhh
That is a really good point.
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.
Re:
Yes, blackmail can be very effective.
Re:
95/5
Please answer honestly, briefly, and without attempting to deflect or distract.
1) Do you think that this amounts to "a little" public shaming, rather than life / career / relationship threatening disclosure?
2) Do you honestly and whole halfheartedly support this approach?
3) Especially considering there is no judicial process involved at all?
4) Since porn is ridiculously profitable, if 100% of the people getting it would pay for it, how much would the price decrease?
Re: Re:
It happened in germany, it would be murder.
Re: Re:
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.
Re: Re:
So you would rather have results that make no sense, regardless of how many decades Congress takes to make the law make sense?
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.
Re: Re: Re:
We are still trying to figure out why you have so much hate.
Re: If you know data, you know it makes sense
Nit pick, but "database" is not a verb. The verb is "store".
Re:
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But we are talking about your position, not the position of some theologian.
"Morals are plainset, structured as very specific way. Otherwise, if they are subject to change/variation with the passing of time, that renders them useless."
Your position is that morals can not change, otherwise they are useless.
Your unstated position is that morals are universal. They are not.
"Sigh" and "Double Sigh" as responses to arguments are not at all responses, and clearly show that you are not able to argue your position.
Based on what I have read of your postings here, you seem like a reasonable person. It also now seems like you have a hangup on "marriage".
When posting on a tech blog, I suggest you drop the latter.
Re: It all depends on where you are...
FYI: Gay bashing (physically) happens in San Francisco. Not too recently, that I have seen reported, but it happens.
Re: Re: Re:
Pro Se,
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.
http://boingboing.net/2008/10/07/adult-film-director.html
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.
Re: Re: Re:
Found it. It was on ARS.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/larry-ellison-swerves-into-fantasyland-discussing-all-of-oracles-litigation
It's funny. Thank God that Larry's reality distortion field only works on himself.