I need to talk to an IP lawyer about my idea to put something into the public domain.
My first thought is that since an unclear/unenforceable copyright notice can render something into the public domain do we make a fund to cover the registration of intentionally unclear copyrights so that it by default becomes public domain?
So I think we can label all of the copyright holders as authors who died long ago.
Example: This post is copyright Adam ~6400BC, W.Shakespeare 1615, and Ben Franklin 1785.
I wonder how that would work to "secure" the public domain for a work.
I'm stealing your copyright rights and claiming them as my own, the MPAA and RIAA do this all the time. (Look at all the times they claim to own the rights and actually don't, or over represent their rights.)This is the only way copyright theft can happen.
I was not arguing for or against their actual guilt. I believe they have done no wrong. I was trying to comment upon the refusal of so many against them of letting due process be followed. It seems simple that just allowing both sides the benefits of the process would allow an unshakable ruling to be made. The only reason to deny due process is that you have something to hide and wish to just get it over with.
It is even due process to allow seizures before trial, but even those rules have been cast aside because the authorities have already decided the guilt of the accused and are seemingly just looking for a way to make their fiction a truth.
I still have to wonder why due process is not being followed. Even if they are guilty, (not under the laws of the locality they operate under might I add) cases are normally thrown out if due process is violated as this invalidates court hearings. Lets look at an example in a criminal trial, if a perpetrator of a crime has his rights violated, is it not the case that they are most often released due to technicalities of failure to follow due process? I just want to see justice served and that means everyone follow the rules so that if they are convicted it was because they have been found to have violated the law and were treated within the confines of their rights. I would think anyone who wants to speak out against piracy and infringement would want the cases air tight and strictly following due process so that they can hold those cases up as clear cut examples of what happens when you break the law.
There were many failed attempts to do what Jobs did, he just had ability to make it successful. If his design was above reproach why had it changed and/or been improved? I still feel there is so much more that can come out of the platform that in 10 years we will see what Jobs did as a great step forward but still a primitive attempt to make a great tablet/phone. The one thing you can be sure of with technology, it will progress and be based on the ideas that came before it.