In fact, the people who actually do all this aren't even appointed.
The President is elected.
USTR himself is appointed by the President.
But the bureaucrats in the Office of the TR have been there years longer than the figure-head USTR and President.
As I read the opinion, I think the question put to the court is whether someone owns copyright to "the" list--a right that would extend over arbitrarily many copies, even if they differ. Am I getting that claim right? But in fact, these three documents are separate "lists." They're all "authentic," in one sense or another, but they're completely different documents, not copies one of another but rather all are (basically) independent chronicles of the same underlying historical events. Even if copyright counted for the sort of documents they are, if the various possessors of the physical documents had legal claim to that right, and the use proposed was controlled by copyright (all of which which seem in doubt), the fact that these are three distinct documents would seem to me to mean that their possession, ownership, and use were independent, one document from another. Right?
But then, IANAL. I'm just an engineer. I think that "Law is to Language, as Ballistics is to F=ma."
of what sounds to me like an *actual* video pirate. Whoever this guy is, he's certainly at the end of some money trail. Could it be that it's not so much the studios and other visible money-sinks behind all this, but rather the successful pirates trying to protect their "business" model?
It's true that "Creators often use words like 'theft'." That does not make it correct. I'm not convinced that creators use these words in that way "to reflect how they feel"; if I'm asked to judge their motives, I have to say there's a lot of appearance that they use these words to influence how *others* feel, but that is not the same thing.
The real harm of misusing the term is to render meaningless the crucial sentence "infringement is not theft."
Maybe he's not being so *very* unreasonable. Many of us strongly suspect that a rational, factual discussion really would "undermine copyright" as ASCAP understands it.
That closing flourish, though, does hint of degeneration from mere devious self-interest into actual paranoia. I hope it was just rhetoric.
It could, at the least, keep you out of court in the US. Of course, if they want to file against you additionally in some other jurisdiction, you might have to forgo that vacation to Estonia you've always wanted.
While no doubt there is a split here over extensions, the various remarks more directly seem to indicate a split between "those who care about the rights of the actual creators," vs. "those who care about their own right to bilk the creators and milk the public."
I've never been part of a product team that didn't make their central question "what does the customer want?" I've never been part of a team where that wasn't a controversial and difficult question, but we did our best to find the answer, and to provide that product. And once the results are in, there's always someone to point out how obvious the real customer wants are. There's even someone, nearly always, who can say "see, I told you so!" But what's missing is any method for seeing in advance, for reliably choosing among likely possibilities. Got thoughts on that?
Re: They don't see it
I think there may be a typo here. What the US Government seems to be having difficulty seeing, is Internet businesses as megabuck contributors.
Re: voter power
USTR is not elected.
In fact, the people who actually do all this aren't even appointed.
The President is elected.
USTR himself is appointed by the President.
But the bureaucrats in the Office of the TR have been there years longer than the figure-head USTR and President.
"The" list?
As I read the opinion, I think the question put to the court is whether someone owns copyright to "the" list--a right that would extend over arbitrarily many copies, even if they differ. Am I getting that claim right? But in fact, these three documents are separate "lists." They're all "authentic," in one sense or another, but they're completely different documents, not copies one of another but rather all are (basically) independent chronicles of the same underlying historical events. Even if copyright counted for the sort of documents they are, if the various possessors of the physical documents had legal claim to that right, and the use proposed was controlled by copyright (all of which which seem in doubt), the fact that these are three distinct documents would seem to me to mean that their possession, ownership, and use were independent, one document from another. Right?
But then, IANAL. I'm just an engineer. I think that "Law is to Language, as Ballistics is to F=ma."
follow the money
They say you should follow the money. Here's a report:
http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/ma/ma100908small_businessmen
of what sounds to me like an *actual* video pirate. Whoever this guy is, he's certainly at the end of some money trail. Could it be that it's not so much the studios and other visible money-sinks behind all this, but rather the successful pirates trying to protect their "business" model?
It's true that "Creators often use words like 'theft'." That does not make it correct. I'm not convinced that creators use these words in that way "to reflect how they feel"; if I'm asked to judge their motives, I have to say there's a lot of appearance that they use these words to influence how *others* feel, but that is not the same thing.
The real harm of misusing the term is to render meaningless the crucial sentence "infringement is not theft."
Oh, I dunno ...
Maybe he's not being so *very* unreasonable. Many of us strongly suspect that a rational, factual discussion really would "undermine copyright" as ASCAP understands it.
That closing flourish, though, does hint of degeneration from mere devious self-interest into actual paranoia. I hope it was just rhetoric.
Re: WHY the cost
Only if you can find someone to sue. And cover the costs up front, until (and if) you win your judgement.
It could, at the least, keep you out of court in the US. Of course, if they want to file against you additionally in some other jurisdiction, you might have to forgo that vacation to Estonia you've always wanted.
Re: choosing sides
While no doubt there is a split here over extensions, the various remarks more directly seem to indicate a split between "those who care about the rights of the actual creators," vs. "those who care about their own right to bilk the creators and milk the public."
Oh, boy, 20:20 hindsight again!
I've never been part of a product team that didn't make their central question "what does the customer want?" I've never been part of a team where that wasn't a controversial and difficult question, but we did our best to find the answer, and to provide that product. And once the results are in, there's always someone to point out how obvious the real customer wants are. There's even someone, nearly always, who can say "see, I told you so!" But what's missing is any method for seeing in advance, for reliably choosing among likely possibilities. Got thoughts on that?
Re: Have you tried this dish?
Oh, no, the restaurant industry is much too enlightened or this scenario. They just charge you $5 for the privilege!